The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-10-29COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. sax 8127, F'DLJNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) October 22, 1980 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 5 WEDNESDAY ,I OCTOBER 29., 1980 -7": 30 p .·MI OASIS CENTER 5TH AND MARGUERITE ROOM 1 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of October 8, 1980, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date to consider actions relative to public hearing on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re Sewerage Improvements for Big Canyon Drainage Area. JWS:rb II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Calif om la DISTRICT No. 5 ADJOURNED·· REGULAR· MEET I NG I (1) Roll call OCTOBER 29~ 1980 -7: 30 p IM.· OASIS CENTER 5TH AND-MARGUERITE ROOM 1 CORONA DEL MAR~ CALIFORNIA Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA (2) · Consideration of actions rel"ative to public hearing on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re Sewerage Improvements for Big Canyon Drainage Area: (a) Open hearing {b) Consideration of motion to receive and file written comments relative to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report '(c) Consideration of oral comments, if any (d) General discussion and staff comments (e) Close hearing (.3) Consideration of motion directing staff and consultant to prepare Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re Sewerage Improvements for Big Canyon Drainage Area after the close of the comment period on November 7, 1980 (4) Other business and communications, if any (5) Consideration of motion to adjourn II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: of Or1n9e County, Califomla DISTRICT No.· _s _ ADJOURNED·· REGULAR· MEET I NG . OCTOBER 29, .1980 -7 :30 P .M. OASIS CENTER 5TH AND MARGUERITE ROOM 1 CORONA DEL MAR~ CALIFORNIA Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA (Revised) (1) Roll call (2) Consideration of actions relative to public hearing on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re Sewerage Improvements for Big Canyon Drainage Area: . (.3) (4} (5) (a) @ !c) IYl l7 ® (e) Open hearing Staff and Consultant's Summary of Proposed Project Consideration of motion to receive and file written comments relative to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, if any Consideration of oral comments, if any General discussion and furthe·r staff comments (f) Close hearing f J.:/ Consideration of motion directing staff and consultant to prepare Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re Sewerage Improvements for Big Canyon Drainage Area after the· close of the comment peri-0d on November 7, 1980 Other· business and communications, if any Consideration of motion to adjourn?.'~ __ ,.. II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: DISTRICT No. 5 ADJOURNED REGULAR ·MEETING OCTOBER 29) 1980 -7:30 P.M. OASIS CENTER 5TH AND MARGUERITE ROOM 1 CORONA DEL MAR) CALIFORNIA Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA (Revised) (1) Roll call (2) Consideration of actions relative to public hearing on Dra f t Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re Sewerage Improvements for Big Canyon Drainage Area: (a) Open hearing ~~30 ~Staff and Consultant's Summary of P ro p osed Project ,...-(c ) I Nib ( @> ~(e) Consideration of motion to receiv e and file written comments relative to the Draft Supplemental Env ironmental Impact Report, if any Consideration of oral comments, i f a ny (.3 ) (. 4) (5) General discussion and further staff comments (.f) Close hearing 1 :15 Consid eration of motion directing staff and consultan t to prepare Final Supplemental Env ironmental Impact Report re Sewerage Improvements for Big Canyon Drain age Area a f ter the close of the comment period on November 7 , 1 9 80 Other business and c ommunications, i f any Consideration of motion to adjourn q;1 e .-f . _, ·r.~ -...;;;:~ -. - PRELIMINARY RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR By EDAW inc. 220 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 October 31, 1980 1 10.0 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR This section is to contain the record of public commentary and appropriate responses to issues raised during the period of public review. Since the review period will be terminated on November 7, 1980, this material is preliminary and will not be finalized until after the end of the review period. This material has been pre- pared at this time in order that a progress review can be accom- plished and expedite the preparation of the Final EIR. A public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIR was held on October 29, 1980, at the Senior Citizens' Oasis Center, 5th and Marguerite in Newport Beach. At this public hearing, verbal testi- mony was received from the following individuals: 1. Bart Ellerbroek 6 Cypress Tree Lane, Irvine, CA representing Friends of Newport Bay 2. Frank Robinson 1007 Nottingham Road, Newport Beach, CA 3. Dayne St~les representing The Irvine Company 4. Dennis O'Neil 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA representing J. M. Peters Development The transcript of the hearing has been attached at the end of this section. The responses to the comments heard have not been prepared in a final form, but in order for a progress review to be made, some preliminary responses have been prepared. In order for these responses to be understood with reference to the verbal testimony, it has been necessary to summarize the points of the verbal testimony. (These are not verbatim summaries and therefore it is suggested that the reader also review the transcript) . The summary testimony is followed by the response. 10.l BART ELLERBROEK TESTIMONY The testimony taken from Mr. Ellerbroek pointed out that although the Friends of Newport Bay were not opposed to residential and com- mercial growth in the area, they would be highly concerned if it posed a hazard to the integrity and future status of upper Newport Bay as an ecologic reserve. Mr. Ellerbroek indicated that the same project had been previously denied by the State Coastal Commission in May of 1977 due to its impact on endangered species (Clapper Rail and Belding Savannah Sparrow) and therefore not in conformance to Section 30230 and Sections 30240A & B of the Coastal Act. He also pointed out that how these species will react to the con- struction of the project is not precisely known and it is not possible to predict the effects of the construction on the breeding 1 habits of the Clapper Rail. Mr. Ellerbroek concludes by stating the Alternatives to the preferred project would not encounter these adverse impacts and should be given consideration. '--' 10 • 2 RESPONSE Although the project is similar to the project proposed in 1977, it should be pointed out that the mitigation measures proposed with the project have considered the impacts and minimize the potential impact to the habitat of the endangered species. Section 30230 of the Coastal Act states that: "marine resources be maintained, en- hanced, and where feasible, restored; special protection be given to areas and species of special biologic or economic significance; uses of the marine environment be carried out in a manner to sustain biological productivity of coastal waters and maintain healthy popu- lations of all species of marine organisms •.. ". Section 30240 of the Coastal Act states: "Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant di~ruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas. Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impact which would significantly degrade such areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas". The project conforms to these sections of the act by first avoiding the potential habitat area of the Belding's savannah sparrow altogether (this is accomplished through the use of the southerly alignment which was not submitted to the Coastal Commission in 1977) and by timing the construction period to be outside of the breeding and nesting period for both the Belding's savannah sparrow and the Light-footed Clapper Rail. The construction period and the phasing of the work along the proposed alignment avoids the critical breeding and nesting season of the Light-footed Clapper Rail. According to the California Department of Fish and Game, the habitat of the Light-footed Clapper Rail of primary concern to them, is nearest that portion of the pref erred project between San Joaquin Hills Road and Newport Dunes. This portion of the project would be constructed between November 1 and December 15. This time frame is at least one month after the nesting season of the Clapper Rail .. Typically, the nesting season ends in July · but there have been sightings of Clapper Rail.chicks as late as September. Additionally, the construction of the project would be monitored by a biologist representing the Department of Fish and Game so that if it is observed that damaging affects are occurring, the construction can be halted. A moveable protective barrier, as may be required, is also proposed, to screen the construction from the sensitive habitat areas. These mitigation measures conform to the Coastal Act by providing: 1. Special protection is given to areas and species of biologic significance during the construction of the project by its timing and by the monitoring of the construction by a biologist. 2 1 2. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas will be pro- tected from significant disruption by either total · avoidance and/or timing of the construction. 3. Development of the sewer line in the vicinity of environmentally sensitive areas has been designed to prevent adverse impacts or degradation of the area by the appropriate timing, non-use of pneumatic equipment, and use of protective moveable barriers along the construction. These measures have been reviewed with the Department of Fish and Game and have been found to be satisfactory, as referenced in the letter of September 30, 1980, from the Sanitation Districts to the Department of Fish and Game. The Coastal Commission has also previously given approval to other development adjacent to significant wildlife habitats with condi- tions on their use during breeding seasons or other mitigatory conditions; i.e., Arcata Little League Ballfield; conditioned permits near Valencia Lagoon in Santa Cruz County to protect the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander; conditioned permit in Monterey County to protect indigenous Monterey Cypress trees; and other habitat protective measures in power plant siting and on-shore liquefied natural gas studies. The proposed project and its mitigation measures could be considered comparable to these previous permits. Other Alternatives to the proposed project have lesser impacts to the resources of the Bay; however, the Alternatives have other significant negative features which make them less preferred. Development of a new pump station at Jamboree Road would not only require higher capital costs (over 1/4 of a million dollars), but would also require more than 20 times the cost of maintenance and electrical power. The annual electrical power requirement is comparable to 2150 barrels of oil/year. This Alternative would effectively be a long-term commitment to the increased consumption of energy, and in Southern California where much of the electrical power generated is from fossil fuel burning power plants, it would mean a probable secondary environmental impact of air pollutant emissions and a consumption of water for cooling purposes. The Tunnel Alternative requires the highest capital expenditure. This Alternative is three times greater than the preferred project and more than twice the cost of a new pump station. The benefit of this Alternative (not impacting the resources of the Bay) comes at a substantial price and is highly questionable when compared to the preferred project in light of the mitigation measures and acceptance of these conditions by the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 10.3 FRANK ROBINSON TESTIMONY \...,! Mr. Robinson's testimony indicated his concern that the Draft EIR was not definitive in its description of environmental impacts and thus not adequate to enable a basis for evaluation of the pro- ject and alternatives. As an example, Mr. Robinson cites the 3 1 ---- description of the project having a 30 foot wide construction corridor through the canyon. Mr. Robinson contends that with allowance for storage, trucking, backhoe equipment, the construction corridor could be 100 feet wide. Mr. Robinson also feels that the exposed surfaces which may be left after construction would be subject to errosion and siltation into the bay due to the long time period required for revegetation. Mr. Robinson also requests that the consideration of the enhancement measure of removing the existing spoils pile be further described to include description of the environmental effects of that action. 10 . 4 RESPONSE At this time, precise engineering documents suitable for construction bids have not been prepared for all alternatives considered. The alternatives presented in the EIR are conceptual or what is conunonly referred to as preliminary designs. A number of project reports have been previously prepared and reviewed by the Directors of the Sanitation District and are available for review. These are listed in the Reference Section of the Draft EIR (Section 9) ·. These reports describe in greater detail the preferred project and-the alternatives; these have been utilized in the preparation a°f the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR summarizes key decision-making factors such as: The nature and urgency of the problems with existing sewerage facilities; alternative solutions; costs of the alternatives; and the environ- mental effects of the alternatives. These alternatives have been described in a format to allow comparisons to be made and a direction to be taken. This is the purpose and intent of the California Environmental Quality Act and the EIR conforms to these objectives. The example of the need for up to 100 feet width of construction corridor appears excessive. A 100 foot construction corridor is equivalent to a six-lane roadway. The proposed construction corridor should not be perceived as a uniformly wide swath along the pipeline alignment. Rather, the corridor will vary in width accord- ing to constraints to the construction activities (i.e., slope, vegetation, accessibility, etc.). Storage, trucking, backhoe equipment storage, would most iikely occur only at accessible points along the project. For the most part, the trenching operations would be confined to a narrow area which at this time has been agreed to with the Department of Fish and Game to be kept to 20 feet. The trenching equipment itself is approximately 8 to 10 feet wide. Upon completion of the trenching and laying of the pipe, the trench will be backfilled and seeded with a combination of annual and perennial plant material of predominantly native species. The ideal time for sowing seeds is in the Fall months just prior to winter rains. The fact that.the soil will essentially be broken up and irrigated will create a superior environment for their propagation. Initially, a mixture of seeds and soil amendments will be broadcast over disturbed areas. This will allow the rapid germination of the annual plants which will subsequently be watered with natural rainfall. It is expected that re-vegetation and soil "-'1 stabilization by annuals will occur within a matter of several weeks. Over the following period of several months, perennial species will establish themselves and eventually dominate treated areas. 4 ...... . ..... e. ,~ The removal of the soils pile at the mouth of Big Canyon is not a part of the project. Rather, it is a measure of further enhance- ment of the project should it be determined that additional measures beyond the direct mitigatory measures are required to make the project more acceptable. As it is not a part of the project, detailed environmental effects for removal of the spoils pile have not been described. However, further evaluation of the effects associated with removal of the spoils pile can be found in the Draft EIR for the Big Canyon Dredge Fill Stockpile Removal prepared by RBF in 1974. 10.5 DAYNE STILES' TESTIMONY Mr. Stiles' testimony was in favor of the proposed project and commended the Sanitation District for its attempts to expedite a solution to the sewer needs of the area. In addition, Mr. Stiles pointed out that consideration of the energy consumption and the reliability of the pump station alternative were not as favorable as the preferred project. lo·. 6 RESPONSE None Required. 10.7 DENNIS O'NEIL'S TESTIMONY Mr. O'Neil's testimony indicated that he preferred the proposed pro- ject and clearly understood the environmental issues. He indicated that he considers the energy consumption of the pump station alternative as an adverse impact. 10.8 RESPONSE None Required. 5 ·1--~ '""._-·· ;- ~/ TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA October 29, 1980 -7:30 P.M. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Q RANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX8127 10844ELLISAVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 : I TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF DISTRICT NO. 5 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OASIS CENTER CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 29, 1980 -7:30 P.M. BY HILARY BAKER: The public hearing this evening is to consider three alternatives and their associated impacts for the improvements to the Big Canyon Sewerage Drainage Area. The present pump station was built in about 1958. It was intended to be an interim measure to be replaced by a gravity line down Big Canyon and Back Bay Drive. At this point, the pump station has been enlarged three times. There is no more room at this time to enlarge it any further. A new facility will have to be built. The three projects under consideration this evening are the Back Bay Trunk Line, which runs down Big Canyon on either a northerly or southerly alignment. One alignment will be chosen dependent on environmental considerations. It then runs down Back Bay Drive and terminates at about Dunes Park. The estimated cost for that project is $816,000. The Jamboree Pump Station would be a project to replace the existing pump station. The present pump station would be demolished, a new one would be built and there would also have to be an enlargement of the Jamboree Trunk Line in Jamboree Road. The -1- estimated cost for that project is $1,085,000. Along with that consideration must be given to the projected energy costs of approximately $32,000 a year at today's rates. The third project is the Jamboree Road Gravity Sewer Tunnel that would run under Jamboree Boulevard and at points would be 95 feet deep. It would begin at the pump station and run 4500 feet where it would surface and join the existing gravity line in Jamobree Road. The cost for that is $2,650,000. The drainage area to be served. is presently about 90% developed. The existing development is alL considered in the land use plans as is any future development and it is all in accordance with the SCAG 1978 population projections for the area. At this time we would like to show you just a few slides of where the project would be. This slide depicts the present Jamboree Pump Station which is just adjacent to Jamboree Road in Big Canyon. The southerly alignment is the left hand side of the slide, and the northerly alignment is to your right. The Jamboree Pump Station is at the bottom of the slide. It should be noted that this is just a graphic illustration. It is definitely not the exact alignment. This slide looks at the project from the mouth of Big Canyon towards Jamboree Road. The left hand alignment now is your northerly alignment and the right your southerly which then goes around those bluffs. You will note that both projects would begin in Back Bay at exactly the same point. -2- The alignment then runs along Back Bay Drive on the landward side of the road. This is Back Bay and San Joaquin. (Short pause, showing slides.) And it terminates then at Dunes Park. That is the terminus of the project. At this point it should be noted that at the last meeting of the Board of Directors, they did express a preference for the Back Bay Gravity Line with the alignment dependent upon various considerations. At this time I would like to introduce Jared Ikeda of EDAW, Inc., the consultants that prepared this Environmental Impact Report for the Districts. BY JARED IKEDA: I would like to describe some of the background of the report itself and the process that will be continuing until finalization of the Environmental Impact Report, and also the procedures that we will be using tonight in the public hearing. The purpose of the draft EIR is to provide and disclose to all interested parties and regulatory agencies the environmental effects that would be associated with the alternative sewerage improvements in the Big Canyon Drainage Area. · The preparation of the draft Environmental Impact Report was begun in June of this year and completed and distributed for review on October 9th. In conformance with CEQA requirements, the review period for comments is 30 days and will terminate on November the 7th. At that time, all the conunents will be reviewed and included with the appropriate responses in a final Environmental Impact Report which is -3- scheduled to go before the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation District on November 12th for their certification. Concurrent with this process, the proposed project will be heard by the South Coast Regional Commission of the Coastal Commission, on November 10th at their regularly scheduled meeting. This concurrent processing is in consideration of the engineering and construction time frames which are required as part of the mitigation measures for the preferred alterna- tive. The comments heard tonight will be. recorded and will be kept as part of the record and with the final Environmental Impact Report will be an element for the decision making by the Board of Directors. For tonight's procedure we will initially describe in summary fashion the project alternatives and their impacts. Following this presentation we will open the meeting to hear comments from the audience. If you wish to make comments you should sign in at the table at the entrance and we will call upon you in the order signed in. We wish that you would be as specific· as possible in your comments so that we can respond to them in the final EIR. Once all the comments have been heard we will attempt to summarize a1·1 the comments received. We wish to indicate that we are not going to try to attempt to respond to the comments tonight. This is a public hearing and its purpose is to allow verbal testimony to be heard and responses then will be prepared for the final EIR. At this time I would like to introduce Charles Pilcher -4- -.