The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-06-11-~· COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. CJ. BOX 8127, F'OUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF'ORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OF'F"-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) June 4, 1980 NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS. lJ 2J 3) SJ 6J 7 & 11 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1980 -7:30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY) CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540·2910 962-2411 The next regular meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, will be held at the above hour and date. Scheduled Upcoming Meetings: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING -Wednesday, June 25, 1980 at 5:30 p.m. June July August September October November December January February March April May June COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 {714) 962·241 l JOINT BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING DATES JOINT BOARD MEETINGS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS June 11, 1980 June 25' 1980 July 9, 1980 None Scheduled Aug 13, 1980 None Scheduled Sep 10. 1980 Sep 24, 1980 Oct 8, 1980 Oct 22, 1980 Nov 12, 1980 Nov 26, 1980 Dec 10, 1980 None Scheduled Jan 14, 1981 Jan 28, 1981 Feb 11, 1981 Feb 25, 1981 Mar 11, 1981 Mar 25, 1981 Apr 8, 1981 Apr 22, 1981 May 13, 1981 May 27, 1981 June 10, 1981 June 24, 1981 II -~ · ····BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: JOINT BOARDS Area Code ·714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA MEETING DATE JUNE 11.J 1980 -7:30 P.M. ANY DIRECTOR DESIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION·ON · ANY AGENDA ITEMJ PLEASE CALL THE MANAGER OR APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENI HEAD. IN ADDITION) STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE AT /:00 P.M. IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING WEDNESDAY'S MEETING IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM ADJOINING THE DISTRICTS' BOARD ROOM. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) Recognition of persons who wish to be heard on specific agenda items (5) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts, if any See supplemental agenda (6) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of motions approving minutes of the following meetings, as mailed: District 1 -May 14, 1980, regular District 2 -May 14, 1980, regular District 3 · -May 14, 1980, regular . District 5 -May 14, l980, regular and May 20, 1980, adjourned District 6 -May 14, 1980, regular District 7 -May 14, 1980, regular District 11 -May 14, 1980, regular (7) ALL DISTRICTS Reports of: (a) Joint Chairman (b) General Manager (c) General Counsel (8) ALL DISTRICTS . ~__, Consideration of roll call vote motion ratifying payment of claims of die joint and individual Districts as follows: (Each Director shal~ be.called only once and that vote will be regarded as th7 same for ea~h District represented, unless a Director expresses a desire to vote differently for any District.) See page (s) "A" and "B" \..-!. ALL DISTRICTS Join~ Opera~ing Fund Capital OU~lay Revolving Fund - Join~ Working Capital Fund Self-Funded Insurance Funds DISTRICT NO. l DISTRICT NO. 2 DISTRICT NO. 3 DISTRICT NO. S DISTRICT NO. 6 DISTRICT NO. 7 DISTRICT NO. ll DISTRICTS NOS. 5 & 6 JOINT DISTRICTS NOS. 6 & 7 JOINT 5/07/80 $ 113,867.02 1, 194,639.35 23,669.04 2,795.67 1, 106. 79 336,787. 19 973.55 10.79 6, 787 .10 780,678.17 13.26 19.38 S2,461 ,347 .31 5/21/80 $147,832.14 28 ,241. 83 42,910.98 4,795.30 2,849.29 11,535.44 3,019.92 8,027.27 10,326.75 1,955.97 $261,494.89 (9) ALL DISTRICTS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NOS I 9 (A) THROUGH 9 ( v ) All matters placed upon the.consent calendar are considered as not requiring discussion or further explanation and unless any particular item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a Director, staff member, or member of the public in attendance, there will be no separate discussion of these items. All items on the consent calendar will be enacted by one action approving all motions, and casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the consent calendar. All items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered in the regular order of business. Members of the public who wish to remove an item from the consent calendar shall, upon recognition by the chair, state their name, address and designate by letter the item to be removed from the consent calendar. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Chairman will determine if any items are to be deleted from the consent calendar. Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appearing on the co~sent calendar not specifically removed from same. -2- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 2) I J f 11 h !I 1 · ,! p ti l. n Jt ,, 11 Ji i I I I I r I l i ~ I ' ALL DISTRICTS (a) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to designate members of the Boards and/or staff to attend meetings, conferences, facility inspections and other functions within the State of California which, in his opinion, will be of value to the Districts; and authorizing reimbursement of expenses incurred therewith (b) Consideration of motion authorizing the Director of Finance to attend the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies' (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Financial Conference in St. Paul, Minnesota, on July 30 -August 1, 1980, and authorizing reimbursement of travel, meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred therewith Consideration of motion ratifying action of General Manager in designating one staff member to attend the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies' Sludge Utilization and Disposal Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on June 11 & 12, 1980, and authorizing reimbursement of travel, meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred therewith Consideration of Resolution No. 80-94, approving agreement with the County of Orange for in-place density tests to determine relative compaction of sewer trench backfill. See page "C" Consideration of motion authorizing renewal of membership in the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency (SARFPA) for the 1980-81 fiscal year and approving payment of annual dues in the amount of $1,250.00 Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and award purchase of a new Gas Chromatograph and Appurtenances, Specification No. E-104, for use by the Districts' laboratory to analyze priority pollutants and organic environmental pollutants in accordance with new EPA regulations, for an amount not to exceed $26,500.00 plus tax Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Modification to Odor Scrubbing Tower at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-055-2, granting a time extension of 128 calendar days to the contract with P. R. Burke Corporation due to delays in procuring the liquid distributor for the scrubbers. See page "D" Consideration of Resolution No. 80-95, accepting Modifications to Odor Scrubbing Tower at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-055-2 as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page "E" (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 4) -3- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 3) ALL DISTRICTS (Continued) (i) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 3 to the plans and specifications for Installation of Gas Engines with Gear Drives at Rothrock Outfall Booster Station, Job No. J-3-1, authorizing an addition of $8,075.74 to the contract with Pascal & Ludwig, Inc. for repair of roof opening which was enlarged for placement of larger engines. See page "F" (j) Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve request of Equinox-Malibu for substitution of subcontractor for insulation from Owens-Corning to Consolidated Western Insulation, as Owens-Corning was erroneously listed in their proposal for Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. Pl-3-2. See page "G" (k) Consideration of motion authorizing employment of Converse-Davis- Dixon for soils inspection services required to assist the Districts' construction management team during construction of the digestion facilities. re Digestion and Wet Storage Facilities for the Solids Handling and Dewatering Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-l, on a per diem fee basis, for an amount not to exceed $8,500.00 (1) Consideration of motion amending Board action of February 13, 1974, re engagement of Enchanter, Inc. for oceanographic services, ~ increasing the monthly rate from $3,000.00 to $3,500.00 effective July l, 1980 (m) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-101, approving Amendment No. 3 to Amended Agreement re Sludge Hauling and Disposal with Golden West • 1 , Fertilizer Company in connection with Specification No. S-017, extending said agreement from June 30, 1980, to September 30, 1980, t for hauling on an as-needed basis under the same terms and conditions I j i of the current agreement. See page "H" I DISTRICT 2 I I i I (n) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-103-2, declaring intent to adopt revised annexation fees effective July 1, 1980, in an amount to be determined by the Board of Directors on July 9, 1980. See page "I" (o) Consideration of motion to receive and file request from David J. Sabag for annexation of 1.978 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Santiago Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road in the City of Orange, and refer to staff for study and recommendation, proposed Annexation No. 41 -Tract No. 9713 to County Sanitation District No. 2. See page "J" (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 5) -4- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 4) DISTRICT 3 I l I p " i I I ii I! l I (p) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-104-3, declaring intent to adopt revised annexation fees effective July 1, 1980, in an amount to be determined by the Board of Directors on July 9, 1980. See page "K" DISTRICT 5 (q) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-105-5, declaring intent to adopt revised annexation fees effective July 1, 1980, in an amount to be detennined by the Board of Directors. See page "L" DISTRICT 7 (r) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-111-7, declaring intent to adopt revised annexation fees effective July 1, 1980, in an amount to be detennined by the Board of Directors on July 9, 1980. See page "M" (s) Consideration of motion to receive and file request of Mr. & Mrs. Harold Gimeno and Mr. & Mrs. Felix O' Kane for annexation of 1. 464 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Daniger Road and Crawford Canyon in the unincorporated territory of the County of Orange; and consideration of Resolution No. 80-112-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex said territory to the District, proposed Annexation No. 97 -Gimeno Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (must also be annexed to 7th Sewer Maintenance District) See pages "N" and "0" (t) Consideration of motion to receive and file request of Dr. Marvin Shapiro and Mr. W. L. Tadlock for annexation of 2.745 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Skyline Drive and Foothill Boulevard in the unincorporated Lemon Heights area, and refer to staff for study and recommen- dation, proposed Annexation No. 99 -Shapiro Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (must also be annexed to the 7th Sewer Maintenance District) See page "P" DISTRICT 11 (u) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-113-11, declaring intent to adopt revised annexation fees effective July 1, 1980, in an amount to be determined by the Board of Directors on July 9, 1980. See page "Q" (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 6) -5- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 5) DISTRICT 11 (Continued) (v) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 5 to the plans and specifications for Coast Trunk Sewer, Reaches 1 and 2, Portion of Newland Street Interceptor Sewer and Lake Avenue Relief Sewer, Contract No. 11-13-2, authorizing an addition of $29,333.00 to the contract with John A. Artukovich Sons, Inc. and John A. Artukovich, Jr., a J.V., for construction of manhole, installation of shoring for protection of City and private facilities and construction of reinforced concrete closure collar to join two pipe headings, and granting a time extension of 10 calendar days for completion of said additional work. See page "R" END OF CONSENT CALENDAR (10) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items deleted from consent calendar, if any. -6- .. (11) (12) ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Executive Committee and consideration of motion to receive and file the Conunittee's written report ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of action on items recommended by the Executive Conunittee: (a) (1) Consideration of motion approving 1980-81 personnel requirements (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-96, amending Positions and Salaries Resolution No. 79-20, as amended (b) Consideration of roll call vote motion approving the 1980-81 Joint Operating Budget (c) Consideration of roll call vote motion approving 1980-81 Capital Outlay Revolving Fund Budget (Joint Works Construction) (13) ALL DISTRICTS Con~ideration of motion authorizing the Director of Finance to certify claims and forward to Orange County auditor for immediate payment for expenditures incurred after June 30, 1980, and declaring that such certification shall comply with provisions of Resolution No. 76-10 pertaining to procedures ·for payment of claims against the Districts, Wltil the 1980-81 budgets are adopted by the respective Districts (14) ALL DISTRICTS Nominations for Joint Chairman and Vice Joint Chairman. See page "S" (15) ALL DISTRICTS (a) Verbal report of LA/OMA representative re Draft EIS/EIR relative to proposed sludge management program for the Los Angeles/Orange County Metropolitan Area (b) Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve Draft EIS/EIR relative to proposed sludge management program for the Los Angeles/Orange County Metropolitan area; and authorizing LA/OMA, pursuant to Resolution No. 79-70, to conduct a public hearing on July 10, 1980, re said EIS/EIR and make all necessary filings pursuant to CEQA guidelines as agent for the Districts (Summary of Draft EIS/EIR enclosed with agenda) (16) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any: (a) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-97, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Modification of Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Ports at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-066-2, to in the amount of $ (See supplemental agenda -Bid opening 6/10/80) (b) · Consideration of Resolution No. 80-98, to receive and file bid tabulation and reconunendation and awarding contract for Laboratory Bench and Fume Hood Additions at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-073, to in the amount of $ (See supplemental agenda -Bid opening 6/5/80) (ITEM 16 CONTINUED ON PAGE 8) -7- ----- (16) ALL DISTRICTS (Continued from page 7) (c) Consideration of Resolution No. 89-99, to receive and file bid \.,J' tabulation and reconunendation and awarding contract for Modification of Existing Sludge Hopper Building at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-084, to in the amount of $ (See supplemental agenda -Bid opening 6/5/80) (d) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Selection Committee certification re final negotiated fee with Butier Engineering, Inc. for additional construction management engineering services required due to extension of the estimated completion dates for the projects within Job No. P2-23 from September, 1980, to September, 1981, and for Job No. P2-24, from September, 1980, to approximately September, 1982. (See supplemental agenda -Selection Committee meeting 6/5/80) (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-100, approving Addendum No. 3 to Construction Management Engineering Services Agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. for additional services required due to extension of the estimated completion dates for the projects within Job No. P2-23 from September, 1980, to September, 1981, and for Job No. P2-24, from September, 1980, to approximately September, 1982, on a fixed fee plus cost with overhead allowance, and increasing the total maximum amol.lllt for said services from $510,000.00 to an amowit not to exceed $ (See supplemental agenda) ~ (17) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (18) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn (19) DISTRICT 2 Other business and conununications or supplemental agenda items, if any (20) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn (21) DISTRICT 3 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (22) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn (23) DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (24) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn -8- (25) DISTRICT 11 Other business and connnunications or supplemental agenda items, if any (26) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn (27) DISTRICT 7 (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Report re proposed Annexation No. 98 -Upper Peters Canyon Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7. See page "T" (b) Consideration of motion approving conditions recommended in Staff Report dated June 3, 1980, re proposed Annexation No. 98 -Upper Peters Canyon Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (c) Consideration of motion declaring intent to enter into an agreement with The Irvine Company and the City of Orange relative to deferred annexation fees for open space area within proposed Annexation No. 98 (d) Consideration of motion declaring intent to enter into agreement with The Irvine Company providing for payment of annexation acreage fees over a four-year·period, one fourth payable upon initiation of proceedings with interest on the balance at 1% above prime rate, re proposed Annexation No. 98 (.28) DISTRICT 7 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (29) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn (30) DISTRICT 5 (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file proposal of EDAW, Inc. dated June 3, 1980, for consulting engineering services relative to consolidation and updating of previous information and reports and preparation of new Draft Environmental Impact Report re facilities to serve the Jamboree Road -Big Canyon drainage area (Copy enclosed with agenda material for District 5 Directors) (b) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-170-5, approving agreement with EDAW, Inc. for consulting engineering services relative to consolidation and updating of previous information and reports and preparation of a new Draft Environmental Impact Report re facilities to serve the Jamboree Road -Big Canyon drainage area, for a lump sum fee of $6,250.00 plus payment for attendance at public hearings, to be billed at an hourly rate based upon their prevailing fee schedule, and printing costs. See page "U" (31) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of Resolution No. 80-108-5, approving an agreement with Daon Corporation authorizing an interim sewer connection from a portion of Tentative Tract No. 10391 to the Jamboree Road Trunk Sewer. See page "V" -9- (32) DISTRICT 5 (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file request from The Irvine Company for an interim sewer connection from a portion of the Civic Plaza development to the Jamboree Road Trunk Sewer. See page "W" (b) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-109-5, approving an agreement with The Irvine Company authorizing an interim sewer connection from a portion of the Civic Plaza development to the Jamboree Road Trunk Sewer. See page "X" (33) DISTRICT 5 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (34) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn -10- --· II BOARDS OF DIRECT O RS C o unty San itation Dis tric ts Pos1 OH l u Bo. 8 127 of O range Co unty, Californl1 10844 Ellis Aven ue Fou nta in Volley, Col if ., 92708 To lcpl>encs: JOINT BO ARD S Aroa Code 7 1-4 S-'0·29 10 962 -2-'l l AG EN DA MEET! NG DATE JUN E 11, 1980 -7:30 P.M . ANY DI RECTOR DES I RI NG ADDI TI ONA L I NF OR MAT IO N ON ANY AG ENDA I TEM, PL EAS E CALL THE MANAG ER OR APPROPR I ATE DEP AR TME NT H~AD , IN ADD ITI ON, STAF F WILL BE AVAILA BLE AT /:OU P .M , IMMED IATELY PR ECEDI NG WEDN ESD AY'S MEETI NG IN THE CON FERENC E ROO M ADJ OINING THE DI STRICTS ' BOAR D RO OM, (1) Pl e d ge o f All egian c e and Inv oc a tion (2) Ro ll Ca ll (3) Appointment of Cha i rme n p r o tem , if n ecessary (4) Recogn it ion o f per sons who wish to be heard on sp e cific agenda i t ems (5) Co ns i deration of mo tio n to receive and f i l e minute excerpts, if any DISTRICTS 2 & 7 (5) Consideration of motion to receive, file and accept resignation of ~layer Jim Beam of the City of Orange from the Boards of Di rectors of County Sanitation Districts Nos . 2 and 7, and to receive and ITEMS OH SUP PLEME NTAL AG ENbA file minute excerpt from the City of Orange re appointmen t of second alternate to the mayo r, as follows: District (s) Active Dire ctor Alternate Director 2 & 7 Do n E. Smith Ge ne Beyer (6) EACH DI STRICT Con s idera t i on of mot i o ns a pproving minutes of the foll owi n g meetings, a s ma iled: District 1 -May 14' 1980 , regular Di s trict 2 -May 14, 1980 , regul ar Dis trict 3 -May 14 , 198 0, regular Di s t rict 5 -May 14, 1980, regul ar and May 20, 1980 , adjourned Di s trict 6 -May 14 , 1980, regular Di s trict 7 -May 14 , 1980 , regu lar Dis trict 11 -May 14 , 1980, regul a r (7) ALL DISTRICTS ~_(,. (' flu l Report s of: )._ 1t--'[:30 (a) Joint Chairman -\.I " (b ) Genera l Manag er v (c) Ge neral Counsel i (8) ALL DISTRICTS ROLL CALL VOTE ... ...- Consideration of roll call vote motion ratifying payment of claims of the joint and individual Districts as follows: (Each Director shall be called only once and that vote will be regarded as the same for each District represented, unless a Director expresses a desire to vote differently for any District.) See page (s) "A" and "B" ALL DISTRICTS Joint Operating Fund Capital Outlay Revolving Fund • Join~ Working Capital Fund Self-Funded Insurance Funds DISTRICT NO. l DISTRICT NO. 2 DISTRICT NO. 3 DISTRICT NO. 5 DISTRICT NO. 6 DISTRICT NO. 7 DISTRICT NO. 11 DISTRICTS NOS. 5 & 6 JOINT DISTRICTS NOS. 6 & 1 JOINT 5/07/80 $ 113,867.02 1, 194,639.35 23,669.04 2,795.67 1,106.79 336, 787 .19 973.55 10.79 6, 787 .10 780,678.17 13.26 19.38 $2,461,347.31 5/21/80 $147,332.14 28,241.83 42,910.98 4,795.30 2,849.29 11 ,535.44 3,019.92 8,021.21 10,326.75 1,955.97 $261,494.89 (9) ALL DISTRICTS Roll Call Vote or Cast Unanimous Ballot CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NOS. 9 (A) THROUGH 9 ( V ) All matters placed upon the.consent calendar are considered as not requiring discussion or further explanation and unless any particular item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a Director, staff member, or member of the public in attendance, there will be no separate discussion of these items. All items on the consent calendar will be enacted by one action approving all motions, and casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the consent calendar. All items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered in the regular order of business. Members of the public who wish to remove an item from the consent calendar shall, upon recognition by the chair, state their name, address and designate by letter the item to be removed from the consent calendar. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Chairman will determine if any items are to be deleted from the consent calendar. Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appearing on the consent calendar not specifically removed from same. -2- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 2) ALL DISTRICTS (a) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to designate members of the Boards and/or staff to attend meetings, conferences, facility inspections and other functions within the State of California which, in his opinion, will be of value to the Districts; and authorizing reimbursement of expenses incurred therewith (b) Consideration of motion authorizing the Director of Finance to attend the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies' Financial Conference in St. Paul, Minnesota, on July 30 -August 1, 1980, and authorizing reimbursement of travel, meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred therewith (c) Consideration of motion ratifying action of General Manager in designating one staff member to attend the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies' Sludge Utilization and Disposal Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on June 11 & 12, 1980, and authorizing reimbursement of travel, meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred therewith (d) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-94, approving agreement with the County of Orange for in-place density tests to determine re la ti ve compaction of sewer trench backfill. See page "C" (e) Consideration of motion authorizing renewal of membership in the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency (SARFPA) for the 1980-81 fiscal year and approving payment of annual dues in the amount of $1,250.00 (f) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and award purchase of a new Gas Chromatograph and Appurtenances, Specification No. E-104, for use by the Districts' laboratory to analyze priority pollutants and organic environmental pollutants in accordance with new EPA regulations, for an amount not to exceed $26,500.00 plus tax (g) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Modification to Odor Scrubbing Tower at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-055-2, granting a time extension of 128 calendar days to the contract with P. R. Burke Corporation due to delays in procuring the liquid distributor for the scrubbers. See page "D" (h) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-95, accepting Modifications to Odor Scrubbing Tower at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-055-2 as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page "E" (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 4) -3- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 3) j I I I t . I ALL DISTRICTS (Continued) (i) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 3 to the plans and specifications for Installation of Gas Engines with Gear Drives at Rothrock Outfall Booster Station, Job No. J-3-1, authorizing an addition of $8,075.74 to the contract with Pascal & Ludwig, Inc. for repair of roof opening which was enlarged for placement of larger engines. See page "F" (j) Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve request of Equinox-Malibu for substitution of subcontractor for insulation from Owens-Corning to Consolidated Western Insulation, as Owens-Corning was erroneously listed in their proposal for Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. Pl-3-2. See page "G" (k) Consideration of motion authorizing employment of Converse-Davis- Dixon for soils inspection services required to assist the Districts' construction management team during construction of the digestion facilities re Digestion and Wet Storage Facilities for the Solids Handling and Dewatering Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-l, on a per diem fee basis, for an amotmt not to exceed $8,500.00 (1) Consideration of motion amending Board action of February 13, 1974, re engagement of Enchanter, Inc. for oceanographic services, increasing the monthly rate from $3,000.00 to $3,500.00 effective July 1, 1980 (m) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-101, approving Amendment No. 3 to Amended Agreement re Sludge Hauling and Disposal with Golden West Fertilizer Company in connection with Specification No. S-017, extending said agreement from June 30, 1980, to September 30, 1980, for hauling on an as-needed basis under the same t·erms and conditions of the current agreement. See page "H" DISTRICT 2 (n) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-103-2, declaring intent to adopt revised annexation fees effective July 1, 1980, in an amount to be determined by the Board of Directors on July 9, 1980. See page "I" (o) Consideration of motion to receive and file request from David J. Sabag for annexation of 1.978 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Santiago Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road in the City of Orange, and refer to staff for study and reconunendation, proposed Annexation No. 41 -Tract No. 9713 to County Sanitation District No. 2. See page "J" (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 5) -4- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 4) • I I I I 1 l 1 i Ii j: I; J l 1 l I; I. ~ i l j 1 DISTRICT 3 (p) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-104-3, declaring intent to adopt revised annexation fees effective July 1, 1980, in an amount to be determined by the Board of Directors on July 9, 1980. See page "K" DISTRICT 5 (q) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-105-5, declaring intent to adopt revised annexation fees effective July 1, 1980, in an amount to be determined by the Board of Directors. See page "L" DISTRICT 7 (r) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-111-7, declaring intent to adopt revised annexation fees effective July 1, 1980, in an amount to be determined by the Board of Directors on July 9, 1980. See page "M'' (s) Consideration of motion to receive and file request of Mr. & Mrs. Harold Gimeno and Mr. & Mrs. Felix O'Kane for annexation of 1.464 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Daniger Road and Crawford Canyon in the unincorporated territory of the County of Orange; and consideration of Resolution No. 80-112-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex said territory to the District, proposed Annexation No. 97 -Gimeno Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (must also be annexed to 7th Sewer Maintenance District) See pages "N" and "0" (t) Consideration of motion to receive and file request of Dr. Marvin Shapiro and Mr. W. L. Tadlock for annexation of 2.745 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Skyline Drive and Foothill Boulevard in the unincorporated Lemon Heights area, and refer to staff for study and recommen- dation, proposed Annexation No. 99 -Shapiro Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (must also be annexed to the 7th Sewer Maintenance District) See page "P" DISTRICT 11 (u) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-113-11, declaring intent to adopt revised annexation fees effective July 1, 1980, in an amount to be determined by the Board of Directors on July 9, 1980. See page "Q" (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 6) -5- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 5) I DISTRICT 11 (Continued) (v) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 5 to the plans and specifications for Coast Trtmk Sewer, Reaches 1 and 2, Portion of Newland Street Interceptor Sewer and Lake Avenue Relief Sewer, Contract No. 11-13-2, authorizing an addition of $29,333.00 to the contract with John A. Artukovich Sons, Inc. and John A. Artukovich, Jr., a J.V., for construction of manhole, installation of shoring for protection of City and private facilities and construction of reinforced concrete closure collar to join two pipe headings, and granting a time extension of 10 calendar days for completion of said additional work. See page ''W' END OF CONSENT CALENDAR (10) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items deleted from consent calendar, if any. -6- (1 1) AL L DI ST RICTS Report of the Executive Committee and consideration of mo tion to receive and file the Committee's written report (12) ALL DISTRICTS -...) ~ Consideration of action on items recomme nded by the Executi ve Collllrittee: '--------- Roll Call Vote or Cast Un anim ous Ball ot ROL l CALL vore .. _ RDLl CALL VOTE .........• :. .. ~ (a) (1) Consideration of motion approving 1980-81 p ersonnel requirements (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-96, ame nding Positions and Salaries Re s olution No. 79-20, as ame nded (b) Consideration of roll ca ll vote mo ti on a pproving the 19 80 -81 Joint Operating Budge t (c ) Consideration of roll call vote mo ti on approvi ng 198 0-8 1 Capital Out l ay Revol ving Fund Budge t (Joint Works Cons truction) (13) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion authorizing the Director of Fina nce to certify c l aims and forward to Or a nge County auditor for immediate paymen t for expenditures incurred after June 30, 1980, and decla ring that such certification shal l comply with provisions of Resolution No. 76-10 pertaining to procedures for p ayme nt of c l aims agains t the Districts , until the 1980-81 budgets are adopted by the re spe ctive Di stri cts (14) ALL DISTRICTS Nom inations for Joint Chairman •afl&-¥ii:~e-d"oi-ln;;Cglm~. See page "S" (15) ALL DISTRICTS (a) Verbal report of LA/OMA representative re Draft EIS/EIR r elative to proposed sludge manageme nt program for t he Los Angeles/Orange County Metropolitan Area (b) Consideration of motion to receive, f ile and approve Draft EIS/EIR relative t o proposed slu dge management program for the Los Ange l es/Orange County Metropolitan area; and authorizing LA/OMA, pursuant to Reso lution No. 79 -70, to cond uct a pub l ic hearing on July 10, 1980, re said EIS/E IR and make a l l nece ssary fi l ings pursuant to CEQA guidelines as agen t for the Districts (Summary of Draft EIS /EIR enclos ed with agenda) AL L DISTRICTS Other b u siness and communications or supplemental age nda items: ITEMS ON (16) (a) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-97, to receive and file bid tabulation SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA and recommendation and awarding contract for Modification of Existing Roll Ca ll V ote or Cast Unanimous Ba llot ITEMS ON (b) SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA Roll Call Vote or Cast Unanimous Ballot ITEMS ON SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA (c) Roll Ca ll Vote or Cast Un animous Ballot 1). • 1 \JhAe,,.. \1 ~ r P,6"#c / ~) L Sludge Hopper Outlet Ports at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No . PW-066-2, to Brandel Mechanical, Inc. in the amount of $34,977.00. See pages "!" and "I I " Considerat ion of Resolution No. 80-98, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Laboratory Bench and Fume Hood Additions at Reclamation Plant No . 1, Job No. PW-073, to Equinox- Malibu in the amount of $88 ,750.00. See pages "Ill" and "IV" Consideration of Resolution No. 80-99, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Modification of Existing Sludge Storage Hopper Building at Reclamation Plant No. I, Job No . PW-084, to Brandel Mechanical, Inc. in the amount of $44,718 .00. See pages "V" and "VI" (ITEM 16 CONTINUED ON PAGE 8) -7- lh ( ... '.'.Tb ALL DISTRI CTS (C on ti nu e d f r om p ag e 1) (1 6 ) (d) (1) Con siderat ion of motion t o recei v e an d f i l e Se l e c t i on Commi t tee certifi ca t ion r e fina l negotiat e d f ee wi th Bu t ie r Engineerin g, Inc. f o r ad dit ion a l c on struct ion manageme nt se rvices requ i r e d du e to expan d e d s c op e of work and exten sion of comp l e ti on d a t e s for th e projects wi thi n Job No. P2 -23 ITE MS ON SUPP l W .:NTAl AG ENDA (2 ) f r om Se pt em be r, 198 0 , t o Sep t embe r, 1 98 1 , an d f or t he pro j ects within J ob No . P2-24 , f rom September, 1980 , to De c emb er , 198 1. See p age "V II" ITC J.IS ON S U?PLE ME l~TAl AGEN DA Consi d era tion of Res olut ion No. 80-100 , app rovin g Addendum No . 3 to Const ruct i on Management Eng ineering Se r v i ce s Ag r eeme nt with But ie r En gi neer ing, I n c. fo r ad d i ti onal service s requi re d due to expan ded scop e of wo r k a n d e xten sion o f c ompl e ti on dat e s fo r t he p r oj ect s wi th i n Job No . P2 -2 3 fr om Sep t e mber, 198 0, to Se pt e mber, 1981, a nd for t he p roj ec ts within J ob No. P2-24, Roll Ca ll Vote or Ca st unan imous Ball ot fr om Se p t em ber, 198 0, to Decemb e r, 198 1 , on a fi xed f ee plus cost with ov e rhead all owance, and increasing the tot a l max imum am ount f or s aid ser v ices from $510,000.00 to an am ount not to exceed $1, 089, 641. 00. See p ag e "VI II" (1 7 ) DISTRICT 1 Other busine ss a nd communications or s upple me ntal a genda item s , if an y (18 ) DISTRI CT 1 Conside ration of motion to adj ourn ¥:)~ (19) DISTRICT 2 Other business and communi cations or supplement a l a genda items , if any (20) DISTRICT 2 Consi derat ion of motion to a dj ourn y,)'1/ (21) DISTRICT 3 Other busine ss an d communications or suppl e ment a l a genda i t ems , if an y (22 ) DISTRICT 3 Cons ideration of mot i on to adjourn (23 ) DISTRICT 6 Other busines s and communic a tions or supplemental agenda items, if an y (24) DISTRICT 6 Q .JJ Consideration of motion to adjourn ~ -8 - (2 5 ) DIS TRICT 11 Other business and communic ations or supplemental agend a items, if any (26) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn (27) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to receive and f i l e Staf f Report re osed Annexation No . 98 -Upper Pet ers Canyon Annexation to No . 7. See p age "T" (b) Consideration motion approving conditions r ecommend ed i n Staff Report dated June 19 80, re proposed Annexation No. 98 -Upper Pe t ers Canyon t o County Sanitation Di strict No. 7 (c) Consideration of motion i ntent to enter into an agreement with The Irvine Company Ci f Orang e relative to deferred annexation fees for open space area wit · (d) Consideration of motion declaring intent to ente ·nto ag r eement with The Irvine Comp any providing for payme nt of annexat1 acr eage fees over a four-year period, one fourth payable upon initiat1 of proceedings with interes t on the balance at 1% above prime r a re propos ed Annexation No. 98 (27) (e) Consider a t ion o f motion to r e c eive an d f i le lett er from Th e I rvine Compa n y dat ed J un e 10, 198 0, r equesting annexat ion of 65 acres o f t erritor y to the Dls trict i n the up p e r Peters Ca nyo n area , and refer to staff for study and recommendation , p r opo s e d An n exat ion No . 98 - IT:MS OH SUPPlENi~NTAl AGENDA Pete rs Ca n yo n Annexat i on to Co un t y Sa n itation Di strict No. 7 . (Th is c ance l s and r e p l a c e s reques t r eceived and f i led by Boar d on S/14/80 .) Se e p a ge "I X" -----='--- (28) DISTRICT 7 Other business and communications or supplemental agen da items, if any (29) DISTRICT 7 I Consideration of motion to adjourn t'{~ (30 ) DISTRICT 5 (a) (b) Consideration o f motion to receive an d file proposal of EDAW, Inc. date d June 3, 1980, for consulting engineering services relative t o consolidation a nd updating of previous information and reports and p repara tion of new Draft Environmental Impact Report re facilities to serve the Jamb oree Road -Big Canyon drainage ar ea (Copy enclosed with agenda material for District 5 Dire ctors ) Consideration of Resolution No. 80 -170-5, approving agreement with Roll Call Vote m C~st Un animous Ba llot EDAW, Inc. for consulting en ginee ring services relative to consolidation and upd a ting of previous information and report s a nd p reparation of a new Draft Environmental Impact Report re facilities to ser v e the Jambore e Road -Big Canyon drainage a rea, for a lump sum f ee of $6 ,250.00 plus payment f or attendance at public hearings , to be billed at an hourly rate based upon their prevai ling fee schedule, and printing costs. See page "U" (31) DISTRICT 5 Roll Call Vote or Cas t Una nimous Ballo t Consideration of Resolution No. 80 -108 -5, approving an agreement with Daon Corporation authorizing an interim sewer connection from a portion of Tentativ e Tract No . 