Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-13 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS $✓� �� TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 540-2910 qi_ � 962-2411 P. ❑. BOX B127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) April 9 , 1981 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 5 MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1981 - 5:30 P.M. NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL ANNEX 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA �.J Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of April 8, 1981 , the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. S will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. Se re y JWS :rb y BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: 14 DISTRICT No. 5 A4 Code 10 962-2411 IIAGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MONDAY., APRIL 13, 1981 - 5:30 P-.M. NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL ANNEX 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA (1) Roll call (2) Consideration of actions relative to Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area: (a) Verbal report of consultant, EDAW, Inc. (b) Consideration of motion to receive and file written comments received after public hearing on March 30th re Draft Supplemental EIR, if any (c) Discussion and further staff comments (d) Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report re Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area, and certify that said Final Supplemental EIR has been completed in compliance with the State and District Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 , as Amended (Copy of said report to be delivered to District 5 Directors on Monday, April 13th) (3) Consideration of Resolution No. 81-58-5 , approving plans and specifications for Back Bay Trunk Sewer, From Newport Dunes to Jamboree Pump Station, Contract No. 5-24 , and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. See page "A" (4) Consideration of Resolution No. 81-59-5, approving plans and specifications for Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage N%W� Area (.Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) , Contract No. 5-24-1, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. See page "B"' (5) Consideration of actions re possible implementation of user charges: (a) Staff report (b) Discussion (c) Consideration of motion approving Alternate , adopting timetable for implementation of user fees to be collected on property tax bill, and directing staff to proceed with said implementation. (1) If Alternate A is selected: (a) Consideration of motion waiving provisions of District Purchasing Resolution No. 81-24 and authorizing staff to procure necessary materials, supplies and services to implement user fees to be collected on property tax bill (b)l Establish date- for adjourned meeting to consider user fee rate schedule (2) If Alternate B is selected: (a) No further action required at this Board meeting (6) Other business and communications, if any (7) Consideration of motion to adjourn -2- RESOLUTION NO. 81-58-5 �.d APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BACK BAY TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 5-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BACK BAY TRUNK SEWER, FROM NEWPORT DUNES TO JAMBOREE PUMP STATION, CONTRACT NO. 5-24 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Board of Directors by Shaller & Lohr, Inc'. , District's engineers, for Back Bay Trunk Sewer, From Newport Dunes to Jamboree Pump Station, Contract No. 5-.24, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That the General Manager be authorized to establish the date and time at which said .bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 4. That the Secretary and the District's Chief Engineer be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held April 13, 1981. "All AGENDA ITEM #4 "A" RESOLUTION NO. 81-59-5 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA (BIG CANYON MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT) , CONTRACT NO. 5-24-1 A RESOLUTION OF- THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA (BIG CANYON MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT) , CONTRACT NO. 5-24-1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Board of Directors by Hartge Engineering Company, District's engineers, for Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area (Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) , Contract No. 5-24-1, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area project (Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) , Contract No. 5-24-1, is hereby approved, and the Secretary be directed to file a Notice .of Determination in accordance with the Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as Amended; and, ' Section 3. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 4. That the General Manager be authorized 'to establish the date and time at which said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section S. That the Secretary and the District's Chief Engineer be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held April 13, 1981. "B" AGENDA ITEM #4 „B�� COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 April 2, 1981 (714) 962-2411 M E M O R A N D U M TO: District No. 5 Directors SUBJECT: Preliminary Plans for Implementing User Fees to be Collected on the Property Tax Bill Following a review of the District's needed facilities improvements and extensions and financial projections at the adjourned meeting of the Board on March 30, 1981, the staff reported that preliminary plans for implementing a user charge would be developed for consideration by the Directors on April 8th. Based on the financial projections, there are two conceptual alternatives: Alternate A: Implement a nominal fee schedule beginning in 1981-82 for classes of users to be modified in subsequent years to a totally equitable fee schedule based on established criteria for each user. The data base used for collection of a user charge