The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987-07-15COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (714) 962-2411 July 9, 1987 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 3 WEDNESDAYJ JULY 15J 1987 -7:00 P.M. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain ValleyJ California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of July 8, 1987, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date to consider revisions to the District's long-range financial program. C-~~~ secetary 1 II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: of Orange County, California DISTRICT No. 3 Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 . AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING· WEDNESDAYJ JULY lSJ 1987.-7:00 P.M. Cl) Roll call (2) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Board on specific agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman, speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes. (3) Consideration of items re lg.ng-range financial program: ~ Staff report on long-range financial program re: (b) ~\cs <c> Cl> Operations and maintenance requirements/ Supplemental Use~ Fee Program (2) Capital requirements/Connection Fee Program Discussion re alternative means of funding District's long-range financial needs Consideration of action(s) directing staff to proceed--with planning and implementation of selected long-range financial program (4) Other business and communications, if any (5) Consideration of motion to adjourn 1{38 II MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California Post Office Box 8127 l 0844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92108 Telepf.cnes: DISTRICT NO. 3 Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 MANAGER'S REPORT TO DISTRICT NO. 3 DIRECTORS MEETING DATE: JULY 15, 19 87 Item No. 3 : Staff Report on District's Long-Range Financia l Requirements and Alternative Financing Plans BACKGROUND For many years the Districts, as part of the annual budgetary process, have forecast revenues and e xpenditures on a five-year basis and, last year, commenced forecasting on a ten-year horizon. The purpose of this long-range financial planning is to assure adequate funding to carry out t he Districts' wastewater management program for the benefit of the communities and the 2 million citizens which the Districts serve in metropolitan Orange County. A major be nefit of the long-range cash flow projections is that they enable us to determine well in advance when revenue shortfalls will begin to occur so that the Boa rd of Directors will have adequate time to consider alte rnative funding sources and take the necessary co rr ective action to ensure each District's financial integrity. For some time, our projections have indicated that funding shortfalls in District No. 3 would beg in to occur as soon as 19 89 and that the District would have to co ns ider additional revenue so ur ces to meet the District's long-t erm funding requirements for sewerage facilities improvements and expansion, and ongoing operations and mainten ance costs. Property taxes have historically bee n the major source of local financing of the District's activities. However, the costs of providing service continue to rise beyond the ability of the prop e rty tax apportionments to keep pace with the stringent requirem ents of the federal and state regulatory agencies for advanced treatment and the need to provide additional capacity to m·eet the increas ing demands on the sewerage system. The District has the following options avai lable to finance its facilities improvements and expansion activities and ongoing operations and maintena nce (O&M) costs: Funding Requirement Ongoing collection system and joint treatme nt/disposa l facility operations and maintenance Source of Funds -Allocated share of 1% ad valorem property tax levy -Supp lemen tal user fees: non -i ndustria l dischargers -User fees: industr ial dischargers Page Two 7/15/87 Capital facilities improvements and expansion projects -Debt financing (bonds /certificates of participation) -Capital reserve funds (existing ) -Connection fees on new development -Capital replacement /improvement fees: nonrindustrial dischargers -Capital replacement/improvement fees: industrial dischargers The Board took an interim step to provide partial capital financing by issuing long-term debt securities in the form of Certificates of Participation (COP's ) in the amount of $48,000,000 last year and authorizing staff to develop a financing plan to meet the District's long-term funding needs for consideration this year by the Directors. At an adjourned meeting on May 20, 1987, the Board reviewed a conceptual plan for financing its capital and O&M cost s , and directed the staff to prep a re a financial plan and implementation schedule for further consideration by t he Directors at the adjourned meeting on July 15, 1987. Fo l lowing i s a su mma ry of the draft long-range financial program. FINANCING OPERATING REQUIREMENTS Background: During budget deliberations over the past two years, t he staff has briefed the Board on the projected need to consider supplemental user fees in the near future to avoid a projected deficit beginning as soon as 19 89 in the District's operating fund. Schedule A, Statement of Projected Cash Flow, (excerpted from the District's 1987-88 budget, approved by the Board on Jul y 8, 1987) reflects this anticipated deficit on line 14, Fund Balance or (Deficit ).· The anti c ipated deficit wou l d reach as much as $6 8 milli on by 19 96-9 7 unless addition al revenue is generated. Schedule B, excerpted from the Revenue Program adopted by t he Boar ds in April 1979, identifies various alternative revenue sources avai l ab l e to fi nance projected shortfalls in a District's operating fund when ad valorem tax revenues are insufficient to pay the District's operations, maintenance and replacement (OM & R) costs. The most cost-effective method (and the method adopted by Districts 1, 5, 6 and 13 which have already implemented supplemental user fees) is to place a supplemental user fee as a special assessment on the County of Orange property tax bill and collect it from all property owners in the District. Guidelines: Staff was given the fol lowing guidelines relative to implementati on of a supplemental user fee program on May 20th, with ~isc r eti o n for modif i ca- tion s: Implementa t ion Guidelines for a Supplemental User Fee Pr ogram Class of User Single-Family Dwellings/Condominiums Basis of Charge Annual Charge per Dwelling Unit Jul y 1988 $24.00 Jul y 1990 $30.00 Page Three 7/15/87 Recommendation: Staff recommends that a supplemental user fee program be implemented as follows: Recommended Supplemental User Fee Program Class of User Sinfle-Family Owe lings/Condominiums Multi-Family Dwellings/Apartments/ Mobile Homes Commercial/Industrial/ Other Basis of Charge Annual Charge per Dwelling Unit Annual Charge per Dwelling Unit Annual Charge per 1,000 Sq. Ft. of Building July, 1989 (Tentative ) $26.40 $15.8 5 $18.90 This fee schedule is identical to that in effect in Districts 1, 5 and 6. District 6 i nitially adopted the same schedule, but has found it necessary to increase the rates 10 % each of the past two years. District 13, which receives no ad valorem tax appropriations, has a charge of $70/year. Schedule C, Statement of Projected Cash Flow, identifies the cash position of District No. 3 1 s operating fund . if the above recommended supplemental user fee program is implemented. Based on a July, 1989 implementation date, the District 1 s operating fund would have a positive fund balance of $5.9 million at the end of the next five-year forecast period, as opposed to a $13.5 million deficit if the supplemental user fee program is not implemented. This balance would serve as the required contingency fund for the Districts. The implementation date is tentative at this time because the operating fund requirements (which are financed on an annual basis, whereas the capital funds must be financed in advance of requirements because of the lead time needed fo r construction projects ) should be evaluated again in 1988 to determine if an y major changes have occurred that will affect the annual funding requirements that could allow a delay in implementation. The Board will need to. consider increasing fees after 1992 because the cash flow projections for the 1992/93-1996/1997 period indicate further shortfalls. Thus, once implemented, the user fee amounts should be evaluated annually to make sure that the program provides adequate revenues to meet the District 1 s funding needs. By example, as noted above, District 6 has found it necessary to increase its annual fees to maintain its financial integrity. Attached Schedule D, Preliminary Implementation Schedule : District No . 3 Long- Range Financial Plan, reflects the procedures and calendar necessary to implement a supplemental user fee program to be collected on the annual property tax bill beginning in July, 1989. Page Four 7/15/87 FINANCING CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS Background: Last spring the Board engaged financial and legal consultants to assist the Directors in evaluating the potential benefits and costs associated with issuance of long-term debt financing to take advantage of then-favorable tax law provisions and low, ta x-exempt municipal bond intere~t rates prior to an anticipated change in federal tax law which became effective on September 1, 1986. The primary reasons for considering use of long-term debt securities such as certificates of participation for capital construction financing at that time were to: Provide a partial source of capital financing to meet Joint Works and trunk sewer system facilities construction requirements and necessary capital replacement reserves totaling an additional $123 million over the next ten years. -Allow the District to continue to invest its existing capital res e rves in the County commingled investment pool managed by the County Treasurer and benefit from the favorable spread between investment returns and the potenti~lly lower rate of interest paid for the securities. -Take advantage of then-favorable tax laws and low capital market interest rates that would be financially beneficial to the Di strict s . Help preserve existing cap ital reserves for master-planned sewerage facilities construction projects. Another existing source of capital funds is from a one-time connection fee on new development. These fees are used to finance the planning, design and construction of the expanded facilities necessary to accommodate the flow generated by the new development. District No. 3's current one-time co nnec t i on fees are presented below: Single/Multi-Family Dwelling Units $250 per Dwelling Commercial/Industrial/ Governmental/Other $50 per 1,000 Sq. Ft. The existing connectiGn fees in other Districts are outlined in the attached Schedule E. Schedule A, Statement of Projected Cash Flow, presents the District's anticipated financial posi t ion pver the ne xt ten years assuming no chang~s in the District's existing fee structure. Line 17 identifies the expected r e venue to be generated from connection fees over the next ten years to be $6,000,000. Guideline s : Staff was given the following guidelines relative to proposed revisions to the connection fee policy on May 20th, with the discretion for modifications: Page Five 7/15/87 Guidelines fo r Rev i sions to Ex i st i ng Connection Fee Program Si ngle/Multi -F am i ly Dwe l ling Units Commercia l /Industr i al / Governmental/Other Basis of Charge Charge per Dwelling Unit Charge per $1,000 Sq. Ft. July 1987 $1,000 $ 300 July 1989 $1,500 $ 500 Recommendation:. Staff recommends that the co nnection fee pol icy be revised to phase in fee increases as fo ll ows : Recommended Revisions to Existing Connection Fee Program October July July Basis of Charge 1987 1988 1989 Sinfle/Multi -Family Charge per $500 $1,000 $1,500 Owe l ing Units Dwe ll ing Uni t Commerc i al/In dustri al / Cha r ge pe r $100 $ 200 $ 300 Governmental/Other $1,000 Sq. Ft. Schedule C presents the District's anticipated financial position over the next ten years based on implementation of the above recommended connection fee increases . These proposed fees would generate an additional $26,250,000 in connection fees (Line 17, Schedule C, 10-Year Total: $32,250,000) as well as an additional $3,989,000 in interest i ncome (Line 20, Interest and Miscellaneous Income: Schedule C, 10 -Year Tota l = $18 ,923,000) over the next 10 years. These additional revenues could then be employed to partial l y finance both the District's share of the cost of construction of the expanded collection and treatment facil i ties (Line 24, Share of Joint Works Treatment Plant, and Line 25, District Collection System) and i ts ongoing payments for retirement of the Certificates of Participation (Line 27, COP Payment) issued last summer. It i s recommended that connection fees be evaluated annually and fixed in an amount t hat assures that new deve l opment pays the current capital cost of providing sewerage services. The Directors are aware that the projected capital requirements assume that the Districts' 301(h) NPDES Discharge Permit will be renewed by EPA and the RWQCB in 1990. If it is not, treatment plant construction requests will increase by $285 million (District No. 3 's share -$89 million) for the 1991/1996 period •. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Board consider taking the following actions relative to the District's long-range financial pl an. Page ·Six 7I15/ 87 1. Direct staff to proceed with planning for implementation of a supplemental user fee tQ be collected on the property tax bill begi~ning in 1989-90 (tentative) in accordance with the enclosed implementat i on schedule. 2. Dra f t an ordinance increasing connection fees from $250/dwelling unit ang $50/1,000 sq. ft. to $500/dwelling unit and $100 /1,000 sq. ft . for first reading at the August 12th Board meeting, to become effective in October, 1987. Many economic factors could affect the District 1 s funding requirements over the next several years. The staff will continue to evaluate the District 1 s financial position each year to determine the impact of changing conditions and brief the Board to seek direction regarding modifications to the District 1 s long-range financial plan. LINE 2 3 8 9 JO 11 OPERATIN G FUND Reserve s & Carry-Ove r Fro1 Last Year REVENUE Share of I\ Tax Allocation Fees Interest & "iscellaneous Income Other Reve nue TOTAL REVENUE TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING EXPENDITURES Share of Joint Works " & O Collection Syste1 " & O and Other Oper . Other Expenditures TOTAL EXPENDITU RES 12 Reserv es & Carry-Over to Next Year 13 Next Year 's Dry Period Funding Requiremen ts 14 Fund Balance or (Deficit) CAPITA L FUND( S) 15 Res erve s & Carry -over Fro1 Last Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 REVE NUE Cons truction Gr ant s Fees : Con ne ction Other Sale of Capacity Right s In t erest & "iscellaneous lnco1e Int er-fun d Tran s fer Oth er lnco1e TOTAL REVENUE TOT AL AVAIL AB LE FU NDING EXPEN DITU RES Share of Joint Works lreat1ent Plant Dis t ric t Collection Syste1 CO P Pay1ent Other Expendi lure s TOT AL EXPENDITURES 30 Reser ves & Carry-over t o Next Year COUH!Y SANITATION DISTRIC T HO. 3 STATE"EHT OF rAOJECTEO CAS H HOW FISCAL YEARS 198 7-8 8 THROUGH 1996-97 1987 -88 8, 741,000 9,461,0DO l,19D ,OOO 593 ,000 1988-89 7 '98 2. 00 0 10,663,000 1,250,000 517,000 1989-90 6,608 ,000 12 ,018 , 00 0 1,31 2,00D 392 ,00 0 1990-91 4,45 6,000 13 ,545,000 1,378 ,000 205,000 1991-92 1,329 ,000 15 ,266 ,000 1,446,000 0 11,244,000 12,430,000 13,722 ,000 15 ,128,000 16 ,712 ,00D 19 ,985,000 20,412,000 20,330 ,0DO 19 ,584,000 18,041 ,000 10 , 903 ,000 1, 100,000 12,539,000 l, 265, 000 14,419 ,000 1,455,000 16,582,000 l,67l,OOO 19,070,000 l , 924 ,000 12,003 ,000 13,804,000 15,874 ,000 18,255,0DO 20 ,994 ,000 7, 982,000 6 ,002 ,000 6,608,000 6, 902,000 4,456 ,000 7 '937 ,000 1,329,000 9, 128 ,000 (2 , 953,000) 10,m,000 1,980,000 (294 ,000) (3 ,481,000) (7, 799 ,000) (13 ,450,000) ----------------------::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: 94 ,163 ,000 79,158 ,000 50,25 2,000 22,26 2,000 11 ,964,00 0 2,28 4 ,000 600,000 m ,ooo 1,354,000 6 ,126,000 500 ,000 11 ,359,000 499 ,000 600,00 0 520,000 251,000 4,58 7,000 6,457 ,000 2,995 ,000 600,000 546. 000 23 2. 000 2,570,000 6 ,943 ,000 2,995,000 600 ,000 573 ,00 0 3. 820. 000 1,213,00 0 9. 201 ,000 2. 995. 000 600,000 602. 000 131.000 438 ,000 4. 76 6,000 105 ,522 ,000 85.6 15,000 57 , 195 ,000 31 ,46 3,000 16, 730 ,000 17, 990,00 0 2,885,000 4,131 ,000 l, 358 , 000 28,626 ,000 2.250,000 4,4 87,000 24. 960 ,000 4. 550. 000 4,549 ,000 874 ,000 11 ,88 7,000 l.100 ,000 4,51 2,000 5,959 ,000 5, 900,000 4,46 8,000 26,36 4,000 35,363 ,000 34 ,933,000 19 ,499 ,000 16 ,32 7,000 79' 158 ,000 50 . 252. 000 22' 262. 000 11. 964. 000 403 , 000 :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: 5-Year Total 8,741 ,000 60 ' 953' 000 6,576,000 l, 707 ,000 0 69 ,236 ,000 77, 977 ,000 7l,513,000 • 7,417,000 0 80, 930,000 (2 , 953,000) 10,m,000 ( 13,450,000) ::::::::::: 94,163,000 11 ,768,000 3,000 ,000 2,736,000 5' 788. 000 14 '934 ,000 500,000 0 38 , 726 ,000 132 ,889 ,000 89 ,422 ,0 00 18 ,685 ,000 22, 147 ,000 2. 232. 000 132,486 ,000 403 '000 ------------------·--- 1992-93/ 1996-97 (2,953,000) 110 ,839,000 8,392 ,000 0 119,231,000 116 ,278,000 148' 020' 000 14,922,000 162 ' 942,000 (46,664,000) 21,138,000 (67 ,802,000) ---·--------......................... 403,00 0 499,00 0 3,000 ,000 3,491 ,000 603 ,000 0 7,S93,000 7, 996 ,000 14 ' 506 '000 700 ,000 21 ,m ,000 36' 94 0. 000 (28 ,944 ,000) :::::::::::: SCHEDULE A 6/17 /B7 Page l JO -Year Total LINE B, 741 ,000 171, 792. 000 14, 96 8,000 l , 707 ,000 0 188,467 ,000 197,208 ,000 221, 533, 000 22 ,339,000 0 243 • 872 • 000 (46 ,664,000) 21, 138,000 (67,802,000) ................... .. .................... .. 9U63 ,000 12,267 ,0 00 6,000 ,000 6,227,000 6,391 ,000 14,934,000 500 . 000 0 46,319 ,000 140,48 2,000 103, 928 ,000 19,385 ,000 43,881,000 2,232,000 169,426,000 (28,944 ,000) ····--·-··-· ----········ 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 SCHEDULE A COUNTY SAHITATIOH DISTRICT HO . 3 6/17/87 STATEKEHT or PROJECTED CASH FLOM Page 2 FIS CAL YEAR S 1987-88 TH ROUG H 1996-9 7 1992-9 3/ LIHE 1987 -88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-9 2 5-Year Total 1996-97 10-Year Total LIHE ··----------------------------------- BOHO fUHO( S) ------------ 31 Res er ves l Carr y-Ov er fro• Las t Ye ar 89 ,000 99 ,000 66,000 34 ,000 0 89 ,000 0 89 .ooo 31 ----------------------...................... ---·--------------·---.. ..................... .. ........................ ---------·-- RE VE HUE 32 Ta x Levy 1,050,000 503,000 1,553 ,000 1,553,000 32 33 Interest ' Kiscellaneou s lnco1 e 1,000 6,000 4,000 1,000 0 18 ,000 0 18,0 00 33 34 Othe r lnco 1e 0 34 ........................ .. ..................... .. ...................... .. ..................... ----------------------......................... ... ............................ 35 TOT AL REVEHUE 1,05 7 ,000 509 ,000 4 ,000 1,000 1,571 ,000 0 1,57 1,000 35 -·--------------------............................ -----------........................ .. ........................ .. ......................... ------------ 36 TOTAL AV AILA BLE f UHOIHG 1,14 6,000 608 ,000 70 ,000 35 ,000 0 1,660 ,000 0 1,660,000 36 -----------............................ .......................... .. ........................ ... ......................... ... .......................... .. ......................... ... .......................... EXPEHOI TURES ----------·- 37 Bond Principal ' In ter est 547 ,0 00 54 2 ' 000 36,000 35,000 0 1,160,000 1, 160 ,000 37 3B Inter-fund Tran sfer 500 ,000 500 ,000 500,000 38 39 Ot her Expenditures 0 0 39 ----------· ....................... .. .................... ·---.............. .. ........................ .. ........................ ... .......................... .. ....................... 40 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,047 ,000 542 ,000 36,00 0 35,000 0 1,660 ,000 0 1,660 ,000 40 -----··---------------......................... -----------------·-----------------------------------·--- 41 Reserves l Carr y-Over to He xl Year 99 ,000 66,000 34 ,000 0 0 0 41 42 He xl Year 's Ory Period funding Require 1enls 99 ,000 66,000 34 ,000 0 0 0 42 .......................... ...................... .. ...................... .. ...................... .. .................... .. .................... ... ........................ .. ...................... 43 fund Balanc e or (Def ici l ) 0 0 0 0 43 :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: SUKH ARY (AdJus l ed for Inte r-f und Transfer s ) H Reserves & Carr y-Ove r fro• Las t Year 102, 993 ,000 87' 239 ,00 0 56, 92 6,000 26, 752,000 13 ,293 ,000 102, 99 3,000 (2,550,000 ) 102 , 993 ,000 H 45 TOTAL REYEHUE 23, 160 ,000 19,3 96,000 20 ,669 ,000 24 ,330 ,000 21,478,000 109,533,000 126,m,ooo 236,357 ,000 45 ........................ ----------------------------·---------------........................... ........................... .. ........................... 46 TOT AL AVAILAB LE f UH OIH G 126,153,000 106,635 ,000 77 ,595 ,000 51,082,00 0 34 '771 ,00 0 212,526,00 0 12UH ,oo o 339 '350. 00 0 46 47 TO TAL EXPE HOIT URES 38 , 914 ,00 0 49,709 ,00 0 S0,843 ,000 37 ' 789 ,000 37 ,321,000 215 ,076,0 00 199,8B2,00 0 414 '958 ' 00 0 47 ......................... .......................... -----------........................... .. .......................... ....................... .. ........................... .. ......................... 48 Rese rve s & Carry-O ver to He xl Year 87,239,000 56 . 926. 000 26' 75 2. 000 13,293,000 (2 ,550,000) ( 2' 550' 00 0) (7 5,608 ,00 0) (75 ,608,000) 4B· 49 He xl Year 's Ory Period fundin g Require1en l s 6,101,000 6, 968 ,000 7,971 ,00 0 9 , 128 ,0 00 10,497,0 00 10 ,497 ,0 00 21,1 38,000 21,1 3B ,OOO 49 ........................... .......................... .......................... ---------------------------·-----.......................... ........................... 50 fU HO BALAH CE OR (DEFICIT ) Bl ,138 ,000 49,958 ,000 18, 78 1,000 4,165,000 (13 ,047 ,000) (13 ,047 ,0 00) (96 , 746 ,00 0) (96 , 746 ,000) 50 ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::.:::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: !l\DLC .ltl-1 SCHEDULE B ALTERNATIVF. PLANS FOR usr:R CJIARGP.S WllllN ( ( AV TAXES ARE INSUFFICil!NT TO PAY OMQH COSTS · Dilling Alternative I. Separate charge as a special assessment on the property tax bill. Probable Calculation Method 1. Subdivide user classes into sub- classes such as single family and multi-family dwellings, office bulldlngs, small commercial estab- lishments, etc., and calculate flat rates attendant to each based on average discharges and system loading from representative samplings. 2. Separate charge collected.. 2. Dase charge on water volume on water purveyor's utility billing. Othe~ Major Relevant Issues I. (a) Current Statutory authority exists .(b) Requires a public hearing and separate notice of said hearing to al 1 prnpcny owners. (c) Utilizes existing assessor file as dalu · ·base and tax bill as bi 11 ing mechanl sm. However, data base would re<1ui re sub- stantial annual u11date at Districts' expense and conversion to a computer tape Input by Districts to assess charge on tax bll 1 • . (d) Inaccuracy of Assessor's data base may result in high percent of billing errors and. require a customer service function • ..... -~(e) Unsewered properties could be reflected in rate structure once lJentlfieJ and/ or separate provisions maJe for rebate. :co ~taxlmu1a c;harge for tax collector's service ls established at $5/account or n of cpllectJons, whichever ls greater. (g) Low delinquency factor. (h) Cush flow ls not spread evenly. (i) lfoulJ satlsfy notJ flcntlon requi rcments 2 ~ (a) Current statutory out hod t)· cxi .st s. llowever, it is permissive, not mantlat-. ory for the water utility. (b) Would not require a public hearin~. (c) WoulJ require contractual arrangements and system modifications with approx- imately 150 water purveyors. (Continued) ( Billing Alternative 2 • (Cont • d • ) :·. 3. l>irect billing by CSDOC . :!. TADLE 111-1 (Cont'd) Probable Calculation ~1ethod 3. Same as. 1. above utilizing assessor• s files as the da·ta base source. (J) SCHEDULE B ( .Page 2 Other Major Relevant Issues lfould re<1uire a minimum of dntn hasc maintenance by the Districts ns this would be nutompticnll)' done hy the atnter utility. llowc\'cr, scpnrntc arrangements mny lun•c to be mode with the utility to reflect loadings of small commercial establishments. (e) Charge more directly nssoci:1te1I ,.,; th actual use (assuming use is rcl:1teJ to k'atcr consumption). (f) Unsewered properties would lrnve Lo be identified and n system exception or rebate provision made. (g) lligh delinquency. (h) Cost of service by utility is unknown and would have to be negotiated or ... established by code amendments. (i) Cash flow would be more unif~l . (j) 11ould satisfy notification require- ments. 3. (a) Current statutory authority exists. (b) lfould require instnl lution of expen- sive computerizcJ billing system ;mJ associated personnel anJ aJministra- tive costs or contracting with nn outsiJe bureau. (c) ~lost costly methoJ. (d) ftequires extensive data base main- maint~nancc. (e) Jrrnccuracy of data bnsc source nmy 1·csult in high percent of bi 11.ing errors. (Continuc<l) ·( Dilling Alternative l. (Cont 1 d.) 4. Impose a Separate AV Tax Levy TADLB 111-1 (Cont'd) Probable Calculation Method 4. Based on property value (f) (g) SCHEDULE B ( Page 3 Other Major Relevant Issues Unsewered properties could be reflected in rote structure once identified aud/ or separate.provlsion maJe for rebate. Expected de~lnquency factor would be highest. · · · (h) Cash flow impact would be based on determination of 'bll llng frequency. (1) Would satisfy notification requirements. 4. (a) Requlres.2/3 voter approval (b). Unsewered property issue would : .vc to be resolved (c) Low delin~uency factor {d) Most cost effective method (e) Ca~la flow not spread evenly (f) Would satisfy notification requirements (g) Least ~qultable LIHE 2 3 4 5 B 9 10 II OPERATIN G fUHO Reserve s & Carry·Over fro e Last Year REVENUE Share of I\ lax Allocation fee s I nterest & "iscellaneous lncoae Other Re venu e (Us er fees) TOTAL REVE NUE TO TAL AVAIL AB LE FU HOIHG EXPE NDIT URES Share of Joint Works " & 0 Collec t ion Sys tea " & O and Other Oper. Other Expendi lures TOTAL EXPE HDIT UR ES 12 Re serves & Carry-Over to He xl Year 13 Ne xt Yeir 's Dry Period Funding Requi re aents 14 fund Balance or (Defi ci t ) CAPIT AL FUNO(S) 15 Reserves & Car ry-ov er f ro• Last Year 16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2B 29 REYE HUE Cons t ruction Grants fees : Connection Other Sale of Capacity Rights Inte rest & "iscellaneous lnco ae Inter · fund Trans I er Other l nco ae TOT AL REVENUE TOTA L AVAILA BLE FUHO IHG EXPEHOl IURES Share of Joint Works l re ataent Pla nt Dis t ric t Coll ection Sys t ea COP Pay ae nl Ot her Exp en di lures TOT Al EXP EN DITURES 30 Rese rves & Ca r ry-ove r l o Next Year Us e r fee : S26 .40/yr . 