10391 to t he Jamboree Road Trunk Sewer. See page "V" -9- (32) DISTRICT 5 Roll Call Vote or Cast Unanimous BaUot (33) (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file request from The Irvine Company for an interim sewer connection from a portion of the Civic Plaza development to the Jamboree Road Trunk Sewer. See page "W" (b) ·Consideration of Resolution No. 80-109-5, approving an agreement with The Irvine Company authorizing an interim sewer connection from a portion of the Civic Plaza development to the Jamboree Road Trunk Sewer. See page "X" DISTRICT 5 Other business and conununications or supplemental agenda items, if any (34) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn -10- II -BDARDS OF DIRECTORS County San itation Districts of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS JUNE llJ 1980 -7:30 P.M. DISTRICTS 2 & 7 Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 Te lepho nes : Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AG EH DA (5) Consideration of motion to r eceive, file and accept resignation of Mayor Jim Beam of the City of Orange from the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2 and 7, and to receive and file minute excerpt from the City of Orange re appointment of second alternate to the mayor, as follows: District(s) Active Director Alternate Director 2 & 7 Don E. Smith Gene Beyer ALL DISTRICTS (16) (a) Consideration of Reso lution No. 80 -97, to receive and file bid tabulation a nd recommendation and awarding contract for Modification of Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Ports at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-066-2, to Brandel Mechanical, Inc. in the amount of $34,977.00. See pages "I" a nd "II" (b) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-98, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Laboratory Bench and Fwne Hood Additions at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW -073, to Equinox- Malibu in the amount of $88, 750. 00. See pages "III1' and "IV" (c) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-99, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation and awardin g contract for Modification of Existing Sludge Storage Hopper Building at Reclamation Plant No . 1, Job No . PW-084, to Brandel Mechanical, Inc. in t he amoun t of $44,718 .00. See pages "V" and "VI" (Item 16 continued on page 2) ALL DISTRICTS (Continued from page 1) (16) (d) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Selection Committee certification re final negotiated fee with Butier Engineering, Inc. for additional construction management services required due to expanded scope of work and extension of completion dates for the projects within Job No. P2-23 DISTRICT 7 from September, 1980, to September, 1981, and for the projects within Job No. P2-24, from September, 1980, to December, 1981. See page "VII" (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-100, approving Addendum No. 3 to Construction Management Engineering Services Agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. for additional services required due to expanded scope of work and extension of completion dates for the projects within Job No. P2-23 from September, 1980, to September, 1981, and for the projects within Job No. P2-24, from September, 1980, to December, 1981, on a fixed fee plus cost with overhead allowance, and increasing the total maximum amount for said services from $510,000.00 to an amount not to exceed $1,089,641.00. See page "VIII" (27) (e) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from The Irvine Company dated June 10, 1980, requesting annexation of 65 acres of territory to the District in the upper Peters Canyon area, and refer to staff for study and recommendation, proposed Annexation No. 98 - Peters Canyon Annexation to County Sanitation District No . 7. (This cancels and replaces request received and filed by Board on 5 /14 /80.) See page "IX" -2- r . ' RESOLUTION NO. 80-97 AWARDING JOB NO. PW-066-2 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SLUDGE HOPPER OUTLET PORTS AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. PW-066-2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. Tilat the written reconunendation this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by the Districts' Chief Engineer that award of contract be made to BRANDEL MECHANICAL, INC. for MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SLUDGE HOPPER OUTLET PORTS AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO •. 1, JOB NO. PW-066-2, and bid tabulation and proposal submitted for said work are hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 2. That· the contract for Modification of Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Ports at Reclamation Plant No·. 1, Job No. PW-066-2, be awarded to Brandel Mechanical, Inc. in the total amount of $34,977.00, in accordance with the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein; and, Section 3. Tilat the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1, acting for itself and as agent for Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized and directed to sign a contract with said contractor for said work pursuant to the specifications and contract documents therefor, in form approved by the General Counsel; and, Section 4. 1bat all other bids for said work are hereby rejected. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. II I II AGENDA ITEM #16(A) -ALL DISTRICTS II I II B I D T A B U L A T I 0 N , S H E E T June 10, 1980 . JOB NO. PW-066-2 11 A.M. PROJECT TITLE MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SLUDGE 0 HOPPER OUTLET PORTS AT PIANT NO. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Fabrication and Installation of Modified Sludge Hopper Outlet Port Close-out Apcaratus ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $ 45,ooo.oa ----------------BUDGET. AMOUNT $ ------- REM.ARKS ________________________________________________________ ___ l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID Brandel Mechanical Inc. Signal Hill,CA $34,977.00 P.R. Burke Corporation Anaheim, CA $36,466.00 Equinox Malibu · Paramount, CA $36,750.00 Bob Downing Industrial Svc. Santa Ana, CA $38,280.00 Triad Mechanical Inc. Stanton, CA $41,141.00 Caliagua Inc. Orange, CA $44,600.00 I have reviewed the proposals submitted for the above project and find that the low bid is a responsible bid. I, therefore recommend award to Brandel Mechanical, Inc. of Signal Hill Califor~ia in the bid amount of $34,977.00 as the lowest and best bid. ' Chief Engineer REL/jo "I I" AGENDA ITEM #16(A) -ALL nT~TRTrT~ "TT" RESOLUTION NO. 80-98 AWARDING JOB NO. PW-073 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR LABORATORY BENCH AND FUME HOOD ADDITIONS AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. PW-073 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the written recommendation this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by the Districts' Chief Engineer that award of contract be made to EQUINOX-MALIBU for LABORATORY BENCH AND FUME HOOD ADDITIONS AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO •. 1, JOB NO. PW-073, and bid tabulation and proposal submitted for said work are hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 2. Tilat the contract for Laboratory Bench and Fume Hood Additions at ·Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-073, be awarded to Equinox-Malibu in the total amount of $88,750.00, in accordance with the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1, acting for itself and as agent for Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized and directed to sign a contract with said contractor for said work pursuant to the specifications and contract documents therefor, in form approved by the General Cotmsel; and, Section 4. 1bat all other bids for said work are hereby rejected. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. "III" AGENDA ITEM #16(B) -ALL DISTRICTS "Ill" B I D T A B U L A T I 0 N S H E E T June 5, 1980 JOB NO. PW-07 3 11 A.M. '-J PROJECT TITLE IABORATORY BENCH AND FUMEHOOD ADDITIONS AT RECLAMATION PIANT NO. l PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Construction and Installation of Laboratory Benches and Fume Hoods with Aoputenant Fixtures, Utilities; & required fencing, painting, and concrete work. ENG I NEER ' S EST IMA TE $ 80, ooo. oo BUDGET. AMOUNT $ -------- RE MARKS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTRACTOR l. Equinox -Malibu Para.moU&,t, California 2. Brandel Mechanical, Inc. Siqnal Hill, California .3. Amrofell/Morgan Constructors Anaheim, California 4 Joe Kay Design & Construction Co. Inc . • Fullerton, California 5. Triad Mechanical, Inc. Stanton, California TOTAL BID $ 88,750.00 $ 101,877.00 $ 114,660.00 $ 122,480.00 $ 136 '631. 00 I have reviewed the proposals submitted for the above project and find that the engineer's estimate was low and that the low bid is a responsible bid. I, therefore, recommend award to Equinox -Malibu of Paramount, California, in the bid amount of $88,750.00 as the lowest ~d best bid. "IV" AGENDA ITEM #16(B) -ALL DISTRICTS II IV" RESOLUTION NO. 80-99 AWARDING JOB NO. PW-084 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF TI-IE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND·ll OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SLUDGE STORAGE HOPPER BUILDING AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. PW-084 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the written reconunendation this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by the Districts' Chief Engineer that award of contract be made to BRANDEL MECHANICAL, INC. for MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SLUDGE STORAGE HOPPER BUILDING AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. PW-084, and bid tabulation and proposal submitted for said work are hereby received and ordered filed; and, "'-1) Section 2. That the contract for Modification of Existing Slu_dge Storage Hopper Building at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-084, be awarded to Brandel Mechanical, Inc. in the total amount of $44,718.00, in accordance with the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1, acting for itself and as agent for Districts Nos. 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized and directed to sign a contract with said contractor for said work pursuant to the specifications and contract documents therefor, in form approved by the General Coun·se 1; and, Section 4. That all other bids for said work are hereby rejected. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. "V" AGENDA ITEM #16(c) -ALL DISTRICTS "V" B I D T A B U L A T I 0 N S H E E T JOB NO. PW-084 ------ June 5, 1980 ll A.M. MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SLUDGE STORAGE HOPPER BUILDING PROJECT TITLE AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. l --------..;..;;---~~-------------------------------------------------- PROJECT DESCRIPTION Elevate Existing Sludge Storage Hopper and Adjacent Conveyor Belt No. l Structures ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $ 50,000.00 REMARKS BUDGET. AMOUNT $ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID l. Brandel Mechanical, Inc. Signal Hill, California $ 44,718.00 2. Triad Mechanical, Inc. Stanton, California $ 45,000.00 .3. Equinox -Malibu Paramount, California $ 48,750.00 4. DVY Construction Company San Marcos, California $ 55,760.00 5. Donn Clark Constructors, Inc. Placentia, California $ 69,327.00 6. PM Construction Torrance, California $ 88,550.00 I have reviewed the proposals submitted for the above project and find that the low bid is a responsible bid. I, therefore, recommend award to Brandel Mechanical, Inc. of Signal Hill, California, in the bid amount of $44,718.00 as the lowest and best bid. REL/jo "VT II Chief Engineer • ~ f COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, F'OUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF'CRNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OF'F'-RAMP, SAN DIEGO F'REEWAY) Board of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 June 10, 1980 Subject: Certification of Negotiated Fee for Construction Management Services for Jobs No. P2-23 (75-MGD Improved Treatment) and P2-24 (Solids Handling) at Plant No. 2 TELEPHONES: AREA CCOE 71"4 540·2910 962-2411 In accordance with the Districts' procedures for the selection of professional engineering services, the Selection Committee has negotiated an amendment to ~ that agreement .for construction management engineering s=rvices, dated May 25, 1977, between the Districts and Butier Engineering; Inc., in connection with additional facilities to be constructed concurrently.with the 75-MGD of Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2 as well as length of service necessary to complete the 75-MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2 facilities. 1. Fixed fee $70,388.00 plus actual direct labor costs, plus eligible overhead, plus actual direct eJq>enses. 2. Extra professional services as specified in Article VII, Paragraph A be increased· from $60,000 to $100,000. 3. The scope of work shall include construction ~anagement services for Districts contract designated as P2-24, So~ids Handling and Digestion as well as for 75-MGD Improved Treat::!lent at Plant No. 2 and the length of service shall be extended to December 31, 1981. 4. The total compensation, as set forth in Article VII, Paragraph A-1, in the original agreement of May 25, 1977, sha~1 be amended to $1, 089. 641. "Vll-1" AGENDA ITEM #16(o)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS "VIl-1" Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 June 10, 1980 Page Two COUNTY SANITATIGN DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 108~ ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9v (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 The Selection Committee hereby certifies that the final negotiated fee for this recommended amendment is reasonable for the services to be performed and that said fee will not result in excessive profit for the engineer. Approved: Fred A. Harper General Manager "VII-2" Bill Vardoulis, Vice Chaint1an Selection Committee AGENDA ITEM #16(n)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS "VII-2" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 108"4"4 ELLIS AVENUE June 11, 1980 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 STAFF REPORT SELECTION COMMITTEE NEGOTIATIONS FOR AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. (714) 962-241 l The Selection Committee met, pursuant to the Boards authorization, on Thursday, June 5th to negotiate fees for additional construction management services for grant funded projects Nos. P2-23 and PZ-24 with Butier Engineering, Inc. Butier Engineering, Inc. has been under contract to the Sanitation Districts since May, 1977 to provide construction management services for the major improvements being built at Treatment Plant No. 2. The original total maximum compensation was $475,000, of which $25,000 was allowed as first year profit. Addendum No. 1 was approved by the Boards in October, 1978 and provided for extra professional services for a computerized critical path schedule in an amount not to exceed $ 3 5, 0 00, increasing the total maximum authority to $ 510, 000 .: f In August, 1979, the Boards approved an Addendum No. 2 to the contract which authorized Butier Engineering to undertake the construction management of two additional projects for solids handling. This Addendum No. 2 authorized an additional amount of $25,000 for extra professional services, but did not change ~he total maximum authorization from $510,000. At the time Addendum No. 2 was approved, the total $510,000 had not been expended and it was decided to delay approving the increase until such time as the job became better defined as to scope and length of project. Addendum No. 3, which you have before you tonight, is the approval of the additional monies for this expanded scope of work. It provides for an increase in the total compensation of not to exceed $579,641, through December, 1981, as follows: 1. 2. "Vll-3" Fixed Fee plus actual direct labor, eligible overhead and direct expenses not to exceed Extra Professional Services for Critical Path Method TOTAL THIS AUTHORIZATION AGENDA ITEM #16(n)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS $ 70,388 469,253 40,000 $579,641 "VII-3" STAFF REPORT June 11, 1980 Page Two There are five projects, known as P2~23 (75-MGD Improved Treatment at Plant ~o. 2) originally under the jurisdiction of Butier Engineering's construction management services. These five projects had a construction cost of approxim~tely $45 million and were scheduled for completion in September, 1980. Estimated time of completion for these projects is now in the fall of 1981, With the approval of Addendum No. 2 in August, 1979, two more projects, known as Job PZ-24 (Solids Handling and Dewatering Facilities) were added. This increased the cost of the total projects to approximately $73 million and extended the time of completion to December, 1981. The Selection Committee recommends approval of this increase in the amount of $579,641 to the Districts' construction management services contract with Butier Engineering, Inc. "VIl-4" AGENDA ITEM #16(o)(l) -ALL DISTRICTS "VIl-4" -. RESOLUTION NO. 80-100 APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. RE JOBS NOS. P2-23 AND P2-24 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. I, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BUTIER ENGINEERING, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED DUE TO EXPANDED SCOPE OF WORK AND EXTENSION OF COMPLETION DATES FOR JOBS NOS. P2-23 AND P2-24 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, the Districts have heretofore entered into an agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. for con~truction management services in connection with 75-MGD Improved Treatment Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-23; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Addendum No. 2 to said agreement, the Board authorized additional construction management services in connection with the concurrent construction of the Solids Handling and Dewatering Facilities for 75-MGD Improved Treatment Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24; and, WHEREAS, the esti~ated completion dates for the projec~s within Jobs Nos. P2-23 have been extended from Sep:tember, .1980, to ~~ptember ,. 1981, and the projects within Job No. P2-24 have been· extended from September, 1980, to December, 1981; and, WHEREAS, it is now deemed appropriate to further amend said agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. to provide for additional construction management services required due to the expanded scope of work and the extension of said project completion dates; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to authorization of the Boards of Directors, the Selection Committee has negotiated and certified fees with Butier Engineering, Inc. for said additional construction management services, in accordance with the Districts' procedures for selection of professional engineering and architectural services, which said certification has been approved by the General Manager. NOW, TiiEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, "VIII-1" AGENDA ITEM #16(n)(2) -ALL DISTRICTS "VI I I-1" DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That Addendum No. 3 dated to that certain . agreement with Butier Engineering, Inc. dated May 25, 1978, for construction management services relative to 75-MGD Improved Treatment Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-23, to provide for additional construction management services· required due to the expanded scope of work with regard to the inclusion of the Solids Handling and Dewatering Facilities for 75-MGD Improved Treatment Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24, and due to the extension of the completion dates for the projects within said Job No. P2-23, from September, 1980, to September, 1981, and for the projects within said Job No. P2-24, from September, 1980, to December, 1981, is hereby authorized and approved; and, Section 2. That the contract provisions for fees be increased to provide compensation for said additional construction management services on a fixed fee plus cost with overhead allowance, as follows: Increase Fixed Fee $ 70,388.00 Extra Professional Services $ 40,000.00 TOTAL COMPENSATION $579 ,641. 00 From To $25,000.00 $ 95,388.00 $60,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $510,000.00 $1,089,641.00 Section 3. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1, acting for itself and on behalf of Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Addendum No. 3, in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. "VllI-2" AGENDA ITEM #16(n)(2) -ALL DISTRICTS "VIIl-2" (DUE TO THIS REQUEST, AGENDA ITEMS ~ ~ IRVINE COMP~J\JY ff:~-f·J 610 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box 1 l\~ !'rf\j Newport Beach, California 92663 NOS. 27(a),(b),(c)&(d) ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN STRIKEN FROM THE AGENDA. ) ~ (714} 644-3011 June 10, 1980 Mr. Fred Harper Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Re: Peters Canyon Annexation Dear Mr. Harper: Based upon our review of' the OCSD staff report, The Irvine Company would like to modify its request to annex approximately 1,470 acres in the Upper Peters Canyon area to Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 and limit the annexation to the 65 acre area shown on the attached location map. We recognize and share the District's concern about the 30l(h) ocean waiver application for secondary treatment, however, a "conditional" annexation which may be rescinded is not an acceptable basis on which to proceed with planning, zoning and development. Therefore, we request that annexation of the entire East Orange area be def erred until the waiver issue is better re- solved. With respect to the 65 acre parcel westerly of Newport Boulevard it is anticipated that development will begin in early 1981. As the 65 acre parcel is relatively small, it is our request that it be annexed without conditions. Annexation should proceed at this time to ensure service. Enclosed is a revised petition of annexation for this parcel. The necessary legal description and related documents will be delivered to your off ice by the end of the week. It is our understanding that Rancho Santiago College School District will seek annexation of their 30 acre parcel independently. We respectfully·request consideration of this annexation by the OCSD 7 Board of Directors on June 11, 1980 and would be happy to provide addi- tional information at your request. If you have any q1:1estions, p·lease contact Sat Tamaribuchi at 644-3363. nior Vice Presi nt ~ Counnunity Development Division "IX-1" THN/cam Enc. AGENDA ITEM #27(E) -DISTRICT 7 "IX-1" "I X-2" AGENDA TTFM #/7(~) -DTSTRTrT 7 ·-... .r - MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS Meeting Date June 11, 1980 -7:30 p .m. Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 The following is a brief explanation of the more important, non-routine items which appear on the enclosed agenda and which are not otherwise self-explanatory. Warrant lists are enclosed with the agenda material sunnnarizing the bills paid since the last Joint Board meeting. To minimize the amount of redundancy and duplication in the agenda material and reduce the number of connnents in the Manager's Report , we have expanded the description of the agenda items in the agenda itself, particularly with regard to change orders and contracts which have been publicly bid and are within the contract budget or engineer's estimate . Detailed change orders are included in the supporting material as well as the bid tabulations for the contracts being reconnnended for award . Joint Boards No. 9-a -General Authorization for Attendance of Personnel at Meetings. For the past several years, the General Manager has been authorized on an annual basis to designate members of the Board and/or staff to attend meetings , conferences, etc., within the State, which he believes will be of value to the Districts. It is reconnnended that this authorization be renewed. No. 9-b -National Conference on Treatment Agency Financial Operations . The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) will hold a three-day conference in St . Paul, Minnesota July 30th through August 1st. This meeting will provide an excellent opportunity for exchange of information concerning the implementation of revenue programs, industrial cost recovery and residential user fees, as well as a review of accounting systems , cost allocation and capital amortization procedures . It is reconnnended that the Director of Finance be authorized to attend this meeting. (Previously authorized for September, 1979; however, conference was rescheduled to July, 1980) . No. 9-c -AMSA Sludge Management Mee.ting. The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) Sludge Management Corrrrnittee is scheduling a meeting June 12th in Chicago. The purpose of the meeting is to develop AMSA's position on EPA's hazardous waste regulations and other sludge related guidances recently issued by EPA. While our agency is not a member of AMSA's Sludge Management Connnittee, we were specifically requested to participate in developing AMSA's position on these vital issues because EPA regulations have a national impact. This meet.ing will be attended by our Superin- tendent, Bill Clarke. No. 9-d -In-Place Density Tests re Compaction of Sewer Trench Backfill. Many of the cities use the County of Orange for in-place density tests relative to compaction of backfill. Since the Districts are continually constructing trunk sewers , it is advantageous to have an agreement with the County to perform the in-place density tests. The staff recommends approval of an agreement with the County to reimburse them for the required work. No. 9-e -Membership in the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency (SARFPA) . The staff is recommending continued membership in SARFPA. The action appearing in the a g enda authorizes payment of the annual dues of $1,250. This agency's membership is made up of cities and other public entities within t he flood plain of the Santa Ana River, and its objective is to obtain Congressional authority and funds for needed improvements to the River Basin's flood protection facilities. No. 9-f -Purchas~ of New Gas Chromatograph. With the initiation of new EPA re gulations regarding the monitor- ing of priority pollutants and organic environmental pollutants, a necessity has arisen for the purchase of a new gas chromatograph for the Districts' laboratory in order to properly analyze the con- stituents under the new requirements. Personnel of the Districts' laboratory have evaluated the different types of machines available and it is reconnnended that the Districts negotiate to purchase a 5880A gas chromatograph with necessary appurtenances a t a cost not to exceed $26,500 plus tax. No. 9-g -Change Order No. 1 to Job No. PW-055-2 , Modific a tions to Odor Scrubbing Tower at Reclamation Plant No. 1 . This change order is to extend the time allowed under t he con- tract. The contractor experienced delays in procuring the liquid distributor for the scrubbers. This resulted in a 1 2 8 calendar -2 - day delay. The staff, therefore, recommends approval of this change order extending the contract' time by 128 calendar days at no additional cost to the Districts . No. 9-h -Acceptance of Job No. PW-055-2 as Complete. The contractor, P. R. Burke Corporation, has completed all the work and fulfilled all contractual obligations . This contract did not experience any additional cost change orders. The final contract price is $16 ,939. The staff recommends acceptance of the work and execution of the Final Closeout Agreement and filing of the Notice of Completion of Work as required. No. 9-i -Change Order No . 3 to Job No. J -3-1, Installation of Gas Engines with Gear Drives at Rothrock 0-utfalf B·oos·ter Station. The contractor was directed to extend the openings in the roof of the building to accommodate the larger engines under this con - tract. The existing roof hatch openings were not designed for an engine larger than existed in the building prior to this contract. This change order is necessary to . repair the enlargement of the openings and other work associated with said enlargement. The total addition to the contract price is $8,075.74, and there is no time extension. The staff recommends acceptance of this change order. No. 9-j -Receive, File and Approve Request from Equinox re Substitution of Subcontractor. At the April 9th Board meeting, a contract was awarded for Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1 , Job No . Pl-3-2, to Equinox-Malibu of Paramount, California, in the amount of $1,328,000. The contractor has since filed a letter with the Districts requesting that they be allowed to correct an error made in their subcontractor listing wherein they showed Owens - Corning for insulation rather than their intended subcontractor, Consolidated Western Insulation . Owens-Corning has filed a letter with the Districts agreeing to the substitution and waiving any right to proceed with the contract as well as rights under Government Code Section 4107, which allows them to request a hearing on the prime contractor's request to substitute another subcontractor. The staff recommends that Equinox-Malibu be allowed to sub - stitute the intended subcontractor, Consolidated Western Insulation to do the work under this contract . No. 9-k -Authority to Hire Converse D~vis Dixon for S~ils Inspection at Plant No. 2. The staff is requesting authorization to hire Converse Davis Dixon, a soils consultant , to assist the construction management team on Job No. P2-24-l at per diem rates not to exceed $8,500. -3- During the excavation, unsuitable material was discovered and this firm did the original soils investigation for the project during design . It is requested that the firm assist in directing . the contractor's excavation activities during this phase of the job. No . 9-1 -Review and Revision of Enchanter IV Inc ., Contract. For many years, the Districts have retained Fred Munson and his boat, Enchanter IV, under contract . Since 1974, that contract has not been amended to cover the additional costs of fuel, docking rates or labor . During these years of service , Mr. Munson has proved to be extremely reliable, both with respect to availability and dependability of equipment, in connection with the Districts' required ocean monitoring programs. It is therefore reconunended that the monetary compensation for this contract be raised from $3 ,000 per month to $3,500 per month , a 16.7% increase during the past six -year period. The staff reconnnends approval. No. 9-m -Three-Month Extension of the Golden West Fertilizer Company Hauling Contract. For some time, the Districts have had an agreement with the Golden West Fertilizer Company to haul sludge from the treatment plants to the composting site at the Co y ote Canyon landfill. This contract is due to expire June 30th and the Districts' staff antici- pates we will receive tractors and trailers available for the hauling operation. However, we may not have the qualified drivers to operate this heavy equipment as of July 1st. The staff reconunends that the Golden West contract be e x tended three months at the same terms and conditions of the current contract in the event we are not ready to handle the trucking operation ourselves . Districts 2,3,5,7 and 11 Nos. 9-n,p,q,r ,u -Declaring Intent to Revise Gurrent Annexa- tion Fees. The staff reconnnends that the above-named District Boards adopt resolutions declaring their intent to revise the current annexation fees effective July 1, 1980 . We do not have a recom- mendation as to the amount of the increases; this information will be presented to the Boards at the July 9th Board meeting . The annexation fees have been frozen since July, 1979, but with the changes in capital investments and costs, the .staff will be reconunending an escalation at the July Board meeting. The purpose of adopting resolutions of intention at this time is to advise all proponents of annexations that the Boards will adjust the annexa- tion fee schedules effectiv e July 1st. -4- District No. 7 No . 9-s -Initiation of Annexation Proceedings (No. 97). Annexation of this 1.46 acre parcel located in the County in the vicinity of Daniger Road has been requested by the owner, Mr. Gimeno. Mr . Gimeno is requesting annexation of this parcel to receive sewer service for a single-family residence . This parcel will also be annexed to the 7th Sewer Maintenance District. District No. 11 No. 9-v -Change Order No. 5 to Contract No. 11-13-2 -Coast Trunk Sewer. Change Order No. 5 in the amount of $29 ,333 to John A. Artukovich Sons, Inc., and John A. Artukovich, Jr., a joint venture, contractors on the construction of the Coast Trunk Sewer, is pre- sented. Items 1 and 2 are for additional work within Lake Street, including installation of shoring for protection of City and private facilities. Item 3 , the construction of a reinforced concrete closure collar easterly of Beach Boulevard was required to join separate headings of pipe. The separate headings were required to complete work within the City of Huntington Beach's parking facility prior to the summer season . Item 4 is requested to improve the operation of the wastewater metering facilities at Plant No. 2. The staff reconnnends approval of Change Order No . 5. · Joint Boards Nos. 11 and 12 -Report of the Executive Connnittee. The Connnittee met jointly with the Fiscal Policy Connnittee on May 28th and enclosed for Board members is a written report of their discussions and reconnnended actions for consideration. No . 13 -Payment of Claims after June 30, 1980 . The Districts' budgets will be adopted at the July Joint Board meeting and therefore it is necessary to have Board authorization for the payment of claims from July 1 to the date of adoption of next year's budget. It is reconnnended that the action appearing on the agenda be approved. No . 14 -Nominations for Joint Chairman and Vice Joint Chairman . As provided in the Joint Boards' Rules of Procedure, nomina- tions for these two offices are made at the regular June meeting, with elections to take place at the July regular meeting. For the -5- new Directors' information, we have included in the supporting documents section of the agenda material, an excerpt from the Rules of Procedure for Meetings relative to the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization. No. 15 -Approval of Draft EIR/EIS for LA/OMA. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the proposed sludge management program for Los Angeles County, Orange County metropolitan area, dated April, 1980 has been prepared by LA/OMA and is now ready for public hearing. The staff has reviewed the report and finds it to be in order and that it reflects the intended judgment of the Districts. The action on your agenda is to approve the Draft EIS/EIR , to authorize LA /OMA to file a Notice of Completion, and to conduct public hearings in accordance with all CEQA and NEPA requirements. A sunnnary of the document is included with your agenda material. No. 16-a -Award of PW-066-2, Modification to Existing Sludge Hopper Outlet Ports at Reclamation Plant No. 1. Bids will be received on June 10th for the fabrication and installation of modified sludge hopper outlet port close-out assemblies. This project is necessary to increase current sludge storage capability as well as eliminate unsafe and unsightly sludge droppings and water leakage from the outlet ports. The engineer's estimate for this work is $45,000. The Boards will consider award of a contract at this meeting. No. 16-b-Award of PW-073, Laboratory Bench and Fume Hood Additions at Reclamation Plant No. 1 . Bids will be received on June 5, 1980 for this project which includes the installation of new lab counters with appurtenant fixtures and utilities with two fume hoods for toxicant control and the construction of a new gas cylinder storage yard . The engineer's estimate for this work is $80,000. The Boards will con- sider award of a contract next Wednesday evening. No. 16-c -Award of PW-084 Modifications to Existin Storag e Hopper Bui ing at Rec amation P ant No. Bids are scheduled to be received on June 5th to elevate the existing sludge storage hopper building and adjacent conveyor belt structures to provide additional clearance for the sludge trucks used in transporting the digested material to Coyote Canyon Sludge Processing Site. The engineer's estimate for this work is $50,000. The Boards will consider award of this contract at next Wednesday's meeting. -6- with Butier for Pro·ects At the May Board meeting, the Directors authorized the Selec- tion Corrrrnittee to meet with and negotiate Addendum No . 3 for the ButLer Engineering contract for the 75-MGD of Improved Treatment at Plant No . 2. A meeting of the Selection Corrrrnittee is scheduled for June 5th to negotiate this item. A detailed Selection Com- mittee report and recorrrrnendation will be included in the Directors' folders next Wednesday evening . District No . 7 No . 27 -Annex·ation No. 98 to Sanitation District No . 7 - Upper Peters Cany on. The Irvine Company has requested annexation of 1465 acres in the Upper Peters Canyon area. The staff has reviewed the proposal and in view of the impacts on the Districts' program , we are recom- mending the following conditions of annex ation be considered by the Directors . 1. That the area to be annexed should be reduced to approx imately 700 acres which is the extent of the area included in the 1969 Master Plan Report which was what was utilized in the Districts' 30l(h) ocean waiv er application for secondary treatment . 2. The annexation must be conditional with withdrawal provisions in the event this additional area should j eopardize the Districts' receiving the 30l(h) waiver for secondary treatment . 3. Prior to the completion of annexation pro- ceedings, an agreement is to be negotiated by the affected agencies to provide for an exchange of property tax revenues to County Sanitation District No. 7 for said service . 4 . The undev eloped areas which are to remain open space, i.e., Peters Canyon Lake, should be deferred for annexation fees at this time and an agreement entered into between the District, the property owner, and the City of Orange for pay - ment of applicable annex ation fees if and when the area develops . -7- 5. The Irvine Company has requested deferred payments of the amount due and payable. The staff recommends that this request be granted and that payments be deferred over a four-year period with interest at one percent above prime rate after a 25 % cash payment prior to annexation. 