--· of our firm who will describe the impacts associated with the project. BY CHARLES PILCHER: For you that have a copy of the draft EIR, I will utilize that. to go over the project impacts. As you can see. we have made a comparative analysis of the impacts. First under the biological resources category, the impacts to the Back Bay Sewer line are two phase. One is the direct disturbance of habitat. The Back Bay Sewer line as it cuts down Big Canyon will disturb some of the riparian habitat, requiring removal of that habitat. Once it reaches Back Bay Drive in the roaq, it will not actually disturb the natural habitat. Another aspect of the project is the dis- turbance to the adjacent wildlife species. It is not an actual physical disturbance. Once the line reaches San Joaquin Road running south, to the west at that point there are many nesting areas for the clapper rail, an endangered species. Breeding season is March to July. Some cases have been noted later than that. So there is potential for disturbance of this endangered specie by the construction activity. The other aspect in terms of disturbance of endangered species is the Belding's Savannah Sparrow which nests in the immediate area as well .as the migrating water fowl who occupy the area from roughly October to March. Mitigation measures associated with the impacts on biological resources of Back Bay Line are described in the report. There is a series of approximately 25 or so measures. These· have been reached in consultation -5- with the Department of Fish and Game and they reflect to a great extent the previous conditions of approval in 1977 on the coastal application for this project. Biological resources of Jamboree Pump Station: you're essentially under the roadway the entire length. There is really no impact on that. Similarly with the tunnel project you are underground. You're disturbing the upper area of Big Canyon but beyond that there is really not much of a disturbance involved. I wo"n't go into the entire list of the mitigation measures on the Back Bay Sewer. We can discuss those if you have a specific question. In terms of circulation aspect, the construction along the Back Bay line will be within the roadway and will require closure of certain segments of the Back Bay roadway during the construction period. For the pump station, there again will be lane closures along the entire length of the activity from the pump station to the furthest extension on Jamboree where it cuts into Back Bay. Again with the tunnel there will be limited lane closures for about 1200 feet near the terminus of the project. Other than that there is no problem. One of the mitigation measures in terms of the Back Bay closures is that access will be provided for recreational activity. Regarding cultural resources for the Back Bay Sewer Line there have been six archaeological sites identified along that corridor. Mitigation for that is that a qualified -6- ..... ------· .. ····--ro"------------------------------------- archaeologist would examine the core samples taken along the areas where these sites have been identified to determine if they actually extend underneath the roadway. There will be no activity beyond the edge of the roadway which would impact the site it would just be underneath the roadway. Again for the pump station there is a large site, Newporter north site CA-Ora-64. It is not known whether that extends under Jamboree Road. Again a·test investigation would be required. For the tunnel, there are no impacts. In terms of air quality, primarily now we are talking about temporary construction impacts you would have from the trenching activity, and from the stockpiling of dirt you would have some dust generation. This is normally taken care of with an adjacent water -truck with sprinkling system. It is a very common construction mitigation activity. Again a similar impact exists for the other two projects, the pump station and the tunnel. The tunnel would have a larger amount of dirt that is generated obviously and that would be removed from the area. In terms of energy consumption, Back Bay Line is a gravity line and has no .long-term energy consumption. For the pump station, you have an annual consumption that should be 615,000 KW hours at buildup, that's at full capacity, full functioning of the three 3-mgd pumps. The existing energy consumption of the pump station now is approximately 480,000 KW hours per year. So you do have an increase of slightly less than 150,000 KW hours. Again the tunnel is a gravity line so -7- there is no impact on that. In terms of the direct land use implications, you have temporary disturbance of natural areas with the Back Bay Line only through Big Canyon. You have no actual site impacts ·associated with the tunnel or the pump station. Impacts on adjacent land uses: Again your residental areas which are sensitive are located along the Big Canyon area. Ag~in.it's a temporary impact with visual activity ann some noise. The distance is great enough that you will not have a· violation of any standards. Minimal residential activity exists along the other two alignments. Noise, again, a temporary construction impact similar to the other. Utilities and services: There are no anticipated impacts on these areas. Regarding landform alteration for the Back Bay line, all areas would be returned to natural grade except for certain areas along the Back Bay Line on the roadway which would be actually elevated to level it out. That would be a maximum of one to two feet and it would be entirely within the existing pavement corridor. No other impacts are expected for the pump station or the tunnel. To the seismic hazards, the Back Bay line has a potential for being subject to a high degree of ground shaking. Mitigation for that is the building of the line with ductile cast iron pipe. The other two are subject to a similar high -8- level of ground shaking. I think the greatest problem in this area would be where the tunnel goes through a soil and it's bedrock and you have differential ground shaking. You have a grave potential for breakage in that area. Again this can be mitigated though in terms of the construction activity .. The soils: Essentially there are no constraints in terms of the Back Bay Line or the pump station. Again though you have some problems with the interface between the soils and bedrock with the tunnel. The hydrology: The Back Bay Line would experience some seepage into the trench. Dewatering would be required and it is anticipated right now that the dewatering would be done into the bay. The mitigation for this is that a review and a permit would be required from the Regional Board. For the pump station, there is no impact within this category. For the tunnel, you would have significant groundwater problems, as you would be below groundwater for certain areas and a dewatering permit would also be required from the Regional Board. In terms of reliability of water quality, the gravity lines exhibit a greater degree of reliability than a pump station. To siltation, with trenching cover projects, you do have the potential for the sediment transport if the activity takes place during the rainy season and there are not adequate control measures. These areas can be diked off and the -9- sediment transport can be controlled. Visual resources, again a temporary construction impact to the residential areas surrounding the project corridors. That's it. BY JARED IKEDA: At this time we would like to open the meeting for those who ·would like to talk. I have two people who signed up. First, Bart Ellerbroek. Would you like to speak? BY BART ELLERBROEK: Thank you, my name is Bart Ellerbroek. I am President o·f Friends of Newport Bay. I live at 6 Cypress Tree Lane in Irvine, and I appreciate the opportunity to come before you this evening and make some comments regarding our examination of this draft EIR. To make it a little easier on myself, I would like just to read from some conunents I do have if I may. The Friends of Newport Bay, and I know this is a-well-known group to many of you here and I will be saying some things that may not be that new; is a major local citizen's action group which is involved with the issues directly effecting upper Newport Bay and we have consistently acted to protect and preserve this valuable local coastal wetland in the past 15 years. The Friends of Newport-Bay letter of October 28, 1980 regarding Draft EIR -Sewerage Improvements, Big Canyon Drainage Area County Sanitation District No. 5, Orange County California Public Hearing, was read into the record. A copy is attached to these minutes. -10- Thank you. I have copies for whoever would like one. BY JARED IKEDA: Frank Robinson . . BY FRANK ROBINSON: .My name is Frank Robinson. I live in Newport Beach at 1007 Nottingham Road and I would just make a couple of comments on the draft EIR. I spent a number of years on the Harbor Commission and of course through the park system we had literally hundreds of them (EIR's) over the years. So in a sense I am using that as my standard and I might say, Supervisor Riley, tbey were very well done and I was sort of proud of the gang· that put it together at the time. In studying this EIR, I found the biggest single problem with it, it was not definitive. While the costs are put together and discussed for the three alternatives, as an engineer, when I examined it I would defy anybody to look at that EIR and have any· basis for making a real decent evaluation of what is in the project. It is very, very scarce as far as definitive engineering data ~o provide a basis on which you can study the effects. For instance, it calls for a 30-foot wide strip for the pipe through the canyon. In the study of the previous EIR, we and the Friends, determined that it would be at least 100 foot by the time you.make allowances for trucking, storage of equipment, backhoe equipment, whatever's necessary. So that I think would be quite a bit larger than we see. I feel also, since we don't know the exact locations in the canyon where the exposed surf aces are that would be treated with long-term, rather than slow growing but native -11- . -·--· ·----··---·-· ---· -.. i vegetation will be, we would subject those areas to a severe erosion over many, many years putting more and more silt back into the bay. The other thing· that puzzles me in there is that the EIR discusses the enhancement and one of these is the removal of the stockpile. As I recall some years ago when there was some consideration for the removal of that stockpile that the City of Newport Beach put some rather stringent requirements on it which discouraged the State Department of Highways, Cal Trans, pardon me, from removing it when we wanted to get rid of it to keep it out of the bay. And yet if that is a reasonable enhancement, it must address in its own right the problems associated with removing about 150,000 cubic yards of silt. So in general, what I felt after looking at the EIR is that it is very sketchy, to be real hardnosed about what the effects are going to be, I don't think you can do it from that and I would recommend that it be rejected. Not so much in that the work that was done was in error, but it should be considerably more comprehensive. Thank you. BY DAYNE STILES: Dayne Stiles representing the Irvine Company. We are vitally concerned with the lack of adequate sewerage facilities in the Big Canyon Drainage Area. I would like to commend the Board of the Sanitation District for the action they are taking to expedite a solution of this problem. I would also like to submit at this time a letter commenting on the EIR. (See attached copy.) To whomsoever. -12- ----------r-----------------------------------; We think the EIR does support the gravity sewer alternative and think the effects of this construction project may be mitigated as outlined in the EIR and we encourage your Board to take a favorable action in the very near future. Although there is another alternative which is the pump station, we think that the cost of energy and the reliability of service must be considered by your District and we think that these factors will lead you to the gravity sewer alternative. I'd be glad to respond to any questions. Thank you. BY DENNIS O'NEIL: Dennis O'Neil, office. is at 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, and I _have represented the Daon Corporation on their residential subdivision located at the corner of Jamboree and Ford Road, during the course of the past 8 or 9 months when this moratorium-went into effect and when your Honorable Board and your staff have been examining possible solutions to this capacity problem ov_er there in the drainage area. Within the last few-days the project has changed ownership and it now is owned by a J. M. Peters Company and they propose to build the subdivision as approved by the City of Newport Beach. I will be representing them at these meetings and am making this statement on behalf of J. M. Peters Company. We have reviewed the draft EIR. We feel that it adequately addresses the issues. We, the developer of the proposed project at Jamboree and Ford, favor very much the gravity line alternative. We very much understand the environmentally sensitive significance of the gravity line -13- .... ___ ··---··-~ ·--, _ ..... -·-··· ··-·· ·---·-----~ --- but would point out that it is obvious that there are certain energy uses involving the new pump station that we feel are more of an adverse environmental consequence than the gravity line itself. So I wanted to preface my statement, Mr. Chairman, that obviously as a representative of the developer of this project, we have certain interests in seeing that it move forward but it should be pointed out, however, that with the cooperation of this Board and the City of Newport Beach and the IRWD, some months ago the developer was able to obtain alternate sources of sewerage facilities for this particular site with IRWD and, of course, has that alternative. We, however, feel that it makes sense to proceed with the gravity line, that it is an energy saving feature and J. M. Peters Company stands ready, willing, and able to continue as did Daon with this cooperation and assistance to your staff and your EIR consultant in resolving this difficult problem. Thank you. BY JARED IKEDA: Are there any· other questions to be asked? BY FRANK ROBINSON: I have one mo.re question I forgot to ask. May I address the Board? Mr. Chairman, Frank Robinson again. I noticed the last couple of speakers mentioned that the EIR supports the idea of the gravity sewer line, and I thought this was a meeting, at least my understanding of the meeting was to study all these various alternatives and arrive, through public -· ·---·---·--· ... -· ~ -.. ----~·---·-.' -14- -. ------·-· ·-·~·--.-·-----·· ··-·-.. inputs, at the proper answer that would answer the maximum number of problems associated with this line. And in view of the fact that a number of us have received notices as you mentioned earlier of the hearing before the Caostal Commission on the 10th of the month, I get the feeling that this decision has pretty well been made up in effect prior to this hearing to adopt the sewer line. I recognize this meeting does not have that responsibility, but from the conversation, I would like to know in effect has this board. taken such a position? Because it is already on file that the sewer line down Back Bay Drive is the one preferred by their application. BY THOMAS RILEY: Madam Chairman, may I respond to that? I resent, Frank, your comments and we didn't comment on what you thought about it and we didn't comment on what other people thought about it. And this meeting as far as I'm concerned~ and I want to emphasis that I have not talked to either of these directors about what is going to happen here other than the testimony here will be considered and the final EIR ••. BY FRANK ROBINSON: I appreciate that because I got the impr-es·s ion •.• BY TOM RILEY: So why did you think it the other way? BY FRANK ROBINSON: Well simply because the application has already been made to the Coastal Commission. That's my point. Thank you. -15- ····T----------,------------------------------------ BY TOM RILEY: Well, we're talking about a time frame. Aren't we? BY FRANK ROBINSON: Beg your pardon. BY TOM RILEY: I said as far as I know there is a very fast time frame here and I guess the hearings are scheduled at whatever time it is on the 10th. BY FRANK ROBINSON: 10th of the month, right. BY TOM RILEY: I guess these people have to get everything done between the 7th and the 10th. BY FRANK ROBINSON: Thank you very much. BY JARED IKEDA: I have summarized the comments and noted them down. At a public hearing typically we listen to you and take down the conunents. I would like to do something a little bit unusual in a public hearing and that's to open it up as a workshop. I don't know how many of you are the public and how many are representing the San District._ Could I get a raising of hands of the general public? Ok. What I would like to do is try to get a very clear understanding of the public's position on the issues that are addressed in the EIR. What I've tried to do is note with the speakers the issues that were identified. And what I would like to do is ask those of you that are the general public which of these eight issues do you think are the most critical and need to be fully addressed and described in further detail in the final EIR. How about the impact to endangered species? How many of you feel that that's the most important issue? -16- ·----____ ,, --------------------------------------..... i BY BART ELLERBROEK: Is this a vote? BY JARED IKEDA: No. It's just to get an understanding of what has been discussed here and heard here and we will use that information to try to focus our attention to the issues that are of most critical nature to the public. BY BART ELLERBROEK: You know it would be difficult to categorize what is the most important, second important. I think of course, the impact on the endangered species is extremely significant. Whether or not the cost of energy outweighs that or not, I think that both those issues should be addressed very definitely and very comprehensively. BY JARED IKEDA: Well, let's go at them one at a time • .. How many of you feel that that's the most critical issue? BY BART ELLERBROEK: It's hard to say. If I can just take it off of number 1 for a moment and look at number 2. If you examine number 2, that encompasses because of the statements in the Coastal Act, the inconsistencies the EIR has with the Coastal Act which do ·impact the endangered species and then it goes into of course, erosion into the bay due to construction which is a negative impact upon the habitat itself which is where the EIR is inconsistent and where they have not mitigated the problem. To me those two go hand in hand. If you had to pick one, you can't say one without adding the other as the most critical. BY JARED IKEDA: Is there any one item here that the majority of the people feel.is the most significant item then? -17- . -·-.~·. BY FRANK ROBINSON: I have a lot of respect for the law and you know whether it's one or a hundred or a thousand, as long as a law is written the way it is, I believe we should observe it. It isn't a popularity contest in terms of the law is it? BY JARED IKEDA: No. Are there any other comments on that particular one? How many feel that the EIR is not definitive enough? BY FRANK ROBINSON: Well, of course, I raised that question and when Mr. Pilcher called me I gave him a contour map through Big Canyon. I said you know to really know what's gain' to go on in here you have to have section drawings, cutaways, stuff of this nature. Everything that engineers use. None of this exists. The only definition is a black line about that long en a piece of 8~ x 11 and some words. I don't consider that adequate to describe a major construction program somewhere in the order of a million·dollars. BY JARED IKEDA: The width of the construction ••• BY FRANK ROBINSON: That's all tied together. BY JARED IKEDA: Erosion and silt into the bay. BY FRANK ROBINSON: I don't know how one could go overboard being concerned about erosion into the bay. I think this is a concern of everybody in this room and I know it is a concern of the county, city, and everybody associated with the bay. And it's accumulative. BY JARED IKEDA: Any further comments? No? -18- The removal of the spoils and the impact of the removal of the spoils. Is that an item that needs further discussion or clarification? Any comment? The energy cost is that adequately described? BY FRANK ROBINSON: When you don't see details-of a project, duty cycles, engineering definitions, it's hard to even be critical of the report to question the numbers. How can you do it? What you are describing is I believe in the EIR the replacement of roughly a 20-year old plan, as far as I can determine because there's nothing else there, with SO-year old technology. I work in a high technology business. There's no question that the energy cost is important. However, there's another alternative outside of the Back Bay Sewer Line that doesn't use energy either. BY JARED IKEDA: Is there further clarification needed on the need for the sewerage improvements? I think this last discussion helps to clarify some of the statements that were made. I think it will help us prepare the final EIR and try to be responsive to your concerns. So with that, is there .•• BY DENNIS O'NEIL: Just let me make one conclusionary remark. It has to do with taking into consideration all eight elements you've listed on the board and I think it's going to boil down to assuming that we're not in violation of the law, that we are consistent with the Coastal Act, and I hope that we are and I believe that we are, that it's going -19- to be a balancing between all of these eight elements and I'm concerned that we're coming down to the same point that we were when we ~ere trying to process this project several years ago. I would hope that the mitigation measures are going to be adequately addressed in regards to the very sensitive environmental issues so this whole thing can be put into what I can see to be it's proper perspective and I don't think it should come down to it's going to cost X number of dollars to run a new pump versus we are going to be disrupting the natural habitat of some endangered species. We should be able to come to a conclusion based on what is the best solution for this very critical problem we have of the Jamboree Drainage area and its lack of adequate capacity and I would hope that we could all agree on a solution that is a comprise. BY BART ELLERBROEK: I just noticed that the Department of Fish and Game is not here this evening and represented. You made several references to mitigation and I know Fish and Game had a great deal of input as to what these mitigations would be to solve some of the problems. In reading the EIR I did not see, I think the numbers are some 18 or so, mitigations that they had required for the project. I do not see them being specifically addressed. Am I correct in assuming that? In this EIR right now? BY JARED IKEDA: No. BY BART ELLERBROEK: Are all 18 mentioned? Have you -·20- had a problem come up that they have met the mitigation response given in the EIR at this point? BY JARED IKEDA: Yes, what we have done is. we have had early strategy meetings with the various regulatory agencies including Fish and Game. They descri.bed to us their concerns ·and what needed to be described in the EIR, which we have tried to do. We are awaiting comment, written comment from the Department of Fish and Game and I am sure that there may be things that they would like to see addressed. BY BART ELLERBROEK: Just for my own I guess ease of reading something like this it makes the information more available if each mitigation is listed and the way in which you will .•. That is what is the problem and in what way do you feel the mitigation that is proposed will solve that problem. Instead of having to read the whole document and sift out where the problems are and are there mitigations there to solve the problems. BY JARED IKEDA: Are there any other comments? BY CHAIRMAN JACKIE HEATHER: You don't think Table c does that adequately? BY BART ELLERBROEK: No I'm saying that since I don't know, listed here in the EIR the 18 or whatever the number of mitigations the Fish and Game has asked for, are those all 18, I have not counted, I don't know if each is addressed. I'm just raising that question. BY CHAIRMAN JACKIE HEATHER: It is my understanding -21- .