19B9·90 CO UN TY SAMITATIOH DISTR ICT HO . 3 STAm EHT Of PROJECTED CASH FLO M FISC AL YE ARS 19B7-SB THROUGH 1996-97 SCHED ULE C 1/11 B1 Page I Co nne c tion fee : I ncrease t o $500 IO/B7 , Sl,00 0 7/BB , & Sl ,500 7/B9 1987-SB B, HI ,00 0 9,461 ,000 1,190,000 m ,ooo 19B8·B9 7. 9B2' 000 10,663,000 1,25 0,000 517,000 19B9-90 199D-9 1 1991-92 6,6 0B,000 10,414 ,00 0 13, 748,0 00 12,018,000 1,31 2,000 603 ,00 0 5,m,ooo 13 ,545,00 0 l,37B,000 B56,00 0 5,810,00 0 15.266,000 1,446 ,000 1,069 ,00 0 5 ' 873. 00 0 11,2 44 ,000 12.430 ,000 19 ,68 0,00 0 21,5B 9,000 23,654,0 00 19,9B5 ,000 20,412,000 26 ,28B,OOO 32,003 ,000 37 ,402 ,000 10,903 ,00 0 1,100,000 12,539,000 1,m,000 14 ,09,000 1,m ,000 16,582 ,000 1,673,000 19 '070' 000 I , 924 ,00 0 12,003 ,000 13,B04,000 15,SH,OOO 18 ,255,0 00 20,994,000 7 '9B2,000 6,002,000 l,9BO,OOO 6,60 B,OO O 6, 902 ,000 10,414 ,000 1,931,000 (294,ooo) 2 ,m,000 13, 748 ,000 9,12B,OO O 4 '620' 000 16 ,408,000 10,497,000 5,911 ,000 ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::: 94 ,163,000 79,625 ,000 52,62 0,000 27 ,91 5,000 21 ,143 ,000 2 ,28 4 ,000 1,0 50,000 m.o oo 1,354 ,000 6,143 ,000 500 '000 II ,B26 ,000 m .ooo 2 ,400,00 0 52 0,000 251 ,000 4 '6BB ' 000 2,995 ,000 3,600 ,000 546' 00 0 232 ,000 2. B55 '000 2,99 5,000 3,600 ,000 573 ,000 3,820 ,000 I , 739 ,00 0 8,35B,OOO 10 ,22B,OOO 12 , 727 ,000 2 ,99 5,000 3,6 00,0 00 602 ,0 00 131,000 1,223 ,000 B,551 ,000 105 ,98 9,ooo B7 ,m.ooo 62,B48,ooo 40,m ,ooo 29 ,m ,ooo 17 '990,00 0 2,BB5 ,00 0 4,13 1.000 I ,35B,OOO 2B ,626,000 2 '250 . 000 4 . 4B7 '000 24,960 ,000 4 ,550,000 4,549,000 874 ,000 l l ,BB7 ,000 3 ,1 00,000 4,51 2 ,0 00 5 ,959 ,000 5, 900,000 4,46B,OOO 26 ,3 64 ,000 35,3 63.000 34 . 933 ,0 00 19,499,00 0 16 ,327 ,000 79 ,625.000 52 .620.00 0 27 ,915,00 0 21,143 ,000 13,367,000 :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: 5·Ye ar Tot al B, 74 1,000 60, 953,000 6,576,000 3,63B ,OOO 17 ,430,00 0 BB' 597. 000 97,338,00 0 73 ,513 ,000 7,417 ,000 0 BO, 930 ,000 16,408,000 10,497 ,000 5, 911 ,000 ::::::::::: 94 , 163,000 II , 768 ,000 14 ,2 50 ,000 2,736,000 5 , 7B8,00 0 16,6 48,000 500 ,000 0 51 ,690,00 0 14 5,B53,000 89 ,422,000 18 ,6B5,000 22 , 147 ,000 2,232 ,000 132,4B6,000 13 ,367.000 ::::::::::: 1992-93/ 1996 ·97 16 ' 40B '000 llO.B39 ,000 B,392 ,00 0 3 '265 '000 2B ,67 0 ,000 151,166,000 167, 574 '000 14B,020,000 14 '922 ,000 162 ,942 ,000 4,632 ,000 21,1 38,000 (16,506,000) :::::::::::: 13,36 7 ,000 499 ,000 l B,000,0 00 3,491,000 603,0 00 2,275 ,000 24 '868 ' 000 38,235 ,000 14 '506 , 000 700 ' 000 21 , 734,000 36 '940 ' 000 1,29 5,000 :::::::::::: IO·Year To t al LIHE B,741,000 171 , 792 '000 14,96B ,OOO 6, 903 ,000 46 ,100,000 239, 763,000 24B,50 4,000 221 ,533,000 22,339,000 0 243,872 ,000 4,632 ,000 21 , 138,000 ( 16 ,506 ,000) :::::::::::: 94,163,000 12,267,000 32,25 0,000 6,227,0 00 6,39 1,000 IB , 923 ,00 0 50 0, 000 0 76 ,55B ,OOO 170, 721 ,000 103, 928 ,000 19 ,3B5,0 00 43,BBl ,000 2,232,000 169 ,426,0 00 1,295 ,000 B 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2B 29 30 LIME BOHO FU HO(S) 31 Reserves & Carry-Over Fro • Last Year 32 33 H 35 36 37 38 39 40 REVENUE Tax Le vy Interest & "iscellaneous lnco 1e Other l nco1e TOTAL REV ENUE TOTAL AVAILABLE FUHOIHG EXPENDITURES Bond Principal & Intere st Inter-fund Transfer Other Expendi t ures TOTAL EXPENDITURES H Reserves & Carry-Over to Next Year 42 Next Year's Dry Period Funding Require1ents 43 Fu nd Balance or (Deficit) SUKHARY (Ad ju sted for Inter-Fund Transfers) H Reserves & Carry-Ove r Fro • Last Year 45 TOTAL REVENUE 46 47 TOTA L AVAILABLE FUNDING TOTAL EXPE NDIT URES 48 Reserve s & Carry-Over to Next Year 49 Ne xt Year's Dry Period Funding Require1ents 50 FUND BALANCE OR (DEFICIT ) COUNTY SAHITATIOH DISTRICT HO . 3 STA!EKEHT OF PROJECTED CASH FLOM FISCAL YEARS 1987-88 THROUGH 1996-97 1987-88 89. 000 1,050,000 7 ,000 1,057,000 1,14 6,000 547 ,000 500,000 1,047,000 99. 000 99' 000 1988·89 99 ' 000 503 ,000 6,000 509 ,000 608,000 542' 000 542' 000 66, 000 66 '000 1989·90 66 ,000 4,000 4 ,000 70,000 36 ,000 36 ,000 34. 000 34 ,000 0 1990 ·91 3UOO 1,000 1,000 35' 000 35 ,000 35' 000 0 0 0 1991-92 0 0 0 0 0 :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::: 102 ,993 ,000 23' 627 '000 126 ' 620 '000 38 '914 ,000 87 , 706 ,000 6,101,00 0 87 ' 706,0 00 21,297 ,000 109 ,003 ,000 49,709,000 59 ,m,ooo 6 , 968 ,000 59 ,294 ,000 29' 912 ,000 89 ,206 ,000 50,843,000 38 ,363 '000 7, 971 ,000 38,363,000 34 ,317 ,000 72. 680 . 000 37 , 789 ,000 34 ,891 ,000 9,128 ,000 34' 891, 000 32' 205 '000 67,096,000 37,321,000 29 , 775,000 10,497,000 81,6 05,000 52 ,326,0 00 30,392,000 25,763 ,00 0 19,278 ,00 0 -----·---------··-----::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::: ::::: 5-Year Total 89 ,000 l ,553 ,000 18,000 1,571,000 1,660 ,000 l,160,000 500. 000 0 1,660 ,000 ::::::::::: 102, 993,000 !41, 858 '000 244,851,000 215,076,000 29 ,775 ,000 10,m ,ooo l 9' 278. 00 0 ::::::::::: 1992-93/ 1996-97 0 0 0 0 0 :::::::::::: 29,775,000 176 ' 034 '000 205 '809' 000 199' 882. 000 5, 927 ,000 21 , 138,000 (15,211,000) :::::::::::: SCHEDULE C 7/7/87 Page 2 ( IO·Year Total LIHE 89' 000 1,553 ,000 18,000 0 1,571,000 1,660 ,000 1, 160,000 500 ,000 0 I ,660,000 :::::::::::: 102 '993' 000 317,892 ,000 420,885,000 rn, 958,ooo 5 '927 '000 21,138 ,00 0 (15 ,211 ,00 0) :::::::::::: 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 JAN-JUL 87 djourned Meetings to Review/Approve District's Proposed Long-Range Financial Plan and User Fee/ Connection Fee Levels 5/20/87 and 7/15/87 oo,,.....,..,....-~--...--..-.-~----5 ev1ew re 1m1nary H User Fee Alternatives E-< ~ Connection Fee A Estimates & Direct ~ Staff to Make Appro- ~ priate Processing Arrangements/Fee Revisions-5/20/87 and 7/15/87 ~ ev1ew u get ~ Future Cash Flow ~ Requirements/Implemen H Board Direction to E-< ~ Establish Proposed ~ User Fee/Connection ~ Fee Levels for 1987-8 ~ ,__t_h _ro_u--"'-h_l _98_9_-_9_0 __ __. PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE DISTRICT NO. 3 LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN AUG-SEP 87 First Reading of Proposed Connection Fee Ordinance 8/12/87 econd ead1ng/ Adoption of Connectio Fee Ordinance 9/9/87 OCT-DEC 87 EDP Processing to Extract Data/Evaluate 1988-89 Fee Options JAN-JUN 88 Adjourned Meeting to Review District's Approved Long-Range Financial Plan and Proposed User Fee/ Connection Fee Levels for 1988-89 through 1990-91 ev1ew Budget/Future Cash Flow Requirements/ Implement Board Direction to Estab- lish Proposed User Fee/Connection Fee Levels for 1988-89 throu h 1990 -91 SCHEDULE D 7 /8/87 JUL-AUG 88 Introduce Ordinance Establishing User Fee for 1989-90 & Set SEP-DEC 88 ix u i c ear1 ng Data for Proposed Billing and Collectio Method/User Fee Re or Notice and Conduct of Public Workshops to ~ Discuss Proposed Sewe ~ Use Fee Billing and ~ Collection Method <t: ~ rocess1ng to ~ Generate Notices to ~ all Property Owners ~ re Proposed Sewer Use j Fee Billing and ~ Collection Method i. i.,,.......,_-~~..........,=-=,..-,,.=-"....-~-~ repare 1989-90 ser ~ Fee Report for Review and Discussion with Board of Directors PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE DISTRICT NO. 3 LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN JAN-FEB 89 on uct u on Proposed Billing and Collection Method User Fee Re ort Receive/File User Fee Report Describing Property & Fee to be Levied dopt eso ut1on Approving Billing and Collection Method/Use Fee Re ort orwar op e User Rates to County Assessor MAR-APR 89 rocess1ng to ro uce for Placement on 1989-90 Property Count Assessor MAY-JUN 89 SCHEDULE 0 Page 2 7/8/87 JUL-AUG 89 e iver 9 -9 ser Fee Billing Tape to County Auditor- Control l er for Place- 1989-90 Tax Bill District/Zone 1 2 5: Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 6 7: Zone 1 Zone 2 11 13: Zone A Zone B Zone C SCHEDULE E CSDOC EXISTING CONNECTION FEES Single/Multi-Family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling $ 220 per dwelling $ 500 per dwelling $1,100 per dwelling $1,500 per dwelling $1,500 per dwelling $ 250 per dwelling $ 250 per dwelling $1,250 per dwelling Commercial/Industrial/ Governmental/Other $ 300. per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 45 per 1,000 s·q. ft. $ 260 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 570 per 1,000 sq. ft. $2,400 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 300 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 50 per l,000 sq. ft. $ 180 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 250 per 1,000 sq. ft. -Variable {fees to be the same as when annexed - see District No. 2 fees) $1,250 per dwelling $ 250 per 1,000 sq. ft. $1,500 per dwelling $ 300 per 1,000 sq. ft. \._.,! ~ MEETING DATE July 15, 1987 DISTRICT 1 TIME 7:00 p.m. DISTRICTS 3 (EDGAR) •••••••• HOESTEREY ••• _____ _ (CRANK) •••••••• HANSON •••••• _____ _ (YOUNG) •••••••• GRISET •••••• _____ _ (ROTH). •••••••• STANTON ••••• _____ _ DISTRICT 2 (NORBY) •••••••• CATLIN •••••• _____ _ (WEDEL} •••••••• MAHONEY ••••• _____ _ (PICKLER). ••••• BAY ••••••••• _____ _ (FRIED) •••••••• BIGONGER •••• _____ _ (YOUNG) •••••••• GRISET •••••• _____ _ (NELSON) ••••••• LEYTON •••••• _____ _ (SCOTT) •••••••• NEAL. ••••• •. _____ _ (DOWNEY) ••••••• NEWTON •••••• _____ _ (CULVER) ••••••• PERRY ••••••• _____ _ (FASBENDER) •••• SILZEL •••••• _____ _ (PEREZ) •••••••• SMITH ••••••• _____ _ (ROTH) ••••••••• STANTON ••••• _____ _ DISTRICT 3 (HERMAN) ••••••• POLIS •••••• t,.../' ___ _ (WEISHAUPT) •••• SAPIEN ••••• ·~--__ (PICKLER) •••••• BAY •••••••• ·-lL" ___ _ (NORBY) •••••••• CATLIN •••••• ~ ___ _ (PERRY) •••••••• CULVER ••••• ·~--__ (MC CUNE) •••••• GRIFFIN •••• -~--__ (YOUNG) •••••••• GRISET •••••• ~ ___ _ (CORONADO) ••••• KANEL ••••••• ~ (WINCHELL) ••••• KELLY ••••••• ~ ~ ~ (WEDEL) •••••••• MAHONEY ••••• ~ (SCOTT) •••••••• NEAL. ••••••• ~ -- (SUTTON) ••••••• NELSON •••••• ~~ (WILES) •••••••• SIEFEN •••••• ~ __ (ROTH) ••••••••• STANTON ••••• .............-... (BERNAL) ••••••• SYLVIA •••••• ~ ~ (CLIFT) •••••••• WILSON ••••• -~--__ DISTRICT 5 (COX) •••••••••• HART •••••••• _____ _ (PLUMMER) •••••• COX •••••••• ·--___ _ (STANTON) •••••• ROTH ••••••• ·--___ _ DISTRICT 6 (JOHNSON) •••••• WAHNER ••••• ·--___ _ (PLUMMER) •••••• MAURER ••••• ·--__ -- (STANTON) •••••• ROTH •••••••• ____ -- DISTRICT 7 (KENNEDY) •••••• EDGAR •••••• ·--___ _ (AGRAN) •••••••• MILLER, S •• ·--___ _ (PLUMMER) •••••• COX •••••••• ·--__ -- (YOUNG) •••••••• GRISET ••••• ·--___ _ (STANTON) •••••• ROTH •••••••• _____ _ (PEREZ) •••••••• SMITH •••••• ·--___ _ (GREEN, H) ••••• WAHNER •••••• _____ _ DISTRICT 11 (WINCHELL> ••••• KELLY •••••• ·--___ _ (GREEN, P) ••••• MAYS ••••••• ·--___ _ (ROTH) ••••••••• STANTON ••••• _____ _ DISTRICT 13 (NELSON) ••••••• SUTTON •••••• _____ _ (BI GONG ER) ••••• MURPHY •••••• _____ _ (PICKLER) •••••• BAY ••••••••• _____ _ (STANTON) •••••• ROTH •••••••• _____ _ (PEREZ) •••••••• SMITH ••••••• _____ _ DISTRICT 14 (AGRAN) •••••••• MILLER, S ••• ____ -- (M[LLER, D) •••• SWAN •••••••• _____ _ (EDGAR) •••••••• KENNEDY ••••• _____ _ (STANTON) •••••• ROTH •••••••• _____ _ (PEREZ) •••••••• SMITH ••••••• _____ _ 07108187 ---------- JO INT BOARDS (PICKLER) •••••••••• BAV ••••••••• {FRIED) •••••••••••• BIGONGER •••• ---- (NORBY) •••••••••••• CATLIN •••••• ==:=== (PLUMMER) •••••••••• cox ........ . (PERRY) •••••••••••• CUL VER •••••• ---- {KENNEDY) •••••••••• EDGAR ••••••• ---- (MC CUNE) •••••••••• GRIFFIN ••••• ---- (YOUNG) •••••••••••• GR I SET •••••• ---- (CRANK) •••••••••••• HANSON •••••• ---- (COX) •••••••••••••• HART •••••••• ---- (EDGAR). ••••••••••• HOESTEREY ••• ---- (CORONADO) ••••••••• KANEL ••••••• ---- (WINCHELL) ••••••••• KELLY ••••••• ::::::==== (EDGAR) •••••••••••• KENNEDY ••••• (NELSON) ••••••••••• LEYTON •••••• :::::: === (WEDEL) •••••••••••• MAHONEY ••••• ___ _ (PLUMMER) •••••••••• MAURER •••••• ___ _ (GREEN, P) ••••••••• MAVS •••••••• ___ _ (AGRAN) •••••••••••• MILLER, S ••• ___ _ {BIGONGER) ••••••••• MURPHY •••••• ___ _ (SCOTT) •••••••••••• NEAL •••••••• ___ _ {SUTTON) ••••••••••• NELSON •••••• ___ _ (DOWNEY) ••••••••••• NEWTON •••••• ___ _ (CULVER) ••••••••••• PERRY ••••••• ___ _ (HERMAN) ••••••••••• POLIS ••••••• ___ _ (STANTON) •••••••••• ROTH •••••••• ___ _ (WEISHAUPT> •••••••• SAPIEN •••••• ___ _ (WILES) •••••••••••• S IEFEN •••••• ___ _ (FASBENOER) •••••••• SILZEL •••••• ___ _ (PEREZ) •••••••••••• SMITH ••••••• ___ _ (ROTH) ••••••••••••• STANTON ••••• ___ _ (NELSON) ••••••••••• SUTTON •••••• ___ _ (MILLER, D) •••••••• SWAN •••••••• ___ _ (BERNAU ••••••••••• SYLVIA •••••• ___ _ (GREEN, H/ JOHNSON) •• WAHNER •••••• ___ _ (CLIFT) •••••••••••• WILSON •••••• ___ _ STAFF: OTHERS: SYLVESTER ••• ,,,/"' CLARKE •••••• __ DAWES ••••••• ~ ANDERSON •••• 8UTLER •••••• -a;:7" BROWN ••••••• ~ KYLE •••••••• VON LANGEN WINSOR •••••• __ STREED •••••• '-"""""' CLAWSON ••••• OOTEN ••••••• LINDER •••••• DEBLIEUX •••• TALEBI. ••••• HOLL •••••••• WOODRUFF ................ ATKINS •••••• -- HOHENER ••••• HOWARD •••••• HUNT •••••••• KE I TH ••••••• KNOPF ••••••• LINDSTROM ••• LYNCH ••••••• YOUNG ••••••• DISTRICT 3 ADJOURNED RffiUU\R MEETIN:; OOl'ES -7/15/87, 7:00 P.M. The General Manager reported that in May the staff reviewed the Master Plan for sewerage facilities for District 3 and the Master Plan for both Plants 1 and 2. We will be spending District-wide $400 million over the next ten years for treatrrent plant expansion. Master planning makes sure we can keep pace with developrrent and redevelopment and the increasingly stringent federal and state regulatory requirements for increased level s of treatrrent. It is also important to have financi al master planning to make sure we have the necessary funds to cary out our program of wastewater management. en May 20th the staff reviewed the conceptual long-range financial plan to provide for the capital construction program and also ongoing operation and maintenance costs incurred. At that meeting the Directors gave staff guidelines upon which to refine figures and bring back to Board for cons i deration this evening. He said staff took that direction literally and are reconmending sane rrodifications to what the guidelines were. The Director of Finance then reviewed the proposed recorrmendations. He corrmented on the figures in the salrron-colored Schedule A. District 3 will be moving into a deficit position because their primary source of revenue, their allocation of the basic 1% tax levy, will be insufficient to cover operating costs. Need to move forward to establish sane fee to make up the deficit. Staff is proposing a slightly rrodified program to the guidelines given to the staff. It is primarily based on our experience with other Districts during public workshops re user fee issue. They have suggested that we come to them only when we are in significant need of additional funds. Many Districts have carried reserves in operating funds and the public has asked us to draw down those reserve funds and cane to them only when there is a absolute need for more money. W:>rst -case projections are on salrron schedule. ve believe we can afford to delay to 1989-90. Ordinance v.Duld be effective July 1, 1989, when the District will be in a position where their reserves have been drawn down more. The program reconmended on page three of the Manager's Report is based on usage rather than flat fee. Have done studies around the service area regarding this. We are governed by revenue program and must establish a fair and equitable program of service based on usage. Started with the same fee basis for other Districts as is presented here. He then reviewed Schedule C (goldenrod). If the District moves forward with a supplemental user fee, over a five-year period will end up with a balance of $5.9 million. He briefly reviewed alternative IIEthods of collecting this fee. Staff recorrmended Alternative I, establishing a separate charge on the property tax bill. That is the approach taken in the other four Districts. Mr. Butler added that on the capital side, staff has presented a slightly rrodified schedule. The Board expressed their desire to phase into a program in a gradual way. Staff is proposing moving from $250 to $500 per dwelling unit and from $500 to $1,000 per sq. ft. The followi ng year it v.Duld be $1,500 per sq. ft. Staff proposed that the first reading of propsed connection fee ordinance be at the August Board meeting. Second reading in September and v.Duld be effective October 1st. With regard to the user fee program, propose to delay that for one year. Will then update the Board on the fiscal performance of the District during 198 7-88. After adoption of the budgets in 1988-89, v.Duld propose to introduce an ordinance establishing a user fee for the following year. ve are required to hold a public hearing in order to place the fee on the property tax bill, not to adopt the fee. . . ... Director Nelson asked if the five-year total indicated on the goldenrod schedule included the $48 million of Certificates of Participation, and he was told yes. He then asked if we implement these fees, would the figure for 1992-93 reflect a positive balance rather than a negative cash flow? Bill explained that the $26.40 will carry District through 1993-94. Will probably be back to the Board with an increased user fee to avoid the $16.5 million deficit. This schedule is based only on the $26.40 fee. District 6 has increased their original fee by 10% twice and District 1 is expected to increase their fee next year. Director Catlin stated that the $294,000 deficit on line 14 for 1988-89 disturbed him. Asked if they could accelerate the fee so they didn't have that? Bill Butler advised that that is only a paper deficit. He noted the actual cash position of the District on line 12. There is a carry-over of $6.6 million for Next Year's Dry Period Funding Requirements. ~do not begin to receive large aroounts of noney from the County for our allocation of the 1% tax levy or supplemental user fee revenue until about November or December. One of the techniques is to set aside a 50% reserve to :rrak.e it through until the revenue flows. He stated that the District will not find themselves in a deficit position. Director Bay asked, by adding this fee and increasing the connection fee program, can you answer a citizen who asks: Am I paying for the growth in my District? Is this for new costs or subsidizing growth? The Director of Finance answered that the existing user is paying the supplemental user fee for the collection and treatrrent facilities. A connection fee will be paid by developers. Capital expansion is paid for by developers. No fees paid by existing users are used for capital expansion. Only used for increased operating costs. Director Bay also asked if the najor tax law change in the last year had an impact re arbitrage on interest earnings on your funds and are we facing problem of losing gains? Bill Butler reported on the Certificates of Participation issued last year by Districts 1, 2 & 3 totalling $117 million. ~ completed the issue in time to beat the deadline re investrrents on the $48 million for District 3. Were we to lose the opportunity to extend our existing NPDES Permit, we would go to full secondary treatrrent in 1990 which \'.Duld cost $285 million ($89 million for District 3) and \'.Duld have to go back to narket to raise additional capital and would be subject to new tax law then. Director Neal stated that he is supportive of staff's recomnendation on their timetable. Asked, are we just going to have one hearing re proposed billing and collection.on tax bill? Tan W::x:>druff replied that we will agendize introduction and adoption of ordinance. Directors will be given notice of agenda and ordinance will be adopted at a public meeting. The public hearing and notice requirements we have to follow to put on property tax bills require that we give notice to every single property owner. Director Catlin asked if this was enough time for the County Auditor to process this infornation and add fee? Bill said yes, there is plenty of time. Director Nelson then MJVED to adopt staff recomnendations re supplemental user fees and increased connection fees. M:>tion SEX:ONDED. Culver asked if they were going to find themselves in the same position as District 6 two or three years down the road? Should we naybe go up $30 now and $36 in 1990? Bill Butler stated that the $26.40 would cover us through 1992-93. In 1993-94 would need some additional noney. Could ease the fee up 5-10% in a balanced, phased approach. Also, District 6's property tax situation is not as strong as District 3. -2- -.. VOICE VOrE on ~tion. M)TION CARRIED: 1. Directing staff to proceed with planning for implerrentation of a supplerrental user fee to be collected on the property tax bill beginning in 1989-90 in accordance with Implerrentation Schedule E; and, 2. Directing staff to draft an ordinance increasing connection fees from $250/dwelling unit and $50 /1,000 sq. ft. to $500/dwelling unit and $100/1,000 sq. ft. for first reading at the August 12, 1987 Board I"Ieeting, to become effective October q., 1987. -3- COUN1'Y SANITATION DIS!'RICI' 00. J OF ORAR;E COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF AnJOURNED REX;CJIAR MEEl'Im July 15, 1987 -7:00 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of July 8, 1987, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, net in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIREx:'IDRS PRESENT: DIREx:'IDRS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Polis, Chairman, Ben Bay, A.B. nBuck" catlin, Noril'Bll E. Culver, Don R. Griffin, Dan Griset, John Kanel, William D. Mahoney, James Neal, carrey Nelson, Sal Sapien, J .R. "Bob" Sief en, Roger R. Stanton, Charles Sylvia and F.dna Wilson Jack Kelly J. wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita J. Brown, Secretary, William H. Butler, Thanas M. Dawes and Gary Streed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Review of long-range financial projections re capital and operating requirements '!he General Manager reported that for many years, as part of the annual budgetary process, the Districts had forecast revenues and expenditures on a five-year basis and last year began forecasting on a ten-year horizon. The ~se of this long-range financial planning is to assure adequate funding to carry out the Districts' wastewater managenent program for the benefit of the camnmities and the two million citizens which the Districts serve in netropolitan orange County. A major benefit of the long-range cash flow projections is that they enable a determination well in advance of when revenue shortfalls will begin to occur so that the Board of Directors will have adequate time to consider alternative funding sources and take the necessary corrective action to ensure the District's financial integrity. For sane time projections have indicated that funding shortfalls in District. No. 3 would begin to occur as soon as 1989 and that the District would have . to consider additional revenue sources to meet the District's long-t:erm funding requirenents for sewerage facilities improvem:nts and expansion, and ongoing operations and maintenance costs. Property taxes have historically been the major source of local financing of the District's activities. However, the costs of providing service continue to rise beyond the ability of the property tax apportionnents to keep pace with the stringent requirements of the federal and state regulatory agencies for advanced treatment and the need to provide additional capacity to meet the increasing demands on the sewerage system. District No. 3 07/15/87 The Director of Finance then reviewed the following options available to finance the District's facilities improvements and expansion activities and ongoing operations and maintenance costs: Funding Requirement Ongoing collection system and joint treatment/disposal facility operations and maintenance capital facilities improvements and expansion projects Source of Funds -Allocated share of 1% ad valorem property tax levy -Supplemental user fees: non-industrial dischargers -User fees: industrial dischargers -Debt financing {bonds/certificates of participation) -capital reserve funds {existing) -Connection fees on new developnent -capital replacement/improvement fees: non-industrial dischargers -capital replacement/improvement fees: industrial dischargers Mr. Butler further reported that District 3 took an interim step to provide partial capital financing by issuing long-term debt securities in the form of Certificates of Participation CCDP's) in the anount of $48,000,000 last year· and authorized staff to develop a financing plan to meet the District's long-term funding needs for oonsideration this year by the Directors. At an adjourned meeting on May 20, 1987, the Board reviewed a oonceptual plan for financing its capital and O&M costs, and directed the staff to draft a financial plan and implementation schedule for further consideration by the Directors at this adjourned meeting. Mr. Butler then sumnarized the draft long-range financial program which was prepared in accordance with the guidelines given by the Board at their May 20th neeting roodif ied as authorized to reflect the experience of other Districts that have recently roodified their long-range financial plans. The Director of Finance reiterated that, as reported to the Board during budget deliberations over the past two years, the District needs to consider suwlemental user fees in the near future to avoid a projected deficit beginning as soon as 1989 in the District's Operating Fund. The anticipated deficit could reach as much as $68 million by 1996-97 unless additional revenue is generated. Mr. Butler reviewed a schedule excerpted fran the Revenue Program adopted by the Boards in April 1979 pursuant to federal and state regulations which identifies various alternative revenue sources available to finance projected shortfalls in a District's Operating Fund when ad valorem tax revenues are insufficient to pay the District's operations, naintenance and replacenent. oosts. '!he llDSt oost-effecti ve irethod C and the method adopted by Districts 1, S, 6 and 13 which have already implemented supplemental user fees) is to place the following supplemental user fees as a special assessment on the County of Orange property tax bill and collect it fran all property owners in the District: -2- u • I " District No. 3 07/15/87 Class of User ·Single-Family Dwellings/Condaninimns Multi-Family Dwellings/Apartments/ M:>bile Hanes Ccmnercial/Industrial/ other Basis of Charge ·Annual Charge per Dwelling Unit Annual Charge per Dwelling Unit Annual Charge per 1,000 Sq. Ft. of Building July, 1989 $26.40 $15.85 $18.90 This fee schedule is identical to that in effect in Districts 1 and 5. District 6 initially adopted the same schedule, but has found it necessary to increase the rates 10% each of the past two years. District 13, which receives no ad valorem tax appropriation, has a charge of $70/year. The Director of Finance then reviewed the Operating Fund 10-year, cash flow estimates and provided a brief overview of the projected cash position of District No. 3's Operating Fund if the recxmnended supplemental user fees are implemented. Based on a July 1989 implementation date, the District's Operating Fund would have a positive fund balance of $5.9 million at the end of the·next five-year forecast period, as opposed to a $13.5 million deficit if the supplemental user fee program is not implemented. This balance would serve as the required contingency fund for the Districts. The implementation date is tentative at this time because the Operating Fund requirements (which are financed on an annual basis, whereas the capital funds must be financed in advance of requirements because of the lead time needed for construction projects) should be evaluated again in 1988 to determine if any major changes have occurred that will affect the annual flmding requirements that could allow a delay in implementation. The Director of Finance adVised that the Board will need to consider increasing fees after 1992 ·because the cash flow projections for the 1992/93-1996/97 period indicate further shortfalls. Thus, once implemented, the user fee amounts should be evaluated annually to make sure that the program provides adequate revenues to meet the District's funding needs. Mr. Butler then reviewed the Preliminary Implementation Schedule which reflected the procedures and calendar necessary to implement a supplemental user fee program to be collected on the annual property tax bill beginning in July 1989. Mr. Butler reiterated that last spring the Board engaged financial and legal consultants to assist the Directors in evaluating the potential benefits and costs associated with issuance of long-term debt financing to take advantage of then-favorable tax law provisions and low, tax-exempt numicipal bond interest rates prior to anticipated change in federal tax law which became effective on September 1, 1986. -3- District No. 3 07/15/87 An existing source of capital funds is fran a one-time connection fee on new developtent. These fees are used to finance the planning, design and construction of the expanded facilities necessary to accomnodate the flows generated by the new developnent. District No. 3's current one-time connection fees are as follows: Single/Multi-Family_ Dwelling Units $250 per Dwelling cannercial/Industrial/ Governnental/other $50 per 1,000 Sq. Ft. The Director of Finance reviewed the projected 10-year cash flow schedule relative to the District's anticipated financial position over the next ten years assuming no changes in the District's existing connection fee structure. '!he expected revenue to be generated fran current connection fee rates over the next ten years is $6,000,000. Mr. Butler also reviewed the District's anticipated financial position over the next ten years based on implementation of the following phased connection fee increases: October July July Basis of Charge 1987 1988 1989 Single/Multi-Family Charge per $500 $1,000 $1,500 Dwelling Units Dwelling Unit cannercial/IndustrialL Charge per $100 $ 200 $ 300 Governmental/Other $1,000 Sq. Ft. These proposed fees would generate an additional $26,250,000 in connection fees, as well as an additional interest incane over the next ten years. These additional revenues could then be employed to partially finance both the District's share of the cost of construction of the expanded collection and treabnent facilities and its ongoing payments for retirement of the Certificates of Participation issued last sumner. Staff also reccmnended that connection fees be evaluated annually and fixed in an axoount that assured that new developtent pays the current capital cost of providing sewerage services. Mr. Butler noted that the projected capital requirements assume that the Districts' 301Ch> NPDES Permit will be renewed by EPA and the ~ in 1990. If it is not, treatrrent plant construction requests will increase by $285 million (District No. 3's share -$89 million> for the 1991-1996 period. The Board members then entered into a discussion relative to the timetable for establishing a supplemental user fee program. 'Ibey also further reviewed the various incane, expenditures and reserve/carryover elements of the cash flow schedules and financial projections based on implementation of various long-range financing alternates to meet the financial obligations of the District. '!he purpose of connection fees to pay the full cost of providing u sewerage capacity for new develoi;m=nt; the need for a periodic review of both U the supplemental user fee and connection fee schedules; and the provisions of the Certificates of Participation issue were also clarified during the discussion. -4- _,. -.District No. 3 07/15/87 It was then moved, seconded and duly carried: That the staff be, and is hereby, directed to proceed with planning for implementation of a supplemental user fee program to be collected on the property tax bill beginning in 1989-90 in accordance with the proposed implementation schedule; and, EUR1'HER IDVED: That staff be, and is hereby, directed to draft an ordinance increasing connection fees fran $250/dwelling unit and $50/1,000 sq. ft. to $500/dwelling unit and $100/1,000 sq. ft. to becane effective October 9, 1987, to be presented to the Board for first reading at the August 12, 1987 Joint Board meeting. Adjournnent M:>ved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairnan then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:38 p.m., July 15, 1987. -5- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, I hereby certify that the Agenda for the Adjourned Regular Board Meeting of District No • ..3 held on ~\~ , 1987 was duly posted for public inspection at the main lobby of the District's offices on ~ C\ ' 1987. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of~ ' 1987. Q&-~~ Rita J. BrowOISecretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. of Orange County, California 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 r:- 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 , ·r - lllllllllllllllllllllUUllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllll eeaoing Hano pl aced selected back fill Tamped se lected oackhlt Excavateo m aterial - stones 1ess in~n 6' d ia- me ter 11 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Focused ~~~ Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan Of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3, and 11. '& WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS & f>LAl'JNEi<S 119(0 CROSS RO ADS FIAR KWAV SOU TH• SUIT E ?00 IN DUSTR Y • CALI FO AN IA 0 1746-3490 • t2 tll 08$-066 1 - -1111111111111111111111 1111 11111111111111111111 111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 - - - ..... - - - - -1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 - - - - - - - llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Bedding Hand placed selec ted back fill Tamped se l ected backfill Excavated material- s tones less than 6 .. dia· meter 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Focused ~~~- Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan Of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3, and 11. WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS & A..ANNERS 12900C•OSS•OA05'A•t<WAY SOUTH• SUITE 200 INOUSTftY • CALIFOftNIA '17~ • lll31 -1 • FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN OF TRUNK SEWERS SCH #87020410 June 10, 1987 PREPARED FOR: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared By: Willdan Associates Planning Services Department TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 2. 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2-1 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3-1 3.1 Biological Resources................................... 3-1 3.2 Hydrology/Water Quality............................... 3-3 3.3 Traffic/Circulation • • • • • • ••• •• •••• •••• •• • ••••••••••••• •• 3-7 3.4 Land Use/Population • •• •• •• •••• •••• •• • •• ••• ••• •• • •• •••• 3-11 3. 5 Pub I ic Services and Utilities • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3-16 3.6 Energy •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3-18 3. 7 Cost/Revenue • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3-20 3. 8 Consistency with other Relevant Plans • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3-26 4 . O T 0 P I CA L I S S U ES • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-1 4. 1 Growth Inducing Impacts • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-1 4. 2 The Relationship Between Short-Term Uses • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-1 of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity • • • • • • • • • • • 4-2 4. 3 The Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitment • • • • • • • • • • 4-2 of Non-Renewable Resources 4. 4 Alternatives • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-2 ............................................... s-1 APPENDICES Letter Title A Initial Study and Notice of Preparation B Biological Resource Assessment C Responses from Municipal and Utility Agencies D Comments/ Responses on Draft El R J I J LIST OF TABLES ! w Number Page I 1. '=' Study Area Projected Residential Population • • • • • • • • 3-13 2. I i Future Employment and Tourist/ Recreational Population ••••••••••••••••••••••••• ·•••••••••••••• 3-14 ld 3. Estimated Capital Costs • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3-21 I I bJ ; bl I l b:.I b:l I w I J I ~ J ! w 1 I l;j . I u J I J ! I bJ - Number 1. -2. 3. 4. 5. LIST OF FIGURES Existing Conditions Typical r mpacts Regional Setting Project Area ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• C. S. D. 0. C Member District Boundaries •••••••••••• Page 1-5,6,7 1-8, 9, 10 2-4 2-5 3-27 1 • O Introduction and Executive Summary Introduction This document is a focused Environmental Impact Report (El R) in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is being prepared, pursuant to the January 16, 1987, authorization of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC), for a cost not to exceed $12 ,000. The subject of this El R is a proposed plan for sewer system relief faci Ii ties within member District No. 2. That plan is described in Chapter 2 of this report. Based upon the Initial Study prepared by CS DOC for this project (see Appendix A), it was determined that several environmental issues of concern were adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Report certified for the1 1983 Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11. These issues include: geology/soils, topography/grading, cultural resources, air quality, noise and visual resources. The evaluation and mitigation measures presented in that previous El R are completely appropriate and valid for the subject project, with respect to these issue areas. That document may be reviewed at the offices of CSDOC, at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. This document will, therefore, supplement that previous El R by focusing only on those issues which are associated with faci Ii ties and locations not addressed in that El R. These issues will include: biological resources, hydrology /water quality, traffic/circulation, land use/ population, pub I ic services and utilities, energy, cost/ revenue and consistency with other relevant plans. · Pursuant to CEQA, this El R is intended to provide the CSDOC and the general public with a full and objective disclosure of the direct and indirect environmental and cost/ revenue consequences of implementing the proposed project, including a comparison of the project and no-project alternatives. Following is a summary of the evaluation of environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with this project, which is presented in detail in Chapter 3 of this report. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Master Plan of Sewage Collection, Districts 2, 3 and 11 (SCH #8308241 l). Michael Brandman Associates, February 1984. 1-1 I ...... I N l I l l l ( [ ( ( I l ( l ( SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Issue Biological Resources Hydrology /Water Quality Traffic/ Circulation Cost/ Revenue Impact/ Severity The Santa Ana River bottom and embank- ments will be disturbed by installation of a relief sewer para I tel to the Orange Sub-trunk, just south of the intersection of the 1-5 and 57 free- ways. This will not affect any significant plant or animal species. Flows of stormwaters along roadways could be interrupted if sewer construc- tion occurs during the rainy season. Undercrossing of Santa Ana River will disrupt drainage flows during construc- tion. Open trenches and tunnels may be subject to groundwater and I or stormwater infiltration, during con- struction. These impacts wi 11 be temporary and are easily mitigable. Numerous roadways, along with a Class I bicycle trail and an equestrian trail, wi 11 be disrupted, temporarily, by sewer construction activities. These impacts are unavoidable and will in- crease local traffic congestion, especially where heavily traveled ar- terials are involved, but the effects will be short-term. I nstal lat ion of the proposed relief facilities would result in estimated capital costs to District 2 of approx- imately 34. 1 mi Ilion dollars. Addi- tional operating and maintenance costs at the Joint Works Treatment facilities would also result. This impact is unavoidable. Mitigation Measures Careful coordination of project design and scheduling with Orange County EMA, to minimize duration and extent of river disruption. Design and scheduling of Santa Ana River crossing will be coordinated with the Orange County EMA, to minimize effects on this flood control facility • Sump pumps will be used to pump groundwater or runoff out of open trenches and tunnels, and will be discharged pursuant to CSDOC's NPDES permit. Construction will occur only during dry weather. Careful planning and scheduling of sewer alignments, involving coordi- nation of a II local agencies and the preparation of traffic control plans in advance of construction activities, will minimize disruption to traffic and hazards to commuters and pedestrians. Existing District 2 revolving funds and future connection fees will be adequate to finance the costs asso- ciated with the proposed sewer improve- ments. No mitigation required. l I ..... I w ( I l I I l l Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Cont.) Issue Land Use/ Population Public Services I Utilities Energy Impact/ Severity The proposed facilities would accommo- date projected urban growth in District 2, in accordance with the current General Plans of the involved local agencies. Temporary nuisances such as increased noise, fugitive dust and traffic disruption will occur during construction activities. These impacts are unavoidable, short-term nuisances. Proposed sewers will be installed near existing underground and overhead utility lines. Service interruption could occur if construction activities require the temporary removal of a particular utility line. These impacts will be short-term and are mitigable. Installation and operation of the proposed sewer improvements will re- sult in a net decreases in energy con- sumption within the District 2 collection system. Due to continuing urban growth, District 2 flows to the Joint Works treatment facilities will continually increase, thereby in- creasing energy consumption at the Joint Works facilities. This is an unavoidable consequence of the urban growth occurring throughout District 2. l I ( ( [ l Mitigation Measures Construction activities will be designed and scheduleq to minimize disruption to more sensitive uses such as schools, residences and parks. Every effort will be made to maintain access to commercial parking areas, residential driveways and pedestrian walkways. All utility and public service agencies with faci I ities near the proposed improvements were notified of this project. CSDOC will coordinate project design with the Underground Service Alert of Southern California and with all affected agencies to determine the locations of existing utility lines and to develop plans for alternative service delivery, if necessary. Utility faci Ii ties that must be removed wi 11 be stored and replaced, at CSDOC's expense. Future expansions to the Joint Works facilities will utilize energy-con- serving technology, to the greatest extent feasible. I I l ( ( l I l ( l ( Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Cont.) Issue Consistency With Other Relevant Plans Impact/Severity This project would be consistent with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan. The proposed sewer improvements would accommodate urban growth, in accor- dance with local General Plans, in excess of the SCAG 82 Year 2000 forecast for the study area. This project would increase average daily sewage flows within District 2 by approximately 5 MGD, compared to the existing Master Plan for the Joint Works Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities. l ( l l l Mitigation Measures SCAG is currently revising its regional growth forecasts, in recognition of accelerated growth trends and changes in local General Plans. The next up- date to the Joint Works Master Plan, scheduled for 1988, will reflect the increased urban growth and sewage collection requirements for District 2, in accordance with this project. I ~-I SNOl.LIQNO:> DNl.LSIX3 1 3HnDl:I M I I r\ I ( ~ i - n r ~ \ '. 1 r-' i I ~ I ! \ f9lt I ~ I i ,... ,19\ ! ' ~ I !ml\ I , I r I ( -:-_-~ ... -: .·--"""- BICYCL E TRA IL ALONG W EST EMBANKM ENT OF SANTA ANA ~-~-l~-:::...--~ ~ --__ . -· RIVER, SOUTH OF 1-5 FRWY. CONNECT ION TO SARI LI NE I N T H IS ~:~0~~~d(.~:-.. ~::.··:: AR EA COULD DISRUP T BIK E TRA IL. r:.:·;.;:;;_:-~;_,,.::_-.,:.~7- -c.... ~::--·--~· ..... ~,.... -. --r~ .... _ .... -.... ----~ -·---... -- ~xlstlng Cond itions DRY SANTA ANA RIVER BED, JUST SOUTH OF 1-5 FR WY. VERY LITIL E VEG ETATION, VIRT UAL L Y NO W IL DLI FE HABI TAT. TRUN K SEW ER T RENCHING MUST BE DON E DUR IN G DRY SEASON. Focused EIR Figu r e Amendment No. 1 Master Plan of Tru nk Se we rs 1 Distric t 2 Coun ty San i t ation Di stri c t of Orange Count y [ l l SOU THERLY ALONG O.C.T.D. R-0 -W, ACROSS NEWHOPE STRE ET AN D B EN EATH THE GAR DEN GROVE FW Y. WOULD REQUIR E TUNN ELI NG BENEATH NEWHOPE STRE ET Existing Conditions NORT HER L Y ALONG O.C.T.D. R-0 -W, FROM NEWHOPE STREET. BORDER ED BY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, BOT H SIDES. Focused EIR Figure Amendment No. 1 Master Plan of Trunk Sewers 1 District 2 County Sanitation District of Orange County Ex isting Conditions [ NO RTHE RL Y A L ONG EU CLI D STREET, AT SH ER MA N AVE.' 1•..)E:.. M EDI AN L AN DSCAPI NG A N D TH AU-T RAV EL LANE CO ULD BE DI S R U PTED. Focused EIR Figure Amendment No. 1 Master Plan of Trun k Sewers 1 District 2 Coun ty Sa ni t a t i on District o f Or a n g e Count y 9-1 S.L:>VdWI ,V:> ldA.L l 3HnDl:I r r. r: IS\ I : I ~ I i ('*l; l , r r I \ f ,, l : \ r i r I ' ~ 1 I 1 r I I I TRAFFIC DETOURING, LANE CLOSURE ALONG ARTER I AL ST REE T, MID-DAY T RAFF IC STILL FLOWS SMOOTHLY. ,-I -i - l ( _/ CONCRETE BARRIER AROUND L ARGE, OPEN CONSTRUCTl 0"l PIT, L•'""'"--'~.,, STORAGE OF VEHICLES I EQU IP M E NT IN ROADWAY. CLOSING OFF ~ll!".-..;~~~~~~~~~~~~~=:;J INSIDE TRA FFIC LANE. Focused EIR Figure Typical Construction Impacts Amendment No. 1 Master P la n of Trun k Se wers 2 District 2 County Sanitation District of Orange County STOCK PILING OF PIPE AND BACKFILL MATERIAL IN A LOCAL COLLECTOR STREET, NARROWING ROADWAY TO ONE THAU-LANE. Focused EIR Typical C onstruction Impacts Amendment No. 1 Master Plan of Trunk Sewers District 2 County San I tat I on DI strl ct of O ra nge County [ Figure 2 2. O Project Description The subject project is referred to as Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 , Euclid/ Newhope-Placentia Drainage Areas. The project essentially is a plan of sewer facilities intended to relieve several deficiencies identified in the existing and planned trunk sewer system within Orange County Sanitation District No. 2. See Figures 3 and 4, following, for illustrations of the project's regional setting and Study Area boundaries. The purpose of the project is to provide adequate sewer collection facilities in response to accelerating urban growth and development within the central and northern portion of the project area, affecting the Euclid and Newhope-Placentia drainage areas. Amendment No. 1 involved an extensive review of the several local agency General Plans, to develop an up-to-date forecast of the land use and development trends throughout the Study Area, for the next 15-20 years. That research revealed future capacity deficiencies within several portions of the District 2 trunk sewer system, which if left uncorrected, could lead to moratoriums on further urban growth and unacceptable back-ups within the sewers due to over capacity sewage flows in the system. The proposed correction facilities would involve the installation of approximately 19 miles of trunk sewer. In most cases, the relief sewer would be installed parallel to the alignment of the existing trunk sewer it will relieve. Except for the old Euclid Purchase sewer, all existing trunks will remain in service. The relief sewers will handle future flows in excess of the capacity of the existing trunks. A complete description of the type, location and estimated construction cost of all proposed facilities is presented in Table 3, Page 3-21 of this report. A summary description follows below. Please refer to Plate No. 4, in the jacket just inside the back cover, which illustrates the entire Study Area, all existing major trunk sewers and the locations of the proposed relief facilities. Relief Facility Number/Type 1 • 21" and 24" Diversion Sewers 2. 15 11 Parallel Sewer Location Along flood control channel near Willow Woods Drive, between Orangethorpe Avenue and La Palma Avenue. (Anaheim) Through Craig Park, between State College Boulevard and 57 freeway. (Brea-Fullerton) Copy available for review at the offices of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA. Contact Person: Ms. Hilary Baker 2-1 _, -.:I bid Relief Facility Number/Type 3. 15" Parallel Sewer 4. 12 11 Parallel Sewer 5 • 1 2" , 1 5" , 1 8 and 21 " Para II e I Sewers 6. 21 11 and 24" Para lier Sewers 7. 24 11 , 30 11 36 11 , 39" and 45 11 Parallel Sewers 8. 12 11 Parallel Sewer 9. Diversion Facility 1 Oa. 30" Diversion Sewer 1 Ob. 27 11 Diversion Sewer 11. 15 11 Parallel Sewer 12. 33" Diversion Sewer 2-2 Location Along Associated Road, from Yorba Linda Boulevard north to approxi- mately Bastanchury Road. (Fullerton) Along Lincoln Avenue, from the east side of the Santa Ana River, easterly to Orange-Olive Road. (Anaheim) From Santiago Boulevard, westerly along Meats Avenue to Tustin Avenue, then southerly Taft Avenue, then west to Glassel I Street. (Anaheim) From La Veta Avenue, just east of the 1-5 freeway, west, under the freeway and under the river, to the SARI line in the west bank of the river. (Anaheim) Along La Palma Avenue, from a point near Potomac Circle, westerly to Grove Street. (Anaheim) Along Associated Road, from Bastanchury Road, south to Yorba Linda Road. (Fullerton) Yorba Linda Pump Station, northeast corner of the campus of California State University. (Fullerton) Along Ball Road, between Walnut Avenue and Euclid Street. Along Katella Avenue, between Walnut Avenue and Euclid Street. Along First Street, between Newhope Street and Harbor Boulevard. (Santa Ana) Along Orangewood Avenue, between State College Boulevard and the SARI line in the Santa Ana River. (Anaheim) Relief Facility Number/Type 13a. Diversion Facility i= 13b. Diversion Facility w:I 14. 39 11 , 42 11 , 45 11 , 48 11 and 54" Parallel Sewers rs:i 15. 54 11 and 78 11 Diversion Sewers ts! 2-3 Location Malvern Avenue, between Highland Avenue and Malden Avenue. (Fullerton) Woods Avenue, near Orangethorpe Avenue. (Fullerton) Along Euclid Street, from Orange- thorpe Avenue south to Orangewood Avenue. (Anaheim, Fullerton, and Garden Grove) Alternate #1: Along Euclid Street, from Orangewood Avenue south to OCTD right-of-way., just south of Garden Grove Boulevard. Then southeasterly along OCTD right-of- way to the SARI line in the Santa Ana River. Alternate #2: Along Euclid Street, from Orangewood Avenue south to Edinger Avenue, east to Newhope Street, south to Warner Avenue, then east to SARI line in the Santa Ana River. hfFftffhtfl PROJECT AREA Focused EIR Amendment No. 1 Regional Setting Master Plan of Tn.nk Sewers District 2 County Sanitation District of Orange County 2-4 .. north Figure 3 II.a ~ -~ = ~ mi' ..i ~ a=I ~ =.I ~ ~ ~ ~ 11111::\ "=' l:ed - o"' " "'"' "'" ~~ \" KEY 4.~ ~+ CJo ~ ~ Oll&ll8E COUMTY SANITATION DISTRICT 110.z OMllU COUJITY SANITATION DISTRICT 110.11 --ITUDY Alt!A BOUNDARY Project Area LOS Focused EIR Amendment No. 1 Master Plan of Tnmk Sewers District 2 County Sanitation District of Orange County ~-5 ..... north .Figure 4 S3~DSV3W NO!J.VOIJJW ONV SJ.:>VdWI 'QNl.LJ.3S 1VJ.N3WNO~l/\N3 o·E NOIJ.:>3S F'1 !=J, , I - 3. 