on the tax bill comes from the County Assessor's roll. The inform- ation on the roll is limited and does not provide us with sufficient data to levy a fee based on each parcel's loading on the sewerage system. Thus, in order to levy an equitable charge, each non-residential parcel must be identified and its use determined by a site visit or from other available sources, a lengthy process requiring considerable effort. This information must then be input into the data base. Because of the time constraints, it would not be possible to accomplish this in time to levy fees on a totally equitable basis for the 1981-82 fiscal year. However, the Board could elect to establish a rather nominal fee schedule for the various classes of users (residential, commercial, industrial, unsewered property, etc.) in 1981-82 with the understanding that in subsequent years the data base would be refined and a fee structure implemented that would assess an equitable charge against each parcel based on property use and/or sewer system loading. The major advantage of this alternative is that receipt of additional revenue would commence in 1981-82. The major disadvantage is that the fees would not be totally equitable. District No. S Directors April 2, 1981 Page 2 Alternate B: Identify and classify properties and develop an equitable user fee rate structure for implementation beginning in 1982-83. This approach, while requiring basically the same procedures as Alternate A, would delay implementation of a user fee one year, until 1982-83. This would allow sufficient time to enable the identification of users and development of a data base and rate structure before charges are assessed, thus enabling an equitable system of fees to be levied from the start. The major advantage of this alternative is that properties would be charged based on their actual use of the system, thus avoiding complaints of inequity. The major disadvantage is that revenue collections would not begin until 1982-83. Attached hereto are preliminary timetables for implementation of each alternative. The staff will review these conceptual options in more detail at the Board meeting on April 8th. A statutory requirement when considering the collection of a user charge on the tax �— bill is notification to each property owner. Enclosed is a sample notice and information package presently under use by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF USER FEE 4/02/81 TO BE COLLECTED ON PROPERTY TAX BILL ALTERNATIVE A - 1981/82 APRIL 8 APRIL 13 APRIL 29 MAY 13-20 MAY 26 JUNE 11 JULY 8 AUGUST 10 REVIEW ALTERNATIVE ADOPT USER FEE CONSIDER USER FEE INTRODUCE ORDINANCE HEARING ON ADOPT DISTRICT USER FEE IMPLEMENT- IMPLEMENTATION RATE TO BE ESTABLISHING USER ORDINANCE AND BUDGET ATION CONCEPTS ALTERNATIVE AND ESTABLISHED FEE REPORT DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED RECEIVE AND FILE (ADOPT ORDINANCE o USER FEE REPORT F WAIVE PROVISIONS DESCRIBING PROPERTY a OF PURCHASING b FEE TO BE LEVIED ADOPT REPORT AND c RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZE COL- AUTHORIZE STAFF TO LECTION OF USER o PROCURE NECESSARY ESTABLISH PUBLIC FEE ON TAX BILL m MATERIALS, SUPPLIES HEARING DATE FOR b SERVICES TO IMPLE- REPORT MENT USER FEES CONDUCT USER FEE RATE STUDY EDP PROGRAMMING AND PROCESSING TO EXTRACT PARCELS FROM COUNTY ROLL TO PROVIDE DATA BASE FOR NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS PRINTING OF NOTICE TO PUBLISH ORDINANCE PROPERTY OWNERS RE USER FEE REPORT H a ADDRESS, SORT AND � MAIL NOTICES IL 0 a PUBLISH LEGAL NOTICE a v~i CONDUCT PUBLIC INFORMATION MEET I IIGS EDP PROGRAMMING AND PROCESSING TO PROVIDE PARCEL CHARGE TAPE TO COUNTY AUDITOR PREPARATION, REVIEW, ADOPTION OF DISTRICT BUDGET b FILING WITH COUNTY AUDITOR START DATA BASE REFINEMENT PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF USER FEE 4/02/81 TO BE COLLECTED ON PROPERTY TAX BILL ALTERNATIVE B - 1982/83 APRIL, 1981 MAY, 1981 DECEMBER, 1981, JANUARY, 1982 FEBRUARY, 1982 MARCH, 1982 JULY, 1982 AUGUST,' 1982 REVIEW ALTERNATIVE CONSIDER USER FEE INTRODUCE ORDINANCE HEARING ON ORDI- ADOPT DISTRICT USER FEE IMPLEMENTA- RATE SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISHING USER NANCE AND REPORT BUDGET TION CONCEPTS BE ESTABLISHED FEE ADOPT ORDINANCE o ADOPT USER FEE RECEIVE AND FILE ►= IMPLEMENTATION USER FEE REPORT a ALTERNATIVE AND DESCRIBING PROPERTY ADOPT REPORT AND o DIRECT STAFF TO 6 FEE TO BE LEVIED AUTHORIZE COLLEC- a PROCEED TION OF USER FEE m ON TAX BILL ESTABLISH PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR REPORT EDP PROGRAMMING AND PROCESSING TO EXTRACT PARCELS FROM COUNTY ROLL TO PROVIDE DATA BASE IDENTIFY 6 CLASSIFY PROPERTIES AND UPDATE DATA BASE DEVELOP EQUITABLE USER FEE RATE STRUCTURE BASED ON USE PRINTING OF NOTICE PUBLISH ORDINANCE a TO PROPERTY OWNERS IRE USER FEE REPORT , 0 a CL '^ ADDRESS, SORT 6 w MAIL NOTICES N PUBLISH LEGA! NOTICES PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS EDP PROGRAMMING AND PROCESSING TO PROVIDE FOR DATA BASE UPDATE AND PARCEL CHARGE TAPE TO COUNTY AUDITOR .AS'i/At[i EECJ1MAr1011 SCL,D ...t. YANAGEVEN' COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 955 Workman Mill Road / Whittier, California Mailing Address: / P. O. Box 4998, Whittier, California 90607 WALTER E. GARRISON Teiephone: Zenith 2-9121 Ciiei -Engineer and Generai .'Manager March 5, 1981 Dear Sanitation District Customer. The District's records indicate that you own a parcei of land located within Sanitation District Yo. :_,the boundaries of wtuch are shown on the enclosed Herr). i tie District has proposed a service charge on patteis of land within its boundaries to heir)pay for the cost of collecting, .