~. that they were. But I see, you·want to know which ones Fish and Game wanted and you want to be able to •.• BY BART ELLERBROEK: I don't have a list of theirs and I want to know if each one has been dealt with in the EIR. BY JARED IKEDA: More of a structural problem. BY CHAIRMAN JACKIE HEATHER: They have reviewed it, as has U.S. Fish and Wildlife. We did have the early scoping and we had another meeting with all those who had been concerned before, to take in their input and from my understanding they feel that the mitigation will adequately take care of the endangered species, that may or may not ever reside there. So that's where we're proceeding right now. One thing that we didn't ask was to receive and file written information. Have you all ·submitted whatever written information you care to leave with the Districts? BY JARED IKEDA: I think ·for our part of the program, that concludes it. I'll turn it back to Madam Chairman. BY CHAIRMAN JACKIE HEATHER: Is there any discussion with regard to the conunents that we've heard. Documents we've received. BY TOM RILEY: I'm sure that the final report will highlight or address every bit of testimony that's been presented orally or in writing, or else our report would not be acceptable. So I would think then that we'd close the meeting. BY CHAIRMAN JACKIE HEATHER: All right then, I'll -22- --·-~------------------------------------------------.. entertain the motion to receive and file the written and the \..,/ oral comments relative to the draft supplemental environmental document. Moved, seconded. All those in favor. Aye. If there are no further staff comments, then I'll close the hearing. Let's see we have another item of business. Consideration of motion to direct the staff and consultants to prepare the final supplemental environmental impact report and close the comment period as of November 7th. Motion moved and seconded. Motion to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. moved and seconded. So ordered. -23- FRIENDS OF NEWPORT BAY --• ~~~~~-------------------------= P. 0. BOX 2001 -•"":WPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 \..,,,I October 28, 1980 Re: Draft EIR -Sewerage Improvements, Big Canyon Drainage area County Sanitation ~1strict No. 5, Orange County California Public Hearing Friends of Newport Bay, the major local citizens action group involved with issues directly effecting Upper Newport Bay, has consistently acted to protect and preserve this valuable local coastal wetland over the past 15 years. Despite continuous pressure exerted by both private and public interests, the Friends have pursued a course con- sistent with federal and state regulations. County Sanitation District 5 commissioned an EIR for the Big Canyon Drainage Area to examine viable alternatives to provide expanding sewer facilities needed for a growing urban community. Basically, 3 projects were examined: The.Back Bay Gravity Sewer Line, the Jamboree Pump Stat~on, and the Jamboree Road Tunnel. · The Friends of Newport Bay are not opposed to the residential and commercial growth of the area. Yet when this growth creates a po- tential hazard to the current integrity and future status of the Upper Newport Bay, -~ California State Ecological Reserve, then we must speak out. Of the 3 alternatives offered, the Back Bay Gravity Line, as admitted in the Draft EIR, does negatively impact the Reserve. In ~ay of 1977 the California State Coastal Commission denied a permit to the vrange County Sanitation Districts for an identical plan. Their decision indicated that the Back Bay Line violated the California Coastal A~t on several points.· The current proposal through Big Janyon and down Back Bay Drive is still unable to mitigate the object.ions expressed by the State Coastal Commis- sion in 1977. Primarily, 2 endangered species, the Light-footed Clap- per Rail and t e Belding' s Savannah Sp!:lrrow reside in the construction zone. Section 30230 of the Coastal Act provides•' special protection ••• to areas and species of special biological ••• significance. Further, Section 30240(a) and 30240(b) prevented the Coastal Commission from finding in .favor of the Sanitation Jistricts because "Environ!Ilentally sensitive habitat area.s shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, anJ only uses de~endent on such re- sources shall be allowed within such areas 11 and 11 Developm.ent ••• adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas ••• shall be sited ••• to pr~vent i;npacts which. would significantly degrade such areas." 2 .... By its--own---admi-ssion, the Draft EIR currently under study states: 1. P?· 1-1. "The BE>.cit Bay project is essentially tb.e same project as previously proposed, except that the southern align~ent t::ro-:..igh. Big Canyon is also evaluated." '..,,,_! 2. On pages 2-2, 4-6, 4-7, anj 4-10 the Draft Eia makes refer- ence to the endangered species involved s.nd admits that un.ow the species.:.. will react to the construction activity is not lmown." Also, "Although ••• it is not possible to pre- dict exactly what effect construction will have on the repro- ductive behavior of rails, it is believed to be negative." It is clear that the Back Bay Gravity.Line is in conflict with the decision rendered in 1977 by the California Coastal Commission. Two alternatives to the Back Bay Gravity Line are addressed in the EIR which allow for the desired growth in the area, do not negatively impact the.Bay, and are not inconsistent with state law. In 1977 the Coastal 0om~ission noted that the conflict between the need for adequate sewer service and protection of endangered species was eliminated due to "the existence of several feasible alternatives to the project which assures that the protection of the endangered species and the provision of sewer service can both occur." The Friends of ~ewport Bay support this oosition. The alternatives presented in the Dra£t EIR are not expected to have significant . adverse impact to vegetation and wildlife resources (pp. 3-2, 4-11 ). We merely ask that local and state agencies act in accordance with stgte law. Bart Ellerbroek President, ?riends of Newport Bay .ID) ·ld lHE IRVINE COfVIPAJ\IY 550 Newport Cent e r Drive . P.O Bo x I Newport Bea c h. Cal i fornia 92663 (714) 644-3011 Oc t obe r 28 , 1980 Jacqueline Heather, Chairma n Cou nt y Sa nitati o n Distr ict No. 5 o f Orange Cou nt y 108 44 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 927 08 Subject: Comment o n "E nvironmental Impact Repo r t -S e ~oJage Improvemen t s -Bi g Canyo n Dr ainage Area" Dea r Ch airman Heather: Thank you for fo r warding a copy of the Bi g Ca n yo n Dr ainage Area Sewage Imp r ovemen t EIR fo r our commen t. As the Di.s trict i s aware, The Irvine Compan y i s conc e rn ed about t he l ack of adeq uate sewer faciliti es in the Big Canyon drainage are a and th e morat o ri um imp osed upon new d e velopment . Th e exi s ting s ub s t a nd a rd sewer facilities that s erve exi sting d e velopment, with r es ultant raw se wag e spi ll s which peri odically occur int o Bi g Canyo n pose public h ea lt h a nd safety is s ue s whi ch wa rr a n t p r ompt act ion t o adop t and implemen t o ne o f th e proposed alte r na tiv es described in th e EIR . Based upon th e dat.J p r esent e d in th e EI R , 1ve r e c ommend se l ec t i o n of t h e Rack B,1y g ravit y flow al t e rnat i ve (southerly a lignm e nt ). Th i s a l ter11aciv1~ i ncorpora t es the qua lities of system r e liability a nd th e lowest initial and o ngoing c os t. Fu rth e r, the envir o nment al impact s associated with t h i s a l ternative as desc r ibed in t he EIR are miti.g atable through t he measures desc r i.bc>rl i n t he E IR (e .g ., limitatio n on constr uctio n period , rest o r at i on of veg e tati o n t o orig i na l c o nd ition , etc .). The attac hment lists our specific comments co nc e r ning the con t en t o f t he EIR . Ver y tr uly yo ur s, THE IRVINE COHPANY ~r--'\ ln>N"Y> ..... ' Je 1 ll ~----·':°"'---.. homas H. '~ie l sen ~ Senio r Vice Pr es ident ":) Community Dev elo pm e nt T N: so Att achment cc : Fred Ha r per, OCSD Ben Nolan , City of New p o rt Beach ' .Attachment Comments 1. The No Project Alternative. This alt0rnative is discussed briefly in paragraph 6.1 on page 6-1. The discussion is quLte brief and deals with the administra- tive, rather than environmental consequences of not proceeding with one of the alternatives. The the environmental impacts of the no project alternative include continuing raw sewage spills. It is also suggested that this section include references to page 2-1 (Description of the Problem) where the problem of inadequate existing capacity is first identified. 2. Incorporated Enhancement Alternative. The explanation of the "Incorporated Enhancement" alternative on page 6-Z is confusing. It is difficult to see how a project to excavate and truck 150,000 cubic yards (7,300 truck loads) of earth can be considered as an "off-set enhancement activity." How would such an activity "offset" impacts of constructing a pipeline on endangered species or reduce a.source of sediment being transported to Newport Bay, both of which are identified as the benefits of this "off-set"? If protecting the nearby wildlife from the impacts of construction of a·pipeline is the goal we fail to see how greatly increasing the activity and probably increasing the duration of the construction activity will be anything but detrimental. If reducing sediment transported to the Bay is the objective, then specific erosion control treatments qf problem areas along the pipeline route as a part of closing up the construction site would be most effective. The excavation of 150,000 yards of dirt require·s a much more thorough identifi- cation of the environmental impacts of such project so that decision makers carefully appreciate the environmental consequences. Reference to another document, as has been done on page 6-2 is not enough. Such a discussion should include as a minimum, an assessment of noise, air quality, and traffic impacts of truck operations and an assessment of the impacts of this increased activity on potential disturbance to nearby endangered species. The eventual use to which the excavated area would be put should also be described if it could result in impacts to the adjacent Biological Resource. 3. Page 2-1, Table A-Costs. This table is quite revealing.with regard to ongoing energy cost of the alternatives, particularly in light of the conservative assumption used. It would be useful to the reader if the "life cycle" costs of each alternative were also presented in Table A by adding a line.showing the 30 year cost (e.g., capital cost plus maintenance and energy costs over 30 years, allowing for inflntion). This also applies to Table Don page 4-20. Also since ~urrent rates are $0.071/KWH, should that rate not be used rather than $0.055/KWH (see page 4-19). 4. Page 4-2. Paragraph 4. l. 2. 3 -·rmpac t. In the event of tunne 1 failure during an earthquake, what would the impact be on the sewage disposal system. Would raw sewage be dumped into Big Canyon in large volume? 5. Pages 4-8 thru 4-10. The State Department of Fish and Game has updated this list in a letter dated September 30, 1980. The new list should be consulted. 6. Page 4-15, Table. As a result of a Newport Beach General Plan Amendment about two years ago, Back Bay Drive ultimately is to be a 2-lane rather than a 4-lane road. l...,J PG28b28 FRIENDS OF NEWPORT BAY P 'l. BOX 2001 ftdNPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 October 28, 1980 Re: Draft EIR -Sewerage Improvements, Big Canyon Drai lage Area County Sanitation ~istrict No. 5, Orange County Ca~ifornia Public Hearing ! Friends of Newport ·Bay, the major local citizens action group involved with issues directly effecting Upper Newport Bay, has consistently I acted to protect and preserve this valuable local coast~l wetland over the past 15 year~. Despite continuous pressure exerted by both private and public interests, the Friends have pursued a course con- sistent with federal and state regulations. County Sanitation District 5 commissioned an EIR for th~ Big Canyon Drainage Area to examine viable alternatives to provideiexpanding sewer facilities needed for a growing urban community. :Basically, 3 projects were examined: The Back Bay Gravity Sewer Line, the Jamboree Pump Station, and the Jamboree Road Tunnel. · The Friends of Newport Bay are not opposed to the residential and COlllt~ercial growth of the area. Yet when this growth creates a po- tential hazard to the current integrity and future status of the Upper Newport Bay, a California State Ecological Reserve, then we must speak out • . Of the 3 alternatives offered, the Back Bay Gravity Lin~, as admitted in the Draft EIR, does negatively impact the Reserve. In May of 1977 the California State Coastal Commission denied a permit to the vrange County Sanitation Districts for.an identical plan~ Their decision indicated that the Back Bay Line violated the California Coastal Act on several points. The current proposal through Big Janyon and down Back Bky Drive is still unable to mitigate the objections expressed by the State Coastal Commis- sion in 1977. Primarily, 2 endangered species, the Light-footed Clap- per Rail and t e Belding's Savannah Spsrrow reside in the construction zone. Section 30230 or the Coastal Act provides"specia:l protection ••• to areas and species of special biological ••• signific~nce. Further, Section 30240(a) and 30240(b) prevented the Coastal Com~ission from finding in .favor of the ·Sanitation .Jistricts because "Environ."'Ilentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only ·uses dependent on such re- sources shall be allowed within such areas 11 and "Develdpra.ent ••• adjacent to environmentally sensitive habi:tat areas ••• s!hall be sited ••• to pr:::vent iJJ.pacts which would significantly degrade such areas." 2 By its own admission, the Draft EIR currently under study states: 1. p9. 1-1. "The Back Bay project is essentially the same project as previously proposed, except that the southern alignment t::rough Big Canyon is also evaluated." "-"" 2. On pages 2-2, 4-6, 4-7, and 4-10 the Draft EIR makes refer- ence to the endangered species involved and admits that "how the species.~ will react to the construction activity is not known." Also, "Although ••• it is not possible to pre- dict exactly what effect construction will have on the repro- ductive behavior of rails, it i~ believed to be negative." It is clear that the Back Bay Gravity Line is in conflict with the decision rendered in 1977 by the California Coastal Commission. Two alternatives to the Back Bay Gravity Line are addressed in the EIR which allow for the desired growth in the area, do not negatively impact the Bay, and are .not inconsistent with state law. ·In 1977 the Coastal Com~ission noted that the conflict between the need for adequate sewer service and protection of endangered species was eliminated due to "the existence of several feasible alternatives to the project which assures that the protection of the endangered species and the provision of sewer service can both occur." The Friends of ~ewport Bay support this position. The alternatives presented in the Draft EIR are not expected to have significant adverse impact to vegetation and wildlife resources (pp. 3-2, 4-11). We merely ask that local and state agencies act in accordance with sti:Jte law. Bart Ellerbroek· President, Friends of Newport Bay THE IRVINE COMA'-\NY 550 Newport Center Drive. PO. Box I N ew p ort Beach. California 92663 (714) 644 -3011 Octobe r 28, 1 980 Jacqueline Hea ther, Cha irman County Sanitation Dist r ict No. 5 of Or;inge Cou nt y 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Val l ey , CA 92708 Subject: Commen t on "Environm e nta l lmr.'.lct Hc port-SewagP Impr o v e ments-Big Canyo n Drainag<' J\rpa" n .. ;, r c h .'.l i r 111 ;in 11 (." .'.l Llw r : Tha n k you for fo rw ardi n g a co py o f t h e Big Canyon Dr ai n age Ar ea Sewage Im p rovem e nt EIR for o ur comme nt. As the Dist rict is awa r e, The Irvine Company is co nce rn ed about the lack of adeq u a t e sewer faci l ities in the Big Canyon drainage area and the moratorium imposed upo n new deve l opment. The existing s ubs t crndard sewe r facilities that serve existing d eve lopm e nt, with r es ultant raw sewage sp ill s ~1i ch periodica ll y occur into Bi g Canyon pose public hea lt h a n d safe ty is s ue s which warrant prompt ac tio n to ad opt and impl eme nt one of th e proposed alternatives described in the EIR . Based upo n the data pres e n ted in t h e EIR, we recommend se l ec tion of th e Back Bay g r av it y flow alterna tiv e (southerly a li gnm~nt). Thi s alternativ e incorporates the qualities of system reliability and . th e lowes t i11itial and ongoing cost . Furth e r, th e e nvironme ntal impact s associated wit h thi s a lt ernativ e as d esc rib ed i n th e EIR are mitigatable thr o u gh the measures d esc rib ed in the EIR (e.g., limitation on c ons tructio n p er iod, r estoration of vegetation to orig inal condition, etc .). The attachment list s our specific comm e nts cnncerning th e content of the EIR . Very truly yours, THE IRVINE COMPANY ~0 ~-__ '-_-;:J_ homas H. iels e n ~ Senior Vice Pres id ent ~ Community Developm e nt TN : so Attachment cc: Fred Harper, OCSD Be n Nolan, City of Newport Beach I ·I . -·'Attachment ,/ A Comments 1. The No Project Alternative. This alternative is discussed briefly in paragraph 6.1 OQ page 6-1. The discussion is quite brief and deals with the .administra- '-"' tive, rather than environmental consequences of not proceeding with one of the alternatives. The the environmental impacts of the no project alternative include continuing raw sewage spills. It is also suggested that this section include references to page 2-1 (Description of the Problem) where the problem ·of inadequat"e existing capacity is first identified. 2. Incorporated Enhancement Alternative •. The explanation of the "Incorporated Enhancement" alternative on page 6-2 is confusing. It is difficult to see how a project to excavate and truck 150,000 cubic yards (7,300 truck.l~ads) of earth can be considered as an "off-set enhancement activity." How would such an activity "offset" impacts of constructing a pipeline on endangered species or reduce a.source of sediment being transported to Newport Bay, both of which are identified as the benefits of this "off-set"? If protecting the nearby wildlife fro~ the impacts of construction of a pipeline is the goal we fail to see how greatly increasing the activ~ty ahd probably increasing the duration of t11e construction activity will be ~ny~hing btit detrimental. If reducing sediment transported to the Bay is the objective, then specific erosion control treatments of problem ar~as along the pipeline route as a part of closing tip the construction site would be most effective. The excavation of 150,000 yards of dirt requires a mu.ch more thorough i.dentifi-· cati.on of the environmental impacts of such project so that decision makers carefully appreciate the environmental consequences. Reference to another document, as has been done on page 6-2 is not enough. Such a discussion should include as a minimum, an assessment of ·noise, air quality, and traffic impacts of truck operations and an assessment of the impac~s of this increased activity on potential disturbance to nearby endangered species. The eventual use to which the excavated area would be put should alSo be described if it could res~lt in i~pacts to the adjacerit Biological Re;ource. . 3. Page 2-1, Table A...:costs. 'rhis table ·is quite reve·aling with regard to ongoing energy cost of the alternatives, particularly in light of the conservative assumption used •.. It would be useful to the reade'.l'." if the "life eye le" costs of each alternative were also presented in Table Ab~ adding a line.showing the 30 year cost (e.g., capital cost plus maintenance and energy costs over 30 years, allowing .for inflation). This also applies to Table D on page 4-20. Also since current rates are $0.071/KWH, should that rate not be used rather ~han $0.055/KWH. (see page.4-19). 4. Page 4-2. Paragraph 4.1.2.3 -Impact. In the event of tunnel failur~ during an earthquake, what would the impact be on the sewage ~isposal system. Would raw sewage be dumped into Big Canyon in large volume? 5. Pages 4-8 thru 4-10. Tbe State Depar~ment of Fish and Game has updated this list in a letter dated September. 30, 1980. The new list. should be consulted. 6. Page 4-15, Table. As a result of a Newport Beach General Plan Amendment about two years ago; Back Bay Drive ultimately is to be a 2-lane rather than a 4-lane road. ~ PG28b28 I I ·I .j' I DISTRICT NO . 5 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 29 , 1980 -7 :30 P .M. (p~<;.C "-9::. IN' 4~1v Qk-t..J C: <.: NAME : (P l ease p rint) ~:b~ 3. ?ht ( t p f\lv ..,-\_y' 4 • t.3cAo Trc;p p 5. fJ~~ c· tbJL 6 . f)°t":' cJ_t;k, 7. '('YIA .+~.~~ 8. ~~ 9 . 10 . 11. 12. 13. 1 4. 15 . 16. 17 . 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24 . 25. • ... REPRESENTING : I I C.rl1 Ccv Y\.~, ( _ J"'. N . ?e kv--s <!(I • 1 I • -- MEETING DATE Oct . 291 1980 TU-IE 7:30 p .rn. DISTRICTS 5 -Oasis Center corona del Mar DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS (SA LTAREL~I) ••. SHARP •...•. ------ ~YAMAMOTO) •..•. WARD,J •.... ------ RILEY) ........ ANTHONY,P •. ----- CRANK) •••..••• HUTCHISON .. ------ Of STRICT 2 ~FR I ED) ...•.... WEDAA .....• SEYMOUR~ ••.•.• ROTH ..••••• == == == WINTERS .••••. BORNHOFT .•• (GAMBINA ••••.• FOX .•..•.•. ------ (ECKENROD E) ...• HO LT .•.•••• ------ (O DLUM) ....... KA WANAMI ..• ------ (W I EDER) ..•.••. MILLER •.•.. :::::::::::::::::::::::: ~CULV E R) •••.•.• PERRY ••.•.• BEYER) ..•.•... SMITH ...•.. ------ HOLLINDEN) .•.• STANTON •... ------ (CORB ETT ) ..•.•. WARD, B ••••• ------ (WARD, J) •.••••. YAMAMOTO •.• ------ DISTRICT 3 (COLLINS) ...... VAN DYK E •.• ------ RO\'/AN) ••••.•.. EVANS •.•..• --__ -- HOLLI ~D E N) ..•• AD LE R •.•.•• --___ _ ROG ET •.•..••• CORBETT .••. __ ·--__ PERRY ..••.•.. CULVER •.••. __ KIRKPATRICK) .• FINLAYSON.. ---- MANP IC) ••••••• FINLEY .•••• :::::::: :::::::: == FOX ) ..•.•••••. ISLES .....• !S EITZ ) ..•....• LASZLO •.... == == == DAVIS) .••..•.• REESE •••.•• SEYMOUR) ••••.. ROTH ••.••.. ==::::::::== ZOMMICK) •••... SYLVIA •••.. · ROMAGN I NO) •.•. WH EELE R •••. ------ ~M ILLER) ••• _ •••. WIED ER •.•.• ------ BORNHOfT) ...•• WINTERS .•.• ------ WARD , J) ••••.•• YAMAMOTO •.. ------------ DISTRICT 5 ~MA URER) .•.••.• HEATH ER .... / ---- STRAUSS) •.••.. COX .•...•• ~ ---- ANTHONY,P) •.•• RILEY .••••. ~ ---- DISTRICT 6 (CRANK) ••.••••• HUTCHISON •. --__ -- (HEATHER).·· .•. PLUMMER •••. --___ _ (RILEY) •••• •· •. ANTHONY,P .• --___ _ DISTRICT 7 (BEYER) ..•..•.. SMITH •••••. ------ (SA LTARE~LI) •.• EDGAR·· ••.• ------ (HEATHER).· •.. ·HART .•...•. ------ !WI ED ER).····· .MILLER·· ..• ------ ANTHONY,A). • •. VARDOULIS·. ------ HANSON) .••.... WAHNER •.... ------ YAMAMOTO )···· .WARD,J • •. · • ------ DISTRICT 11 ~BAILEY ) •..•.•• PATTINSON •. ------ MACALLISTER) •• BAILEY.· ••. ------ MILL ER ) .. • •.•. WIEDER •.•.. ------ 10/8/80 HOLLI NDEN ) •.... ADLER •.••.. ---- RI LE Y) •....•..• ANTHONY, P .. ---- MACA LLISTER) ... BAILEY ...• ·---- WINTERS) ..•..•• BORNHO FT ... ---- ROGET) •..•..... CORBETT ..• ·---- STRAUSS l ....... CO X •....... ~P ERR Y) .•.•.•..• CULVER •..•. ---- SA LTA ELLI ) ..•. EDGAR •...•. ----ROWAN .~ •.•...... EVANS •...•. ----~K IRKPATRICK ) ••• FI NLAYSON •• ---- MANDIC) ·• .•.••• FINLEY .•••• ---- GAMB I NA) .••.••• FOX •.•..•.• ---- ~H E ATH E R) · · .. · •• HART ....... ---- MAUR ER )·· •.•••. HEATHER •... ---- ECKENROD E} ••••. HO LT ...•.• ·== :::::::: CRAN Ki · • • .•...• HUTCH I SON .• FOX ) ..••..•.•.• I SLES ...... ---- ODLUM) ••..••.