1 Biological Resources (Santa Ana River) The proposed relief facility that would parallel the Orange Sub-Trunk (Facility No. 6, Plate No. 4) would cross beneath the Santa Ana River to connect to the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line, just west of the interchange of the 1-5, State Route 57 and State Route 22 freeways. Since the Santa Ana River is historically the primary riparian corridor in the study area, Willdan Associates retained Dr. Richard Vogl of UCLA, a professional wetlands biologist, to assess the biological significance of this portion of the Santa Ana River. Dr. Vogl's report is presented in its entirety in Appendix 8. A summary of his assessment follows below. Environmental Setting The Santa Ana River, in the vicinity of the proposed Orange Sub-Trunk sewer installation, is a channelized sandy bottom channel contained by rock riprap levees with sloped sides, and flat graded tops. The back shoulders of the levees are made of soil. The river bank area in the vicinity of the 1-5, 22, and 57 freeways is sparsely vegetated. The few plants present are mostly non-native, weedy species, becoming temporarily established when there is water present in the channel, or as a result of winter rain on the surface. There are no wetland plant associations or wildlife habitat present in the area of the proposed sub-trunk sewer line. The bed of the Santa Ana River is flat and sandy, with intermittent surface flow. There is no riverbottom or streamside vegetation associated with the river bed. There existed, at the time of the survey, scattered grasses and isolated shrubs growing near outflows of storm drains. Plants that do invade the river bed are short lived, being periodically removed by flood control maintenance or eliminated with seasonal flooding. Tracks of egrets or herons were found around scattered puddles created by winter rains. Although there was no surface stream flow, saturated sands indicate considerable subterranean flow. The riprap slopes of the levees have been partially filled with sand and debris from floods. There are no wetland plants present. Herbicide application has kept the slopes and graded dirt tops largely bare. Those plants present were either standing dead, or seedlings established since the last herbicide application. A decadent willow and elderberry shrubs were found near the edge of the levee top, bordering the back shoulder. The slopes behind the levee tops are of local soils and have a line of eucalyptus trees just southwest of the 1-5 freeway on both sides of the river. Low growing grasses are abundant below a flow-impeding station between the 1-5 and 22 freeways. A drainage channel west of the J-5 freeway contained weedy, colonizing plants. Environmental Impacts Installation of the proposed sewer, para I lel to the Orange Sub-Trunk, w.ill . be accomplished through either tunneling beneath the river or by d1ggmg an open trench across the river bottom. This construction activity 3-1 - .. will have negligible biological effects. There are no wetland features or wildlife habitat within the area surveyed. Diversion of water during installation will have little or no effect on the river bank trees and grasses downstream. Due to the barren nature of the area, the introduction of construction equipment, excavations, and related activities are not expected to produce any consequential biological effects. There are no unique or valuable plants or animals in the area which require consideration. Mitigation Measures 1. The CSDOC will coordinate the engineering and construction activities with the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (Flood Control Section) and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, from whom construction permits are required. Sewer alignment and construction activities will be planned to avoid adverse impacts within the Santa Ana River Channel. Construction will not be allowed to impede flood flows; this may limit construction to the summer months. 2. The California Department of Fish and Game will also be contacted, prior to commencement of construction, to insure that the construction method and alignment of the Orange Sub-Trunk does not obstruct, divert or alter the Santa Ana River. 3-2 - - .. - - 3. 2 Hydrology /Water Quality Environmental Setting The study area is set within the lower Santa Ana Watershed, also known as the Orange County Coastal Basin. This watershed area is the lower part of the massive Santa Ana River regional water basin area, described below. The watershed of the Santa Ana River and its tributaries, including the San Jacinto River System, makes up most of the Santa Ana Region. Because the western boundary of the region is the Los Angeles County line, however, those portions of Orange County which drain into the San Gabriel River watershed are included in the region. The Pomona-Claremont area, part of the upper Santa Ana River watershed within Los Angeles County, is excluded from the region. To the south, watersheds of San Diego Creek and the other tributaries to Newport Bay are included, as are the coastal drainages southeast of Newport Bay as far down the coast as the divider between Muddy and Morro Canyons, just north of Laguna Beach. The Santa Ana River and its tributaries drain the southern portions of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains and the southern parts of the San Bernardino Mountains. These streams recharge the largest underground water basin in the region, the upper Santa Ana River Basin. Surface and ground waters in the upper basin eventually flow through Prado Dam, at the head of the Santa Ana River Canyon, and down into the Orange County Coastal Basin, or lower basin. The San Jacinto River system drains the southwestern slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains, and recharges the graben, a deep alluvial fill formation. Occasional surface flows cross the valley floor and enter Canyon Lake (previously Railroad Canyon Lake). Overflows and releases from Canyon Lake, plus other local drainage from the surrounding area, flow into Lake Elsinore, which usually acts as a sink, i.e., it has no surface outflow. Rare overflows (two or three in this century) from Lake Elsinore enter Temescal Creek, which joins the Santa Ana River just upstream of Prado Dam. Below Prado Dam, the Santa Ana River is diverted for recharge of the Orange County ground water basin. Stormwater flows occasionally reach the Pacific Ocean. The quality of the water within the Santa Ana Region reflects the influences of local topography, subsurface geology and land use, particularly urbanization. The mountainous areas of the region get the largest amounts of rain and snow. Water in the mountain streams is generally of very high quality (low in dissolved mineral content). Where these streams leave the mountains, the management patterns established by the original agricultural development of the predominantly flat areas are still very much in evidence. Surface flows are diverted for domestic use, for irrigation, or for percolation and recharge of ground water basins. As a result, the best quality ground water is near the bases of the mountains. Subsurface water flows are then generally downhill, but they are affected by local pumping and geology. Good examples of geologic features which influence ground water flow include 3-3 the Bunker Hill "Dike", which restricts underground flow between the San Bernardino and Colton-Rialto areas near the Santa Ana River, the Red Hill Fault near Upland, the San Jacinto graben, mentioned earlier, and subsurface barriers in the Riverside Narrows and Prado Dam areas, where underground flows are forced to the surface. Ground water is used for municipal and domestic supply, for industrial use, or for irrigation. All of these uses affect the quality of the water by increasing the concentration of dissolved minerals. This is done either by direct addition (detergents, fertilizers, etc.) or by reducing the volume through evaporation or evapotranspiration. In some cases, a two-step concentration can occur: wastewater is collected, having been mineralized by one domestic or industrial use, and after treatment it is applied as irrigation water, giving it a second increment of mineral increase before it is discharged. Local water use and management of the wastewater, therefore, can strongly affect the quality of the water as it moves through the basin. Within the study area, no direct sewer discharges to groundwater basins occur, nor are discharges permitted to the Santa Ana River, which is the major drainage course/ flood control facility through the study area. The Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line was designed to carry high-salt content and industrial wastes from Riverside County to the CSDOC Treatment Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. The SAR I I ine crosses or follows major drainage courses, within the study area, including the Santa Ana River, in the following areas. In the northeast portion of the study area, the SARI line meanders along the Riverside freeway I Santa Ana Canyon corridor to the easterly terminus of La Palma Avenue in the City of Yorba Linda. From that point, it travels beneath La Palma Avenue, westerly to where it turns south and crosses beneath the Santa Ana River and continues its path, within the river embankment, to the CSDOC Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. Environmental Impacts As shown on Plate No. 4 and described in Table 3, Page 21, proposed relief facilities would connect to the SARI line, in the vicinity of the Santa Ana River, in the following locations: Relief Facility # #1 (Trunk Sewer) #7 (Parallel Sewer) #6 (Parallel Sewer) Location Beneath the flood control channel, between Orangethorpe Avenue and La Palma Avenue, near Willow Woods Drive (Anaheim). Parallel to SARI line along La Palma Avenue, from OCSD station 913 + 50 to Grove Street (Anaheim). Parallel to Orange Sub-Trunk Sewer, from Santa Ana Freeway, to the SARI line (crossing beneath the Santa Ana River). 3-4 - .... Relief Facility # #12 (Diversion Facility) #15 (Diversion Sewer) Location Along Orangewood Avenue, from State College Boulevard to SARI line near Orange Freeway. Along OCTD right-of-way to SARI line, next to Willowick Municipal Golf Course (Santa Ana). An alternative alignment would follow arterial streets southerly along Euclid and New hope Streets to Warner Avenue, then east to the SARI line. In addition, relief facility #2 would parallel the north branch of the Rolling Hills Sub-Trunk, passing through Craig Park in the vicinity of the Fullerton Dam and the Fullerton Dry Reservoir. Fourteen flood control facilities maintained by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency will be affected by the proposed relief facilities (see Appendix C for complete list). None of the proposed relief facilities will discharge into the Santa Ana River or any surface areas. No new forms of wastewater will be collected for treatment at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 1. Therefore, water quality degradation of either the Santa Ana River or the treated wastewater at Treatment Plant No. 1 will not occur. During construction, open trenches and "jacking" tunnels used to lay pipeline may encounter groundwater infiltration in areas of high groundwater. Open trenches will also collect rainfall and surface runoff during periods of rainfal I. Increases or decreases of surface water percolation are not anticipated, since the majority of the improvements will be installed beneath surface streets or in areas previously disturbed. The proposed sewer along the OCTD right-of-way would be 15-30 feet underground and would not affect percolation except during construction. If this line is installed in conjunction with a new OCTD vehicular transitway, this presently uncovered right-of-way would be totally surfaced as a roadway, thereby decreasing local percolation. Feasibility studies are presently underway, by the Orange County Transit District, to evaluate alternative transit uses over this right-of-way. The final alternative selected may preclude joint use as an alignment for proposed relief facility number 15. if this were the case, the alternative alignment would follow existing surface streets and no permanent change in the absorption or run-off of stormwaters would occur. Mitigation Measures 1 . The Orange County Environmental Management Agency -Development Services Section (flood control district) will review the proposed sewer construction projects affecting the Santa Ana River channel, the 3-5 Fullerton Dam area and all other affected County flood control facilities, along with project scheduling, when Orange County Sanitation District No. 2 applies for construction permits from the flood control district. The flood control district will require that construction is conducted in such a manner that there will be no adverse impacts upon flood control facilities. Construction will not be allowed to occur at a time when it could impede flood flows, and will be limited to the summer months. 2. CSDOC will apply for and comply with a Section 404 permit for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 3. All connections to the SARI line will be consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Santa Ana River Main Stem Project. 4. Relief facility #1 will be installed in conjunction with the planned expansion of the flood control channel it will lie beneath. 5. Casketed joints will be utilized to ensure watertight joints and minimize possible infiltration of perched groundwater to the sewerage system. 6. Surface runoff will be handled by the existing storm drain system. Temporary sump pumps will be installed to dispose of excess water collecting in open trenches or around the installed lines. Sandbagging or another appropriate method will be employed to protect open trenches from storm flows. 7. Groundwater infiltration can be controlled by portable sump pumps discharging into nearby storm drains or catch basins after desilting; these practices would be in accordance with a CSDOC's N PDES de-watering discharge permit. 3-6 3. 3 Traffic/ Circulation This section will focus only on circulation routes that were not identified in the 1983 Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11 as alignments for needed sewer improvements, but which are so identified in the subject Amendment No. 1 to that 1983 Master Plan. Environmental Setting Relief Facility #6 (See Plate No. 4) would parallel the Orange Sub-Trunk, beginning at La Veta Avenue in the City of Orange, just east of the Santa Ana freeway, then traveling west under the freeway and under the Santa Ana River, to the SARI line in the westerly embankment of the river. A Class I regional bicycle trail and an equestrian trail are located on top of the river embankment. Relief Facilities 3 and 8 would both be installed within Associated Road, just north of Yorba Linda Boulevard in the City of Fullerton. Associated Road is classified as a secondary arterial in this area, intended to carry four thru-lanes of traffic within an 80-foot right-of-way. This particular segment carries a great deal of local commuter traffic, consisting primarily of local residents and students attending the Southern California College of Optometry and the California State University, Fullerton. Relief Facility #1 OA would be installed within the alignment of Ball Road, from Walnut Street on the east to the proposed relief trunk at Euclid Street, in the City of Anaheim. This segment of Ball Road is through a residential district. It is classified as a primary arterial, carrying two lanes of through traffic in each direction, within a 100 foot right-of-way. It is also an OCTD bus route. Relief Facility #1 OB would be installed within the alignment of Katella Avenue, from Walnut Street to the proposed relief trunk at Euclid Street, in the City of Anaheim. Katella Avenue is classified as a major arterial. However, in this area it contains only four thru-lanes, passing through both residential and mixed use areas. It is an OCTD bus route, also. Relief Facility #12 would be installed within the alignment of Orangewood Avenue, from State College Boulevard to the SARI line at the Santa Ana River, in the City of Anaheim. This segment of Orangewood Avenue is classified as a primary arterial, with four lanes of through traffic. It traverses a mixed use (commercial/residential) corridor, with parking along both sides of the street. It passes over the Orange freeway (State Route 57) and Santa Ana River. Relief Facility #13A would be installed within the alignment of Malvern Avenue, approximately in the block area between Highland Avenue and Malden Avenue, in the City of Fullerton. In this area, Malvern Avenue is a local street in a quiet, older, single-family neighborhood. Relief Facility #138 would be installed within the alignment of Woods Avenue, near Orangethorpe Avenue, in the City of Fullerton. Woods Avenue in this area is a residential collector street, crossing Orangethorpe Avenue a major east-west arterial. ' 3-7 Relief Facility #14 would involve the installation of about 4. 5 miles of trunk sewer within the alignment of Euclid Street, through the Cities of Fullerton, Anaheim and Garden Grove. The affected segment extends from Orangethorpe Avenue in Fullerton on the north, to Orangewood Avenue in Garden Grove on the south. Classified as a primary arterial, Euclid Avenue in th is area is a major north-south transportation route, carrying four lanes of through traffic and traversing a variety of residential, commercial and school uses. Several pockets of heavy commercial activity are found along this segment. Traffic is busy throughout the day and especially so during morning and late afternoon peak hours. Euclid Street, in this area, passes over the Santa Ana Freeway ( 1-5) and an adjacent rai I I ine, and also passes beneath the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91). Two primary alignment alternatives are under consideration for proposed Relief Facility #15. The first alternative would start within the alignment of Euclid Street, from Orangewood Avenue to the OCTD right-of-way just south of Garden Grove Boulevard, in the City of Garden Grove. From there, it would be installed within the vacant, 100'-wide OCTD right-of-way, traveling southeasterly through residential, commercial and industrial areas to the SARI line at the Santa Ana River. This segment of Euclid Street is also classified as a primary arterial with four heavily traveled thru-lanes traversing a fairly intensive mixed use corridor. The OCTD right-of-way follows the alignment of the old Pacific Electric Railway and crosses several arterial streets. It also passes beneath the Garden Grove Freeway (State Route 22) just south of Trask Avenue, in the City of Garden Grove. Major street crossings include: Trask Avenue, Westminster Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, all in the City of Garden Grove. It continues southeasterly, along the northerly boundary of the Willowicks Golf Course in Santa Ana, to the SARI line at the Santa Ana River. The second alternative would follow Euclid Street, from Orangewood Avenue (Anaheim) south to Edinger Avenue (Fountain Valley), then east to Newhope Street, south to Warner Avenue and finally east to the SARI line. In this area, Edinger Avenue is classified as a primary arterial; Newhope Street is a secondary arterial; and Warner Avenue is a major arterial. Environmental Impacts Impacts to the circulation routes discussed above will be short-term, related to the construction activities involved in installing the proposed relief facilities. Upon completion of each construction project, the affected roadways and trails will be restored to fully operable conditions and there wil I be no long-term effects to these circulation routes. Installation of the relief facilities referred to above will involve the excavation of a portion of the affected roadways, utilizing open· trench construction (which is the least expensive) in most cases. This will result in the closure of one or more traffic lanes at a time, depending on whether a sewer is laid along the edge or down the middle of a street and on the width of a street section in a particular construction zone. In some cases, access to private properties may be temporarily reduced while construction 3-8 progresses in sequence along each affected roadway. Such disruptions will be more significant along the major arterials (Euclid Street, Ball Road and Katella Avenue) and less pronounced where shorter sewers and less traveled roadways are involved. To avoid disruption to the Santa Ana, Riverside and Garden Grove freeways, the relief facilities proposed to cross these regional transportation corridors will be tunnelled beneath the freeways. Using a technique known as "jacking", pipe will be lowered into a trench on one side of the freeway and pushed through the soil beneath the freeway to the other side. The bicycle and equestrian trails along the embankment of the Santa Ana River may be temporarily disrupted during instal ration of the sewer parallel to the Orange Sub-Trunk and its connection to the SARI line. It appears to be feasible to detour these trails around the construction area. Mitigation Measures 1. Traffic control plans will be prepared by a qualified professional engineer, prior to the construction phase of each sewer line project as implementation proceeds. 2. Traffic control plans will consider the ability of alternative routes to carry additional traffic and identify the hours of construction, construction site truck access routes, and the type and location of warning signs, lights, and other traffic control devices. Consideration will be given to maintaining access to commercial parking lots, private driveways and sidewalks, to the greatest extent feasible. 3. The County Sanitation Districts wil I comply with traffic control requirements, as identified by the affected local jurisdictions. 4. Encroachment permits for all work within public right-of-ways will be obtained from each involved agency prior to commencement of any construction. Agencies involved include: Cal trans, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (Flood Control and Transportation Planning Divisions) and the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fullerton, Garden Grove and Santa Ana. 5. The CSDOC will coordinate the planning of Relief Facility #15 with the Orange County Transit District's transitway planning program. If joint use of this right-of-way is determined to be feasible, every effort will be made to install the proposed sewer lines in advance of, or jointly with, the future OCTD transitway. This will greatly reduce both environmental impacts and construction costs. 6. Traffic control plans wil I comply with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and/or the Manual of Traffic Controls as determined by each affected local agency, to minimize any traffic and pedestrian hazards which exist during project construction. 3-9 7. The construction technique for the implementation of the proposed sewer I in es, such as tunneling, cut and cover with partial street closure, or cut and cover with full street closure, should include consideration of the ability of the roadway system, both the street in question and alternate routes, to carry existing traffic volumes during project construction. If necessary, adjacent parallel streets will be selected as alternate alignments for the proposed sewer improvements. Trunk sewers will be jacked under all major intersections, to avoid traffic disruption and congestion. 8. Public streets will generally be kept operational during construction, particularly in the morning and evening peak hours of traffic. 9. Pub I ic roadways wil I be restored to their existing condition after project construction is completed. 1 O. The CSDOC will attempt to schedule construction of relief facilities to occur jointly with other public works projects already planned in the affected locations, through careful coordination with all local agencies involved. 3-10 - 3. 4 Land Use and Population Environmental Setting The study area includes all or portions of the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park and Yorba Linda along with unincorporated areas of northeastern Orange County. The total land area involved is approximately 134 square miles. Morth Orange County has long been recognized as an attractive area in which to live and work. The area is already mostly urbanized, and rapid growth is occurring in the central and northern portions of the study area. Several large-scale residential developments are currently under construction in the Cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda along the Santa Ana Canyon corridor. These developments consist of 500+ acre ranch developments with over 1 ,000 dwelling units each, plus supporting commercial services. Several new ranch developments are also planned and will be developed in the area through the Year 2005. Increased industrial development is also planned for the study area. The Northeast Industrial Area in East Anaheim is expected to experience growth in the form of new construction of research and development ( R and D) industrial parks. Also, several high-use office developments are planned for this area. The central portion of the study area is highly urbanized with existing residential, commercial and industrial land uses. There has been increased hotel development in and around the commercial I recreational areas near Disneyland, and additional hotel rooms are planned for the area. Also, the Anaheim Stadium area will be further expanded to include additional high-rise commercial office complexes. The proposed sewer improvements in the study area will occur primarily in urbanized areas and mostly along streets in both residential and commercial areas. Relief Facility #15 would follow an existing undeveloped OCTD easement, cutting through residential, industrial and commercial areas. Relief Facility #2 would parallel the Rolling Hills Sub-Trunk within Craig Park, a regional park facility just west of the Orange freeway in Brea. Relief Facility #6 would parallel the Orange Sub-Trunk as it crosses the Santa Ana River, just west of the interchange of the 1-5 and 57 freeways. The existing population for the study area, based on the January 1 , 1986, State Department of Finance ( DOF) estimates is approximately 979 ,422 persons. This figure is comprised of the total populations of the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park and Yorba Linda. The figure is a high estimate because portions of several of these communities are outside of the boundaries of the study area. 3-11 The projected population for the study area may be determined by referring to SCAG's 1982 Growth Forecast Policy. Projected population by Regional Statistical Areas for District 2 (Areas 35, 36, 37 and 41) is approximately 970, 000 persons by the Year 2000. This figure is dated, however, when compared to the latest DOF statistics cited above. The future (Year 2005) resident population within the study area that the proposed sewer improvements are designed to accommodate, can be estimated by assuming a future average household size, multiplied by the future number of housing units. Table 1 , following, illustrates the estimated Year 2005 Study Area population using updated local General Plan Land Use Element projections and SCAG's predicted Year 2000 average household size. In the next 15-20 years, it is estimated that over 1 , 130, 000 persons will be living within the study area. In addition to the future resident population, the proposed sewer improvements are intended to accommodate the future employment population within the study area. Major tourist, recreation and convention facilities will also add to the total population within the study area. Utilizing updated local General Plan data and studies by the Urban Land Institute, along with City of Anaheim figures for the Anaheim Stadium, Anaheim Convention Center and Disneyland, it is estimated that nearly 495, 000 persons will be employed within or visiting the study area on a daily basis, in 20 years. (See Table 2, following.) 3-12 I w I ....... w I [ l l [ [ ( I [ l I TABLE 1 STUDY AREA PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL POPULATION Land Use Category Area (Acres) 1 D • U . I Ac re) 2 Dwelling Units Estate Density Residential 11,716 2 23,Ll32 Low Density Residential 28,382 5 141,910 Medium Density Residential 6,930 14 97,020 High Density Residential 2,458 26 63,908 Very High Density Residential 2,481 38 94,278 TOTAL 51,967 420,548 1 From Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 --Euclid/Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area. Land use distribution based on 15-20 year land use plans for each of the local jurisdictions in the study area. 2 D. U. per acre based on average d. u. I acre for each land use category for the ten (10) communities located in the study area. 3 Based on SCAG 182 Growth Forecast Policy, Year 2000. 