6. At the time of annexation, this area is t o be with- drawn from the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD ). District No. 5 No. 30 -Receive and File Letter Proposal for EIR on Big Canyon Drainage Area and Award Agreement to EDAW, Inc. Proposals were solicited from two consultants known to the staff of the City of Newport Beach to perform the necessary pro- fessional services to consolidate and update information contained in previous EIR's and other reports on the Big Canyon Drainage Area. The proposal request stipulated that a new document, using and updating the information currently available and expanding any weak areas be prepared in a format to be acceptable to the Directors , the City of Newport Beach, concerned citizens, and the Coastal Com- mission . The staff has reviewed the two proposals submitted and has discussed the matter with the City of Newport Beach staff. It is recommended that an agreement be entered into with EDAW, Inc., Newport Beach, for the preparation of the Big Canyon Drainage Area EI~ for a lump sum price of $6,250, plus attendance b y EDAW at public hearings if necessary, plus printing at cost if not done by the Districts' staff . No. 31 -Request for Interim Services from Daon Corporation . At the last meeting of the Board, the Daon Corporation re- quested an interim sewer connection to serve a 50-unit condominium site at the corner of Jamboree Road and Ford Road . Prev iously, the Board had entered into an agreement with the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and the City of Newport Beach to permit a connection to the IRWD facilities as an exemption to the District's Ordinance No. 510 . Daon's request is for an interim connection, in that many of the exempted properties have not proceeded with development. The staff is recommending that this interim connection be permitted by written agreement which sets forth certain conditions relative to the use of the "interim connection", such as, when the first condominium unit is issued a certificate of o ccupancy by the City , and if a District construction contract for the new sewerag e facility in the Big Canyon-Jamboree Road Drainage Area has not been awarded , Daon agrees to immediately construct the necessary facili- ties for an interconnection with the IRWD facilities as provided -8- . .. ... in the previous agreement. This new agreement provides that the District will receive, treat and dispose of sewage fr om the condo- minium development through the "interim connection" for a period not to exceed 12 months after the first occupancy permit is issued by the City. We have reviewed this proposal and believe that it is in the best interest of the parties involved and the staff recorrnnends approval of this interim connection agreement. No. 32 -Request for Interim Service from Irvine Company for Civic Plaza Development. The Irvine Company has requested that they be allowed to proceed with a proposed development which is affected by the temporary suspension of issuance of sewer permits pursuant to Ordinance No. 510 adopted by the Directors on January 15, 1980. In the event the District has not awarded a contract which would remove the temporary suspension by the time the property owners are ready for occupancy of their proposed development, the developer will construct, at his own expense, an alternate disposal system in order that the sewage will not affect the existing Jamboree Pumping Station system. The same 12-months' use proposed in the Daon Agree - ment through an "interim connection" will apply. The staff recorrnnends an agreement for an interim connection be entered into with The Irvine Company as provided for in Ordinance No. 510, in a form approved by the General Counsel. -9- Fred A . Harper General Manager June 3, 1980 Ms. Hillary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue RE: AGENDA ITEM #30(A) Fountain Valley, California 92708 DIST. 5 Subject: Proposal to Prepare the Big Canyon Drainage Area EIR Dear Ms. Baker:·~ We appreciate the opportunity to respond tq your Request for a Proposal on the Big Canyon Area EIR. Following our discussion with you, and a review of previous project documentation, we have prepared what we believe to be an appropriate and cost- effecti ve solution to resolving the District's ~IR needs. We have outlined this approach below, followed by a discussion of EDAW personnel that would be involved, a fee estimate, and a brief statement on our experience for those not acquainted with EDAW. APPROACH As a brief introduction, we would like to note our familiarity with the project, the coastal permit denial, and some of the previous undertones of growth-inducement concern. We recognize that new facts, specifically regarding energy costs, ne~d to be appropriately added to the analysis. We also recognize that some of the "old" .facts and issues remain unchanged. A specific example of this is the potential biological impacts associated with construction of the Backbay trunk line. The endangered species still remain; the potential for disturbing these re- sources remain; and the previous conditions-for-approval prob- ably would still be imposed. What has changed, partly as a result of.changing political attitudes at the local and state level, is the necessity for balancing environmental goals with energy-related and economic constraints. While we recognize that the EIR needs to make an objective evaluation of these factors, we also recognize the importance of translating this information into an effective public presen- tation for the District Board at a public hearing; or for the EDAW inc. Environmental Planning Urban Design Landscape ke!'\i1ecture San Francisco Newport Oeact'I Alexandria Fort Collins Hon.:ih:lu fl:ew Orleans Portland Boise 220 Newport Center Drive, Suite 20, Newport Beach, California 92660 Telephone (714) 644-9104 Ms. Hillary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County June 3, 1980 Page Two Re: Big Canyon Drainage Area EIR Coastal Commission if need be. We have, in the past, success- fully used a combination of the EIR with a presentation (e.g., employing slides of the areas along Jamboree, Big Canyon, and the Backbay, and comparative matrices) to clarify complex issues. We would be available to provide this, or assist the District staff in making such a presentation involving the EIR. Our approach to the EIR consists of first upgrading any data gaps; preparing a project description that encompasses the three alternatives; revising the text to include equal information and a comparative evaluation of all three alternatives; and preparing an Executive Summary. These tasks are discussed below: 0 In reviewing the previous documentation, it appears, with a few exceptions, that adequate backgro\ind data is avail- able. An attached sheet contains our evaluation of the previous analyses. Additional evaluation should be in- cluded on existing and future energy costs (this will correspondingly be incorporated into the actual dollar costs associated with each alternative); all mitigation measures need to be reevaluated to ensure that they are realistic and acceptable to the District; the biological evaluation should contain a summary of Backbay considera- tions which resulted in the previous permit denial to assist in placing the Big Canyon biological resources and the potential disruption of these resources in a proper perspective; the growth discussion issue should more appropriately be discussed in growth "accommodating" terms, rather than growth inducing; potential traffic disruption along Jamboree with the pump station alterna- tive should be discussed as the force main, as well as gravity lines, would require replacement or paralleling; and the dollar costs of each alternative need to be up- dated to July, 1980 dollars. o The "project," as implied in the above discussion, will consist of three alternatives: l) the Jamboree pump station and accompanying force main and gravity line improvements; 2) the Jamboree Road tunnel gravity sewer; and 3) the Backbay gravity sewer. These three projects would be analyzed throughout the report. Other alterna- tives, such as the "no project" alternative, would be evaluated in the alternatives section of the EIR. ~· Ms. Hillary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County June 3, 1980 Page Three Re: Big Canyon Drainage Area EIR o One key to effective data presentation and effective decision-making based on that data will be the prepara- tion of an Executive Summary. This summary, approxi- mately ten pages in length, will discuss the significant issues and include comparative matrices of the three project alternatives. We have found through previous projects that the matrix is the most easily understood form of comparing alternatives. Two separate matrix will be included in the Exec~tive Summary. One will cover the environmental impacts of alternatives, and the other will cover the mitigation required for reducing potentially significant effects. The Executive Summary will clearly point out the problem,· the alternative solutions, and the comparative impacts of each. In summary, we propose to re-write major portions of the pre- vious EIR documents relying, for the most part, on available information. Emphasis would be placed on the Executive Summary which would provide a comparative text and matrices of the three project alternatives. SCHEDULE AND COSTS Based on our understanding of the proj.ect, we feel that prepa- ration of a Preliminary Draft EIR could be completed within four weeks following initiation of the project. Assuming a one-week review by District staff, the Draft EIR could be completed within a total of six weeks. The associated costs are as follows: Preparation of the Draft EIR (including ·professional time and expenses) Printing of 50 copies of Draft EIR Attendance at Public Hearings (to be billed at an hourly rated based upon our prevailing fee schedule) EDAW PERSONNEL EDAW project personnel would be as ·follows: Principal-in-Charge: Jared Ikeda $6,250.00 At Cost See attached Fee Schedule Ms. Hillary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County June 3, 1980 Page Four Re: Big Canyon Drainage Area EIR Project Manager: Charles Pilcher Environmental Analysis: Charles Jencks, Terry Watt, Steve Nelson Individual resumes are attached. EDAW BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT EXPERIENCE EDAW is a multidisciplinary firm with extensive experience in the fields of environmental planning and environmental assess- ment. The firm's services include the preparation of resource inventories and environmental data bases, preparation of en- vironmental impact documents, and the formulation of planning and design concepts based on .environmentally acceptable solu- tions. We have prepared ··environmental impact studies for most types of developmentS"" and uses. Current or recently-completed EIR's prepared by the EDAW Newport Beach office include: 0 Sampo Ranch EIR, Ventura County, Currey-Riach Company o Housing Elements/EIR's ·for Kern County and ten cities within the County, County of Kern o Tapia Reclamation Plant EIR, Ventura County, Las Virgenes Water District o U.S. Postal Service Environmental Services, preparation of numerous environmental assessments for Post Off ice relocations throughout Southern California o Olinda Off-Road Vehicle Park EIR, County of Orange o City of Ridgecrest Housing Element/EIR, City of Ridgecrest o Cabrillo Beach Recreation Complex EIR/EIS, Port of Los Angeles. Examples of our work are enclosed. .... . Ms. Hillary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County June 3, 1980 Page Five Re: Big Canyon Drainage Area EIR If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to call. We look forward to the opportunity of working with you. Very truly yo~rs, \:'_ .r· a:::k~ Vice President JI/pm enclosures I-}• REVIEW OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION* Adequate Information Available From · Topic Previous Reports Executive Summary No Project Description Yes Topography Yes Geology/Soils/Seismicity Yes Hydrology/Water Quality Yes Biological Resources · Yes ., Cultural Resources Yes Land Use/Relevant Planning Population/Housing Circulation Systems Yes Air Quality Yes Noise Yes Utilities/Community Services Yes Visual Resources Yes Energy Consumption No Economics No Comment Requires Preparation Alternatives analysis approach. Descriptions from project reports: L.D. King, 1978; OCSD, 1979; and Butier, 1979. Summarization of pertinent information mandatory for appropriate review. Appears adequate, but review with City staff. Appears adequate, but review with City staff. Provide adequate existing and future comparative analysis Comparative update to July, 1980 dollars required. Re- quires estimated breakdown of costs to taxpayers and funding mechanism. *Big Canyon Drainage Area EIR, OCSD, 1979; and Big Canyon Drainage Area Supple- mental Draft EIR, ECOS, 1980. ,, ; ' EDAW, Inc. SCHEDULE OF FEES for Professional Services 1980 Direct Time Charges Hourly Rate Range* Principals Senior Associates Associates Professional Staff Clerical Staff $50.00 $70.00 $35.00 -$50.00 $25.00 -$35.00 $20.00 $25.00 $15.00 -$20.00 Reimbursable Expenses * Vehicle Mileage (reimbursable at $0.20 per mile} Domestic Travel Per Diem** (reimbursable at $20.00/ day plus lodging) Project Consultants at Cost* (plus 10% administration) Other Direct Project Expenses at Cost, ~uch as o Public transportation, charter or rental o Printing, graphics, photography and reproduction o Rental or purchase of special equ1pment and materials o Long distance telephone or special shipping o Models, perspectives and renderings Individual personnel rates are based on a multiple of 2.25 times direct payroll cost, and are all inclusive. Direct project time by EDAN Chairman and President is at the rate of $700 per day. ** Foreign travel expense is at actual and reasonable cost. # • • ,• JARED IKEDA Principal EDAW, INC. Mr. Ikeda· is a landscape architect specializing in environmental analysis, open space and recreation planning. He has been involved in a wide range of studies and projects which has produced extensive experience in environmental analysis and large scale planning of transportation, utilities, open space networks and parks and recreation facilities. His environmental analysis work has involved participation in the preparation of major environmental impact reports and statements for projects such as: the electrical transmission line routing studies fr9rn the proposed Kaiparowits Power Plant in Utah to its destination in Southern California; the Soviet Embassy Complex, Washington, D. C.; the Areawide Wastewater Facilities Plan for the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District; and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan for the City of Santa Monica. Mr. Ikeda has also participated in the land use and socioeconomic analysis for the pr~posed Vidal Nu~lear Power Plant in Southern California; the land use and socioeconomic -analysis for a proposed multi-modal transit system for the Orange County Transit District; and the development of a land suitability analysis system for electrical ~ransrnission line routing for San Diego Gas & Electric Company in the Border Field Power Plant Transmission Line Routing ~ Study. Other major work includes the Guajorne Regional Park Master Plan in San Diego County involving a computer assisted analysis of land con- straints and suitabilities to select parkland acquisitions, as well as utilization of gaming techniques to optimize relationships of varying recreation uses and needs. Other open space and recreation projects include: the Santa Ana River Greenbelt Plan/Orange County Link (recipient of the American Society of Landscape Architects' Award of Merit and the California·Chapter, American Institute of Planners Award of Merit); Puddingstone Reservoir State and County Recreation Area; Skinner Reservoir Development Plan and Environ- mental Analysis; the Ventura/Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Study; and the Natural Environment Element of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. Education B.S., Landscape Architecture, California State Polytechnic College, Pomona Professional Affiliations Registered La~dscape Architect, California ~- ~. ' E. CHARLES·PILCHER EDAW, Inc. Mr. Pilcher is an environmental planner with specialization in water quality management, coastal and estuarine ecology, and aquatic biology. His broad experience in both.private and pub- lic sectors has provided him with a valuable understanding of the means by which planning and environmental problems can·be resolved. As Project Manager at EDAW, Mr. Pilcher's responsibilities include project organization, coordinating and editing technical. work products, coordination and review of subcontractor's work, and public presentations. Mr. Pilcher has been involved.' in the environmental impact asses·s- ment field for over six years. During that time he-has directed the preparation of over 25 environmental reports. These have included a wide range o~ projects in such areas as transportation (Los Angeles South Bay Corridor Study EIS), wastewater (Islais Creek Outfall Consolidation EIR, San Francisco), regional trails (Contra Costa Canal Trail EIR) , high-rise office development (Sansorne and Caly Building EIR, San Francisco), commercial · waterfront development (North Point·Park/Marina EIR, San Francisco), '...,.; recreation (Irvine Equestrian Center Relocation EIR, Irvine), large scale reside~tial (Westgate Village, Woo~bridge, Peter's.Canyon EIR's, Orange Gounty), and research and monitoring {Bumford Cover Water Quality Study,·connecticut)~ With his background in water quality and aquatic biology, he has contributed to numerous other environmental studies. -During his tenure with U.S. Bureau of Outdoor 'Recreation, Mr. Pilcher reviewed federal agency land use plans, working papers,. and environmental statements as they relate to the Bureau's pro- grams and national recreation issues. Education Professional Affiliations M.S. Marine Ecology, University of. Connecticut 1972. Graduate Studies, Microbiology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1969-70 B.S. General Sciences, University of Nebraska, 1968. Association of Environmental Professionals .American Society for Microbiology American Society for Limnology and Oceanography Project Management Institute .... 6 .Y STEVEN G. I NELSON Associate · EDAW, lnc. Mr. Nelson is an environmentai planner specializing in ecology and natural resource management. His broad education and background have provided him with a unique insight .into the identification. and analysis of natural resources as planning parameters. As a Project Manager at EDAW, Mr. Nelson has been involved in several significant planning and environmental projects,. including·· the Balsa Chica Wetlands Alternatives Study and the Las Virgenes/ Triunfo/Malibu/Topanga Areawide Facilities Plan Draft Addendum EIS. . Mr. Nelson has been a professional planner and environmental con- sultant for over 5 years. During that time he has participated in· a wide variety of projects ranging from technical wildlife and vegetation studies to comprehensive planning investigations and impact analyses. Project study areas have varied from a few acres to over 4,000 square miles. Clients served have included the U.S. Bureau .of Land Management, U.S. Departmen~ of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Army Corps of Engi~eers, California Department of Fish and Game, California State Lands Commission, State of Nevada, various regional, county and city ~gencies, pub- lic utilities, and private developers. · Notable projects in which Mr. Nelson played a primary role prior to his coming to EDAW include: a study of significant ecological areas within Los A~geles County as part of the 1976 General Plan Update; an assessment of .impacts related to shoreline development at Lake Tahoe for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, California State Lands Commission· and U.S. Corps of Engineers; and, a vege- tation survey of over a quarter of a million acres of rangeland in the eastern Mojave Desert for the Bureau of Land Management as part of their desert-wide planning effort. Education Professional Affiliations Certificate, Environmental Planning, University .of California Extension, Irvine M.A., Biology, University of California,.Riverside B.S., Biology~ University of California, Riverside Associate of Environmental Professionals -. . "' CHARLES G. JENCKS EDAW, Inc. Mr. Jencks is an urban planner and·environmental specialist with experience in public planning and environmental review sectors. His familiarity with the California Environmental Quality Act, Subdivision Map Act and the State Resources Code has been a direct result of this contact. As a Project Manager at EDAW, Mr. Jencks is currently involved with the long-range planning and environmental documentation for the Cabrillo West Basin Recreation Complex Precise Plan and EIR .. Prior to corning to EDAW, Mr. Jencks was an Assistant Planner for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. His duties included all areas of current planning: . land division applications, zone changes and general plan amendments; variance; a variety of special permits; research and initial studies for environmental assess- ments; grading analysis, site design for multiple and single family residences; and general interpretation of· the general plan and· development code for the public. Extensive public contact through both office processes and field investigations were ac- complished along with presentations before local governing bodies. Education Master of Urban Planning, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Bachelor of Science, Urban· Environmental Management, California State Coilege, Dominguez Hills Associate of Arts, Industrial Engineering, El Camino Jr. College, Gardena, California TERRELL J. WATT . ' EDAW, Inc. Ms. Watt is. an u·rban and regional planner with several years of experience in coastal planning, growth management and phasing techniques and general plan preparation. At EDAW she has assisted in the data collection and analysis . efforts for the Kern County and incorporate~ cities housing ele- ments. Prior to her association with EDAW, Ms. Watt served as a consul- tant to the Institute for Marine.and Coastal Studies at the Uni- versity of Southern California where she was responsible for monitoring the coastal planning process and submittal ·of ~ecom mendations for plan content in keeping with the Institute's future development plans for Fisherman's Cove, Catalina Island. In addition, she was a cons~ltant to the Santa tatalina Island Company where she worked on a broad range of projects, including the preparation of a land use plan and local coastal plan for the City of Avalon. Education B.A. Urban Studies -Urban Pl~nning, Stanford University M.A. Urban and Regional Planning, University. of Southern California ---· -'i ~:It ~ "-v .. ' .. ... ' RESOLUTIONS· AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS JUNE llJ 1980 -7:30 P.M. ::: . > I ~, I >·[·· c.:..4 ·-. nl· 21 t:::lu ~ r·--- --1·1 rn. :"3: $·'[. . I J:> I· r-. ~·1 (/); -t. :::0. ......... al ::: ;:c;:. I l--' ::: : I ,_.I .. 1 ·I ( ( FUNO tlfl '1 1'•'.; -.. IT :;J!~·1 \l(lllKltHi Ci!t llf·L P!'.;lh·c_:;:.;1r·J(, Li1•ll ';/U"//t'll l'A[! !-: F: f i.11{ l NU t--1 :! CR A I' •1 .~ cc. tJI n ..-: ;. ·~ 1 T 11 1 1 M1 . , 1 ::, 1 k 1 c T ~ a i= Cl< n • c; r r out·• 1 Y ft.I· If.~ I fl Ill OS/O 7/riil \ilARl'AUl r.c. 'lffH:l!H AfHJUN l Ill ~·Cl< IP 1 l 0N OltY'•'Jt• /.OH MflllCAL f;ut.:PlltS :f.12~.;--~ ·FIRST AID SUPPLIES 0 lt ~' '·" f.. J. fl ll • ~J Jr.I~ lf, U ti 1 I S l Cl • t HJ C • 1-l t 0 ,._ l • lJ7 E LE CTR I CAL SUPP LI E S O't';"i'/ /.ll\11.l•j[tt) LUCll:G~Jl(.:. i•111.uo ELECTRICAL REPAIRS Oll'J':~;t:. --·· Al"-ll!GlJUCI~ t. CttO~lCAL!.t lr-1C... 121't,O~l1 .liG CONTRACT P2-23-2 Olt'-''·''1~; HllU1 COLLUIO~ 'L5,1?7.JIJ CllEHICALS OhOOUO A~fPICAN ~U~INt~~ ~UPPLY $11~.0~ OFFICE SUPPLIES . 0 ~. h cc l ···---· .. A.1+t-1L-1 C.ti.~·-C--'t Af\IA~ H1--t.Cf41: un u 7 ,3 O:J. ,. t -. CttEtil CALS Of.(1()(1~' TIH MH:ttUI< PJ.CKINf l'.0. 'J.~lu·1.oo ENGINE PARTS Ot.(l(l(l~ .J01UJ t-. ;.iquKov1n1 F. !:.V1'1~. rnr 1718,t.'··~e'/7 CONTRACT 11-13-2 .. --~ !.(.LU.4.---------A.S~c.i...:. u:.LL.{)f:..-LUr. ... ..:..NGt:.Ll~. ···-:1.h 04!H. ~~ . --ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES Otl>~O~ A~~OflATIUN Of KfT~DfOLll~H SEWAGE AGENCIES i7tO.O~ AHSA MEETINGS Ob~fiU~ Coy AT~lhS itu.~~5.21 CONTRACT J-13-2R 05lHllJ"/ -···· bt..JLLY.l!i-~lJkVLU:> --····---· ---· ---· ·· ··· -----UO't.H ··-· ··-·-· OflilCE -FURNITURE··· O~t~U~ eANfllNG ~AlJfRy rn. \27.7~ TRUCK BATTERIES O~H;L.(1•: t·a.Ct-.Mflfll IN~ltHJMfNl!. 1551."i~• CONTROLS . Of,C 01 (L ----·-----..IU.l..~-!.-.--Hi:LL --CO•--·---------···-------------------·--·-· -3.2~ l •. :;5 ------·VALVE -P.ARTS-.. 0~~011 eLUl SFAL LINEN SU~PL~ $30.00 TOWEL RENTAL 05uo1~ ~OYl.f fNCINl[RlNt coRr ii1,105.~0 SURVEY 3-20-~. 3-22-2, 3-22-3, PETERS OtH11>1::. .. ·-·-------· .f. •. u ... !-...lJLLAIW. CO·----·---·--·-·-------·-··-··---·· . .. .s.u2 .. ~1---------TOOLS Obli014 HHlfR OHiJNlfl\INt;, INC:. 1':>2,07t•.~.~ CONTRACT HANAGEMENT P2~23 AND P2-2lt O!JO(ll! CH-l1Lfo$~ fl.lit H Sl.IPtl:, Jue. 1~2:.·.'.l'-, LAB SUPPLIES ( ,,l . ·'1· ] . 1 .. : II I 1· II CYH. STUDY ]'· 05CJUl£ CAta.1~t:.LL llLATlt.G .. ~-Al.f... ______________ ···--·----· ... ·-... 11.u.ns • .!t.-.. ---··AIR. CONDITIONER INSTALLATION ·1 0 ~ 0 0 l ., J J h ri c A f( n l L () t. N <d M rn s i.) ~ ' .~!I.~ • 2 ,. c 0 N s TR • p 2 -2 4 • p 2 .. 2 4 0 & H HAN u AL ~ ENE R G y TA s K f 0 R CE I 0 5 U 0 1 11 C t. S HE C:C1 N H' 0 U. , 1 NC • tl .~ ~ • t. ~ VALVE S o~co1:: . --·· ·-· .lll(!:.lLU l~AUL .. CU. -······. -····---·----··-· --· . $;!.Ou.u•J VALVES -. . - u~)ld.l:~(; C11t:VilON u.s.A., lt•r. :i.5d87.G~ ENGINE OIL 051lllt'l i,,q/ .. ~J rttllCllllAS Jlfh INC:• 'tol.''.J!:. PARTS 05llO~:: -·-· li.L.. CtAtt.! Cu., llJt._. ________ ···-·····-· ·--·--·---.. ..iH..~0--··--·-··CONTROLS 050t~! COLf fARMER IN~JPU~[NT co. $~1.RO LAB SUPPLIES 0501'24f [nf;Mfl'U: STAUf1rJU:~; AN(j PRINTERS, INC. UO•J.:?7 OFFICE SUPPLIES O!HJ C ;:> ~ -·-·----.•.. tOn:l 1 Ni tH AL. CHltHC:AL --C~---··-··--·--. --······. :I.lb t 19:! .• !lE.. . --CHLORINE-----·-- .I J 0 f. h (l~·t· Co111HOLC£1 tl~t..f!b CONTROLS O~liC.~7 (O~·.r;. Mf~A AUTO t•Atns, HJC. t\2P..·13 TRUCK PARTS Of.lJu:H ·-· .. ~~!\ •.. i:J!;.t.Jl. . ------··------··· ··--··-.. ---· ···--· .. 1b2'.Jt.ll0 -· ·----·· -CRANE -RENTAL-- 0500:!': CHi•liUS r·. rno~L[Y co. i1.0·12.1)b PUHP PARTS o~oc~~ 0(L10 CON~TflUCllON co •• INC. ~2.230.2~ 11-1~ TRENCH REPAlRS 0 5C lJ 31 --... ··--· . liUtf!:Y !~ lOP..~O IL. -·· . --· -··---. ---. . . . . ---------·. -· __ J.l.11•3 £i ____ ---···----PAV I NG···MA TERI-AL S ------ ] . 05 b O .~~· [;urrn tf)W/d1 0S CCiltl'. 'l2n'i·?··· ·PAINT SUPPLIES " O~ld1!~ lt1~:1''1toN, INC. ittlu.~.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES ()t,G0.!4 LLLllll.T ~nu:. !: 11'!'.u:.ll 10N. :f.~~}. 1e ··-· ROOf REP-AIRS Qf,(.(i.~~-tN\:llltfrdtJG NOi$ t~ff.O"l' ·~~o.oo SUBSCRlPTION 0500:H fEf.tl 1·.l·L f'UPLlf.l.l IONf., H!C. H/5.ilil PUBLICATION 050031 ··---···-· ___ f..1::.ct.a:.f_!. l~IJUH.k .. ((1 •.... --------·-·---·--·-·-···. -· ..... _1L~t~t! ··-· ·--·-ELECTRICAL SUP.PLIES l 0 f, Ci h .h F I •.;II i i · C G ft!I t< U l ~ C 0 • t •tl1 • 11 ··; C 0 NT RO LS Cl ~ 0 fl .' ' f l ·~ 1. I 1c ~ C l f N l t f I f C. (I • 1· ~ ~ 0 • i lJ LAB SUPPL I E S O~CL 1.t~ l·L:..i::;..Y!:ll~.~ ---. .. t-2,:?~U.1!1 -----·. P.UMIL~ARTS J .. ,. ::: :I:> I ~:1 . I II I ~ [ 1: :r::a· G'>··· ~· t:::t' ~··1 -t I rr1 ·3' ~I ;::;:::. ' r-. ~I (/) --1. :;:.:a ......... @I [ I :::· 1 > I N ::: FUND NU UARRAl'H ~·''· O~Oll'l l 05CIO't::· li5G llld C~Ud1~. 05~0lt~ 05(Jlilft 05011 117 O~t.d•'tt 0 !:, (: lJ '• •• O~llC ... ·t; O!:H1G~. J 0 5 (, (, ~.; 05Lll~t.!i 0 ~. (; (1~. '1 ntluu~.~~ O~llO~t. 0 5 (; n~ I 05ll(I'"~1 1 0500~~ o ~.(.(I{, :i 0 ~( !· £.} 05ulH .. : 0 ~ (, Ot, -~ 05Ullc'. U5fJOl~ 050(1(.(: 050iH .. 'f P~·t•%r o~.11111>'• Otll07D 0~11~71 Ot (, (• "/: 0~f.(11 .~. 0 ~fl 91.'i 0 !'iiJ 0 7 ~. 0~110 7(, O~(q,U 05(1(171 05(1(j 7•, p ~fl l! ~ .. ~! 050llHl 0~ 0 II f.;• li51H1U 05Lllh 11 0 5 lJ ill! I (l ~ c; r. t :, ( 'il'f'· -,Jf Ld!>l IJIH·:I'-INlj Ct.I lll.t. l'ldH I ,·:.IN~. :,AH: ~·/t_!//Hll 1-:d.d ti. I l'Lt-: r M.11-Jlli\ 1\i .. '1 !. Vl"NhW Clllll'!IY ~ l\l'llfl/•111.r·I lol~:l1d~l.) uf Pl.M~U CltJtdY n;.1M~. ,,,,,, r15t.>ll~'.~ A~OUNT or~ r. 1; 1 PT 11n~ FUl<U10~.1 TtmfAl.ilCi Fl<Of~UCTS U'.!l.l.~d SHALL HARDWARE l:i IY Of fUUNlAHJ VAllf.Y t·J't(ail'1 WATER USEAGE ft.;11.tJlf rOMl'IUS~.01' t·tlOflUCT i:i70.7t COMPRESSOR PARTS ._ .. LLNLE..A L. Tl:LL £tHiNL. Cl!... . .. ·-··· . ... . . !. 110 • ~~ TELEeHONE GOl.lJLNu•~T H.RTILIZ[t~ Co. :f.l3.7Jlfe10 SLUDGE HAULING 6UULU 1 INC.-U~~~lh K biILtY tY5.0f PIPE SUPPLIES uOrL Ll!lE..K.t AS~OCIAH::. ·-·--:j'jj.~!. ew~o69=-1 PRINTING ~IAlh f.11fMICAL CL. 001 • .:i.•, CHEMICALS L•\t.HY liAll'~· illH.fJli TRUCK REPAIRS _ lLi.l.'.!H~iiTO~ lUUl!~l~IAL .l~L/l.!:l It'~.. t-.HHit~~ _ PtPLSUPPLIES. __ 1i1.-.1.Tt! ~CIOJff AS~:O<:Jl.Tf~ U,400.00 SAFETY SURVEYS A • l, • 11 L lf~ 7L C 0 • • I N f • H, A • 1 I LA 8 SUPP LI ES _ .t1U;c.ULL~ me.... .... ... . .. 1.H.l1.UU CHEMICALS l1fldlAN-~ h I ~lNf Y-1< 01 .. ~:irn '.f,'t c,u .u1 COMPRESSOR PARTS t•IHHH:LLL 1 lNC. t7~>.E CONTROLS ... llYU~!.:. .. C!t .. llAllbldl.S -··· ·····-·-···---.. .. . .. _ ... HJ~.~~~·-··-··---· DATIERIE5-... ttOWAiiO :>UP ... LY CO. t2,H60.E 0 PIPE SUPPLIES lttJl'Jl I NG TON SUPH Y tl ~·4 • !! ·1 SHALL HARDWARE . __ .1SL.i!L!.L~D.11P..AN'.L _ -·-··--------·· -·--___ . ··--·-. ______ . . ___ i !t Ofu_;i 7 ·--·---··· .. PA I NL SUPPLIES t< l UJ Ar~ i; I f'( & S lJ • • J l Y c. o • 1. b 3 • t_, l \.I ELD I NG SUPP LI E S Kfl.l.Y r1Pr co. 'f.6,057.t:.4 PIPE SUPPLIES ---~ !11G_EU .. .l!H.1£ ._me. _____ .. _--·----·----··· . ·-···-··---··· u ! 1ia,_;-:·: -----··--··DEARING .. SUP.eLIEL .. K ft\ 'jl FtJtW t M /Ir HJ N r "0 n I( s u ' 6 'I 2 • 1 :! p u Hp p ART s KLlfN-LINF fOkf· :S.~•q.20 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES . KNULJtyDUSTl!lAL SUl!.fLlL.S. .. ·--·· .. _ --· _ .H't0.04 ·-· SMALL HARDWARE t.n.u.!:.., 11\:C. u,o.n.1·; \JELDING SUPPLIES l.!\lll:~;tN lOLOI< ud: :1.ll.(~u FILH PROCESSING . ·-·LJUL!:!J .. U_Jlfftl'!~·t.-J.tlf.._ _____ . -··· ·--· --t'.?t12\hro. ___ -.tHfELLER. RHAIRS ,JOllf•: L HHIS[Y co •• me. $.h7C:..tl0 3-18 & 3-20-3 REPLACE SURVEY HONUHENTS L o !H' Y l ASS. 111.: 1 fl T [ !'· 1 I O lt • '.i 4 8 I G CAN Y 0 N RE P 0 RT _J1~;~~fll~~~ llffiK 1H CO~!.lA Ul~.L. ··-· __ .. .... S.lt~H~-~~ _______ .. OFFICE EQUIPMENT. r-1r1-iA~.lU<-C/llW ~.u11·LY Cfl. !.~)7\.;, I SHALL HARO\JARE 1-1: H r.-( u N ':. 1 I' lJ c 1 (l ·~ ~ 1· -~ 2 2 • j r." I • h (l c 0 NT RA c T 3 -2 2 -2 ..... t! ! E J t H r-! t,~H!H ~, .HJ£.!.-________ . . ---·. ..... . ... . ... -·-·~ i~ ! ~Hi . --· _ ......... MECHANICAL MANUAL ~OH~AN EGUIPMCNT co. ~909.~1 TRUCK PARTS f .L.'. MCJl<l TZ fOUNl•t<Y ~:~11c,.111 MANHOLE RING & COVER . _ ..... Nil l'lMH.~. ~PMf:l.!H: Ii· All Q.NLV1!!! .. Elf CT ROH IC s_ __________ .... ____ !· ""! ~~ ~ ~·~ ________ --· __ P.AG I.HG .. ENCODER.·-··-... _ NhTIONtL ACALJlHY OF SCJl~ll~ t?l.lU LAB PUBLICATION NiJH~· l1illA fOtU• i·~'J.11 ~· SUBSCRIPTION Pr'L~·~--~!tfilP~JU!QtL.f.O~t...!m;!. __ ... ···-.. ··-· . --· ... .U U!~f: ..... --~AS PILOT GRllfX ro~p s14.q1 WIPER BLADES c 0 urn '( s r. N 1 I ~ T I (I ti! ll I s rn IC l 0 F 0 RANG E c 0 u N TY H • l q 5 • u 1 RE p L E N I s H \I 0 R KER s • c 0 Hp • f u N 0 ... r ( 0 u I u M l\ f.11 I ~n s .. . .. -·--. -. ·-·. -. . . -. ··-. -. ~ 'J ~ 1 t ~ ,:'. --. .. --. 0 ff I c £ . HA c H I NE s h" i I f r l. H u f-1 I(, r~ t ~ n 'J • II'· TELE p u 0 NE ,.,.~[/It. I~ LUl.\JI< t UH:. u,i:.119.f n CONTRACT J-3-1 "~ l'1l•hf.1.~ ltHl·~P"'l q,i! .. ~·C.INH'~. ~27,~Ql!·;•Q ... CONTRACTP~-2~~1 ( (~ ' -1 · ] . I .. I• I .. ,, ·1 ·· •' --] ' l _] .. --1 .. .. J ::: :r::- 1 \..N :::, , i · 1 ' I ~1 G1 fT1 :2!1 t:::j,. ~I -1·1 rn 3: ::i:t: ·.~I :i::-.... ,-. ~·1 -I· ::.:0 ........ ~I (/) i ·1 I I ::: I ::;:::. I .. \..N ::: ( ( (_. FUNU NO " i • • -.i , 11 1 :· 1 l~ n 1~ 14: 1 N r, c 1. • r l n. i' I\ 0 r r " :, I N ( fl A I r '• I '..J I I 'HI I· t. "' f< [ t · C I~ I flHH1 ~' i_ I< A I 11 !. rrair-:n ~-rr~!ll\lllJr., 1 .. r~>rRJ\.'15 l.•f 0111,~1Gf. ctimnv I.IA kt< JifH I ['. v l f~fl(lj: o~;r. 1;,. -, f·1.· 1 I 1 !t Oi\l l Clll·f'. O~llfH !1 r O~ It·~/. ~-1 l'f., u~.Ot;t··, l'llLi! I~ ll<Jlbf tOfd; i.H•INI ~. Of.(•f.~;{ l;A1~ou: t:h IVihO:i:L. lCl. ... - 0500·~1 1·1rnt1uc1uoL, IN<:. 0 5 0 ll '1: l t 1 E 1H C. I ~.,; H. I' 0~00' .. :·. . ... ----k u~OL(-f4ACUH-lr-<:-fi. __ _ o 5 Cdi • • " 1c<H 1 T 11 II< AN ~; I' o fi l/l 1 1 nu ll~.(1f='•! :>llt.!1 IJOt.Ll;JI 1~us1rff~~ f-Ol'HS Qf,(.(~=p·'· ---------S4tU-A-AN-A .. nLn~l~----·----...... --- 0 ~) (J 0 'I 7 ~. :. N T ,. ,, NA L l r c H< I c M 0 l ore !:: ll~OO'-<!·. ~;t.f'.G[N 1-~lHCll ~-f Jrt~Tlf JC CU• 0~;(1(,''1C, -.. -~ctLr.n 1E1C t!tWl)Ull~----·----·-··-----·------- O~ltl(.I· LM:HY =-:~(M~N A~:SlJCHHSt lr\c. Oto Ii l (.1 ~,lli•Ml<OC:I\ Sllf'PL. ¥ C5GlC~ .... ----··-----~11._.iu .. 11:.1. \.!JlllAt.:::; .. --·---·· -··-----·--·· (ihlilL' f:·ANK ~MIT11 1 ~ TIWCKlf.Jf. f rcuir fif,(;lii'• 11.c. ~r·ilTlt Ll1N~ilrrnc11c:r~ ru. Of.Olli!.. . ....... ~l.lliT.IL.OHAN(.jl Sup.l:'LY---·-... -... ----------- 05(1) [.( ~-lilJTlllt~N C.\Llf. f[IJ~·or" ('(1. f• f, G l 1i -, O~ldLt OtOlfi• 0 ~.(1} l (I 0~£111 0~011:.' (j ~. u 11 :·. 05~llli 0~;011: Of:,f. l lt 050117 o 5c.111 O~d-11' (I~(.}:· l• 0 5 0 1 ~~ l (j~ {1 l :· :· 0!::.CJ1 :: ;,>. o~.fi 1 ;, lt 0~.(J1: '. 0501 :::t 051:.121 0 5 0 12 !• O!:ICI:::C.:. o~o L'.(, 051!1?.J U501.!:..: ~ ;, • r /-L • c; f'. s r o. ___ ~ J. -C..L. L if: ... 1.u. r.c1~ _cu •.. _ ~.fll.Jltllt~U CClll>JTlf~·. OIL ro. ~Ul'fH CIHM CORP ---lu~·--SUid?.Lllf'S -·--·----·-.. - SUhVfYO~~ ~rnvlC[ ro. J. y~yNl SYLVf~TI R J!:LLL !..C.llNTlf.lC, .. HIC. -----·--···----- Tt1t 1<110 ( Lf CTR IC: T tlllfH·~· ON l 1\C CHJ[ tc _ T11ftt f IL C CJ. . --·-- l1!f·Vfl ;il1ft~ ((•. rn l J.11 f·ii": CllAN I c .\L • ir~r. I!~ UJ1\IJ l.~L l l L f' J l~ TftlKI\ ~ AUTO SlJl'l-l 'f, I Nf • u.~:. /.UIO (jl/,!>~, ltJC. ---U • ~ •. (. L £ C I it l CAL -M 0 lO I< ~ tJ I ! I I f I 1 t' /, h t: f l : ... 1 I\ V I t L v L !' c, r i C.. t: r I t I c V !1 L l l. Y C l J l LS ~ U I' t · L ¥ t U • \-!I. Ill HJ~> TH t1M[ N l ~: U.t.UKfSllA fNGlNl' ~:U;VJCftJlf'f: l.IL!.:.1 lft.tLIJUOL l S..t.u.: .. LO IL_ ... ----- ~, i:O; i-t i(fl \llHt. ~ .t.ll(IYS ~lLLlRD MA~~ING orv1cr~ ). f. I\ 0 >: t ll I! I · • C:l.AIM':-' !·~IU 05/07/• ;'. AMOUNT ii l ::. ft.· IF 1 I 01\1 t11L.q4 TRUCK PARTS i1,~00.J 1 POSTAGE l~thJfi.~u VEHICLE ENGINE fOR LINE CLEANING RIG ,21.L~ INDUSTRIAL WASTE SAMPLING ICE ttHl.~h SHALL TOOLS 1111.~~ LEGAL ADVERTISING IHlh.aO PLATE CUTTING $~6i.~~ COYOTE CANYON STORH WATER VACUUM TRUCKING ll,jh"·~~ PRINTED FORMS 115H. l.!.. . --· ... -.TRUCK P.ARTS ----· .. S20q.14 ELECTRIC ~OTOR REPAIRS tltf~. ;•ti LAB SUPPLIES .-1ill:t.;~l -· --· ·-·LAB SUPPLIES i. 5 ~. 11 • :: fl PE TE RS CAN Y 0 N E I R i~U.17 SHALL TOOLS ... __________ ...... l.:)JC.U~• ------l?AINT SUP.l?LIES- 11~9.~~ PAVING MATERIALS 171.J?.,'J31.li0 CONTRACT P2-23-6 ... 1~!:1. o.!L ......... ---P-LU148 I NG .. SUP.l?l IE S t~~,901.!7 POWER :f.H~":1.i, '• NATURAL GAS -__ J. / .u~--... -· .. ---WATER ... USEAGf ....... i•,16?.~M DIESEL FUEL $477.UO CHEMICALS U'J~.'.'5 .. -------SAHTY SUPP-LI ES 13~L.~4 SURVEYING LEVEL f690.H7 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT U , :l 0 !i .. c ~J . •• -. LAB --SU~~ L I ES .... $161.31 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES :f.ljO.~~ PAINT SUPPLIES --1.27.12.. . .. -... -TOOLS t5YH.~u AIR FARE FOR VARIOUS MEETINGS \2,~7l.J~ CONTRACT PW-061 i~~~.u~ ... BATTERIES :t.10~.o't TRUCK PARTS \7~.J~ TRUCK REPAIRS -:J.~.d!. . -·-VALVE.eARTS .. i~~.~7 DELIVERY SERVICE 11H?.~~ LAO SUPPLIES t'J~L./S ----P.IPE SUP.PLIES i8~·1~ ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 1~0~.~~ ENGINE PARTS _ ·-...... ____ -· . il.H .~lL. ····---.. -ENGINE PARTS its~.07 WELDING ROOS ~41.h~ ELECTROSEAL REPAIRS 1~j7.q~ ----XEROX REPRODUCTIONS I 1. , . I ] I .I J . I ::: :t> I ~·1 I ·I . r :J:> . I G') I •,.,, I :::;:::: I. ~·1 --f : rn 3 ~·1 :r:> .' r-r-' ~r --i ' :::0 ........ n --i (/) :::: > I ..i::-::: . I ,., I FUNU NO · • 1 " q -,Jf !i I ~ l \J f, I\~ frld, C ·"I· l l Al. l'ld;\ I: .• · llh lJ/dl '/Ii //;\(1 ~·t.t I f-.U·ul' I l'~ut·•!•L 1( l•F'i !..· C111.r~n •'.•fdHl/,llOIJ l•1:~1hlCT". t)I· ()i!MJl·I C\'Ul.I) WAHR iHJl r.· (1 • OtOl 2. :·, 05012 11 Vl"NC1flH EVt.l~l TT ti. YORK Cu. :· 11· l t Mt•Oi: AH Y pl f\!.CNNrL CL f 111,~; .-·A 1t1 0~'./ll'//''(: 1. r·~ nur~T 'J.31"1 .. 7H ·i; 7!• (I. '~ l 0 Tl'\ L fl 11 IM ~ f-' A 1 f: oi !: I 'J 7 I ff 0 ·t. ? t 't f, l t .H I • :~ I SUMMARY /12 OPER FUND //3 OPER FUND ... -· -· ---------... ·--··- 03 ACO FUND #3 f /R FUND /J5 OPER FUND #5 ACO FUND #6 OPER FUND ========~~======~ $ AH OU NT ---.. -· ··---. t,106.79 ·539.31 13,599.94 322,61t7.94 -· ··a68~61 ·· tolt.94 10.79 r• I S tr .. 11~ l l 0 tJ ENGINE PARTS .. TEMPORARY HELP U7 "OPER. FUND ------------·----------·-------·-----·----.--· -· ·· 6-; 1a1: ro·-·--------····------···· #II OPER FUND /111 ACO FUND 15&6 oprn···FUND ··--------------··-------·-------····-···-·------- #6&7 OPER FUND JT. OPER FUND CORF . ... .... ----· ....... -... .. SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COHP. FUND JT. WORKING CAPITAL FUND 21It.16 780,46lt.OI . ··--13:26 19.38 113,867.02 1,194,639.35 2,795.67 23,669.04 TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 05/07/80 $2,461,Jlt].Jl -----·-~-----------..... __ ~ ~ ·--------.. ·-· . ( ( ----------· ---· ----- 'I I I I _J l J ( ::: t:C I ·~ ·1 ·I ·1 ):> :;I G'"> .. rn I· :z It §;! :': r···. --........ -I . rr1 3 ~ 00 ):> ·" I I I .. ~ ·1 :;o ....... n -I (/) I ·:1 ~I I 1--' ::: ( ( IU~J() IJO----1"-· ,. ··" 1.1. .. 1 ~ •.•• J.jf;I. '·~· 11 .. ~ ;::.\(t"-:.P•!i 1.·-L :-Ii·/•<! I O'\U! d~*I !JUI ·1:· ;\1:1· Ci·l·~·!l\ : i-i.'flllflU.1'•I:11 IC:l, 11t= oi· .. '!.~.'..1 Ct~1t•:TY ' l '· u-. ~~ ~ !\. ' ! ; : I ' I . II >• \\ lJAHR.til'll NP. ~ l NI if-;: Al.I II [i • ·11 t:1 l'.11. Ii t1 I I' IC :\ llf f Y 111, AM I I ( t. f1 t Id· I (j~0)~3 0~0154 06Dl~tJ 050) ~(. 11•1 :.:..:n••·~ •!,HI< I Nf. i.1.1. fo ~· . ,; L I d ; :·: cH L (. !-• ff~ I I · • O~OJ~,7 ,,a:: .. \;1 ·' Ul·a· U>. Cf.(il~f. .1.11,,· l I• &!~U 1:l~H . ., l;q;. O 5 0 1 5 Q ,J ,'l. f', L ~; i f•;? 1 f C• f. lJ 16 0 b I i i" l. Y ·. ;. ~ ~.(,l'. I~ H : . ' J Nf • 0 5 0 l b-l ·--·-----------Ll Ut.--1> 1 . ..:.. ~ ~i~ ... :.a.A .. l-L .I( I A I. :: {\ 5 f. }t, :: ( LI I. ~. I • l. l. ltii I,; ~; l 'I I I. Y (J f• 0 I 6 :'i I• ll l'I'. ~-. >• ~. :· (! L I A ll ::: .. -0.5. 0 lU---------f----~L'-l~! LU.\.!-.... . .......... ----· . 05016~ f.U'..Jlt.,fll 01-'TICU CC1. 0501H C.U IN:.rr-.tWftJTSt JM. 0~01 b J. ---··-·--. {.S.-C O~l::tdi! t--. --------·---- 0 5 (1 l l il ( A I. -f. l ;, .. ~-f (JI{ t\ L ~ • I :. " rt I ' I II (' • 0 5 ld f, 9 ( H: l-11; r., r L (.. L ~ ,, b F ,'I : I v t ~. -&~ta 7 C·-··· _________ .(_Li.; i US.-¥ ..: :..ll.l-( .J .. '-· .l.1~1;u1..! .. Jl.!. ¥ -C..1 EAN I NG -----... o~ll171 titfvHt·t! 11.s.A., rnr. o~c11:: h. lld·J rt1•lltiUA!; Jl t, , tur. 1.• •'tl1'!f .. , ...... _. ,, , irt-1 t •,,1•.o.llr. t.IODIFICATION OF PLANT 2 GATE ·; .. ~ , ~ • ll • 7 1. CHE K I CAL S .~·~.,~ PUKP PARTS i 1;.J.f.' ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES i·I' ~· •. c.• IMPELLER 1olt ~.~~ COMPRESSOR PARTS .H 7.'i:'. EMPLOYEE MILEAGE i.·:ii:0.(10 WORKERS' COHP. ADHINISTRATOR ... 1,1r."i.s1~. ··-~AVING MATERIALS '.;.'(1.'.Hi TOWEL RENTAL '!. ,.., ! • ~, • 1 : . PA I NT SUP Pl I ES .l. .. , J ;) • e; u .. . .. -.ENG l NE RE P. A I RS ~1t6.~I POCKET SCOPE £146.~0 CHEMICALS .t..~•!JlM.:51 -··· VALVE SUPP-LIES l~~.J/ LAB SUPPLIES 11~~.~4 SHALL HARDWARE ... H!.o. ·1~· -·-··· CARHL CLEAN I NG !t•,:·f.~.'·~· GASOLINE ·~H·;.;.7 TRUCK PARTS 0 5 u J.l.3. ... -----------.. 1.:.1LL--11. !1-fJ .• --Gl A hK l ---·--· ---. -· ..... --. . -··-..... · -·. -·-· .. J..t-;,~ • .:!·ll-·-· -----·AWl!CA-, CWPCA ANO WPCf CONFERENCES 05011 11 (J~017~1 05~17t. 050177 0')0170 056119--. 0 ~(i)l\0 (J5(J}l!J O~Olt~· - 050l{c3 0501U't 0501H5 f,!lulbf. (15(ill\7 C~lllt!! GSOlHS 050190 C~lll~l - 050 l '.12 O~Ci l '.i3 05Ll~~ 050195 050}9h . 05ns-1-. _. 0 5 t) 1., I~ l U I l l Cl l.tJ Mi: t I\ l 0 .. U.1 I. • (. () l·il·: ;: id' I. • r fl T J (Ir. ff· ~ ... r: II p R l NT E Rs c 0 R p • .c~r-!;.OL-luA ~U; [Uc l ::.1r~t..l r.: J ~-l·· . ----.... CUI\~ Cit. lld• Hr. IP" f'IHil·llC. Tl tor.·::· C u l, l I t-. L JoJ I fl l C 11 [ M I f J. L l: li C~Of-41 .. ltll.C:r.t I H--liACJ I Al ti;. ... -. ----- ((1!,JI. r-·~~ t, AUJO f'l.c.,J~, lf.l( .• CGlltllY '.<illlHTll~" t 1:·H lf:l OF LOS ANGELES ...... ..( our"-1-Y·-:,Jl:~Ll :::AL!. ... tl L.Cl i! 1 t. ·----· . C lJ Lt 1 G P l'J fi f I 0 f.J I i £ 11 .._. t lf r: ~: l fd1 LAf:l:Y fu:~ll lKUtK ~ L<~lll•M1.·r.1 -· CLL l t=ul.;~ J t. ... ::. i A TE .utd VU"!; ll y ... r1t.fdlt:· fl!,[ ~fkVlll T c, r. 111. ,,, , \ ll:.uu (:.Jl~:...lliUtlJOr~ L(; •• H~t .... H 1. 1 ·ti 1 :, ' '.'. 1 t M ~. • 1 r·:; • CU·~ ff Iii M/'11[ (. .. (i( 1\ I Jr. l·:t..!·lUf AC l U~ lr.:t..-CC a. t 1:.c,, 1 ;-.1r .. r t or-:1-Ar:' r.urm 1_r•1·'.-iJ~ tufd'. t.;yN;. h .. LI.; , .. ,dNl(l;. C lhLl;I J.~ li.Sll'1 l'll-Jt INC. 1112.IH LUKBER 1~Y.~U OFFICE SUPPLIES + l ~ .•. 4 L -. ---ELECT R I CAL . SU~ PL I ES i~~o.~~ BLUEPRINT REPRODUCTION ! 1 ~ , .1 :! 't • 2 11 C ti L 0 R I N E :t•1.s.E.:. ·----TRUCK REP.AIRS ~~12.~H TRUCK PARTS H{t'j .H SEWAGE 0 I SPOSAL -t 11...1 .• 4 C ...... ELEC.TR I CAL SUPH I ES \~1.1~ RESIN TANK EXCHANGE r~1~.~~ EQUIPMENT RENTAL .t. 1 ~h b U .. P. UBL I CAT I 0 NS .. '! I t ·~ l. '' • f, 1 TR UC K T I RE S ·a.:· i. '1 • I:~ CW PC A C 0 N FE REN C E .i.!. •. ;:,.1 •• ~.1; 3=20=} RU~AIRS .: 10,·,~.,:,.ci!, DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT L'7./4 EMPLOYEE MILEAGE ll~l.1Jt1.. .BICYCLE RACKS---- i-:. • I.··~--OFF I CE SUPPL I ES t.:·lh.~HI PAINT SUPPLIES .t.1•4~7.J~ USE-CHARGE OVERfAVHENT REFUND t~~.~~ OFFICE SUPPLIES \.?''J.(j~, ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES fUCHIC nt..flllflif.l"f tf(;. tu. L~CuA!ll."!'C:.i~ ..... u~c ··---·-.. ---·--.. -···----· -- r t·u_. 1 u i ' · ~ ~ u.1 E ~. -~.1 1 v 1 n r o • ·-·---.... ··-. -·--··--....... 13,0110.ou ·--.... OCEAN-MONITORING ~7~1.qG PIPE SUPPLIES ( I . I I · 1 I J ::: co I -~.I .:I :t> ::1 G") I ~"· t:=' I ):::. .. :=i ·:1 rT1 ' 3 ~·1 J:> r-.-.. ~I -I :;CJ ..._ El : I .I ~I I N ::: FUNL NO _._1_•;-: .JI Li:.. I !_:~:!'.H!L Ln:1;L l!:i,l:L:.::li~: ... ;..1: ',1:·.I! .. 11.l.: rJfi'(,,<J IHH 1·:.· f;l"t· 1··t1rJl'I !·r lfi•TIU! 1:1···1··1rr; or t11 .. r.r:1.i Clll'~TY t.: l ;, i V ~~ ; ';, l l 1 .~ j I:. I I!! !I &.iAfHt ANT tH • \'I f~ I 1 (.j· :. :. 'l 1 i J f '.: ~. t. II· I I • ·. t 050) '•~:. ot.0200 05C.201 Ot;t120;; U5iJ~O!i 0~·02C!t ot.(;20~ Ot.0?£16 0~1 0~07 O!. 0 20 I! 0~02(l'.i l!tU210 0~10211 O~C~l2 C!;C~l :!a 0~02l't Ot,U2 l •l Ot02H Ot•021"/ Cf.02111 Ob02-l~ 05 02~ (I 050221 0~1)22;! 05022~ 0~0~2't Cb~!?.25 05(J~2f CJt.022 ., lif1C22H Ot022'J Ot.02311 050231 Gb023~ 0502.}~ 0~02~~ o~.(123~ 05023f. P~(l2H 050230 05Ci2..\•1 fl? O?. ~ ~\ 0502'tl ObCi2't~ 0.5Q€'1 ~ 05C'2't't ( lN\11 i~Cl.:'d !·. Tt.l INI O. :: lL.,. r:::caNl•1un 11 r.r1~1r.if."fn fi). r ) ~c.;:u. :... I (!!-I LI~ L{!. t 1:.til h ll•f'dl'lil.