Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-24 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ' OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA � P P.O. BOX 6121,FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9212E-8127 10944 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92709-7019 (714) `W4 2910 (714)962-2411 July 17, 1985 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 AND 13 WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1985 - 7: 30 P .M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE �. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of July 10, 1985,. the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 of Orange County, California will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date to consider the Final Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of Districts Nos. 7 and 13. secretary BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Pat Ofrry Boa 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Teteche - grae cme na II JOINT BOARDS 962.2411 IIAGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1985 - 7: 30 P . M. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll call (3) DISTRICT 7 Election of Chairman (4) DISTRICT 13 Election of Chairman (5) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (6) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts, if any (7) Report of the Joint Chairman (8) Consideration of actions relative to the Final Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of Districts Nos. 7 and 131 (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Summary Report dated July 17, 1985, summarizing the Final EIR for Proposed Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of Districts Nos. 7 and 13 (Copy enclosed with agenda material) (b) Verbal report of environmental consultant, Michael Brandman s Associates (c) Consideration of motion to receive and file written comments received after the public hearing on June 12, 1985 (included in Final EIR document) (d) Discussion (e) Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve Final Environmental Impact Report; and certify that said Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the State and District Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental quality Act of 1970r as amended (Copy enclosed with agenda material) (ITEM 8 CONTINUED ON PAGE 2) (8) (Continued) (f) Consideration of Resolution No. 85-130, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of Districts Nos. 7 and 13, making certain lrt findings in connection therewith; adopting a statement of overriding considerations; and authorizing filing of a Notice of Determination re said project. (Copy enclosed with agenda material) (9) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications or supplemental agenda Stems, if any (10) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (11) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn (12) DISTRICT 2 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (13) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn (14) DISTRICT 3 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (15) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn (16) DISTRICT 5 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (17) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn (18) DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (19) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn (20) DISTRICT 7 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (21) DISTRICT 7 _ Consideration of motion to adjourn (22) DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (23) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn (24) DISTRICT 13 VrM Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (25) DISTRICT 13 Consideration of motion to adjourn -2- MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT Post nmoeBox 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue County Sanitation Districts Fountain valley, Ca. 92708 of Orange County, California Telephone,: Area Code 714 540-2910 JOINT BOARDS 962.2411 MEETING DATE July 24, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. Last March, after several years of negotiations, the Joint Boards of Directors entered into an agreement with the Irvine Ranch Water District Board of Directors providing for the formation of new County Sanitation District No. 14 to serve the Irvine area. Subsequently, the Boards engaged Michael Brandman Associates to prepare an Environmental Impact Report on the proposed formation. The Boards conducted a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on June 12th, following which the consultant was directed to prepare the Final EIR after the close of the official comment period on June 27th and to submit the Final EIR for the Boards' consideration at the regular meeting scheduled for August 14th. At the July loth Joint Board Meeting, the Directors considered and approved a �.r request from the Irvine Ranch Water District that the Boards schedule and consider adoption and certification of the Final EIR at an adjourned meeting on July 24th to accommodate IRWD' s sale of bonds in August to provide for financing of District No. 14's initial capital requirements. The consultant has completed the Final EIR, a copy of which is enclosed with the agenda material. Also enclosed is a staff report and summary of the Final EIR. The staff report outlines the comments received on the Draft EIR and references the responses in the Final EIR prepared by Michael Brandman Associates. Many of the comments received were also received and addressed in the Joint Treatment Works Wastewater Master Plan EIR which was approved by the Boards at the last meeting. Also enclosed with the agenda is a copy of proposed Resolution No. 85-130, making findings and authorizing the filing of Notice of Determination. The consultant will review the Final EIR for the Directors at the meeting on July 24th. The actions appearing on the agenda are to receive and file the staff report and the comments submitted on the Draft EIR; receive, file and certify the Final EIR, and approve Resolution No. 85-130, in compliance with CEQA requirements. v RE: AGENDA ITEM #H(A) COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Y of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA July 17, 1985 FOUNTAIN AU.EY AUF NIA 2728-8129 E FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CAUFOFNIA 82708-0018 MAI 5402910 7141982-2411 STAFF SUIkVI LRY REPORT ON FINAL ENVIRD MPSTPAL IMPACT REPORT FOR EORMATIDN OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ND. 14 AND PROPOSED REORGANIZATION No. 79 INVOLVING REORGANIZATION OF ODUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS WAS. 7 AND 13 At the regular meeting on June 12, 1985, the Boards of Directors conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIR for the Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 7 and 13. A represen- tative of the Districts' Consultant, Michael erandnan Associates, reviewed the Draft EIR which had been previously mailed to the Directors. Following the close of the hearing, the Boards directed staff and the con- sultant to prepare the Final EIR after the close of the comment period on June 27, 1985. The EIR identifies and addresses unavoidable impacts (those impacts which continue to be of significance even when all feasibly (mown and identified mitigation measures are applied) that are temporary and short term. In addition the EIR also identifies impacts which can be mitigated. These various impacts and mitigation measures were identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. No public commentary was forthcoming at the hearing. Since the hearing, the Districts have received comments on the Draft EIR from the following parties: See Final FROM EIR Page(s) 1. City of Newport Beach 4 2. City of Fountain Valley 5-26 3. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency 27-40 4. City of Costa Mesa 41 5. City of Orange 42-43 6. Orange County Water District 44 7. State of California Office of Planning and Research 45 1 8. California Regional Water Quality Control Board 46 �..d 9. '1he Carma-Sanding Group 47-48 10. City of Irvine Community Development Department 50 11. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 51 12. City of Brea 52 Cmiplete copies of the letters from each of the above are reproduced in Section II of the Final EIR, beginning on page 53. Sue of the major oamnents received were: A. The City of Newport Beach requested that the existing treatment facility not be adversely impacted to the detriment of the pre- sently constituted Districts. (See response on page 4) B. The City of Fountain Valley requested clarification regarding the difference between pipeline capacity of 45 M3D and treatment plant capacity of 32 M3D and that the ultimate flow from District No. 14 be clarified (See response on pages 6 and 7) C. The City of Fountain Valley requested that facility needs for the entire 32 M3D be addressed versus the 15 MD included in the current County Sanitation Districts of Orange County planning period. (See response on pages 8-15) D. 