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_