• KAWANAMI ••. ---- SEITZ}· .••.•.•• LASZLO .•..• ---- \.'/!ED ER)·· •.•... MILLER ..... ---- (~BAILEY).) ••.•.•.• PATTINSON •• ---- CULVER .••.•.•• PERRY .•.••• ---- HE ATHER) ...•... PLUMMER •..• ---- (DAVIS) •.••.•.•• REESE ••..•. ---- (ANTHONY, P ) .•.•. RI LEY .•...• == == (S EYMO UR )···· ···ROTH .••..•. ---- (SA LT AR ELLI ) ••.• SHARP .•.•. ·---- BEYER )·······. ·SM I TH .•..• ·----HOLLIND~N) ·····STANTON •.• ·---- ZOMMICK ·······SYLV I A •... ·---- COLLINS ·······VAN DYKE .• ·---- AMTHONY ,A)···· ·VARDO ULIS. ·---- HANSON)······· ·WAHNER .· .• ·---- (CORB ETT ) .•.••.• WARD,B •...• ---- (YAMAMQTO) • · • · • ·WARD,J • • • • ·---- (FRIED)········ ·WEDAA· • •. • ·---- (ROMAGN !NO )···· ·WHEELER···· ---- (MI LLER )······· ·WIEDER···.·-- (BOR NHOFT) ······WINTERS ..•. -- (WARD,J) ········YAMAMOTO···-- OTHERS HARPER ····· -- SYLVESTER ·· -- LEV/IS ······ -- CLARKE·····-- BROl~N· · • · · ·--ANDERSON •.• BAKER ••••.• CONATSER ••. DAWES •..••• __ FATLAND ••. ·-- YOUNG .••... WOO DRUFF •.. HOHENER .•• ·== HOWARD · •. ·• HUNT •••.... KEITH ••..•• LYNCH .•.•.• __ MARTINSON.·-- STEVENS .... __ MEETING DAT E Oct. 29, 1980 T 7 ·30 p rn D I;•I E • • · • !STRICTS 5 -oasis Center Corona del Mar DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS (SALTAR EL(..J) .•. SHARP .•••.. ------ (YAMAMO TO ) ..... WARD,J .•••. ------ (RI LE Y}. ...•... AN THONY,P .. ~ ---- (CRANK) •.....•• HUTCHISON •. ------ DISTRICT 2 ~FR I ED) •..•..•• WEDAA •...•. SEYMOUR) ...••• ROTH •.•.•.. ------ WINTERS) ••..•. BORNHOFT ••. ------ ~GAMBINA) .••••• FOX •••••••• ------ ECKENROD E) .•.• HO LT •.....• ------ (ODL UM) •..•••• KAWANAM I •.• ------ (WI EDER ) ..••••. MI LLER •.... ------ ~CULV E R) •..•••• PERRY •••.•• ------ BEYER) •...•... SM ITH ...•.. ------ (HO LLINDEN ) •••. STANTON .•.• ------ (CORB ETT ) .••..• WARD,B ••••• ------ (WARD ,J) ••••••• YAMAMOTO ••• ------------ DISTRICT 3 (CO LLI~S ) •.••.• VAN DYKE .. ·----- (RO\'/AN) •.•••... EVANS •.•••• --___ _ (HO L.U tlD EN ) •••• AD LE R •••.•• --___ _ (ROG ET } •..•.••• CORB ETT ..•. -- ! PERRY) ...•.••. CULVER..... ---- KIRKPATRICK) .• F IN LAYSON •• ------ MANP I C) •.••••• FIN LE Y .•••• ====== FOX) .••..•.••. ISLES •...•. !S EITZ ) ...•••.. LASZLO ••..• == === === DAVIS) ....•••• REESE •••••. SEYMO UR) ...... ROTH •.••..• ------ ZOMMICK) .••••. SY LVIA ••••• ------ ROMAGN INO) •.•• WHEELER ••.• ------ (M ILLER ) .....•. WIEDER .•..• ------ (BOR NHOfT) ••.•. WINTERS .•.• ========= (WARD ,J) •.•••.• YAMAMOTO •.• ------ DISTRICT 5 v' (MAURER) .•.•••• HEATHER •.•. ------ (STRA US S) ..••.• COX •..•.•• + ---- (AN THONY,P) •... RILEY •.•.•. ------ DISTRICT 6 (CRA NK ) .•••..•. HUTCHISON .• --___ _ (HEATH ER ) ...••. PLUMMER .••• _____ _ (RILEY) •.•.••.• AN TH ONY,P •. _____ _ DISTRICT 7 (BEYER) •..•.•.. SM ITH ••..•• ------ (SA LTARE(..LI) .. -EDGAR ....•. ------ (H EATHE R).··· •• HAR T.··· •• • ------ !WI EDE R) .• • .•.• MIL LER· •••• ------ ANT HONY,A) •••. VARDOULIS·. ------ HANSON) ....•.. WAH NE R.· .•. ------ YAMAMOTO)· •..• WAR D,J. • ••• ------ 0 !STRICT 11 (BAIL EY ) •.••••• PATTINSON •• ------ (MACA LLJSTER) .. BAILEY ..•.• ------ (MILLER) ..•.... WiEDER ••... ------ 10/8/80 (HO LLI ~D EN) ....• ADLER ...... ---- (R I LEY) .•....•.. ANTHONY,P . : __ -- (MA CALLISTER) ..• BAIL EY ..•• ·----~WINT E RS) •.....• BORNHOFT .• ·---- ROG ET ) •.•.••..• CORB ETT .... --__ STRAUSS l ....... COX •.•..... (P ERR Y) ...•.•.•. CULV ER •.•.. ---- (SALTAR ELLI ) •.•• EDGAR ....•. ---- (ROWAN1) ••.••..••. EVA NS •..•.• ----~KIRK PATRIC K) ••. FINLAYSON •• ---- MAND IC)· ...•... F IN LEY ....• ---- GAMB I NA) .•....• FOX ••...... ---- (H EATHER) ••.•... HART •••..•• ---- (MAURER)· ••••..• HEATHER ..•. ---- ~EC K ENRODE ) ••... HOLT •••..• ·====== CRMIK). • · ••••..• HUTCHISON •• ___ _ FOX ) . • · • ••.•... ISLES .•.... !OD LUM ) •••.•..• KAWANAMI .•• ---- SEITZ) •..••••.• LASZLO ....• ---- WIEDE R~· •••••.. MIL LE R ...•. ---- ( BAILEY •••.•.•• PATTINSON •• ---- CULVER ..•.••.• PERR Y ....•. ---- (HEATHER) ••••... PLUMM ER .••• ---- (DAV IS) •••.•••.. REESE ••...• ---- (A NTHONY, P) •••.. RI LEY ...•.• === === (S EYMOUR) ·······ROTH .••...• ---- (SA LTARELLI ) •.•. SHARP •..•• ·---- (B EY ER)········ ·SMITH •.... ·---- !HOLLIMD~N ) ·····STANTON ... ·---- ZOMMICK). ·······SY LVIA •.•• ·---- CO LLINS)······ ·YAN DYK E •• ·---- ANTHONY ,A)···· -VARDOULIS . ·---- (HANSON)······· .\~AHN E R ..•• ·---- ~CORBETT) .••••.. WARD,B •.•.. ---- YAMAMOTO)····· ·WARD,J. · ·. ·---- FRIED)········ ·WEDAA · • · · • ·---- (ROMAGN INO) ·····WHEE LER····---- (M ILLER)······· ·WIEDER ···.·---- (BORNHOFT) ·····.\°'INTERS···· --__ (WARD,J) ········YAMAMO TO··· -- OTHERS V' HARPER ····· -- SYLVESTER·· _L_ LEWIS ·····. _L_ CLARKE· · · • • _::£_ BROlm • • · · · • __::!'__ ANDERSON ••• BAKER ••..•• ~ CONATSER .•. DAWES ...••• --:;r- FATLAND .••• YOUNG •••.•• v WOODRUFF··· j HOHEN ER .••• __ HOWARD · .•. ·-- HUNT •.•... ·-- KEITH •..... __ LYNCH .•.•.• __ MARTINSON.·-- STEVENS .•.. __ ' DIST. 5 MTG. NOTES -10/29/80 (2-b) Staff and Consultant's Summary Hilary reviewed three alternatives and associated impacts re Big ~ Canyon drainage area. Reported that the existing pump station was built in 1958 as an interim measure to be fol lowed by a gravity line down Back Bay and Big Canyon. The pump station was enlarged three times and there is no more room to enlarge any further. A new facility would have to be built. Are three projects under consideration. (!)Back Bay Trunk line down Big Canyon, northerly or souther ly alignment, whichever is chosen, then down Back Bay Drive and ends at the Dunes Park. Estimated cost is $816,000. (2) Jamboree Pump Station -would replace existing pump station. Would also have to en large Jamboree Trunk line in Jamboree Road. Cost is $1,085,000 plus energy costs of approximately $32,000 a year at today's rates. (3) Gravity sewer tunnel -would run under Jamboree and would be 95 ft. deep at some points. Cost is $2,650,000. Would begin at pump station. Advised that the drainage area to be served is about 95% developed in accordance with existing land use plan pursuant to 1978 SCAG population projections. She then showed slides indicating the alignments of the various alternative lines and pump station location. She mentioned that at the last Board meeting the Board indicated a preference for the Back Bay gravity line. Jared Ikeda of EDAW, Inc., consultant, was then introduced. -He advised that the purpose of the Draft EIRwas to provide all interested parties and regulatory agencies with the environmental affects of the proposed projects to the Big Canyon drainage area. Preparation of report began in June of this year and draft was completed and distributed on Oct. 9th. In conformance with CEQA review period, comment period is for 30 days and will terminate on November 7th. All comments will be reviewed and included with appropriate responses in Final EIR that will go before Board of Directors of CSD on November 12. Proposed project will be heard by Coastal Commission on November 10th. Comments h eard at this public hearing will be recorded and will be kept as part of the record for the decision making process by the Board of Directors. Said they would discuss the projects and their impacts. If the public wished to make comments, should sign in at the table and they would be called upon in the order of the sign-up sheet. Asked the public to be as specific as possible so that they could respond to them in the Final EIR. Will attempt to summarize comments heard and respond at the end of the public hearing. Formal responses will be prepared for the Final EIR. Mr. Ikeda then introduced Charles Pilcher of EDAW also. Mr. Pilcher reviewed in detail the various types of impacts and mitigation measures to be taken for each of the three alternative projects, as outlined on Schedule C, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation, in the Draft EIR. ~ f ) / I The hearing was then opened for public comment. Bart President of Friends of Newport Bay, spoke first. He comments which he submitted to be received and filed. Ellerbroek, ' read prepared See attached. Frank Robinson also representing Friends of Newport Bay spoke next. He stated he felt that the Draft EIR prepared by EDAW was not very difinitive. From an engineering standpoint, said he would defy anybody to make an a nalysis from that EIR. Said EIR called for 30 ft. wide strip for pipe through the canyon. According to Robinson's calculations it would be at least 100 feet wide by the time you make allowances for trucking, backhoeing equipment and whatever is necessary . Also didn't know the exact locationsin the canyon that would expose surfaces with native vegetation. Will have more silt back into the Bay. Was puzzled about removal of stockpile. Recalled that some years ago City of Newport Beach put some pretty strong recommendations on it which restricted Cal -Trans from removing it . EIR must address problem of removing 150,000 cubic yards of silt. Very sketchy. Robinson recommended that the EIR by r e jected, not because the work was in error but should be considerably more comprehensive . Dayne Stiles from The Irvine Company then spoke . He submitted a letter with their comments also . He commended the Sanitation Districts for trying to solve the problem of lack of adequate sewage facilities in the Big Canyon drainage area . Said he thought that the cost of energy and the reliability of service with regard to the pump station must be considered by the District. Thought those factors would lead to the gravity sewer alternative . Stated he would be happy to answer any questions anybody had. Dennis O'Neil then spoke . He advised that he had respresented Daon Corp. on their residential subdivision at Jamboree and Ford Road for the past 8 -9 months during the time the Board and staff had been examining possible solutions to the capacity problem in the drainage area . Advised that within the last few days the project had changed ownership and was now owned by J . M. Peters Co . They propose to sell subdivision as proposed by the City of Newport Beach . Said he was making this statement on behalf of J. M. Peters Co . Have reviewed Draft EIR and feel that it adequately addresses the impacts. Developers favor very much the gravity line alternative . Very much understand the environmental significance but would point out that there are certain energy conservation measures involving the new pump station that they feel are more of an adverse environmental concern than the gravity line. Said as a representative of the developer, have certain interests that it move forward. Advised that with the cooperation of this Board and IRWD, the developer was able to obtain alternative sewer service with IRWD but feel that District should proceed with gravity sewer l ine . J. M. Peters Company is ready, wflling and able to continue with its cooperation in assisting the Board and staff and consultant in solving this difficult problem. Mr. Robinson then asked to add one more comment . Said" he noticed that the last couple of speakers mentioned that the EIR supports the idea of the gravity sewer plan . Thought this was a meeting to study the various impacts of the lines. In view of the fact that we have received notice from the Coastal Commission of a meeting on this on November 10th, feel that this Board has made up its mind already and have taken a position to adopt the gravity line. Director Riley stated that he resented that comment. Said they are here to hear everybody's comments but there is a ti9ht time frame for the hearing at the Coastal Commission. 1 { I ' ' ~ . EDAW representative, Jared Ikeda, then indicated he wanted to open the meeting up as a workshop. Said they would like a clear understanding of public concerns re issues addressed in EIR . Would like to ask general public which of these eight issues they thought were the most critical and need to be fully addressed in the Final EIR. -2- \ He listed eight items of concern on a board . (1) Impact to endangered species and habitat (2) Consistency with Coastal Act (3) Not definitive (4) Width of construction (5) Erosion into the Bay/Silt into the Bay (6) Removal of the spoils -impact (7) Energy cost (8) Need for sewage improvements He then asked the public whi ch one(s) of these they felt were the most critical issues. Public said it was difficult to say what was most significant. Friends of the Bay said items (1) and (2) really went together . Re item (3) Robinson said he gave EDAW a contoured ma p and EIR is not adequate without that. Also felt items (3) & (4) were tied together. Commented th at item (5) was of concern to everybody . Has accumulative impact. EDAW asked Friends of the Bay if item (6) needed any further clarification. No comment . Also asked if (7) was adequately described. Robinson commented that when you don't see engineering figures, can't be critical and question the response . Reminded consultant that there is another l i ne that doesn't need energy . Dennis O 'Neil added that he felt that it was going to boil down to , assuming we are not in violation of the l aw, will be a balance between all of the 8 elements. Is more concerned that we are coming ·down to the same point that we were when we were trying to process this project several years ago. Would hope that the mitigation measures are going to be adequately addressed with regard to environmental issues so the whole thing can be put into the proper prospective . Should be able to come to a conclusion re what is the best solution for this prob l em which is lack of capacity in the drainage area . commented he noticed Fish & Game people were not there. Said references were made to mitigation . In reading EIR did not see 18 mitigation measures that they had required . Directors advised that they had had an earl y scoping meeting with Fish & Game and regulatory agencies. We are awaiting writt en comment from Fish & Game. EDAW said they are sure there wi l l be things they would like to see addressed in EIR and they wil l be included in the Final . It was suggested that the F i nal E I R l ist the items of concern from Fish & Game and the mitigation measures right next to them. EDAW said that was a good point . Couldn 't tel l by Table C if all 18 were listed . Director Heather reiterated that they had had an early scoping meeting . At that time they felt that mitigation would take care of this . (Riley then stated that the Final EIR would respond to every bit of comment here and written comments. \ I t was then moved and seconded to receive and ·file written and oral comments . Motion carried . Agenda item #3 was also moved and seconded and carried . -3- <f-Hearing re Draft Supplemental EIR re DISTRICT S MINUTES -10/29/80 ...,.,,,, Sewerage Improvements for Big Ca nyon Drainage Area This being the time and place fixed for public hearing on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re Sewerage Improve ments for Big Canyon Drainagea Area, the Chairma n declared the hea ring open \ at 7:30 p.m. ~Staff and Consultant's The District 's staff reviewed the ~y Summary of Proposed llf==tbe existing and proposed alternate Projects faciliti e s for sewering the Big Canyon drain a ge area. In-t9S9 the Jamooree Pump Station-was built__to_s~rve the__ a;rea_on_an interim~ be expanded further. The ~. J.2 7tati on is n.ew-at--eapcrci:ty and camrnt ~,,.,, three ~alternatives under consideration are: Alternate I. Gravity Sewer Along Back Bay Drive tt . The proposed Back Bay Trunk Sewer runs fr,om the Danes Park~. in the ~ed--5-eeti0n -0F-Back· Bay Drive to Big Canypn ) ~en :i.t.---p {f ' 11\ /'~r, ~t Big Canyon, ~eT along ~a northerlyl'alignmerrt JL. .. ,.4 ~ ~"' <~;,.J J)_ I.<-•~ Pt:<.i. of the Canyon) oi:-a.l.Q.ng :..tfuLs .. OJJ.:ther-ly side ;-to -an- exi.s.t_ing pwnp statj_on_l.ocati:1Sn. The estimated cost of this facility is $816,000. Alternate II. Jamboree Pwnp Station Improvements This alternative consists of con s truction of a n e w pump station~eplac~ the existing one and the expansion of the capacity of the existing Jamboree Trunk Line. The estimated cost of $1,085,000 plus energy costs of approximately $32,000 per year, computed at today's rates, ..woul.G-£a..i:-e..xteed-. ~e cost-<;).£. the ~tfler --t-we--a-1 ternat-i -ve~ve_r 'the_ life o.f the._ fa~. Alternate III. Gravity Tunnel System in Jamboree Road This a) ternati ve proposes tha.:t-t:he-eri-!?ting -f>ump station arid I_, -.e-.A, ~. , R.(. _ <-'" a~ force main -be-abandonetl-and' that flows be/ di vetted- ' E ... I ' ,, \ ~ C~. f; ~ I th.i:.Q!.lgb_a new-2 4-inch gravity trunk -ii n e . This n ew lin e would connect the manhole near the existing pump station with the manhole located about i209-feet north of Back Bay Drive and Jambo ree Road intersection. Th e projected cost e for ,t his a~ternative is $2_,~so,o~oo li,, I ~' jJ , ~t, EDAW, Inc . brie:f;ly e.xplaine~ the purpose of the f Draft -L\,,. . , ~ . · ~ r c, ct ~ ( (!, Supp l ementa l EIR and the require uren"ts relative to p1repara tion of c:: r( Th e cons ult an t then reviewed the Final Report. /~possible environmental impacts)( connection (iL '-<' 1r c>--.tJ < with each of the three alternative f!aci li tie-s, as w0J J as the mitigation I I ~ m eas ur es 1 ~ he take n re lative to each im~~ a s GYtliQe d on-+ab+e-C-, J.-t.,__ t:!Stmanary of Impa et:s au~gm:~ in ~ Dr aft EIR. ~ O:i:.a 1 Comm en ts re The Chair then r ecognized the following D~aft Supplemental persons who addressed the Boa r d regarding EIR -..l '-.) the Dra£t Supplemental EIR: Mr. Bart Ellerbroek, President of Frj,_,enas of the Bay; Mr. Frank Robin son , also repres e nting Friends o!'the Bay; Mr. Dayne Stiles of The Irvine Company; and Mr . D enn ~oi"Neil representing J .M. Peters and ~~es submitted written communications ~ EIR. Company. Mr . Ellerbroek making comment on the The consultant then summa rized the comm ents and asked for additional ~v.-l({ ~ 1 ~ dPr~ ' ~I ~ discussion r-e-l j~fve-t:-o/is ~h ~t n ~?ed to~~ ~or~ fully ad~i::,~s~ed ,. I in the Final EIR I r ·~-tha.L the--1Ilitigati..Q!l requirements o!._ the Dep a rtment -of Fish and Game would b e more clearly identified in the Final EIR. I '__/ J 7Recei ve and file written " JP ov e d, seconded and duly carried: comments re Draft That the written comments rece ived Supplemental EIR from Fri e nds of Newport Bay, dated October 28, 1980, and The Irvine Company, dated October 28, 1980, relative to the Draft Supplemental EIR re Sewerage Improveme nts for :' ' ... Big Ca nyon Drainage Area be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed. -7 Close public h e aring Following a brief sta tement by the Suppl e mental Board that the Final/Environ~ent a l Impact /.tJ~'. (Lr (I ' • • "J J l ..,~ (...,": /I-• ' to all oral ~ ana written comment "'recei v'edt; Re po~t would resp9nd L''r. -/ ! 0 t1 / ) the Chairman declare d ( · '· the hearing cl osed at 8 :15 p.m. ~Directing prep a ration of Final Supplemental EIR Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the staff and consultant be, and re Sewerage Improvements are hereby, directed to prepare the for Big Canyon Drainage Area Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re Sewerage Improvements for Big Canyon Drainage Area after the close of the comment period on November 7, 1980. Adjournment /' '{ ~ ;> I \ \ The Chair then recognized the following persons who addressed the Board regarding the Draft Supplemental EIR. Mr. Bart Ellerbrach of Irvine representing the Friends of Newport Bay. ~ Mr. Ellerbrach spoke in opposition to th e proposed gravity sewer along Back Bay Drive because of possible impact on l Pump Station ~rovement or Gravity Upp er Newport Bay and in favor of the Jamboree Tunnel System in Jamboree Road alternative ~ \ ~ts and submit ted hi lJ1,;~e nt s i+l wFiti+l-g to the Board . \ \ \ ( Mr . Frank Robinson of Newport Beach representing Friends of Newport Bay . ,. --,,..,- Mr. Robinson spok e in opposition to the gravity sewer along Back Bay Drive ~fG A a lternate and as ked that the EIR b e re¥iewed-as bein g not compre hen sive . ~°'L . Mr . .D&an Stt-les representing the Irvine Company spoke in favor of the gravity sewer along Back Bay Drive alternate because of economic and reliability consideration s illt1.M and submitted his/comments Board. Mr. Dennis 0 ' Neal representing J. ~I. Peters Company. 1~- j \ Ml'~G 'NP;:i l then...spol<.e-Hi-Favor-of the. g..r-a.-vity sewe:r: along Back Bay_ Drive alternate~ . f Mr: O_'_N_e~a•l_..st,......at~ed that, in his opinion, t h e Draft EIR adequately addressed the I \ impact and spoke in favor of the gravity sewer along Back Bay Drive alternate because of energy considerations. ~e consultant t e n summarized the comments f~om the public conC'el:!ling the. . . and requested further oral comment -- - COUNTY SANITAT:ION DISTRICT NO. 5 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA .... ..... - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA Prepared For: County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 (714) 540-3910 Contact Person: Hilary Baker October, 1980 EDAW, Inc. This report was authorized by the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County at their regular meeting of July 11, 1980 with supplemental authoriza- tion on August 13, 1980. The report has been prepared by EDAW, Inc. at a cost of $9,500.00 • - - .... TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2. 0 SUMMARY 2.1 Description of the Problem 2.2 Summary of the Project Alternatives 2.3 Sununary of the Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Location 3.2 Project Background/Objectives 3.3 Project Characteristics 3.4 Jurisdiction 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4. 1 Geology/Soils/Seismicity 4. 2 Hydrology/Water Quality 4. 3 Biological Resources 4. 4 Land Use 4. 5 Cultural Resources 4. 6 Circulation 4. 7 Air Quality and Noise 4. 8 Utilities 4. 9 Visual Resources 4.10 Energy Consumption 5.0 SECONDARY GROWTH EFFECTS 5. 1 Growth Within the Service Area 5. 2 Impacts of Growth i PAGE i iii iv 1-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-3 3-8 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-4 4-11 4-13 4-15 4-16 4-17 4-18 4-18 5-1 5-1 5-2 PAGE 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 6-1 6. 1 No Project 6-1 1111111 6. 2 Water Conservation 6-1 6. 3 The Back Bay Trunk Line and Incorporated 6-2 Enhancement 7.0 SUMMARY IMPACTS 7-1 7. 1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 7-1 ~ 7. 2 The Relationship Between Short-Term 7-2 Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Produc- tivity 7. 3 Irreversible Environmental Changes 7-2 8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED 8-1 9.0 REFERENCES 9-1 ii - LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE A -ALTERNATIVE PROJECT COSTS 2-1 TABLE B -ENERGY CONSUMPTION COSTS 2-2 TABLE c -SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 2-5 TABLE D -ENERGY CONSUMPTION/COSTS 4-20 TABLE E -STATUS OF UNDEVELOPED PARCELS WITH 5-3 THE BIG CANYON/JAMBOREE TRUNK LINE SERVICE AREA iii ... LIST OF FIGURES Following Page .... 