-eating and disposing of sewage. This charge. ii approved, will be coilected on the 1981-82 property tax bill. The purpose of his letter is to advise you of the nature and amount of the proposed set+ice charge as Weil as the time.date and place of a public hearing to discuss the service.:large and its placement on the property tax bill. A Service Charge Report has:een tiled with the District Cleric describing the parceis of property in Sanitation District No. 22 and the service charge for A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD TO DISCUSS THE REPORT.THE eSTABLISHMENT OF A SERVICE CHARGE.A.ND ITS PLACEMENT ON THE 1981-82 PROPERTY TAX BILL. THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING IS TO RECEIVE ANY OBJECTIONS OR PROTESTS. PUBLIC HEARIING DATE AND TUYIE:Thursday,April 2, 1981 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Joint Administration Office 1955 Woritman Mill Road Whinier. CA 90601 (See Map) Due to the change in the property tax law, the Sanitation District's property tax revenue has been decreased by approximately sixty percent since 1978. The District does not receive any State surplus funds. On January 23. 1981,the Board of Directors received and filed a Service Charge Report which recommended that appropriate charges be levied to residential,commercial and industrial properties on the basis of their use of the sewerage system. ice Sanitation Districts conaucted a study which relates the flow and strength of sewage for each commercial classification and industrial discharger discharging less than one million gallons per year to a number identified as a sewage unit. A sewage unit represents the average daily quantity of sewage flow and strength that would be discharged from a single family home.The service charge is based upon the cost to treat a sewage unit—while taking into account ail other Distract revenue sources. All industrial dischargers discharging more than one ttuilion gallons per year pay for their sewerage services through the Districts'existing wastewater treatment surcharge progrm. On the top of the mailing lama affixed to the Postcard appears the designated use which the Distnct's records indicate applies to your property. To the right of that description is a number indicating the amount of sewage units designated to your property. The proposed service charge for fiscal year 1981-82 is S11.00 per sewage unit. Your service charge for 1981-82 can be determined by multiplying the number of sewage units for your property by the charge per sewage unit. Payment of the service charge will be the responsibility of the owner of the property. If approved, it will appear as a separate item on the properry tax bill. On the same railing:abet, a number appears in the too right hand corner. The number is the map book, page and parcel number for the pro. ry which our records indicate you own in Sanitation Distinct No. ''. If you ace=not connected to the sewer, please indicate this on the enclosed postcard. You must nail ctis to the District,,postmarked before April 2, 1981. Parcels not presently connected to the sewerage system writ not be assessed a service charge. IN ADDITION TO TIM PUBLIC HEARING—PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS will be 4eid:o answer your Questions: Public Information Meetings Dates,Times and Places: Tuesday, March Z4, 1981 Thursday, March_6, 1981 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. Glendora High School.Faculty Lounge Covina High School Cafeteria 1600 E. Foothill Blvd. 463 S. Hollenbeck Glendora Covina (See Map) (See Map) The format will be identical for each meeting—a ZO minute prescritanon by Sanrtanoa Districts' staff,a question and answer penod and open discussion. Additional information meetings can be scheduled for interested groups upon request. If you have questions or want additional information, please contact Sanitation Districts'staff by dialing the Operator(-0') and asking for 7lnith 2.9121 (toil "me). Hours: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 a.m..Monday through Friday. Ve�ourrs. +1C , '/alter E. Garnson 'AEG:pc tints. 0IS-2Z7-2.'81 4MM THIS PROPERTY IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE SEWER (DISTRICTS' PERSONNEL WILL VERIFY INFORMATION DATE. SIGNATURE: 'KITH CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING AND SAFtiY THIS INFORMATION IS NOT VALID UNLESS D' RTMENTS.) POSTCARD IS SIGNED. ESTA P90PIEDAO NO ES TA CONECTADA AL ALCANTARILLAOO Fecaa (Personal del Distrito verificara la informacidn Firma can ]as Departamentos de Edificia y Sequridad del Esta informacidn no es valida al menos Municipio y del Condado) que la tarjeta postal sea firmada. AFFiX MAILING LABEL HERE Adhiera el memhrete aqui �I Y Y Q PUBLIC INFORMATION MEE'NiNG TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1981; at 7:00 P.M.GLENDORA HIGH SCHOOL THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1981; at 7:00 P.M. COVINA HIGH SCHOOL 1600 E. FOOTHILL BLVD 463 S. HOLLENBECK AV. GLENDORA COVINA (IN THE FACULTY LOUNGE) (IN THE CAFETERIA) a o m ¢FOOTHILL BLVD. PUENTE ST. W 1- O� W W � U¢ V Q ¢ a = ¢ Y ROWLAND AV. } G PALOPINTO AV. V� uj v z m O ¢ ¢ uw ,-FACULTY LOUNGE O o = CAFETERIA o J 4 — y— bo� o 0 NTER SCHOOL GROUNDS ON VALLEY CENTER AV. PUBLIC HEARING THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1981 ; at 3 :00 P.M. DISTRICT'S JOINT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE 1955 Workman Mill Rd. Whittier , Ca. 90601 PECK Rd. /PECK Rd. OFFRAMP POMONA FRWY. -*' � �1 �� SANITATION (60 FR W Y.) DURFEF A V. DISTRICTS OFFICE Qom. PECK Rd. t1j� WORKMAN OFFRAMP �CO MILL Rd. v �v SAN GABRIEL RIVER FRWY. --.,, Q (605 FR W Y.) �A/ �� PECK Rd. / v BOUNDARY MAP D1SulqwR1CT7_F" 22 z ci DUARTE m li r ERRA MADR[ :�`'f AK �A 1 a OYAI CA`KS"o'.'�� .- .AZIJSA. '� I�i S !• < HuNT N INGTO OR. - A GLENDORA WART H RD. •.,- - ,, IRWfNDAL wolm LA mvrr BALDWIN PARK i ,. : VERNE } `-`.•' fir.,,-. ._�,�}1 SS PpMONA 1 p _ ?.:ar .j I^ r.f'< • _ _, i....•.•+..p J,{j v"� . �i �' W r• VIVA �'�' _ •'�'� SAN r J _ CANER N AYS.• - SEANAROINo LA PUENTE i •,10 . Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County P.O. Box 4998 Whittier. CA 90607 SANITATION DISTRICTS' FACTS Included in this fact sheet is information to help you unaerstana the proposed service .name for::our District. For additional information. please dial the Operator t-0-)and ask for Zenith 2-9121 troll free). 