~· t'.). J l\;t. f IH. :_ 1-10 :· l 1 t I H f A I If f1 I l' l• I· l! I i ~. __ f_hl!Jl t; IC.ti [ L:fa'. .. L._t.h J lJ[i...L LU. r 1 n \H r l• ll. 1 t< H. '" Cl[fJfl-' Al lt t.U 1101·. i (.0. .. ..LULLLN l'L:.. I HtU 1 LL: l !~ ((.'.I U• lJ I. I , I :·. C • -~' H H I 1 :-. l'f I I ' \' (•1\fi"rl 1 C11LVf 1 0Lt~l fO. .... UHILl Ill.HI{. AL Cil • __ --- tiA L :d U· \ llC'(()l~Nt HJC'. ti f\ ~ 1: (\ f\ f 1 ~ f l'tl o H r T llH-. , rn r. • __ ..... 11t.J!rn~:u ~1t.J rmu!: ll.Li.il.L .t~u~ -, H.~ cui;r 1~. 11:.rf!~ Iii.Id l\f\.!. l'OLJfl~ fGlJll'MINT ( { . ~~5.00 INDUSTRIAL WASTE PUBLICATION :i~.~1 TRUCK PARTS l~lg.01 ELECTRICAL SU~PLIES 11~~.~H CONTROLS 1'.'l,•:1• l. ti~. SHALL HARDWARE l~S~.7~ PUMP PARTS - ~40.l~ WATER USEAGE ~4,?0~.~3 TELEPHONE I l!u.\6~.JO .. -.. SLUDGE REMOVAL ·111u.H"· GAUGES i·1 .. 2~ TRUCK PARTS ~· •\1 ~. ~ u . .. . J:uuu CALS .. -.. f.),•·"\7.l't SUBHERSIBLE PUHP ~~3.3~ FIRE EXTINGUISHER . 1 .Hl ih '.H .. _ ... P I P. E SU e PL I E S i •y:,.1,~. CWPCA CONFERENCE tl,~7~.~n ELECTRIC HOTOR .. --· ___ J:d£J1li:L IJLJ.hL. ____ --·. _ t!Et:Ti· it!lllttlUJI td~!Ttl t-:l)flJ~YU:.l.lt l~C. ---. . . ·~ 1 J•). !) CL .. ---· cwecA CO.UHRENCE __ ·-~J.!!.U~L_.tlf.....Llilltll l l !J ___ . --·-------··----.. -~ . ··---. ~-·· _ llCHl!.l•fl ··e; l'l. Y fll. l' I I \ 0 I I 1 ll iH ltff T OJ I l' ,, C II _. _____ lt!!..u.!._dLi-~ .. !;.Ut:J:LL.CU ~--·- l !J L1 I fl ti s h~ I fol(, S f", f l:i • C u • , I N l' • li,Tf l\1\11:11uN1.L 1.1n :;uJ·l'LY _ 1 tLV Uil ;~ !:r'!Cl:i WA.I U ... .L l ~:Hi l C [ t-A Ill ~."I rn Ir-It" HJ:.11: 1 ·f·ll f\: 1. i.(1 Id ;_ ~.,-fl l' 1; i· I' A~-I VI' l (1. _ _ _ . JO: [ LN L!~ .!: J I:!.:. .:. .~UL. LU . ~-C.a KIMf ffi~IHL 1 l~C. l<N(il\ lf'il-U~THIAL Slll f LJU. _ .L • : .. • U • -~ • .t __ l fll C • __ .. _ l. f I ;: ~ .. \' ! I "t. ~.I tJ J /: L L /· .~ .. Lf.kl:y•~ 1 l i..u. fo~tTLi·l1'L~·t lf.f. . t ~.U!:~!-f.:. L!zl~~--Lt~--------·-···--·- 1 r f >: f· i I r (I N ~\ u L T J "'(, [ II! G I' • l [ t1 ~J f.. 11 i. • ~: C I fi J' l. T ~ ~-I: V I ( r. .t-J~). L. Llk!H _____ ----··-·--·-... t1,_.1q 11·.•. L·l! l1ti1 u1r·r·::, 11·;r. 1\.1'. L 11111:~.ri:o.i =~ t.~.~orlJdi ~; . t nr !: L .!d.' w.: r .. J. C!.U~ ~ u Dr, ... l-f!tr LOS t~~flf~ Tl~fS M ~ ... , d I• 1 If I £ {J c Ol!I r fl l 1. n lcl f .... r ~ ;!l ~ f _ c. L l! u rd r;r. r: .. ~.w J~ u ,.. r r " y 1 , · 1: ;i 11< I• l' l o 1 .. ( t~21.H5 EQUIPMENT RENTAL i11~.41 STRIP CHARTS -·· t Y. l •. :J8 ... -·--BA l T.E ll I ES-.. n,~.w?.~7 PIPE SUPPLIES il,~~i.bJ WATER USEAGE tlt.!J/.:H! .... _.P.lff SUP.HIES :~n3.14 ENGINE PARTS •~h·6<. PICTURE FRAME !-j.uU ---WATER USEAGE 1110.!7 LAB SUPPLIES L~~.~O SHALL TOOLS .12l~ •. ti2 VALVE. sueeLtES .. ~S,~'IU.~U BEARING SUPPLIES ll21.67 SHALL HARDWARE 1:%0.:rn ... __ WELDlNG .. SUP.Pll.ES L~o.oo LAB ANALYSIS 17~f.9~ SAND SUPPLIES :!j£:!J,Q'! ____ fllli fROCESSING. 11,•1211.1.~ PLANT 1 HYDRAULIC RELIABILITY ENGR. ~120.7~ CARPET INSTALLATION . ....... Lti'f,~lt1 ··--CONSTRUCT.ION.CLAIMS CONFERENCE ·1;,.-.~~.i.O ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 110,~l!·~~ PETERS CANYON ANNEXATION EIR ANO FLOW EQUAL. P2-25 J. ~~ f'· ·1 , f) u . _ . ANN f X A Tl 0 N 16 0 E P. 0 S IT l~~.~~ EHPLOVHENT ADVERTISING 1~~.5J BRAGG CRANE DEPOSITION ·~ ~= lj ~I t ~rn ··---@ PJ ~ r ft HH s yr pl I E s ~~l~.afi TRACTOR PARTS (' I I I 1· I J ] ;:; t:C I VJ . ;:; . I .. . I ~I' rn :z II t:==9 ••• ; "I rn 3 :i:t:: I 00 .·.1. );> .II r- I Cj ·1 ........... (/) ---i ::::0 ........... ~.I ;:; t:xj I VJ . ;:; :.1 · 1 ( ( fUN(j NO· .. !.f' '. -JI l·L·i !.-!lit·ldtJ•· Lt 11;.1. I i· I) f'I ·, :, J f., • · 0 :, I r '/I.,/.,:, ,: ;. r I r t.t t I~ I y . : :·! I I '· T I f I J I I : r. I r I ,I ;) r rq. /'f ! (:f lq '''JI( l ~iltr1il :. i\l•f1 I c,1l1N 1 Y (' !. I i h :: ,.J r.. I 1 1 1 • • : I 111 ~ ii "AR R t. NT IH• • \: t f'J (.(,I' .•.• u1.1 I ! :: c I' I ~J l l \I i·l 0502'15 DbO~~H 0 50:~11 7 .MCf.AW f·. l:r!;K Of ,:o~ I A f·li :.f. r:. f 11 •\ :~ l t ii -CA t< R ~~ U f I· t. l' ((: • M ll. () f l;ll JJ: IH. rn c flt ••• 0 5 Q 2 4 U J 1111 fl! :·~ l I c: r1 f 1. L r (• • 0 5 il 2 'i S t·• Ci Ff, f. :.; I '.i U IP ~i [ N l CI' • 0502~G-... -... ·-·· ... l:!..:;•~1,:;L.!\ ... c.o~i:ur,,:1-"-1..I1or-.~ ;,lo;,; ELECTRONICS 0502fi) N,\I co Cllf Mlft.L ro. 050252 rvl.T ({lNJ\l COf'!CfH H run If-I(. -Obll2l.l-------·-·l~Ai--l-uti.:t.L-LUt>!-~(-~-:;ltJ:!H.¥· 05G2~'i CI n· lll :'J! wf'Oli I H lifll 050~55 f-!UTI lr\i·ll/I;.~ f•ICH II ('(1. --·---~St.~W.------~~;..~'1f-·"-.\·L~l--t f;J-111 to.f ... ;~1 •• 0 5 0 2 5 7 ll!{ l 1 f x C CIH P G5J250 C•YGfN ~LRVJC[ C50:.t5~-· · ·----·--·--C<HINlY --Of---O~AN<~t.:. ___ .. ___ --- 050U.O f(,u~;rr :>11NJll.TION 1.ll';HtrTS Of ORANGE COUNTY 0 ~ li £' b 1 I· :ul l ~ lJ~ll. I t• I lE 11 o5 02c.~----·------~[~1:..~u~.;.-LAuro1utt£1; .. c.:::.1. r l 1---····-··-----· ··---. ---- o so2~ ! Ff~~W~ll COttP. 0 5 0 2C. q f' I r !\ I. I ri< r A f' [ p •. H G (' ll c: T !: 'f Fil.bl OFFICE FURNITURE lt~1~;.to SHALL TOOLS i. l ~.2. o '1 TRUEK ·PARTS lUli.llf RADIO REPAIRS 11~A.~~ TRUCK PARTS £G,~~~.b7 RADIO fAGERS i~,1~~.~~ CHEHICALS ~~~O.GO CONCRETE CUTTING 1.:;.;;.1. 7t. SHALL· HARD\.IARE ·1•,.'f", WATER USEAGE !i:·t,. ~~. EQU I PHENT RENTAL ~~J.~1 PIP~ SUPPLIES tl~6.~3 PIPE SUPPLIES t1Kt.?~ SPECIALTY GASES 'i.'•Jl.~>0 -·LAB ANALYSIS 11-13-2 L.~,11'1 ~i.30 REPLENISH WORKERS 1 COHP FUND ~1,0~1.~q TRUCK PARTS ~.~rn.~.o ---GROUNDSKEEPING-EQUIPHEtH .. isu~.nc PUMP PARTS ln~b.Hfi JANITORIAL SUPPLIES .... 050~o~·----·---··-· -~-O~J*A-~.f-tU----------· ----·-·--·--···---------·-·-·· ......... t I. :J.Ou-... a.O-------POSTAGE 050266 EA I NHn. Id :->t·Of..H re .• 05Cl267 TIP f;f:::l'_TU O~ia:?i.E~-• ----~tl-:Uf:L IC.. f.t.:~Ul(.!i..--·····---- 050U.9 I•.~ Y~WLI; l'·Ulr. fNllM SUl'r'l Y ((J. 050270 LAllkl l'H'l. ri0(1fl 050271 ----· ·-hUlLANf: TOOl. &--~lJ.:,l'l 't--.. ·-- 0 5 0 2 7 2 ~ • H • F • f· A f II I N f In f U C • t I fd • 0~10273 ~>.t.!H 1'·111.Lfii-' l:U~.llH:::.. ff,:·~'.<. 050~1lt . . ~Ar..:J I. A;.; t. -[ L LC-Tl~ H t.!~H.1i::, . o5o~l75 SlltH ~.lllhOlllft( 0 5 0 2 7 f, f C l r.tJT IF I C f~ R 0 IHI fl ~· 050217.--.. -· ~0.:AL ut.A<:K ... ·--·-. O~Ci;.>7U l.l.!·t<Y ~~· u::.hi M~~.(!( lf:Tl ~' rnr. 0502'/t; ~llf.LLl_I~ ~ Lf·111<, INf. 0 !i 0 2 d C. --~If.:.!:!:< C t::t. ~Ul: l!L ¥. --··-·-· (150281 SJl.lfA Gil. fJfSlfC.'\t!l r1wt.l!C'l~. 050262 SMlltl-i'?lfi:Y CO. 0~02!!:1.-. ~Citn11 1:.;<ArJliL su:·~L ~ ____ .. _ 0 5 0 t: 11 4 ::. (1 lJ fl I!:. h •·J c AL J f • l f I I ~ (;I\ I u • Ob02H~• 0!:.0:.!Uf... 05G2ti7 Ot,02BH 0~02b~ o~o::o:ifl ~ 'J • C A I. • (, ,\ ~-C 0 • ~O. L~\l.ll-•·--TL~ll~-1!~ LAH ~: G ll r II r I· N r (J lJ tJ T II ~-() IL (' '' • ~l'fil<Kl.t ll~; rFJNI\ 1r,., lUli.f' ~.J t.l~O:.!--~ l t; [L .... ___ . I tit ~ IJ I I I. I i jl ~ 1101.10 TRASH DISPOSAL i~~~.q2 LEGAL ADVERTISING ----.i.tt • .Jb----·PARTS-HANUAL .. i-~ :c,.•J';J STEEL STOCK t~.o.ao CWPCA CONFERENCE ~l~O.~~ SHALL TOOLS ~~~l.OU COMPRESSOR REPAIRS 1.~.t1~.14 PRINTED FORMS !l,~~~~07 -ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIRS taO.OIJ CONSTRUCTION CLAIHS CONFERENCE t~j.HG LAO SUPPLIES . .. P.-..i.f. ·· .. ·-PAVING HATERIALS U,i.1•.1.c;c; PETERS CANYON EIR J 11 "1 I • 0 0 ENG R • 5 -2 I -I ·-l.!t~:t. ~,:.. -STEEL-STOCK iJ~l.61 SILICA BAGS tl,l12.Bl TESTING 11-13-2 ANO 5-21-1 :!.1!j. 74 ·--PLUHD I NG SUPPLIES 17'i1H~b.6) POWER ~h.~~6.60 NATURAL GAS .t..\ . .H •. !O---TESTING P2•2J .. 6 1.1(,tf'ih.:::·6 DIESEL FUEL ·!. rn'.l .11 q BOT TL ED WATER 1. ,, :1 .'1. 4 IL ----STE EL s roe K il~'i.78 BUILDING HATERIALS ( I I I ::: t:C I ... . ~ i-· :I )::> :.1 · G)' ,.,, '" . ::.z .. t::1 ~:~,-- -I ' rr1 .. 3 .I 315 'I. >' r.-. I t::1 I 1·· t--4 . (/) . -I :;o ._ E .[ ;. :1 ,. :., 'l "· ~·I t:C I ..c:-::: f UNll .HO 'I .. .II l~l~ I '.;•.'!.S.t~.J ... L::1 ! ILL 1·1.(iCt.~'.ll;J •• L..:.IL •ll ·/1·:. : i.L! f• I HH< T i-JlJI > :f I, '" ., · r:l.r" ._,, ll/.lll!I! 1.1:.l\1•.:r\ t'I (o..:,IJC;f. <£HHH'I' CL:,1r: .. ·; t:~tl 1.'.1/::11•,u UAIU<Afl!l IH•. VI. l'J!i('I• J, :·,I. :1i·~ I :ii ··. i 1·· 11 I I 11 I~ 0~0291 O~O?'i:~ O!l02~J 050~5'1 0502'i!, 0~02~L ..... 0 5 (129 7 0502~Jll Ub025~ 0 5030(, 050301 .. 05(!.3.U~. Of.O~ 03 050~0't QtD:rn~ _ o~o sot, 050307 C!J£!0C Obll30•.1 05(1310 050311 ( ~.UHVI YOI~'· ~.fHVICt !'(). ,J. iJ A Y ~-I ::. ) l. V [ :;:; I I' I· l I. \'L U1. -wurJf.J f 1iy1.~;,, IL:. (i-UMl MT:, l 11 U I·! f· '. \ii l L /I l(i U I I•: ( I· • __ J i!LJt:h !.. tUJ.[L~UL'.l:L\", .. ti'lr • ll"'lflN lill CO. Ot [1:1.Jt. 1J•",JHi1 1·1.i..i:rt :rf\v1rr .. _U.HT.i.t ~HTL.£ __ £0U11 fldH co., t 1 ,11 1 v ,. I\ : 1 r \ :-=. AL r ~. ~. : . 1 · " v 1 l. L l' i Ii I. 1 · f ll t C 0 MM f f' I' r N • T • I • ~ •• --------~ L.: :i_.::.. C .1 LtLlf l.L -·---... ·---·· VALLi'Y t:J TH~ .'-.UfH y en. Jtil1N ''. t.!At'LlS . ---· ----_Ji!Jd [I!. t!Ul.LU.U.ON __ (Qf'J rnoL HDERATl ON H Hf1.t: I ULTUONlf ~ lll·H \' CH·fJ f' lJ ;.: <) l I. l u ( 1 l.IJ . ___ J l~U.l~ ! .:. . t.. 1.:t: OD.h U tJ:.._ .. ___ ·-. )(r.r~tlli co1a·. Gr Uli.l~f Y 1.tWL[Y ASSllC 1 f. H ~~ . -. -· lJi~_J U1~WtA~-'t..~LR'..:L1m.!LL. -------... _ J li.HL._l.LLH:~ j t..lL l1~ I: 1 Ill CJ · · ·· -SUHHARY - #2 OPER FUND ··--· -···--#2 -Aeo FUND 13 OPfR FUND //] F/R FUND # 5 0 PER f UN 0 --· --· --- /17 OPER FUND II I I Of>f R FUND # I I AC 0 FUND --· · -·---·· --- I 5& 6 OPER FUND #5&6 SUSPENSE FUND JT-. OPfR FUND -·------- CORF SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COHP FUND JT • WORK I NG EAP HAL-FUND - I9TAb ~~~H1~ .~M~-Q~n~t~o __ _ ,. l 'I ~ • 1 (l ; .• • .. , "1 • 't .:. :: l '.:! l • l! '..! ·~ l II:'. •. {; ·: ~ '· 't. Ii U :.11 •1 ~., ._ 1.:• r-,. 4 I 'L~~:1.~,7 il0.5.l:L !· •. lJ. ·:i 1 ti'>. Oh I U l 'J.• / 'J t4f .. 7.74 12lt •• 'l0 .Ult.:J.J2 1-14.17 ,!.H1.17 ..... L'.. • -J.'.:..l. !it! 1:~.:-.~3.::.'~~ ·11 !Ill • •; 6 . j, '..) !.J !t. t.!l TRIPOD PETH CASll REIMBURSEMENT TRUCK PARTS ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES PA I NT SUPPLIES .TRUCK PARTS GASOLINE DELIVERY SERVICE . _ COMPRESSOR PARTS TRUCK PARTS SUBSCRIPTION ·----LAQ .. S.UPP-L If S -· _ PIPE SUPPLIES ODOR CONSULTING PUBLICATIONS .. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE HI LEAGE l.~GAL __ SERY Hf; .... XEROX REPRODUCTION VALVES TEMP..ORARY HE LP !21....l.~•~:!.1 • .b~.--·--· ------. ===~====~=~~===== ( AMOUNT $ 2.•169.29 380 ~ oo---- 11. 21t7. 56 287.88 --·3 .019; 92 ---· 8.021.21 8.109.75 -· 2 • 2 I 7. 00 ---· 892. I l 1,063.86 1 It 7 • 8 3 2 • I It ---.. - 28.21t1.83 lt,795.]0 It 2. 910.98---- u 6 ' • lt 9 ~ • (l 9 ---· I · 1 I c··· II C" RESOLUTION NO. 80-94 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS .. A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS TO DETERMINE RELATIVE COMPACTION OF BACKFILL * * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain agreement dated , by and ~~~~~~~~- between County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 and the County of Orange, for the period July 1, 1980 through June 30, 1985, for conducting in- place density tests to determine the relative compaction of backfill connected with the installation of sewers within public rights of way by said Districts, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That the General Manager be authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. AGENDA ITEM #9(n) -ALL DISTRICTS "C" COUNTY SANITATION OISTR[CTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. O. 30X 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALL!Y, CALIFORNIA 92708 CH.6.NGE ORDER GRANT NO. NA ------------------------C.O. NO. ___ l __________________ ~k_.._...L CONT~ACTOR: P. R. BtmlCE CORPORA'r:ION DA TE Mav 27, 1980 ------------------------------ JOB: MOdifications to Odor Scrubbin.q Towu at Reclamation Plant No. l, Job No. PW-055-2 Amount of this Change Order (ADO) (OEDUCi) s o.oo In ac:cordanc:e 111ith contract provisions, the following changes in the con.tract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. Extension of Contract Time The Contractor is hereby qranted an extension of contract time due to delays in procurinq the Liquid Distributor as specified 128 calendar Days SUMMARY OF CONTRACT TIME Oriqinal Contract Date Oriqinal Contract Time Oriqinal Completion Date Time Extension This Chanqe Order Total Time Extension Revised Contract Time Revised Completion Date Soard authorization date: June ll, l980 P. R. BURKE CORPOBA.TION Sy ________________ ....._ ______________ __ Contractor TO'l'AL TIME EXTENSION 128 calendar Days Or-i g i na 1 September 27, 1979 120 calendar Days January 24, 1980 l28 Calendar Days 128 calendar Days 248 calendar Days May 31, 1980 Con tract ? r i c:e s 16,939.00 Prev. Au th. Change~ s o.oo This Change (ADO) (DEDUCT) s o.oo Amended Contract ?rice $ 16,939.00 Approved: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF Orange County, Caiifornia Sy --------------------------------Chief Engineer "D" AGENDA ITEM #9(G) -ALL DISTRICTS "D" "E" RESOLUTION NO. 80-95 ACCEPTING JOB NO. PW-055-2 AS COMPLETE . A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Af!D 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING RESTROOM FACILITIES FOR PERSONNEL OFFICE AND OPERATORS' CHANGE ROOM AND SHOWER FACILITIES, JOB NO. PW-055-2, AS COMPLETE AND APPROVING FINAL CLOSEOUT AGREEMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the contractor, P. R. Burke Corporation, has completed the construction in accordance with the terms of the contract for Modifications to Odor Scrubbing Tower at Reclamation Plant No. I, Job No. PW-055-2, on May 31, 1980; and, Section 2. That by letter the Districts' Chief Engineer has recommended acceptance of said work as having been completed in accordance with the terms of the contract, which said recommendation is hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 3. That Modification to Odor Scrubbing Tower at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-055-2, is hereby accepted as complete in accordance with the terms of the contract therefor, dated September 27, 1979; and, Section 4. That the Districts' Chief Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor; and, Section 5. That the Final Closeout Agreement with P. R. Burke Corporation setting forth the terms and conditions for acceptance of Modification to Odor Scrubbing Tower at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-055-2, is hereby approved and accepted, in form approved by the General Counsel; and, Section 6. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1, acting for itself and on behalf of Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the Districts. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. AGENDA ITEM #9(H) -ALL DISTRICTS "E" COUNTY SANITATION ~ISTR~CTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. 0. SOX 3127 -10844 ELL£S AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1 CALIFORNIA 92708 CH.11.NGE OR DE~ GRAN i NO. NA ---------------------------c. 0. NO. 3 t L -----------------------~.-,. CONT~ACTOR: PASCAL & LUDWIG, INC. DATE May 22, 1980 Installation of Gas Enqines with Gear Drives at JOB: ________ __.R~o~th~r~o~c.~k_.o_u~t_f_a~1_1 ___ a_o_o_s_t_e_r~s-t_a_t_i_·o_n ___ , ___ J_o_b_....N_o_. __ J_-_3_-_1 ________________ _ Amount of chis Change Order (ADO) {!~ $ 8,075.74 In ac:cordanc:a '"ith contract provisions, the fol lowing changes in the con.tract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. REFERENCE: Contractor's letter dated January 22, 1980 and Districts' letter of February ll, 1980 ADO: Exsitinq roof b.atch openinqs on buildinq were not designed for an enqine larqer than existed in the buildinq previous to. th.is contract. In order to lower the enqines into the building the Contractor extended openinqs in the roof. This chanqe order is necessary to repair enlarqe- men t of the openinqs and other work associated with said enlarqement. TOTAL ADD: No time extension this chanqe order. Original Contract Price Prev. Auth. Change~ $8,075.74 $8,075.74 $247,225.00 S 18,734.Sl This Change (ADO) (.:c.D:IJCm4 S 8 , 0 7 S. 7 4 Amended Contract ?~ice $274,035.25 Soard authorization date: June ll, 1980 PASCAL & LUDWJ:G, INC. Approved: COUNTY SANITATlON DIST~ICTS OF Orange County, California By------------------------------- By ______________________________ _ Contractor Chief ::ng i neer "F" AGENDA ITEM #9(1) -ALL DISTRICTS "F" ~utnox · s5s9 vE~Mol'.1T AVENUE. ?cl..RAMCt..:NT. CAUFORNIA. 90723 '.213i 63C--L732 Job No. 8054 5/237/l "G" 14 May 1980 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 E1lis Avenue Fountain Val.ley, Cali£ornia 92708 Attention: Ms. Rita Brown Assistant to the Secretary of the Boards Reference: Job No. Pl-3-2 Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. l Dear Ms. BrO\tl?l: We recently discovered an error which we made when listing subcontractors for the above-referenced project. During the period when we were compiling our bid, we had written down OWens-corning Fiberglass for the insulation portions. Shortly before we closed our bid, we had received and used a lower bid from Consolidated Western Insulation1 however, we forgot to tell our bid carrier to change the listing. When we related our error to Owens-Corning, they graciously agreed to withdraw their bid. Enclosed please find the original of a letter dated 13 May l9SO from OWens-Corning, con£i.rming this situation. Accordingly, we respectfully request permission to award a subcontract to our intended subcontractor, Consolidated Western Insulation. If there are any further questions reiative to this matter, piease contact the undersigned. Very t%Uly yow:s, equinox-maliDu " .... -:~: :i ·, ·, :; I ,,.:___J_ .:... t:"·-~ .... ~~· .-.. ' Howard R. Smith President HRS:lk Enc .. .~GENDA ITEM #9(.1) -Al' nr~TRTrT~ II f: II RESOLUTION NO. 80-101 APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AMENDED AGREEMENT RE SLUDGE HAULING AND DISPOSAL WITH GOLDEN WEST FERTILIZER COMPANY A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. I, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AMENDED AGREEMENT RE SLUDGE HAULING AND DISPOSAL, SPECIFICATION NO. S-017, WITH GOLDEN WEST FERTILIZER COMPANY * * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, on May 10, 1978, County Sanitation District No. 1, acting for itself and on behalf of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11, entered into an amended agreement with Golden West Fertilizer Company for sludge hauling and disposal; and, WHEREAS, said agreement, as amended, expires on June 30, 1980; and, WHEREAS, the Districts are procuring their own equipment for sludge hauling and disposal at the Coyote Canyon landfill site; and, WHEREAS, delivery of said equipment may be delayed until after June 30, 1980; and, WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to continue the contractual arrangement for sludge hauling with Golden West Fertilizer Company until said equipment is delivered and placed into service. NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That Amendment No. 3 dated June 11, 1980, to that certain amended agreement dated May 10, 1978, by and between County Sanitation District No. 1, acting for itself and on behalf of County Sanitation· Districts Nos. 2. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, and Golden West Fertilizer Company, approving an extension of said agree- ment from June 30, 1980, to September 30, 1980, is hereby approved and adopted; and, "H-1" AGENDA ITEM ff.9(M) -ALL DISTRICTS "H-1" Section 3. 1bat the Chairman and Secretary of County Sanitation District . No. 1, acting for itself and on behalf of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized and directed to execute said amendment in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. "H-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(M) -ALL DISTRICTS "H-2" II I II RESOLUTION NO. 80-103-~ DECLARING INTENT TO ADOPT REVISED ANNEXATION FEES A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENT TO ADOPT REVISED ANNEXATION FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1980, IN AN AMOUNT AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHEREAS, the District has adopted Resolution No. 75-42-2, establishing the annexation policy of the District, including payment of fees; and, WHEREAS, Resolution No. 76-100-2 amended the District's annexation policy by providing that on July 1 of each year the fee for the forthcoming year would be established; and, WHEREAS, Resolution No. 79-77-2 suspended the annual review and adjust- ment of the annexation fees, and said fees remain in effect until modified by the Board of Directors; and, WHEREAS, the District Staff is presently evaluating all factors necessary for consideration prior to establishing the fee so as to present a report and recom- mendation to the Board of Directors at its regular meeting in July, 1980. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Board of Directors hereby declares its intent to establish revised annexation fees as provided by Resolution No. 75-42-2, as amended. Section 2: The revised annexation fees as approved and established by the Board of Directors shall be effective on July 1, 1980. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. AGENDA ITEM #9(N) -DISTRICT 2 II I II EXHIBIT "A" PETITION FOR CITY INCORPORATION, CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION, OR MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION AS PROVIDED BY THE MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, ORANGE COUNTY: (I) (We}, the undersigned landowner(s), do request that proceedings be taken pursuant to the provisions of Division 2 of Title 4 of the Government Code of the State of California for the purpose of proposing: (check one) --A City Incorporation x A Change of Organization (annexation, detachment) --A Municipal Reorganization (involving two or more cities) The short title of the incorporation, change of organization or municipal reorganization proposa 1 is : ----------------------------------------------------------------- A legal description and map of the boundaries of the affected territory are attached. The affected territory is UNINHABITED ~(u_n_i~n~ha~b~i~t~ed~)p;.=:;;-..-(i-n~h~ab~i~t-ed_) __ _ The reasan(s) far the proposed incorporation, change of organization or municipal reorgani- zation (is) (are): TO PROVIDE SEWEAGE AND WASTE DISPOSAL FOR HOUSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION OF TRACT 9713 CITY OF ORANGE Notices and communications regarding this proposal should be sent to the following: (maximum of (3) persons) DAVID J. SABAG 17221 E. 1 tTH AT. , SUITE"M" SANTA ANA, CALIF. 92701 ( 714 ) 972-1809 ( ) _____ _ ( ) ______ _ (over) "J-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(0) -DISTRICT 2 "J-1" iIGNATURE OF LANDOWNER(S) DATE ADDRESS OF LANDOWNER(S) ~~~ 4-12-80 17221 E. 17TH ST., SUITE "M" DAVID J. SAai~ ~ SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 name (type or print) name (type or print) ... name {type or print) ( ----------- name {type or print) ( ----------- name {type or print) name (type or print) name (type or print) . : . .:~:=c:i additional sheets if necessary) "J-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(0) -_DISTRICT 2 "J-2" "K" RESOLUTION NO. 80-104-3 DECLARING INTENT TO ADOPT REVISED ANNEXATION FEES A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENT TO ADOPT RE VISED ANNEXATION FEES EFFECTIVE JULY I, 1980, IN AN AMOUNT AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHEREAS, the District has adopted Resolution No. 75-43-3, establishing the annexation policy of the District, including payment of fees; and, WHEREAS, Resolution No. 76-101-3 amended the District's annexation policy by providing that on July 1 of each year the fee for the forthcoming year would be established; and, WHEREAS, Resolution No. 79-78-3 suspended the annual review and adjust- ment of the annexation fees, and said fees remain in effect until modified by the Board of Directors; and, ~HEREAS, the District Staff is presently evaluating all factors necessary for consideration prior to establishing the fee so as to present a report and recom- mendation to the Board of Directors at its regular meeting in July, 1980. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Board of Directors hereby declares its intent to establish revised annexation fees as provided by Resolution No. 75-43-3, as amended. Section 2: The revised annexation fees as approved and established by the Board of Directors shall be effective on July 1, 1980. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June .11, 1980. AGENDA ITEM #9(p) -DISTRICT 3 "K" "L" RESOLUTION NO. 80-105-5 DECLARING INTENT TO ADOPT REVISED ANNEXATION FEES A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENT TO ADOPT REVISED ANNEXATION FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1980, IN AN AMOUNT AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHEREAS, the District has adopted Resolution No. 75-15-5, establishing the annexation policy of the District, including payment of fees; and, WHEREAS, Resolution No. 76-102-5 amended the District's annexation policy by providing that on July 1 of each year the fee for the forthcoming year would be established; and, WHEREAS, Resolution No. 79-79-5 suspended the annual review and adjust- ment of the annexation fees, and said fees remain in effect until modified by the Board of Directors; and, WHEREAS, the District Staff is presently evaluating all factors necessary for consideration prior to establishing the fee so as to present a report and recom- mendation to the Board of Directors at its regular meeting in July, 1980. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Board of Directors hereby declares its intent to establish revised annexation fees as provided by Resolution No. 75-15-5, as amended. Section 2: The revised annexation fees as approved and established by the Board of Directors shall be effective on July 1, 1980. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. AGENDA ITEM #9(Q) -DISTRICT 5 "L" "M" RESOLUTION NO. 80-111-:7 DECLARING INTENT TO ADOPT REVISED ANNEXATION FEES A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENT TO ADOPT REVISED ANNEXATION FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1980, IN AN AMOUNT AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHEREAS, the District has adopted Resolution No. 75-44-7, establishing the annexation policy of the District, including payment of fees; and, WHEREAS, Resolution No. 76-103-7 amended the District's annexation policy by providing that on July 1 of each year the fee for the forthcoming year would be established; and, WHEREAS, Resolution No. 79-80-7 suspended the annual review and adjust- ment of the annexation fees, and said fees remain in effect until modified by the Board of Directors; and, WHEREAS,-the District Staff is presently evaluating all factors necessary for consideration prior to establishing the fee so as to present a report and recom- mendation to the Board of Directors at its regular meeting in July, 1980. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Board of Directors hereby declares its intent to establish revised· annexation fees as provided by Resolution No. 7 5-44-7, as amended. Section 2: The revised annexation fees as approved and established by the Board of Directors shall be effective on July 1, 1980. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. AGENDA ITEM #9(R) -DISTRICT 7 "M" PETITION FOR ANNEXATION ,,~ Date: ,) --? C -{>-l, TO: Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. P. o. Box 8127 Fo~tain Valley, CA 92708 I (We), the undersigned landowner(s), do hereby request that proceedings be taken to ~,ex I· /7..) acres of territory to the District (Gross -to nearest hundredth) located in the vicinity of _____ l/t._~-~~-!_/_:1_·~c.~~-r_1_~,;...._--l_=_~_~z~-~-->---------------------------- (Indicate a~jacent street intersection or area in the city of .5~/1Y7"t1 AAlt? , more description) (Indicate city or unincorporated territory) particularly described and shown on the LEGAL DESCRIPTION and MAP enclosed herewith which has been prepared in accordance with the District's annexation procedures. The street address of this property is: /;' ;"C.'2. f I,':' SI 2 7·),;/;t/t/ B? !;iJ). The reason for the proposed annexation is: -------r: -i(/ /:::-/; Said property is :T-AI /u1 /1 i177-I Number of Registered voters, if ~-;1) (inhabited or uninhabited) any: ef7 The Assessed Value of the property is: V. DISTRICT 7 ONLY: If the local sewering agency for proposed development is the 7th or 70th Sewer Maintenance District, said property must also be annexed to the appropriate Sewer Maintenance District. Accordinqly, enclosed herewith ,,.-/ _/./, are the leqal description and map for said annexation to the (7th or 70th) Sewer Maintenance District. Also enclosed are the JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL QUESTIONMAIRE required by the Local Aqency F.ormation Commission (and an Environmental Impact Report, if appropriate), and a check in the amount of $500 representing payment of the DISTRICT PROCESSING FEE. · Notices and conununications relative to this proposal for annexation should be sent to the following: . Tele: SIGNATURE OF LANDOWNER(S) X /-j.:: //X r::· /"<CZ. F· ~- -:., • _J ·7 /'"' / // . /~A Iv·'--r . r-, ~·/11r- Na.me ~typed or printed) Tele: ------------------------- DATE SIGNED ADDRESS OF ~..NDOWNER(S) ,·-} ·-., ., ) -r--.i I • • ·· · :' r) ()p I.;, s ( / I --/(', ~ I ~ I I { ,.,,, i/ I/ "N-1" AGENDA ITEM #9Cs) -DISTRICT 7 "N-1" SIGNATURE OF LANDOWNER{S) Name (typed or printed) x ----------------------- Name (typed or printed) x ----------------------- Name {typed or printed) DATE SIGNED Nt· ·" ~ ::·· , ~ ~.r. I -1 \I , . . I I tk.-; . ADDRESS OF LANDOWNER{S) I ·J __ C) f .'2 ~ n ( oc.: '~ "N-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(s) -DISTRICT 7 "N-2" RESOLUTION NO. 80-112-7 AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS -ANNEXATION NO. 97 -GIMENO ANNEXATION A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE INITIATION OF PRO- CEEDINGS TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT (ANNEXATI_ON NO. 97 -GIMENO ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: That an application for annexation of territory to itself be made to the Local Agency Formation Commission as follows: Section 1. That this proposal is made pursuant to Division 1 (District , Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California; and, Section 2. That this application is for the purpose of annexing approximately ~ 1.464acres in the vicinity of Daniger Road and Crawford Canyon in the unincorporated territory of the County of Orange, to provide sanitary sewer service to said ter- ritory, which said service is not now provided by any public agency, as requested by Mr. and Mrs. Harold Gimeno and Mr. and Mrs. Felix O'Kane, owners of said property; and, Section 3. That the territory to be annexed is uninhabited; and, Section 4. That the designation assigned to the territory proposed to be annexed is "ANNEXATION NO. 97 -GIMENO ANNEXATION TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7", the boundaries of which are more particularly described and delineated on Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by reference made a part of this resolution; and, Section S. That provisions for all fees required to be paid as a condition of the annexation must be satisfied prior to completion of annexation proceedings; and, Section 6. That prior to the completion of annexation proceedings an agreement be negotiated between affected agencies to provide for an exchange of property tax revenues to County Sanitation District No. 7 for said service; and, "0-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(s) -DISTRICT 7 "0-1" Section 7. That request is hereby made that such proceedings as required by ~ law be taken to complete this annexation. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. "0-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(s) -DISTRICT 7 "0-2" PETITION FOR CITY INCORPORATION, CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION, OR MUNI CI PAL REORGANIZATION JlS PROVIDED BY THE MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION, ORAN.GE COUNTY: .'1 • ~~ (We), the undersigned landowner(s), do request that proceedings be taken pursuant to the provisions of Division 2 of Title 4 of the Government Code of the State of California for the purpose of proposing: (check one) __ A City Incorporation X A Change of Organization (annexation, detachment}. --A Municipal Reorganization (involving two or more cities) The short title of the incorporation, change of organization-or municipal reorganization proposal is: Shapiro Annexation .A legal description and map of the boundar~es of the affected territory are attached. The affected-territory ; s uninhabited .,..(-un-i=-n~h-a~b,~. t-e-d:....)--oi(~i-n~ha~b-i-t-ed .... )--- v The reason(s) for the proposed l0¢ll~~~;o)(X change of organization ~MM'M~~X~~~X ~l!Q{ {is) {~: To provide sewer service for the proposed single family residences. The County Sanitation District No. 7 system is the only sewer system available to serve the territory. Notices and communications regarding this proposal should be sent to the following:. {maximum of (3) persons) Boyle Engineering Corporation Atten: Mr. Philip E. Stone P. 0. Box 3030 Newport Beech, CA 92663 ( . 714 ) 752.-0505 "P-1" Mr. Wintford L. T odlock 135 .South Myrtle Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 ( ) ________ _ AGENDA ITEM #9(r) -DISTRICT 7 Dr. Marvin R. Shapiro 17541 Irvine Boulevard Tustin, CA 92680 ( 714 } 838-1351 (over) "P-1" '· srr \TURE OF LANOOWNER(S) ~ . • ,,-. j v I , -. . X •'; I . . . I I . f . ,/. . .... :/_/~ "....~ /(J , .. _. -.....i-f't-CI_ r.: (';_ . ---? /,,I., /.i. ..I I;.-.. ;-;/ .. ,· i(:. name (type or print) x'-;e/~~ .~::.v: L . 7A P L-o c r- name (type or print) x __________________ __ x x name (type or print) ---------- name (type or print} ---------- n~~e {type or print) ~ {Attach additional sheets if necessary) 1/78; KWS DATE , . . ·£, I ·-· .. : I .. ,. ,; , -ADDRESS OF LANDOWNER(S) 2 7.1} l. ~ a2i /ft,,, 13~ Se:> /V/y;e,1L.c 4 //c.. /U.S/r/~, C..A 92C.~O "P-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(r) -DISTRICT 7 "P-2" "Q" RESOLUTION NO. so-113.:11 DECLARING INTENT TO ADOPT REVISED ANNEXATION FEES A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENT TO ADOPT REVISED ANNEXATION FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1980, IN AN AMOUNT AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS . WHEREAS, the District has adopted Resolution No. 75-49-11, establishing the annexation policy of the District, including payment of fees; and, WHEREAS, Resolution No. 76-104-11 amended the District's annexation policy by providing that on July 1 of each year the fee for the forthcoming year would be established; and, WHEREAS, Resolution No. 79-81-11 suspended the annual review and adjust- ment of the annexation fees, and said fees remain in effect until modified by the Board of Directors; and, WHEREAS, the District Staff is presently evaluating all factors necessary for consideration prior to establishing the fee so as to present a report and recom- mendation to the Board of Directors at its regular meeting in July, 1980. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Board of Directors hereby declares its intent to establish revised annexation fees as provided by Resolution No. 75-49-11, as amended. Section 2: The revised annexation fees as approved and established by the Board of Directors shall be effective on July 1, 1980. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. AGENDA ITEM #9(u) -DISTRICT 11 "Q" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. O. BOX 8127 -la84~ ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTALN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Paqe l of 2 CH.4.NGE ORDER GR.ANT NO·. C-06-1073-510 '--' JOHN A. ARTUKOVICH sONs, mc. & JOBN c · o · NO · __ s __________ _ CONTRACTOR: A. A.EmJXCVICR, JR .. I A JOINT tlENTtJRE DATE May 23, 1980 ------------------------------COAST Tll.CNX SEWER, REACH l & 2, PORTION OF NEWLAND STREET INTERCEPTOR JOB: SEWER AND LAKE AVENUE RELIEF .SEWER, CONTRACT NO. ll-13-2 $ 29 ,333 .oo Amount of this Change Orde~ (ADO) QO&DOCaX) ----------------In acccrdance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contr~ct and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefo~, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. l. Construct 60-inch diameter manhole at Lake Street and alley between Paci.fie Coast Hiqhway and Walnut Avenue; install polyvinyl chloride liner; construct temporary by-pass sewer; all for lump sum of 2. Install ·so-feet of solid shorinq, both sides, at Lake Street and alley south of Walnut for construction of new manholes on Huntinqton Beach 'l'rtlnk and Coast Trunk sewers at unit cost of $301.00 per lineal foot. $301/ft. x SO-feet = 3. Pour reinforced concrete closure collar on 54-inch RCP sewer at station 123 + 26, easterly of Beach "--' Boulevard. Collar was required to join two headinqs of RCP pipe. 4. Additional cost inc:u:red for requestinq portable qenerator vs wall mounted and 350 additional feet of cable, both chanqes requested for operational flexibility of electro- maqnetic flow meter at Plant No. 2 Headworks, for lump S1.llll of $1,058.00. TOTAL ADD .Extension of Contract Time The Contractor is· hereby qranted an extension of contract time for the above items. TOTAL TIME EX'l'ENSION "R-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(v) -DISTRICT 11 $ 6,555.00 $ 15,050.00 $ 6,670.00 $ 1,058.00 s 29,333.00 10 Calendar Cays lO Calendar Cays "R-1" ,, . COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY ?. 0. BOX 8127 -10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY> CALIFORNIA 92708 Paqe 2 of 2 CHANGE ORDER GRAN.T NO. __ c_-_0_6_-_1_07_3_-_s_1_0 ______ ,_/ JOHN A. A.RrOKOV1:CR. SONS , INC. & JOHN c.o. Nc. ____ s __________________ _ :ON TRACTOR: A. AR?tJXOVl:CB, JR., A JOINT VEN'l'Om! DATE May 23, 1980 COAST TlWNX SEWER, REACH l & 2, PORTION OF NEtiLAND STBEE'l' IN'l'ElU:EPTOR SEWER ANO LAD ~VENCE RELIEF SEWER, C~CT NO. ll-13-2 108: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY OF CONTD.CT TIME Oriqinal Cont:a.ct Date Oriqinal Contract Time Oriqinal Completion Date Time Extension 'rhi.s Chanqe Order Total Time Extension Revised Con~ac:t Time Revised.Completion Date oard authorization date: June ll, 1980 OBN A. ~CB SONS, INC. & JOHN A. El'r'tJKOV!CH, JR., A JOINT VENTOBE y------------------------~-------C on tr a et or Original November l, 1979 400 calendar Days December 4, 1980 10 calendar D~ys SO calendar Days 450 calendar Days January 23, 1981 Contract ?rice $ 7,488,964.53 Prev. Auth. Changes $ 208,792.00 This Change (ADD) (llECKJCmO $ 29,333.00 Amended Contract ?rice $ 7,727,089.62 Approved: COUNTY SANliATION OISTRICTS of Orange County, California By--------------------~""-!~------Ch i e f Engineer "R-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(v) -DISTRICT 11 "R-2" CEXCERPTED FROM RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR MEETINGS) 8. CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION -A Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Administra- tive Organization shall be elected by a majority vote.of the Districts at the regular meeting in July of each year. The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall serve at the pleasure of the majority of the Districts. The nominations for Joint Chairman shall be made at the '-r'egular Board meeting in June each year, and the nominees may prepare a statement of not more than 100 words stating their qualifications for the office of Chairman. These statements shall be mailed to the members of the Joint Boards of Directors with the agenda and other meeting material for the July regular meeting. "S" AGENDA ITEM #14 -ALL DISTRICTS "S II "T" COUNTY SANITATION DISTR~CTS ·;f OR/..~~GE COUNTY, CAUFOP.NIA P. o :;ox &121 i 03~4 ELLIS AVE:..:UE ;::,·_.~TAIN V.ALLEY, CALIFO?.NIA 9270~ {714) 54C-2910 June 3, 1980 S T A F F REPORT Annexation No. 98 to Sanitation District No. 7 Upper Peters Canyon {il4) 962-2411 The Irvine Company has requested annexation of 1465 acres in the Upper Peters Canyon area. Staff' has reviewed the proposal and in view of the impacts on the Districts' program, we are recommending the following conditions of annexation be considered by the Directors. 1. The area to be annexed should be reduced to approximately 700 acres. This is the extent of the area included in the 1969 Master Plan Report which was what was utilized in the Districts' 30l(h) ocean waiver application for Secondary Trea~~ent. 2. This annexation must be conditional with withdrawal provisions in the event this additional area should jeopardize the Districts' receiving the 30l(h) waiver for secondary treatment. 3. Prior to the completion of annexation proceedings, an agreement is to be negotiated by the affected agencies to provide for an exchange of property tax revenues to County Sanitation District No. 7 for said service. 