1 Location 3-1 2 Service Area Boundary 3-1 3 Existing Pump Station and Sewer 3-2 4 Back Bay Sewer Line 3-4 5 Jamboree Pump Station 3-5 6 Jamboree Road Tunnel 3-7 7 Biological Resources of Big Canyon 4-4 8 Existing Land Uses 4-11 9 Undeveloped Parcels 5-2 iv - 1.0 INTRODUCTION It is important to understand the objectives of and framework within which a document such as this is prepared. First, it is the objective of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (hereafter referred to as OCSD or the District) to provide addi- tional trunk sewerage capacity for the Big Canyon Drainage area. The existing Jamboree Pump Station and Force Main were considered temporary facilities when built 22 years ago. In January, 1980, a temporary suspension was placed on further sewer connections within the service area due to capacity limitations of the pump· station. There are three structural solutions being considered to re- solve the capacity problem by providing increased collection capacity. These are the Back Bay Sewer Line, a new Jamboree Pump Station and the Jamboree Road Tunnel. All have been dis- cussed at length in previous documents. The Back Bay Line, the preferred solution of the District in 1976, was rejected by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report is to provide a comparative analysis of the environmental affects associated with each of the potential alternatives. The Board of Directors of the District, upon revi.ewing engineering, economic, and en- vironmental data on each, will select a preferred project. Further permit approval (such as the Coastal permit) will be sought for the preferred project. It is not anticipated that further environmental evaluation will be required, other than that which occurs prior to finalizing this EIR. In preparing this EIR, the question arose as to why the Back Bay Line is still being considered if it is the same project as before. It is the District staff position that the Back Bay Line, because it is a gravity flow line, remains the most economical and re- liable system that could b~ constructed. Given the increasing energy costs, and policy of the District to phase out pump sta- tions where possible, the Back Bay Line is believed to warrant further consideration. The Back Bay project is essentially the same project as previously proposed, except that the southern alignment through Big Canyon is also evaluated. The conditions- of-approval previously accepted by the District have been revised to reflect the current situation and are included as part of this alternative. The concept of additional enhancement activity that could possibly make the project more acceptable, such as the widely discussed removal of the spoil pile at the mouth of Big Canyon, is treated in the "Alternatives to the Project .. section of this EIR. 1-1 - - ... ... It is important to note, and give credit to, previous environ- mental documentation on the project alternatives. These are: o Envirorunental Assessment, Back Bay Trunk s·ewer, County Sanitation District No. 5, 1976. o Supplemental E·nvironmental Assessment, Back Bay Trunk Sewer, County Sanitation District No. 5, 1976. o Big Canyon Drainage Area EIR, OCSD, 1979. o Big Canyon Drainage Supplemental Draft E"IR, OCSD, 1980. It was the intent of this study to compile the previous infor- mation on the various alternatives, update it as necessary, and document it in a comparative framework. The previous environ- mental documentation has been incorporated by reference to the extent possible. Issues have been summarized for brevity. Further clarification or elaboration on specific issues can be accomplished in the Final EIR, if required. In preparing this document, the procedures contained in the State EIR Guidelines, have been followed. A Notice of Preparation was sent to agencies with permit or review authority and to other interested parties. Direct consultation with these agencies was also conducted by EDAW, Inc. A meeting of individuals identified as having an interest in the project (through previous commentary) was also held on August 5, 1980. Public input can now be accom- plished through written commentary on this Draft EIR or at the public hearing on the draft EIR scheduled for October 29, 1980. Contact the District for the location of this meeting. If you have any questions on the proposed alternatives, this evalua- tion, or the environmental review process, please contact either of the individuals listed below: Hilary Baker County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 (714) 540-2910 Charles Pilcher EDAW, Inc. 220 Newport Center Drive Suite 20 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 644-9104 1-2 .. .. ... 2.0 SUMMARY 2.1 Description of the Problem Wastewater collection and transport for the Big Canyon Drainage area is currently provided through the Jamboree Pump Station and Jamboree Trunk Line. The current pump station is operating at seven times the original design capacity with only minor modi- fications to the pumps and associated piping. The pump station is substandard in several areas, the primary one being the lack of standby pumping capacity. This has resulted in a situation in which raw sewage is periodically spilled into Big Canyon and in which further sewage hook-ups within the service area are restricted. Three alternative projects are being considered to resolve this situation. They are described below. 2.2 Summary of the Proiect Alternatives Three alternative construction projects considered to resolve the reliability and capacity problems of the existing facility are: 1) the Back Bay line, 2) the Jamboree Pump Station, and 3) a gravity sewer tunnel. Of these, the Back Bay line and tunnel are gravity flow systems. Based upon the most recent evaluation of existing and ultimate flow discharges prepared as part of the Design Report for the Jamboree Road Pump Station prepared by Shaller and Lohr in 1979, the recommended design capacity for these alternative systems is 9 MGD. Capital Costs September, 1980 dollars Maintenance Costs/ Yr. Energy Costs/Yr. TABLE A ALTERNATIVE PROJECT COSTS Back Bay 1 $816,000 2,200 -0- Pump Station 2 $1,085,000 12,000 3 31,400 No Tunnel Project 2 $2,650,000 $ -o- 2,200 11,930 -o-24,500 1. Based on Butier Engineering, Preliminary Construction Estimate, Back Bay Trunk Sewer, 10/79 (+8.5%). 2. Based on County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Report on Alternate Facilities, Big Canyon Drainage, 9/79 (+8.5%). 3. 1980 Dollars at $.510/KWH (current average unit cost for exist- in~ station) • 2-1 - ... ... TABLE B ENERGY CONSUMPTION COSTS No Back Bay Pum12 Station Tunnel Project Yearly -o-615,000 -0-480,000 Consumption KWH/Yr. (exist. use) Barrels of -o-2,150 -o-1,600 Oil/Yr. Ener~ Costs 1980 -o-$ 31,400 -o-$ 24,500 Dollars/Yr. 1. At build-out of the service area. 2. At $.051/KWH -unit cost as of 5/9/80 billing for the existing pump station. Although future energy costs are highly un- certain, projections indicate this rate could double by the year 2000. 2.3 Summary of the Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures The direct environmental effects and mitigation measures that are incorporated within each alternative are summarized in the following tables. The primary issues are effects on natural resources, economics, and energy consumption. It should be noted that uncertainties remain within the natural resource and energy cost categories that cannot be resolved at this time. The Back Bay Trunk Sewer alignment passes near habitat used by the light-footed clapper rail, an endangered species. Although extensive mitigation has been incorporated into this alternative, if, and how the species will react to the construction activity is not known. Similarly, the future energy dollar costs asso- ciated with the pump station are, at best, conjectural. In 1978/1979, the State Energy Commission projected average costs would reach 7.3 cents/KWH by the year 2000. However, average consumer costs have risen from 2~ cents/KWH in 1977 to 7 cents/KWH in mid-1980, an increase of over 200 percent. As over two-thirds of the electricity provided by Southern California Edison is gen- erated by oil and natural gas, the costs and reliability of this supply cannot be definitively determined. 2-2 ... ... ... The decision regarding the trade-off involved in selecting a preferred alternative rests with the Board of Directors of the Sanitation District, following input gained in the environ- mental review process. Secondary impacts will occur with the service area accompanying further growth accommodated by the facility improvements. Growth will have three first order effects: increased demand on public services and utilities; changes in land use patterns; and generation of increased automobile traffic. These in turn, will have a number of second order effects. The increased de- mand on public services and utilities will affect the quality and/or the per capita cost of services provided. Changes in land use patterns can alter the identity of an area and affect alterations in landform and topography. Increased traffic will compound existing and create new circulation problems, degrade air quality through pollution and increase ambient noise levels. Third and fourth order effects resulting from changes in land use patterns will also result from alterations to natural hydrologic and biological systems, as well as existing socioeconomic condi- tions. 2-3 - - ISSUE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CIRCULATION ct;LTURAL RESOURCES TABLE C SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION BACK BAY SEWER LINE JAMBOREE PUMP STATION JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT Removal of riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat/removal of small pockets of freshwater marsh alonq Back Bay Drive. Potential short-te:r:m disturbance None to wildlife inhabiting riparian habitats in the vicinity of the project. MITIGATION MmGATION Enhancement of recovery throuqh None proposed. project design and reseeding as appropriate. IMPACT IMPACT Removal of pickleweed veqetation and potential habitat of the Beldinq 's Savannah Sparrow (Biq Canyon northern alignment onlvl. MITIGATION MITIGATION Reseeding disturbed areas. IMPACT Potential interruption of liqht~ footed clapper rail f oraqinq and late breedinq season activities. MITIGATION Inclusion of those measures on the updated list of conditions of approval (refer to text-Section 4.3.2.1). IMPACT Potential interruption of miqratory bird use of habitat in the vicinity of the project. MmGATION On-qoinq inspection of a qualified bioloqist. IMPACT Temporary closure of portions of Back Bay Drive required. MITIGATION Throuqh access alonq Back Bay Drive provided for pedestrians and bicyclists. Back Bay Drive would be resurfaced alonq the entire ~onstruction corridor. IMPACT Potential. distrubance of six archaeoloqical sites along the Back Bay corridor. Potential paleontoloqical resources alonq the Back Bav alianment. MITIGATION Additional. archaeological wo:r:k will be accomplished including a walk-over of the alignment rvd ~~~~~~IJ.s~?n~ci~n~~Jr'l~t. IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT MmaATION IMPACT Lane closures alonq Jamboree Road aliqnment with Sewer construction. MITlGATrON The contractor would comply with local requirements for traffic control. IMPACT Po~ntial disturbance of CA-Ora-64. MITIGATION Test level investiqation re- quired. Should any archaeological or oaleontol0aical resources be un- MITIGATION None proposed. IMPACT MITIGATION MITIGA nun IMPA'°r MITIGATION IMPACT Limitad lane closure on Jamboree Road. 200 truck trips required to remove excavation material from the area. MrTIGATION The contractor would comply with local requirements for traffic control. IMPACT None expected. MITIGATION Should any arcbaeoloqical or paleontoloqical resources be uncovered, qualified specialists will be brouqht Should any archaeoloqical or paleontoloqical resources be un- covered, qualified specialists will be brought in. uncovered, qualified specialists IMPACT will be brought in. MITl'llATION MITIGATION MITIGATION 2-4 in. AIR QUALITY ENERGY CONSUMPTION LAND USE - DitmC'r SITE ALTERATION DIRECT EFFEC'r ON ADJACENT LAND USES NOISE UTILITIES/ SERVICES IMPACT Dust qeneration from excavation and fill activity. MITIGATION Dust suppression by water will be employed as necessary. IMPACT No lonq-term consumption. MITIGATION proposed. IMPACT Temporary distrubance of natural areas within Biq canyon. MITIGATIUN Limitations on construction period (refer to project description). IMPACT Big canyon construction a:r:eas visible to adjacent residents. MITIGATION None proposed. lMPACT Temporary disturbance of adja• cent natural a%eas within the Bay. MITIGATION Numerous measures are included within the project to reduce effects on the Bay (refer to project description). IMPACT Increased noise generated by construction equipment. IMmGATION ~o pneumatic equipment will be used. IMPACT No impact. I MITIGATION ~one proposed. IMPACT Dust generation from excavation and fill activity. MITCGATIOH Dust suppression by watering will be employed as necessary. IMPACT Annual consumption of 650,000 IGnl of enerqy (2,150 barrels of oil). MITIGATION None available. IMPACT Temporary disturbance at upper end of Biq canyon. All other work in roadway. MmGATIOH None proposed. IMPACT Construction at pump station visible to adjacent residents. MITIGATION None proposed. lMPACT MITIGATION lMPACT Increased noise generated by construction equipment. MITIGATION None proposed. IMPACT No impact. MmGATION None proposed. 2-5 IMPACT Limited dust qeneration with loadinq of soil into trucks. MITIGATION Dust suppression by waterinq will be employed as necessary. IMPACT No lonq-tei:m consumption. MITIGATION None proposed. IMPACT Temporary disturbance at upper end of Biq Canyon. MmGATION None proposed. IMPACT Construction acitivty and new structures at upper end of Biq canyon visible to adjacent residents. MITIGATION None proposed. IMPAC"I MITIUATIVn IMPACT Increased noise generated by construction equipment. MmGATION None proposed. IMPACT No impact. MITIGATION None proposed. LANDFORM AL'IERATION SEISMIC HAZARD SOILS HYDROLOGY WATER QUALITY - RELIABILITY WATER QUALITY - SILTATION VISUAL RESOURCES IMPACT All areas retU?:ned to existinq grade except for small sections of Back Bay Drive pavement which will be raised a maximum of 2 feet. MITIGATION None proposed· IMPACT Potential seismic hazard from ground shaking. MITIGATION Pipeline will be of ductile cast iron pipe. IMPACT Minimal constraints. MITIGATION _None proposed. IMPACT Dewatering of pipe trench is expected with discha%'qe to Opper Newport.Bay. IMPACT None MmGATION None required. IMPACT Moderate hazard from ground shakinq along most of the alignment. MITIGATION Potential ground shakinq to be accounted for in desiqn and engineering of the PWllP station and line. IMPA~T Minimal constraints. MmOA.TION None proposed. IMPACT None MITIGATION MITIGATION A discharge permit will be required from the Regional Water None proposed. Quality Control Board. IMPA~ IMPACT High reliability with gravity flow line. MITIGATIVll None proposed. IMPACT Potential siltation from evacuated soil stockpiles. MmGATION Temporary erosion control meas- ures would be employed for the construction activity that is concurrent with rainy season. IMPACT Limited temporary impact of construction activity along Biq canyon and Sack Bay Drive. MITIGATION None proposed. Less reliability than gravity flow sewer. MITIGATION The new pump station would contain an extra stand-by pump. IMPACT Potential siltation from excavated soil stockpiles. MITIGATION All construc~ion could be accom- plished outside the wet season. lllPA~ Limited, temporary impact to residences. MITIGATION None proposed. 2-6 IMPACT None MITIGATION None required. IMPACT High potential for damage from ground shaking at soil/bedrock interface. MmGATIOH Special precaution required to ensure stability during and after construction (refer to Converse Ward, 1979) • Furthei aeotechnical investiqations. IMPA'°T Support problems when tunnel- ing through bedrock and nat- ural soils. MITIUATH1N Specialized construction tunnel support and eventual backfilling of tunnel required. IMPACT 'l'Unnel elevation would be at or below qroundwater levels. MmGATION Local dewate~inq for construc- tion and specialized drainaqe measures required. RWQCB permit. IMPACT Hiqh reliability with gravity flow line. MITIGATION None proposed. IMPAIWT Potential siltation from excavated soils stockpiles. MITIQ,.1111.111 The removal of excess material excavated from the tunnel would be required. IMPACT Temporary short-term impacts from the construction activity. MIT10ATION None proposed. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Location The Big Canyon Drainage area is located within the boundaries of County Sanitation District No. 5, Orange County, California. The drainage area is adjacent to Newport Bay and within the City of Newport Beach. The location of the project in a regional context is shown in Figure 1. The Big Canyon Drainage area is a geographic service area de- signated by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County for the collection of wastewater and transmission to Wastewater Treatment Plant #2 of the Orange County Sanitation Districts. The Big Canyon Drainage area is contiguous with the area serviced by the existing Jamboree Road Wastewater Pump Station as shown in Figure 2. The proposed sewerage project improvements are limited to the southwe~tern sector of the drainage area beginning at the pump station located 750 feet north of the San Joaquin Hills Road/Jamboree Road intersection. Also included in the analysis is the small area tributary to the Jamboree Road Trunk Line. Sewage flows from the Jamboree Pump ... Station are currently transmitted to the Pacific Coast Highway Main Trunk Line by way of the Jamboree Trunk Line (refer to Figure 2). 3.2 Project Background/Objectives The original Jamboree Pump Station was constructed in 1958 by the County of Orange and the Irvine Company, and had a design capacity of 0.3 MGD. The service area, at that time, was largely undeveloped with the exception of the Ford Aeronutronics facility. In 1959, the pump station was acquired by Sanitation District No. 5. The 1964 Master Plan for wastewater collection in this area pre- pared by the District, indicated the pump station was considered a temporary facility until the time that a gravity line along Newport Bay could be constructed. Numerous improvements to the station have occurred, however, including replacement of the pumps and upgrading the force main (from 8" to 14") which extends south- westerly from the pump station along Jamboree Road. In 1976, OCSD proposed construction of a gravity flow line, re- ferred to as the Back Bay Sewer Line. Approvals for this project were obtained from the City of Newport Beach, the State Depart- ment of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality Control Board- Santa Ana Region, and the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission- South Coast Regional Commission. The South Coast Regional Coastal 3-1 BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA EIR Co.unty Sanitation Districts of Orange County Prepared by: EDA W Inc. ~ffi 0 00 feet ~SCALE - 1111111 - - - - - - ACR E NORTH BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA EIR tgffi County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Prepared by: EDA W inc. 0 00 f eet ~SC ALE SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY I FIGURE 2 ) - - ... Commission approval of the project was appealed to the State Coastal Commission. The State Commission subsequently denied approval of the project on September 21, 1977. The grounds for denial were based primarily on the potential impacts to en- dangered species residing in the Bay adjacent to the project. The Commission also noted that alternatives exist which could substantially reduce or eliminate these adverse impacts. The majority of the Big Canyon Drainage area has had urban de- velopment since 1958. Of the 2,022 acres of serviceable area tributary to the pump station, only 373 acres remain undeveloped. The area tributary to the downstream line contains 115 developed acres and 129 undeveloped acres. Developments have also been pro- posed for most of the remaining vacant lands. The existing conditions relative to the adequacy of the existing pump station are best described in a 1978 report entitled "Pro- ject Report for the Big Canyon Drainage Area" by L.D. King: "The au.rrent pump station is operating at approximate7,y seven times the original, design aapaaity with onZy minor modifications to the pump/motor units and associated piping. The Va:f'iabZe drive pwnp is 'l'Unning approximate7,y 24 hours a day. The cu.rrent pump station operation is substandard in aii the fo7,7,owing pump station design categories: 7,. Insufficient standby pump aapacity 2. Insufficient wet we Z Z sizing 3. Below minimwn pump aycZing time 4. Force main air ejeation 5. Lead versus Zag pump on-off timing 6. Inaaau.rate pump aontro.Z uni ts 7. Baak-up power supp7,y The above aonditions aause exaesslve maintenance and very Zow reZiabiZi-ty at the pump station." These conditions remain today. The current recommended de- sign capacity for the pump station, taking into account projected grwoth within the service area, is 9.0 MGD (the existing design capacity of the pump station is 6.0 MGD). Based upon the limitations provided by the current capacity of the pump station, OCSD issued in January, 1980 a suspension on further permits for sewer connections within the Big Canyon- Jamboree Road Drainage area. This ordinance (Ordinance 510) temporarily suspends issuance of sewer connection permits with the exception of specified projects which had essentially received the necessary planning and. processing approvals from the City of Newport Beach. (Harbor Ridge Residential Development Area #1, Harbor Hill Residential Development-Area #2, Sea Island 3-2 ... ... ... 1.a Residential Development-Area #8, Big Canyon Residential Develop- ment-Area #13, and the ·Pacific Mutual Commercial Development- Area #11). Repeal of Ordinance 510 is expected once construc- tion contracts are awarded for improvements to the system. In summary, the purpose of the project is two-fold: first, to provide adequate sewerage capacity for the planned growth within the drainage area, and second, to improve the reliability of the facilities. 3.3 Project Characteristics The existing sewerage lines which are planned for improvement are shown in Figure 3. Waste flows for the Big Canyon Drain- age area are collected by gravity at the Jamboree Pump Sta- tion. From there, the waste is pumped through a 14" force main up the hill to just past San Joaquin Hills Road. The waste- water then flows through gravity lines, 18," 15" and 18" re- specitvely, to a point near the Jamboree Road/Back Bay Drive intersection where the line joins an existing trunk connecting to the Pacific Coast Highway Trunk Line. The PCH line carries the waste flow to the Sanitation Districts' Treatment Plant No. 2. :1-~- H 1 Ealstlng 1a~ TS.n Joaquin Hills Rd. 140 130 l20 110 100 .111) 10 i so i 40 Ealsling 18'' iii Eaisllng~Elial:&I Pump SI 40 30 20 IO --·-------·-· 20 30 40 50 Jamboeff Road & Statl- 6000' FIGURE 3 . 