3 Persons per D. U. Total Persons 2.7 63,266 2.7 383,157 2.7 261,95LI 2.7 172,522 2.7 254,551 1,135,480 ( TABLE 2 FUTURE DAILY EMPLOYMENT AND TOURIST/ RECREATION POPULATION Land Use Category Commercial /Office High Rise Commercial/Office Industrial I Manufacturing Open Space Other Anaheim Stadium (Maximum Capacity) Disneyland (Average Daily Attendance, Summer) Anaheim Convention Center (All halls Occupied.) Area (Acres) 1 6,643 1I491 8,702 -0- TOTAL Employees 2 Per Acre 14 30 22 -o- Total Persons 93,002 44,730 191,444 -o- 70,500 45,000 50,000 494,676 Future (Year 2005) land use distribution compiled from local General Plans as reported in Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 --Euclid/ Newhope-Placentia Drainage Area. 2 ULI -Urban Land Institute Office Development Handbook (1982) and Industrial Development Handbook ( 1975). Impacts Impacts to existing land uses in the study area will be short-term and unavoidable. These impacts will consist primarily of increased noise, fugitive dust and traffic disruption associated with the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. As previously mentioned, a majority of the sewer improvements in the study area will occur within existing street right-of-ways and along easements already dedicated to sewers. Nevertheless, disruptions in the study area will occur. For example, commercial areas (e.g. Disneyland, Canyon Plaza) may be impacted by construction projects, should their access ways or parking areas be disrupted or blocked. Also, certain recreational uses, including the Willowick Municipal Golf Course in Santa Ana, the regional Craig Park in Brea, and the bicycle trail along the Santa Ana River, will be disrupted somewhat during construction of proposed sewers in those areas. 3-14 Additional impacts may occur as the result o.f a sewer I ine backing up for some unforeseen reason. However, the likelihood of this happening is considered minimal because the proposed sewer lines are gravity flow and because effluents will continue to be discharged through existing sewer lines and wil I not have to be diverted. Mitigation Measures 1 • The proposed District 2 improvements will be coordinated by the CSDOC and the affected Orange County (EMA) and municipal agencies, to determine the most appropriate location for the sewer improvements and to minimize construction impacts as much as possible. Said coordination should also include the phasing of additional street and transitway improvements at the same time the sewer improvements are made. 2. All construction activities will be required to conform to the limitations imposed by each affected local government. 3. The exact location of new sewer I ines should be determined in a manner that results in the least disruption along existing arterial streets and highways. Access to commercial centers and parking areas will be maintained to the greatest extent feasible. 4. Consideration will be given to scheduling construction projects in order to avoid noise impacts to more sensitive land uses in the study area (i.e. schools, churches, residential areas). Mitigation measures concerning the undercrossing of the Santa Ana River and traffic disruption are provided in the appropriate chapters within this report. 3-15 3. 5 Public Services and Utilities Existing Environmental Setting The proposed trunk sewers will be located near the following utility agency faci Ii ties: Energy Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company City of Anaheim (electricity) Telephone Pacific Bell Company Water Municipal Water District of Orange County Yorba Linda County Water District Serrano Irrigation District City of Anaheim City of Brea City of Fountain Valley City of Fullerton City of Garden Grove City of Orange City of Santa Ana City of Villa Park City of Yorba Linda Southern California Water Company Metropolitan Water District Sewer City of Anaheim City of Brea Garden Grove Sanitary District City of Fountain Valley City of Fullerton City of Orange City of Placentia City of Villa Park City of Yorba Linda Cable Television Media Cable Century Cable Rogers Cable System Cable Vision of Orange City Cable Yorba Linda Cable T. V. 3-16 Environmental Impacts Letters, including a map and tabular description of the proposed sewer improvements, were sent to each of the above agencies to ascertain their concerns regarding potential impacts to their facilities. Not all agencies responded; however their comments and concerns were generally very similar and are summarized below. Please refer to Appendix C for a copy of those responses that were received. Most of the utility companies within the study area own facilities, either underground or overhead, within ·the areas proposed for sewer improvements. Since precise engineering plans, which include the exact location of the proposed sewers have not been prepared, it is not yet possible to ascertain what specific utilities will be affected. However, many underground utility facilities will be unearthed or temporarily removed during pipeline construction efforts. Careful planning and coordination with the various utility agencies and the Underground Service Alert of Southern California will be necessary to avoid destruction to underground facilities and to provide for interim utility service delivery until construction is complete. Mitigation Measures 1. The CSDOC will coordinate with the Underground Service Alert of Southern California and with all local municipal and utility agencies during preparation of engineering plans for the proposed sewer improvements. Plans will incorporate measures to avoid alignments with intensive existing underground facilities and to insure adequate spacing between sewer, water and other utility lines and to provide for an alternate service delivery system, if necessary, during project construction activities. Encroachment permits from each municipal agency will be required prior to commencing work within public right-of-ways. 2. Construction activities will be constantly monitored by trained professionals to help minimize the potential for damage to underground facilities found in an unexpected location. 3. Plans, specifications and construction activities will be in accordance with the following manuals prepared by the CS DOC: · "General Provisions and Standard Specifications for 1984 11 "Standard Requirements for the Construction of Sanitary Sewers" (1979) 4. Underground facilities which must be temporarily removed during construction and replaced thereafter will be stored and replaced at CSDOC's expense. 3-17 3. 6 Energy Environmental Setting Energy consumption within the District No. 2 sewage collection system consists only of electrical energy consumed in operating three pumping stations. Indirect energy consumption occurs in treating effluents downstream at the Joint Works Wastewater Treatment and Disposal facility. The District currently owns and operates three (3) pumping stations in the Study Area. Two of these pumping stations will be closed as a result of the proposed sewer improvements in the Study Area. Construction of the Fullerton-Brea Interceptor to relieve the Fullerton-Brea Purchase will allow the Rolling Hills Pumping Station to be taken out of service. Also, the installation of a new gravity sewer will allow the Carbon Canyon Dam Pumping Station to be taken out of service. The Yorba Linda Pumping Station is the third pumping station in the District and the only one scheduled to continue operation. The Yorba Linda Pumping Station is a wet well/ dry wel I facility that contains three pumps operated in parallel. This facility pumps flows from the Rolling Hills Sub-trunk and the Pioneer Branch sewers to the Carbon Canyon Interceptor. It is also used to pump peak flows from the Cypress Sub-trunk. This station has sufficient capacity to handle projected average and peak effluent flows from the Rolling Hills Sub-trunk and Pioneer Branch sewers. In Fiscal Year 1985-86, the total utility cost fof energy consumption within the District 2 trunk sewer system, was $54, 708. Environmental Impacts Short-Term Short-term energy impacts will result from construction of the proposed facilities and will include the following: 1 . Increased petroleum-based fuel consumption by construction vehicles and equipment. 2. Vehicle fuel used by workers travelling to and from construction sites. Long-Term Energy consumption within the District 2 trunk system is expected to decrease as the result of the installation of the proposed trunk sewer improvements. Relief facilities to District 2 will consist primarily of parallel gravity-flow trunk sewer lines which do not require flow assistance from additional pumping stations. Moreover, the District plans to close two County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Final budget, 1986-87 Fiscal Year. 3-18 pumping stations (Rolling Hills Pumping Station and Carbon Canyon Dam Pumping Station). These pumping stations will no longer be needed once the proposed sewer improvements have been completed. This would result in overall reduced energy consumption and utility costs for the District. However, the remaining pump station (Yorba Linda Pumping Station) will consume more energy and become more costly to operate on a daily basis because it will be pumping additional wastewater due to urban growth in that area over the next 15-20 years. Although energy consumption within the collection facilities of District 2 is expected to decline somewhat greater energy consumption will occur at the Joint Works Treatment facilities as a result of increase in total effluent to be discharged from District 2, resulting from additional growth approved by the various local agencies with land use authority. The Southern California Edison Company, which is the regional supplier of electrical energy to the CSDOC, is anticipating ongoing increases in demand over the next 20 years. It is planning to expand its facilities to meet this demand, but the added costs will be passed onto its customers, including the CSDOC. Mitigation Measures 1 • Construction equipment and vehicles will be maintained in good operating condition. 2. Long-term increases in energy consumption at the Joint Works facilities are unavoidable. However, extra attention to energy conserving technology used in the design of expansions to the Joint Works facilities will help reduce the rate of increase. The CSDOC is presently considering the development of a central electricity generating facility at the Joint Works facilities. This would involve, for example, a methane recovery system which would convert methane gas to electrical energy, on-site, which could be used within the treatment facilities, thereby reducing the amount of electricity to be purchased from the Southern California Edison Company. 3-19 .. - - 3.7 Cost/Revenue Estimated Costs The estimated capital costs to construct the proposed relief facilities are presented in Table 3, on the following page. Priorities for construction of the recommended facilities are based on the current severity of each projected deficiency and other considerations such as coordination with planned construction activities along the route of the proposed facilities. The most critical deficiencies requiring immediate corrective measures are those on the South Anaheim Interceptor, Newhope-Placentia Trunk and the Euclid Truck/Euclid Purchase sewers. These I ines are presently subject to surcharge conditions and are subject to increased flows from intensified development in tributary areas. Improvements for relieving deficiencies in these critical sections are recommended for construction within the next five-year period and will require a total of approximately 57 ,000 feet of new sewers and nearly $25 million in capital costs. The balance of the proposed improvements are recommended to occur subsequent to 1991 • The timing for their construction will be based on correcting the projected deficiencies as they begin to occur. Total capital costs for those faci Ii ties are estimated at $9. 0 mi Ilion. Ongoing facilities maintenance and operating (M and 0) costs for the entire District 2 trunk sewer system are projected to range fr.pm $724 ,000 in Fiscal Year 1986-1987 to $1,268,000 in Fiscal Year 1990-1991. These costs include the following administrative, field work and utility costs: trunk maintenance, pump station maintenance, manhole repair, permit and industrial waste administration, connection fee administration, inter-district sewer use charges, bond collection expenses, tax collection expenses, investment administration and banking fees, utilities, professional services, director's fees, office and printing costs, etc. Based on the budgeted maintenance costs for the existing trunk sewer system of $140 ,000, it is estimated that the proposed relief facilities would add approximately $15, 000 to the annual M and 0 costs (at current dollar value). This estimate focuses only on the costs added by new trunk sewers not presently in place. These additional costs would be primarily for increased maintenance of the more heavily utilized Yorba Linda Pumping station, for a larger number of manholes to repair and for an expanded program of trunk sewer clean-outs. Final Budget, 1986-1987 Fiscal Year, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. 3-20 I I t I .. I l I ,_ I I l l I I I TABLE 3 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS Total Diameter Length of Relieves of Relief Relief Capital Deficiency Sewer Sewer Cost Designation Description No. {in) {ft) ($) Santa Ana River System 1 Construct sewer to divert all flows { 4. 84 mgd average; 7 .60 mgd peak) from Atwood-Orchard Subtrunk on Orangethorpe Avenue near Willow Woods Drive to SARI in La Palma Avenue. 24,21 1,300 208, 100 2 Construct parallel sewer to entire North Branch of w Rolling Hills subtrunk. 2 15 1,160 137,800 I N ...... 3 Construct parallel sewer to Rolling Hills subtrunk immediately upstream of Yorba Linda Pump Station. 3 15 720 85,500 4 Construct parallel sewer to Lincoln-Batavia Trunk from Station 97+95 to Batavia Street. 4 12 2,280 213 ,800 5 Construct parallel sewer to Taft Branch from Santiago 12,15, Boulevard to Glassell Street. 5 18,21 10,780 1,277,000 6 Construct parallel sewer to Orange Subtrunk from Santa Ana Freeway to SAR I. 6 21,24 1,530 277 ,300 7 Construct parallel sewer to SARI from Station 913+50 24,30,36 to Grove Street. 7 I 8 39,45 22,510 6,696,000 Newhope-Placentia System 8 Construct para I lei sewer to Cypress Subtrunk from Bastanchury Road to diversion to Yorba Linda Pump Station. 9 12 1,590 149, 100 I I I I I [ I I l I I ( Table 3 (Cont.) Total Diameter Length of Relieves of Relief Relief Capital Deficiency Sewer Sewer Cost Designation Description No. (in) (ft) ($) Newhope-Placentia System (Cont. ) 9 Divert 2. 00 mgd average ( 3. 70 mgd peak) flow to Carbon Canyon interceptor from Cypress Subtrunk 10, 11 , at Yorba Linda Pump Station. 14, 15 * 10a Construction sewer to divert 9. 80 mgd average (14.50 mgd peak) flow from South Anaheim Inter- ceptor at Ball Road to Euclid Trunk at Ball Road. 12 30 4,000 1,100,000 10b Construct sewer to divert 7. 24 mgd average ( 11 • 00 mgd peak) flow from South Anaheim Interceptor at Katella Avenue to Euclid Trunk at Katella Avenue. 12 27 4,000 975,000 w I 11 Construct sewer parallel to Bolsa Trunk from Harbor N N Boulevard to Newhope Street. 13 15 2,750 326,600 12 Construct sewer to divert 10. 00 mgd average ( 14. 80 mgd peak) flow from Newhope-Placentia Trunk at 16, 17 Orangewood Avenue to SARI at Orangewood Avenue. 18 33 3,000 918,000 Euclid System 13a Construct diversion facility for all flow (2. 34 mgd average; 3.90 mgd peak) from Fullerton-Brea Pur- chase to Fullerton-Brea Interceptor at their crossing 19 at Malvern Avenue. (Partial) ** 13b Construct ·diversion facility for 2. 55 mgd average (4.21 mgd peak) flow from Fullerton-Brea Purchase to Fullerton-Brea Interceptor at Woods Avenue. Upsize Fullerton-Brea Interceptor to 48-inch diameter 19 downstream. (Partial) ** I w I r-.> w I I I I . l [ -[ ( Table 3 (Cont.) Designation Description Euclid System (Cont.) 14 15 Construct sewer parallel to Euclid Trunk from Orangethorpe A venue to Orangewood Avenue. Abandon Euclid Purchase over same distance. Construct sewer to divert 35. 65 mgd average ( 47. 68 mgd peak) flow from Euclid Trunk at Orangewood Avenue to SARI along route of Euclid Avenue and OCTD right-of-way. Abandon Euclid Purchase over same portion of Euclid Avenue. Relieves Deficiency No. 20, 21 (Partial) 21 (Partial) I l Diameter of Relief Sewer (in) 39, 42 45, 48, 54 54, 78 l Total Length Relief Sewer (ft) 23,790 20,840 100,250 I I of Capital Cost ($) 10, 153, 000 $11,626,000 1 TOTALS (18.99 mi.) $34,143,200 1 Lowest cost alternative. Highest estimated cost alternative at this time is $18,505,000. * Capital costs are relatively minor. An increase in operational cost would occur due to increased pumping and power consumption. ** Relief facilities 13a and 13b can be incorporated into the design and construction of the Fullerton-Brea Interceptor with the associated costs to be included therein. Source: Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11, Euclid/Newhope -Placentia Drainage Area. Willdan Associates, October 1986 The District 2 share of annual M and 0 expenses for the Joint Works treatment facilities would rise considerably over the next 15-20 years, due to increasing sewage treatment demands stemming from the urban growth projected in the various local General Plans within the District 2 service area. Revenue Sources Several revenue sources are available to finance the capital and operating costs associated with the subject program of deficiency correction facilities. Current sources of revenue include: 1. Taxes a. Al location at the CSDOC's pro rata share of the maximum 1 % basic property tax allowed under Proposition 13. Each district collects an average of $. 03 for each $1. 00 of the basic levy. b. Funds collected to make voter-approved outstanding obligation bond principal and interest payments. Jarvis-Gann, this type of tax levy is not restricted. 2. Federa I/ State Construction Grants general Under The Federal Environmental Protection Agency and State Water Resources Control Board have historically funded up to 87i% of treatment plant construction for approved projects. These funds could also be applied to the construction of new trunk sewers and other collection facilities. Future grants from these sources may not be at the an% level, however, based on recent funding at a 30% level. Also, while EPA and the SWRCB normally fund a portion of construction facilities for a higher degree of treatment, the added on-going operating costs must be paid for entirely by the local community. Federal grants, as a source of capital construction financing, is considered highly unlikely at this point. This is due to the fact that trunk sewer collection systems are very low on the list of project priorities and also since many other California projects are already much higher up on the list of approved projects. 3. Fees District No. 2 collects both connection and annexation fees from system users. In addition, industrial waste users fees and supplemental users fees are collected. Such fees could be increased, if necessary, to meet some of the funding requirements to support the proposed deficiency connection facilities. 4. Interest and Other Income These revenues consist primarily of interest income from the investment of accumulated construction reserves and other miscellaneous items. 3-24 5. Carry Over and Reserves These revenues consist primarily of accumulated construction reserves for financing improved treatment facilities mandated by federal law and the master planned trunk sewer system of District No. 2. Also included are operating fund contingency reserves and authorized general reserves for the tax revenue cash flow dry period. According to C. S. D. 0. C. 's Finance Director, District 2 is very stable financially, and will have adequate capital funds and future connection fee revenues to absorb the costs of the facilities involved in the proposed project. It is anticipated that, in keeping with past practice, it will not be necessary to establish new benefit assessment districts to finance the trunk sewer improvements. Existing C.S.D.O.C. budget projections already allocate sufficient funds to build needed District capital facilities for the next five years. Beyond that, as stated above, revolving capital funds and connection fees will produce sufficient revenue to finance District 2 capital improvement and maintenance and operations requirements. 3-25 - - 3. 8 -Consistency With Other Relevant Plans SCAG 82 Growth Forecast The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) specifies that all wastewater facilities must be designed to meet the needs of normal anticipated growth with a reasonable reserve capacity. The SWRCB requires that faci Ii ties are designed in accordance with the latest population projections of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), stipulating that population projections must be consistent with forecasts used in the Area-wide Air Quality Maintenance Plan and the Area-wide Waste Treatment Management Plan (Section 208) developed under mandate of the Federal Clean Water Act. The current region-wide growth forecast is known as "SCAG 82 11 • The SCAG 82 population forecast for the Year 2000, for the regional statistical areas (RSA 's) that comprise the subject study area, is approximately 970, 000 persons. This estimate is strongly discounted by California Department of Finance estimates as of Janpary 1 , 1986, of over 970, 000 persons al ready residing in the study area. As discussed in Section 2. 4 of this report, the study area resident population is projected to grow to over 1 , 130, 000 by the Year 2005, based on updated local General Plan projections. SCAG is currently revising its growth forecasts, in recognition of the accelerated growth trends throughout the region. It is expected that the population forecasts for the subject study area will be increased to reflect the same land use projections now adopted by these local governments. Master Plan for Joint Works Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities 2 The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County ( CSDOC) have provided wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for northwestern Orange County for over 30 years. CSDOC is made up of eight separate sanitation districts which serve all or part of 23 cities. See Figure 5 following. Each District is governed by a Board of Directors of elected officials representing the cities or sanitary districts within the District and a member of the Board of Supervisors. The Districts service area includes 353 square miles of highly developed land, containing approximately 85 percent of the County's population, about 2. 1 million persons. The service area's population of nearly 1. 8 million persons has grown from 200 ,000 since the inception of CS DOC, and wastewater flows have increased from about 30 mill ion gallons per day ( mgd) to approximately 250 mgd. CSDOC's wastewater treatment facilities constitute the third largest wastewater treatment system on the Pacific Coast. The facilities include approximately 600 miles of major interceptor sewers, 200 miles of subtrunks, 33 pump stations and two large treatment plants collectively referred to as 2 Combined total population of 1 O cities within the study area. Contains excerpts from the Joint Treatment Works Wastewater Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Executive Summary, March 1985, by K. P. Lindstrom and Associates. 3-26 J J i .J I l ~ I I .i i I ~ i ' I '81 - w I ) i.l i \.) I .I I ..l i J I ) l.si FIGURE 5 CSDOC MEMBER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 3-27 ta:! ... .. l:e:I ~ ._, .. .. ... - _. ~ _, all .. ... .. - ... 1 I . "'~--® ln1~1N I I '" 71 ,,...... I -----Service Area Boundary District Boundary County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Member Districts co~---.-.,. --.....0 ';~·~+~ ,,.. ~ ••• •+",, \J:J ._o,+ c'~o o" c:io ..,,. ... Gr+ I> .... ,,.,. i Q~ ~ ~, ,,-\ ® , I .,,..,~ ~/ '-IRVIN , .. ,[ ... "' . • 0 north Focused EIR Figure Amendment Noe 1 Master Pim of Tftl"lk Sewers 5 District 2 Coutty S•ltatlon Dlatrlct of Orm91 COll1ty 3-27 - ... - - the Joint Works Facilities. The facilities consist of Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley, Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach, various interplant facilities to transfer flows from Plant No. 1 to Plant No. 2 and an ocean outfall effluent disposal system. These facilities are operated, maintained and administered by a staff of over 300 persons. Only municipal, commercial, and industrial wastewaters enter this system, with each District providing the required trunk sewers for individual drainage areas. Local jurisdictions (cities and sanitary districts) are still responsible for providing collector sewer systems for individual parcels which then connect to the CSDOC system. The Orange County Flood Control District owns and operates a separate extensive local storm drain system, not connected to the CSDOC sewer system, designed to accommodate surface and storm runoff and eliminate inflow into the sewer. The currently adopted Master Plan for the Joint Works Facilities addresses the SCAG '82 forecast for urban growth within the member districts through the Year 2003. However, specific projects to meet projected wastewater needs are constructed to meet needs on a five-year incremental basis. As the need for treatment facilities to meet both capacity and level of treatment demands is experienced, the Districts will respond through an on-going construction program. The current Master Plan provides for facility improvements and expansion needed to treat an estimated wastewater flow of 270 mgd in 1988. The Master Plan estimates a total flow rate of about 307 mgd by the Year 2003. As discussed earlier in this chapter, however, the SCAG growth forecasts for the study area, for the Year 2000, have already been exceeded. The subject Amendment No. 1 to the adopted Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11 is based upon updated and revised growth forecasts for the local communities within District 2. Based on that analysis, average daily wastewater flows for District 2 alone are expected to increase to nearly 192 mgd by the Year 2005. This represents about a 41 mgd increase over projected average flows calculated for District 2 in the 1983 Updated and Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11 • The difference in estimated future flows are attributable to recently adopted General Plan land use changes, which have intensified and increased growth forecasts within the Euclid, Newhope-Placentia and SARI line Systems. Due to this unanticipated level of growth in wastewater flows, it will be necessary to include these projections in the next update of the Joint Works Master Plan, to insure adequate planning for the necessary short-and long-term expansions to the Joint Works Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities. Air Quality Management Plan The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) have adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin. The District includes all of the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside and the non-desert portion of San Bernardino County. Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 are included in the AQMP. 3-28 The latest versions of the AQMP recommend the implementation of control measures for sewer construction, including the following: 1 • Controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads or other dust palliative measures to meet District Rule 403. 2. Maintaining equipment engines in proper tune. 3. Phasing and scheduling construction activities to level emission peaks. 4. Discontinuing construction during first and second stage smog alerts. 5. Maintaining emission control standards for equipment engines in conformance with District Rule 111O.1 • The implementation of the amended sewer plan for District 2 is not expected to have an appreciable effect on air quality in the study area. What impacts that may occur will be temporary, lasting only during the period of construction. All of the above control measures will be utilized. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), which has jurisdiction over the study area, is one of nine regional boards established throughout the state. As authorized by the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the board is responsible for regional water quality control within the Santa Ana region. Additionally, the Regional Board is designated as the state water pollution control agency for all purposes stated in the federal Water Pollution Control Act. The SARWQCB recently updated their Basin Plan; the objective of which is to show how the quality of the surface and ground waters in the Santa Ana Region would be controlled to provide the maximum benefit possible. The Regional Board implements the basin plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge regulations to individuals, communities or businesses whose discharges can affect water quality. These regulations can be either Waste Discharge Requirements for discharges to land, or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharges to surface waters. Collection and treatment of additional sewage, as proposed in the subject amended Master Sewer Plan for District 2, would be consistent with the adopted Basin Plan and with CSDOC's NPDES operating permit. In addition, the de-watering of pipeline trenches and tunnels and disposal of that de-silted water into local storm drains, during project construction, will conform to CSDOC'S NPDES de-watering permit. Impacts on School Facilities The proposed sewer facilities are intended to correct deficiencies in the existing and currently planned system of trunk sewers within the study area. Much of the basis for the identified deficiencies is related to previously unforeseen intensive urban growth occurring in the central and 3-29 - northern portions of the study area. This urban growth includes additional residential development not previously anticipated in the existing Master Plan of Trunk Sewers. Associated with the additional residential growth, of course, will be heavier demands for school facilities at all levels. That demand is a function of planned growth in accordance with local agency General Plans and is not a consequence of the proposed sewer facilities. 3-30 4. O Topical Issues 4. 1 Growth Inducing Impacts The purpose of the proposed project is to construct an expanded sewer network in response to a demonstrated need for an improved sewer capacity in the project area. The proposed sewer improvements will be constructed in areas which are already substantially urbanized and are not proposed to extend into undeveloped areas. Undeveloped parcels are scattered throughout the project's service areas and are currently available for development regardless of the implementation of the proposed sewer improvements. The proposed sewer lines have been sized to accommodate the level of development envisioned within the General Plans of the various local jurisdictions to be served by the proposed project. All development of land in the area will be consistent with the growth forecast of the various applicable General Plans and will likely occur independently of the timing of the proposed project. In this way, the proposed sewer improvements can be viewed as growth accommodating measures designed to accommodate projected levels of development. The project will enable the area to better support existing and planned development. Potential impacts associated with development in this portion of Orange County are projected in the appropriate local General Plans and accommodated by adopted policies within these plans. 4.2 The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts on the local environment that would affect both short-term uses and long-term productivity. While the short-term effects may seem generally adverse (construction impacts and commitment of resources), the long-term effects should prove beneficial to the productivity of the environment and welfare of the public. The project should not effect the ultimate disposition or use of the area and can be viewed as a remedial action to correct deficiencies in the current sewage disposal system by eliminating future sewage disposal capacity shortfalls. In the construction phase, the project would create short-term employment opportunities for persons employed in the pipeline construction industry. In addition, the construction activities would produce certain localized en'{ironmental impacts from construction equipment generating noise, ·fumes and dust. Construction activities would also cause disruptions to localized traffic circulation during the period of project construction. These impacts, while potentially annoying to commuters and neighboring residents, would cease upon completion of the construction phase and, as such, would not adversely affect the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the area. 4-1 The ability to adequately and safely transport projected volumes of wastewater for treatment would help ensure the continuation of mandated health and environmental standards into the future. The proposed improvements to the sewage system would constitute a long-term commitment by the County Sanitation District of Orange County to treat and safely discharge the wastewater generated in the project area. This commitment is consistent with the CSDOC's policy of responding to planned urban growth and will thereby enhance the long-term productivity, i.e. developability of land in the project area. 4.3 Any Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It be Implemented The implementation of the proposed project would result in very few irreversible environmental changes. The proposed sewer I ines are considered permanent improvements to the area, but the project does not involve the irreversible commitment of land nor changes in land use. The project should not directly influence or change the environmental character of the area, as it does not involve any significant long-term changes in landform, biological resources, noise levels, air quality or local traffic. The materials and energy utilized in the construction of the new sewer lines would be irreversibly committed to the project. Increased consumption of resources and energy would also be a consequence of the treatment of wastewater generated by the newly serviced areas. 4. 4 Ar ternatives The subject project is a preliminary engineering analysis that consists of an extensive review of local General Plan growth forecasts (through May, 1986) and the operating conditions and capacities within the existing facilities and current Master Plan of Trunk Sewers within Orange County Sanitation District No. 2. Since it is the policy of the CSDOC to provide sewage collection and treatment facilities to accommodate planned urban growth, it is not appropriate to discuss an alternative to the subject project that does not include the same growth forecasts as does the subject project. It is also beyond the scope of th is analysis to devise an alternative approach to identifying and relieving deficiencies in the District 2 trunk sewer system. This evaluation of project alternatives, therefore, will be limited to a comparison of the environmental effects of the proposed project and the "no-project" alternative, which is the existing Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11 • Land Use The project is based on an ultimate level of urban development in accordance with current General Plans and Specific Plans adopted by the local agencies within District 2. The existing Master Plan of Trunk Sewers ("no-project") was based on an update to the 1975 CSDOC Ultimate Land Use Plan, using land use projections from the 1983 local General Plan and zoning maps. The major differences between the two land use projections are in the land use categories utilized, and the waste flow coefficient used for some of the land use categories. 4-2 The subject Amendment No. 1 utilized a higher per acre flow coefficient for low density residential, based on recent increases in density in this category; similarly the project calculated flows for 2,481 acres of a very high density residential category that were not considered in the 1983 Master Plan. The project estimated flows from 1 ,491 acres of a high-rise commercial/office category that were not considered in the 1983 Master Plan. Also, the project estimated flows for Anaheim Stadium, Disneyland and the Anaheim Convention Center based on actual capacity and average attendance figures; the "no-project" apparently lumped these flows into the commercial and recreation and open space categories. The net result of these different land use and flow coefficient assumptions is that the project identified additional capacity shortfalls in several areas, which were not identified in the 1983 Master Plan. The difference amounts to approximately 41 mgd of additional average daily flows through the SARI, Newhope-Placentia and Euclid Trunk Sewers, and es ta bl is hes the need for the proposed trunk sewer facilities. Impacts to residential, commercial, industrial, open space and recreational uses, related to sewer construction activities, would be similar in nature and severity, for both the project and 1111 no-project1111 alternatives. Although different areas are proposed for correction of existing and future deficiencies, nuisance noise, dust, fumes and traffic disruption would occur with approximately equal severity for either alternative. Traffic, Energy, Public Services/Utilities and Growth Inducement Different traffic routes are involved in the project and "no-project" alternatives. Both would disrupt busy arterial streets as well as lesser traveled routes. The extent and severity of such disruptions will be very similar in either case. The proposed project would involve four freeway undercrossings, whereas the "no-project" alternative would require two. Such undercrossings utilize tunneling to avoid interference with the freeway corridor, so there is no appreciable difference in environmental impacts. Impacts to overhead and underground utility and public service lines will also occur with similar extent and severity, although in different locations. It is possible that, after careful right-of-way consultation with affected public and utility agencies, alternative routes wil I be selected to avoid certain unacceptable disruptions to traffic and utility services. Both the proposed project and the "no-project" alternatives are intended to provide adequate sewer collection facilities to accommodate forecasted urban growth within District 2. Neither project would be growth inducing, since new trunk sewers will only be extended to areas where government entitlements for urban development have been issued. 4-3 The project would result in a somewhat lower energy consumption within the District No. 2 collection system than the no-project alternative, due to the elimination of two pumping stations. Since both the project and "no-project" alternatives would provide facilities to collect greater quantities of wastewater, both alternatives would discharge greater quantities of District 2 effluents for treatment at the Joint Works facilities. In either case, greater energy consumption in the operation of the Joint Works Waste Treatment Facilities would result. Biological Resources (Santa Ana River) The proposed project would involve greater alteration of the Santa Ana River Channel than the 1983 Master Plan of Trunk Sewers. This is due to the proposed sewer to run parallel to the Orange Sub-trunk, which crosses beneath the Santa Ana River just north of the interchange of the Santa Ana and Garden Grove freeways. Both alternatives would involve several connections to the SARI line which runs within the embankment of the river channel. Cost/ Revenue Both the project and "no-project" alternatives would require substantial outlays for both capital improvements and long-term operating and maintenance requirements. The estimated capital improvement costs for the proposed deficiency correction faci Ii ties is approximately 34. 1 mill ion dollars. The estimated capital costs for deficiency correction facilities in the 1983 Master Plan was 30. 91 million dollars. (Different facilities are identified in each alternative.) District 2 has sufficient funds, both in existing reserves and capital fund accounts, and potentially through connection fees, which will completely finance the deficiency correction facilities recommended in both the proposed project and the "no-project" alternative. Consistency With Other Relevant Plans The proposed project contains urban growth forecasts in excess of current SCAG 82 growth forecasts. SCAG is currently revising their forecasts, however, and it is expected that their revised growth forecasts will be similar to the forecasts established within the proposed project. This expectation stems from the consideration that SCAG's revised forecasts will probably also be in accordance with current local General Plan growth policies. The current Master Plan for the Joint Works Wastewater Treatment facilities utilized the "ultimate" District 2 wastewater flows estimated in the "no-project" ( 1983 Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2 3 and 11) alternative. The next update to the Master Plan will need t~ revise the estimated future flow from District 2, in accordance with the updated growth forecasts developed in the proposed project. 4-4 .. -- ... la .. - r::aJ Isl - tel bl:J t:sl ~ - - -' .. ... "-' Both the project and "no-project" alternatives are consistent with other relevant planning programs, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District's AQMP and the Santa Ana River Basin Regional Water Qua I ity Control Plan. 4-5 5. O References 5. 1 Bibliography 1. Michael Brandmen and Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Master Plan of Sewage Collection, Districts 2, 3 and 11 (SCA #83082411 J. October, 1983. 2. Lowry and Associates. Updated and Consolidated Master Plans of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11. October, l 983. 3. John Carollo Engineers. Master Plan for Joint Works Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities. April, 1983. 4. K. P. Lindstrom and Associates. Joint Treatment Works Waste- water Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #8405166). March, 1985. 5. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. Final Budget, 1986-1987 Fiscal Year. July, 1986. 6. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (8). 1984. 7. Transportation Planning Division, Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Master Plan of Arterial Highways. May 28, 1986. 8. Transportation Planning Division, Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Master Plan of County-Wide Bi keways. May 1986. 9. Southern California Association of Governments. SCAG 82 Growth Forecast Policy. 1982. 10. South Coast Air Quality Management Management Plan. October, 1985. District. 5. 2 Persons and Organizations County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California Mr. Thomas M. Dawes, Director of Engineering Ms. Hilary J. Baker, Senior Administrative Assistant Mr. Charles Pasinli, P. E., Senior Engineer Mr. Bill Butler, Finance Officer Air Mr. Chuck Windsor, Assistant Superintendent of Maintenance Mr. Dan Dillon, Accounting Division Manager Orange County Environmental Management Agency --Mr. Mike Wellborn, Transportation Planner 5-1 Quality ... a:! .,.; Orange County Rapid Transit District --Mr. Jeff Ordway, Planning Director Yorba Linda Water District 5.3 Mr. Mike Payne Preparation Staff Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr • Randy Nichols, AICP, Project Manager Chuck Lake, Engineering Division Manager Dean Sherer, Associate Planner Carl Morgan, Associate Planner Virgilio Vita, Planning Technician 5-2 APPENDIX A Initial Study Notice of Preparation and Responses to Notice of Preparation I ·.J - - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (714) 962-2411 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN OF SEWAGE COLLECTION, AFFECTING DISTRICT NO. 2 To: Responsible Agencies From: County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California Date: January 22, 1987 The County Sanitation District of Orange County will be acting as the Lead Agency in the preparation of a focused Environmental Impact Report (El R) for the project identified as Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 Euclid/Newhope -Placentia Drainage Area. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the El R prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study is also attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State Law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. to: Please send your response, including the name of your contact person, Ms. Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange Count P. 0. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728~81 ~1f.11 homas M. Dawes Director of Engineering I 4-1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BACKGROUND INFORMATION COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 FOUNTAIN VAU.EY. CAUFORNJA 92728-8127 10844 EWS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 '7141 540-2910 '7141962-2411 Project Description: Plan to correct identified sewer collection Project Location: Tentative Scope of El R: system deficiencies in County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, affecting the Euclid/Newhope -Placentia Drainage Area. Seventeen relief facilities are recommended, consisting primarily of upsized, parallel sewers, as well as three diversion facilities. See attached materials for further details as to the type and location of the recommended relief facilities. See attached Location Map. The El R for this project is expected to be focused on the following topics: Biological Resources Hydrology /Water Quality Circulation Cost/ Revenue Land Use/ Population Public Services/Utilities Consistency With Other Relevant Plans Project vs. No-Project Topical Issues, Pursuant to Sections 15126-15127 of the CEQA Guidelines - t=I I • es.i&' INITIAL STUDY Background COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 EWS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VAUEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 C714J 540-2910 C714J 962-2411 A. Name of Proponent County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. B. Address and Phone Number of Proponent (714) 662-2411 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 C. Contact Person _H_i_la_r ..... y~B_a_k_e_r ________________ _ D. Title and Location of Project: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report concerning Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers, affecting District No. 2. Project area covers approximately 134 square miles, including all or portions of the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Villa Park and Yorba Linda, along with unincorporated portions of Orange County. (See attached study area map). E. Description of Project: Proposed amendment to Consolidated Master Pian of Trunk Sewers for Districts 2, 3 and 11 , affecting most of District No. 2. Amendment proposes numerous relief facilities to correct identified system deficiencies. In most cases, relief facilities will parallel existing facilities and would not disturb previously undisturbed areas. One proposed sewer would traverse an Orange County Transit District right-of-way, through a heavily . urbanized area, following an alignment where no trunk sewers presently exist. F. An El R was prepared and certified for the existing Master Plan (SCH#83082411). That report is incorporated herein and will serve as the reference for the following evaluation of the potential environmental effects of this project. The determination to prepare a focused El R r'-..... nizes that the previous El R need only be supplemented to the extent that new faci Ii ties are proposed and to incorporate newly available information regarding the project. II. Guidelines A. Does the proposed activity qualify as a project as defined fn Section 28. Yes x No -- (If activity does not qualify as project, do not complete remainder of -form.) .. ·.ad -= .=I.· - ... 8. Does the project qualify as: 1. Ministerial (Section 6) Yes No x -- 2. Emergency (Section 13) Yes --No x 3. A feasibility or planning study (Section 33) Yes x No __ 4. Categorically exempt pursuant to Article 8 of the State Guidelines (Section 40) Yes No x -- 5. Involves another agency which constitutes the lead agency (Section 36) Yes No x If yes, identify lead agency: (If yes has been checked· for any of the above, an Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration need not be prepared.) III. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes 11 and 11 maybe 11 answers are required on attached sheets.) Maybe No A. Earth. Will the proposal result in: 1 • Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? x 2. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? x 3. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? x 4. The destruction, covering or moriification of any unique geologic or phys1cal features? x 5. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? x -2- ..... Yes Malbe No 6. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach ~' sands or changes in silation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the -ocean or any bay,. inlet or lake? x 7. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazard? x B. Air. Will the proposal result in: ~ 1. Substantial air emissions or deteriora- tion of ambient air quality? x 2. The creation of objectionable odors? x -3. Alteration of air movement, moisture or ... temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? x (~ c. Water. Will the proposal result in: 1 • Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements in either marine or fresh water? x 2. Changes in absorption rates, drainage e=i'. patterns or the rate and amount of surf ace runoff! x 3 • Alterations to the course or flow of ... flood waters? x 4. Change in the amount of surface water e=I· in any water body? x 5. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- eluding, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? x -, 6. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Q; ~ 7. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? x .... -3- ts::\ - ... - 8. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 9. Exposure of people or property to related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? o. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: 1. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops and aquatic plants)? 2. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? 3. Introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 4. Reduction in acreage of any agriculture crop? E. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: 1. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects? 2. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? 3. Introduction of new species of animals into an area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? 4. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? F. Noise. Will the proposal result in: 1. Increase in existing noise levels? 2. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? G. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new 1 i ght or glare? -4- Maybe x x x x x x x x x x x x H. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or Maybe planned land use of an area? x I. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: 1. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 2. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? J. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: 1. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 2. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? K. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? L. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? M. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: 1. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? 2. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? 3. Substantial impact upon existing trans- portation systems? 4. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or·goods? 5. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? -5- x x x x x x x x x 6. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? N. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire protection? 2. Police protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? 5. Maintenance of public facilities, in- cluding roads? 6. Other governmental services? o. Energy. Will the proposal result in: 1. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 2. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of. new sources of energy? P. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities? 1. Power or natural gas? 2. Communications systems? 3. Water? 4. Sewer or septic tanks? 5. Storm water drainage? 6. Solids waste and disposal? Q. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: 1. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? -6- x Maybe No x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? R. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? s. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? T. Cultural Resources. 1 • Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? 2. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? 3. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 4. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? u. Mandatory findings of Significance. 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? -7- Maybe x x x x x x JC 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? CA short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, de- finitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulative con- siderable? CA project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, . either directly or indirectly? IV. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation See attached sheet. v. Discussion of Zoning Compatibility See attached sheet. VI. Determination (To. be completed by Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: January 22, 1987 COUNTY SANITATION ORANGE Y Maybe x x x D D IV DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION A. Earth The El R certified for the 1983 Consolidated Master Plan of Sewers adequately describes the project area setting with respect to soils, landform and geology. Impacts related to trenching, back- filling and other sewer construction activities which result in the displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil, are also adequately discussed in that El R. No significant topographical changes will occur. No further environmental analysis is required on this topic, until site specific construction projects are proposed, at which time detailed geotechnical reports will be prepared, as needed. B. Air Air quality impacts related to the proposed sewer system improvements will be primarily short-term, construction generated effects, including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust. Long-term, secondary effects of minimal significance will consist of emissions at power plants. Construction related impacts can be adequately mitigated through adherence to Rule 403 of the SQAMD Rules and Regulations and other locally adopted procedures for construction of public facilities. No further analysis is required for the subject project. C. Water Proposed facilities will cross portions of several flood control facilities, including the Santa Ana River. These facilities need to be identified, as well as any special permit requirements from the responsible agencies. Any known surface or subsurface hydrologi- cal conditions that could seriously constrain the installation of proposed facilities need to be identified, along with drainage control measures which should be implemented during construction of the proposed faci Ii ties. D. Plant Life The type and significance of plant life in the Santa Ana River area, at the location of the Orange Sub-Trunk relief sewer, needs to be identified, along with mitigation measures to protect any identified significant plant re~ -:es. Other areas proposed for relief sewer facilities are either already disturbed or contain no significant, rare or endangered plant species or agricultural crops. E. Animal Life The effects of the proposed Orange Sub-Trunk relief sewer on Santa Ana River wildlife habitat needs to be evaluated, along with mitigation measures to protect any identified significant habitat. - F. Noise Noise impacts will be primarily limited to short-term, construc- tion related activities during installation of the proposed relief facilities. The discussion of noise impacts and mitigation measures contained in the El R certified for the 1983 Consolidated Master Plan is adequate for the subject project. G. Light and Glare No new sources of light and glare will result from installation of the proposed sewer system improvements. H. Land Use The changing and intensifying patterns of land use in the study area, which led to the preparation of the subject plan, must be documented. Possible land use changes resulting from implementation of the subject plan also need to be addressed. I. Natural Resources Consumption of natural resources used in construction materials, construction activities and the operation and maintenance of completed facilities will be minor and non-substantial, from both a local and regional perspective. No further analysis is necessary. J. Risk of Upset Rupture of subsurface sewer pipeline could result in the dis- charge of untreated sewage effluent into groundwaters or possibly into populated surface areas. Such an incident is highly unlikely however, and can be adequately mitigated through careful right- of-way planning which avoids seismic hazards (severe ground movement) and through proper adherence to adopted public works construction standards. Applicable provisions of local and regional emergency response plans will be incorporated into the engineering, design and construction of all proposed facilities. No further analysis is ne.eded with regard to the risk of upset. K. and L. Population and Housing The target population to be served by the proposed sewer system needs to be estimated and evaluated with regard to adopted local and regional plans. The potential growt1. .. Jducing effects of the proposed sewer plan must also be addressed. The County Sani- tation Districts do not have land use authority and do not control growth. - M. Transportation I Circulation New trunk sewers are proposed in or along several circulation routes not previously designated for such use. These roadways, bikeways, and other transportation routes need to be identified. In particular, the Orange County Transit District must be consulted with regard to the use of its right-of-way for the proposed 78 11 sewer between the SARI line and the Euclid relief trunk. Mitigation measures to diminish the disruption of circulation patterns during construction of the proposed improvements need to be identified. N. Pub I ic Services Construction and operation of the proposed facilities will not affect most governmental or public service agencies within the study area. However, the growth inducing effects and the link to school facilities must be addressed, along with alternative financing options to cover capital and maintenance costs. 0. Energy Consumption of fuels and energy during construction and the ongoing operation of the proposed sewer system facilities will not be substantial, from a regional perspective. A quantitative comparison of estimated energy consumption characteristics of the existing Consolidated Master Plan and the proposed Amendment No. 1, should be made to evaluate the relative energy consumption signifi- cance of the proposed Amendment No. 1. P. Utilities Proposed sewer system improvements are intended to be in- stalled in the close vicinity of numerous utility facilities including natural gas, electricity, water, telephone, cable television and possibly oil lines. Careful coordination with all affected utility purveyors is therefore necessary to prevent damage to those facilities and to prepare for alternate utility delivery systems, if needed, during construction of the proposed relief facilities. The El R process should include correspondence with affected utility purveyors, to identify possible adverse impacts to utility facilities and mitigation measures therefor. Q. Human Health See explanation to J., above. R. Aesthetics This topic was adequately addressed in the El R certified for the 1983 Consolidated Master Plan. No scenic resources or vistas will be affected by the proposed project. S. Recreation Portions of bikeways along the Santa Ana River may be disrupted by installation of proposed sewer relief facilities. Such bikeways must be identified along with mitigation measures to compensate for such temporary impacts. No other recreation area, developed or undeveloped, will be affected by installation of the proposed sewer system improvements. T. Cultural Resources Proposed improvements will be constructed in areas already disturbed or within highly urbanized areas having no known significant cultural resources. No further analysis is necessary. V DISCUSSION OF ZONING COMPATIBILITY Recommended relief facilities were derived from an analysis of existing system deficiencies with regard to potential growth and development in the Study Area. Growth assumptions were developed from contacts with all affected Planning Agencies to reflect their up-to-date long-term land use plans. Those assumptions are documented in the Amendment No. 1 report and will be included in the focused El R. ... -=t '=' lzi - ~ - t:ll:t t:s:I t:=i \Cl tSI '-' t:l:I '=' l=:I '-' -- am tt' A..4. .;:,+ e,,O tc," ~t:I • o°' .., KEY - ~ ~ otlANIE COUNn SANITATION DllTlllCT NO.Z OllANIE COUNn SANITATION DllTRICT NO. II ITUOY AREA 90UNDAllY LOS I 1/20 !!!liim!!!!liil ICAl..E Ill Mll..U FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY SECTION VI I -SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS LAND USE The 134-square mile study area includes all or portions of 10 incorporated cities as well an unincorporated areas of Orange County. The study area is defined as those portions of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2 and 13 tributary to the Euclid, Newhope·Placentia and Santa Ana River Interceptor Trunk Sewer systems. To project wastewater flows for this study, General Plan data collected from each community, supplemented by zoning data, specific plans and environmental documents, were used for projecting future land use. Land usage data available through March 1986 was used herein. Nine land use categories were designated for the study area, including five residential categories based on development densities, two of- fice/ commercial categories based on development densities, an indus· trial/manufacturing category and an open space category. Projected residential uses comprise over 60 percent of the study area and total over 81 square miles. Open space is the second largest projected use, totaling nearly 27 square miles or 20 percent of the total study area. EXISTING TRUNK SYSTEM The three main trunk sewer systems of the study area are the Euclid, Newhope· Placentia and Santa Ana River Trunk systems. Each of these discharge flows to CSDOC's Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. The Santa Ana River system includes areas tributary to the Santa Ana River Interceptor. This includes approximately 48.0 miles of trunk sew- ers owned by CSDOC, serving an area of 86.3 square miles within Orange County. The SARI also serves Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, which have a combined capacity right of 30 mgd in the line. The Newhope-Placentia system serves approximately 26.9 square miles and includes 25.9 miles of trunk sewers owned by CSDOC. Flows generated in this area are tributary to the Newhope·Placentia Trunk Sewer •. The Euclid system includes 33.0 miles of CSD9C-owned trunk sewers serving an area of 21.2 square miles. This system is a parallel dou- ble-.... _ .. k system extending from the City of Brea to CSDOC Plant No. 1 primarily along a route of Brea Boulevard and Euclid Avenue. Three pumping stations operated by CSDOC are also in the study area: the Rolling Hills, Yorba Linda and Carbon Canyon Dam Pumping Stations. 37 ' ' \ WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS Wastewater flows projected for the study area have been developed based on projected land use data and unit flow coefficients for each land use category. In addition, specific point source flows were developed for . Anaheim Stadium, Disneyland and Anaheim Convention Center due to the uniqueness of those facilities. Due to limited data on existing larid use in the study area, it was decided to evaluate the CSOOC trunk system based on projected conditions only. · Deficiencies that exist under existing land use conditions would also exist under projected conditions. Total average wastewater flows projected for the study area exceed 190 million gallons per day. Residential areas are projected to generate over 130 million gallons per day or approximately two-thirds of the total. EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES The CSDOC trunk sewer system within the study area was evaluated with the aid of an IBM-PC microcomputer using SEWER, a mathematical model based on Manning's equation for non-pressure flow in pipes. The SEWER program compares the capacity of a sewer with peak wastewater flows projected for the sewer, determines if the peak flow exceeds the pipe- line's capacity, and determines the size of pipelines required to either re-. place the undersized line or parallel the existing line while maintaining It in service. Capacity criteria established for the evaluation of existing facilities was defined as a maximum flow depth to pipeline diameter ratio (D/d) of 0.92 • . For new pipelines recommended to relieve deficient lines, the following depth to diameter ratios were used Diameter (in) 12-18 21-60 >&o Maximum CD/ d) 0.50 0.75 0.92 A minimum size of 12·-inch diameter was established for all CSDOC gravity sewers. A peaking factor equation developed by CSDOC was used to determine peak wastewater fk····.· from average wastewater flow projections as fol- lows: Q : 1.84 Q Del2 peak avg Where Q is in units of cfs. 38 ' ' \ - -· - Using the output of the SEWER program as a basis, 21 deficient sections · in the CSCOC trunk sewer system were identified, totaling 34.3 miles or 32 percent of the total system. Eight specific deficiencies were identified in the Santa Ana River system, ranging from 720 to 16, 100 feet in length. These total 42,550 feet of sewer. These include 22,510 feet of the SARI upstream of the Carbon Canyon Interceptor and 10, 780 feet of the Taft Branch upstream of the recently completed Taft I nterceptoc. Deficiencies totaling 76,850 lineal feet of trunk sewer were identified in the Newhope-Placentia system. These include 41,280 (60 percent of the entire length) of the Newhope-Placentia Trunk as well as the total 20,820 feet of the South Anaheim Interceptor. Approximately 61, 700 feet of sewers in the Euclid system were found to be deficient. Generally, this includes the parallel Euclid Trunk and Euclid Purchase sewers from La Palma Avenue in Anaheim to Edinger Av- enue in Fountain Valley. Of the three pumping stations in the study area, two are proposed to eventually be taken out of service upon construction of new trunk sewer lines by CSCOC. The remaining facility, the Yorba Linda Pumping Sta- tion was determined to have sufficient capacity to handle projected peak flows to the facility. RECOMMENDED DEFICIENCY CORRECTION PROJECTS Relief facilities proposed herein are based on preliminary analysis of al- ternatives to eliminate deficiencies identified in CSOOC's Trunk system. Cost estimates of recommended improvements· are based on conceptual lay- out and sizing of those facilities and unit construction costs for mid-year 1986. A total of 100,000 lineal feet of new sewers are proposed herein to relieve approximately 180,000 lineal feet of deficient lines. Total estimated capital costs of these facilities are approximately $34 million. · Recommended improvements to the Santa Ana River system total approxi- mately $8.90 million in capital costs and 39~890 feet of new sewers. This includes $1 .28 million for relief of the Taft Branch in Orange and $6. 70 million for relief of the SARI upstream of the Carbon Canyon Interceptor. Improvements recommended for the ; ! . hope-Placentia system total approx- imately $3.47 million in capital costs. The most significant include di- versions from the South Anaheim I ntarceptor to the Euclid system and from the Newhope-Placentia Trunk to the SAR I • There diversion sewers total approximately 11,000 lineal feet and $3.0 million capital costs and will relieve deficiencies on the entire South Anaheim Interceptor (20,820 feet) 39 \ \ 1::1 - .. and approximately 34,060 feet of the Newhope-Placentia Trunk. Diversion of addition:tl flows at the Yorba Linda Pumping Station from the Cypress Subtrunk to the Carbon Canyon Interceptor will relieve approximately 17,600 feet of deficient sewer on the Cypress Subtrunk and Newhope-Placentia Trunk. The pumping station has sufficient capacity to handle the required diversion. Relief facilities proposed for the Euclid system will also assist in the relief of deficiencies of the Newhope-Ph1centia system. These improvements to- tal 46,030 feet of sewer and capital costs of $21.8 million. These Include a new trunk sewer to replace the Euclid Purchase sewer extending in Euclid Avenue from Orangethorpe Avenue in Fullerton to the OCTD right-of-way south of Garden Grove Boulevard, then southeasterly along the OCTD right-of-way to the SAR I. Priorities for construction of the recommended facilities are based on the current severity of each projected deficiency and othe'r considerations such as coordination with construction activities along the route of the proposed facilities. The most critical deficiencies requiring immediate cor- rective measures are those on the South Anaheim Interceptor, Newhope-Placentia Trunk and the Euclid Trunk/Euclid Purchase sewers. These lines are presently subject to surcharge conditions and are subject to increased flows from intensified development in tributary areas. Im- provements for relieving deficiencies in these critical sections are recom- mended for construction with in the next five-year period and total ap- proximately 57 ,000 feet of new sewers and nearly $25 million in capital costs. The balance of the proposed improvements are recommended to occur sub- sequent to 1991. The timing for their construction will be· based on cor- recting the projected deficiencies as they begin to occur. Total capital costs for those facilities are estimated at $9.0 million. 40 \ \ l N co I [ [ 1l I Table 8. Recommended Reller Facllltles Des lgna t Ion Description Santa Ana Rlyer System 2 3 4 5 1 Construct sower to divert all flows .... 811 mgd average; 7.60 rngd peaka from At~ood-Orchard Subtrunk on Orangethorp~ Avenue near Wiiiow Woods Drive to SARI In La Palma Avenue. construct parallel sewer to entire North Branch of Rolling Hiiis Sub trunk. Construct para I I el sewer to Roi I Ing HI I ls Subtrunk lmmedlat.el)' upstream or Yorba Lind~ Pump Station. Construct parallel sewer to Lincoln-Batavia Trunk from Station 97+95 to Batavia Street. Construct parallel sewer to Taft Branch from Santiago Boulevard to Glassell Street. Construct parallel sewer to Orange Subtrunk from Santa Ana Free- way to SARI. Construct parallel sewer to SARI from Station 913+50 to Grove Street. Newhooe-Placentla System 8 9 10a 10b Construct parallel sewer to C~presa Subtrunk from Bastanchur)' Road to diversion to Yorba Linda Pump Station. Divert 2.00 mgd average CJ.70 rngd peaka flow to Carbon canyon Interceptor from Cypress Subtrunk at Yorba Linda Pump Station. Construct sewer to divert 9.80 mgd average C14.50 mgd peak) flow from South Anaheim Interceptor at Ball Road to Euclld Trunk at Ball Road. Construct sewer to divert 7.24 mgd average 111.00 mgd peak) flow from «;outh Anaheim Interceptor at Kate I la venue to Eucl Id Trunk at K· tel la Avenue. l Re I I eves Deficiency No. 1 . 2 5 6 1, 8 9 10, 11, 14 15 12 12 Diameter of Re 1 ler sewer C In) 24, 21 15 15 12 12, 15, 18 21 21, 24 24,J0,_36 39, q5 12 JO 27 I[ Tota I length of Rel lef sewer (ft) 1,300 1,160 720 2,280 10,780 [ Capita I Cost ( $) 208,100 137 ,800 85,500 213,800 1,217,000 1,530 277,300 22,510 6,696,000 1,590 149,100 • 4,000 1,100,000 4,000 975,000 I l l -l I I Table 8. Recommended Reller facllltles (continued) Des I gnat Ion 11 12 [UC I Id System Ua Ub 14 15 Descrlpt Ion Construct sewer para I let to Bo Isa Trunk fro11 Harbor Boulevard to Newhope Street. Construct sewer to divert 10.00 mgd average (14.80 mgd peak) flow from Newhope-Placentla Trunk at Orangewood Avenue to SARI at Orangewood Avenue. Construct diversion facl 1 lty for al I flow (2.3•1 mgd average; 3.90 mgd peak) from Fullerton-Brea Purchase to Fullerton-Brea Interceptor at their crossing at Malvern Avenue. construct diversion faclllty for 2.55 mgd average (11.21 mgd peak) flow from Fullerton-Brea Purchase to Fullerton-Brea Interceptor at Woods Avenue. Upslze Fullerton-Brea Interceptor to 118-lnch diameter downstream. Construct se~er parallel to Euclld Trunk from Orangethorpa Avenue to Orangewood Avenue. Abandon Euclld Purchase over same d I stance. Construct sewer to divert 35.65 mgd average (117.68 mgd peak) flow from Euclid Trunk at Orangewood Avenue to SARI along route of Euclld Avenue and OCTO right-of-way. Abandon Euclld Purchase over same portion of Euclid Avenue. TOTAL Rel laves Oef lclency No. u 16, 17 18 19 (partial) 19 f part la I) 20,21 (part la I) 21 (part la I) Diameter Of Re I lef sewer C In) 15 33 39,_••2145, q8.:>ll 511,78 [ l Total length of Rel lef Capita I Sewer Cost (ft) ( $) 2,750 326.600 1.000 918.000 •• •• 23,790 10,153,000 20,840 11,626,000 100.250 34,144.000 (18.99 •• , •capital Costs are relatively minor. An Increase In operatlonal costs would occur due to Increased pumping and power consumption. **Reller facllltles 13a and 13b can be Incorporated Into the design and construction or the F~llarton-Brea Interceptor with the associated costs to be Included therein. . .... ... l=l·· t=r.I - STATE Of CALIFORNIA-OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Go'lf!tmOr OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 14'00 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 9.581A DATE: February 3, 1987 '10: RE: Psriewing Agencies The County of Orange' Sanitation District's NOP for Supplemental EIR Amendment #1 Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers/ District 2. SCH# 87020410 ~ ~ Attached·~ for your comment is the County of Orange 1 Notice· of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the ·Supplemental EIR Amendment #1 Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers/District 2. ~e agencies JillSt transmit tbeir concems and comrrents on the scope and content of the Em, focusing on sp!Cific information related to the1r own statzitory ~nsil:>illt'f, within 30 days of receipt of this notice. we - eu:curage comoenting agencies to resp::>nd to thiS notice and express the1r concems early in the environmental review precess. Please dllect your ccniil!ents to: Hi1 ary Baker Orange· G0ttnty Sanitation District P.O. Box 8127/10844 Ellis Fountuin Valley, CA 92727-8127 with a copy to the Office of Planning and Research. Please ref er to tile SCB rJJ.tICer noted aCove in all corresp:>neence concerning this project. !f you have arrt questions about the review precess, call Glenn Stober ae 916/445-0613. · Sincerely, Attachirents cc: Hilary Baker ~ ~ \:-..;f ~ I I· j ·=t ; 1 - I 1-,. i .. l I t I r ~- i- l I r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------· ---------------· ~·-· ·---~·-----··--·------· DISi'iUBJ'IlCJf LIS'1' PCB S:S # ..!.. -Sent 1'1 Les..1 Acencr A:me Ge~ty Air '!\esou.--ees t3oL~ 1131 S St~ Sacnmen:o. c.i. 95314 916/:122-0151 ~ Ue:"bor; Dept. of Bea~ "'i:Lterways 1521 S S~reet Sa.:raa:nto, '=-\ 958H 916/32:3-94&~ Gary L. llollon.y Q\.11foniia. Col1sa.1 Co:m.ssiou 1531 ~C'r.1...-d St?'!!et, -lt.'\ !loor Sa:1 ?'?:mCi.sr.o. Co\ 9111')5 41.S/~ Te1":"f Maderos Ca.l 1f01"'111.a. Er.et"g1 O:Jmr'-SSiOG ~516 ~i:i'th Street, !tis. 200 Sa.c..-:aaeato, CA 9Ml4 916r.24-3227 ta.z-1 Tucker cal~ -Oivts1on of Aeraa.:mtics 1120 !f $treet Sa.cr.t.mento. C.\ ~14 916/~55 '!:t-..,. ~ell7 C:a.l 4:a.91.S -''!.312.'l t~ :.::C :: St.~-:. :>e!mis ~· !31"jD.:l': ~t. ot ~ti.on 1.US ~LDt.tl $~~t, ~ 13ZS-2 Sa.cr.u:en1:0. Q 95314 015/:'1%!-5ST.J Q Dt"I. of m.~ies :m:! Geolo;r Q Otv. of ~n and Gas Q Land Resources P!'otec:t. Unit Vasnek semma !)ept. of Foc:ri :ind i\e;:"i.cultw"! t~ ~r Stt"'e!!1';, :tocrl 1:>4 ~a.c:-amen~,,, C.\ 958U 9115.!:r.:?-5227 Oenn1s Orrtck ~-o! f'of'f!Stry t~!o ~lnt.~ s~~T.. R~ t~tt;-2 1ou:.-=ento. ~ .!}5:;1-1r 9l~i32:?-'l1:?8 James Ba~ Oept. ~ Oene?""1l ;e?"?i.ces ll:S Tenth ~t~t S:icr3!:1en'to , t.:.\ 1531.; 'l!i/~~')~ ~enne~ 't.z~r 'e!>~. o! ~~:.~ti i'l· l ~ 3': ~~t • 1.ocr.t l '?S:l Saer:i.~r.:o. ~\ 95~14 :n-s i -r1s-~:?-18 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 0 ·. 0 © 0 .,!_ -Sent by Cl~e Sgt. Ted 9ol9es CalUor:li.:I. Rig!Jway ~'trol t.oa; ll.:ulge Pl!l.nnin; S~~~~ Plaml1ng a.a:! Am.!ys1.s D~ ·:~.>:.on P .I). Box S9S Sac.~to, C\ ~ 31S/44S-19Sl Paige ta.llf!'f Na.n~e Amert.can fferttage Cam. 915 Ca.?itol !Sall, :loa:l :SS Sa.crmnen'CO. t:.\ 95814 916/3:?:!-T.'91 . IJsns Y..reu:zberg • t)f flee at ~is1:oric i»reserva.tton P.O. Box ~O S3.cnaeato, C\ 95811 £'15/4-tS-9006 .!ues ~ Doy le DeJ't. o! Parks ar.d Recre:ition P.O. Bez %390 Sacramento. CA 95811 910/324-6421 uua Burke Public tJt111t1es Cc:r.misstoa 926 J Stn!et. 'Jutte 14()1) Sacramento, C\ 95814 916/322-7316 UrkS~ Public Works Bau"d l~ P S-:~-:. •: Fl!:Cr Sa.=-a.-nen:o, Q 9s.;1.; :;is/~: !!el Sdln.:-t:: aec!aca.:t= aaa..-: 1415 :'ftmh Street S:&cramimto, CA 9581-1 915/445-2458 ~orris &!Ulikcn S.F. Bay Consena.tton Sc :>ev't. caz. 30 Van ?fess Avenue, Roan ~OU SaD Pranci.sco, C\ 941~ 415/557-369'; Enc Maber CLl.U. ~e ~fa.mgeaent !au:! 1020 ~inth Street, ?.o:r.s ~00 ~'to, C\ 9.5131.; 915/322-2~" Ted Fukusbtllll Sute L:inds Carr.ltssioa 1q<T.9 -13t.~ Street :)a.c::"2.:1enm, e.~ •)$:U-l 91?/322-791.1 !ten !'ellcws !)ept. ot Water R.esour:es 141~ ,1ntb Stl'"l!f!t «Jacn...-enm I ':A gs;;t-; ~lS/445-7415 ~ ~older:'!Dn 3t:Lte '=o:as-..:1.l Cocse?'"7"1-'!':o:o !110 :lrca.d;;ay, Suite l.loO Oakla.Dd. CA. 94S~ 415/464-l'llS • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 De;:rartment of T:-3.nspoi-..ation lhs'tr1ct Contac'tS Jerrr Baynes Oe;arment of Transpon&tiOD Dt.strict 1 1656 diiion Street Eureka., CA 95501 707/.w5-'.5320 1!1chelle Gall~er Department of l'ra.mrporta.tion DisU1.c: :? 1657 Riverside Drive Redding, CA. 96001 916/~3259 Bria.a J. ~~ Depra.rt:nent ot Tra.nspon:.'1.ticm District 3 703 s Street ?Ja.i'ysrtlle, C.ll 95901 916/741-4277 Wallace Rot!lbart Oepart:nent of Tra.nspora.tion Oistr1.ct 4 :?.o. !iCii 1310 San Francisco, CA 94120 415/557-3405 Jerrr Laumer Depu-tment of Tra.mrporta:tion nistrlct 5 50 m:guera'. Street San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 805/549-3161 N=L't!m.D Smi 1:21 :lepar::Jem: of Tn.:spo~~on 01.strl.~ 6 P.O. B8i 12616 Fresno. ca 93178 7.>91438-4098 Wayae Ballesrti.De Depa.rtmeJrt of Tr.lnspor-..a.~on District 7 120 Sprtng Street Les Angeles, CA. 90012 211/620-5335 Guy Visbal • t>epa.rtment Of Transpo~..a'tiOD Distrtc:t 8 ~ Street San Bernardino, CA 92403 714/383-4557 Tea Os.yak Depa.rt:leJlt of Tn.as~..a'tion Oi.str1C't 9 !)t)Q SOU'tll 'datn Street . 81.sbop, CA 94514 714/873-2290 Lury Burgess Depa.rtmeD'C of Transpor-..a.ticm DistriC't 10 P.O. am 204~ Stocktoc,. C\ 95~01 ~/948-nl.2 JiJ:l Oleshir!! !)epa..-::le::i-: o! ~rtat1.on 01.stri.ct t1 28§ Juan St~t San'r>1.ego, CA 9213S 714/237-:>155 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P1.stl and Game -Re(iom.l Of !ices A. Naylor, Regi=al Ya.m.ger Department of Pi.Sb and :Jame 61'>1 Locust Redding, CA 96001 916/225-2300 Jim Messersmith, Regioa=Ll ~.tam.:er Oepa.rtmeat of Pim and ~a.one 1?01 Nimbus itcad, Suite A Rancbo Cordova., CA. 95ol0 916/355-0922 B. Bwlter, ilegi.onal Manager Depa.rtme11t of Fisb and Ga.me ·.7329 Sil'verado Tra.11 !'la.pa., CA 94558 7'J7/944-20ll G. Nokes, llegiona.l Ma.aager Dei:xu-tmeat of Fi.sh and Game 1234 East Sba.w Avenue Fresno, CA 9'W"-6 209/222-3761 Fred A. Wo~.!lley Jr., Reg. Manager Depal"tmeDt of Fisb and Game 245 Wes't Broadway . IDng Beacb., CA 90802 213/590-51.13 Sol! E. ?.tall =-t1.r...ne ilesou..-ces ?.egio11 245 w~ Broadway IDDg SeactL, CA 90S02 213/590-51S5 Jam Jur.mctch State tfa.ter !lesoarces Control Baa.r.l Di'lisicm of Clean Wa.ter Grants P.O. Sm 100 Sacramento, CA 95801 916/322-3413 !d Alltoll Sta.te Wa.ur Resour-...es Cozm'ol !oar.I Dt.11151011 of Yater Qua.11 tr P.O.