4. The undeveloped areas which are to remain open space, i.e. Peters Canyon Lake, should be deferred for annexation fees at this time and an agreement entered into between the District, the property owner, and the City of Orange for pay;nent of applicable annexation fees if and when the area develops. 5. The Irvine Company has requested deferred payments of the amount due and payable. Staff recommends this request be granted and that payments be deferred over a four year period with interest to be one percent above prime rate after a 25 percent cash payment prior to annexation. 6. At the time of annexation, this area is to be withdrawn from the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) . AGENDA ITEM #27CA) -DISTRICT 7 "T" RESOLUTION NO. 80-107-5 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITII EDAW, INC. FOR PREPARATION OF NEW DRAFT EIR RE FACILITIES TO SERVE JAMBOREE ROAD -BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA A RESOLUTION OF TifE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH EDAW, INC. FOR CONSOLIDATION.AND UPDATING OF INFORMATION AND REPORTS AND PREPARATION OF NEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RE FACILITIES TO SERVE TiiE JAMBOREE ROAD -BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section l. That the certain agreement dated by and between ---~~------~~- County Sanitation District No. 5 and EDAW, Inc. for consulting engineering services relative to consolidation and updating of previous information and reports and preparation of a new Draft Environmental Impact Report re facilities to serve the \wt/ Jamboree Road -Big Canyon drainage area, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That payment for said services is hereby authorized in accordance with the provisions set forth in said agreement for a lump sum fee of $6,250.00 plus payment for attendace at public ·hearings, to be billed at an hourly rate based upon their.prevailing fee schedule, and printing costs; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and Secretary of the District are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement, in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. "U" AGENDA ITEM #30(B) -DISTRICT 5 "U" "V-1" RESOLUTION NO. 80-108-5 AUTHORIZING AN INTERIM SEWER CONNECTION TO THE JAMBOREE TRUNK SEWER LINE A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH DAON CORPORATION AUTHORIZING AN INTERIM SEWER CONNECTION FROM A PORTION OF TENTATIVE TRACT 10391 TO THE JAMBOREE ROAD TRUNK SEWER WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of District No. 5 has enacted Ordinance No. 510 on January 15, 1980, which ordinance provides in part for the temporary suspension of iss.uance of connection permits within Zone 2 of said District, pending the completion of construction of additional facilities to accommodate develop- ment within said Zone; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 510 provides an exception to the temporary suspension pertaining to eight specified projects which were deemed to have been substantially completed prior to the enactment of the temporary suspension; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 510 further provides an exception whereby an owner or developer of property subject to the temporary suspension could submit an application to the Board of Directors for a specifi~ exception based upon providing interim or alternative facilities or methods of disposing of the project wastewater; and, WHEREAS, Daon Corpora ti on is the owner of that certain property described as Tentative Tract No. 10391 located within Zone 2 of the District; and, WHEREAS, the property contained within Tentative Tract No. 10391 was not found to have been substantially completed and was not enumerated as an exception to the temporary suspension; and, WHEREAS, Daon Corporation has previously made application to District for approval of an agreement for the interconnection of alternate sewer facilities, wherein the property located within Tentative Tract No. 10391 would be provided ~ 1 AGENDA ITEM #31 -DISTRICT 5 "V-1" "V-2" sewer service through the facilities of the Irvine Ranch Water District; and, WHEREAS, District entered into an agreement on· May lll-, 1980, with Irvine Ranch Water District and City of Newport Beach to allow for the interconnection of facilities and interim sewer service from Tentative Tract No. 10391 to the Irvine Ranch Water District system for the benefit of Daon Corporation; and, WHEREAS, Daon Corporation has now requested District to allow for the interim discharge of wastewater from a portion of Tentative Tract No. 10391 consisting of fifty (50) single family condominium units, said discharge to be made through the District's existing Jamboree Trunk Facility until such time as Daon makes the connection through sewer facilities to Irvine Ranch Water District; and, WHEREAS, District has determined that several of the specifically-exempted projects set forth in Section 3 of Ordinance No. 510 will not be utilizing the District's existing Jamboree Road Facility within the next two years, although such projects are authorized and entitled to do so; and, WHEREAS, District has determined that no prejudice will occur to any other property owner by allowing Daon Corporation to make an interim connection utilizing the existing Jamboree Road Trunk Facm ty. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1: The Chairman and Secretary of District No. 5 are hereby authorized and directed to execute that certain agreement between District and Daon Corporation, providing for the authorization to Daon to construct an interim sewer connection between a portion of Tentative Tract No. 10391 to service not more than fifty (50) residential dwelling units and the existing sewer line located at Ford Road which connects to the existing Jamboree Road trunk sewer line. Section 2: The provisions of District Ordinance No. 510 and all terms and 2 AGENDA ITEM #31 -DISTRICT 5 "V-2" "V-3" conditions of that certain agreement between Irvine Ranch Water District, County Sanitation District No. 5 and the City of Newport Beach shall remain unchanged V · and in full force and effect. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. 3 AGENDA ITEM #31 -DISTRICT 5 "V-3" ~ "W-1" (RECEIVED IN DIST. OFFICE 5/21/80) 1HE IRVINE COVIR6JW 610 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach. California 92663 (714) 644-3011 May 8, 1980 Mr. Ray E. Lewis Chief Engineer Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 RE: Application For Interim Service Dear Mr. Lewis: The Irvine Company hereby submits an application for an exception to Or- dinance No. 510 based on providing interim facilities for 70% of the Civic Plaza development. Thirty percent was exempt from the sewer connection moratorium and is to be served by the San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Trunk sewer. The 70% is also designed to be served by the same sewer in OCSD #5 Sewer Master Plan. The proposed interim solution which consists of a temporary sewage pump station and force main to the 10" sanitary sewer in Newport Center Drive West is explained in the attached report, "Newport Center Civic Plaza. Preliminary Design Report for Temporary Sewage Pump Station" by Simpson-Steppat Engineers. It is our hope that it will not be necessary to construct the interim sewer project and that the 70% can be sewered through the ultimate facilities. However, due to processing requirements and business committments which must be made to continue proceeding with the project it is vital that a back-up solution be established. Should the District approve this solution our plan would be to delay implementation of the interim facilities until completion of the 70% portion of the project. As you are aware, the initial 30% of the project had obtained City of Newport Beach approval ae the time the sewer connection moratorium (Ordinance No. 510) was adopted (January 15, 1980). The other 70% of the Civic Plaza development was subject to approval of a Traffic Phasing Plan. The Traffic Phasing Plan was approved by the Newport Beach City Council on February 11, 1980, for the remainder of the project, so that both phases of Civic Plaza representing the total planned development of 235,000 sq. ft. now have City approval. It·is the intent of The Irvine Company to build the total allowed 235,000 s.f. in oue contract. AGENDA ITEM #32(A) -DISTRICT 5 "W-1" "W-2" -2- We respectfully request that this application be considered at the next OCSD #5 Board of Directors Meeting on June 11, 1980. If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact me or Sat Tamaribuchi at (714) 644-3363. Your assistance on this matter is greatly appreciated. Ve~,: ;rul / :0'2::-~cha d &inon Vice President Commercial/Industrial Division RMC:JM:cc AGENDA ITEM #32(A) -DISTRICT 5 .. u "W-2" "X-1" RESOLUTION NO. 80-109-.5 AUTHORIZING AN INTERIM SEWER CONNECTION TO THE JAMBOREE TRUNK SEWER LINE A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE IRVINE COMPANY AUTHORIZING AN INTERIM SEWER CONNECTION TO THE JAMBOREE ROAD TRUNK SEWER WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of District No. 5 has enacted Ordinance No. 510 on January 15, 1980, which ordinance provides in part for the temporary suspension of issuance of connection permits within Zone 2 of said District, pending the completion of construction of additional facilities to accommodate develop- ment within said Zone; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 510 provides an exception to the temporary suspension pertaining to eight specified projects· which were deemed to have been substantially completed prior to the enactment of the temporary suspension; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 510 further provides an exception whereby an owner or developer of property subject to the temporary suspension could submit an application to the Board of Directors for a specific exception based upon providing interim or alternative facilities or methods of disposing of the project wastewater; and, WHEREAS, The Irvine Company is the owner of that certain property described as Civic Plaza Development located within Zone 2 of the District; and, WHEREAS, a portion of the property contained within Civic Plaza Develop- ment was not found to have been substantially completed and was not enumerated as an exception to the temporary suspension; and, WHEREAS, The Irvine Company has previously received approval from District for the interconnection of alternate sewer facilities, wherein the property located within Civic Plaza Development would be provided sewer service through a 1 AGENDA ITEM #32CB) -DISTRICT 5 "X-1" "X-2" temporary sewage pump station and force main sewer line in Newport Center Drive and connecting to the Pacific Coast Highway trunk line; and, WHEREAS, The Irvine Company has now requested District to allow for the interim discharge of wastewater from a portion of Civic Plaza Development consisting of approximately one hundred sixty thousand (160,000) square feet of commercial office space, said discharge to be made through the District's existing· Jamboree Trunk Facility until such time as The Irvine Company makes the connection to sewer facilities to Newport Center Drive; and, WHEREAS, District has determined that several of the specifically-exempted projects set forth in Section 3 of Ordinance No. 510 will not be utilizing the District's existing Jamboree Road Facility within the next two years, although such projects are authorized and entitled to do so; and, WHEREAS, District has determined that no prejudice will occur to any other property owner by allowing The Irvine Company to make an interim connection utilizing the existing Jamboree Road Trunk Facility. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County' Sanitation District No. · 5 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1: The Chairman and Secretary of District No. 5 are hereby authorized and directed to execute that certain agreement between District and The Irvine Company, providing for the authorization to The Irvine Company to construct an interim sewer connection between a portion of Civic Plaza Develop- ment to service not more than one hundred sixty thousand (160,000) square feet of commercial space and the existing sewer line located at San Joaquin Hills Road which connects to the existing Jamboree Road trunk sewer line. Section 2: The provisions of District Ordinance No. 510 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. PASSED AND AOOPTED at a regular meeting held June 11, 1980. 2 AGENDA ITEM #32(B) -DISTRICT 5 "X-2" I DI STRI CT DI STRI CT I 1 2 $1 1. 3 $54.o COUNT Y SANIT ATI ON DI STRICT S' PRE LI MI NARY BUDG ET ES T IMA TE S 1980 -81 FI SCAL YEAR IN-D IS TRICT ( 48 ¢) $7 8 .6 CORF ( 46 ¢) $7 4 .8 TOTAL BUD GET $163 mi ll i o n INDIVIDUAL DI STRI CTS DI STRICT DIS TRICT DI STRICT 3 5 6 $48.9 $11 .2 $5.3 6/11 /80 Age nda It em No. 1 ~ DI STRI CT DI STRICT 7 11 $18.5 $13 .8 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS JOINT OPERATING BUDGET 1980-81 FISCAL YEAR Salaries, Wages & Benefits 52% Expenditures $10,234,000 Dist. 2 29% Dist. 3 28% Funding $10,234,000 JOINT OPERATING 1. Net Salaries, Wages & COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS SUMMARY OF JOINT WORKS BUDGET 1980-81 FISCAL YEAR Budget 1979-80 Recommended Increase Budget or 1980-81 (Decrease) Benefits Chargeable to JO $4,295,539 $5,350,000 $1 ,054,461 -Added staff for new advanced treatment facilities 0 & M and sludge processing oper- ation. 2. Odor Control & Chemical Coagulants 3. Research & Monitoring 4. Professional & Contract ~rvices 5. Ut i 1 i t i es 6. Other Materials, Supplies & Outside Services 7. Total Joint Operating Expenses 8. Revenue and Offsets 9. Net Joint Operating CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING 10. Treatment Plant Construction 700,000 900,000 197,000 227,000 . 551,000 270,000 2,055,000 2,055,000 1 'l94,000 1 ,432 ,000 -Salary Adjustments over LifE of HOU's. -Retirement System 200, 000 -Change from ch 1 or amine spray to pre-chlorination for odor control. 30,000 (281,000) -o- Discontinue contract sludge hauling to be assumed by Districts forces & equipment 238,000 -Diesel fuel for sludge pro~ cessing operation -Repair parts for Plant advanced treatment facil- ities and sludge processing equipment. $8,992,539 $10,234,000 $1,241,461 600,000 600,000 -o- $8,392,539 $ 9,634,000 $1 ,241,461 57,085,000 67,782,000 10,697,000 -Solids Handling, Dewatering & Transportation Facilities $65,477,539 $77,416,000 $11,938,461 for New 75 MGD Activated Sludge Treatment Works at Plant No. 2. 6-11-80 REPORT OF THE JO INT CHAIRMAN THE DI STRIC TS HAVE RECEIVED A CHECK FOR $41J800 WHICH REPRESENTS PAYMENT FOR OUR MARCH ENT ITL EMENTS UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 'S DOMESTIC CRUDE OIL ENTITLEMENTS PROGRAM . CALL AE ETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 5:30 P .M.J ~~~ WEDNESDAYJ , -·, INVITE TWO OF THE FOLLOWING TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSIONS: JOHN COX ~~,~~~' RICHARD EDGAR . VICKIE EVA NS ~/lf~j~ MEETING DATE June 11 ' 1980 DISTRICT 1 7·30 p.m. 1,,2,,3,,5,,6,,7&11 TIME • DISTRICTS ________ _ (SALTARELl.I) ··SHARP········ tµ ·--- (YAMAMOTO)··· ·WARD.1J • • • • • • • s:;::::r---__ (RI LEY) • • • • • • ·ANTHON¥-· • • • • v _. __ _ (CRANK) •••• • ··HUTCHI~··~ ___ _ DISTRICT 2 if"-o FR I ED) ••••••• WEDAA •••••••• ..fJ..L --__ ECKENRO~E) ••• HOLT •••••••• -~ --__ WINTERS ••••• B8RH119FT ••••• ...JL_ ___ _ GAMB I NA ••••• FOX ••••••••• -~ ---- HELTON) •••••• KAWANAMI •••• ·--'iL ___ _ WI EDER} •••••• Ml LLER ••••••• ....JL. ---- CULVER} •••••• PERRY ••••••• -~ ----SEYMOl.i~) ••••• ROTH ••••••••• ..fl..L ---- BEYER) ••••• • .SMITH........ \:?' __ HOLLIND~N} ••• STANTON ••••• ·-v--__ CORBETil •••• -~ • • • • • ·-v-----WARD .,J J. ...•. YAMAMOTO •••• ·--___ _ DISTRICT 3 COLLlf."S) ••••• VAN DY~E ••••• r:"'--__ ROWAN) ••• ~ ••• EVANS ••••.••• ·~ ___ _ HOLLINDENl ••• ADLER •.••••••• ~ ___ _ ROGET) ••••••• CORBE~T •••••• ~ ___ _ PERRY) ••••••• C'ULVER •••••• ·-1..L--__ KIRKPATRICK) .FINLAYSON .... --1£ ___ _ MANPIC) •••••• FINLEY •••••• -~--__ FOX) ••••• ~ ••• ISLES ••••••• -~--__ DAVIS). •••••• REESE......... ___ _ SEYMOUR). .... ROTH.'.··•····?-----LASZLO) •••.••• SEITZ........ ___ _ I ZOMMICK) ••••• SYLVI~ •••• ••• ___ _ ROMAGNJNO) •• -WHEELER··.··· e;. ---- Ml LLER). • • • • .\ttEDElf; • • • • • ·------ BORNHCfT) • •• -WINTERS······~ ---- \'#ARD.,J) ••••• ·YAMAMOTO.····--__ -- DISTRICT S STRAUSS) ••••• COX .......... ·--__ --~MAURER).····· HEATHER····· ·-'t7-___ _ ANTHONY) ••••• RILEY •••••••• ~ ---- DISTRICT 6 ~eRANK) ••••••• HUTCHISON.··• V"· ___ _ HEATH~R) •••• -PLUMMER ••• ·••• I/' ___ _ RILEY) ••••••• AfrtRONY • ·.-. • • • v""" ___ _ DISTRICT 7 CBEYEP.) •••• \ •• SMITH •••••••• L __ I SALTARE~LIJ •• EDGAR •••••••• ~------ HEATHER). •••• HART ••••••••• --v---- WI EDEB) •••••• MILLER •••••• ·------ SILLS) ••••••• VARDOULlS ••• -~---- HANSON).< •••• WAHNER •••••• ·~---- YAMAMOTOJ ••• ~ ••••• ·------ DISTRICT 11 (BAILEY) •• ••• ·PATTINSON ••• -~---- MACALL STER) .BAILEY....... ----~MILLERJ •••••• WIEDER....... ---- 6/W80 JOINT BOARDS \ ? '2~ c., HOLLittDEN)· ···ADLER··••··~~!,- RILEY) •••• , •• ANTHONY •••• ~~ -~ t'ACALLISTERJ •• BAILEY •••• -~~ ·· WI NTE~S) •••••• B.Ulll 11 FT ••• ..::::::_ ~ ROGET) •••••••• CORBETT •••• ~ t;::; STRAUSS) •••••• COX. • • • • • • • ~ -- (PERRY) ••• ••• •• CULVER.···-~ ...JL . (SALTA~ELLJ) ••• EDGAR •••••• ~ ~ (ROWAN) ••• ••• •• EVANS··.···~~ (Kim<~ATRICK) •• FINLAYSON. ·""°'7 ~ (MAND IC) •• ••••• FINLEY·····--~ (GAViB INA).· • · ··FOX.·······~ ~ (HE.l\nlEB). • •• ·.HART······ ·~--;r, '(MAURER) ••••••• JfEA.THER. • • ·~ ~ (ECK~N~OD~) .•.. HOLT·······~ V' ( CRP.~I<) ••••• • • • HUTCH I SON· • l/" ~ (FOX/·········· ISLES······. ~ ~ HELTON}····.···KAWANAMJ ••• ~ ~ WIEDER •••.••• MILLER ••.•• ~~ BAI LEY • • • :--· • • PATIINSON. ·.!!!I!!!!!!!'--=. CULVER) ••••••• PERRY •••••• :z. k'=-' HEATH~R) •••••• PLUMMER.... ~ DAVIS) •••••••• REESE •••••• r;;;,---1..e!" ANTHONY) •••••• RILEY...... ~ SEYMOUR) •••••• ROTH ••••••• ~~ LASZLO) ••••••• SEITZ-····· ~ SALT~~ELLI) ••• SHARP •••••• ~ ~ BEYERJ .••••••• SMITH.·· • • • ~ ~ HOLLINDlN) •••• STANTQN •••• ~~ ZOMMICK •••••• SYLVIA •• ··-~~ COLLINS •••••• VAN DYKE···~-::::; SILLS) •••••••• VARDOULIS •• ~ HANSON) ••••••• WAHNER· • • • • ~ ~ CORBETT), ••••• WARD, B .••• ~ ..:::::_ YAMAMOTOJ ••••• :t£AR»u d· • • ·-117 ~ FRIED). ••••••• WEDAA. • • • • ·--- ROMAGNJNQ) •••• WHEELER •••• ~ -/,tt!!. MILLER) ••••... WIEDER ••••• ~ ~ BORNHOFT) ••••• WINTERS.·· .::::::E.~ ./ WARD., J,) ••..• YAMAMOTQ ••• ~ __......,.... OTHERS HARPER·····---- SYLVESTER··--- LEWIS ••••• ·--__ CLARKE •••• ·---- BROWN •••••• _ -- WOODRUFF ••• __ -- HOHENER ••• ·--- HOWARD ••••• __ -- HUNT •••••• ·---- KElTH ••••• ·---- KENNEY ••••• ____ --- LYNCH ••••• ·---- MADDOX ••••• __ - MARTINSON. ·----- PIERSALL •• ·---· - STEVENS ... ·---TRAVERS •••• __ __..:_ MEETING DATE June 11 ' 1980 DISTRICfJ.7 : 7·30 p.m. 1,2,3,5,6,7&11 TIME • DISTRICTS ________ _ (SALTARELl-I) ··SHARP······· ._A_ --- (YAMAMOTO)··· ·HARBJJ • • • • • • ·~ ----(RILEY)~~·AHTM9~1¥ • • • ·~ ___ _ (CRANK)······ ·HUTCHISON····~ --__ DISTRICT 2 ! FRIED) ••••••• WEDAA •••••••• ~ --__ ECKENRODE) ••• HOLT ••••••••• ...J!!!:_ --__ WINTERS) ••••• BQR~IMQF+ ••••• ~ ---- GAMBINA) ••••• FOX •••••••••• --'£_ ---- HELTON) •••••• KAWANAMI ••••• ~ ---- WIEDER) •••••• MILLER ••••• ·.~ ---- CUL VER) •••••• PERRY ••••••• ·~ ----SEYMOli~) ••••• ROTH ••••••• ··-0-_ ---- BEYER)·.· •••• SMITH· ••••••• ~.- HOLLINDEN) ••• STANTON ••••• -~ ---- CORBETtl ••••• lM<RB ,,B-•••••• ·--__ -- WARD, J}. ••••• YAMAMOTO ••••• ....JL_ ---- DISTRICT 3 (COLLINS) ••••• VAN DYKE •• ·.·~ ___ _ (ROWAN) ••• ~ ••• EVANS.;. •••••• _J£_ ___ _ HOLL I NDEN l ••• ADLER •.••••••• ~ ___ _ ROGET) ••••••• CORBE:rT •••••• ~ ___ _ PERRY) ••••••• CULVER •••••• ·~ ___ _ KIRKPATRICK) .FINLAYSON ••• ·~ ___ _ MAND IC) •••••• FINLEY •••••• ·~ ___ _ FOX) ••••••••• ISLES ••••••• ·~ ___ _ DAVIS) ••••••• REESE •••••.•• • '-""""" ___ _ SEYMOUR) ••••• ROTH.; ••• ~.··· 0:: ___ _ LASZLO) •••••• SEITZ •• • ••• • ·..J£:. ___ _ lzoMMICK) ••••• SYLVIA •••••• -~ ---- (ROMAGNJNO) ••• WHEELER· •• ···~ ---- (MILLER).·· •• -WIEDER·······~ ---- (BORNHOFT) •• •• WINTERS······~ ---- (WARD,J). •• ·.-YAMAMOTO.····~ ---- DISTRICT S !MAURER)····· ·HEATHER······ 0.-___ _ STRAUSS) ••••• COX ••••••••• -~ --__ ANTHONY) ••••• RILEY •••••••• ~ ---- DISTRICT 6 HEATH~R) ••••• PLUMMER.·.·.··~ ___ _ ~CRANK) ••••••• HUTCHISON •• ·• V ___ _ RI LEY) ••••••• Afffl 16tff • · •• • • • ~ ___ _ DISTRICT 7 (:sEYEP.) •••• \ •• SMITH........ v ___ _ SALT AREl,..LI J •• EDGAR •••••••• ~ ---- HEATHER) ••••• HART ••••••••• ~ ---- WI EDER) •••••• MILLER ••••••• ...,..------- SILLS) ••••••• VARDOULIS.... V ---- HANSON) •••••• WAHNER. • • • • • • .,,..----- YAMAMOTO) •••• WARB;c': •••••• --JL ___ _ DlSTRICT 11 (BAILEY) ••• ···PATTINSON •••• ~ __ -- (MACALLJSTER) .BAILEY ••••••• ...JL. ---- (MILLER) •••••• WIEDER ••••••• ~ ---- 6/11/80 JO INT BOARDS t4 i_ t;l 1~ 'b) +{c.l (HOLLI~DEN)····ADLER······~ ~ (RI LEY J ••••••• AHTll0U¥ •••• --=:._ ~ (r.ACALLISTER) •• BAILEY ••••• """"' ~ (WINTE~S) •••••• B0RHllOFT ••• -=-~ (ROGET) •••••••• CORBETT •••• ..,,,... ~ (STRAUSS) •••••• cox •••••••• ~ ~ (PERRY) •••••••• CULVER·····~ ~. (SALTARELLJ) ••• EDGAR •••••• ~ ~ (ROWAN) •••••••• EVANS •••••• ~ ~ (KinKr'ATRICK) •• FINLAYSON.·~~ (MANDIC) ••••••• FINLEY ••••• ~ ~ (GAMBINA) ••••• ·FOX.•······~ V (HE.i\T!·IER) • •• ···HART·······~ V'" (MAURER) ••••••• HEATHER •••• ~ ...Jl.J... (ECK:Nr.OD!:) ····HOLT·······~ ~ (CR.l\~K) •••••• ··HUTCHISON··~ _1£. (FOXJ • • • ·······ISLES······. ~-~ (HELTON~ ••••••• KAWANAM I · · · ~ -V"'" (WIEDER ••••••• MILLER ••••• ~~ BAILEY • • • ... • • PATIINSON. ·--,~-~ CULVER) ••••••• PERRY •••••• ~ ~ HEATHER) •••••• PLUMMER •••• ~ _r:::_ DAVIS) •••••••• REESE •••••• ~ ~ ANTHONY) •••••• RILEY •••••• '-""" ~ SEYMOUP,) •••••• ROTH. • • • • • • CL __ LASZLO) ••••••• SEITZ •••••• ~ ...,.... SALTA~ELLI) ••• SHARP •••••• ~ -'&L BEYERJ ••••••• SMITH •••••• ~~ HOLLIND~N) •••• STANTON •••• ~ ~ ZOMMICK •••••• SYLVIA ••••• _w:::: ~ !COLLINS •••••• VAN DYKE ••• ~~ SILLS) •••••••• VARDOULIS •• ~ ~ HANSON) ••••••• WAHNER ••••• --LL, ~ CORBETT), ••••• HARB, B •••. -=--=- YAMAMOTO I ••••• \'It.RB, J. . . . --=- (FR I ED) •••••••• WEDAA •••••• Ci:; --°...l (ROMAGNJNO) •••• WHEELER •••• ~ """"" !MILLER) ••••••• WIEDER ••••• "" ......k:::- BORNHOFT) ••••• WINTERS •••• ~ ~ WARD, J,) ••••• YAMAMOTO ••• ~ ~ OTHERS HARPER·····---- SYLVESTER··----LEWIS •••••• ___ _ CLARKE •••• ·--__ BROWN •••••• ___ _ WOODRUFF •• ·--__ HOHENER •••• ___ _ HOWARD ••••• ___ _ HUNT •••••• ·--__ KEITH ••••• ·--__ KENNEY ••••• ___ _ LYNCH ••••• ·--__ MADDOX ••• • • __ --- MART I NSON •• ___ _ PIERSALL •• ·--__ STEVENS •••• ___ _ TRAVERS •••• ___ _ 0 7 .30 p.m. 1,2,3,5 1 6 1 7&11 MEETING DATE_J_u_ne_1_1_,_19_s __ TIME • DISTRICTS ________ _ DISTRICT 1 JOIHT BOARDS (SALTAREU.I) ··SHARP········~ --- (YAMAMOTO)··· -WARB;d • • • • • • ._y_ ---- (RI LEY) • • • • • • • MfTll0fl¥-:": • • • • ___:!:__ __ __ (CRANK)······ ·HUTCHISON··· ·.-L --__ DISTRICT 2 FR I ED) ••••••• WED AA •••••••• ___!::::_ ---- EC KENRO~E) ••• HOLT ••••••••• ~ ---- WINTERS ••••• BQRNllOf:r ••••• ...JL ---- GAMBINA ••••• FOX •••••••••• _:L_ ----HELTON~ •••••• KAWANAMI ••••• __:L_ ---- WI EDER •••••• M 1 LLER ••••••• __::{_ ---- CUL VER •••••• PERRY •••••••• _L_ -----SEYMOU~) ••••• ROTH ••••• • •• ·-+ ---- BEYER)···.·· .SMITH ••••••• ·--__ HOLLIND~N) ••• STANTON •••••• __:f_ --__ CORBET"[} ••••• WARfJ .,:B •••••• ·~ ---- WARD ,,J}. ••••• YAMAMOTO •••• ·------ DlSTRl CT 3 COLLINS) •••• • VAN DYK~·a....· • ._:t_ __ ROWAN) ••• , ••• EVANS.; §1}1..J ••• _L_ ____ . _ HOLLINDENl ••• ADLER.-•••••• ·~ ___ _ ROGET) ••••••• CORBEn •••••• _____ _ PERRY) ••••••• CULVER....... ./ ___ _ KIRKPATRICK) .FINLAYSOH •••• -:T ___ _ MANPIC) •••••• fINLEY ••••••• __:!_ ___ _ FOX) ••••• ~ ••• ISLES •••••• • .-_:L_ ___ _ DAVIS) ••••••• REESE •••••.• ·._./ ____ _ SEYMOU~) ••••• ROTH.; ••• ;· •• JJL_ ___ _ LASZLO) •••••• SEITZ •••••••• __:!_ ___ _ !ZOMMICK) ••••• SYLVh\ ••••••• __:!__ ___ _ ROMAGNJNO) • • -WHEELER·;;e· ·-L ---- MILLER)· •• •• .WIEDER.····· ._L ---- BORNHOfT) •• ·.WINTERS·····.__,£_ ---- WARD,, J J •••••• YAMAMOTO· • • • • _L ---- DI STRl CT 5 ~MAURER)····· -HEATHER····· ._L ___ _ STRAUSS) ••••• COX., •••••••• __:!,__ ---- ANTHONY) ••••• RI LEY •••••••• _L ---- DI STRl CT 6 HEATH~R) ••••• PLUMMER.·.·.··__:!_ ___ _ ~CRANK) ••••••• HUTCH I SON· • • •_../ ____ _ RI LEY J ••••••• ANCftmN!:<· · •••• _;L_ ---- DISTRICT 7 CBEYER) •••••• SMITH •••••••• ~ ___ _ ! SAL TAREl-LJ) •• EDGAR •••••••• _L_ __ -- HEATHE~J ••••• HART ••••••••• __:£_ ---- WI EDES) •••••• MILLER ••••••• __:!__ ---- SILLS) ( •••••• VARDOULIS •••• _L __ -- HANSONJ. t •••• WAHNER •••••• -~ ___ _ YAMAMOTO J •••• -wAR1hd ••••••• __ --__ DISTRICT 11 (BAI LEY)······ PAfftrfoON •••• _f_ __ -- (MACALLJ STER) .BAILEY.· t-~'ft·-?----- (MILLER) •••••• WIEDER.~-~·--__ -- 6/11/80 ! HOLLI t!DEN) • • • ·ADLER· • • • • • --_ .. _ RI LEY} • • • • • • ANTHONY •••• __ ---- MACALLISTER j .. BA I LEY ••••• ---- WINTERS) •••••• BORNHOFT •• ·---- ROGET) •••••••• CORBETT ••• ·---- STRAUSS) ••••• • COX.·······---- (PERRY) •• •• •• • .CULVER.•·•·----. (SALTARELLI)··· EDGAR······---- (ROWAN) •••• •••• EVANS··•···---- (KrnK!'lATRICK) •• FINLAYSON.·---- (MAND IC) ••••••• FINLEY·.····---- (GAJ•.aINA) •• •• ··FOX.·······---- (HEATHEB) •••••• HART •••••• ·---- lMAl!RER) ••••••• HEATHER.···--- ECK!:N~OD~) ····HOLT·······----CR.~.'·!1<) • • • • • • • ·HUTCH I SON· • ----(FOX~········· ·ISLES·····-._ --· --- (HELTON~ ••••.••• KAWANAM I • • • ----(WI EDER ••••••• MILLER·····~---. BAILEY ···_ ... •·PATTINSON.·--·- CULVER) ••••••• PERRY······---- HEATHER) •••••• PLUMMER····---- DAVIS). ••••••• REESE······---- ANTHONY) •••• • • RI LEY· • • • • • ---- SEYMOUR) ••••• • ROTH· • • • • • • ---- LASZLO) ••••••• SEITZ.·····----SALTN~ELLJ) ••• SHARP······---- BEYERJ .••••••• SMITH.·····---- HOLLINDIN) •••• STANTON ••• ·---- ZOMMICK •••••• SYLVIA.····---- COLLINS •••••• VAN DYKE.··---- SILLS) •••••••• VARDOULIS. ·---- HANSON) ••••••• WAHNER.····---- CORBETT) , ••••• WARD, B • • • • ---- YAMAMOTO I ••••• WARD I J •••• ---- FR I ED) •••••••• WEDAA. • • • • ·---- ROMAGNJNO) •••• WHEELER.···---- MILLER) ••••••• WIEDER.····---- BORNHOFT) ••••• WINTERS· • • • --- WARD., J,) ••.•. YAMAMOTO.··--- OTHERS ~.l~ ~fr'- . (l ~t 1 0',t1lr <..n 1v/ .~Jhl,~,k ~, f I lPtv 1S %v\.. Qc.u..tc~ ~-~\ L .. "- J. c .. ic.l o~~~ oa 5f,fos HARPER··•··~ --SYLVESTER··~ __ LEWIS •••••• ~ -- CLARKE ••••• _ft::_ -- BROWN •••••• --lL-__ WOODRUFF ••• ~ --HOHENER •••• ___ _ HOWARD •••• • ---- HUNT •••••• ·~ -- KEITH ••••• ·----KENNEY ••• • • ___ _ LYNCH •••••• ~ -- MADDOX ••••• __ - MARTINSON.·--__ PIERSALL ••• --r -- STEVENS ••• -~ -- TRAVERS ••• ·--__ / Rita June 11, 1980 Mtg. Notes "'f 5) City of Orange resignation and minute excerpt TLW briefly reported that this was a procedural item presented to Districts 2 & 7. Mayor Jim Beam had contacted FAH, Joint Chairman and General Counsel concerning the fact that he did not wish or was not able to serve as Director of the Sanitation Districts, even in an alternate capacity. Advised that Board me mbership was governed by State Code and declares that the mayor is the member of the Board but provides for a n a lternate . The procedure on the agenda in providing for a s econd alternate was in case Mayo r pro tern Smith couldn't a ttend . Is a common procedure to have someon e serve in the mayor's p l ace . In this case, the mayor is unable to be tha backup. (7-a) Report of the Joint Chairman Chairman Fox reported that the Districts have received a check for $41,800 representing payment for our March e ntitlements under the Department of Energy's Domestic Crude Oil Entitlements Program. He then called a meeting of the Executive Committee for 5:30 p.m., Wednesday July 2nd and invited Directors Richard Edgar and Ruth Bailey to attend. (Norm Culver had another meeting and Vickie Evans would be out of town) (7-b) Report of the General Manager ....... FAH commented on Supplemental Agenda items . Re Items 16(a), (b)&(c), these are publicly-opened bids we received in the last few days. Bid tabulations are attached . Said we are recommending each of the jobs be awarded. Said laboratory bench will cost more than estimate but believe the bid is the correct price. Re Item 16(d) the Selection Committee met with Butier Engineering and negotiated a fee for continued contract management services for the jobs going on at Plant No. 2. This will guarantee construction management through December, 1981, which we a re hopeful we will be through at that time. In addition to that in District 7 there were several items on agenda under Item No. 27 having to do with the request of the Irvine Company for annexation of 1400 acres in the upper Peters Canyon area. Since the staff made its recommendations, representatives of The Irvine Company requested to withdraw the request for annexation because of the unknowns regarding the annexation. One of the conditions of the staff was that only 700 acres be annexed because of the 30l(h) waiver application and with the condition that if the Federal Government said they won't give us the waiver if we take this capacity, they would have to withdraw from the District. The Irvine Company has submitted a letter req u est ing withdrawal and consideration of a 65-acre annexation rather than the 1400 acres. Staff is recommending this be referred to staff and will report back at the next Board mee ting. Smith asked how long we have been requesting agreements to withdraw in case waiver application denied b ecause of annexation? Was advised that we did it in one District 2 annexation -Bryant Ranch Annexation. Miller asked if staff thought it was a problem if we didn't put the waiver condition on the 65 acres? FAH said he didn't believe that (7-c) ( 9) ( 12) - this wou ld be a problem as law say s "substantial inc rease in flows" and in our case , 65 acres isn't substantial. Smith asked if Rancho Santiago will request a separate annexation? FAH answered yes, they will. Between the two will be l ook ing at about 100 acres . He added we are still wa iting on hearing on waive r application . Will probably be the first of the year now . Report of the 'fs~J;a~ TLW said he h ad t wo items to report on--both good. First was concerning bid protest o n appeal re belt fil~r presses that were subject to hearing and were appealed to EPA. We go t decision about one week ago and they sustained the action of the Districts' Board on all three protests . S econd items -Advised that years ago we built o cean outfall and there was a big lawsuit. Districts went to EPA and fought to recove r money . Didn 't work. They turned it down. Filed appeal in abou t 19 75 to Washington EPA. Finally got a n agreement one ye ar ago but never go t the check. Finally last Thursday got the settl emen t check for $40,000! CONSENT CALENDA R Items (f) and (1 ) removed for discussion. Re (f) question was asked why we didn 't go to bid on this? FAH advised that th is is a very specialized type of thing . Our laboratory staff went around a nd looked at different equipment in labo ratories and broke it down to what they felt that they would need in our lab . RE L added that it is very difficult to develop a spec and be competitive and compare results . Looked at several manufacturers and compared pros a nd cons. Some more expensive and some were less . Was asked what the spr ead in price was . Answered $24 ,000 to $34 ,000 . Re (1) Yamamoto said he was curiou s about this procedure and asked if this should be put out for bid. FAH advised that this gentleman has been operating a boat in the ocean for us for many years . Said over the years we have looked at this and looked to see if there is a less expensive way to do it. City of LA and LA County have the i r own boat. We have f ound t hat this i s the l east expensive way to approach this . Sai d he i s avai l able to us when we want h i m and any time we want him. Is a good arrangement for the Districts. If we went out to bid , would be quite expensive and wouldn 't know if they were r eliable . We haven't changed his contract s i nce 1974. TLW stated that we have no binding obligation to go to b id. Are re t a i n i ng services ; he provides the boat . Bidding is always possible but negotiation process is better when retain - ing servi ces . I tems (f) and (1 ) were then moved , seconded and carried . Executive Committee items -Budgets JWS referred to supplemental material in the Directors' fo l ders . Said since over one -th i rd are new Directors, thought it might be helpful to give an overview of next year 's budget . Districts ' budget is composed of three e lements . Are considering two tonight. Joint Operating budget is for joint operation and maintenance of joint treatment works . Will treat 77 billion gallons this year. $9.6 million for next year or 6% of the $163 mi l lion total . The Capital Outlay Revolving Fund (.CORF) budget amounts to 46 % of the total budget . Will be about $75 millior -2 - The CORF b u d g e t f u nd s t h e p l ant cons truc tio n a nd u pgr adi n g the t r eatment p r o c ess a s requ ired b y State a nd Fed e r a l regul atory age nci e s. We pre s e ntly h ave in the current year unde r c o n structi o n p l a nt equipme nt of aro und ~ billion dollars at the two trea t me nt p l a nt sites . Th e third area of t h e b udge t is in-Distr ict expe ns e s -$7 9 millio n to t a l . Said each Dis tr i ct 's sh are will be p r ese n ted t o Directo rs in f ina l for m n ext mo nth. Re vi e wed green and white page s o f s u p pl e me ntal bud ge t ma t erial i n f ol ders . Ad v i se d t hat while mo st o f t h e maj or s ewe ring a genc i es h ave b een f orc e d to i mpl e me n t user cha r ges o r f l oa t bon d s, b e c a u se of our l ong -ra n ge f in anc ial p l annin g , we have been a ble to f u nd o ur operatio n without a dd itiona l revenu e . P err y comme nted with regard t o ret i rement f i g ure s, that we cha n ged t o OC ER S t o sav e money and n o w they h ave abo ut d o u b l e d. Aske d if we eve r l o ok e d i n to go ing ba ck t o whe re we we r e b efo re? J WS a d v i se d th a t we h ave sa ved money for th e last several yea rs . The doublin g of OCER S now t ake s them to abo ut whe r e we were in t h e other sy stem but we h ave s aved mo n e y . No fu r t h e r di s cuss io n r e b udge ts . (14) Jo i nt Ch airman n om ina tion s Joint Ch a i r man F ox advis e d t hat he would not enter his n ame into the nominations for Joint Ch a irman. Said he felt that in order to expose more Directors to the wo r kings of the Districts, tha t one term is e nough for one in d i v idu a l to se r ve . It is p r etty time-con s uming but is worthwhil e for other Dir e ctor s to b e come involved. Said he wou l d like to hav e the Ge n e ral Counsel exp lain to the new Dir e ctors exactly how the e lect ion proce ss g o e s so no one will be unduly concerned at the next meeting. TLW advised that the supporting documents contained an e x c e rpt from the Rul e s of Procedure r esolution re Jo i nt Chairman election. The election is held ~n July (July 9th mtg .) and nominations are open tonight. Nominees may prepare a statement not to e x ceed 100 words which will be distributed to Directors prior to election n ext month. Tonight Directors can mo v e to close nominations. The que stion has been asked if they could be re-opened. It would require a whole new motion and a majority v o te. Would not delay election . Will be in July . Election is by District . Each District can caucus or cast ballots but each District will give a single ballot for one of the nominees . Will require 4 votes(Districts). Wiede r said she wished to commend Chairman Fox for his non-traditional approach . Fox then nominated Director Bill Vardoulis for Joint Chairman . Said his nomination was based solely and entirely on the fact that he is the most qualified person. Can do a g ood job for the District. Nomination was s e conded. Don Holt was then nominate d f or Joint Chairman. Holt sta ted he appreciate d the nomination but didn't b e lieve he would have the time b ecause of his involvement with the OCTD and the time required there. It was mov e d that n o minations be closed. Directors were adv ised that nominations for Vice Joint Chairman woul d t h en be next month. Voice vote on motion to close nominations. Motion carrie d. -3- Yamamoto advised that a second is not needed for nominations and Fox indi c ated he understood th at . Wieder said that inasmuch a s there is no contes t for Joint Chairman, should nominations for Vice Joint Chairman be made? I s l es stated tha t they could be nominated from the f l oor a t the next meeting. TLW agreed . * See be low also. (15) LA/OMA Presen tation b y Bill Davis Bill Davis, Proj e ct Manager for LA/OMA showed s lides and e x p l a ined study and possib l e recomme ndations. Study has been go i ng o n fo r several y e ars . Explained Round Canyon disposal site. Said included in report are other recommendations incl uding disposal into the oce a n. EPA and State did not fund any studies in that area because it is against thei r policy to dispose in the ocean. Agenci es still fe lt ocean disposal needed to be studied. Put $75 ,000 into looking at th e ocean. Costs $75/ton f or disposal at Round Canyo n and $38/ton for ocean disposal. Most of the ocean work was done by SCCWRP. Question wa s asked wh ethe r we can still sell compost. He advised that if new regulations of EPA are enacted, will not permit recycling of sludge b ecause of cadmium content. Said industries have the same problem that we have in trying to control toxic wastes to t he system. Cadmium content is going down but is cos ting in exces s of $1 million for industries. Can't determine ye t if new l evel in EPA regulations is reasonable. Summary report was prepared by LA /OMA staff. 45 page summary of 900 page report. FAH complimented Bill Davis and his staff for all the work they have done over the years. Said sometimes they ha ven't had too much cooperation. No one wants the sludge anyplace. Bill Vardoulis then added that based on discussions, one of the priorities for our engineers in this coming year should be to look at this cadmium and see how we can reduce it to levels where we can sell the sludge. The Joint Chairman asked the Engineering De partment to look into this. *(14) Chairma n Fox then said he had been asked if Don Holt didn't feel he could perform as Joint Chairman, did that mean Vice Chairman also. Checked with Don and did not mean he couldn't handle Vice Joint Chairman. -4- f JANET I t em 5 -Rece i ve & File Minute Excerpts TLW commented on a procedural item re th i s minute excerpt . Said Jim Beam recent l y contacted General Manager , Joint Chairman a n d Genera l Counse l stating that he did not wish to serve in the capacity of Director on the Sanitation Districts . As such , the membership of this board is governed by the state code and under the County Sanitation Act it states that Mayors are automatically members of the Boards . This procedure was imperative in the event there be a need for a separate alternate. The Mayor is t h e b a ckup. Mayor Beam i s unab l e to be b ackup and the Ci ty adopted a resolution last night appointing Gene Beye r as alternate Mayor. His resignation is not unwarranted , we have just never done this before . Item 7a -Joint Chairman 's Report See Joint Chairman 's Report Item 7b -Report of the General Manager Mr. Harper comme~ted on Supplemental Agenda Items . We have taken care of Item 5, regarding Districts 2 & 7 . Wa n ted to comment briefl y on I tems 1 6a ,b & c. These were publ i c l y opened bids whi c h we received i n the l ast few days . The wh i te sheets attached to supplementa l i nd i cate bid tabul ation we received . Recommending these jobs be awarded. We were well within the engineer 's estimate. The Laboratory Bench and Fume Hood Additions at Reclamation Plant No. 1 , Job No. PW -073 , but after looking at the bids , we belie\ethis price is the right price . In a ddition, se l ection committee met with Butier Engin eering and n egotiated fee for continued contract managemen t on job goin g on at Plant No. 2. Th i s will carry contract management to December 1981 , which we hope we wi ll be through at that time . In addition , on this agenda for District 7 , there were several items regarding request of the Irvine Company on approxi - mate l y 1400 acres i n upper Peters Canyon area . Since staff has made recommendation regarding cond i tions of annexation agreement , the developer has since requested to with draw the ann exat i on because of the unknown s re said annexation . First of all we on l y recommended 700 acres be annexed. Secondly , the 301H Waiver App l ication states that if Federal Government won 't give u s wa i ver , they wou l d have to withdraw. T he Irvin e Company has submitted letter advis i ng us they wi sh to withdraw original request and wish to annex 65 acres instead of 1400 . Will report at the next Board meeti ng . Sm i th asked how long we have been requiring agreements to withdraw annexations . Mr . Harper responded that we di d it on Bryant Ranc h Annexation i n Distri c t No . 