1. WHAT'S A SANITATION DISTRICT? A sanitation district is a special district charged with the responsibility of conveying,treating and disposing of sewage ana industrial wastes. it is a public agency.separate from the County government,established under the State Health and Safety Code to provide sewerage service to a specific geographical area. A sanitation district must treat and dispose of sewage in accordance with County, State and Federal standards to protect the public health and the environment. 2. WHAT IS THE BACKGROUND OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS? Approximately four million people are serviced by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in the northeastern and southern portions of Los Angeles County. The Districts were first formed in 1923 and presently serve all or part of 75 cities which are grouped into 27 individual districts. Each district is governed by a Board of Directors made up of the `Ilayors(or designated alternates)and County Supervisor representing the county area. The small sewer lines found in residential streets are maintamea by other entities such as incorporated cities or the County Engineer. This service is tended by a separate charge and is not related to the proposed service charge. The small sewer lines connect to larger sewers owned by the Districts which convey sewage to the treatment plants. The major Districts' facility is the Joint water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Canon. It currently treats approximately 3bt)million gallons of wastewater per day. Atter the wastewater is treated, it is discharged through an ocean outfall system extending two miles off the Palos Verdes coast. The Districts also operate ten smaller water reclamauon plants. 3. HOW HAVE THE DISTRICTS BEEN FINANCED? Formerly, most of the Districts' revenue was derived from property taxes. A sixty percent reduction in the amount of money available from=Derry taxes. as a result of Proposition 13, has necessitated a service charge to provide the necessary funds for capital improvements and operation and maintenance. Additional sources included industrial wastewater treatment charges.contracts. Federal and State gams and interest on investments. S. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE CHARGE? Property owners within a district will be charged a uniform rate according to their user group;single family homes. apartments.commercial buildings, industrial dischargers discharging less than one million gallons per year,etc. All industrial dischargers discharging more than one million gallons per year pay for their sewerage services through the Districts'existing wastewater surcharge program. The service charge will appear as a separate item on the property tax bill. 5. HOW WAS THIS TYPE OF SERVICE CHARGE SELECTED'. A study was conducted by Sanitation Districts'staff to determine what alternatives existed for a charge structure(method of data collection and fee calculation)and billing system. Alternatives included: Charge Structure Alternatives: Billing System Alternatives: User Groups Separate item on property tax bill Water Consumption Direct bill from District to user Percentage of Other Utility Bills Water bill Wastewater Flow Other Utility bill Utility Meter Size Basic criteria used in evaluating alternatives were: Fairness and equity Low administrative and collection costs Ease of implementation Low non-payment idelinquency) possibilities A summary report was compiled documenting staff research and citizen opinion. Based on this report, the Board of Directors determined that a uniform rats:per user group, to be collected on the property tax bill. most closely met the above criteria for a service charge. 6. DO L14OUSTRIES AND COMMERCLAL.ESTABLJSHMENTS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE FOR USING THE SYSTEM? Yes. industrial and commercial users pay for use of the system based upon the quantity and quality of their sewage. 7. WHAT CAN BE DONE FOR THE SENIOR CITIZEN WHO iS ON A LOW FIXED INCOME? Depending on income. people over the age of 62 have the option to defer payment of their tax bill(property taxes and service charge items on the tax bill). Payment is then made when the property is sold or changes ownership. As a result,this service charge may be deferred by those who quality. ._ETING DATE April 13, 1981 TIME 5:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 5 DISTRICT i JOINT BOARDS Newport Beach City Hall Annex r...r (SALTAREL I). . .SHARP. . . . . . SHOLLINDEN) . . . . .ADLER . . . . . . (YAMAMOTO�. . . . .WARD,J. . . . . `MACALL15TER) . . .BAILEY . . . . . (CRANK). . ..... .HUTCHISON. - (WINTERS : . . . .BORNHOFT : : • (RILEY). .STANTON. - (ROGET� - CORBETT • DISTRICT 2 (PERRY) . . • • . • • •CULVER . • . FRIED . .'�VEDAA. . . . . . �SALTARELLI)• • • • •EDGAR • • • • • SEYMOUR) . . . . . .ROTH. . . . . . . (ROWAN) . . . . . . . •EVANS • • • •• SWINTERS) . . . . . .BORNHOFT. (KIRKPATRICK� . . .FINLAYSON IGAMBINA) . . .FOX. . . . . . . . (MANDIC) . . . . . . . .FINLEY • • • • (ECKENRODEI •- • •HOLT • • • • • • (GAMBINA) . . • • • • •FOX • • • • • • (ODLUM) . . . . .. • •KAWANAMI •• (HEATHE ) • •• •• •+lAP.T • • • • • ('WIEDER) NEBTANDE (MAURER)• • • • •• • • +iEATHER WIED R)- -) • • N LELSEN •. !ECKENRODE� • •• .•HOLT (CULVER) . . . . . . .PERRY• • • • • (CRANK) • • • • • • • • •HUTCHISON • SBEYER) . . . . . . . .SMITH. . . . . . S . . . . . . . .FOX) ' •ISLES • . . ((CORBETT). .WARD,B. . ODLUM) .KAWANAMI . . (WARD,J) . . . . . . .YAMAMOTO.. (SEIT::) . . . . . . . . .LASZLO • • • • WIEDER) • • • • • • •NESTANDE • • DISTRICT 3 (HOLLINDE;!)