60 10 llO EXISTING PUMP STATION AND· SEWER 3-3 Three alternative construction projects considered to resolve the reliability and capacity problems of the existing facility are: 1) the Back Bay line, 2) the Jamboree Pump Station, and 3) a gravity sewer tunnel. Of these, the Back Bay line and tunnel are gravity flow systems. The project reports, which detail the en- ginnering and cost considerations for each of the plans are: o Design Report for Jamboree Pump Station Alternate, Shaller & Lohr, Inc., September, 1979. o Preliminary Construction Estimate for Proposed Jamboree Road Sewer Tunnel, Butier Engineering, Inc., October, 1979. o Project Report for the Big Canyon Drainage Area, L.D. King, September, 1978. o Preliminary Construction Estimate, Back Bay Trunk Sewer, Butier Engineering, Inc., October, 1979. Based upon the most recent evaluation of existing and ultimate flow discharges prepared as part of the Shaller and Lohr report, the recommended design capacity for these alternative systems is 9 MGD. - 3-4 - - - - - - - - - - - BACK BAY TRUNK GRAVITY SEWER ALTERNATIVE The proposed Back Bay Trunk Sewer runs from the Dunes Park in the paved section of Back Bay Drive to Big Canyon. Then the sewer runs up Big Canyon, either across the existing spoil pile along a northerly alignment of the Canyon, or along the south- erly side to an existing pump station location . The proposed sewer will be an 18-24 inch ductile cast iron pipe for the entire 9,000 foot distance to provide a high re- sistance to corrosion. For the length of Back Bay Drive the pipe will be l aid on the land- ward side of Back Bay Drive about fo ur feet under the road pavement . S everal sections of the road will have to be raised one to two feet to eliminate dips and provide a uniform flow gra- d i ent for the sewer, and yet provide a minimum of two feet of cover to pro t ect the pipe from future road grading projects . The District will resurface Back Bay Drive for the length of the project and confine the resur- facing to the existing pavement widths only. Project Costs Capital Costs (9/80 dol lars) Maintenance Energy Cost/Year Energy Consumption $ 816 ,000 2,200 -0- Kwh/Year -0- Barrels of Oi l /Year -0- FIGURE 4 BACK BAY SEWER LINE - - - - - - - - - - - - - JAMBOREE PUMP STATION IMPROVE - MENTS ALTERNAT IVE This proposed alternative essen - tially will consist of the con- struction of a new modern p ump sta tion replacing the existing one, and the expansion of the capacity of the ex isting Jambor ee Trunk Line . The pump station's ultimate peak flow capacity of 9.0 MG D will be attained t hrough use of three centrifuga l, self- pr iming pumps, each with a capa- city of 3 .0 MGD . A fou rth pump will be held in reserve for backups and emergencies, thereby incre as ing the pump station's r e liability . Th e n ew pump sta- tion will be constructe d adjacent to the existing station. In addition , a 2,000 ga llon wet well and acce ssories will be con- str uct e d n ex t to the n ew pump station . Th e ex isting Jamboree Road Trunk Line which runs f r om the pump station to Back Bay Drive will b e p a ralleled with another line to increase its capacity to 9.0 MGD. Construction will occur along the e ntire length of t he Jamboree Road Trunk Line and ad - j a c e nt to the existing pump sta- tion. This is essentially the same alig nment a s the existing Jamboree Trunk Line . Project Costs Capital Costs (9 /8 0 dollars) Maintenance Costs/Year Energy Costs/Year Energy Consumption Kwh/Year Barrels of Oil/Year $1,0 85 ,000 12,000 31 ,400 6 15,000 2,150 FIGURE 5 JAMBOREE PUMP STATION ... - ... - - - - - JAMBOREE ROAD GRAVITY SEWER TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE This alternat i ve proposes that the exiting pump station and force main be abandoned and that flows be diverted through a new 24 -inch gravity trunk line. This new line would connect the man- hole near the existing pump sta- tion with the manhole located about 1,200 feet north of Back Bay Drive/Jamboree Intersection. The line would then join the ex- isting 18-inch gravity line on Jamboree Road . This existing 18- inch gravity line would also have to be paralle led with a similar sized line t o achieve required capacity. To accompl ish the above alter- native, a tunnel approximately 5 feet in diameter would be con- structed for 4,500 feet between the two manholes. Maximum depth of the tunnel would be approxi - mately 95 feet near its center. Project Costs Capital Costs (9 /8 0 dollars) Maintenance/Year Energy Costs/Year Energy Consumption Kwh/Year . Barrels of Oi l /Year $ 2,650,000 2,200 -0- -0- -0- FIGURE 6 JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL The costs associated with retention of the existing pump station and trunk line as shown in Figure 3 with no capacity improve- ments is given below for comparison. This is evaluated as the "-no project" alternative in Section 6.0. With the alternative, the reliability of the system would not be improved and the tem- porary suspension of sewer connection permits would remain in effect indefinitely. This alternative could preclude further development within the service area unless further projects could be sewered through adjacent service areas. Existing Project Costs Capital Costs (9/80 dollars) Maintenance/Year Energy Costs/Year $ -o- 12,000 24,500 Existing Energy Consumption Kwh/Year Barrels of Oil/Year 3.4 Jurisdiction 480,000 (existing use) 1,600 The project sponsor, and lead agency for the sewerage improve- ments is the County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County. The project will be funded entirely with local funds (i.e., Sanitation District #5). In addition to the required approval of the project and certifi- cation of the EIR by the District's Board of Directors, other agencies have review and/or permit authority over the project. These are summarized below. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION As the site lies within the designated coastal zone, any project must receive approval of the Coastal Commission. CALIFORNIA·DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME In addition to review authority under CEQA, the Department of Fish and Game (F. & G.) has advisory functions with respect to the Coastal permit. The alternative of most concern to F&G is the Back Bay Line, given the adjacency of the project to Upper Newport Bay and lands in the Ecological Reserve under the jurisdiction of the Department. The Department would also have authority under F&G 3-8 .... Code Section 1601, 1603, over the northern alignment through Big Canyon as the pipeline corridor traverses the Big Canyon Creek Bed. As portions of Back Bay Drive are within the Ecological Reserve, the Department would also need to approve the construc- tion alignment on these sections of roadway. STATE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL.BOARD, SANTA ANA REGION A permit would be required for the Back Bay Sewer Line from the Regional Board for the purposes of discharging water that seeps into the construction trench. This dewatering activity would last only for the construction period. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH As both Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive are dedicated roads un- der the City's jurisdiction, an excavation permit would be re- quired prior to working within the right-of-way on either of these streets. FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT Questions have been raised relative to federal involvement in the review and permit process (Persapia, 1980). Although it is private land, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may have juris- diction over portions of the Big Canyon Drainage under the . Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Section 404 authority over the nation's wetlands. This is currently being evaluated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has adjudication responsibilities .. relative to the extent of the Corps jurisdiction. For activities such as a pipeline, where the site grade is returned to approximate pre-project levels, the COE has, in the past, been able to issue a national "blanket" permit (i.e., individual actions of this type are covered under a previously issued permit). The COE may, without requiring a new permit, request a Section 7 consultation to determine if the resou~ces in question are being adequately protected • Federal jurisdiction may also be exerted through the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 if federal approval (or funding) is involve~. This act charges all agencies with the direct responsibility for ensuring that actions authorized by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of Endangered or Threat- ened Species. The light-footed Clapper Rail, which inhabits Upper Newport Bay near the Back Bay Drive pipeline corridor is on the federal list of endangered species. The Beldings Savannah Sparrow, which is also found in the vicinity of the Back Bay alignment, is on the California list of Rare and Endangered Species, but not the federal. 3-9 .. Although the State Endangered Species Act of 1970 does not in- clude a consideration for protection of the habitat, protection of resources such as this which are in the coastal area are often provided protection under Section 30230 of the State Coastal kct which provides "special protection to areas and species of special biological significance." 3-10 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING., IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Geology/Soils/Seismicity 4.1.l SETTING The geologic structure and soils of the Upper Bay and surrounding hills is discussed in depth in the following reports: o Upper Newport Bav: Volume 1 Geoloqic and Subsurface Exploration, and Volume 2, s·oils and Geologic Investigation, Moore and Taber, 1968. o Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Proposed Jamboree Road Sewe·r Tu·n·nel, Converse Ward Davis, 1979. In brief, the project area lies at the western limit of the San Joaquin Hills. The underlying geology is sedimentary in origin with the bedrock of the Upper Miocene Monterey Formation. Terrace deposits overlay the bedrock with surfaced slopewash deposits and artificial fell ·found at the base of the bluffs. Two known fault zones lie close to the project area: The Newport- Inglewood Fault, approximately 2~ miles to the southwest; and the Pelican Hill Fault, approximately ~ mile to the northeast. There is no recent evidence of fault movement in the inunediate project vicinity. 4.1.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1.2.1 Big Canyon Trunk Sewer Line Impacts: The Back Bay gravity flow line traverses a route along the base of the bluffs through fill and alluvium deposits. The principal hazard to the pipeline is potentially strong ground- shaking associated with earthquake activity. Mitigation: The pipeline will also be ductile cast iron for added stre:p.gth. 4.1.2.2 Jamboree Pump Station Th Jamb Pump Station and trunk line corridor could Impacts: e oree experience moderate to strong groundshaking with a sizeable earth- quake. Mitigation: None proposed other than the soils studies routinely conducted prior to construction. 4-1 4.1.2.3 Jamboree Road Tunnel Impact: The proposed tunnel approximately 5 feet in diameter will penetrate fill and/or natural soils for a distance of over 600 feet north of the south entrance and for 100 feet south of the northerly entrance. The remaining portion of the tunnel would penetrate soft to moderately hard bedrock. Specialized shoring and drainage provisions would be required. After construction of the sewer line in the tunnel the remaining space in the tunnel would be backfilled to provide support to the rock and soil sur- rounding the tunnel. As with the other alternatives, the sewer line would be subjected to significant levels of groundshaking during its useful life. The potential for damage, somewhat higher than the other conven- tional lines, would be greatest at the bedrock/soil interface due to the variations in supporting material. Mitigation: A final design level geotechnical investigation would be required prior to construction. 4.2 Hydrology/Water Quality 4.2.1 SETTING The Big Canyon Creek and watershed is a small tributary entering the east side of Upper Newport Bay. Flows from Big Canyon, once intermittent, now run year-round due to irrigation of the golf course and residential areas within the watershed. Upper Newport Bay drains a watershed of about 145 square miles, with San Diego Creek being the primary drainage. The hydrology and water quality of the Upper Bay have been extensively studied over the past 10 years, the most recent being the studies con- ducted, in part, for the Section 208 water quality planning ef- fort (SCAG, 1977). Water quality within the Bay is extensively described in Environmental Studies of Newport Bay, published in 1978 by the Orange County Environmental Health Division and summarized in the Big Canyon Drainage Area Supplemental EIR (OCSD, 1980). The Bay has in the past, and continues now, to experience quality problems of excessive sediment loading, nutrient inflow, and contamination from other materials washed into the Bay from the urbanized and developing watersheds which drain into it. The remaining agricultural operations also contribute sediment and nutrients to the Bay. The Big Canyon watershed, to a lesser extent, has contributed similar contaminant loads to the Bay. Sediment transported from this drainage has entered the Bay creating an emergent "land bridge" to a small island, often referred to as Upper Island, at the mouth of Big Canyon. 4-2 The existing Jamboree Pump Station does, at times, contribute to the pollutant loading of the Bay. Periodic overflows spill raw sewage into Big Canyon which eventually is washed into the Bay. The last two documented flows occurred an 11/28/79 and 7/29/80. 4. 2. 2 IMPACTS AND Ml'l'IGATION MEASURES 4.2.2.1 Big Canyon Trunk Sewer Impacts: This project could affect the water quality in two ways; through improvement in the reliability of the system pre- venting the current spills, and through the potential for sedi- ment transport along the construction corridor. The narrow time corridor for construction (August 1 to December 15) extends into the rainy season potentially aggravating this situation. Con- struction in.the Big Canyon segment, the most sensitive in terms of erosion, wquld be completed by October 15 to avoid this problem. Dewatering of the construction trench will probably be required due to the low elevation of the line. This water which will be discharged into the Bay, will likely have a higher turbidity level than the ambient Bay water. Mitigation: The construction contract will include provisions requiring erosion control measures to prevent transport of sedi- ment from the construction. limits. Additionally, a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for discharge of the dewatering flows will be enforced. 4.2.2.2 Jamboree Pump Station Impacts: This project will have similar impacts on water quality- improvement of the reliability1 of the system (although less re- liable than a gravity system) . and the potential for sediment transport from the construction site. As this project could be constructed entirely in the dry season, this erosion potentially would be diminised. Mitigation: Construction activity would be accomplished in the dry season. 1 Tom Dawes, OCSD, Personal Communication, August, 1980. 4-3 ... .... ~ 4.2.2.3 Jamboree Road Tunnel Sewer Impacts: This alternative would have the high reliability of a gravity flow system with minimal erosion hazard (providing the excess excavated material is removed from the area). As groundwater levels would be generally at or above the tunnel. elevation, specific measures would be required for draining the excavation area or lowering the water table during the construc- tion period. The water would be a relatively high quality, but a similar discharge permit would be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Mitigation: Measures incorporated into this alternative to protect water resources include the removal of excess fill mat- erial from the area and permit approval for dewatering the con- struction area. 4.3 Biological Resources 4.3.1 SETTING Previous environmental studies have described the biological resources found within each of the alternative project sites. A summary of this information is provided below . The proposed project is generally within an urbanized area where the majority of native vegetation and wildlife habitats have either been highly altered or removed. There are, however, signi- ficant areas remaining in the project area which have retained their biological resource value. These include Big Canyon and Upper Newport Bay. Big Canyon contains riparian and freshwater marsh habitats (refer to Figure 7 ). Together with their associated wildlife, these habitats are considered to be a locally significant biological re- source. The riparian habitat here is represented by thick growths of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolelis) and blue elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) with stinging nettle Urtica hobsericea) and mugwort (Artemisia donglassiana) common in the understory. This riparian vegetation.is found lining the watercourse throughout the canyon. Freshwater marsh occurs at the lower, flatter mouth of the canyon and is dominated by cattail (Typha latifolia) and tule (Scirpus sp.). Vegetation outside of riparian and freshwater marsh habitats are dominated by a variety of introduced plant species including common roadside weeds and ornamentals. No rare or endangered plant species are known to occur in Big Canyon. The dense vege- tation and year-round surface water in the canyon support an· abundant fauna, including 85 bird species. Previous disturbances in Big Canyon are a large dredge spoil pile at the canyon mouth 4-4 - - - - .... - \ \:· \ • •• '::-,···· • BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA EIR County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Prepared by: EDAW inc. ~ffi 0 00 f eet ~SCA L E -BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF BIG CANYON I FIGURE 7 ) .... .... and south of the drainage course and a benched cut, dirt roadway which follows the north side of the canyon. The biological re- sources of Big Canyon serve as an important buffer and supple- mental habitat to Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay is one of the few remaining and relatively pristine estuaries along the coast between Morro Bay and the Mexican border. The Bay supports a variety of biological commu- nities in its lower, middle and upper sections, including soft bottom benthic communities in intertidal and subtidal mud and sand substrate, as well as lower and upper saltmarsh dominated by cordgrass (s·partina foliosa), pickleweed (Salicornia sp.) and sea blite (Suaeda sp.). A large and diverse av.ian population use the Bay throughout the year. The habitat here is particularly important for migratory birds which winter here. In 1967-68 1 the estimated bird-day use of the upper bay was almost 4 million. Portions of the Bay also serve as a nursery ground for several marine fishes. Upper Newport Bay provides habitat for at least three state-listed Endangered bird species, the California least tern and light-footed clapper rail, and one s~ate-listed Rare bird species, the Belding's savannah sparrow. The California least tern is not known to nest in the Upper Bay or to use it as an important·feeding resting area. The Upper Bay does represent suitable habitat for this species, however, and the area has been proposed as critical habitat.3 The light-footed clapper rail nests lower salt-marsh areas but forages in a varlety of habitats. This species has been observed to forage in freshwater marsh along Back Bay Drive including the freshwater marsh at the mouth of Big Canyon and John Wayne' Gulch. Light-footed clapper rails are known to nest on Middle and Shellmaker Islands which are within the 1 2 3 Frey, H.W., Hein, R.F. and J.L. Spruill. Report on The Natural Resources of Upper Newport Bay and Recommendations Concerning the Bay's Development-California Department of Fish and Game, Coastal Wetlands series No. 1, Sacramento, California. 1970. California Department of Fish and Game. At The Crossroads: a Report on California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife. Californi~ Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 1976. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Draft Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for California Least Tern. 1980 4-5 . .:- .. - - vicinity of the proposed sewer route.1 The Belding's savannah sparrow is found through.out the Upper Bay, but nests primarily in the pickleweed flats in the most upper zones of the saltmarsh.2 A relatively dense and extensive stand of pickleweed has estab- lished itself on the spoil pile at the rnouth of Big Canyon. It is not known whether or not the Belding's savannah sparrow nests here. According to Massey3 this could only be determined through a spring breeding bird survey. 4.3.2 IMPACTS. AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.3.2.1 Back Bay Trunk Sewer Impacts: On the basis of previous environmental impact reports, letters of conunent, and public testimony, there is general agree- ment that construction of a sewer trunk line within Big Canyon and Upper Newpo~t Bay has the potenital to adversely impact sig- nificant biological resources. These impacts are largely centered around two concerns: 1) the presence of two rare or endangered bird species (light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow) in the inunediate project vicinity in Upper Newport Bay; and 2) the presence of riparian and marsh habitat and associated diverse wildlife population within Big Canyon. Special conditions for approval such as those recommended by the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game and required by the California Coastal Com- mission in reviewing the previous application on this project, can reduce the potential for most of the impacts. Some impacts are, however, unavoidable. The construction of a sewer line through Big Canyon will require partial removal of vegetation along a corridor 30 feet wide. Tw~ options exist for the placement of the line: . a northern align- ment which follows the graded bench and unimproved road down the canyon across the creek and then directly across the spoils pile; and, a southern alignment which follows the toe of the southern 1 2 3 California Department of Fish and Game. Upper Newport Bay Eco- logical R~serve Light-footed Clapper Rail Study. 1977. Massey, B.W. A Census of the Breeding Population of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow in California, 1977. California Department of Fish and Game Nongame Wildlife Invest. E-1-1. California Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 1977. Massey, B.W. Biologist/Consultant, Personal Communication, September, 1980. 4-6 ... .. slope of the canyon (see Figure · 7 ) . The northern alignment would cross the creek, and subsequently, remove riparian vegeta- tion at two localities. This alignment would also require the removal of pickleweed on top of the spoils pile. If the Belding's savannah sparrow does nest here, this would also represent a re- moval of a portion of its already limited breeding habitat. The southern alignment would skirt the riparian vegetation along the creek, requiring the removal of some willows, but would not dis- turb the creek or completely break the continuity of the riparian corridor. The southern alignment would also cross the most southern edge of the spoils pile, which is removed from the most extensive stands of pickleweed. Once the alignment reaches Back Bay Drive, the sewer line would follow the existing roadway, possibly requiring the removal of small isolated pockets of freshwater marsh existing along road- side drainage ditches. The removal of this vegetation is not ex- pected to be significant. The potential for a significant adverse impact here relates to disturbances to the rare or endangered species during their breeding season, as well as to migratory species over-wintering in the Back Bay. From expert testimony received during the Coastal Commission hearings, it was determined that the light-footed clapper rail nests along the proposed sewer line alignment between San Joaquin Hills road and Newport Dunes, and that critical nesting activities go on well into August and September. This would overlap with the proposed construction window for the sewer line along Back Bay Drive, beginning August and lasting until December 15. Al- though, based -on the studies to date, it is not possible to predict exactly what effect construction will have on the reproductive behavior of rails, it is believed to be negative. It is also not known what effect the project would have on the foraqina behavior of light-footed clapper rails, which would also take place .. during the construction period. It can be assumed that foraging activities would be interrupted at least at the mouth of Big Canyon and John Wayne Gulch where this species is known to forage in the fresh- water marsh habitats found there. On the other hand, the Belding's savannah sparrow carries on its reproduction from late December to mid-August which is almost totally outside of the construction period. T~erefore, its reproductive activities are not expected to be interrupted. Outside the breeding season, this species normally disperses from its nesting areas toward the lower littoral zones of the marsh or the adjacent uplands to forage in flocks. This behavior would allow sparrows to leave the project site with- out a significant adverse effect. A similar situation is believed to exist for migratory bird species. The season for their use of the Bay is November through March. Here again, the project construction time period would overlap with the beginning.of this period. 