2 in Yorb a Linda. Di rector Miller asked if there was a problem not to put 30 1 H waiver on 65 acres . Mr. Harper replied no , the waiver says only if substantia l amount of acreage and 65 acres is not considered very substantial. Director Sm i th asked about Santiago area re annexation from Irvine Company . Harper advised that we did include 700 acres in Sant i ago area that would be tri butary to that area. Smith asked if we had heard back on that yet. FAH advised Sm i th that we had not heard back yet . Item Sc -Repor t of t he Genera l Counse l The Ge n era l Counse l r eported that h e h ad two i te ms t o repor t on t h at wer e r emarkably good. One wa s rega rding bid protests o n be l t f i lte r p r esse s sub j e ct to p u blic h eari ng a nd t h en were appealed . We rece i ved a good decis i o n a wee k ago a nd the Stat e sus t ai n ed the Boards ' action o n a ll t h ree . Second , a n i tem wh i ch preda t e s eve r yone i n t h i s room -y ea rs ago wh en we b uilt o c ean o utf a ll there wa s a l awsui t . Dis t r icts went to EPA to ge t zone mo ney . We f il e d appea l wi t h EPA grant pr og r a m in abo ut 1975 . We the n ma de grea t p r og r es s fo r a yea r. F i n a l ly g ot an agreeme nt o n e year ago,bu t n eve r got t h e c h e ck. F i na lly we got t h e c h eck for $4 0,0 00. Th e bid protes t is a c losed i ss u e now . Director Reese asked wh y we did n't g o t o bid o n I tem 9f (Gas Chromotagraph and Appurtenan ce s , Spec i ficat i on No . E-104 ). FA H stated t h a t the laboratory looked around and cou l d on l y f i nd one acceptab l e sour ce . Ray Lew i s c omme nt e d th a t it i s very d i ff i cult be c ause o f t h e te c hn ica l n a t ure t o deve l o p speci f i cation t h a t a ll co uld bid o n and be compe ti t i ve and comparable so we wen t out a n d l ook e d a t ma n a g eme nt for t his one . Fee ls it mee ts o u r requi reme n ts t h e b es t. This was the mos t e c onomi cal wi t h EPA re quirement s u pon u s. Dire ctor Isl e s a ske d wh a t the price s r a n ged b etwee n . RE L ad vis e d t h ey we re b e tween $23,000 and $3 4,000 . Ite m 9(1) Enga g ement of En ch an t e r, I nc . Director Ya ma mo to a sk e d why we c h a ng e d mo nthly rate. Wa n t ed to know if this item s h o uldn't be p ut o ut to bid a nd if the Enchanter was a license d contractor. Mr. Harper advised that t his ge ntle man has b een working for the Districts f o r many many y ears and that we have ove r the ye ars loo ked at this for l es s expensive wa ys . The City of Los Angeles and L. A. County Sanita tion Districts h a ve their own boat a nd we found contra cting the Enchanter to be the l ea st e xpe nsive a ppr oa ch. He is a vailable a ny day we want him and he 's v e ry good and this is to our advantage . If we t r ied to go out to bid it would be v e ry e xpe nsive and wouldn 't know how r e liable the bidders were. We have n't change d contract since 19 7 4 . Di rector Yamamoto asked if this item was not put out to bid could we get into a bind. TLW advised that we have no binding obligation to go out to bid. We retain the Enchanter 's services. Bidding is possible but n e gotiation process is better according to Dis t ricts ' p ast experi e nce . Ite m 12a-c Re p ort on Bud g ets I didn't take any notes on this report . Director P e r r y a sked sinc e r etire me nt has doubled in Orange County, should we h ave stayed with P E RS . JWS a d v ise d that we still hav e saved mon e y. Item 14 -Nominations for Joint and Vic e Joint Chairman Chairman Fox stated that he did not wish to e nte r hi s name i nto nomina - tions f o r p osition of Ch a irma n . He feels t hat one term is e n o u g h a nd th a t other Directors need to be exposed to n e w Directors. Wo r thwhile for othe r Dire ctors to b ecome inv olved . As ked the Ge n e ral Counsel to explain to new Direct ors e xactly how e l e ction process works. -2- TLW advised Directors that a package of materi al was mailed out with the agend a ex pl aini ng the rules of procedure for the Districts ' e lections but would briefly expla in. Primarily , the elect i on of Joint and Vice Joint Chairman is done by District. Nominations are taken at the June meeting and the election is h eld at Ju l y meet in g . Persons nominated will have opportun ity to i ssue statement of qualifications pursuant to rules of procedures not to exceed 100 words prior to election next month . At t h e July meet ing , by District , each District either by caucus or singular voting will require four votes for election . Director Wieder comm e nded Chairman Fox on his nontraditional approach . To m asked if there were an y questions . Chairman Fox nominated Bi ll Vardoulis for the office of Chairman based solely on him being the most qualified person and doing a good job for the Distric ts as Vice Joint Chairman . Don Holt was also nominated wherein he dec lined the nomination because he felt he wou ld not have the time to serve the Dis trict 's Boards a s Chairman . It was l ate r clarified that Holt 's withdrawa l from the Joint Chairman position did not app ly to the office of Vice Joint Ch a irman . He did not e xclude hims el f from the pos t of Vice Joint Chairman . No other nominations were made . Nom inations for Vice Joint Chairman wil l be open at July meeting. Item 15 -Verbal repo rt of Bil l Davis from LA/OMA I did not t ake any notes on Bill Davis ' repo rt The General Manager commented that this study has b een goi ng on for severa l years . Included in the report are other recommendations of other t hings LA/OMA l ooked at besides transporting sludge to land fill site . Looked ._. at disposal of sludge into the ocean . EPA and S tate would not look in t hat area because of law lo dispose in the ocean , but there were recomme ndati ons . The three agenc ies , LACSD , L . A . City and OCSD still thought the ocean method shou ld be studied . That wa s one of the dispos al sites so most of the work was done by SCCRWP group and Scientists at Ca l Tech. Recommendation in this report asks fo r further study in the ocean . This staff will be coming back to you in the next 12 months to look into how ocean can be used . A question was asked on how must it costs to go to the ocean . Bill Davis responded $38 . Fe lt it wo uld be a mistake not to look at the alternatives to go to the ocean . There is really no pat answer . A lot of prospects to move in the n e xt few years . Would not be good idea to put out any option. Suggested we keep all the options open. JWS comm e nte d that clean air ope ra ting cost at Joint Operating for 75 MGD treatment plant is $90 per million g allons excluding depreciation . Director Seitz asked if we have industrial processing site now . Ray Lewis commented that it is understood that we have presently 3 million industries that have Cl ass I permits . They have the same problem we have because of regulations promulgated by EPA and the State . Thi s is from the concern of t he industry . Lot of industries are in compliance with the regu l ations but cost is in exce ss of a million do llars to contain that pollution. We are working with industries to reach a reasonable l eve l. Existing EPA standards can 't determine at this time . Direc tor Culver asked who prepared the report and Bill Davis advised that LA/OMA did . Mr. Harper complimented Bill and staff for their h ard work over the years . They h aven't had too muc h coope ration from everyone in the agency he is working with. Orig ina l l y thought maybe we could take sludge -3- out to the desert but the people out there don't want it either. And now its back here . Bill Davis commented that he thought it was a priority for our engineers to work on this problem of containing pollution and come up with alternatives and how to reduce it so we can sell sludge. -4 - , . JUNE AGEN DA LIS TING ALL DISTRICTS v( L/ L-6. vf . v8 . Approval of Selection Committee Report re negotiations with Butier Engineering for P2-23 and P2-24 Ame nd contracts for Construction Management Se r vices for P2 -23 and P2 -24 with Butier Engineering, In c. Change Order No. to P2-23-2 fo r anch or bo lts ????? Aw ar d PW-073, Laboratory Be nc h and Fume Hood Additions at Reclamation Plant No. 1 . Bids Ju ne 5, 1980. Engineer's estimate $80,000. Awa rd PW-066-2, Modifications to Exis ting Sl udge Hopper Out let Ports at Reclamati o n Plant No. 1. Bids June 10, 1980 . Eng ineer 's estimate $45,000 . Award PW-084, Mo dif ication s to Existi ng Sludge Storage Hopper Building at Reclamatio n Plant No. 1. Bids June 5, 1980 . Engineer's estimate $50,000. Authorize negotiat ion s for purchase of ga sch r omatograph in an amount not to exceed $27,000.00 p l us tax. Ame nd c ontract wirh Enchanter IV to cover added fuel, docking and labor costs. Cha nge Order No. 1 to PW-055-2, Modification to Odor Scrubbing Tower at Rec l amat i o n Pla n t No. 1 at no cost to Districts. Time extension 248 calendar days for equipment proc ur eme n t de l ays . Closeout J ob PW-055-2. App r ove Change Order No. 3 to lns ta l la t i o n of Gas Engines with Gear Drives at Ro throck Outfall Booster Sta t ion, Job No. J-3 -1 . NoK time extension . Add $8,075 ,74 for repair of e nlar ged roof open ings necessary for placement of engines. Rece i ve, fi l e and approve r equest from Equinox re error on subcont ra ctor li st in g f o r P l-3-2, as we l 1 as letter from Owens-Corning wa i ving an y right to proceed with the work under the subcontract wit h Equinox, and consenting to substitution of another subco ntractor, Conso l diated Western Insulation . DISTRICT NO. 2 ~ I ni tiate proceedi n gs fo r Annexation No . 40, Wismer Annexation. p I STRICT NO. 5 ~ Sub mi ttal of p r oposa l s for EIR p r epa r ation a nd consolidation fo r Big Canyon Drainage Area . Proposals received from EDAW, Inc. and Frederick Sawyer of Newport Beach and Irvine respecti ve l y . ~ Authorization for agreement bet1oJee n the District and for preparation and consolidation of Bi g Ca n yo n Dra i nage Area EI R in an amo un t not to exceed $-~----------- ~Request for interim service from the Irvine Company for Civic Plaza Development vi Request for interim service from Oaon Corporation for development at Ford 1..,.1 Aeronutronics DISTRICT NO. 7 2' Receive, file and In it I ate proceedings for G imeno Annexation, Annexat I on No. 97 DI STRICT NO. 11 ~ Change Order No. 5 to Coast Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 11-13-2, in the amount of an additional $29,333.00 wtth a tfme extensron of ten calendar days. - - - - iiiiiil - - - - - - liiiiil - - - - -- SUMMARY CHAPTER I BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION CHAPTER II DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CHAPTER Ill DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS CHAPTER IV REGIONAL OVERVIEW CHAPTER V AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS CHAPTER VI ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER VII ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LIST OF PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED LIST OF PREPARERS LIST OF RECIPIENTS LIST OF CONTRACTS INDEX :I / LA/OMA PROJECT FACT SHEET APRIL 1980 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS COMPOSTING/ AIR DRYING AT ROUND CANYON PROJECT DESCRIPTION At Round Canyon, a combination of composting and air drying will be employed to reduce the water content of sludge to about 50 percent as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for disposal in the nearby proposed Bee Canyon landfill (Class II). Dried material will be disposed of in the land- fill until the metals content of the final sludge is r?duced to levels which would permit recycling for public use. Additionally, n· it were to occur, recycling of sludge would then be restricted to properly composted sludges because of concern for pathogen destruction. Provision could be made to ac- commodate sludges from other sanitation agencies serving southern Orange County. The JPL-ACTS process will be operated on a demonstration basis at Plant No. 2 of the Joint Works. The diagram below shows specific processes involved in the proposed sludge management program along with a project location map. .. L ACTI DIM_O~~--TR_.ATIO'""-'-N-- JW: EL lOllO llAIHN! COlll'I All•J,UIO" Anr••••t• lca1e· 1.21• • , •II• !ll lleelOentlel Ar•• I d z '-il _, -i ;~ ·' '\ i \-_,,..TO -SY9TDI CJ.-r~• o--.. 0 DD._.80IT>C8Ysn11 n OVERVIEW OF FACILITIES , REQUIREMENTS ' ~ ~ D ~ &;;] l1111e-e1 Stora .. and ll•IMO ArH leulll C:..et ACl'IC-• FlelO llallOfl CUMr. el Cell.) FACILITIES LAYOUT•AOUND ! c:::::::> OllAMOf COUWTT IAMITATIOll DllTlllCTI C=1 ::..-==:="~·--· FIG. C·--'- •&a·W&ITI &C111f&TO •-.mot ~ ACTl•aclWATC~ftllA-rtnDt .. ; 100 ft. llewatto11 Lewel '----' CANYON SITE c:::::=:; :::=J =.:-=--=-·-=-·--· FIG. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (Please note that Phase II Facilitie~ are h~ina nroposed beginning with the conclusion of LA/OMA Project until approximately 10 years later. Phase III Facilities will reflect information learned from the operation and monitoring of Phase II Facilities.) Begin Construction at Round Canyon (Phase II) Begin Operation at Round Canyon {Phase II) Operate, evaluate & design Phase III Facilities Begin Construction (Phase III) Begin Operation (Phase III) QUANTITATIVE INFO AMA TION Fall 1982 Fall 1984 1985 -1988 1989 Mid -1990 TONNAGES --Based upon year 2000 s 1 udge 1 oads, Phase II Facilities Sludge to anaerobic digestion Sludge trucked offsite and composted Sludge landfilled 375 dtpd 240 dtpd 165 dtpd-240 dtpd* * Lower amount assumes composting; higher amount assumes air drying. ECONOMICS --Based upon year 2000 s 1 udge 1 oads, Phase II Faci 1 i ti es Annual Capital 4,128,000 $/year Annual Operating 8,332,000 Annual Credit (to OCSD)* 2,709,000 Total Annual Capital & Operating Cost to OCSD 8,848,000** Net Total Annual Cost to Operating Agency (Less Credits)6,139,000 * Value of surplus energy and compost produced by sludge processing. Includes value of gas used as fuel for internal combustion (I.C.) engines. **Assumes local share of capital costs at 12~% and 100% of 0 & M costs. AIR EMISSIONS --Based upon year 2000 s 1 udge 1 oads, Phase I I Facilities POLLUTANT HC co SOx NOx Particulates PLANNING CASE 65 385 80 310 45 WORST CASE 80 480 275 656 55 l.C. ENGINES * 3465 1065 1380 8415 220 *Figures for internal combustion (I.C.) engines included for informational purposes. L \ ~ Ftgttres--are--rottnded to -nearest 5 -1 bs--/day.--·-·-· --·---- ENERGY --Based upon year 2000 sludge loads, Phase II Facilities Gas-produced Electricity consumed 2,474 mm BTU/day 45,700 KWH/day I 1-i .. ... SUMl\~ARY OF DRAFT EIS/EIR Sewage sludge is an inescapable consequence of a large urban society served by· centralized wastewater treatment facilities. People and industries depend upon the wastewater system to remove sewage wastes from their immediate presence and to provide proper treatment for safe disposal in the environ- ment. Sludge is a byproduct of meeting this need --the cleaner the water, the more sludge is created. Sewage contains solid particles, most of which are removed by wastewater treatment. Sludge is the broad term for the semi-solid mass formed from these particles during wastewater treatment. Undigested (raw) sludge con- tains more than 95 percent water, has an offensive odor, does not dewater readily, and has a high concentration of bacteria. Solid matter in sludge is mostly biodegradable organic material such as proteins, carbohydrates, fats, oils, and greases. However, other substances, such as heavy metals and trace organics may also be present, especially in large urban systems. PURPOSE AND NEED Sludge management in the Los Angeles/Orange County Metropolitan Area (LA/OMA) is the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles (CLA}, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD), and County Sanitation Districts of Orange County ( OCSD). Two types of s 1 udges must b~ r.1.Jnaged by the operating agencies. Primary sludges are produced by quiescent settling of heavy solid particulates during primary treatment. Sludges produced by secondary treat- ment (activated sludge process) are biological in nature. Of the two types, secondary sludges are more difficult to manage principally because of poor moisture removal (dewatering) characteristics. In all, the LA/OMA area accounts for about half of all the sludge produced in the state of California. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires secondary treatment of wastewater prior to discharge to surface waters. The Act provides, however, for waiver of such requirements for marine discharges upon compliance with certain specified criteria. Each of the LA/OMA operating agencies is operating or has under construction facilities for partial secondary treatment of wastewaters by the activated sludge process and is awaiting action by EPA on waiver of full secondary treatment requirements. In the LA/OMA area, substantial commitment has previously been made to use of anaerobic digestion for conversion of about half of the organic matter to digester gas (about 60 percent methane and 40 percent carbon dioxide) and for destruction of all but the very resistant pathogenic organisms. Digestion does not affect water content, hence digested sludge is over 95 percent water and dewatering is required prior to subsequent handling on land . Industrial pretreatment and source control programs are also being used to control discharge of toxic substances to the LA/OMA sewerage systems. It may, however, be necessary to increase such efforts to meet sludge management needs and Federal requirements. S-1 In 1976 (the first year of this study). the LA/OMA operating agencies col- lectively received and processed about 900 dry tons per day (dtpd) of ra\·,' sludge. By year 2000, the amoJnt of raw sludge to be processed is projected to increase by 87 percent if full secondary treatment is provided for all wastewaters. While some of the increase results fror: population grO\·:th, tr.~ bulk of the increase results frorr. secondary treatment. Currently, waste activated sludge is being generated by OCSD (approximately 30 dtpd) and by CLA (about 56 dtpd). By 1951, waste activated sludge will also be produce= at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant by LACSD. In the past, LA/OM~ operating agencies have discharged screened, anaerobi- cally digested primary sludge to the Pacific Ocean via sub~arine outfall systems. The same concern for environmental consequences has led to Federal and State requirements precluding this practice also led to steps taken by LACSD and OCSD to end sludge discharge. Beginning in 1978, LACSD added mechanical de~atering; then, by intensifying their land-based sludge handling operation in 1974, the agency succeeds in digesting, composting, recyclin; and landfilling 530 dry tons of sludge per day. Similarly, OCSD has been handling their sludge in land-based modes since 1971. Approximately 175 dry tons per day is removed froffi OCSD effluent. Each of the operating agencies are pursuing interim managerient programs until the long ter~ plan develo~ed by LA/Ot·~A Project is implemerited. Secondary treatment facilities are no~·: coming online and will be used in increasing arno~nts in the co~ing years. Increasing amounts of secondary sludges pose potentially severe problems for interim management programs which are being developed by the individual operating agencies. Each of the operating agencies' wastewater treatment plants is located in an urbanized area and concern for nuisance potential is high. Vacant land at the wastewater treatment plants exists in limited amounts and is diminishing as secondary treatment facilities are constructed. These conditions bring about the need for a long term sludge manage~er.t program. In summary, the sludge must be managed in ways which: I I • I Comply with the State and Federal prohibition of sludge discharge to the ocean, Co~p1y with restrictions imposed by other regulatory agencies for pro- tection of other environmental components. Are considerate of the neighborhood and com~unity concerns asso:iatej with siting of facilities. and Recognize technological uncertainties associated with managener.t alter- natives. Since sludge management costs may amount to as much as half of the operatin; cost of the wastewater systems, there is a keen financial interest involve~. However, solutions must be found which consider not only the jurisdictions served by the wastewater agencies. but also the affected neighborhoods, regulatory requirements, and the public. S-2 u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u .... PROPOSED SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Proposed Sludge Management Program is a logical outgrowth of the analysis and comparative evaluation of alternatives, as well as consideration of the major factors associated with composting, energy recovery, and landfill dis- posal. Basic to the program is the concept of minimization of environmental, social, economic, and technological risks involved while providing flexibility to respond to changing requirements, current unknowns, and information gained through monitoring of initial performance of planned facilities. The proposed program for the Los Angeles/Orange County Metropolitan Area consists of individual management programs for each of the three operating agencies. • Goals and Principles for Sludge Management, t Conceptual Timeframe, • Facilities Requirements, and • Implementation Program. GOALS Program goals establish broadly stated policy direction for preparation of the facilities plan and project reports. The goals of the proposed program are: • Environmentally, socially, and economically cost effective recovery of resources from wastewater sludges, and • Reliable management of wastewater sludge to minimize public health risks and environmental degradation. CONCEPTUAL TIMEFRAME The timeframe for implementation of the proposed sludge management program consists of three phases. Phase I consists of sludge management planning by the LA/OMA Project and con- cludes with approval of the facilities plan and environmental documents by the State and EPA. Phase II consists of design, construction, operation, and monitoring of sludge management facilities to finnly establish performance efficiencies and sug- stantiate economic, environmental, and engineering projections while providing for acceptable management of sludge. Decisions regarding expansion, deletion or replacement of facilities would be made at the conclusion of Phase II or after a reasonable period of operation has provided an adequate basis for such decision. Phase II is anticipated to be concluded within about 10 years after completion of Phase I. S-3 Phase III will consist of actions necessary to carry out decisions reached at the end of Phase II. Planning by the LA/OMA Project has defined currently available options based upor full secondary treatment of all wastewaters. These Phase III options therefore, may also be exercised if full seconda~y treatme~t of all wastewaters is required prior to the end of Phase II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY The LA/OMA Project Goals Statenent adopted in June 1975 calls for develop~ent and incorporation of an implementation strategy in the sludge management p1ar: for the Los Angeles/Orange County Metropolitan Area. An implementation pro- grar-'. has been developed which describes the actions necessary to carry out the plan, delineates responsibility for such actions, and establishes the ti~e schedule for activities. The implementation progra~ described addresses co~pletio~ of Phase I and acti- vities included in Phase II of the sludge management pro;ra~. Elements of the implementation progra~ are: • Facilities Planning and Inp1emeritation I Policy Actions 1 Research Studies • Continuing Planning S-4 u u u u L u LJ u u u u i : w .. ... CITY OF LOS ANGELES Thermal processing of dewatered sludge has been found to be the most feasible alternative for the City of Los Angeles. Such a project is compatible with applicable regulatory requirements and can be implemented within the existing treatment plant boundaries, involves minimal truck traffic, and provides for resource recovery through production of electricity and steam for use in the processing of wastewaters and sludges. A conceptual diagram of the proposed facilities is contained in Figure 1. A mechanical composting demonstration facility will be constructed at the Terminal Island Treatment Plant. One of the two basic systems -batch feeding at wide time intervals or continuous flow fed at short time intervals -will be examined. Process selection will be coordinated with Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts to avoid duplication and to develop the widest possible range of infonnation. Primary sludge and waste activated sludge (WAS) would be anaerobically digested for gas recovery and volume reduction. Flexibility for separate or combined digestion would be provided. After digestion the combined sludges would be mechanically dewatered and dehydrated to about 95 percent solids. Studies indicate that dehydration of dewatered sludge can be accomplished using about 400-600 BTU/lb of water to be evaporated. Following dehydration, sludge (perhaps in pelletized form) would be combusted for further volume reduction and energy recovery. Ash from thermal processing would be trucked to a sanitary landfill for disposal. Offgases from thermal processing would be combusted and passed through a heat recovery system to produce steam. The resulting steam would be used in a steam turbine to generate electricity and in the dehydration process. Com- busted gases would be exhausted to the atmosphere through an air emission cleanup system. If needed to achieve a net emission increase of 150 pounds/day or less, gas from anaerobic digestion will be cleaned to remove hydrogen sulfide prior to combustion. Gas would be combusted in a combined cycle power plant to produce electricity and steam. Digester gas would also be used in existing internal combustion engines as permitted by air quality constraints and sound engineering principles. Land availability at Hyperion Treatment Plant is a major constraint on unit process selection. Much of the existing vacant land has been reserved for expansion of wastewater processing capacity and for secondary treatment facilities. Remaining land within the treatment plant boundaries is insuf- ficient to acconunodate facilities needed to compost all sludge that is pro- jected to be produced at Hyperion. ~ Vacant land at the western end of Los Angeles International Airport was considered for location of composting facilities below ground level (sub- surface facilities should not interfere with airport operations). However, considerable uncertainty exists regarding the legally established critical S-5 KEY '\l lf'l\ITI TO THE IYITE .. CJ UN'T PROCE88ES 0 UIEF'UL PRODUCTS HlS'!l'~~ JC Eh~!titS :i!G£S1l0'. 0 IND POINTS M TH£ IYITE .. IC -tfTERNAl COMIUSTIOH WA8 -WASTE ACTIVATED ILUOOE GtS CLE~'...':: H~:..::.\::~ O::r-·~ .. ~:::=,:. T riE ~i.~:..:. P~:i:rssn.:; -~~~,~= :~-0=- AS ... C='•': \~:· ('I: ... 1':1,\:: ~~~·.~ DlG£STlO', sn:.• .. lU:.: !I\~ HE!.1 R~CO\"E~Y t.. l: ['~: s ~: 0". CUt..'..J~ *IF NEEDED TO ACHIEVE A NET n·,:sSIO\ INCREASE OF 150 LBS/DAY SOX OR LESS. S-6 NOTE: ME CHAN I CAL COMPOST I NG onD AT TER~~!NAL ISLAND TP NOT SHOWN OVERVIEW OF FACILITIES: REQUIREMENTS CITY OF LOS ANGELES . :.-:.~~:.:::·~::::".~".. .... FIG. 1 ! u u u LJ u u .. LJ ·-u L .. u LI ... ... - - ... habitat of the El Segundo blue butterfly (Shijimiaeoides battoides allyni), an endangered species. The federally proposed critical habitat was withdrawn on March 6, 1979 and there is no precise estimate of a date for final desig- nation of a critical habitat. Comments by the California Department of Fish and Game on the federal proposal stated that a critical habitat designation which corresponds to the present distribution of the butterfly and its larval foQd plants (a 50-60 acre area in the southern end of the site) should allow for the "normal needs and survival" of this relatively sedentary species if such area were properly protected. Environmental studies indicate that if the area identified for critical habitat were not used for construction of facili- ties and as much land as possible could be planted in buckwheat (a plant critical to the existence of the butterfly), proposed facilities should not adversely impact the butterfly in view of the fact that the other known habitat is a 2-acre site located in the middle of an oil refinery. There are reportedly plans to construct a golf course and other recreational facilities in the area removed from the critical habitat as described by the Department of Fish and Game. While it would appear feasible to locate composting facilities in the area without impacting the endangered species, uncertainty regarding the extent of the legally established critical habitat and the potential conflicts with land use led to the conclusion that composting of all sludge at the Hyperion Treatment Plant would not be feasible in the near term. However, close coordination between City of Los Angeles and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service regarding establishment of the critical habitat for the El Segundo blue butterfly; and close coordination between the Bureau of Engine- ering and Transportation Departments of the City of Los Angeles regarding plans for use of vacant lands is needed to assure that due consideration to land needs for wastewater treatment are included in decisions which will emanate from these activities. Landfill disposal of dewatered sludge is also severely constrained. However, such constraints appear to be political in nature and have led to the conclu- sion that landfill disposal of sludge by the City of Los Angeles is not feasible. Concerns exist regarding the large volume of truck traffic asso- ciated with this alternative. PHASE Ill OPTIONS Phase III options have been defined for each of the LA/OMA operating agencies from information available at the time of program development. It is recog- nized that new information may become available during Phase II which could alter the range of options available during Phase III. The Phase III options, however, provide identification of currently indicated long range alternatives. For the City of Los Angeles, the most reasonable Phase III option appears to be expansion of the Phase 11 dehydration/thermal processing system. Projected sludge loadings for Phase III options accommodate all sludge from primary treatment of 400 MGD of wastewater and secondary treatment of all primary effluent. With respect to the level of secondary treatment that may ultimately be required, the Phase III option would accommodate sludges pro- duced by "full secondary treatment" • S-7 The Phase III option represents an upper limit for sizing of the Phase II facilities. Analysis of the Phase III option provides a description of the maximum potential environ~ental iffi~act that mig~t be realized if full secon- dary treatment of wastewaters or other factors necessitate expansion of Phc.se II..facilities capacity beyond that described earlier. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS From examination of Figure 2, it can be seen that all three of the viable alternatives are included in the proposed management prograffi. Primary sludge and waste activated sludge {WAS) would be anaerobically digested for stabili- zation and gas recovery. Flexibility for separate or combined digestion \'Joule be provided. Following digestion the sludges would be mechanically dewatered for subsequent processing. Following dewatering, three process trains will be used. A fourth -mechanical composting -will be evaluated on a demonstration basis and will not be an integral part of the operating syste8. While land availability at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) is less of a constraint than at the other LA/OMA treatment plants, sufficient land does not exist for full utilization of the existing windrow co~posting system. Large amounts of vacant land are being used for construction of secondary treatment facilities. Additionally nuisance proble~s have been noted with the existing windrow systerr. necessitating improvement5 if the system is to continue to be used. The existing windrow composting system will be modified and continued in use for a portion of the sludge. Dewatered primary sludge would be used in the system. WAS could be added if field tests demonstrate that it does not ad- versely affect the process. Adequate mixin£ of de~·atered sludge and recy:led compost prior to placement on the compost field, forced aeration, improved turning devices, and protection fron rainfall are a~ong the possibilities to improve throughput and reduce nuisance potential. Composted sludge would be sold for recycle as a soil amendment. Excess compost would be trucked to a 1andfil1. Dewatered sludge (primary and WAS) would be dehydrated, (perhaps pelletized), and combusted for volume reduction and energy recovery. Studies indicate that dehydration can be accomplished using about 400-600 BTU/lb of Weter to be evaporated and is relatively insensitive to slight variations in dewatering perfonnance. Ash from thermal processing would be trucked to a sanitary landfill for disposal. The third process train will consist of truck transport of dewatered primary sludge to a sanitary landfill for disposal. This portion of the system will be used to handle the volumes of sludge not accommodated in the composting and thermal processing portions of the system. S-8 u -·-u u LI u u LJ u LJ --u - 11 4-1 u -. u u -u u u u ... .., ... ... ... - ADVANCED WINDROW COMPOSTING DIRECT DRIVE IC ENGINES ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MECHANICAL DEWATER ING MECHANICAL COMPOSTING DEMONSTRATION RECYCLE CENTER GAS CLEANUP * DEHYDRATION THERMAL PROCESSING COMS!NED CYCLE POWER PLANT ANAEROBIC DIGESTION STEAt.1 TURBINE THICKENING TRUCK TRANSPORT OF RESIDUALS (EXCESS COMPOST, DEWATERED SLUDGE, ASH) HEAT RECOVERY AIR EMISSION CLEAUUP KEY \J lf"'1T8 TO THE SYSTEM D UNIT PROCEUES 0 USEFUL PRODUCTS 0 END POINTS OF THE SYSTEM IC-INTERNAL COMBUSTION WAS-WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE S-9 *IF NEEDED TO ACHIEVE A NET EMISSION INCREASE OF 150 LBS/DAY SOX OR LESS. NOTE: PASTEURIZATION DEMO NOT SHOWN OVERVIEW OF FACILITIES D REQUIREMENTS c=:::=lLOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 1 c::J :::-~L~~'::~"::,:::~~:g~~AN a•1a FIG. _ __!J If needed to achieve a net emission increase less than 150 pounds/day, gas from anaerobic digestion would be cleaned to re~~ve hydrogen sulfide prior to combustion. Gas would be co~busted in a co~bined cycle power plant to produce electricity and stear.. and in e>.isting internal co:nb;Jstion engines to drive pumps and motors. Offgases from thermal processing would be combusted and passed through a heat recovery systerr. to produce stea~. Resulting steam would be used in a stea~ turbine to generate electricity and in the dehydration process. Combusted gases would be exhausted to the atmosphere through an air emission cleanup system. A modest scale mechanical composting demonstration will be conducted to estab- 1 ish full scale design concepts and details. One of the two basic syste~s - batch feeding at wide time intervals or continuous flow fed at short time intervals -will be exarriined. Process selection will be coordinated with thE City of Los Angeles to avoid duplication and to enable development of the widest possible range of information. As inidcated earlier, this protion of the system will not be used to manage sludge on a continuing basis and will be for demonstration purposes only. Heat pasteurization of raw sludge prior to digestion will also be undertaken on a demonstration basis. Pasteurization would be necessary if advanced windrow composting is unable to meet as-yet-to-be developed standards for pathogen destruction. The demonstration will establish performance standards and design criteria which will be available should the need arise. PHASE Ill OPTIONS Phase III options have been defined for each of the LA/O~A operating agencies from information available at the time of prog~am develop~ent. It is recog- nized that new information may become available during Phase II which could alter the range of options available during Phase 111. The Phase Ill optio:.s, however, provide identification of currently indicated long range alternatives. For the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, reasonable Phase III op:ions appear to be continuation of Phase 11 facilities; complete reliance on m€:hani- cal composting. Landfilling of dewatered sludge is not considered to be a viable long range alternative. However, an evaluation of landfill disposal will provide information that will be valuable in finalizing the sizing of Phase II facilities. Projected sludge loadings for Phase III options accommodate a11 sludge fro~ primary treatment of 330 MGD and secondary treatment of all primary effluent. With respect to the level of secondary treatment that may ultimately be re- quired, the Phase III options would accommodate sludges produced by "full secondary" treatment. The Phase III options represent an upper limit for sizing of Phase II facili- ties and provide flexibility for expansion of composting operations by shifting from the advanced windrow system to an enclosed mechanical systeM. Analysis of the Phase III options provides a description of the maximum potential en- vironmental impacts that might be realized (1) if full secondary treatment or S-10 I -· ~ u u LJ - L --· u 1.J -· Ll -u I u --- L -. Ll u l ... - ... ... .. ... - - ... other factors necessitate expansion of Phase II facilities beyond the loadings described earlier or (2) if, for reasons not known at this time, the sludge processing system must be shifted more heavily to composting, or to energy recovery . ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Unlike other LA/OMA operating agencies, a land based non-thermal processing alternative appears to be available. Thus, Orange County Sanitation Districts are able to utilize other technology while monitoring performance of the thermal processing and energy recovery systems operated by the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Figure 3 is a conceptual process diagram for OCSD. Primary sludge and waste activated sludge (WAS) would be anaerobically digested for gas recovery and volume reduction. Flexibility for separate or combined sludges would be trucked to Round Canyon in eastern Orange County. At Round Canyon, a combi- nation of composting and air drying will be employed to reduce the water content of the sludge to about 50 percent as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for disposal in a Class II landfill. Dried sludge will be trucked to the nearby proposed Bee Canyon landfill for disposal until metals content of the final sludge is reduced to levels which would permit recycling for public use. Additionally,-if it were to occur, recycling of sludges would then be restricted to properly composted sludges because of concerns for pathogen destruction. Provision could be made to accommodate sludges from other sanitation agencies serving southern Orange County. Such agencies would be independently responsible for processing and handling of their sludges until delivery to the Round Canyon site. At such time as other technology is available, OCSD use of the site will be limited primarily to use as a backup facility . Within the Joint Works, land availability is greatest at the treatment plant located in Huntington Beach. However, available land is not sufficient to allow for open air composting of all sludge that is to be produced at the Joint Works. Like other LA/OMA operating agencies, vacant land is being reserved for expansion of wastewater processing capacity and for installation of secondary treatment facilities. Other than anaerobic digestion, all sludge processing will eventually be accomplished at the Huntington Beach Treatment Plant. However, provision is made for an emergency composting system at the Fountain Valley Plant to serve as backup during inclement weather and if truck transport operations are disrupted. Both OCSD and EPA have expressed interest in continued development of the JPL-ACTS process which has been pilot tested in a 1 MGD facility at the Huntington Beach Treatment Plant. This process is a potential alternative means for secondary treatment and includes thermal processing of sludge as an integral feature of the total wastewater treatment process. However, in JPL- ACTS process, the thermal processing step is halted at the point where high S-11 : I I I l I l JPL AC':'S MWiA'il CAL 0£ ~!.1E~: ~':; D!SiJt,"; IC n,~,~·.