•• • • • .NIELSEN . • • - (BAILEY) . . . . . . . .PATTINSON . (COLLINS) . . . . . .VAN DYKE. . . �CULVER). PERRY . . . . (ROWAN) . . EVANS. . . . . . HEATHER) .. . . . . .PLUMMER. . . (HOLLINDEN) . . . .ADLER. . . . . . (DAVIS) . . . . . . . ..REESE . . . . .. ROGET� : . . . . . . -CORBETT. . . . (STANTON) . .. .. . .RILEY . . . . . . PERRY . . .CULVER. . . . . (SEYMOUR) • • • • • •ROTH. . . . . . MNR�7ATK). .FINLAYSON. . (SALTARELLI) . . . .SHARP . . . . . . CRI �BEYER) . . . . . . . . .SMITH • • • • • • 'FOX . .. . ISLES. . . . . RILEY) . . . . . . •STANTON • . SEIZ . . . . . .LASZLO. . . • (ZOMMICK . . .. . . .SYLVIA• • • • • DAVIS : . . . . .REESE. . . . . COLLINS)S . . . . . . .VAN DYKE• • • SEYMOUR). . . . . .ROTH. . . . . . AHTHONY,A) • • • • •VARDOULIS • . ZOMMICK) . . . . . .SYLVIA. . . . (HANSON) . . . . . . . .WAHNER• • • • ROMAGNINO) . . . .WHEELER. . . . SCORBETT) . . . . . . .'WARD,B. . . . . �NESTANDE). . . . .WIEDER. . (YAMAMOTO) • . • • • •WARD,J . . . . . BORNH05T) . . . . .WINTERS. . . (FRIED) • • • • • • •WEDAA• • • • • • WARD,J . . . .. .YAMAMOTO. . (ROMAGNINO) . . . . .WHEELER. . . DISTRICT 5 (NESTANDE •WIEDER. . . .. ./ (BORNHOFT) • •WINTERS• MANTON) URER) . . . . •HEATHER. . . . (WARD,J) . . . . . . . .YAMAMOTO- RAUSS). . ... .COX . . . . . . .RILEY. OTHERS DISTRICT o HARPER• • • • (CRANK) . HUTCHISON. . SYLVESTER• • (HEATHERS • • •• • •PLUMMER• - • LEWIS. . . . . . (RILEY) . . • • .• • •STANTON• CLARKE• • • BROWN. . . . . . D ANDERSON• - • DISTRICT BAKER (BEYER) SMITH. . . . . . CONATSER. . . EISEDGAR DAWES. . . . . . SAATRRLLTAEL H • • • • • •HART• • • • • • • FATLAND. - . IWIEDER) • • • •NESTANDE• • • YOUNG. . . . . . ANTHONY,A) • • • .VARDOULIS• • HANSON) • • • • •WAHNER• • • • • YAMAMOTO) . . . . .WARD,J. . . . - WOODRUFF. . . HOHENER. . . DISTRICT 11 HOWARD• • • • (BAILEY) . . • • •PATTINSON. . HUNT. . . ; : : (MACALLISTER) . .BAILEY. . . • • LYNCH—' (NESTANDE) . . . . .WIEDER. . . . . LYNC MARTINS. ON. . STEVENS. . . . 2/11/81 SL \S� ess Ne, 16 A-94y--40* CA\ 1{1N L43GC- -W-S w+�o4 A.•c LSc�I e,�sn fks J o E i(/4 i i DISTRICT 5 ADJOURNED MTG. 4/13/81 ' NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL ANNEX -a) Report of consultant, EDAW, Inc. Steve Nelson reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR. Verbal comments from Frank Robinson, representing Friends of Newport Bay, Alan Beek, representing O.C. Foundation for Preservation of Public Property, and Tom Nielsen, representing The Irvine Company. Subsequently received written comments from Fred Worthley, Jr. Department of Fish and Game, and Kenneth Smith, Manager, County of Orange Environmental Analysis Division. He indicated that basically, the comments received were points of clarification, requests for information or suggestions for more detailed grading work to be done. No comments were unsupportive of restoration effort. Lumped comments into various groups and briefly outlined each: (1) Comments re variations to the plans since the Draft EIR was considered re deletion of removal of spoils pile and transporting to site near Jamboree Road. Response - Beneficial impacts essentially the same. Landform and enhancement of biological. No significant change in land use. Potential adverse impacts also do not change significantly. Land dust from trucks in transporting up canyon. Air quality and noise more localized. Circulation greatly reduced, 4000 less trips. (2) Comments expressing concern for erosion control. Most common comment. Response - Erosion and sediment control to take place in several ways. (1) Measures to be recommended by soils and grading engineer. Unknown at this point but will meet City of Newport Beach requirements and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Newport Beach has most stringent requirements in Southern California. (2) Will be limitations to maximum slope of 71-;,:1 in lio of 5 :1. (3) Immediate revegetation of recontoured slopes in addition to restoration following grading. Will be done by using plant species specifically selected for tolerance of saline soils. (4) Protection of slopes from recreational vehicles via a moat inhibiting illegal access. Is currently a problem and hope to preclude that in the future. (5) Toe of slopes will be set back from main stream course. (5) Will maximize opportunity to move project up from original completion date of November to October 15 recommended by Fish $ Game and others to avoid early rains. This opportunity exists because of deletion of taking spoils to site near Jamboree Road and the time savings. (3) Comments requesting more information about actual restoration/revegetation plan. Response - The plan was still incomplete at the time the Draft EIR was considered. Water will be diverted across restoration area into area of uniform elevation where it will saturate soils and create conditions suitable for marsh establishment and growth. The plan is to hand transplant predominent marsh species found in upstream areas to restoration area. Details to be worked out but preliminary indications are that there is a potential source at San Joaquin Reserve. Established methods do exist to do this successfully. Have spoken to two project leaders of similar efforts and feel it could be done with high degree of success. (4) Comments regarding dedication to non-profit organization and future allowable uses in area' Stated that District staff informed consultant that dedication to non-profit organization is not consistent with thinking to date and will have to be resolved between The Irvine Company and recipient of land should project go ahead. As far as allowable uses, language in Coastal Permit clearly states that if dedicated, regardless of recipeint, area B to be preserved as Open Space Conservation easement and the offer shall provide for permanent protection of habitat values of area. (5) Comments expressing concern for archaeological and paleontological interests in Big Canyon area. No impact expected. Moving them would only enhance and protect. Mr. Nelson further reported that in addition to comments, The Irvine Company made some suggestions on how to handle some grading constraints. Proposed grading plan which illustrates an effective method of reducing sediment transport. Called in geotechnical engineer to certify that placement of fill will remove future landslide potential. Suggested channel downstream of the concrete dip crossing should be protected from erosion and the slope of the moat should be very flat. These will be considered. Chairman Heather asked if there were any questions. Carl Wilcox, Dept. of Fish $ Game, said that comments seem fine to them but just