4-7 Mitigation Measures: In the previous review of this project in 1976-1977, 31 conditions of approval were incorporated into the project. These conditions nave been updated through informal consultation between the District and the State Department of Fish and Game. Those measures now included in the project are listed below: o District inspector shall enforce all requirements of the approved Plans and Specifications. o Construction equipment and spoil material shall be confined to the existing hard road surf ace of Back Bay Drive, excepting the Big Canyon section inland from Back Bay Drive and where replacement or additional drain culverts are required. o Surveyed route of the project shall be inspected by Fish and Game prior to approval of final engineering plans. Fish and Game shall express preference for the northerly or southerly route. o District shall insure that a qualified archaeologist will conduct a library search of historical sites and walk over the surveyed route prior to trenching to determine pre-project excavation needs. o District shall allow archaeologist and paleontologist inspection of core samples obtained during the soil and geologic surveys. o District shall avoid historical sites or provide assess- ment and/or salvage time. o Project construction shall between August 1 and December 15. Construction delays through archaeological or paleontological inspections or salvage may extend the deadline by mutual agreement of the District and the Departments. o District shall construct the project in segments. Big Canyon shall be constructed and completed be- tween August 1 and October 15 including soil stabili- zation. Back Bay Drive from Big Canyon to San Joaquin Hills Road shall have no time frame restriction except during contract period. 4-8 .. The reach between San Joaquin Hills Road and Newport Dunes is critical. Construction must be- gin after November 1 and must be complete by December 15. The reach from Newport Dunes to tne entrance of Shellmaker Island shall have no time frame re- structions other than the construction period. o District will be subject to mitigation measures if damages to terrestrial and/or marine ecosystems occur as a result of District's construction activities as determined by Fish and Game. o District shall conform to City standards in the resurfacing of Back Bay Drive. o District shall obtain an easement as needed from the Department. o A temporary, movable barrier shall be erected at the edge of the Back Bay Drive pavement if the project biologist determines during construction that such a screen is necessary. o Pneumatic equipment shall not be used within that . section of the project extending along Back Bay Drive. o The daily construction shall be monitored by a qualified biologist who shall be a representative of Fish and Game. While the bioloist may be a graduate student, only an official of Fish and Game shall have the authority to request the District's inspector to sus- pend or stop any damaging activities caused by the Contractor pursuant to contractural authority. The Orange County Sanitation District shall reimburse the Department for reasonable costs of said monitoring. o Back Bay Road may be closed during construction as long as local access is provided. o District shall not permit any sewer hookups from the San Joaquin Hills Road southerly along Back Bay Drive to the reserve boundary that would affect the bluffs along that section. One connection shall be provided at San Joaquin Hills Road. o Sewer pipe shall be ductile cast iron with mechanical joints. 4-9 ... o Sewer pipe connections shall be at Shellmaker Island and San Joaquin Hills Road. o A pressure system shall be retained as emergency backup in the event of system failure for a period of one year from the date of acceptance of the con- tract work by the Sanitation District No. 5 Board of Directors. In addition to the above, the District will investigate the cost to stabilize the vehicle pullout areas, and will look at exist- ing roadway drainage improvements to be identified by Fish and Gaine. No consideration will be given to the dedication of the Big Canyon flood plain, stabilization of erosion problems in Big Canyon other than the replanting necessitated by construction, or the removal of sediment causing the land bridge to the Upper Island. To mitigate the unavoidable removal of riparian vegetation con- sisting primarily of arroyo willows and/or pickleweed, the project will include reseeding or revegetation of disturbed areas to prevent erosion. This would include all riparian areas crossed or closely followed by the pipeline. In these areas, the existing grades and contours will be restored within the riparian zone to allow existing soil moisture conditions to reestablish them- selves and once again support hydrophytic plants. Because willows, pickleweed, and many other riparian and marsh species found in Big Canyon have a rapid recovery rate (two to three years), ad- ditional relandscaping techniques, such as plantings, are not felt to be necessary. Interruptions to foraging and late breeding activities of light- footed clapper rails are expected to be partially mitigated by the temporary barrier screens and the use of non-pneumatic equip- ment. It is not known to what extent this will be a problem or how successful these mitigation measures will be. In connection with the condition calling for inspections by a qualified bio- logist during construction, a quantitative monitoring program could be established in order to improve mitigation measures as the project proceeds, if necessary, and to have a factual basis with which.to evaluate projects of this nature in the future. This information would be useful not only to the future management of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, but also to the manage- ment of other estuarine environments where similar types of pro- jects are proposed. A similar program, intending to gather similar types of information, could also be used to monitor the projects effects to migratory birds in the area • 4-10 4.3.2.2 Jamboree Pump Station Improvements Impacts: The Jamboree Pump Station Improvements are proposed en- tirely within an area where past disturbances have removed native vegetation and wildlife habitats. The site is also removed from habitats known to be used by rare and endangered species. There~ fore, this project alternative is not expected to have a signi- ficant adverse impact to vegetation and wildlife resources. This project alternative would have a minor impact to wildlife in- habiting nearby riparian habitats in Big Canyon. Temporarily, during construction, less tolerant wildlife species would leave nearby habitats due to the presence of man and the noise construc- tion would generate. These wildlife species would be expected to return to the site vicinity after construction without a lasting effect to their numbers or diversity in the area. Mitigation Measures: In the absence of significant and/or long- term impacts to vegetation and wildlife, no mitigation measures are.reconunended. 4.3.2.3 Jamboree Road Sewer Tunnel Impacts: This project alternative is located completely in urban areas devoid of native vegetation and wildlife habitats. Addi- tionally, areas surrounding construction sites are urbanized. Therefore, direct and "spillover" impacts to vegetation and wild- life resources are not expected. Mitigation Measures: Due to the lack of biological impacts re- lated to this project alternative, mitigation measures are not necessary. 4.4 Land Use 4.4.1 SETTING 4.4.1.1 Site and Surrounding Land Uses The Big Canyon and Jamboree Trunk Line service areas cover approxi- mately 2,022 and 344 acres respectively. Of this total, about 1,900 acres have been developed, primarily for residential use. Existing residential areas covered by the.service area include the Park Newport Apartments, Eastbluff, Big Canyon, and Harbor Hill. Conunercial and light industrial uses include the Newporter Inn and John Wayne Tennis Club, the Newport Beach Police Station and Newport Center Fire Station, an auto dealership, the Newport Harbor Art Museum, the Chamber of Conunerce offices, Ford Aeronu- tronics, the Eastbluff commercial center, and three service stations. Corona Del Mar High School is also within the service area. These uses are shown in Figure 8 • The undeveloped parcels 4-11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA EIR County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Prepared by: EDA W in c. EXISTING LAND USES Ejffi 0 0 0 feet ~SCALE FIGURE 8 ) within the drainage area are listed and discussed in the Secondary Growth section of this re~ort. The potential construction corridors follow either Jamooree Road from the pump station to Back Bay Drive, or follow Big Canyon and Back Bay Drive as previously shown in the Project Description. Adjacent land uses for the Jamf>oree corridor in- clude some East Bluff residences, units at the southeast end of the Park Newport Apartments, with the remainder of the corridor surrounded by commercial uses and vacant land. The Back Bay alignment traverses Big Canyon with East Bluff lying to the north and the Park Newport Apartments to the south. The Back Bay Drive corridor runs adjacent to Upper Newport Bay on the west side and, on the east are the Park Newport Apartments, the currently vacant Newporter North site and the Newporter Inn and John Wayne Tennis Club. The three construction alternatives are contained, for the majority of their alignments, within or below existing roadways. The Back Bay line, with the exception of the Big Canyon portion, follows Back Bay Drive, and the pump station and tunnel alternatives follow Jamboree Boulevard. The existing pump station is the only struc- ture located within the Big Canyon Creek Drainage below Jamboree Road. The remainder of the creek drainage is not, however, en- tirely in an undisturbed condition. The Back Bay Drive roadway and levee, and a dredge spoil stockpile are located at the mouth of the drainage. 4.4.1.2 Policy and Planning Framework The Big Canyon Creek Drainage below Jamboree Road is designated in the City General Plan as "Recreational and Environmental Open Space." This category includes major parks, wildlife refuges, golf courses, canyons and beaches. The remainder of the pipeline alignments are within dedicated roadway right-of-ways. 4.4.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4 • 4 • 2 • 1 Back Bay T·runk Sewer Impacts: The direct effects on existing uses resulting from pro- jects such as the Back Bay Trunk Line are, understandably, minimal. The existing open space use of the Big Canyon Drainage will be retained and the use of Back Bay Drive will be maintained with the roadway actually being improved. "Trench and cover" projects generally do not necessitate an alteration to existing uses~ nor do they preclude a continuation of the existing use following the construction period. 4-12 There will be, however, a temporary disruption of activity within the construction· zone. Within the 30' construction corridor through Big Canyon, there will occur, at worst, loss of vegeta- tion and corresponding wildlife habitat as discussed in the bio- logical resources section of this report. Along Back Bay Drive, the construction boundaries would be contained within the exist- ing roadway (the edge of the roadway controls the construction boundary on the Bay side) . Vehicular access along the road would be restricted during the construction period. In addition, po- tential hazards would exist for joggers and bicyclists (ref er to the discussion on circulation) using this popular route. The impacts on surrounding land uses would also be limited..:to the construction period or shortly thereafter. The primary effects on residences in East Bluff and Park Newport Apartments overlooking Big Canyon would be the visual intrusion of the construction ac- tivity. Impacts on adjacent lands in terms of biological values are discussed in the Biological Resources section of this EIR. Mitigation: Refer to the section on biological resources for a discussion of measures designed to reduce the adverse effects of the project on the resources of Big Canyon and Upper Newport Bay. 4.4.2.2 Jamboree Pump Station Impacts: This alternative would require construction activity in Big Canyon only adjacent to Jamboree Road, with disturbance limited to the upper portion of the drainage. Adjacent residences on either side of the creek would be affected in a manner similar to the Back Bay Line by the visual aspects of construction. The construction work within Jamboree Road would have a minimum impact on adjacent uses. Mitigation: None proposed. 4.4.2.3 Jamboree Road Tunnel Impacts: The tunneI and pump station would have similar impacts upon site and surrounding land uses as they occupy the same cor- ridor. Mitigation: None proposed. 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5.l SETTING Upper Newport Bay, because of its unique geographic location and diversity of food sources, was intensively exploited by pre- historic and historic Indian populations. Approximately 25 archaeological sites are known to surround the Upper Bay. 4-13 .. Previous archaeologial studies tARI, 19.76 and Archaeological Associates, 19781 noted the presence of 6 sites on or adjacent to the Back Bay Drive and one site adjacent to the Jamboree Road corridor. The sites CH-ORA-SO, 99, 51, 52, 53, and 64 are de- scribed in the Big Canyon Drainage Supplemental EIR (.OCSD, 1980) and the original reports are on file at the District offices. · As stated in Section 4.1, the area is underlain by the Miocene Monterey Formation which produced numerous important fossil remains (ARI, 1976). There is the distinct possibility that paleontological resources could be uncovered during excavation. 4.5.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.5.2.1 Big Canyon Trunk Sewer Impacts: If the construction equipment remains on the Back Bay Drive pavement in the vicinity of the archaeological sites, the project would not directly affect the adjacent sites. There is the possibility, however, that sites or remnants of archaeological sites or fossils exist under Back Bay Drive. Mitigation: The following measures are incorporated into the proJect: a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist will in- spect core samples prior to construction; an archaeologist will be r.etained to walk over the entire corridor; if fossils or arti- facts are uncovered during.excavation, qualified specialists will be contacted. 4.5.2.2 Jamboree Pump Station Impacts: The project could adversely affect archaeological re- sources of CA-ORA-64. Although there are no previously recorded paleontological localities in the vicinity of this alternative, fossils may be present within the pipeline corridor. Mitigation: A test level investigation of CA-ORA-64 would be required to determine the areal extent of this site. Further, should any archaeological resources or fossils be uncovered during excavation, qualified specialists will be contacted. 4.5.2.3 J~oree Road Tunnel Impacts: Although the project will not impact archaeological resources, paleontological resources could be uncovered during the excavation. Mitigation: Should any fossils be uncovered during construction, a qualified paleontologist will be contacted. 4-14 4.6 Circulation 4.6.1 SETTING Two roadways, Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive are of primary importance to this project. The proposed alternatives are generally contained within one or the other of these corridors. Data on these roads is contained below. Proposed Existing Ultimate Road Lanes Lanes ADT Jamboree Road North of San Joaquin Hills Rd. 6 6 45,000 South of San Joaquin Hills Rd. 6 6 31,000 Back Bay Drive 2-4 4 2,500 Source: Back Bay Drainage Area Supplemental EIR, OCSD, 1980. (1979) (1979) (1978) Congestion is experienced on Jamboree Road with Level of Service D exhibited during peak hours.l Although Back Bay Drive receives limited use, it is a popular recreational route for bicyclists and joggers as it is the only at-grade access to Pacific Coast Highway and the beaches within the immediate area. 4.6.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.6.2.1 ·Back Bay Trunk Sewer Impacts: The primary impact of this alternative would be the required closure of Back Bay Drive during the construction period. Given the proposed construction, it is possible that the section south of San Joaquin Hills Road could be closed for a large portion of the construction window (i.e., August 1 to December 15) • The section north of San Joaquin Hills Road would be completed at one time and require a more limited closure. The daily traffic would be added to Jamboree Road representing a 1 This category is defined as an overall travel of speed of 15 mph, with occasional waits of 2 cycles at signalized intersections. 4-15 .. temporary maximum increase in ADT of 5 percent on Jamboree north of San Joaquin Hills Road. Mitigation: Mitigation measures included as part of the Back Bay Trunk Sewer include provisions for continuous through access for bicyclists and pedestrians along Back Bay Drive during con- construction, and resurfacing of Back Bay Drive within the con- struction limits. 4.6.2.3 Jamboree Pump Station Impacts: This alternative would entail construction within Jamboree Road from the pump station to Back Bay Drive. Zone enclosures would be required, thereby aggravating the existing traffic congestion. Mitigation: The contractor would be required to comply with local traffic control requirements for construction zones. 4.6.2.4 Jamboree Road Tunnel Impacts: The tunnel project would involve construction within Jamboree Road on one section near the southerly terminus. How- ever, an additional 200 truck trips would be generated with the removal of excess excavated material. Mitigation: The contractor would be required to comply with local traffic control measures for construction zones. 4.7 Air Quality and Noise 4.7.1 SETTING The climate within the project area is typical of the Southern California coastal zone. Primary sources of pollutants region- wide, are from vehicular and industrial emissions. Localized air quality is primarily imported by vehicular emissions. A de- finitive discussion of local air quality is contained in the South Coast Air Quality Mangement District's Annual Reports and Summary of Air Quality in the South Coast Air Basin. Dominant noise source within the vicinity of the project alter- natives are motor vehicles and air traffic from John Wayne Airport. Noise from the existing pump station has a constant 66 dBA level at ten feet from the pump station. This does not noticeably im- pact adjacent uses. 4-16 ... - 4. 7. 2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Jlll...EASURES 4.7.2.1 Back Line/Jamboree Pum Station/Jamboree Road Impacts: Air quality and noise impacts related to construction of a sewer are limited to the construction period. Some dust generation can be expected with the excavation and noise would be generated by the heavy construction equipment. No long-term affects are anticipated. Mitigation: Dust suppression by watering will be utilized during the construction period. 4.8 Utilities 4.8.1 SETTING Utilities within the immediate area of the project alternatives include gas, water, electrical, and telephone. Existing lines for all are buried under Jamboree Road. The location of these are detailed in the Big Canyon Drainage Area Supplemental EIR (OCSD, 1980). As noted earlier in this report, flows _from the Big Canyon and Jamboree Trunk Line service areas are treated at Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. The Sanitation Districts, over the years, have developed master plans for trunk sewer facilities as well as treatment plant capacities. These master plans are based on planned land uses obtained from the Cities and County within the Districts' service area. The Board of Directors of Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 have developed a financial plan which enables the Districts to accommodate the needs of the service area, as well as fulfill its o~l~gations under Sta~e and Federal regulations. Adequate capacities have been provided to allow the Districts to meet this obligations. 4.8.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.8.2.1 Back Bay Sewer Line/Jamboree Pump Station/Jamboree Road Tunnel Impacts: It is not anticipated that any of the three alternatives will adversely affect existing or proposed utilities within the immediate project area. Mitigation: As existing underground utility lines are routinely dealt with in the design, construction and maintenance of sewer lines, no further specific mitigation measures are proposed. 4-17 ... 4.9 Visual Resources 4.9.1 SETTING The proposed roadway alignments are visible, in part, from Jamboree Road, Back Bay Drive residences fronting Big Canyon and Jamboree Road, and commercial and recreational activities fronting Jamboree Road. Big Canyon and Upper Newport Bay are the most porminent open space visual resources within the im- mediate area. 4.9.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.9.2.1 Back Bay Sewer Line/Jamboree Pump Station/Jamboree Road Tunnel Impacts: Views from residences fronting Big Canyon and Jamboree Road will be temporarily impacted by the construction activity. As all areas would be returned to pre-project grade (with the exception of minor sections of Back Bay Drive), no long-tern impacts on visual resources would be anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are proposed. 4.10 Energy Consumption 4.10.l SETTING The present pump station is electrically powered and consumes approximately 480,000 KWH per year. The dramatic increases in power costs over the past few years has prompted the District to encourage the use of gravity flow lines rather than pumping facilities. In the Sanitation District's service area (all Districts), 10 pump stations have been replaced by gravity lines over the past decade and another major pump station in Huntington Beach is scheduled to be deactivated in 1981. This approach is consistent with the energy policies of the State Energy Commission as outlined in the 1979 B'iennial Report. California·must rely, in the short-term, on conventional tech- nologies for providing energy on conservation. In the view of the Commission, efforts to conserve electricity, natural gas, and gasoline arethe most important elements of the recommended State energy policy. The recommended energy policy specifically directs municipal utilities to "exercise leadership by encouraging conservation through load management, favorable purchase agree- ments for cogeneration, and other energy-saving policies." The State Energy Commission predicted the average cost for a kilowatt hour (KWH) of electricity would increase from 4.2 cents 4-18 - in 1979 to 7.3 cents in the year 2000. However, recently pub- lished figures by Southern California Edison showed the average commercial rate per KHW increased from 5.5 cents in January, 1980 to 7.1 cents in May, 1980, an increase of over 30 percent. As more than two-thirds of SCE's electrical energy is generated from oil or natural gas, not only the future costs are uncertain, but the continued ability of these and the utility to provide a reliable supply of energy. 