'fie City of Fountain Valley expressed concern that comments made on the Joint Works Master Plan EIR had not yet been addressed and yet the document was referenced in this EIR. (The Final EIR for the Joint Works Master Plan was certified by County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Boards of Directors on July 10, 1985 and all comments and responses on that document were addressed and considered at that time. (See response on page 15) E. The City of Fountain Valley believed that other alternatives seemed to be dismissed on the basis of cost only without regard to environmental ingacts. (See reponse on pages 16-26) F. The County of Orange requested that information on existing land use plans adopted for the Irvine Ranch Water District proposed 59,000-acre ultimate service area be expanded to indicate speci- fics of the adopted plans. (See response on pages 27 and 28) G. The County of Orange asked that the section on affordable housing be expanded to indicate specifics of each local agency's plan. (See response on pages 28 and 29) B. The County of Orange stated that the land Use Section of the DEI(t should be expanded to include a discussion of the Santa Ana River 2 Main Stan Project and the effects of trunk sewer construction near the Santa Ana River. (See reponse on pages 30 and 31) I. 'the County of Orange requested that additional supportive data be included for the estimated emissions shown in Table 4-12 of the DEIR and also the assumptions that were used and how air pollutant emissions in Table 5-2 of DEIR were calculated. (See response on pages 31-40) J. The City of Oosta Mesa expressed concern over the potential aligranent of the Baker Street Fbroe Main. (See response on page 41) R. The City of Orange raised the issues of institutional arrange- ments, provision of adequate capacity for the future, and the need to avoid duplication of facilities. (See reponse on page 43) L. The Canna-Sandling Group requested clarification ooncerning the sewering of the Whiting Ranch, which is within the boundaries of District No. 14, and also requested Table 4-3 in the DEIR be revised to include population and land use data for Whiting Ranch. (See responses pages 47-49) The comments and responses are fully detailed in the enclosed Final. EIR and Resolution No. 85-130. Oonsideration of certification of the Final EIR and passage of Resolution No. 85-130 will take place at the Boards Adjourned Meeting of July 24, 1985, If any Director has a question or desires additional copies of the Draft EIR or the Final EIR, please call staff members Tom Dawes or Hilary Baker at 714-962-241-1. 3 RE: AGENDA ITEM #S(F) / RESOLUTION NO. 85-130 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 AND 13 CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR "FORMATION OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 14 AND PROPOSED REORGANIZATON NO.79 INVOLVING REORGANIZATION OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 7 AND 13" MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS +++++++++++++++++++++ WHEREAS, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 of Orange County, California, are hereby considering the approval of the formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and the reorganization of County Sanitation Districts 7 and 13, ("the Project") , and WHEREAS, County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 (hereinafter "DISTRICTS") are the designated Lead Agency for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and are Lead Agency for the proposed reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 7 and 13 as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, (hereinafter "CEQA") and the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act as modified and adopted by the DISTRICTS (hereinafter "CEQA Guidelines") ; WHEREAS, in order to facilitate an objective assessment of the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with the formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and proposed 1 reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 7 and 13, the ° 9 4 Districts have caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report, "Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 7 and 13", to address the significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives associated with the project; and WHEREAS, the DISTRICTS have consulted with other public agencies, and the general public and given them an opportunity to comment on said Draft EIR as required by the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 1985, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Boards of Directors of the DISTRICTS to provide a further opportunity for the general public to comment on and respond to the Draft EIR at which time no person other than the DISTRICTS' k..) consultant spoke; and WHEREAS, the DISTRICTS have evaluated the comments received from public agencies and persons who reviewed the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, said comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary and the responses of the DISTRICTS to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process have been included in and made part of said Draft EIR to form the Final EIR for said Project as required by Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines; and 2 V " WHEREAS, said Final EIR has been presented to the members of the Boards of Directors of DISTRICTS for review and consideration v prior to the final approval of, and commitment to, the formation and reorganization. - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7, 11 and 13 of Orange County, California as follows: 1. That the Boards of Directors of said DISTRICTS do hereby certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report, "Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 7 and 13" is adequate and complete in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and that the DISTRICTS have reviewed and considered the information contained in said Final EIR prior to approval of, or commitment to, "the Project". Said Final EIR is composed of the following elements: A. Draft Environmental Impact Report "Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 7 and 13" and all appendices thereto; B. Comments and responses to comments on said Draft EIR; 2. That the Boards of Directors Of DISTRICTS do hereby find that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which will mitigate or avoid any significant adverse effects identified in the Final EIR as specifically itemized below. 3 . o A. Operational Impacts Impacts: Under projected operating conditions some35 years in the future, the proposed District No. 14, as now conceived, would contribute about nine percent of the anticipated DISTRICTS Joint Works flow. Thus, it is expected to account for about nine percent of the operational impacts such as energy use, chemical use, transportation requirements, air pollutant emissions, and residue disposal. Impacts are generally less per million gallons treated for a larger size facility due to the greater efficiency achieved and economies of scale. Findings: Many of the measures now being implemented by DISTRICTS to reduce the impacts associated with treating greater flows at the Joint Works Facilities will be used to mitigate any impact of treating flows from District 14. These include approximately $34 million in environmental mitigation or improvement projects for odor control and energy generation from digester gas and waste heat from engines. Ongoing industrial and nonindustrial source control programs and improvements to operations are designed to further improve effluent quality. These improvements are being made to assure compliance with waste discharge requirements now and in the future. Other treatment plant improvements being studied or implemented by DISTRICTS as part of the Master Plan include new landscaping, improved vehicle access to Plant 4 No. 1 with a direct signalized entry near the Euclid off-ramp of the San Diego (405) Freeway and an outdoor lighting and energy conservation study. B. Construction Impacts - Joint Works Treatment Facilities Impacts: Over the next 3-5 years, the DISTRICTS will be constructing proposed Master Plan improvements. Sufficient capacity will be available for an interim period to serve initial District 14 flow needs (excess in amount of water reclaimed at Michelson) . Serving this capacity will necessitate accelerating the next incremental increase in treatment plant capacity which will specifically address District 14 flow needs for a longer period of time. Facilities needed to serve District No. 14 flows are listed in Table 1-2 of the Draft `...' EIR and include increasing the size of the headworks, three primary sedimentation basins, a sludge digester tank, sludge thickener, two aeration basins, two secondary clarifiers, and one belt filter press. With the exception of the headworks, these new facilities may need to be built to handle flows for District 14, if the Master Plan facilities are not built on an accelerated schedule. Master planned facilities to be constructed in phases for the entire DISTRICTS' service area will have to be constructed and utilized at an accelerated pace in comparison to what is now set forth in the Master Plan. However, flows within the DISTRICTS' service area over the past several years have not increased at the rate the 1983 5 Master Plan predicted, thus the actual Master Plan , recommendations may be sufficient under present conditions to serve