mentioned the need for adequate control mechanism for the road access through restoration area. Heather advised that she had discussed dedication of easement at the Council's study session didn't hear any substantial comment against it. Cox asked if it was clear who the ultimate owner of the property to be transferred was. The Irvine Company answered that it was not clear. Irrevocable dedication to the Coastal Commission. Mr. Harper asked if this plan was consistent with the Coastal Commission's preliminary staff recommendations. Allan Tebbetts answered, yes, it is. Staff summary and recommendation are consistent with original conditions. Added that the the present time they are not sure we will have the full support of the Friends of the Bay. This is set for hearing and voting at the same meeting on Wednesday afternoon. Heather asked if this also reflects the way we are handling the spoils pile? Tom Dawes that the Coastal Commission agrees with the present plan before Directors. (3) $ Plans and Specs for Contract 5-24 and 5-24-1 (4) Tom Dawes advised that there are two separate sets of plans and specs that are nearly complete for sewer and restoration job. Are currently advertising both of these jobs so contractors who may be interested can complete a set of pre-qualification requirements. Are doing that on both projects to get a substantial contractor who is very familiar with each job and can complete within time required on both. Will have pre-qualification hearing. Will receive pre-qualification results on Monday. Will review and bring results to Board at the May meeting. Then will send documents out to those who make the list and will be opening bids in June sometime. Will be ready to award both contracts at July Board meeting. Added that we have about half the pipe in our yard right now and will have enough time for the contractor to purchase the rest. -2- Tom Woodruff then stated that these two projects will be financed by the agreements with The Irvine Company and Daon. We entered into agreement with TIC in 1976 and they deposited $50,000 which was able to be used by the District to pay for necessary engineering and preliminary work. Said in the past year we have been working at coming to grips as to whether to use the old agreement, amend it, or come up with a new agreement. His opinion is that 1976 agreement is outdated. There is one significant, substantive problem with agreement. 176 agreement says District will repay $600,000 advance at the rate of $100,000 per annum. Brought this to the Board about a year ago. The Daon agreement does not have this provision. It simply says that we will pay it back as quickly as possible. The Board approved that as the way to proceed. Accordingly, the agreement was revised in that fashion. Went back and forth with The Irvine Company. At one time agreed to go with the old, then go with the new agreement. Said he got a letter last Thursday which said they now want the old agreement to stay in effect. Said we have got to come to grips with this. Seems difficult to go ahead with agreement that we know we can't live up to even though 176 agreement provides no recourse in the event of default by the District. No way we can guarantee $100,000. New agreement says we will give all of the surplus. District has two agreements for $600,000 and $400,000. Money will be on 60/40 split. Original agreement didn't anticipate that. Original agreement says other connection charges. Irvine Company says we will work out cash flow problem but we still don't have it in writing. Heather asked if Irvine Company knew of agreement with Daon. Tom said yes, they knew but they were not a party to the agreement. Said Daon really wanted agreement and was in a hurry. Agreed to no interest from the District. Are paying 41-2% to The Irvine Company. Said that Irvine Company has reaffirmed their pledge in 1976 agreement but it is in conflict with what both sides want to do with payment schedule. JWS added that the cash flow schedule does include repayment of the loan on the assumption of connection surcharges of $600,000 for Zone 2 over a 5-year period. •• The difference between 176 agreement and proposed new agreement is that 176 agreement specifies that we have to pay $100,000 per year. New agreement specifies we only have to pay out as much as received in Zone 2 surcharge. Tom Nielsen of The Irvine Company stated that they have an obligation to put up $600,000 and realize they have no recourse if District doesn't pay. Want project to move forward. Will put up money when District asks for it. If problem is one of repayment, will work with District to do that. Think we can work out payment before award of projects. Riley asked if he was reassuring them that he and TLW can work together. Nielsen said they would prefer not to change agreement but will work with TLW to see what can be arranged. Never felt that original agreement needed a change except recommendations re prospective cash flow. Feel confident that we can resolve prpblem by award date. TLW stated he just wanted to advise Board that they are going out with plans and specs tonight and if we don't have an agreement in a couple of weeks, will call Directors back into session. Will have to make a decision as to whate kind of agreement Board agreed to make with the Irvine Company. Board should make a decision as to whether it is prepared to pay $100,000 per year or pay it back with all Zone 2 surcharges or whatever. Nielsen said that the Irvine Company is prepared to accept payback of all connection fees on the basis of 60/40. When each connection fee comes in, no matter from whom, then it is distributed 60/40. Will agree to that. TLW stated that the question was with regard to the absolute fee--the $600 or the $850 out of Zone 2. The thought is that the $250 should be available to the District if they should need it and should choose not to pay. All of the $600 surcharge or the $850? Nielsen stated that the $600 is okay. TLW replied then there was no problem. Will take Nielsen's word for the Irvine Company. -3- (5) Possible implementation