4.10.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.10.2.1 Back Bay Sewer Line/Jamboree Pump Station/Jamboree Road Tunnel Impacts: A comparison of energy consumption for each alternative and the cost of providing the power is provided in the following table. The "no project" alternative is included for comparison with the existing rate of consumption. Both gravity flow systems provide substantial energy savings in comparison to the existing situation or the Jamboree Pump Station alternative. The consumption projections indicating average consumption at build-out of the service· area are relatively stable. The costs of providing that energy, and certainty of supply are potentially unstable. Mitigation: No measures are proposed for reduction of energy consumption by the pump station alternative. 4-19 .... - ... .... TABLE D ENERGY CONSUMPTION/COSTS No Back Bay Pump Station Tunnel Project Yearly 1 Consumption KWH -o-615,000 -o-480,000 (existing use) Barrels of -o-2,150 -o-1,600 Oil/Yr. Energ2 Costs 1980 -o-$ 31,400 -o-$ 24,500 Dollars/Yr. 1. At build-out of the service area. 2. At $.051/KWH -unit cost as of 5/9/80 billing for the exist- ing pump station. Although future energy costs are highly uncertain, projections indicate this rate could double by the year 2000. · 4-20 .... ... - 5.0 SECONDARY GROWTH EFFECTS 5.1 Growth Within the Service Area Secondary, or indirect, impacts have been defined as those effects caused by an action which are later in time or further removed in distance, but are reasonably foreseeable. Of all secondary impacts that are relevant to the proposed improvements of the Big Canyon wastewater collection facilities, the most important to assess are the effects of population growth and changes in land use patterns. However, it should be noted that land use is ad- ministered by another local governmental planning agency, which OCSD is obligated to serve. During the past several years, there has been an increasing de- gree of interest directed toward the assessment of secondary impacts associated with major public utility facilities, planning ,and improvements. This growing emphasis has occurred largely in response to the underlying goal of local, county and regional planning agencies to achieve a long-range and comprehensive over- view of their land use decisions. An increase in population, as well as the locations and inten- sities of growth, has wide-reaching ramifications affecting traf- fic and circulation systems, air resources, ambient noise levels, demands on public services and utilities, and overall environmental quality. The secondary impact of this project would be the pos- sible growth which would result from the provision of expanded wastewater collection capacity. It must be emphasized, however, that the process of growth is complex; and, its relationship to individual factors .such as improved sewerage facilities is not independent of other influencing factors such as development pressures, land values and governmental planning policies. The intent of this chapter is to describe the relationship of this project to growth within its service area. Ultimate flow projections for the Big Canyon and Jamboree Trunk Line were prepared by Shaller and Lohr, Inc. and are contained in the Design Report for the Jainboree Pump Station Alternate, October, 1979. Their analysis indicated an ultimate dwelling unit count·of 7,620 units for the service area with an ultimate population of 18,288 (based on 2.4 persons per dwelling). Based upon these household projections and projected acreages for various land uses within the service area, ultimate peak flows for the service area were calculated. The design flow for the system at the Jamboree Pump Station was determined to be 9 MGD • 5-1 .. ... It should be stressed that these projections were derived from existing General Plan and zoning constraints for the area. The ultimate growth accommodated by the project is, therefore, con- sistent with local planning policies. The rate of growth within service area and City in general is affected by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, which requires adequate road capacity as a condition of approval for major projects. The rate of growth within the service area is also obviously affected by the temporary suspension (OCSD Ordinance No. 510) of further sewer connections. The remaining undeveloped parcels within the service area are shown in Figure 9 • Table E indicates the projected use and status of these parcels. 5.2 Impacts of Growth Growth will have three first order effects: increased demand on public services and utilities: changes in land use patterns: and generation of increased automobile traffic. These in turn, will have a number of second order effects. The increased de- mand on public services and utilities will affect the quality and/or the per capita cost of services provided. Changes in land use patterns can alter the identity of an area and affect alterations in landform and topography. Increased traffic will compound existing and create new circulation problems, degrade air quality through pollution and increase ambient noise levels. Third and fourth order effects resulting from changes in land use patterns will also result from alterations to natural hydrologic and biological systems, as well as existing socioeconomic condi- tions. The project area, in general, is within an area of past intense agricultural activities and, more recently, extensive urban de- velopment. As a result, those remaining areas which are unur- banized and would be serviced by the project exhibit highly altered biological resources. At present, most exhibit ruderal vegetative conditions, or introduced grassland vegetation. The later type commonly replaces native vegetation following removal and is dominated by introduced annual grasses and herbs con- sidered to·be roadside weeds. Introduced grassland also has limited value to wildlife. In view of these conditions, the development of unurbanized areas receiving sewer service pro- vided by the project will not directly result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources. This increased ur- banization within the Upper Newport Bay Watershed will have a small, but cumulative, affect on the resources of the Bay • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA EIR County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Prepared by: EDAW inc. UNDEVELOPED PARCELS --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--- t§9ffi O 00 f e et ~SCALE I FIGURE 9 ) I U1 I w I I l I I ( I I [ I [ I TABLE E STATUS OF UNDEVELOPED PARCELS WITH THE BIG CANYON/JAMBOREE TRUNK LINE SERVICE AREA Existing Status of Undeveloped General Plan Existing Sewer Parcel Acres Designation Zoning Conn· ctions Newporter North Mouth of Big Canyon Sea Island Apartments Eastbluf f Remnant (3 parcels) Big Canyon-Area 10 Freeway Reser- vation West 87.5 48.5 29 a.a 15 10+ Low-density residential Recreational and environ- mental open space Multi-:family residential Low density residential Medium Den- sity Res. Open space PC None PC R-3-B PC (Big Canyon) PC Subject to temporary suspension Subject to temporary sus- pens .:!.on Exempt from suspension Subject to suspension Subject to suspension Subject to suspension Proposed or Maximum No. of Units or Commercial Sq. Ft. 212 0 132 0 80 0 I [ l Status Approved under construction Preliminary planning stage I Other Factors I Density of 4 d.u./buildable acre Previously under consideration by the City for pur- chase as open space/park -now ( a low priority for acquisition Density transfer site (4 d.u./a.c.) to Newport Center ao DU's maximum allowed Alternative resi- dential use being considered maxi- mum 100 d.u. I c.n I ~ I I Table Continued Undeveloped Parcel Freeway Reser- vation East Ha:rbor Hill Newport Center Condominiums- Block 800 Civic Plaza Eagle-Daon De- velopment-Ford Aeronutronic Block I l AREA 26+ 20.4 - 26 93 resi- dential [ I Existing General Plan Designation Low density residential Low density residential/ open space M-F residential Administrative, professional, and financial commercial General indus- try /residential I ( ( Existing Zoning PC (Harbor View Hills) PC (Harbor View Hills) PC PC PC l ( Status of Sewer Connections Subject to suspension Exempt from suspension Subject to suspension Portions ex- empt, por- tions under suspension Subject to suspension I I Proposed or Maximum No. of Units or Conunercial Sq. Ft. Not deter- mined (100 max.) 41 245 M-F D.U. 224,706 sq. ft. 300 DU's I l Status - - - Under Const. Final Map Approved. Building permits for residential pending. I I I Other Factors 4 d.u./buildable acre Existing 8.75 acre reservoir to be filled for residential building site 245 DU's maxi- mum allowed I U1 I U1 I I Table Continued Undeveloped Parcel I I Area Ford Aeronutronics 107 Baywood Expansion 6.8 ( I I ( l I [ I l Proposed or Maximum No. Exist~ng Status of of Units or General Plan Existing Sewer Commercial Designation Zoning Conn~c~!Q~~ §q. Ft. General industry Med. density residential P-C Harbor View Hills Subject to suspension except for a 50,000 sq. ft. ware- house which is exempt Exempt from suspension 368,600 sq. ft. -office industrial 68 l I Status Planning approval rec'd for 50,000 warehouse Parcel Map Ap- proved. Construc- tion ex- pected Spring '81 l Other Factors [ Maximum density 10 d.u./a.c. I ... .... 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 6.1 No Project The no project alternative implies that the current pump station and Force Main system would be retained without further improve- ment. The primary effects of this alternative are two-fold. First, future development within the drainage area would be limited to that exempted from Ordinance 510 (the suspension on sewer connections). The majority of the anticipated development would be prohibited. This concept is, in essence, in conflict with the adopted planning policies of the City of Newport Beach. The second effect would be a continuance of the questionable re- liability of the current facilities. There have been two documented spills at the pump station over the past year. A similar fre- quency of spills could be expected in the future. The no pro- ject alternative, therefore, would adversely affect Upper Newport Bay through continued spillage of untreated wastewater in the Big Canyon tributary. As the entire system is at capacity, further modifications to the facilities, either for improved reliability or limited growth, could not be accomplished without replacement of the pump station and trunk lines. The no project alternative does not appear to resolve any of the concerns related to wastewater collection within the Big Canyon Drainage area. 6.2 Water Conservation Reduction in per capita water consumption within the City would result in subsequent reductions in wastewater flows. In order to accommodate additional development within the service area through a water conservation alternative, one of two things would have to occur. Either flows would have to be reduced within existing development in order to accommodate additional development, or structural improvements would have to be made to the existing facilities which provide additional capacity. The latter implies the improvements could be designed for a peak flow less than the 9.0 MGD as proposed. Given the current reliance in Southern California on imported water and the uncertainty of supply, it's likely some conservation efforts will be required in the future. The difficulty is in assessing the timing and degree of these efforts. In the drought of 1976-1977, voluntary conservation efforts in the Newport Beach area resulted in a consumption reduction of 5 to 6 percent. A 15 percent to 20 percent reduction in flow would be required to accommodate planned development within the service area without further improvements. Although this is technically feasible, 6-1 .. .... - - a high degree of uncertainty exists as to when and if this could be achieved. In addition, this would not resolve the problem of the reliability of the current system, and may place growth limits on the drainage area in conflict with the City's planning policies for the area. As stated previously, the District maintains that further improve- ments to the pump station and trunk line cannot be made without restructuring the entire system. If the system is to be improved, the question is then, to what ultimate flow projections should it be designed? The District has taken the position, based upon the fact that it has no control relative to water supply and con- servation (the City of Newport Beach retains this function) and the fact that it has an obligation to service development within its boundaries, the proposed improvements should be sized to accepted current and projected flow requirements. These improvements will not preclude, in any manner, future water conservation efforts. 6.3 The Back Bay Trunk Line And Incorporated Enhancement In preparing this EIR, initial consultation with individuals and interest groups concerned with the project disclosed a modification of the Back Bay Trunk Line alternative. This modification, or alternative project, involved the provision of an off-set en- hancement activity (e.g., removal of the dredge fill stockpile at the mouth of Big Canyon) as part of the project. The argument for this modification was that the Back Bay Trunk Line, which was previously denied by the Coastal Commission, may be acceptable if it included measures to permanently enhance the wildlife habitat in the area. This enhancement would, in theory, act to off-set potential disruption to endangered species during construction along Back Bay Drive and through Big Canyon, as well as to reduce a source of sediment being transported back into the Upper Bay. The existing stockpile contains roughly 150,000 cubic yards of fill. Removal would require 7,300 truck loads (double-trailer). The impacts of spoil removal are discussed in a previous Draft EIR, "Big Canyon Fill Stockpile Removal" published in 1974. Current considerations regarding the potential dump site, haul routes, and timing have not been determined. The cost of this alternative would be an additional $300,000 over the base cost of the Back Bay Sewer Line. 6-2 7.0 SUMMARY IMPACTS 7.1 unavoidable Adverse Impacts Based upon the impact analysis described in Section 4.0, the following adverse impacts are expected to result from the pro- posed alternatives. 7.1.2 BACK BAY SEWER LINE o Potential for damage from groundshaking with a seismic event. o Removal of riparian vegetation and subsequent dis- turbance of habitat. o Potential disruption of the Clapper Rail foraging and late nesting activity. o Potential disruption of migratory bird use and habitat. o Possible disturbance of archaeological sites. o Closure of sections of Back Bay Drive during con- struction. o Secondary growth within the service area will result in significant changes in land use, population levels, services and utilities, and traffic levels. 7.1.3 JAMBOREE PUMP STATION o Potential for groundshaking. 0 Less reliability than a gravity system. o Temporary disturbance to habitat at the Upper End of Big Canyon. o Potential disturbance of CA-Ora-64, an archaeological site. o Lane closures along Jamboree aggravating traffic. o An annual consumption of 650,000 KWH of electricity. o Seqondary land use impacts from accommodated growth. 7-1 .... .. .. 7.1.4 JAMBOREE ROAD TUNNEL o Potential damage from grounding at the bedrock soil interface. o Support and drainage considerations requiring spe- cialized construction methods. o Limited lane closure along Jamboree. o Secondary land use impacts from accommodated growth. 7.2 The Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Lano-Term Productivity The.short-term activity., implementation and operation of an ex- panded trunk sewer system, will likely continue for some time. The short-term benefits, improvement in the reliability of the system and an expansion of the line's capacity, will accrue to the downstream receiving waters and to those proposed developments within the drainage areas that are currently affected by the moratorium. These benefits apply to each of the three construc- tion alternatives. The Back Bay Line should not significantly affect the long-term productivity of the Upper Bay and Big Canyon providing short- term effects on endangered species are avoided. The primary long-term affect of the pump station alternative is upon the economic viability of OCSD and residents within Sanitation District No. 5 through long-term energy associated costs. The secondary growth accommodated by the expansion of the facilities to 9 MGD involves a trade-off between the benefits of urban grow~h and the benefits of the remaining open space areas. As the ser- vice area grows in population, the quality of the existing ex- perience will become more urban in character. At the same time, a greater number of people will experience the benefits of living in proximity to the coastal resources and recreational opportuni- ·ties offered in Newport Beach. 7.3 Irreversible Environmental Changes During the construction of the project there will be a specific amount of irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. The direct construction activity associated with the project will require the use of non-renewable resources in building materials as well as fossil-fuel energy sources. Long-term operation of the pump station will require an additional commjtment of energy, most likely fossil-fuel for the near term. Further, as the sewer line is a small segment of the infrastructure supporting the population base in the service area, it's likely that future generations are committed to a continuance of this activity. 7-2 ... ... .. .. Similarly, the growth within the service area accommodated by expansion involves commitments of materials, energy, and land resources that, for the most part, may be considered irretriev- able . 7-3 ... ... ... 8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED County Sanitation Distri·cts of Orange County (Lead Agency) Fred Harper, General Manager Ray Lewis, Chief Engineer Tom Dawes, Deputy Chief Engineer Hilary Baker, Senior Engineering Aide U.S. Fishe~ies and Wildlife Service Ralph Pisapia, Field Supervisor Jack Fancher U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Don Spencer, Area Manager, Navigation Branch Bob Atkins Andrea Pickart California Energy Commission David Branchome California Department of Fish and Game Fred Worthley, Regional Manager Jack Spruill Ron Hein California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission Gordon Craig City of Newport Beach Mayor Jacqueline Heather Bob Lenard, Planning Director Fred Tellarico, Environmental Specialist Ben Nolan,·Public Works Director Joe Devlin, Utilities Director Friends of Newport Bay Frank Robinson Burt Ellerbroek Carl Schwarz 8-1 ... ... ... - - - The Environmental Coalition of Orange County Hal Thomas The Irvine Company Tom Nielson Dave Omohowski Satoru Tamaribuchi Jim Martin Larry Seeman Associates Larry seeman Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown and Baerwitz Allan Tebbetts Individuals Dr. Charles Collins, Biologist Barbara Massey, Biologist 8-2 ... .. ... ... 9.0 REFERENCES 1. Archaeological Associates, February, 1978, Archaeological Surve·y Report f·or the p·roposed JambOr·e·e Ptimp· Station and Jambox•ee Tr'unk p·roject nea·r Newp·o·rt B·e·a·ch, California. 2. Archaeological Research, Inc., 1976. Correspondence to Orange County Sanitation District re: Archaeological sites of Upper Newport Bay, dated August 3, 1976. 3. Butier Engineering, Inc., 1979. Preliminary Construction Estimate, B·ack Bay Trunk Sewer 4. Butier Engineering, Inc., October, 1979. Preliminary Construction Estimate for the Jamboree Road Sewer Tunnel. 5. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, 1977. Appeal No. 75-77 (of Environmental Coalition of Orange County and Orange County Foundation for Preservation of Public Property). 6. California Department of Fish and Game. At the Crossroads: A Report on California's Endangered and Rare Fish ~nd Wild- life. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, 1976. 7. California Department of Fish and Game. Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Light-footed Clapper Rail Study, 1977. 8. California Energy Commission, 1979. 1979 Biennial Report. 9. California Energy Commission, July, 1980. Energy News. 10. Carpenter, L., Biologist, University of California, Irvine. 11. Personal communication. August 5, 1980. Collins, c., Assoc. Prof. Biology, California St. University, Long Beach, Member of Light-Footed Cla~per Rail Recovery Team. Letter to Mr. McGrath, California Coastal Commission. June 1, 1977. 12. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, 1979. Geotechnical Feasibility Inves tiga:tion,. p·rapo·s:ed: ·Jatnbor·ee Road s·ewer· Tunnel • 13. 14. Flanagan, P., Biologist, Fullerton College. Mr. McGrath, California Coastal Commission. Letter to June 5, 1977. Frey, H.W., Hein, R.F. and J.L. Spruill, Report on the Natural Resources of Upper Newport Bay and Recommendations concerning the Bay's Development-California Department of Fish and Game, Coastal Wetlands Series No. 1, Sacramento, California. 1970 9-1 ..... ..... - - - 15. Jorgensen, P., Biologist/Consultant. Letter to California Coastal Commission. June 22, 1977. 16. L.D. King, 1978. p·roject Re·port for the Big Canyon Drainage Area. 17. Massey, B.W., Biologist/Consultant, Personal Communication September, 1980. ·18. Massey, B.W., A Census of the Breeding population of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow in California, 1977. California Department of Fish and Game Nongame Wildlife Invest. E-1-1. California Department of Fish and Gatne, Sacramento, Calif. 1977. 19. Moore and Taber, 1968. Upper Newport Bay: Volume 1, Geologic and Subsurface Exp"l'oration;' Volume '2, Soils and Geol·o<ti·c· Investigation. 20. City of Newport Beach, 1975. Public Safety Element, Newport Beach General Plan. 21. City of Newport Beach, 1979. Land Use Element, Newport Beach General Plan. 22. Orange County Environmental Health Division, 1978. Environmental Studies of Newport Bay. 23. Orange County Sanitation District No. 5, 1976. Back Bav Trunk Sewer from Newport Dunes to Jamboree Pump Station, Exp·lora ti·on Report. 24. Orange County Sanitation District No. 5, 1976. Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Back Bay Trunk Sewer (East Side). 25. Orange County Sanitation District No. 5, 1976. Environ- mental Assessment, Back Bay Trunk Sewer (East Side). 26. Orange County Sanitation District No. 5., 1977. Back Bay Trunk Sewer, Summary of Project and ConditionS:-- 27. Orange County Sanitation Districts, 1979. Environmental Impact Report,· B·i·g Canyon Drainage Area. 28. Orange County Sanitation Districts, March, 1980. Supple- mental· D·raft E·nvironntental Impact Report, Big Canyon Drain- age Area. 29. Raub, Bein, Frost and Associates, 1974. Draft Environmental Impa·ct Report, Big Canyon Dredge Fill StockpiTe Removal 30. Shaller and Lohr, Inc., 1979. Design Report for Jamboree Pump Station Alternate 9-2 ... .... .... ... 31. Southern California Edison Company, 1980. Rate Increases, January, 1965 to February 3, 1980. 32. Southern California Edison Company, 1980. Fact Sheet Commercial Energy Costs in 1980. 33. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Draft Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for California Least Tern. 1980. 34. Warner, s., Prof. Biology, Fullerton College. Letter to Mr. McGrath,. California Coastal Commission. June 15, 1977 • 9-3