the present DISTRICTS ' service area and District 14 through the year 2000 without any major changes other than those mentioned above. Findings: The construction impacts associated with the addition of new facilities and modifications of existing facilities to meet existing DISTRICTS' service area needs are described in detail in the March 1985 Master Plan Draft EIR (CSDOC, 1985) . The impacts associated with accommodating District 14 flows would be of similar nature, but represent an incremental increase of approximately one-ninth. Construction would occur at the same time as the 1983 Master Plan improvements, and, therefore, would not result in any major extensions in construction periods. Also, new facilities will incorporate more environmental improvements in response to both local community needs (i.e. , odors, noise, visual appearance, etc. ) and environmental regulations (i. e. , air pollution control regulations, effluent discharge limitations, and energy conservation needs) . Thus, future flow increases are not expected to result in local impacts which will be incrementally noticeable compared to existing operations. Mitigation measures proposed in the Master Plan EIR are also applicable for the construction impacts associated with any new facilities or upsizing of �.d 6 facilities associated with District No. 14 flows. These mitigation measures are listed below. (1) Soil and geological studies will be conducted to evaluate foundation resistance. During construction, soil subject to wind blowing will be watered to minimize dust. (2) Desanding of water and water disposal in accordance with EPA and RWQCB NPDES Permit guidelines. (3) During construction, use of well tuned and properly maintained equipment can reduce gaseous pollutant emissions. Discontinuing construction during second stage smog alerts will also reduce air pollution problems on poor air quality days. (4) No additional site survey work is needed to identify cultural artifacts. However, if something of potential scientific, cultural or historic interest is discovered during construction, an expert should be called in to investigate and work stopped in the immediate area. (5) A traffic management plan should be developed in cooperation with the selected contractors, the District, CalTrans, and the Cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. Plant No. 1 has almost direct access to the -San Diego Freeway which should minimize local �.J 7 impacts. Relocation of the existing service entrance ' and access road has been proposed to provide direct signalized access to and from Plant #1. lYl (6) Construction activities should not commence before 7:30 a.m. nor extend past the hour of 5:30 p.m. or the hours stipulated by local ordinances. Low noise level equipment and noise barriers should be used, if feasible, pile drivers should not be used. (7) Maximize use of materials by good design and one-time construction of major structures to be fitted with equipment when needed. C. Construction Impacts - Baker Street Force Main Impacts: Placement of sewer lines will require excavation of some portions of each roadway. Minor to moderately significant impacts in terms of traffic congestion and changes to present patterns of circulation could result. Potential hazards to traffic could exist due to improper traffic control techniques and warning signs. Findings: Guidelines which will significantly reduce traffic and circulation impacts should include the following: tunneling under adjacent intersections; restricting construction hours; where feasible, locating sewer lines within public right-of-way and along centerline, but outside travel lanes; eliminating existing 8 on-street parking; relocating sewer lines to less busy roadways; and preparation of traffic control plans before construction. For roadways in the 0.70 to 0. 90 volume to capacity ratio, the following measures should be utilized: restrict construction to off peak hours and maintain all through traffic lanes at intersections. For traffic volumes within the 0. 30 to 0. 70 volume to capacity ratio: no need to limit construction hours, at least one through-travel lane maintained, and any striped median should be eliminated. Impacts: Increases in exhaust and fugitive dust emissions affecting primarily the immediate vicinity but also adding to the cumulative emissions load region-wide will result. The potential exists for the release of objectional odors into the atmosphere during construction of sewer trunk lines. Findings: Compliance with Rule 403 of the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations will mitigate fugitive dust emissions during construction. DISTRICTS' normal mode of operations for tie-ins to existing sewer facilities (requirement for full structure before tie in and tie-ins during low-flow periods) should be continued. Construction equipment should be maintained in proper tune to meet emissions standards. 9 Impacts: Coordination between DISTRICTS and all utility companies will be necessary to avoid conflicts and properly time future utilities improvements. Findings: Each of the affected utility companies will be contacted prior to construction to coordinate respective planning efforts. To the extent possible, other utility facilities will not be interrupted during project construction. A check for existing utility locations will be made prior to final route locations. DISTRICTS will comply with the Department of Health and Safety' s criteria for separation of water mains and sanitary sewers. Impacts: Increased erosion and siltation due to soil disturbance may occur as local groundwater infiltrates into open trenches. Findings: Groundwater infiltration can be controlled by portable sump pumps discharging into the existing sewer line or into existing catch basins after desilting; these practices would be in accordance with DISTRICTS NPDES discharge permit, which allows such practice. Surface runoff will be handled by the existing storm drain system. Approved dewatering techniques will be implemented to dispose of excess water which collects in the open trench or around the installed line. Sandbagging or another appropriate method will be employed to protect open trenches from storm flows. 10 D. Secondary Impacts Impacts: District No. 14 population projections exceed `.+ current general plan projections in the City of Tustin. Findings: If proposed land use amendments currently before City of Tustin are not approved, District 14 plans will be revised to reflect approved projections for that area. Impacts: Population and housing projections used by District No. 14 (IRWD) for long-range service need estimates are inconsistent with local government projections in two areas: (1) District No. 14 growth projections for the City of Orange, 5,846, are based on the middle (not the high. end) of the city' s growth projection range of from 3, 506 to 8,789 units. (2) District No. 14 projections for the County of Orange Laguna Laurel subarea are higher (by 4,000 units) than the county' s projections. Findings: District No. 14 long-range service plans will be revised to reflect the higher growth projections for the City of Orange, and the lower growth projections for the County of Orange Laguna Laurel subarea. No change in the overall capacity of District No. 14 in DISTRICTS is required, as the discrepancies essentially balance one another. 11 3. The Boards of Directors of DISTRICTS further find that although changes, alterations or conditions have been incorporated into the Project which will substantially mitigate or avoid significant effects identified in the Final EIR, certain of the significant effects cannot be mitigated to fully acceptable levels. The remaining impacts identified below may continue to be of significant adverse impact even when all feasibly known and identified mitigtaion measures are applied. A. Construction Impacts - Baker Street Force Main Impacts: Construction noise will temporarily increase background noise levels and may impact nearby residential areas along route. Noise levels will vary with different stages of construction but can be expected to range from 70 dB(A) to 105 dB (A) at 50 feet. Findings: All construction activities will comply with the noise limitations set by the individual cities or the County of Orange. Proper use and maintenance of noise reduction devices on heavy equipment will help to mitigate the problem and construction activities will be limited to daylight hours in noise sensitive areas. Impacts: Short-term visual impacts from machinery will occur during construction. Findings: Efforts will be made to minimize the aesthetic impacts during construction. Mitigations include re-establishment of landscaped areas after construction. 