of user charges Heather reported that at the Council 's study session they agreed not to put this charge on the water bill. Said Strauss would like it to be more equitable. She stated she was leaning to Alternate A. Do have to move fast in order to get something on the tax bill for this year. Riley asked if Alternate A is what the staff recommends? FAH replied that it is the staff's intent if we are going to go with something this year, to be as equitable as possible. Would recommend a rather low fee to start with because we wouldn't have complete equity. Do have two people in Industrial Waste that we can get to the water department as quickly as possible to get flow information. Then we have to cross check that. Have quite a bit that will have to be done. Said staff would like more time if we had our druthers. Cox stated that the general consensus was that we should do this this year and create as much as equity as we can. Mr. Harper indicated we will need an escape clause in the ordinance so Board or Manager can make adjustments if we find inequities as they come up. Heather added we will need appeal procedure also. Riley said he didn't mind pushing it back a year if we don't need the money this year. Heather said they need the money. Cox added he thought there is some risks such as Balboa Peninsula. Said timing is right for P.R. work because of break. Didn't think $60 a year is so significant. Riley stated, you weren't in the parking lot last time. It only takes one person to come up and tell how unequitable it is for him and everybody begins to think they are being ripped off too. Heather said she thought it was viable now and not in the next year. Referred to L.A. County's success. Riley stated we can't be compared with L.A. County in any way. They have different people who do things a lot differently. JWS indicated that if the Board adopts Alternate A, will proceed immediately but do have the option to discontinue proceedings. It was then moved and seconded to approve Alternate A. - Item 5(c) (1)$(2) . (6) Other business Board adopted Resolution No. 81-60-5 approving agreement with Department of Fish and Game in connection with the Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area (Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) , Contract No. 5-24-1. -4- . �'cY-t�e�.v-�-�► �w tea--t� �-,.--,�.�-- - Oct *Wwo . lot f} }L - ` r�l �.■.... AL1 r a...-A - - ---- ---- - , ... f 770 1. , 1- ti -A.7-4t OV Al P ' d � Y 7 4-1 APA+- -- 1 now smol 1 Al 4b owft- 54 4vo ure" 006- 6, -at OL L"L-e L(I in 1� IZ AA- a. NOW 4o Interoffice Memorandum THE IRVINE COMPANY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION T0: Charlie Jencks CC Sat Tamaribuchi w/o attach. Dayne Stiles r � Steve hunk From: Steve Hawkins Date: April 7, 1981 Subject: Big Canyon Restoration Project The following are comments in regards to the Grading Plan for tlhe Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project. It is our understanding that you will be drafting a letter to present The Irvine Company's comments: 1) Attached is a marked up copy of the proposed grading plan which illustrates an effective method of reducing sediment transport. This method is the construction of diversion itches at 1% gradian and downdrains. In addition, a temporary filter fence can be con- structed along; the toe of the slope to filter out coarse 'sediment particles until adequate vegetation has been established. Tile hydro- seeding and mulching of the site will further reduce the potential of surface erosion. 2) The proposed filling operate will be within the area of a recent landslide. A geotechnical enginger should certify that placement of fill will remove uture landslide potential. 3) The channel, downstream of the concrete dip crossing, should be protected from erosion; due to the channels bottlenecking and flaring. There should also be channel protection at the culvert along Backbay Drive. 4) The slope of the moat should be very flat. SJ1i:pc Attachment t b f COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING April 13, 1981 - 5:30 p.m. Newport Beach City Hall Annex 3330 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of April 8, 1981, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date, at the Newport Beach City Hall Annex. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5 :30 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT: Jacqueline Heather (Chairman), John Cox, Jr. and Thomas Riley DIRECTORS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, Rita Brown, Hilary Baker and Tom Dawes OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel, Joe Devlin, Dave Dmohowski, Charlie Jencks, Steve Nelson, Tom Nielsen, Allan Tebbetts and Carl Wilcox * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Report of EDAW, Inc. , Steve Nelson of EDAW, Inc. , District's District's consultant, consultant, briefly reviewed the oral comments on comments received on received at the March 30th public hearing on Final Supplemental EIR the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) re Enhancement Program re Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon for Big Canyon Drainage Drainage Area. He also reported that addi- Area tional written comments had been received from the California Department of Fish and Game and the Orange County Environmental Management Agency subsequent to the hearing. Mr. Nelson then categorized the various types of comments received and summarized the responses thereto which have been incorporated into the final EIR. Following a brief discussion, Allen Tebbetts, Special Counsel for the District, stated that the restoration plan is in compliance with the conditions originally established by the Coastal Commission and they are in agreement with the proposed plan. Receive and file written It was moved, seconded and duly carried: comments re Draft Supple- mental EIR re Enhancement That the written comments received from the Program for Big Canyon Department of Fish and Game, dated April 6, 1981, Drainage Area and the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, dated