£ Ar,~ s:i!L[i=: S~Sit~~ ~ ~ At,~tRJ51C Al.;;..:::-:i::c DlG~SilO\ OVitSTiO:. lri[ ~·~;..~ PR~:ESSlNG MW-!,~';1CltL TR:JC•. OE~!~ER!~S TRL.\SP~~~ ----·-----~-i : I I I I I : I I I ioi:'.:·=J ... co•·.:-:-s~ l!·~ ~ ~I!='. or::·•1 :~s Ti\:..':~. TRL.\$::"Q;"." P·~~:.:~:·.:,· Q'.'.: :TE I I I I I I I ·------JPL ACTS DEM_9.~~TR_A_T_IO_N ____ , KEY '\;' lllfl'UT8 TO THE IYITEM D UNrT fllROCEHES 0 U8EFUL "'ODUCT8 0 END ,.OINT8 OF THE IYITEM IC·INTERN4L COMBUSTION WAS -WA.STE ACTrv ATED 8LU00£ .. L ACTS-ACTIVATED CARBON TAUTMFNT IYITEM S-12 OVERVIEW OF FACILITIES REOUIREP/.ENTS ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS •G!Dla&l •L~f 11a••o11nr Nioo•aw FIG 3 1.01 AIMllLl••~•llOC couwn •nto-c>•"•• •"'" • . i I , w I I '-J u u -u I I w \ ' L.J -u u w u u u Ll u u ... - carbon content char is produced for use in the wastewater treatment process. In contrast, thermal processing systems proposed for the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts would carry the combustion pro- cess to near completion so that a maximum amount of energy is retrieved from the sludge prior to disposal. Since the JPL-ACTS process, if conclusively proven, could result in lower energy requirements for treatment of waste- waters, it is necessary to compare the overall system (wastewater and sludge) energy efficiency in order to compare JPL-ACTS with the proposed sludge management program. A demonstration facility is proposed to provide reliable information on a large-scale JPL-ACTS system. OCSD is pursuing funding to partially redesign and reactivate the existing 1 MGD JPL-ACTS pilot facility as the first step leading to the large scale demonstration facility. A decision to proceed with the large scale facility could be made pending conclusions from the reactivated pilot study. Since utilization of the JPL-ACTS would be demonstration in nature, provision would be made for handling all sludge at Round Canyon on a continuing basis. PHASE Ill OPTIONS Phase III options provide identification of currently indicated long-range alternatives. These have been defined from information available at the time of program development. It is recognized that new information may.become available during Phase III. On a regional basis, the Phase II facilities that will be constructed by the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts will provide information for use by OCSD. Additionally, there may be potential for further development of the JPL-ACTS process. For the Orange County Sanitation Districts, reasonable Phase III options appear to be continuation of the Round Canyon composting/air drying facilities, or com- plete reliance on a thermal processing system such as dehydration/thermal -. processing for energy recovery or the JPL-ACTS wastewater treatment process. For purposes of evaluation, the dehydration/thermal processing system defined for the City of Los Angeles (CLA) and L.A. County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) has been assumed. OCSD would utilize information developed by CLA and LACSD during Phase II when considering this option. Projected sludge loadings for Phase III options accommodate all sludge loads from primary treatment of 280 MGD of wastewater and secondary treatment of all primary effluent. With respect to the level of secondary treatment that may ultimately be required, the Phase III options would accommodate sludges pro- duced by "ful 1 secondary" treatment. The Phase III options represent an upper limit for sizing of the Phase II facilities and provide flexibility for shifting to an energy recovery operation. Analysis of Phase III options provides a description of the maximum potential environmental impacts that might be expected (1) if full secondary treatment ... of other factors necessitate expansion of Phase II facilities beyond the loadings described earlier, or (2) if the sludge management program shifted to an energy recovery system. - S-13 - DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS Developme~t of th~ Proposed Sludge M2~ageMer.t Progra~ was initiated with the analysis of the candid~te syste~s that could be used to process, reuse ard dispose of sludge. Such analysis led to the dcvelop:.ier.t of fundafilental slu:~e management alternatives which encoGpassed the basic concepts that are av2il- ab1e for sludge management. Twelve alternative sludge management projects were defined through analysis of various corr.binations of unit processes with- in each fundamental management alternative and systematic identification of suitable project locations. Table 1 lists the twelve alternative projects and relates each project to a fundanental management alternative. The table sho~s which projects are "re9ional 11 a!ld require the consolidation of a11 sludge to a single location for processing, and which projects are "individual" and can be carried out by the operating agencies acting individually. Project Nunber 1-R-l l-~-2 2-F\-l 2-S-b 3-R-l .3-S-l 3-S-2 4-S-l 4-R-l D-S-1 6-S-l ~anage~ep: ~1tf~~ativ~ Proje: t lyp~ Long Distan:e Transport Regi or.a i Lone Dist~nce Transport -Regiona i Dewater;ng enc Compostin; Regi or.a: De\\atedno ar:: Co:'.".;>cs~in; lndi\·io .. :1 Dewatering ar.: Co~~~s:ir.; Individual-Oi:s~ Thenr.al Pro:essin~ Re;~ O'".c ~ The'f"T!'.a1 Processinc In di vi dua 1 w Thenna1 Processin~ Individ1Ja1 - Disposal Individual Disposal Regional Disposal Jndh1dua1 Baseline lndi\'idual S-14 Proje:t Na"i€ Solar Drying Basin5 DES£~7 Ener;y Pr:je:: Centra1ize: De~a:erir.; an:: co~.?~~-: fo~ De:e~tra1ize~ D~~!:eri~; an~ Co~;:>ost i r:~ Roi.Hi~ ca~yo ... Co'"'.::·~5~ ir.;. Air Drying-o:s~ Energy Re:overy fro~ Siu:~f ar.: D~~ry ~:.~·~ Ener;s Rf::~e~y &r:- S ludge Ene?";y Re:overy fro- S lud;e ar.: So~id wa~tf Deep Ocea~ Outfa11s Barge Disposal Truck Dewatered take to Landfi1ls Baseline ~~0 Prcie::·· A1terna~~ve ~ l I i..i u Ll -u L I I J..J L I i '-J w I ! ..., - L I ·' LJ .. u u ... ... - - ... - - ... - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS Existence and severity of potential environmental impacts of the previously listed alternative sludge management projects depend upon the characteristics of the environment that may be affected by the proposed action. Certain en- vironmental impacts are site specific in nature while others are of concern on a regional basis. The table below relates the alternative projects to project regions. Specific locations of sites are shown on Figure 4 . PROJECT AREAS PROJECT NUMBERS SITE NAMES South Los Angeles County 251, 3Sl, 352, 451' JWPCP, LAX, Hyperion 4Rl, 051, 6Sl Treatment Plant, Ultimate Dis2osal locations: Puente Hills and Lopez Canyon Landfills Orange County 2Sl, 2SlX, 351, OCSD #1, OCSD #2, 352, 451, 4Rl, Round Canyon 051, 651 Ultimate DiSEOSal locations: Prima Deschecha, Coyote Canyon and Proposed Bee Canyon Landfills Antelope/Victor Valley lRl, 1R2 South Edwards Alternate Sites: Mojave, Stoddard Valley and Twenty-nine Palms Ultimate DisEosal locations: on-site Southwestern San 2Rl, 3Rl Fontana Bernardino/Western Ultimate DisEosal Riverside Counties location: Milliken Ave. Landfill South San Joaquin None None Valley SITE IDENTIFICATION Site identification studies were initiated with preliminary studies leading to identification of five project areas. The regional environmental evaluation resulted in identification of parcels of land within the project areas that S-15 were not subject to legal or regulatory environmental constraints or potential adjacent land use conflicts. Each of the project areas were exa~ined to iden- tify potentially suitable parcels of land classified as agriculture, military land, oil fields, quarries, and vacent lands. Lands with siope greater than 15 percent were excluded. Environmental factors prote:ted by Federal and State legislation and/or regu- lations were (1) geohydrological constraints consisting of continuity with usable groundwaters, flood plain locations, and fault hazard zones; (2) eco- logical constraints consisting of distribution and occurrence of rare and endangered animals, legally protected rare and endangered plants, legally established sanctuaries and preserves, rare native plants, and unique eco- logical co~~unities; and (3) prime and potentially prime agricultural lands. Potentially suitable parcels of lan~ which survived the environ~ental con- straint screening were evaluated in terms of potential co~f1icts with adja:ent land uses. Re~aining parcels were exarr.ined for engineering constraints and further screening with respect to land uses within one half mile and future development patterns and growth trends. Information from these studies was supplemented as necessary with site visits to identify the sites for purposes of alternatives analysis. The specific aspects of the biophysical and socioeconomic enviro~ments th:t were included in the assessment of the Alternative Sludge Manage~ent Projects and the Proposed Sludge Management Program are shown in Table 2. Whether esch investigation was regional and/or local in scale is also shown. S-16 l I ~ I . ~ i I L . - j ' ! I '-' I ~ I , w L L I w --. ! : I I ... L \ I ~ w ... .., .. ... TABLE 2 FOCUS OF INVESTIGATION ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AFFECTED ENVIRONME~'TS (V)1 REGIONAL LOCAL ALT.(VI) PROG.(Vll) ALT.(Vl) PROG.(Vll) Physical Resources 1 Geohydrology/Water Quality • Mineral Deposits 1 Prime & Potentially Prime Agricultural Soils 1 Air Quality 1 Marine Water Quality Biotic Resources • Terrestrial Biota • Marine Biota Cultural Resources • Archaeological Sites 1 Histroical Sites Community Patterns & Aesthetic Concerns 1 Land Use 1 Visual Character • Nuisances Public Health 7 1 Air Pollutants • Heavy Metals • Trace Organics 1 Pathogens Public Services & Facilities • Transportation 1 Waste Disposal 1 Wastewater Treatment 1 Water Supply 1 Energy Economics • Public Sector • Private SEctor • Employment SOURCE: DMJM and LA/OMA Project 3 4 • I • I 8 I I I 1. Population and Housing would not be affected. • s 5 I • • I • 2 • I • I • I 6 • I I • • • I • I 5 I • • • I • • • • • • 2. Geohydrology included in Engineering Practicability; Water Quality, in Public Health (see note below). 3. Air quality included in Public Health (see note below). 4. Marine water quality included in Marine Biota and Public Health (see note below). 5. Ocean Disposal not included in Program. 6. land use included in Visual Character and Nuisances (see note below). 7. Public health focused on potentially affected individuals (see note below). 8. Energy included in Quantitative Characteristics (see note below). NOTE: Methodology used in the Alternatives Assessment did not pennit double counting. See introduction to Chapter VI and Appendix C. S-17 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES Each of the alternative sludge manage~net projects were analyzed by a tea~ of LA/OMA Proje:t staff and co~sultants. Co~~arative evaluation of the alte~native sludge management projects was base~ upon consideration of: • • I I Environmental acceptability in terms of potential benefits and adverse impacts and the ability to rriitigate the latter. Engineering practicability in terms of the qualitative factors of feasi- bility, flexibility, reliability, and occupational concerns. Implementation potential in terrr1s of anticipated regulatory coGpatibility, practicality, and public acceptance. Quantitative characteristics consisting of econo~ics, energy producticr. and consumption, and estimates of direct mass emission rates of air pollutar.ts. Qualitative considerations were evaluated and ranked independently. The eval- uation criteria shown in Table 3 were established to per~it comparison of the inherently different considerations. Using the results of the respective eval- uations, alternatives were categorized within each consideration into fo~r broadly defined groups. A sum7iary of the results of the evaluations of quali- tative considerations is provided in graphic form in Table 4. The major quantitative information developed during the evaluation of alter- natives included economics (capital and operating costs), energy consu~ption and production, and air pollutant mass emission estimates. For purposes of co~ parison of alternatives, a system of rank ordering of econo~ics and energy and air pollutant mass emission estimates was used. Energy factors were assumed to be represented by economic information since both costs and credits for energy consumption and production were included in the economic analysis. Additionally, effects of future energy price increases were included in the analysis of effects of inflation upon capital and operating costs. Rankings of alternatives for each qualitative consideration were combinec to9:t- her with the ranking of quantitative characteristics for coMparison of alter- natives. From this coMparison, conclusions were drawn regarding prospects for inclusion of the various alternatives in the proposed sludge management progra~ for the Los Angeles/Orange County Metropolitan Area. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS Assessment of the alternative sludge managment projects began with identifi- cation of environmental factors that could potentially be affected by the re- spective alternatives. It was found that certain geographic factors (such as population and housing) would not be affected, however, other aspects of the socioeconomic environment (such as costs to the public and demands upon public services and facilities) should be examined. Other major factors were concerned with the biophysical environment and public health concerns. S-18 I I . u L I ' w I : w L l I w j i '-' I i u i ' . l l.; L I w --. ! i i I j..j l l I ..., u Li I ~ I ..... \0 I I I I I -I I I I I I I ( I I ( ( TABLE 3 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR QUALITATIVE CONSIDERATION CATEGORY Excellent Good Neutral Fair Poor ENGINEERING PRACTICABILITY long term use in municipal wastewater treatment with good repeatable success, easily adaptable, degree of sophistica- tion associated with primary treatment. Applied in municipal wastewater treat- ment w;th mostly successful results; moderately adpatable; degree of sophis- tication as~ociated with advanced primary treatment. J...I limited use in LA/()41A area but accepted practice in other areas of U.S. with good repeatable success; adaptable with some difficulty; degree of sophistication associated with the conventional acti- vated sludge process. limited utilization in municipal waste- water treatment with questionable success; questionable adpatabil ity; degree of sophistication associated with advanced treatment processes. Not utilized in municipal wastewater treat- ment or limited application with many demon- strable unsuccessful results; minimal adaptability; de9ree of sophistication associatPd with highly mechanized indus- trial proce~ses. ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY Considerable improvement over existing conditions Some improvement over existing con- ditions Insignificant improvement or detrimental change; concurrent improvement and detri- mental change of approximately the sane magnitude and significance. Unavoidable 2/ adverse change in existing conditions but without serious long-term implications. Unavoidable adverse change in existinq conditions with serious long-term implications. 1/ Sol ids removal (about ROt:) in excess of primary treatment but less than secondary treatment through po1)1tler addition prior to pdmary sr.ttlinq. 21 Adverse chanqes that will not bP mitiqat.ed with implPmPntation of a proposed action or with -continuation.of existin9 pr;scticPc; mii.iqat.Pd. IMPLEMENTATION POTENTIAL High degree of acceptab111ty; judged with a high degree of certainty to be compatible with applicable laws and related planning; minimal time for implementation (tenninates all slud9e discharge to the ocean by the end of 1981). Moderate degree of acceptablility; legal or planning compatibility dependent upon policy interpretation (waivers and exemptions not included); moderate anount of time required for implementation (5 years or less). Indeterminate acceptab111ity; any 1ncompat1- bi1 ity believed resolvable through further study during predesign; intennediate anount of time required for implementation (5-10 years). low degree of acceptance; fonnal adminis- trative action to establish requlations, grant a waiver or exception or to change regulations is necessary to assure legal or planning compatibility; substantial anount of time required for implementation of (10-15 years). Strong opposition. Legislative or judicial action required to change law or interpre- tation thereof is necessary to assure legal or planning compatibility; excessive iltlount of time required for implementation (more than 15 years). l V'I I N ..... j I , >~ I ' --J .... ---~ ! -~ /,,- ·-~,,... . -_j . -'""'-.. \ ·-. I .......... ' ' \ ·! :u::i~~ ttO•v~ IHOOAeTa : . ! ~ ! I & •of ce ! i . .. ~ . I ~ I .. "' I i g1 I l( & a ! g SI ~ ; . ; i 4f 3 I g ! i .. I I ! .. : ii ! l! .. 0 j ~ .. i ' I I :: i . 2 ! I ~= i I ~ ! l;J .. :> ; ;; a· ! 0 ! 0 i i ! I !S ;I ! !llVlllOllMlllTAL ACCIPTA81LIT't ••me •UOullCll 0 0 · •.. ,,,~···'. 0 cuLTu•u ~llOu•CH ,. I\~ r ~ I • f ~ ~ • • f\ ~CCC·., .... ,. _; 0 0 ....... _.,., ·,. • .Jo·,.-.,. •. , .• , •1 .. \ c c 0 • - 0 cccco 0 c c 0 0 0 .c . '.-· ~"· -:- ~ :-=- ·eoo _•co 0 coo o-•coo -¥ CC D c -c·:. co -o ~ r'1 • 0 0 : Ll 0 ;• 0 ·--: ':. ·:· ,•:•1•1• • ~-u -De •e:e ~ : ·•1• '•::sec '•C·•c• ecc • • o •• co-o ,-... •• 0 -0 0 ~,..., LW . co 0 --:) 0 --coo 0 l!llOINlllllNG PllACTCCABILITY , ........ ,,. · .... · ....... :" .. , : .. , '•• •r ;. tr•"•···~ #'. • ~ ••• -J:: ~,. • t · rt ~'Ir\ ........ • 0 0 Q D 0 • • • • • • :~u1:,:10NI '.! c 0 0 0 0 ! .... .. i ... - 1:. '"' loe - -> r V' -IC: '.;a~ :Z:> :> :0 -I< <o m.., V'l .0 re: c: :> -I er ::;,-:> ,..., ..... c:r 3~ r ,..., ::::--:Z< < >m C'> 'j' mm ~ 3< m:> :z r ..... c: ... > ~ ..... ::o- 00 c:-:z mvi ('""I -10 V'I..., - .. ... ... In terms of adverse impacts, none of the alternatives would be innocuous. Although the type, number, and significance of the adverse impacts would vary, problems could occur with implementation of any of the alternatives as they were defined for evaluation. The only significant, essentially unavoidable, adverse impacts involved three of the four regional alternatives. Major visual con- flicts, stress to rare and endangered species, and hazards to migratory birds were anticipated with alternatives involvin9 use of the desert --Solar Drying Basins (lRl) and Desert Energy Project (1R2). Excessive demands on local water supply systems were projected for the alternative of Energy Recovery from Sludge and Dairy Waste (3Rl). Potentially significant public health risks related to air pollutants and trace organics were identified for the Baseline No-Project Alternative (6Sl). Private economic gains and increased employment opportunities were identified for all aternatives with only slightly more benefit projected for the alter- natives involving the desert. The only major benefit identified was a decrease in the volume of solid waste to be landfilled which would result from use of such solid waste in a codisposal alternative --Energy Recovery from Sludge and Solid Waste (3S2). Alternatives involving thermal processing for energy re- covery would result in total destruction of trace organics, however, adverse impacts were identified for these alternatives. It should be noted that bene- fits associated with recovery of energy and useful products (compost) from a renewable resource (sludge) are inherent in many of the alternatives examined . In summary, there appears to be no overriding environmental benefits associated with implementation of any of the regional alternatives. Although adverse impacts of non-regional alternatives would not be projected to be insignificant, such impacts appeared to be generally avoidable (either through selection of options from among non-regional alternatives or application of mitigation measures) and/or not projected to be sufficient magnitude to provide the basis for selection of a regional alternative. MAJOR FINDINGS Impacts that were essentially the same and common to all alternatives did not provide a basis for determination of environmental acceptability. Included in this group are costs to the public sector of the economy, induced private econo- mic benefits, and increased employment opportunities. While some differences existed among the alternatives, such differences were not of sufficient regional magnitude to provide distinction between alternatives. Projected minimal or insignificant impacts also did not provide a basis for differentiation among alternatives. Environmental concerns in this category included effects on mineral deposits, Prime and Potentially Prime agricultural soils, historical sites, and wastewater systems. Conclusions regarding environmental acceptability of the alternative sludge management projects were therefore based upon consideration of effects upon terrestrial and marine biotic resources*, archaeological resources, visual *It should be noted that ocean disposal is precluded by federal and state regulations. Additionally, determination of effects upon the marine environment from deep ocean disposal requires extensive additional research. S-23 character and potential nuisance problems, public health, transportation syste~s, solid waste disposal syste~s, and water supply syste~s. A sum~ary of the rr.cjor findings related to thes~ er.viron~enta1 concerns is provided for each of the alternative sludge management proje:ts in the following sections. Decentralized Dewaterin and Co~~ostino (251}: Although the El Segundo Blue utterfly is present on the CLh-LAX C08?0Sting site, restricting develop~ent to the northern portions would probably protect the species from direct adverse impacts. However, dust, runoff, etc. during construction and operation could represent potential indirect stresses, which would probably require assessrne~t by the federal Endangered Species Corrrlittee. Archaeological resources poter.- tial ly present at the CLA-LAX site could be protected by implenentation of ar. appropriately designed cultural resources mitigation program. Moderate visual conflicts would be experienced at Hyperion, the LAX site, and OCSD No. 1. Moderate to low visual conflicts would occur at JWPCP. Odors and dust could be potential problems at all sites. Heavy metals would be of concern with respect to public health if conpost were used for an extended period of tir: to grow food chain crops. Disposal of composted sludge would reduce the ca~a city of the Lopez Canyon landfill by a fairly high percentage. Round Canyon Composting/Air Dryinq (251-X): Implementation of this alternative would reduce the available foraging area for two pairs of Golden eagles nestirg in the Cleveland National Forest by approximately 50 acres. Although this was not considered a sizable reduction in itself, cumulative impacts resulting from continued development throughout the general area could be significant. Archaeological resources present at the site could be protected by irn~lenen tation of an appropriately designed cultural resources mitigation progra~. Although no visual conflicts were anticipated with the existing land uses in the vicinity, major problems could occur in the future if surrounding vaca~t land were developed for residential uses. Potential proble~s from odors, d~st, and noise also would be minor at present but significant in the future if current development plans for the area are implemented. Containmer.t of sludge in a landfill should reduce concerns with respect to heavy metals and trace organics. Energy Recovery From Sludge (3Sl): The major problems associated with this alternative would be moderate visual conflicts at Hyperion and OCSJ N~. l, moderate to low visual conflicts at JWPCP, and some potential fer odors ar:: noise at all of the sites involved. Potential public health proble~s resulting from air pollutants would be greater than for the non-thermal processing alter- natives. Assuming stringent particulate controls, only minimal health hazards would be associated with heavy metal emissions. Complete destruction of tra:e organics would occur during thermal processing. Energy Recover{ From Sludge and Solid Wastes {3S2); While visual conflicts and public heath risks would be similar to 351, there would be somewhat more potential for problems with odors and noise. Nuisances could also include dust and insects because of the refuse that would be involved. S-24 I I I . w I : J L i I ~ l I u I I .... I i ~ u I I ~ J L ; i ~ I w i w ; I u L --- 1 ; ~ .... ... Deep Ocean Outfalls (4Sl): Data are generally unavailable to precisely define impacts upon midwater biotic species. Lack of experience with such practices in the Southern California Bight precludes extension of conclusions derived from other operations. It should be noted, however, that this alternative would accomplish sludge disposal below the thermocline and the more productive upper ocean waters. In addition, significant historical and possibly pre- historical archaeological resources could be adversely affected during con- struction of the pipeline for this alternative. Truck Dewatered Sludge to Landfill (DSl): Some potential problems with odors, noise, and dust could be experienced with implementation of this alternative, although experience with existing operations indicates that they would not be overly significant. Containment of sludge in a landfill should minimize ex- posure to heavy metals and trace organics. Existing congestion and vehicular conflicts on major arterials and local streets could be aggravated, while disposal of dewatered sludge would cause a fairly significant reduction in landfill capacity at Lopez Canyon. Solar Drying Basins (lRl): Implementation of this alternative could constitute a significant threat to the Mojave ground squirrel population inhabiting the South Edwards site and probably the Mojave City alternate site. The facilities would also represent a significant hazard to migratory birds at all of the desert regional sites. Archaeological resources expected to be present at all of the sites could be protected by implementation of an appropriately designed cultural mitigation program. Significant visual conflicts and potential problems with odors would also be expected, particularly with respect to visitors to the Phacelia Wildflower Sanctuary and residents of Hi Vista. There would also be some concerns for public health with respect to heavy metals if the dried material, which could be recycled after two years storage, were used for an extended period of time to grow food chain crops. Desert Energy Project (1R2): Hazards to migratory birds, visual conflicts, and nuisances would be somewhat more significant with this alternative than with lRl, principally because of the thermal processing building. Effects on sensi- tive biotic species and protection of archaeological resources would be similar to lRl. Although potential health concerns associated with air pollutants would be greater than with lRl, ground level increments would be significantly less than ambient air quality standards. Similar to 3Sl and 352, potential public health hazards associated with heavy metals would be minimal with use of stringent particulate controls; trace organics would also be destroyed. Centralized Dewatering and Composting (2Rl): While there would be a potential for visual conflicts and nuisances with implementation of this alternative, they would probably not be overly apparent because of the industrial character of the area. However, there would be some concern for public health with respect to heavy metals if compost were used for an extended period of time to grow food chain crops. Well over half of the capacity of the Milliken landfill would be required for disposal of the composted material. In addition, fresh- water requirements would represent a farily high percentage of the total supplied by the local system. S-25 Energy Recovery From Sludge and Dairy Wastes (3R1): Similar to 2Rl, minor aesthetic problems would probably be ex~erienced with implementation of this alternative. Potential public health problerr.s resulting from air pollutants, however, would be greater tha'1 for the non-therr..a1 processing alternatives, though ground level incre~ents WOJ1d be significantly less than ambient air quality standards. Similar to the other them1a1 processing alternatives, stringent particulate controls would minimize problems with respect to heavy metals; trace organics would also be destroyed. Capacity of Milliken landfill would be required for disposal of residuals. B2roe Disposal {4Rl): Information on the effects of deepwater discharge is limited. As a result, a considerable amount of background data would be re- quired before potential irr.pacts could be identified. Broad dispersal of sludge solids would result. However, modelling studies indicate some de- position of solids on the ocean botto~. In view of the experience with existing outfall syste~s. it might appear reasonable to conclude that some adverse effects would be experienced by the affected benthic cor.vnunity. Baseline No-Project (6Sl): A number of adverse impacts would be associated with implementation of this alternative, which would include composting, land- fiiling, and ocean disposal of sludge. These wo~ld include poter.tial proble~s with odors, noise, and dust at the treatment plant sites, the landfills, and possibly along the transportation routes. Significant public health concerns would exist with respect to air pollutant emissions because of the use of in- ternal combustion engines, with uptake of trace organics by marine organisms, and probably with heavy metals if compost were used over an extended period of time to grow food chain crops. Existing congestion and vehicular conflicts on major arterials and local streets could a1so be aggravated. The capacity of thE Lopez Canyon landfill would be reduced to some extent by disposal of sludge. R•latlve Meritt of AlternatfvH Severity of adverse impacts associated with the alternatives could in many cases be reduced through applicuticn of appropriate mitigation measures. Adverse im- pacts that could be mitigated to acceptable levels included (1) those involving archaeological resources at the CLA-LAX Composting site, Round Canyon site, and the desert regional sites, {2) air pollutants for all but the Baseline No-Project Alternative, (3) public health concerns associated with heavy metal er.issions frorr. the energy recovery/thermal processing alternatives, and (4) sensitive terrestrial biotics species at the CLA-LAX Composting site. Although mitigation measures for nuisance related effects would probably not totally e1iminate potential impacts, the severity of such impacts should be reduced to more accept- able levels. For purposes of comparison, alternatives were grouped according to four broadly defined groups. In general, alternatives with fewer number of adverse impacts were judged to be relatively more preferable than others, regardless of the environmental factors involved. However, impacts judged to be significantly adverse were regarded as considerably more serious than impacts judged to be simply adverse, particularly if such impacts were unavoidable. Using these S-26 I I I ! ~ i i LJ I LJ L \ w I I '-I I i ..i I L I I ! i w I I . ~ I i w L u ..i r : 6-J --- I I .., .. principles, the.alternatives were grouped, with Group I including those alter- natives involving the least number of adverse impacts. Conversely, alter- natives with the greatest number of significant unavoidable adverse impacts were assigned to Group IV. Decisions regarding Group II and Group III were generally based upon the relative degree of severity between these two extremes. • Group I Energy Recovery from Sludge (351) followed by Energy Recovery from Sludge and Solid Waste (3S2) were judged to be the most environmentally accept- able alternatives, since their implementation would not entail any signi- ficant, unavoidalbe adverse impacts. While there would be some concerns for visual conflicts and nuisance problems, these would be appreciably different from those associated with other alternatives judged to be less preferable. 1 Group II Truck Dewatered Sludge to Landfills (DSl) was judged to be less preferable than the Group I alternatives, but somewhat more acceptable than the highest ranked Group III alternative. Potential nuisance problems would generally be similar to most of the other alternatives, while the potential for traffic problems and reductions in landfill capacity would be somewhat more than for all other alternatives. 1 Group III A range of adverse impacts would be associated with the Group III alter- natives, including potentially significant disturbances to sensitive biotic species and aesthetic problems (251-X), some concerns regarding heavy metals (2Sl, 2Sl-X), relatively high reductions in landfill capacity (2Rl, 3Rl),. and high requirements for freshwater (2Rl, 3Rl). Although distinctions between the alternatives were difficult to make, they were generally ranked as follows: Decentralized Dewatering and Composting (251), Round Canyon Composting/Air Drying (251-X), Centralized Dewatering and Composting (2Rl), and Energy Recovery from Sludge and Dairy Waste (3Rl) Deep Ocean Outfalls (451) and Barge Disposal (4Rl), were also included in • Group III. However, their relative positions within the group was not determined because of the number of unknowns and uncertainties associated with their implementation. • Group IV The least acceptable alternatives were judged to be in descending order Solar Drying Basins (lRl), the Desert Energy Project (1R2), and the Base- line No-Project (651). The desert regional alternatives would cause major visual conflicts and significant disturbances to sensitive biotic species. Public health would also be of some concern with respect to heavy metals S-27 (lRl) and air pollutants (1R2). Potential nuisan:es could also constitute major annoyances in neighboring areas. Potentially significant public health risks would be associate~ with 6Sl -air pollutants and possible accur.iulation of trace organics in marine organisns. In addition, heavy metals would also be of so~e concern. Sone proble~s could also be ex- pected with respect to nuisances and vehicular congestion/conflicts. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES For purposes of comparison, alternative sludge manage~ent projects were cate- gorized within each of the qualitative considerations (environmental accept- ability, engineering practicability, and implementation potential) according to four broadly defined groups. Group I included alternatives characterized by an overall positive combination of traits as defined by the evaluation criteria, or which did not possess a substantial number of negative traits, or which possessed few positive traits. Groups II and Ill included projects with intermediate overall combinations of traits. Group IV projects were considered to be least acceptable of all alternatives. Quantitative infor- mation was rank ordered and combined with the qualitative project grouping for overall co~parison of alternative projects. The rankings shown in Table 5 were used to compare alternative projects and identify potential tradeoffs associated with each of the alternatives. Fro~ this comparison, certain alternatives were found to be ill suited for inclusion in the proposed sludge management program; some alternatives were identified as having better future prospects for the basis of the proposed porgram; and certain alternatives were identified as providing a good basis for the sludge manage~ent progra~. The proposed sludge management program was developed from this last group of alternatives. During the evaluation and co~parison of alternative projects, care was taken to give each of the considerations equal weight. Selection of the proposed managE- ment program, however, involved assignment of relative importance to the indi- vidual considerations by the LA/OMA Project Policy Board at the time of plan selection. The Policy Board was provided the results of the project evaluations and trad:- off identification at a two-day workshop session. Information was presented for each consideration, including the ranking of projects within each consider- ation. Using results of discussions at the workshop sessions, Project staff formulated recom~endations regarding the goals and principles to guide pre- paration of the sludge management program and facilities plan and the con:e~tua1 nature of the proposed program for each operating agency. After consideration of Project Staff recomnendations, the LA/OMA Project Policy Board approved goals and principles and the conceptual nature of the management program for each operating agency. This action by the Policy Board concluded the comparative evaluation process. Subsequent efforts were directed towards preparation of facilities plans for each agency and the environmental impact statement/report required by State and Federal environmental legislation. S-28 u u LJ u lJ u u u u u u u u u u ~ _. - TABLE 5 GROUPING OF ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS QUALITATIVE CONSIDERATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING QUANT IT /\Tl VEf ACCEPTABILITY PRACTICABILITY IMPLEMENTATION POTENTIAL ENGINEER I NG REGULATORY PUBLIC BALANCED AIR GROUP COMPATIBI LITYa ACCEPT AB IL IT Ya VIEW EMISSIONS ECONOMICS 351 6Sl 2Slb 3S2 4Rl 351 4Sl 4Sl 4Sl DSl 4Rl 1 Rl 6Sl 2Sl 1R2 DSl l Rl 2SlX II DS1 lRl DSl 2Sl 2R1 2Rl 2Sl 1 Rl 251X 251 4Rl 251X 2s1c 3Sl 2S1X 351 2Rl 2SlX DSl 351 1R2 2Rl 3Rl 3Rl 3Rl 352 352 051 651 III 2Sl 1R2 l R2 352 6Sl 3Sl 2Rl 451 2S1X 352 3Rl 4Rld 2R1 352 3Rl 451e 4Rle IV 1 Rl 3Rl 4Rl l Rl 1R2 1 R2 6Sl SOURCE: DMJM, CH2M Hill, LA/OMA Project a. The relative position of alternative projects within each group was not determined. Includes Practicality. b. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and Orange County Sanitation Districts only. c. City of Los Angeles only. d. Although 4Rl was not discussed with the public, it probably would be similar to 4S1. e. The relative position of 451 and 4Rl with respect to the other alternatives was not determined. f. Quantitative Engineering evaluation rank ordered projects in succession only. S-29 PROSPECTS FOR INCLUSION IN PROPOSED SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Exarr.ination of the grouping of altern=tives for the qualitative considerations (i.e. , environment acceptabi1 i ty, en£i nee ring pra cti cabil i ty, and imj: 1 e::-1~r.:a- ti on potential) shown in Table 5 indicates that no single alternative was the obvious "best alternative''. The decision as to what was the best alternative(s) involved tradeoffs among the considerations. It is possible to approach the consideration of tradeoffs in a linear fashion. For exa~?le, if with respect to qualitative considerations, engineering practi- cability is set aside, it is possible to identify Energy Recovery From Sludge (3S1) as sharing positive traits am~ng the considerations of environMental acceptability, regulatory compatibility, and public acceptability. This alter- native appears in the highest group for each of these considerations. Such conclusion, however, carries with it a series of tradeoffs involving lov:eres engineering practicability relative to the more sim~ler projects. It is worth- while to note that increasing societal and environmental requirements for waste- water treatment and disposal have in the past, been met with such tradeoff. The foregoing example can be carried through for each of the alternatives with varying points of view to arrive at different tradeoffs. It is important hav:- ever, to continue quantitative characteristics with the identified qualitative tradeoffs to provide infor~ation on the econo~ic and air e~ission tra~e~ffs involved. Continuing the above example, examination of the ranking of alter- natives shown in Table 5 shows that Alternative 3Sl would involve higher costs than other alternatives as well as potentially higher air emissions. Alternatives were grouped through consideration of tradeoffs according to pro5- pects for inclusion in the proposed management program. The tradeoffs invc1ved are discussed by alternative according to such groups in the following sectio~s. Apparent Mlnlmaf Proepecta In general, these alternatives were characterized fairly good long-ter~ econ~-ic and engineering characteristics. However, they were either the least desirable in terms of environmental acceptability and/or implementation potential, or they offered no distinct advantages over those that were included in the Progra~. Desert Regional Alternatives {lRl, 1R2) These alternatives would have good, long-range economic feasibility and provide ling-tenn (40 years) facilities for sludge management. However, nuisances, vis- ual disturbances, and ecological stresses on rare and endangered species would be significant environmental problems. In addition, an extensive archaeclogical mitigation program would probably be required. Without state or federal leader- ship, prospects for implementation appear low. A new institutional structure involving the LA/OMA operating agencies also would have to be established in or- der to implement the alternatives. Strong public opposition also has been voiced. Alternative Desert Energy Project (1R2) would have the additional dis- advantage of introducing a significant, new source of air emissions into a clean air basin. There would be concern about the probable violation of the mercury mass emissions standard. S-30 u u I : LI I ; l.j u u u u u u I , LJ u u u u u LJ L ... ... Fontana Regional Alternatives (2Rl, 3Rl) These alternatives do not appear to offer any major advantages. Nuisances and visual disturbances were of concern with both alternatives, while Energy Recov- ery from Sludge (3Rl) would create a large demand on the local water supply ~ystem. Land use pennits probably would be difficult to obtain and it appears likely that federal and state governments would have to assume a lead role if implementation were to proceed. In addition, for Alternative 3Rl, there would be no particular advantage in the use of dairy waste as a fuel supplement since sludge would still have to be dehydrated in order to support autogeneous com- bustion. Barge Disposal Alternative (4Rl) Ocean disposal by barging would provide wide area dispersal of the sludge solids at moderate depth, as compared to the proposed deep ocean outfalls (Alternative 451), which would concentrate sludge in a limited area. Implemen- tation potential would be low, however, due to the statutory prohibition against ocean dumping of sludge. It also would involve high air pollutant emissions, high energy consumption, and costs higher than those associated with the use of ocean outfalls. Public interest also appeared minimal regarding this alternative. However, some interest was expressed regarding ocean disposal as an interim mea- sure. Full definition of impacts on marine resources would require additional study. Baseline No-Project Alternative (651) The Baseline essentially was an interim measure that would not constitute a long-term solution to sludge management. Other measures eventually would have been required had this alternative been selected. In addition, since it inclu- ded ocean disposal, it would be difficult to continue. It also had the lowest public acceptance of all of the alternatives (although some interest was ex- pressed regarding ocean disposal as an interim measure) and some of the more significant adverse environmental impacts. S-31 llftproYed Proapect1 At lom• Future Date Two of the alternatives appeared to have a pot~ntial for im~roved future pros- pects, assUTTiing thet uncertcinties associated with operational difficulties or adverse environmental impacts co~id bf resclved. Both incorporated features that would add flexibility to the selected alternatives or generate additional energy. Energy Recovery Fro~ Sludge and Solid ~aste Alternative (3S2) The main advantage of sludge/refuse co-disposal w2s that it would not require dehydration, which as a new technology in wastewater treatment applications, has some uncertainties associated with it. This alternative would decrease de;..ar;d for landfill capacity, a beneficial impact not com;:on to any othe:r alternative. However, it would require an interface between the sludge manage~ent and the refuse disposal systems, and possibly be subject to operational transfer hazcrds and refuse collection strikes. Public objections also were expressed regardir.g processing of refuse at the treatment plants. Environmental problems would include visual disturbances, nuisances, and a fairly large amount of trucking. This alternative could be reevaluated as a possible future expansion of Alter~= tive Energy Recovery From Sludge (3S2), to provide additional energy generatior .. Deep Ocean Outfall Alternative (451) Although prospects for implementation of this alternative appear at this time very low, it is considered possible that such potential might improve were rr'ore- definitive infonnation obtained on probable impacts on the marine environ~ert. Areas requiring additional and/or more definitive research included deep oce:~ currents and hydrographics, the physical and chemical behavior of sludge in the ocean, and the distribution and abundance of marine biota. Major issues inv~1- ved minimizing localized impacts, chronic sublethal effects, behavioral chan~cs, and the time scale of the sludge induced stress on the biota and potential for bioaccumu1ation and attendant health concerns. Development of sufficier.t i~f0r mation on both the technical and environmental aspects of ocean disposal shoJic result in greater understanding of the marine environment and provide fle>:it~1- ity for future decision making. The public expressed some interest in ocean disposal as an interim measure. Good Pro1pecta Although not without problems, these alternatives ·appear to have the fewest nu-- ber of significant adverse environmental impacts and the highest implementati0~ potential. In most cases, the adverse impacts that were identified for these alternatives generally were of the type that could be mitigated fairly well without significantly altering the overall management system. In addition, the alternatives were relatively adaptable to change and energy efficient. S-32 u u u u u u u u u u u u u u Decentralized Dewatering and Composting Alternative (2Sl/2Sl-X) These alternatives appeared to be relatively uncomplicated in terms of engineer- ing practicability, not noticeably objectionable to the public, and highly im- plementable, particularly at Round Canyon. In addition, a well-established mar- ket for a sludge-based soil amendment existed· in the local area. Although un- certainties existed with respect to wet weather operations, studies indicated that the long-term potential was fairly good. A number of adverse environmental impacts were identified for this alternative, but the more significant ones appeared to be mitigatable. Industrial pretreat- ment and pasteurization could reduce potential public health problems associated with toxicants and pathogens. Should these prove ineffective or not imnediately implementable, the compost could be landfilled rather than recycled. The arch- aeological sites at Round Canyon were considered potentially significant cul- tural resources, but their protection could be assured by further investigations designed to develop an adequate mitigation program. Truck traffic, aesthetic problems, and decreased landfill capacity would remain concerns, but not more so than with any of the unselected alternatives. Energy Recovery From Sludge Alternative (351) As with all of the thermal processing alternatives, 3Sl would provide about 50 percent more energy than the non-thennal alternatives. With credits from the energy generated, costs would be about mid-range. Public acceptance appeared to be conditioned upon minimization of pollutants and nuisances. There also was some uncertainties regarding the perfonnance of the dehydration system, the thermal processing reactor, and the air pollutant clean-up equipment. However, technical studies indicated good long-term potential for successful operation. Although this alternative had the least number of adverse environmental impacts air pollutant emissions were among the highest of all alternatives. However, implementation of best available control technology and coordination of trade- off strategies with air quality management planning would provide a means to reduce them to within allowable limits. Aesthetic problems would remain a con- ... cern, but not significantly more so than with any of the other alternatives. ... ... ... Truck Dewatered Cake to Landfill (DSl) Landfill disposal represents the most desirable alternative from a strictly technological point of view because it was the least complex. It also would be easily implementable, providing permits were obtained in a timely manner. Po- tential toxicants and pathogens also could be effectively controlled through containment. In general, public acceptance appeared to be somewhat neutral, or indetenninate although an interest in resource recovery rather than disposal had been clearly indicated . S-33 Adverse environmental impacts associsted with this alternative were esse~tia11y unmitiostable. These included a siorificent demand on landfill capacity, a large ~mount of truck traffic, a~d ~ fair a~=~~t of nuisances. The alter~~tive also had relatively poor long-ran~e econo~ic fe2sibility, though there wcu1~ be good future potential for electrical cre:its frorr. enhanced landfill gas pro~Jc tion. It also would be dependent on the refuse management system and subject to some operational difficulties during wet weather. Extensive gas collection and odor control systems also mig~t be required. Conclualon1 Based upon the relative advantages and disadvantages associated with each alter- native and their relative overall desirability, it was concluded that: • • • • Decentralized Dewatering and Composting (251), Energy Recovery from Sludge (3Sl), and Truck Dewatered Cake to Landfill (DSl), would provide the best long-tenn prospects for sludge management programs. Energy Recovery from Sludge and Solid Waste (3S2) could, from a techr;ic2l point of view, be implemented at some future date as an expansion of 3Sl. Deep Ocean Outfalls {4Sl) appeared to offer better prospects than Barge Dis- posal (4Rl), although additional study would be required before a definitive conclusion could be reached regarding either option. Solar Drying Basins (lRl), Desert Energy Project (1R2), Centralized De\'~=t~r ing and Composting (2Rl), and Energy Recovery frorr. Sludge ar.d Dairy L«.'astes (3Rl) appeared to have poorest prospects for management progra~s. S-34 u Ll -u u I i u - l L u u Li L ' : w -. u u u I : w .... ... ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Selection of alternatives for the proposed management program precluded a number of significant adverse environmental impacts. Significant adverse impacts pre- cluded in this manner were (1) those involving sensitive biotic species at the CLA-LAX Composting site and the desert regional sites, (2) marine biotic effects including b1oaccumulation of trace organics of ocean disposal, (3) potentially significant public health concerns associated with trace organics in seafood, and (4) excessing demands on small local water supply systems. Beneficial impacts are expected to be derived from the proposed program. Prin- cipal benefit would be production of energy from a renewable resource to supply energy demands for treatment of wastewaters. Other benefits include production of composted sludge for use as an organic soil amendment, destruction of trace organics with thermal processing, as well as induced private economic gains and increased construction employment opportunities. Where adverse impacts were anticipated during the formulation of the proposed sludge management program, measures designed to reduce the severity or entirely eliminate such impacts were included as integral parts of the design, con- struction, and/or operation of facilities. The assessment has identified addi- tional mitigation measures which can be considered for incorporation in the proposed program, however, commitment to implementation of these additional mitigation measures has not yet been made. CITY OF LOS ANGELES The Phase II Facilities and the Phase III Option proposed for the City of Los Angeles would both involve the thermal processing of sludge from the Hyperion treatment plant and disposal of the residual ash/char in a landfill. The designated disposal site is the Lopez Canyon Class II sanitary landfill. Either the BKK or the Calabasas Class I sanitary landfills would be used, however, if the ash/char were to be classified as Group I wastes. A summary of the environmental assessment of the program proposed for the City of Los Angeles is provided in Table 6. The assessment did not include con- sideration of mineral deposits, Prime and Potentially Prime agricultural soil, terrestrial biota (including rare or endangered species), and historical re- sources since these factors are not present at the sites involved in the pro- posed program. Also, land use was not included in the assessment since use of existing facilities was detennined to be compatible with applicable General Plans. It should be noted that the information provided in Table 6 refers principally to Phase II of the program. Unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the program include visual con- flicts that may be associated with the proposed facilities and public sector costs for construction and operation of facilities. The only potential adverse impacts that could constitute preclusion of future beneficial uses would be those associated with visual character and occasional S-35 c-=-- Vt I w °' r=--c:-- T t'\JJLE 6 StrMt11\RY OF r:Nv IRONMENTl\L /\<;~rss~1rn r 1 CllY or LOS l\NfJrLrs !NYIAONM£NTAL CONSrornA TION G.oftyd I Vat~r Ou11l ;;;-~;;;;;;-------- fMPACT9 ""°'rs 1 RPnPr f c.!!.! ~-'!.!!.!:'-!. x 0 0 Arth1!0loqft1l Sf t~i X Yfsu11 Ch1ractPr e NufuncM 0 ----------------------------Afr Po11utants 0 NHYJ M!hh 0 Trac• Ore111n t n --~------------------------P1th0Qftn!S __ ,x. _______________________ _ T r1n~port1 tf on 0 Vntp Dhflo~al __ .x _______________________ _ WaitflWltPr trP~t...,.nt X ;;;;;·s~;;;;5------ [;;;;;&·--------------~------------------------• Publfc Stttnr • Prhat• Sector 8 [""'lOyMP.nt () smrqcr.: flll\JM, tA/OM" ProJcs(' t MtTfGATION MEASURES2 Tnt81 tn r1an x P1rtf a1 tn f'hn x fty11f ,_ ,1h1r x x ----------------·-----·---x x x x --------------------------x x -----------------------------~---------------------x --------------------------x x -------------------------- x -------------------------- x I. fnclofff''-Phit'>P It ritrilftf,.., nn1y. rh.ic:,. '" nritfM ""' fnr.lurlrfl •. 1. Y.trfn11c: 41C:f'PCh of"" f"'fl.1<:t r..1n hP fn rnorr thtln onP f".'1fPtJnry. UNAVOfOA9tt:2 Aovt n~a: fMPl\C 1 ~ Mttfcratfon Not ~ .... , .. ttt .. ----- ____ )5 ____ _ x ~HOtff Tr Ila.A V'1 lONr; TF.RM C:) 0 l. !if'hftlfC: rv,.nf\ only. w.,,,.,. Ou11Jfty woufrt n!lt tu• 11fff'f't"'' rlirrfncr nnm11l nrirr,..tfnntt. a. rnrnptlrf'tf tn l'J7n n.1~P '""'""""c:. ,.,.,,.,rtlnno; '" Nrh ''"" llt; rn·oJrr.trrl: lnrrr•.1•.f'C: '" r.o. rsr. "'"" ~n. f'lrn.fl'r:trt1. S. """ f1f rfftu,.nt rrrl11rr•. fr,.•.hwiltf'r ••••111lrrMrnt. f;. Nr t prntiur t I fl" nf ,..,,. .. 'lV c::= r=-c=· e_~-r-r==--[ __ c--L~-[=_~-c-e_-, mnr-v1:n~mu: co~o,.,n Mnn or "' ~;ou"c' s .. KEV ( ) 9UOHT ( \ ~onrRATE "' M.ttJOn r~ c=-r-:-; c= - .... ... - - nuisances. Enhancement of·an industrial character and intensification of the visual conflicts currently existing in the Hyperion area could be emotionally disturbing when viewed from the residential neighborhood on the eastern peri- meter of the treatment plant. Although long term public health effects would not be significant but are discussed below to document this conclusion. Projected reductions in emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, as well as reduced demand on electrical generating plants, should provide an overall benefit to air quality. Mitigation measures should achieve a net emission increase of less than 150 pounds per day of sulfur dioxide. Emissions from the proposed facilities would utilize a portion of the allowable emissions identified by the Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. Potential long tenn health implications associated with air pollutants should not be significant if ambient air quality standards are used as a measure. Health effects of small increases in ambient air pollutant concentrations are, however, difficult to assess. Rigorous information on the effect of low levels of air pollution is generally lacking. There may be no threshold below which some effect cannot be measured. Thus, while nonsensitive persons would be expected to experience minimal adverse impacts, there may be some adverse health effects in sensitive individuals from long-term exposure to low levels (i.e. lower than ambient air quality standards) of these pollutants. On a practical basis, it is likely that at very low concentrations, the effects become minor or blend into the background of other induced stresses (Ref. 1). On the basis of the "acceptable daily intake 11 for cadmium recommended by the World Health Organization, public health implications associated with cadmium should not be significant. However, use of the Kjellstrom model (which is based upon a no threshold premise) (Ref. 2) indicates a small increase in risk. These differences in scientific opinion and lack of data on nonoccupational exposure complicates the assessment of public health effects of small increases in metal intake. Whether the risk calculated by the Kjellstrom model would be significant depends in large measure on the validity and sensitivity of the Kjellstrom model applied to relatively low dose levels. Ryan et-al (Ref. 3) have commented that the status of the Kjellstrom model is such that "it is premature to base regulatory decisions on its implications". Particulate emission control systems could be used to ensure minimal release of heavy metals into the air environment and to mitigate against uncertainties in the analyses (Ref. 4). If particular attention is given to maximizing efficient capture of submicron particles, it appears possible that effects of cadmium intake projected by the Kjellstrom model would not be significant. Public health implications associated with trace organics would not be sig- nificant, since conditions of temperature, detention time, and turbulence during thermal processing would be sufficient to achieve essentially complete destruction of trace organics. The proposed project would provide for eli- mination over time of public health implications of trace organics in sludge discharges to the ocean. Pathogens would be destroyed during thermal processing and not pose significant health implications. S-37 Tt-1: only ad\'ersf ir.:?acts that would constitute an irreversible comitnent of re:~~~ces w~J1d be those associated with public expenditures and the use of n:ir1rer:e~·:=b1e resoJrces. Althouoh so!"'l: econo:.ic co:.-r.:itment w:>u1d be require-~ to ir.;--ie-:er.t any slud~: rricr.a;e'."'":~nt pro~,..a~, the costs are ~'0rth noting. T~.e fo1 lo~-:ing n~r.renev;able reso:.irce-s \r.'J:J1c be: consu"':ied by the proposed pro;rc:-:- for the City of Los Angeles: Isopar for de~ydration, poly~ers for mechanical dev::tering, lim: in the flue gas desulfurizatior. system, and arrr.:ionia for f~J>. contro 1. It should be noted that operation of the facilities would result in the net pro:J:tio~ of er.ergy, which woLJld be obtained froii a rene\'Jable resource. In a~:itio~, a p'rtion of the sludge would be recycled. Jr;1e~e~tation of the Proposed Sludge Manage~ent Program for the City of Los Angeles w~;1d not cause any significant growth-inducing im~acts. The Pro;ra~ w=~1d n~t pr~~ide any additional wastewater treatment capa:ity, but rather provid~ additional methods for treating the residues resulting fro~ wastewater trc-ct~.H.t for which capacity will already have been determined and provided. Tr.E or.ly other gro\'.·th-inducing potential of the Prograrr. would be irrr·igratior. o'!' prc;ra::-:-related employees and their families, and irrr.igv-atio!i of pop:Jlatior. to acce~t e~ployment in the service and retail sectors. Because most, if n:t all, cor.str~:tion lab~r requirements are expected to be met by local labJr po~ls, and im~igration of service employment is expected to be negligible, virtually no growth is expected from construction activity. Maximum er.iploy- me~t during operations would be relatively insignificant. Therefore, virtuc1ly no gro~th in population or infrastructure is expected to result, either fro- operations or construction of the progra~. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ThE Phase 11 Facilities proposed for the Los Angeles County Sa~itation Districts will involve three process trains {l) thermal processing, {2) windro~ co~ posting, and (3) trucking dewatered sludge to a landfill. The Phase Ill O~~ions ~ill include tw~ process trains {1) thermal processing and (2) enclosed mecha~ ical composting. Although trucking dewatered sludge to a landfill was not identified as a definite Phase III option, it was included in the assessme~t to ~ive an in:ication of the impa:ts that would occur were it to be:o~£ a via~lE ortio~ at some point in the future. The designated disposal site i~ the Puente Hills Class II sanitary landfill. Either the s~:K or the Calab=s=s Class I sanitary 1andfills would be used, however, if the ash/char were to b: classified as Group I wastes. A suTTr.iary of the environmental assessment of the program proposed for the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts is provided in Table 7. The assessme~t did not include consideration of mineral deposits, Prime and Potentially Prime agricultural soil, and historical resources since these factors are not present at the sites ;nvo1ved in the proposed program. Also, land use was not included in the assessment since use of existing facilities was determined to be conpatible with applicable Genera1 Plans. It should be noted that the information provided in Table 7 refers principally to Phase II of the progra~. S-38 u u I 1 w u u j I w I u ! ; u I : LJ w u I : '-' I .1 ~ Ll l Vt I w '° I I I I \ 1 I I I I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION Geohyd A Water Quall A;;-0~;;;;;4-------- Terrestrtal Bf ota Archaeologtcal Sttes Vf sual Character Nuisances Afr Pollutants Heavy Metals Trace Organics --------------------Pathogens5 Transportatf on Waste Disposal Wastewater Treat:J!lent w;i;;·5~;;;;6·----- £ ~;;;;1------------- Publtc Sector Prtvate Sector Employment I I I I I l ( I TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS IMPACTS !!!.!!.!!:!! Beneffctal Adverse x 0 0 x x 0 ----------------------------e ----------------------------0 ----------------------------8 x ----------------------------x 0 x x ----------------------------x • ----------------------------• e ----------------------------e UNAVOIDABLE2 MITIGATION MEA8URE82 ADVERSE IMPACTS Total Partf al Avaf 1- tn Plan tn Plan !!?.!..!.__ x x x x x ______________________ )5 __ _ x x x x x x x --------------------------x x --------------------------x x x . -------------------------· x Mt tfgatf on Not Available x ----------- x SOURCE: OMJH. LA/OMA Project 1. Includes Phase II Facilities only. Phase III Options and demonstration projects not included. 2. Various aspects of an impact can be in 1110re than one category. 3. Seismic events only. Watr.r quality would not he affected during normal oprrations. I I l SHORT TERM mREVERSmLE VS COMMITTMENT OF LONG TERM RESOURCES 0 ----·------e • KEY Q SLIGHT 4. COtllpared to 197R Rasr con'1ftfons 0 rec1uctionc; in NO,.. and Ill: projectPd; incrr>c1!.f'S in C:o. TSP, and SOx projected. 8 MODERATE 9 MAJOR 5. Mitigation would he necessary only if COfllpost quality criteria were not achieved. 6. Use of effluent reduces freshwater requirement. 7. Net production of enr.rgy. ··...,-----.. -~ --,. _____ ---· ---_,,_ ....... --,. .. -.-.• -.....-,,_,.. ~-···--·..._..........·41r• ............ .,.,,.,.,,. .,.... .. l ( l Unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed program include visual conflicts that mcy be associated with proposed facilities and public sector costs of construction and operation of facilities. Potential adverse impacts that coµ1d constitute a preclusion of future bene- ficial uses would be associated with visual character and intermittent nui- sances. Increasing the doninance of an industrial character in the vicinity of the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant could be emotionally disturbing when viewed fro~ nearby residential neighborhoods. Although long-term public health effects would not be significant but are discussed below to document this conclusion. Projected reductions in emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen and reduced de~and on electrical utility generating plants should provide an overall benefit to air quality. Mitigation measures should achieve a ne\·,' emission increase of less than 150 lb/day of sulfur dioxide. Emissions froG the proposed project would utilize a portion of the allowable emissions ide~ tified by the Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. Potential long term health implications associated with air pollutants should not be significant if ambient air quality standards are used as a measure. Health effects of small increases in ambient air pollutant concentrations are, however, difficult to assess. Rigorous infonr.ation on the effect of low 1ev:1s of air pollution is generally lacking. There may be no threshold below which some effect cannot be measured. Thus, while nonsensitive persons would be expected to experience minimal adverse impacts, there may be some adverse health effects in sensitive individuals from long term exposure to low levels (i.e. lower than ambient air quality standards) of these pollutants. On a practical basis, it is likely that at very low concentrations, the effects be- come minor or blend into the background of other induced stresses (Ref. 1). On the basis of the ttacceptable daily intake" for cadmium recommended by the Warld Health Organization, public health implications associated with cad~ium should not be significant. However, use of the Kjellstrorn model (which is based upon a no threshold premise) (Ref. 2) indicates a small increase in risk. These differences in scientific opinion and lack of data on nonoccupational exposure complicates the assessment of public health effects of sma11 increases in metal intake. Whether the risk calculated by the Kjellstrorr. model would be significant depends in large measure on the validity and sensitivity of the Kjellstrom model applied to relatively low dose levels. Ryan et-al (Ref. 3) have corranented that the status of the Kjellstrom model is such that "it is premature to base regulatory decisions on its implications". Particulate emission control systems could be used to ensure minimal release of heavy metals into the air environment and to mitigate against uncertainties in the analyses (Ref. 4) If particular attention is given to maximizing efficient capture of submicron particles, it appears possible that effects of cad~iu~ intake projected by the Kjellstrom model would not be significant. Public health implications associated with long term use of sludge based products for raising garden produce appear potentially significant. Aggressive industrial pretreatment programs and labeling instructions against such use should substantially reduce the significance of such implications. There are indications that pretreatment programs to remove cadmium could achieve intake levels below the "acceptable daily intake" recommended by the World Health 5-40 L \ LJ u u l i I A..j u \ I w u u \ ; Ll \ w I i u I ; I ! '-I I I I ! w Ll ... .. ... .. .. ... Organization. The Kjellstrom model would indicate a minimal risk. Labeling against use of sludge based products for such use could lessen risks. However, potential exists for individuals to ignore such labels. Use of sludge based products to grow non-foodchain crops would have no signifi- cant health implications, however, potential exists for conversion of such land to use for food chain crops. Implications of this possibility are difficult to assess. For effects to be of serious concern, sludge application would have to occur for a long time period as would use of the land for food chain crops. Public health implications associated with trace organics would not be signifi- cant since conditions of temperature, detention time, and turbulence during thermal processing would be sufficient to achieve essentially complete destruc- tion of trace organics. Trace organics in composted sludge are not indicated to be actively taken up by plants. Therefore, trace amounts applied with the compost are expected to remain in the soil. The proposed program would provide for elimination over time of public health implications of trace organics in sludge discharges to the ocean. There may however, be an intervening time period when such risks may be increased as a result of re-emergence of contami- nated sediments. Such occurrence would be temporary and diminish as the con- taminated sediments were moved offshore into the deep basins. Pathogens would be destroyed during thermal processing and not pose significant helath implications. Assuming quality control criteria are achieved by the composting process, minimal public health risk should ensue . Landfilling of dewatered sludge should have no long term significant public health implications. Some short term implications may be associated with acci- dents involving trucks hauling dewatered sludge. The only adverse impacts that would constitute an irreversible commitment of resources would be those associated with public expenditures and the use of nonrenewable resources. Although some economic commitment would be required to implement any sludge management program, the costs are worth noting. The following nonrenewable resources would be consumed by the proposed program for the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts: Isopar for dehydration, poly- mers for mechanical dewatering, lime in the flue gas desulfurization system, and ammonia for NOx control. It should be noted that operation of the facilities would result in the net production of energy, which would be obtained from renewable resource. In addition, a portion of the sludge would be recycled . Implementation of the Proposed Sludge Management Program for the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts would not cause any significant growth-inducing impacts. The program would not provide any additional wastewater treatment capacity, but rather provide additional methods for treating the residues resulting from wastewater treatment for which capacity will already have been detennined and provided • The only other growth-inducing potential of the program would be immigration of program-related employees and their families, and immigration of population S-41 to accept employment in the service and retail sectors. Because most, if not all, construction labor requirements are expected to be met by local labor pools, and imr.:igration of service e~ploymcnt is expected to be ne3ligible, virtually no gro\·,•th is expected fro:.. construction activity. Maximurr. err:~·loy ment during operations would be relatively insignificant. Therefore, vir- tually no growth in population or infrastructurf is expected to result, either from operations or construction of the progra~. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS The Phase II facilities proposed for the Orange County Sanitation Districts will involve co~posting/air drying of dewatered sludge at a site near Round Canyon. Phase III options include (1) a continuation of the Round Canyon operation and (2) energy recovery. Dried sludge produced in both phases and surplus ash/char that would be produced by the energy recovery option would be disposed in the proposed Bee Canyon Class II landfill. A summary of the environmental assessment of the progra~ proposed for the Orange County Sanitation Districts is provided in Table 8. The assessment did not include consideration of Prime and Potentially Prime agricultural soils and historical resources since these factors are not present at the sites involved in the proposed sludge management progran. Althoug~ the Ro~nd Canyon site is in an area that has potential for mineral extraction, mineral deposits were not included since it was determined during the assessment of alternatives that such impacts would be insignificant. It should be noted that information provided in Table 8 refers principally to Phase II of the program. Unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed program include loss of about 50 acres of potential foraging habitat for the two pair of Golden eagles {Aguila Chrysaetos) nesting in the Cleveland National Forest. Because of continued development throughout the general area such impact could beco~e important in the future in terms of cumulative impacts. While proposed faci- lities would not have a significant adverse on the existing Canyon area as provided by the currently applicable General Plans, future visual conflicts could be perceived as emotionally disturbing by inhabitants of such future development. Public costs of construction and operation of proposed facilities would also be considered as an unavoidable adverse impact. Potential adverse impacts that could constitute a preclusion of future bene- ficial uses would be associated with terrestrial biota (loss of 50 acrea of foraging habit for the two pairs of Golden eatles nesting in Cleveland and National Forest), and visual character impacts and potential nuisances that could be expected at the Round Canyon site if development occurs in the Round Canyon area as provided by currently applicable General Plans. Potential long-term public health effects would not be significant but are discussed below to document this conclusion. Net emission increases projected for the proposed project would be largely from mobile sources. Such emissions would utilize a portion of the allowable emissions identified by the Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. S-42 u l : u u I i w I : '-l I I I w i I w i : w ) I I ! t.I I I u \ . ( ; I.I I I L; I f w u J ' u I tn I .,s::.. w I I ( l l l I I I I l TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS I I I l . 1 -----·· ------··--2-~NAVOIDABLE 2 ~~~l!tT IRREVERSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES ADVERSE VS COMMITTMENT OF IMPACTS IMPACTS LONG TERM RESOURCES ENVmONMENTAL CONSIDERATION Geohyd A Water Ouall Air Oualtty Terrestrial e;ota Archaeological Sttes land Ilse Ytsual Character Nuisances Afr Pollutants H;;;;-;.;;;1;4------- Trace Organics Pathogens Transportation Waste Ofsposa 1 Wastewater Treatment ;;;;;·s~;;1;s ______ _ [;;;;;6------------- Public Sector Private Sector Employment ~ Aenpficfal ~ ---~-----------------·--··-0 ----------------------------9 ------·---------------------x ----------------------------* 7 -----------------------~-?- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ----------------------------0 ____ l(. _____________________ _ ___ J!.. _____________________ _ e x --------------------------------~---------------------------~----------------------e • ------------~------------- SOURCE: llM.IM. LA/OMA Project Total in Plan Partial fn Phn Avail- ~ ·--~-------··---------·- ----·----·---~-------~-- x ----·-----------------~·-- ----------------------~--_____________ ).{ _______ .>{ __ _____________ )5 _______ ~-- --------------~-------~-- ---~--------------------- ---~---------------------_____________ J!_ ______ ){ __ x ______________ ):< __________ _ x -------------------------- Mitfgatton Not Available _____ x ___ _ _____ x ___ _ x ----------- t. tncludpc; Phai;P ti Facflftiec; only. Jlhac:P 111 Ofitirm•, ""If n,.111nnc;tr11tion Proirct not includ.-rf. 2. Vari ouc; ii spec ts of .tri il'lpr1C t c..n hr in morP th;in nnr i:at,.•Jory. 3. Sefsmtc events only. Water quality woulrf not be affected durtng normal operations. 4. Assu111es PhasP II I full enPrgy recovery. Hrqligihle rffectc; from JPL-ACTS. S. IJc;e of effluent reduces frec;hwittP.r rPoutrPl'IW'nt. 6. Net prolfuction of enP.rqy. e ----------- ----*7---- ----*·r-- *7. llotr: turrrntlv no mil.tor im11,1ct. Rp;ili1ation of futurr> drvrlopmrnt 11lan-; will. hnw1•vr>r. r·r".ull in mtljnr ,11lvrr"" imp.1ct. e -------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------ KEY Q SLIGHT 8 MODERATE • MAJOR ( ( I Potential long term health implications associated with air pollutants should not be significant if ambient air quality standards are used as a measure. Health effects of small increases in ambient air pollutant concentrations are, however, difficult to assess. Rig~rous information on the effect of low levels of air pollution is generally lacking. There m2y be no threshold below whi:h some effect cannot be measured. Thus, wt1ile nonsensitive persons would be expected to experience minimcl adverse impacts, there may be some adverse health effects in sensitive individuals fro~; long term exposure to low levels (;.e. lo~~r than ambient air quality st dards) of these pollutants. On a practical basis, it is likely that at very low concentrations, the effects become minor or blend into the background of other induced stresses (Ref. 1). On the basis of the "acceptable daily intake" for cadr.:iurn recoroiended by the World Health Organization, public health implications associated with cad~iu~ should not be significant. However, use of the Kjellstrom model (which is based upon a no threshold pre~ise) (Ref. 2) indicates a small increase in ris~. These differences in scientific opinion and lack of data on nonoccupational exposure complicates the assessment of public health effects of small in- creases in metal intake. Whether the risk calculated by the Kjellstrom model would be significant depends in large measure on the validity and sensitivity of the Kjellstrom model applied to relatively low dose levels. Ryan et-al (Ref. 3) have cornr.;ented that the status of the Kjellstrom model is such that "it is premature to base regulatory decisions on its implications". Particulc:te ·emission control systems could be used to ensure minimal release of heavy met21s into the air environment and to mitigate against uncertainties in the analyses (Ref. 4). If particular attention is given to maximizing efficient capture of submicron particles, it appears possible that effects of cadmium intake pro- jected by the Kjellstrom model would not be significant. Public health implications associated with heavy metals and trace organics at the Round Canyon facilities should be minimal since all processed sludge would be landfilled until heavy metal concentrations in the processed sludge reach acceptable levels. Thermal processing should destroy essentially all trace organics and pathogens and therefore pose no significant health threat from these sources. The project would eliminate health implications asso- ciated with trace organics in sludge discharges to the ocean. Except for potential wind blown dust, health implications associated with pathogens at the Round Canyon site should not be significant. Health im- plications arising frorr. wind blown dust need not be significant if adeqJate dust control measures are designed into the facilities and operating proced~res. The adverse impacts that would constitute an irreversible commitment of re- sources would be those associated with (1) loss of the 50 acres of foraging habitat for the two parirs of Golden eagles (Aguila Chrysaetos), (2) poten- tial loss of an emotionally satisfying visual environment if land use conflicts were to result from realization of future development plans, and (3) public expenditures. It shou1d be noted that operation of the facilities would result in the pro- duction of energy, which would be obtained from a renewable resource. Implementation of the Proposed Sludge Management Program for the Orange County S-44 u i I I iJ L I w I I L I LJ u I : '-' l I i.J L. I I w u I I j..j I I w LJ I i u Sanitation Districts would not cause any significant growth-inducing impacts. The program would not provide any additional wastewater treatment capacity, but rather provide additional methods for treating the residues resulting from wastewater treatment for which capacity will already have been determined and provided. The only other growth-inducing potential of the program would be imnigration of direct project employees and their families, and immigration of population to accept employment in the service and retail sectors. Because most, if not all, construction labor requirements are expected to be met by local labor pools, and immigration of service employment is expected to be negligible, virtually no growth is expected from construction activity. Maximum employ- ment during operations would be relatively insignificant. Therefore, virtually no growth in population or infrastructure is expected to result, either from operations or construction of the program. S-45