12 The Boards of Directors find the above mitigation measure will substantially reduce the impact and that further measures are not economically feasible for a short-term - impact. B. Secondary Impacts Impacts: oversizing the capacity of sewer line trunks may facilitate future growth and land use intensification in the District 14 service area. To the extent that the project allows for the continuation of existing growth trends in the IRWD service area, long-term population growth may generate further impacts including: Alteration of natural landform Changes in hydrology Loss of prime agricultural soils Increased erosion and sedimentation Introduction of urban contaminants into natural bodies of water Disruption of natural biotic communities Increased traffic with potential for congestion Additional mobile and stationary source emissions into the air basin Increased ambient noise levels • Increased demands for public services, utilities, and energy resources Loss of open space Disruption of archaeological, paleontological and historical resources a.1 13 Findings: For the most part, the adverse impacts associated with the population growth and concomitant urban development are not wholly unavoidable. Most of these impacts can be mitigated through the implementation of appropriate measures in the context of a comprehensive planning process by appropriate planning entities. A creative approach to environmental design that emphasizes integrated solutions to the diversity of environmental problems associated with growth is necessary if adverse cumulative impacts are to be minimized. These impacts are under the purview of local jurisdictional agencies responsible for land use planning. 4. Certain changes or alterations (e.g. , mitigation measures) are required in or incorporated into "the Project" through the permitting responsibility and jurisdiction of a public agency other than County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13. These changes will be included in permits obtained from the applicable agency by DISTRICTS or its contractor as itemized below: A. Applicable rules of the Air Quality Management Plan to the Projects when implemented provide partial mitigation for short-term air quality impacts. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for insuring compliance with and implementation of these rules. DISTRICTS' staff is working closely with that agency. B. A California Coastal Permit will be required for any construction at Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. 14 The City of Huntington Beach is responsible for issuance of the permit and insuring implementation of certain projects in accordance with the rules of the Local Coastal Plan. C. Approval from CalTrans and the City of Fountain Valley will be required for entrance modifications at Plant No. 1. CalTrans is responsible for insuring compliance with such requirements. D. A dewatering permit will be required for discharge of groundwater encountered during construction. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is responsible for insuring compliance with dewatering permit requirements. E. Any facilities encroaching upon Environmental Management Agency (EMA) Flood Control facilities will require a permit and project approval from EMA. 5. The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 have balanced the benefits of the proposed "Project" against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve said Project. The Boards do hereby further find, determine and state, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15093 of the State Guidelines, that the occurrence of those certain significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and set forth in paragraph 3 above have been found acceptable and will be permitted without further mitigation due to the following overriding considerations: 15 A. The project is economically and environmentally beneficial to accommodate wastewater flows from ongoing development approved by the local planning zoning authorities within Id proposed District No. 14 after required environmental reviews. The DISTRICTS are a single purpose agency with the responsibility to collect, treat and dispose of wastewater generated within the DISTRICTS' service area. Construction of facilities associated with the Project identified in the EIR are necessary to provide sewerage facilities to serve development approved by the cities and county in proposed District No. 14 after separate environmental review by the approving entity as identified in local land use plans. B. The Boards of Directors find that implementation of the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR are environmentally and economically infeasible as follows: 1. Expansion of IRWD' s Michelson Water Reclamation Plant and Construction of Ocean Outfall Interceptor. Under this alternative, IRWD would produce up to 15 MGD of reclaimed water at the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) on a seasonal basis. Flows exceeding the seasonal reclamation rate would be treated at MWRP and conveyed through an IRWD interceptor for ultimate disposal through the Districts' ocean outfall. The environmental impacts associated with this alternative are similar or the 16 ` same as those addressed in the EIR for the proposed "Project". Construction impacts will be associated with expansion of the treatment plant and the interceptor to the ocean outfall. The urban and natural environment in the vicinity of the MWRP would be impacted by construction, whereas with the proposed "Project" , the majority of construction impacts would be experienced in the vicinity of the existing CSDOC Plant No. 1. In addition, the interceptor facilities which will be used to convey the wastewater to Plant No. 1 under the "Project" are planned facilities to accommodate existing Sanitation District flows and the upsizing of the facilities will not result in additional environmental impacts, whereas conveyance facilities to take IRWD flows to the DISTRICTS ' existing ocean outfall would be constructed in other areas. 2. Expansion of IRWD' s Michelson Water Reclamation Plant and Construction of a New Ocean Outfall. Under this alternative, IRWD would provide for meeting the majority of its ultimate treatment and disposal requirements without the joint utilization of existing or planned DISTRICTS facilities. Under this alternative, the discharges would be made through a new ocean outfall constructed, either wholly or in major part, for the use of IRWD. Since IRWD would 17 retain ownership of its 15 mgd of disposal capacity ` in the DISTRICTS outfall, it is probable that the new outfall would be constructed adjacent to the CSDOC ld outfall. In this manner, IRWD could instead utilize a single trunk system to discharge into both outfalls. By utilizing a single trunk system, the additional on-land construction impacts would be similar to or the same as those described in this EIR. Construction of the new IRWD ocean outfall adjacent to the existing DISTRICTS outfall would also have fewer impacts than construction of the new outfall in another location due to familiarity with the current location gained through past construction efforts. This familiarity would minimize the risk of unforeseen impacts and enhance the ability to develop a viable mitigation program. However, the impacts of construction of a major ocean outfall in the marine environment would, in itself, be a significant environmental impact. Assuming construction by IRWD of an outfall with similar depth, length and diffuser capabilities, it is probable that the marine impacts would be equivalent to those experienced during construction of the DISTRICTS outfall. 3. Anaheim Forebay Reclamation Project. This project would include the construction of a wastewater reclamation facility to treat wastewater from Sanitation District No. 2 near the basin recharge 18 • area in the City of Anaheim. Eventually this facility could be enlarged to treat up to 50 MGD. The primary V reason the project has not been implemented is the very high costs associated with it and the lack of firm regulatory guidance on water quality levels needed for groundwater recharge. 4. Seal Beach Water Reclamation Plant. This project includes the construction of a reclamation plant that would treat up to 5.6 MGD of flow for augmenting the Los Alamitos groundwater barrier project near the San Diego River. This project has limited capacity reduction and has not yet been identified as economically feasible. 