April 8, 1981, relative to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) re Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed. Receive, file and approve Moved, seconded and duly carried: Final Supplemental EIR re Enhancement Program for the That the Final Supplemental Environmental Big Canyon Drainage Area Impact Report re Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the Board of Directors hereby certifies that said Final Supplemental EIR has been completed in compliance with the State and District Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. Approving agreement with It was moved, seconded and duly carried: State of California, Dept. of Fish and Game, re Enhance? That the Board of Directors hereby adopts ment Program for Big Canyon Resolution No. 81-60-5, approving Agreement Drainage Area Regarding Proposed Stream or Lake Alteration with the State of California, Department of Fish and Game, in connection with the Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area (Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) . A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Discussion re agreement with The District's General Counsel reported on e Irvine Company re the agreement entered into with The Irvine construction of the Back Bay Company in 1976 re advance payment of connection Trunk Sewer fees in order to construct the Back Bay Trunk Sewer to serve properties owned by The Irvine Company. Mr. Woodruff pointed out that due to the current financial status of the District, the payment provisions of the 1976 agreement need to be revised. He indicated that negotiations with The Irvine Company relative to preparation and approval of a new agreement had been under way for some time but, as yet, no new agreement had been executed and that The Irvine Company recently indicated that they would prefer to continue with the existing agreement. Mr. Woodruff stressed the importance of resolving the repayment issue prior to advertising for bids for construction of said project. Following a lengthy discussion relative to the provisions of the current agreement and proposed changes to be included in a new agreement with Thy Irvine Company, Tom Nielsen, representing The Irvine Company, commented , 11 their position relative to repayment of the loan and assured the Board that the necessary terms and conditions could be worked out to the District's satisfaction, prior to award of a contract for the Back Bay Trunk Sewer, to enable the project to proceed. -2- Approving plans and Following a brief report by the Deputy Chief specifications for Engineer on the bidding procedure to be followed, Contract No. 5-24 it was moved, seconded and duly carried: �.d That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 81-58-5, approving plans and specifications for Back Bay Trunk Sewer, from Newport Dunes to Jamboree Pump Station, Contract No. 5-24, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Approving plans and Moved, seconded and duly carried: specifications for Contract No. 5-24-1 That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 81-59-5, approving plans and specifications for Enhancement Program for the Big Canyon Drainage Area (Big Canyon Marsh Restoration Project) , Contract No. 5-24-1, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Discussion re implementation Following a staff review of the required of user charges procedures and actions necessary to establish a user fee and collect said fee on the annual property tax bill, the Board entered into a discussion of the alternative time- tables for implementation of such a fee. It was then moved, seconded and duly carried: That Alternative A, to implement user fees to be collected on the property tax bill beginning with the 1981-82 fiscal year be adopted; and, V./ FURTHER MOVED: That the staff be directed to proceed with implementation thereof. Waiving provisions of Following a brief discussion of the need to purchasing resolution expedite procurement of necessary materials, re user fee program supplies and services to enable implementation implementation of the user fee program in accordance with the adopted timetable, it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That the provisions of District Purchasing Resolution No. 81-24 be, and are hereby, waived and that the staff be, and is hereby, authorized to procure necessary materials, supplies and services to implement said user fee program. Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned to S: 30 p.m., April 29, 1981, at Newport Beach City Hall Annex. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 6:25 p.m., April 13, 1981. V Chairman of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. S of Orange County, California Secretary of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California -3- EXCERPTS FROM MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA An adjourned regular meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 , of Orange County, California, was held on April 13 , 19 81 , at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley,- California. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. . The roll was called and a quorum of the Board was reported present. Directors present: Jacqueline Heather, Chairman, John Cox and Thomas Riley Directors absent: None Present: J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary of the Board. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned to 5:30 p.m. , April 29, 1981, at Newport Beach City Hall Annex. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 6:25 p.m. , April 13, 1981. STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 , of Orange County, California, do hereby certify the above and foregoing to be full, true and correct copy of minute entries on record taken from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, on the 13th day of April , 19 81 . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of County Sanitation District No. 5 , this 13th day of April , 1981 . &—i Sec e ry,OV Sa of Directors of Co t S ita 'on District No. 5 5-110