5. No Project Alternatives. Under the No Project alternative, IRWD would continue to serve the wastewater (as well as water) needs within its service area. County Sanitation District No. 14 would not be formed, nor would District Nos. 7 and 13 be reorganized. IRWD would continue to utilize its existing capacity in MWRP. At the same time IRWD would re-evaluate its remaining options for serving the long range treatment and disposal needs within its service area. PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 10, 1985 �.d 19 BOARDS OF DIRECTORS C. Inty Sanitation Districts Post Office Boa 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Taleofwrws: A JOINT BOARDS 9622e1114 AGENDA SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS JULY 24, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. ALL DISTRICTS (9) (a) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to issue purchase orders, as required, for radio frequency components necessary to convert 109 radios licensed by the Mexican government to a frequency that .r will not conflict with the Orange County Sanitation Districts' radio communication system, in a total amount not to exceed $10,000 plus applicable sales tax and freight. See page I. July 24, 1985 STAFF REPORT Resolution of Mexican Radio Interference to Orange County Sanitation Districts Radio System. The Districts ' two-way radio system facilitates the day- to-day operation of the plants by providing direct and instan- taneous communication between operations and maintenance personnel, trunk sewer maintenance crews, construction/inspec- tion personnel, and the industrial waste inspectors. Our communication needs are particularly critical in emergency situations. The equipment is installed and repaired under a maintenance agreement with the County of orange, which is set up with test equipment and parts for the Districts ' radios. For nearly a year we have been experiencing consistent interference in our communications system that has been traced to a new repeater station across the border in or near Tijuana, Mexico. Preliminary contacts have been made with the San Diego office of the Federal Communications Commission and with other public agencies, which share the same troubled channel in Southern California. These contacts resulted in a meeting which included the Districts' , the orange County GSA Communications Division, City of Escondido, LAX, FCC, the Mexican government' s counterpart to the United States ' FCC, and the Mexican station licensee. This is the first Mexican UHF system and actions concern- ing the situation will establish a precedent. The FCC and its Mexican government counterpart are anxious to solve the problem at the focal level. The only apparent way to accom- plish this is through the mutual cooperation of the U.S. and Mexican licensees. However, because it falls into the inter- national arena, it will require involvement of the governments of the U.S. and Mexico. It is the concensus of the American interests that because this is the first Mexican system to cause this interference, it is advisable to make every effort to resolve the problem at this time. There is a concern that if new repeaters are activated in the future on frequencies that are used by Southern California's Public Safety System, it may cause con- siderable problems that could seriously impair the public safety activities in Orange County and the rest of Southern California. Since this is only the first of a situation that will occur over and over again as each new Mexican repeater is activated, it is in the best interest of all parties to seek a timely and permanent solution to this problem. "I-1 AGENDA ITEM #9(A) - ALL DISTRICTS "I-1" r M • - Staff was authorized by the Boards at their Regular meet- ing of February 13, 1985 to work in cooperation with the appro- priate local, state and federal governments, the government of Mexico and this Mexican radio licensee to resolve the situa- tion. The authorization was also granted for Districts ' staff to enter Mexico with the necessary personnel and equipment to conduct tests and demonstrations after proper coordination with the respective government agencies; and to pay up to $10,000 for the services of Orange County' s legislative advocate to assist in this effort. The outcome of numerous meetings between the legislative advocate, federal officials and the Mexican government offi- cials is that it is now proposed that the following steps be taken to alleviate the overall problem. 1 . The Mexican radio station owners will reduce power of its signal toward San Diego. 2. The Mexican radio station will not use the three conflicting PL tones. 3. The Mexican radio station owners will deliver their equipment to San Diego for crystal conversion. 4. FCC/Orange County will work together to transport equipment to Orange County shop and return to San Diego. v 5. Orange County will test each unit prior to crystal conversion to determine proper operation. 6. Orange County will order new crystals for delivery as soon as possible. 7. Installation of new crystals will take place as soon as possible and returned to San Diego. 8. Orange County will install new crystals and tune units to G.E. specifications. 9. Orange County has the right to retain old crystals for their use. 10. The Mexican radio station owners will need to sign a receipt for new crystals when units are returned to San Diego for pick up. The County of Orange communications Division Staff will perform the actual work involved with these radio frequency changes, while the Sanitation Districts have agreed to pay for the necessary components. These component costs are esti- mated to be under $10,000 plus freight and sales taxes. Staff is, therefore, requesting authorization to issue appropriate purchase orders to acquire the radio frequency components in an amount not to exceed $10,000 plus applicable freight and sales taxes. "I-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(A)2- ALL DISTRICTS "I-2" JOINT CHAIRMAN' S REPORT JULY 24 , 1985 PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO PAST JOINT CHAIRMAN DICK EDGAR (DICK' S WIFE HELEN, AND GRANDDAUGHTERS CHRISTIE AND STEPHANIE--AND POSSIBLY JAMIE, 3 YEARS OLD--POPEJOY MAY BE IN THE AUDIENCE. ) SOME OF THE MORE NOTABLE MILESTONES DURING JOINT CHAIRMAN EDGAR' S TERM ARE: 0 RECEIVED THE FIRST NPDES/301(H) PERMIT ISSUED IN THE COUNTRY BASED ON OUR DEMONSTRATED ABILITIES AND THE HIGH PERFORMANCE OF OUR OPERATIONS. V 0 INSTITUTED THE COMPREHENSIVE OCEAN MONITORING PROGRAM UNPRECEDENTED IN SCOPE TO ASSURE THAT THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT IS PROTECTED. 0 FORMED NEW DISTRICT No. 13 AND INITIATED FORMATION OF NEW DISTRICT No. 14 TO BETTER SERVE THE OVERALL NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. ( I MIGHT NOTE THAT WE' LL BE CONSIDERING THE FINAL EIR ON THR FORMATION OF DISTRICT No. 14 LATER THIS EVENING. ) 0 APPROVED AN UPDATED MASTER PLAN FOR JOINT WORKS FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENTS .✓ -I- CALLING FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OF OVER $250 MILLION IN THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS, INCLUDING MAJOR POLICY DETERMINATIONS REGARDING ENERGY AND ODOR CONTROL. O ENTERED INTO LONG-TERM SLUDGE DISPOSAL/REUSE CONTRACT. 0 INSTITUTED LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PROGRAMS IN DISTRICTS I AND 13 INCLUDING USER FEES TO ASSURE FISCAL INTEGRITY OF THESE DISTRICTS. 0 EXPANDED THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. 0 IMPLEMENTED A POLICY ON REIMBURSEMENT TO CITIES/SANITARY DISTRICTS FOR MANHOLE DETERIORATION. 0 IMPLEMENTED A POLICY RELATIVE TO DEALING WITH THE �.,. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES. 0 IMPLEMENTED SEVERAL ORG1AANI"ZA'TI"ON'AL CHANGES .;%c�++��+-C� MANY OF THESE DECISIONS WILL FIX THE DIRECTION THAT THESE DISTRICTS WILL FOLLOW FOR YEARS TO COME. .. -2- Michael: Format of Presen.ition to County Sanitation Districts Board of Directors set for Wednesday night, 24 July 1985. �.J 1. Thank the Chairman for his introduction of you (he will go through a 2-3 minute introduction). 2. Recite the project name/title See Flip Sheet A 3. Briefly review the project schedule. See Flip Sheet B 4. Turn to Flip Sheet C: it is the gist of your presentation. a. Note that a total of 12 agencies responded to the Draft EIR, as well as several directors at the 12 June public hearing on the draft EIR.. b. Of these comments, 4 agencies had no substantive comments but wrote to signify their receipt and review of the document. c. The remaining comments covered a variety of issues and concerns. In reviewing these comments, it appears that they raised areas of particular note which I want to touch on tonight: 1. Alternatives The City of Fountain Valley noted that the DEIR evaluated Alternatives, but did so largely in light of the economic differences thereof. They asked that the analysis be expanded to incorporate the spectrum of environmental criteria applied to the project itskellyf..'�',,.a In response, a fairly detailed%alysis of the alternatives was undertaken. Each of the four primary alternatives as well as the project, was evaluted in terms of multiple factors related to engineering practicality, environmental acceptability, and implementation potential, and given a sseetwe of excellent, good, neutral, fair or poor for each issue. The results of this analysis indicated that the proposed project is significantly more practicable in terms of the factors considered than are any of the remaining alternatives evaluated. On an individual basis, the proposed project was found superior in terms of engineering practicality and environmental acceptability; in terms of implementation potential, it was 1 found relatively equal to the alternative which envisioned expansion of IRWD's Michelson Waste Treatment Plant, and construction of an Outfall Interceptor. 2. Long Range Phasing As you know from previous discussions, the planning horizon for the CSDOC Master Plan is not the same as used by IRWD. CSDOC's Master Plan looked through 2002, while IRWD extended through as far as 2020-2030. The City of Fountain Valley asked that an effort be made — despite the uncertainities involved — to evaluate the CSDOC facilities along the same F I(L time horizon as IRWD. d � b i Y1neta C sPcc V11f (3 `� In response, MBA and KPL� worked with CSDOC staff to develop a reasonable look at the facility needs by the year 2020. Our analysis made several important assumptions: first, that population would increase at an average annual rate of 40,000 through 2020; and second, that water use would remain constant on a per capita basis. From these basic assumptions, a scenario was developed as to what additional facilities would be needed, where such facilities might be located within the Plant "I area, and the likely impacts associated with their operation. '[his discussions indicates that development through 2020 will necessitate construction of additional basic facilities, and that these facilities will bring the total area used from 65 of the 108 total acres at present, to19fr-59 of the total 108 acres in 2020 (in a worst case scenario). Areas of existing and/or anticipated impact, including odors, traffic control, sludge disposal and energy consumption will have been long-since addressed through the various Master Plan mitigation programs approved by the CSDOC Board of Directors (including odor control, improvements to the freeway offramp/plant access; use o�f,.,dige ter gas to meet energy requirements, and selection of an effectiver"sldd"llgvve��--handling and disposal program as an�T outgrowth of the Ultimate Solids Study EIS/EIR, 2 3, Population Growth V Several comments raised the important issues surrounding future growth within the service areas and spheres of influence. These comments lead to further discussion of the specific basis for IRWD service demand projections (i.e., plans formulated by the County and cities within its service area), as well as the possibility for growth within Sphere of Influence regions. With respect these issues, the response reaffirms that land use decisions concerning growth and development are the jurisdiction of the County and cities in the service area. In the event that future land use decisions are made by the appropriate planning agencies, which necessitate additional capacity to serve any CSDOC member, CSDOC will respond as appropriate to see that the additional service requirements are met. At the same time, we want to re-emphasize the fact that the addition of District 14 to CSDOC will complete the all Cation of local water districts to one or another of the 3 regional %Water management agencies. Broadly, the northern and western half of the County will be served by CSDOC, the south-central portion of the County will be served by AWMA, and the �.✓ southern portion of the County will be served by SERRA (refer to map). This project completes the logical process of annexations within Orange County. 4. Air Quality Analyses The County of Orange EMA requested that additional information be provided about the assumptions used in the air quality analyses for both the existing Joint Works operations, and the future operations of the facilities with the formation of District 14. These assumptions, and their sources, were provided in the response to the County included in the Final EIR. Briefly, the responses explained that the emissions presented for the existing Joint Works facilities were based on those included in the Master Plan Final EIR prepared by K.P. Lindstrom & Associates. Additionally, the emissions for the proposed formation of District 14 were based on three data sources: 3 i (i) Emissions from existing operations; `.� (ii) Estimates of emissions reductions from future Master Plan improvements; and (iii) Estimates of eventual increases in transportation-related emissions due to the addition of District 14 flows. This information, including a discussion of revisions to the Master Plan emissions projections prepared by K.P. Lindstrom 6t Associates in the Master Plan Final EIR, were provided in the District 14 Final EIR. 5. Coordination With Other Project Planning Finally, we received comments from a number of agencies (including the City of Costa Mesa and the County of Orange), notifying us of projects, either underway or planned, which could impact or be impacted by the proposed District 14 conveyance facilities. Specifically mentioned in this vein were the following projects: o The Santa Ana River Main Street project; o The Fairview-Gisler trunk sewer; o The recently-completed storm drain in Baker Street; and o The Garfield-Gisler Bridge at the Santa Ana River Each of these projects has been further documented, the appropriate studies have been obtained and provided the CSDOC, and the ensuing communications have commenced to ensure that conflicts are avoided, and opportunities for joint cooperation are maximized. 6. Water Conservation At the public hearing on the Draft EIR, a question was raised concerning water conservation. Our response has two levels: First, our investigation confirmed that the use of low-flow toilets is now mandatory in the state of California, and that future legislation will enhance the trend toward mandated water conservation fixtures in new development. At the local level, IRWD was cited by MWDOC, in response to our inquiries, as one of 4 the two districts in Orange County which is practicing a comprehensive water conservation program. The success of this program is reflected in the low per capita generation rate found throughout IRWD (80 gpcpd). In summary, the Draft EIR for Proposed District 14, combined with the comments and the responses to these comments, provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. There have been some serious issues raised in the course of the study and the public hearing before this body in mid-June, and yet none of these issues remains without a mitigation program to which this board has committed itself. We stand prepared to answer your questions concerning this document. 5 MEETING DATE July 24, 1985 TIME 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7,11 6 13 DI$TRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS (CRANK). ,.., .. ,HANSON. ...... _ (THOMAS/MANDIC). .BAILEY.,,,,,_ (SALTARELLI). .HOESTEREY... ✓ _ (WISNER) .. BEVERAGE...._ (LUXEMBOURGERS.GRISET. .. ...� (ZIEGLER)....... .SUCK. .... ... (NIEDER). ..STANTON.. ... (NORBY) ...... CATLIN.. NELSON)..... ... .COOPER......_...._ DI TS RICT 2 PERRY).., , ... CULVER..... ._ SALTARELLI).....EDGAR......._ (NORBY).. .. .. ..CATLIN.. ....� _ _ JARRELL) ..GRIFFIN., ,.._ ZIEGLER). ... . .BUCK.......,JG _ _ LUXEM9OURGER)...GRISET......_ NELSON)..... COOPER ..JG _ _ CRANK)..........XANSON...... — S ILZE44) ......KANANAM I. ...JC _ _ SALTARELL0.....%OESTEREY..._ WEDELI. ..NM flft.....�G _ _ SILZEL). .......KANANAMI...._ SCOTT)))))) ..NEAL...... ..�c _ NED L). ........MAHONEY....._ _ CULVERT. ...PERIMA..... ..Jc — _ COX) ... .....MAURER......_ _ ((OVERHOpLT).. ...ROTH. ... . ...JG _ _ SCOTT)..........NEAL........_ (BEYER) .. ...SMITH. .. . ... Ai COOPERS.. ... .NELSON......_ (WIEDER).... . ..STANTON. . . .. F1NLAIySON)......OLSON....... (BEVERAGE).. ...W4 NEN... . .. ✓ _ _ KANEL) ....... PARTIN...... CULyER).........PERRY.. .... ,_ R T COX) PLUMMER....._ COLLINS)�`.......POLIS ...... (OVERH%4T)... ..ROTH.. . . .. .. WG _ BRONNELL(.......RISNER.. ... . COOPERI..; .:,.MEb8BM. . ,... OVERHOLT/, .....BOTH,...... ,_ THOMA$$)))))) ..BAILEY. . ... y = SIRIAN1), ..SAPIEN.....,_ NORBYI. ,.....,CATLIN.... .. MILLER I.........SILLS......._ PERRY)) ....CULVER....... _ BEYER) ..,....SMITH....... _ JARRELL).,., .GRIFFIN WIEDER).$.......STANTON....,_ LUXEMBOUR6ER).GR ISET. ..... _ _ SELVAGGI)... ....SYLVIA..... ._ WEDEL).......AIAIIBI....... _ _ FINLEY)........ THOMAS...... SCOTT)).. . .—NEAL .... _ _ GREEN/GA LACHER)NAXNER......_ FI NLAYSON)....OLSON.. .....J� _ _ BEVERAGE .... ...WISNER...... _ KANEL)........PARTIN. . ....JC COLLINS) POLIS . . . .... BRONNELL)... ..I RISNER. . . ... SRI AN ). M''' "' ' '... N EDER�, ... ..STANTON. . .... SELVAGGI). . . ..SYLVIA. . ....a. STAFF. D $I TRICT 5 CLARKE..SYLVESTER..... {COX)..........HART. . . .....,� _ DANEG......,j,G I COX)., MAURER. . , ,, , _ _ '� ANDERSON...,JL (NIEDER)..... ..STANTON. . ,.,5C _ _ Qa�O BUT � LER......JC oBROWN........ DI TR CT BAKER.. ...... KYLE.. . ..... GAL�gf,HE ) .NAHNER . YOUNG., ,..,._ 1B7t11hY1`TcNin.abilMMClr... .,� VON LANGEN NIEDER ., .. . .,STANTON.., ., _ _ NI NSOR. ... . ._ STREED.... . . ✓ DISTRICT 7 CLANSON.. . . ... _ hdc- BEYER)MILLER SMIT JG _ _ OTHERS: NOODRUFF.. ..JG SpLTARELLI). 'SILLS.. ATKINS. ... .. IUxEMBOURGERRU ET. v HOHENER WARD......�_ • ..yG _ HOMARD...... CO% , MAURE .. . HUNT.,,.,..,_ XIEDER)...,...STANT .. . .. KEITH....... (GREEN).... ... .HAMMER.... ... _ _ KNOPF.......v LE BLANC..,,_ DISTRICT 11 LINDSTROM..._L� LYNCH....... M ANDIC .. ....BAILEY, , , ,. MARTIN IE ESON.. .. ,_MNDER PEARC LY ......, FE _ THOMAS..... .. � - DISTRICT 13 Q _ _ (BEYER) . .. � SMITH . . ._yG (NELSON). , .. . . OOPER. . ,,Jc (HISNER). . , EVERAGE ...�C _ (OVERHOLT).. ...ROTH , (HIEDER).. .. ...STANT N.....Q 7/11/85 0.Ah osk ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING - JULY 24, 1985 MEETING NOTES t7 - Report of the Joint Chairman .r (See attached report) Chairman Griffin also recognized Dick's wife, Helen, and their grandaughters, Christie and Stephanie Popejoy. 48(b) - Verbal report of consultant, Michael Brandman i Associates Chairman Griffin recognized Michael erandman who addressed the Board. He stated that the SIR process began with the Notice of Preparation being distributed on 2/15/85. The Draft SIR was prepared and distributed on 5/10/85 with the public hearing on 6/12/85. The Draft EIR review period closed on 6/27. A total of 12 agencies responded to the Draft EIR as well as several District Directors at the public hearing. (See attached notes for rest of presentation) 48(d) - Discussion Director Joyce Rianer asked what the Seal Beach Reclamation Plant was which was referred to in the EIR? Kris Lindstrom responded that this was a long-term reclamation alternative that was examined as part of a reuse study several years ago. It was one of the alternatives proposed in Orange County. It would be designed to reclaim wastewater similar to what Water Factory 21 does and inject it into the underground water table. It would be located in general location of the pump station on the corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and would ultimately take up four to five acres. If it were ever considered, it would have to go through all the regular EIR processes, etc. Director Smith inquired about the population figures used and was informed that estimated projections were used. Director Olson indicated that he thought it would be appropriate to put a map in the preface section of the EIR's showing were District 14 is. It was so ordered that a map be included. Director Polis questioned whether the Districts would ever have to accept wastewater from landfill sites down near the San Diego area? Tom Dawes referred to the map on the wall and pointed out the four large sewering agencies in Orange County--OCSD, then IRWD (District 14) which borders OCSD, AWMA and SERRA. ANNA and SERRA take wastewater from several local agencies. Upon inclusion of District No. 14 in OCSD, it would complete the entire county. All territory will then be in a regional system. Polis also asked about the status of hazardous waste sites south of us. He was informed that this agency does not handle hazardous waste. It is under the regulation of EPA and the State Department of Health Services. Kris Lindstrom added that hazardous waste is governed under Chapter 15 of the Health 6 Safety Code. California has a hazardous or non-hazardous test and is 10 times more stringent than the rest of the 49 states. Things in California are hazardous when they are not hazardous in other states. He reviewed some of the new requirements hazardous waste sites are going to have to comply with. Hopefully, there will be not any new Stringfellows that will be created in the future but are sites that are being cleaned up. They are building the treatment facilities at the Stringfellow site to do this. Any wastewater the District would take would have to meet our Industrial Waste requirements. There are no hazardous waste disposal sites in Orange County yet. Are only four sites in the State of California. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 15 21 31 5, 6, 72 11, AND 13 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING ON JULY 24, 1985 ITA710N V.✓ -� aao9^film 01,4D Uy ==Impy N ORgNGE C& ADADNISTRATIV'E OFFICES 10844 ELLI3 AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA .r r ROLL CALL An adJourned regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 of Orange County, California, was held on July 24, 1985 at 7:30 p.m., in the Districts' Administrative Offices. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation the roll was called and the Secretary reported a'quorum present for Districts Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7 and 13 as follows: ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS DISTRICT NO. 1: x Robert Hanson, Chairman Orma Crank x Ronald B. Hoesterey, Chairman pro tem Donald J. Saltarelli x Dan Griset —Robert Luxembourger a Roger Stanton _Harriett Wieder DISTRICT NO. 2: a Buck Catlin, Chairman Chris Norby x Richard Buck, Chairman pro ten —George Ziegler 7—Sam Cooper —Carrey Nelson a Dan Griset _Robert Luxembourger -7--Carol Kawanami Wayne Siizel —William D. Mahoney a Dorothy Wedel x James Neal George Scott Bob Perry x Norman Culver 7—Don Roth =E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. a Don Smith _Gene Beyer a Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder x Gene Wisner _Michael J. Beverage DISTRICT NO. 3: x Don Roth, Chairman H. Llewellyn Overholt Carrey Nelson, Chairman pro tem x Sam Cooper a Ruth Bailey _John Thomas a Buck Catlin _Chris Norby a Norman Culver Bob Perry a Don Griffin __James T. Jarrell a Dan Griset Robert Luxembourger \.✓ dilliam D. Mahoney -7—Dorothy Wedel a James Neat _George Scott x Richard Olson _Bruce Finlayson x Richard Partin _John Kanel x Richard Polis _Dan Collins a Joyce A. Risner Oscar Brownell Sal Sapien 7—Jean Siriani -7—Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder a Charles Sylvia Anthony Selvaggi DISTRICT NO. 5: a Evelyn Hart, Chairman _John Cox, Jr. -7—Philip Maurer, Chairman pro tem John Cox, Jr. Roger Stanton _Harriett Wieder DISTRICT NO. 6: x James Wahner, Chairman James S. Gallacher Ruthelyn Plummer, Chairman pro tem x Philip Maurer a Roger Stanton _Harriett Wieder DISTRICT NO. 7: x Richard Edgar, Chairman _Donald J. Saltarelli x David Sills, Chairman pro tem Sally Anne Miller a Dan Griset ---Robert Luxembourger -7--Philip Maurer _John Cox, Jr. 7—Don E. Smith _Gene Beyer a Roger Stanton Harriett Wieder x James Wahner _Harry Green DISTRICT NO. 11: a Ruth Bailey, Chairman Robert P. Mandic, Jr. a Roger Stanton, Chairman pro tem —Harriett Wieder �.r 7—John Thomas _Ruth Finley DISTRICT NO. 13: x Sam Cooper, Chairman Carrey Nelson x Michael J. Beverage, Chairman pro tem —Gene Wisner a Don Roth _�. Llewellyn Overholt Aon E. Smith Gene Beyer a Roger Stanton _Harriet Wieder -2- 7/24/85 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita Brown, Board Secretary, William N. Clarke, Thomas M. Dawes, Blake Anderson, Bill Butler, Hilary Baker, Gary Streed, Bob Doter OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel, Conrad Hohener, Bill Knopf, Kris Lindstrom, Michael Brandman, Beverly Bruesch, Helen Edgar, Christie Popejoy, Stephanie Popejoy, Art Bruington, Ron Young, Phil Stone, Sat Tamaribuchi DISTRICT 5 This 24th day of July, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., Adjournment of meeting by Secretary being the time and place for an Adjourned Regular Meeting of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, and there not being a quorum of said Board present, the meeting of District No. 5 was thereupon adjourned by the Secretary. DISTRICT 11 This 24th day of July, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., Adjournment of meeting by Secretary being the time and place for an Adjourned Regular Meeting of County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, and there not being a quorum of said Board present, the meeting of District No. 11 was thereupon adjourned by the Secretary. DISTRICT 7 The Joint Chairman announced that the Election of Chairman of the Board office of Chairman of County Sanitation 1„/ District No. 7 had been vacated by the election of Director Don E. Smith to the post of Vice Joint Chairman and declared nominations in order to fill the vacant position. It was then moved and seconded: That Director Richard B. Edgar be nominated as a candidate for the office of Chairman. There being no other nominations, the vote was polled and the Secretary cast a unanimous ballot for Director Richard B. Edgar as Chairman of the Board of Directors of District No. 7. DISTRICT 13 The Joint Chairman announced that the Election of Chairman and Chairman office of Chairman of County Sanitation pro tem of the Board District No. 13 had been vacated by the election of Director Don E. Smith to the post of Vice Joint Chairman and declared nominations in order to fill the vacant position. it was then moved and seconded: That Director Sam Cooper be nominated as a candidate for the office of Chairman. There being no other nominations, the vote was polled and the Secretary cast a unanimous ballot for Director Sam Cooper as Chairman of the Board of Directors of District No. 13. -3- 7/24/85 T Joint Chairman Griffin then reported that the election of Director Cooper as Chairman of District No. 13 created a vacancy in the post of Chairman pro tem and declared nominations in order to fill the vacant position. It was then moved and seconded: That Director Michael Beverage be nominated as a candidate for the office of Chairman pro tem. There being no other nominations, the vote was polled and the Secretary cast a unanimous ballot for Director Beverage as Chairman pro tem of the Board of Directors of District No. 13. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,6,7 & 13 Chairman Griffin recognized the Report of the Joint Chairman immediate past Joint Chairman, Richard B. Edgar, and presented a plaque to him on behalf of the Boards of Directors in recognition of his fifteen months of service as Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization. Mr. Griffin highlighted some of the milestones accomplished during Chairman Edgar's term, as follows: - The Districts received the first NPDES/301(h) Permit issued in the country based on their demonstrated abilities and the high performance of their operations. - A comprehensive ocean monitoring program, unprecedented in scope to assure that the marine environment is protected, was instituted. - New District No. 13 was formed and proceedings were initiated to form new District No. 14. - An updated Master Plan for Joint Works Facilities Improvements and environmental enhancements was approved, which calls for capital expenditures of over $250 million in the next seven years] including major policy determinations regarding energy and odor control. - The Districts entered into a long-term sludge disposal/reuse contract. - Districts 1 and 13 instituted long-range financial programs including user fees to assure their fiscal integrity. - The industrial waste monitoring and enforcement program was expanded. - A policy on reimbursement to cities/sanitary districts for manhole deterioration was implemented. - A policy relative to dealing with the financial impact of redevelopment agencies was implemented. - Several organizational changes were implemented including the transition to a new General Manager Chairman Griffin then recognized Mr. Edgar's wife, Helen, and grandaughters, Christie and Stephanie Popejoy, and expressed appreciation to them for sharing so much of his time with the Districts. -4- 7/24/85 DISTRICTS 1,2,3,6,7 6 13 Actions re the Final Environmental I_mpact Report for Proposed Forma- tion of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of Districts Nos. 7 and 13 Receive and file Staff Summary Moved, seconded and duly carried: Report summarizing the Final EIR That the Staff Summary Report dated July 17, 1955, summarizing the Final EIR for Proposed Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of Districts Nos. 7 and 13 be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. Report of environmental consultant, The Chair recognized Michael Michael Brandman Associates Brandman, representing Michael Brandman Associates, the Districts' environmental consultant, who noted that twelve agencies responded to the Draft EIR. He then briefly reviewed the comments received and addressed the issues raised in said comments. Mr. Brandman then reviewed the method used to analyze the various alternatives to formation of proposed District No. 14 and indicated that his firm had found this proposal to be superior to other alternatives in terms of engineering practicality and environmental acceptability. At the request of the City of Fountain Valley, the consultant extended their evaluation of proposed future facilities' requirements through the year 2026./ to coincide with the Irvine Ranch Water District's Master Plan. Projections indicate that development within the existing eight Sanitation Districts and proposed new District No. 14 through 2020 will necessitate construction of additional basic facilities and that these facilities will bring the total area used from 65 to 99 of the total 108 acres available. Areas of existing and/or anticipated impact include odors, traffic control, sludge disposal and energy consumption but these issues will be addressed through various Master Plan mitigation programs. The issue of population growth was raised in the comments and addressed by the consulant. The consultant pointed out that growth inducing development is not controlled by the Sanitation Districts but by the County and the cities, the entities with land use authority. In the event future land use decisions necessitated additional sewerage system capacity, the Sanitation Districts would respond as appropriate. The addition of District No. 14 to the Joint Sanitation Districts will complete the allocation of local water districts to one or another of the three regional wastewater management agencies. The northern and western portion of the county will be served by the Sanitation Districts, the south-central portion of the county will be served by AWMA, and the southern portion of the county will be served by SERRA. The project completes the logical process of annexations within Orange County. Mr. Brandman reviewed the assumptions and sources used in the air quality Ld analyses for both the existing Joint Works' operations and future operation of the facilities required if District No. 14 is formed. -5- 7/24/85 • In response to comments received with regard to planned infrastructure facilities of other agencies, the consultant noted that the Districts would coordinate the construction of proposed District 14 conveyance facilities with the various agencies that may be impacted by said projects in order to ensure that conflicts are avoided and opportunities for joint cooperation are maximized. In response to issues of water conservation, Mr. Brandman reported that their investigation confirmed that the use of low-flow toilets is now mandatory in the State of California. He also advised that IRWD was cited as one of two districts in Orange County which is practicing a compehensive water conservation program. The consultant Commented that the Draft SIR for Proposed District No. 14, combined with the commute and responses to these comments, provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The serious issues raised in the course of study and at the public hearing have all been addressed and the Boards have co:meitted themselves to mitigation programs to respond to each of these issues. In response to questions from Directors the Joint Chairman recognized Kris Lindstrom of K. P. Lindstrom, Inc., the Districts' environmental consultant that prepared the EIR for the Joint Works Wastewater Master Plan. He responded to a question relative to one of the possible long-term reclamation alternatives in the Seal Beach area that was identified as one alternative in a previously completed Orange County/Los Angeles County (OLAC) study. It is not economically feasible at this time and Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that should it be considered in the future a complete environmental report would have to be completed. In response to a question concerning hazardous wastes, Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the Orange County Sanitation Districts are not responsible for hazardous waste disposal. The Districts' industrial waste ordinance has stringent restrictions and controls what can be discharged into the Districts' sewerage system from within the Districts' boundaries and there are no plans to accept wastes from South County agencies. He then reviewed some of the new requirements that hazardous waste sites are going to have to comply with. Currently, there are four disposal sites in the State of California and hazardous wastes must be trucked to one of these. The closest one to Orange County is Casmalia in Santa Barbara County. Receive and file written comments Moved, seconded and duly carried: re Draft EIR That the written comments received from the following on the Draft EIR be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed: From Dated City of Brea 5/24/85 State of California - Office of Planning and Research 6/27/85 California Regional Water Quality Control Board 5/29/85 The Carma-Sandling Group 6/28/85 City of Costa Mesa 6/24/85 -6- 7/24/85 x City of Fountain Valley 6/20/85 City of Irvine 6/27/85 City of Newport Beach 6/20/85 City of Orange 6/24/85 County of Orange - dad Environmental Management Agency 6/24/85 Orange County water District 6/26/85 United States Department of the Interior - Fish and wildlife Service 6/13/85 Receive, file and approve Final EIR Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Final Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of Districts Nos. 7 and 13, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the Boards hereby certify that said Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the State and District Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. Certifying the Final EIR Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 85-130, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of Districts Nos. 7 and 13; making certain findings in connection therewith; adopting a statement of overriding considerations; ane authorizing filing of a Notice of Determination re said project. A certifies copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,6,7 6 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Authorizing staff to issue purchase orders for Radio Frequency That the staff report dated July 24, Components (Specification 1985 re Resolution of Mexican Radio No. P-082) to avoid interference Interference to Orange County Sanitation between Districts and Mexican radio Districts' Radio System be, and is systems hereby, received and ordered filed; and, FURTHER MOVED: That staff be, and is hereby, authorized to issue purchase orders, as required, for Radio Frequency Components (Specification No. P-082) necessary to convert 109 radios licensed by the Mexican government to a frequency that will not conflict with the Orange County Sanitation Districts' radio communication system, in a total amount not to exceed $10,000 plus applicable sales tax and freight. DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:09 p.m. , July 24, 1985. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:09 p.m. , July 24, 1985. -7- 7/24/85 •DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adiournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:09 p.m., July 24, 1985. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of . Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:09 p.m., July 24, 1985. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:09 p.m., July 24, 1985. DISTRICT 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adiournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 13 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:09 p.m., July 24, 1985. Secretary, Boar of Directors County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 V. _8_