~ 100 Sacrameitto, Cl 95801 915/445-9552 Jerry Jams St:Lte l'fa.'ter Resources Cont.-ol 3oard Delta Unit P.O. Be: 2000 Sacnmrm:co, CA 95810 915/32:!-987'0 Al Yang St:lte Water Resouces Control Bea.rd Di 'Vi.sioa ot ':Yater lligbts 901 p St:"ee~ ~'CO, CA. 9581-1 915/124-5716 ~oml Water· Quality Con'trOl Boar.1 Region # .::;[. City /(/ ve'r'S-J c/e. ----·-------- '-' ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Gov~mor _. 6809 INDIANA AVENUE. SUITE 200 RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92506 PHONE: (714) 782-4130 February 9, 1987 Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 NOP: AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN OF SEWAGE COLLECTION, AFFECTING DISTRIC'f NO. 2 Dear Ms. Baker: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this project. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should state that if de- watering is necessary and the discharge of wastewater to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (waste discharge requirements) must be obtained from this office prior to initiating the discharge. The project proponent should be advised that processing an NPDES permit may take as long as 180 days. Any questions pertaining to the permit should be addressed to Hisam Baqai of our Regulations Section. We look forward to review of the DEIR when it becomes available. Sincerely, '-11 C\\' l.\.-\ 0 . 0 Gar-.. Nancy A. Olsdn Sanitary Engineering Technician NAO:eyp - K. P. LINDSTROM & ASSOCIATES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES March 9, 1987 Ms. Hilary Baker Engineering Department County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain valley, CA 92728-8127 Subject: Screencheck Draft EIR to Master Plan for Districts 2,3 and 11. The subject EIR contains some information on the Master Plan EIDR previously prepared by my firm for the Districts. The use of the information on pages 3-27 and 3-29 is accurate-in fact TOO ACCURATE in that it is the exact language taken from the 1985 Joint Works Master Plan. This is one of the best jobs of plagiarism I have come across in a long time. I would URGE that they give credit to our firm and use the material provided as referenced in quotes from the Master Plan. Sincerely, K. P. Lindstrom & Associates ~.~ Kris P. Lindstrom President cc: i7i'lt.ldan & Associates 1177 Brownwyk Drive, Sacramento, California 95822 (916) 447-5893 lj a> ,,,.. .,. 1gz' 'g ,j ~~~Cb\\(J\} ~\ ~ ~t \ \.-\ \\ ~G "l*'c('.... ~oJ' .... l l p ~ r ____.,, ...._J:l., <£~-.~~---.¢ J ~ --1 :1 ~ ( .i. U JZ ~·¢f ,. ~ .. 7 ... ·-.. v ,. ·r.1·, -I ~ ~, .. .i 5 S•~ ~I '"' .[ [ I ,{ ,[ i (714) 771·491 C Victor Tapia Construction Coordinator City o f Orange 154 N . Glaesell St. I Ora nge, CA 92666 ___ ,OR . rJ: --~--11 iuawssassv sa:::>Jnosae1 1e:::>1601019 8 XIQN3ddV n r < I I r i . ri I . r r i-' I I \ 19' r . I r 191\ I : r r r r Feb. 6, 1987 Proposed Orange Sub-trunk Sewer Line Descriotion of General Area The Santa Ana River in the vicinity of the proposed Orange sub-trunk sewer installation is a channelized, sandy bottom channel contained by rock riprap levees with sloped sides, and flat graded tops. The back shoulders of the levees are of soil. The river bank area in the vicinity of the I-5, 22, and 57 Freeways is sparsely vegetated. The few plants present are mostly non-native, weedy species, becoming temporarily established when there is water present in the channel, or as a result of winter rain on the surface. There are no vetland plant associations or wildlife habitat present in the area of the proposed sub-trunk sewer line. River Bed The bed of the Santa Ana River is flat and sandy, with intermittant surface flow. There is no river bottom or streamside vegetation associated with the river bed. There existed at the time of the survey scattered grasses, and isolated shrubs growing near outflows of storm drains. Plants that do invade the river bed are short lived, being periodically removed by flood control maintenance or eliminated with seasonal flooding. Tracks of egrets or herons were found around scattered puddles created by winter rains. Al though there was no surfa.ce stream flow, saturated sands indicate considerable subterranean flow. Plant List: Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) Hatercress (Roriona nasturtium-aguaticum) Willow (Salix sp.) Mule fat (Baccharis glutinosa) 1:Iild oats (Avena fatua) Levee Slopes and Tops 2. The riprap slopes of the levees have been partially filled in with sand and debris from floods. There are no wetland plants present. Herbicide application has kept the slopes and gra.ded dirt tops largely bare. Those plm1.ts present were either stm1.ding dead, or seedlings established since the last herbicide application. A deca~ent willow and elderberry shrubs were found necr the edge of the levee top bordering the back shoulder. ~List: Giant reed (Arundo donax) Hild oats (Avena fatua) Mule fo.t (Baccharis glutinosa) Cro·ton (Croton californicus) Dermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon) Jimson weed (Datura meteloides) Prickly pear (Opuntia sp.) Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) Wild radish (Ranhanus sativum) t,Jillow (Salix sp. ) Edlerberry ( Sambucus mexicana) .3· Beck Slooes and Drainage Channels The slopes behind the levee tops are of local soils and have a line of eucalyptus trees just southwest of the I-5 Freeway on both sides of the river. Low growing grasses are abundant below a flow-impeding station between the I-5 and 22 Freeways. A drainage channel west of the I-5 Freeway contained weedy, colonizing plants. Plant List: Tree of heaven (Ail an thus al ti ssima) Elack mustard (Brassica nigra) liield mustsrd (Bra.ssica rana ssp. sylvestris) Filarec (Erodium cicutarium) .Blue gum eucalyptus(]!. globulus) Telegr2ph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora) Castor bean (Ricinus Communis) Elderberry ( Sambucus mexicana) Biological Assessment Construction associated with the installation of the proposed sewer line will have negligible biological effects. There are no wetland features or wildlife ho.bi tat within the area. surveyed. Di version of water during installation will have little or no effect on the river bank trees end grasses downstream. Due to the barren nature of the area., the introduction of construction equipment, excavations, roid related activities are not expected to produce any consequential biological effects. There are no unique or valuable plants or DnimaJ.s in the urea which require consideration. I • pue 1edp1unw WO.JJ sasuodsaH :> XION3dd\I I I i' I ~ I , ~ I ' r 19\ ( . ', f r. ~ I I r-' I r I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \---~--WILLDAN ASSOCIATES D t=NC;INF.F.PS & l_)I ANNFP ~; \A Ga rden Grove Sanitary District 113 9 1 Acacia Parkwa y Garden Grove, CA 92642 Dear Utility Company: F.IR ON AMENDMENT NO. 1 January 23, 1987 TO THE CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN or-TRUN I< SEWERS FOR COUNTY SA N ITATION DISTRICTS 2, 3 AND 11 Wil ldan Associates has been ret<1ined by the County Sanitation Dist ric ts of Orange County (0.C .S .D ) to prepare a focused EIR conce rnin g a p r oposed a mendment to the 1 98 3 Consolidated Master Plan of Trun k S ewers fo r County S a nitation District Nos. 2, 3 and 11. The proposed plan wil I correct identified sewer collection d eficienc ies in County Sanitation District No. 2, affecting the Euclid I New hope -P lacen t ia Drainage area. A total of seventeen (17) relief facilities are recommended, c onsisting of upsized, parallel sewers, as well as three ( 3) diver5ion facilities. See the attached materials for further d etails as t o the type i1nd location of the recommended relief facilities. In order to complete our analysis of the e nvironmental im pacts associated with this project, we need to know your conce rn with respect to your facilities located in the vicinity of the recommended sewer relief faci lities. Specifically, we would like to know the location a nd description of your facilities in these areas, described textually and on a ma p. In a ddition, any rec o mmendations yo u may have to minimize disru ption to you r faci Ii ties and service during construction of the propo sed sewer improvements would be very helpful. We would appreciate a prompt response since our deadlin e to deli ver the preliminary El R is February 23, 1987. Please send your res ponse, inch1din~ the name of yo ur contact person, to: RAN: ko JN 5597 1 Mr . Randy A. Nichols Willdan Associates 12900 Crossroads Parkway South, Suite 200 Industry, CA 91746-3499 Sinc erely, WIL~,AnlATES ~r/(~ 12900 CROSS RO A DS PA R KWAY SOUTH• SU I TE 200 •INDUSTRY• CALI F ORN I A 91 746-3499 • (2 13) 695-0551 RECEIVED JAN 2 8 1987 m· SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA~ COMPANY ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P. Q BOX 3334, ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA 92803-3334 Jan. 28, 1987 County Sanitation Districts of Orange Ccunty P.O. Ba>c 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Attn: Ms. Hilary Baker Subject: DEIR .Anendrrent No. 1 for the Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection Affecting Dist. No. 2 This letter is not to l:e interpreted as a ex>ntractual comnitnent to serve the proposed project but only as an infornation service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern calif ornia Gas Col1;>anY has facilities in the area \\here the above-naned project is proposed. Gas service to the project could l:e served by an existing nain as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant inpact on tbe envirorment. T~ service w:>uld be in accordance with the Col1;>any' s policies and extension rules on file with the california Public Utilities Ccmnission at the tine ex>ntractual arrangenents are ne.de. DlE to the scope of the project \f2 will te unable to provide ne.ps for . the entire project. Maps for the entire area are available for viewing at our Headquarters Office, 1919 s. State College, Amheim. T~ availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based.upon present oonditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a plblic utility, the SOlthern california Gas Col1;>any is under the jurisdiction of the california Public utilities Ccmnission. We can also l:e affected by actions of gas supply or the condition under 't.hich service is available, gas service will te provided in accordance with revised conditions. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are d:!veloped on an individual basis and are obtained fran the camercial-Industrial Market Services Staff by calling C714> 634-3173. We have <Eveloped several programs 't.hich are available, upon reqtEst, to provide assistance in selecting the nest effective applications of energy conservation techniqms for a particular project. If you <Esire further information an any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. LA:du Sincerely, 9C;,.7~Jf D. c. f.tx>re Technical Supervisor Dtrectors PHILIP L. ANTHONY KATHRYN L. BARR ROBERT L CLARK JOHN V. FONLEY JOHNGARTHE DONN HAU Officers JOHN V. FONLEY President LAWRENCE P. KRAEMER. JR. Fnt Vice President KATHRYN L BARR Second Vice President LAWRENCE P. KRAEMER, JR. AUGUST F. LENAIN LANGDON W. OWEN NOBLE J. WAITE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NEREUS L. RICHARDSON Acting Secretary Manager January 29, 1987 Ms. Hilary Baker County Sanitation District of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Dear Ms. Baker: Notice of Preparation for Draft Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of sewage Collection, Affecting District No. 2 This is in response to your notice dated January 22, 1987 requesting the views of our agency as to the scope and content of the subject report. The District's primary concern with any project of the Sanitation Districts is any affect that may result in a change in the water quality of sewage flowing to your Treatment Plant No. 1. The District utilizes treated effluent from your Plant No. 1 for groundwater recharge in its seawater intrusion barrier; therefore, a statement related to any water quality change that may occur as a result of this project would be appropriate. very truly yours, /Jl ,,,?-~ / -I I < '-L'L~'C' ik~W'it{?l,!'- Nereus L. Richardson Acting Secretary Manager NLR:le MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 8300 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92728-8300 10500 EWS AVENUE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY TELEPHONE (714) 963-5661 The People An!P The City Mayor Councllmembera ARTHUR G. NEWTON CAROL DOWNEY NORMAN Z. ECKENRODE JOHN O. TYNES City Administrator ROGERL KEMP 401 East Chapman Awnue • Plllt:t1ntla, C.lifomla 92670 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 January 30, 1987 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 ATTENTION: Hilary Baker SUBJECT: E. I. R. (Ame.ndment No. 1) GEORGE F. ZIEGLER We have made a review of the subject document for the above mentioned project and have no comments regarding the pro- posed work within the defined areas at this time. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 714/993-8131. Very truly yours, a~~ Art Burgner Associate Civil Engineer AB/lm ORANGE C DUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT To: ~c:l'/ "-1 tl-hol~ lJ.JvtAck.vvt. ; ~~ s l Yi oo CY055Cbocls Rkw '/ S · nate 'J&>IBJ LETTER OF ~~:: lA q M%~qJRANSMITTAl Project: IY"U 0 lL JuAteK M~ PJa.JJ t;l-12.. Subject: 'f> ~ (2.o uJ Sent by: (<. mail __ special delivery --messenger We ue transmitting ..£enclosed_sepantely --Other 'lbe materials deseribed as follows: Remarks: Pt~ CAM ~ Cf-1f™ la»<-~ ~h~ · For your signature 'zP use_files _comment and return approval and return 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY• P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDENGROVE C4LIP'ORNIA 92&•0 TEL.E~HONEs (714) 171-41200 FORM NO. 01 • 029.1 PU•UC ltllCOltD ... STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS ANO TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUICMEJIAN, Gowmor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7. P.O. BOX 23CM, LOS ANGELES 90051 TOO (213) 620.3550 ( 213) 620-5335 February 9, 1987 Ms. Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. o. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Dear Ms. Baker: Notic~ of Preparation Amendment No.l to the Consolidated Master Plan We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection,-Affecting District No. 2. From the information provided, it appears Caltrans has no discretionary approval power over the proposed project. However, should any sewer trunk line construction occur within Caltrans' right of way, an encroachment permit from our agency would be necessary before construction begins • .. Thank you for the opportunity to review your Notice of Preparation. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Deborah Harmon, Environmental Planner at (213) 620-4913. Very truly yours, kJfb'f'~llzW-w. B. BALLANTINE, Chief Environmental Planning Branch ~ ~ - lHE CITY OF mrn~m CALIFORNIA ~ ·~.~: .. i~. :·~..:.,: .. ·.· r---·-~ L~--~· CIVIC CULTURAL CENTER Number One Civic Center Circle Brea, California 92621 Telephone (714) 990-7600 -. February 10, 1987 Ms. Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County t=1 P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Subject: DRAFT EIR FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN OF SEWAGE COLLECTION, AFFECTING DISTRICT NO. 2 Dear Ms. Baker: The City Staff has reviewed the subject Draft EIR and submit the following comments. On Page 37, the report states that there are three existing pump stations which are: -Rolling Hills -Yorba Linda -Carbon Canyon Dam On Page 39 it states "---of the three pump stations, 2 are proposed to eventually be taken out of service," which are: -Rolling Hills -Carbon Canyon Dam In Table 6 ''Recommended Relief Facilities," the table does not indicate the removal of the 2 pump stations above, or increasing the size of the existing pump stations. The City's recently adopted Carbon Canyon Specific Plan allows 2061 additional residential units to be constructed in· the Carbon Canyon area east of Valencia Avenue. A copy of the plan was transmitted to the District's consultants. The Chino Hills State Park may require additional sewer capacity when the Park Master Plan is completed. These two developments in the Canyon will create additional flows to the Carbon Canyon pump station. However, if the pump station is removed, how will the sewage be transported around the Carbon Canyon Dam to the Rose Drive Trunk at Vesuvius Drive? It is requested that more information be included in the EIR to justify removal of the Carbon Canyon and Rolling Hills pump stations, or list ·as an alternate the expansion of the pump stations. Page 2 With respect to Relief Facility No. 2, the Rolling Hills 15-inch relief sewer through Craig Regional Park, the City is concerned about the construction schedule for this relief facility and other downstream facilities that may require additional capacity. The City has six major projects that flow into this District facility that will exceed the downstream capacity of the City and County sewer systems. These projects are under construction or design. The six projects are: -Brea Mall Expansion -500,000 SF -200 room Hotel -234,000 SF -Lowe Development -Brea School District property -Office and Retail-1,000,000 SF -Olen Properties Development -Northeast quadrant of Lambert Road and Orange Freeway -Commercial -600,000 SF -J. M. Peters -121 unit residential development -Brea-Olinda High School -2000 students All of the above developments are served by the City's State College Boulevard Subtrunk sewer which connects to the District's Rolling Hills Trunk sewer in Craig Park. The City has scheduled construction of relief facilities in State College Boulevard and through Craig Park to the District's Rolling Hills Trunk sewer in Fiscal Year 1988-89. The time required to complete the environmental documents, design and construction of the District's sewer facility through the Craig Park and the Brea Dam and reservoir becomes more critical each day. The total build out of the above major projects is scheduled to be completed within the next six years. It is requested that the Rolling Hills Trunk Relief sewer be given a high priority on the District's Construction program. If there are any questions on these comments, please contact Sam W. Peterson, City Engineer, phone 990-7763. Sincerely, MAINTENANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~)tu~ PM/sj cc: Sam W. Peterson, City Engineer Mark Akaba, Assistant City Engineer James DeStefano, Acting Director of Development Services - - ORANGE COUNTY TRA9'1SIT DISTRICT February 16, 1987 Mr. Thomas M. Dawes Director of Engineering County Sanitation District of Orange County, California P.O. Rox 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708-8127 Dear Mr. Dawes: SUBJECT: NOP DEIR AMENDMENT NO. I 'l'O MASTER PLAN OF SEWER COLLECTION, CSDOC N0.2 We have reviewed the proposed pro.1 ect as described in this NOP and have the followin~ comments: • Our previous comments on this oroj ect, provided to you on August 6, 1986, remain the same. A copv of this letter is attached for your information. • The feasibility study being conducted to evaluate alternative uses for the District owned Pacific Electric right-of-way should be completed this spring. At that time, a copy of the final reoort will be transmitted to you for your use. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to this DEIR and would like to receive a copy of the DEIR when it is released for public review. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at (714) 971-4343. Sincerely, Christine Huard-Spencer Environmental Coordinator CHS:PLN-91 SK Attachment: August 6, 1986 letter to Mr. Thomas Dawes, CSDOC. 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY• P.O. BOX 3005 •GARDEN GROVE. CALIFORNIA 92642 • C714l 971-6200 . --··-. --------------·-----------·--·--·· --- - • 6 l """'-·· .. ,,. . , . \I L '-" '\ ,,.j\ L-ll\~ . I I , ~· ·-· k~ .c. \.ftl.• ... ·._) ) '•. ,. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT August 6, 1986 Mr. Thomas M. Dawes Director of Engineering County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708-8127 Dear Mr. Dawes: SUBJECT: AMENDED TRUNK SEWER MASTER PLAN, CSDOC NO. 2 We have reviewed the proposed relief facilities as described in this report and have the following comments: • The District is currently conducting a feasibility study to eval- uate several alternative uses for the Pacific Electric Right-Of-Way (PE ROW) between Beach Boulevard in Stanton and Raitt Street in Santa Ana. This study effort, which is being directed by OCTD in concert with the cities adjoining the PE ROW, will identify the most feasible and cost-effective use of the ROW. I have enclosed a copy of our study's scope of work for your information. We have provided a copy of the "Amended Trunk Sewer Master Plan" to our consultant conducting our feasibility study and on a preliminary basis; have the following comments: Our understanding is that the relief sewer within the PE Right-Of-Way (project number 15 on page 29 and plate 4) will be 15 feet below present grade. There should be no impact upon the relief sewer at this depth by a potential transitway. Constructing the relief sewer within the PE Right-Of-Way will result in significantly reduced impacts compared to other options, particularly with respect to construction costs and traffic disruption. Assuming project implementation coincides with transportation improvements on the PE, coordination of the two projects can reduce construction impacts even further. 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY• P.O. BOX 3005 •GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • C714> 971-6200 ---·----· .. ------------------------ .... - 1 1 1 T T 1 T T T T T T T T T Mr. Thomas M. Dawes July 29, 1986 Page Two • ,. Although sufficient information does not exist at the present time on what construction activity would be undertaken by OCTD, we believe that your project can be accommodated within our Right-Of-Way. We will keep you informed on the progress of our feasibility study. OCTD's contact for our study is Jeff Ordway, Manager of Planning (971-43.48). The construction of the individual relief sewer projects could result in significant time delays for transit vehicles operating along or near the proposed relief sewer alignments. In order to minimize these potential impacts, we would appreciate being kept informed regarding the construction schedules, lane disruptions, and lane closures for these projects. Information on construction activities should be directed to: Mr. Manny Thomas Division 04 Bus Operations P. o. Box 3005 Garden Grove, CA 92642 (714) 530-5910, Extension 25 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this plan. questions or require further information, please ( 714) 971-4343. If you have any call me at Sincerely, ~(\~~ ~0--~CCLr Christine Huard-Spencer Environmental Coordinator CHS:PLN-48JY Enclosure . ,. l !YI.: lvu YORBA LINDA 4622 PLUMOSA DRIVE• P.O. BOX 309, YORBA LINDA. CALIFORNIA 92686-0309 l __ _ WATER DISTRICT Febniary 19, 1987 Ms. Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 PHONl: (71") 777-3018 RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft E.I.R. for .Amendment No. 1 Dear Ms. Baker: We are in receipt of your Notice of Preparation of a Draft E.I.R. for .Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan dated January 22, 1987. We have reviewed this draft copy and are in agreement with your conments. Our only conment is that under Section IV subsection P of the discussion of the environmental evaluation, I would reconmend that you include water with the other mentioned utilities. If you should have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to call me. Ver:y truly yours, bg~p@r- Engineering Mariag~r MAP/jh WtilT CROM\\'H l l'rl'\•dt'nl WHIT CROMWELL OFFICERS M. RO\' KNAUFT. JR V1rl'·Pre\tden1 DIRECTORS STERLING FOX M. ROY KNAUFT. JR RALPH C SH(X)ll. S«rrt•ry/Cpneril M.n•Al'' WILLIAMR MILLS JR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1391 ACACIA PARKWAY, P.O . BOX 339 • GARDEN GROVE, CA LI FORNIA 92642 • 1714) 534-3943 February 19, 1987 Ms . Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 SUBJECT: Draft EIR -Amendmen t No. 1 Consolidation Master Plan -District No. 2 Dear Ms. Baker: We have reviewed the material sent with your cover letter dated January 22, 1987, concerning the above subject. It is our opinion that construction of the proposed facilities is necessary for anticipated future growth. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. The undersigned will be the contact person for the Garden Grove Sanitary District. Sincerely, ~l~L~ Ronald D. Cates General Manager RDC:jp Enc . cc: Willdan Associates city of orange Incorporated 1888 orange civic center • 300 east chapman avenue • orange, california 92666 post office box 449 department of public works (714) 532.0473 February 25, 1987 Ms. Hillary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 Dear Ms. Baker: In regard to your notice of preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection affecting District 2, which was sent by letter dated January 22, 1987, the City of Orange, in conjunction with planning efforts by our City's Redevelopment Agency and that of the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Stadium area, have identified deficiencies which are included in the above referenced draft EIR. These deficiencies were discussed in the project report and EIR for the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Expansion Plan and relief facilities were identified to provide capacities to that area which will be provided essentially by relief facilities No. 6 and 12, as shown on Plate 4 which was attached with your correspondence of January 22, 1987. The City, however, had also identified a potential relief facility in Garden Grove Boulevard which is not identified in the work proposed to be addressed in the Amendment No. 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report. The alternatives envisioned between the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County and the City of Orange have been discussed with Tom Dawes, Director of Engineering of your agency, and any additional documentation of concerns in regard to proposed relief facilities will be forwarded as a result of con- versation with Mr. Dawes on February 25, 1987. In regard to the environmental evaluation of the proposed works, the City of Orange Public Works Department is in agreement with the initial study and text contained in the discussion of the environmental evaluation contained in your transmittal dated January 22, 1987. Very truly yours, CITY OF ORANGE ~~d'~v.~ ~rank V. Page Director of Public Works FV?:djs . _ ...... / city of orange. Incorporated 1888 department of public works (714t 532~473 March 2, 1987 Thomas M. Dawes orange civic center • 300 east chapman avenue • orange, california 92666 post office box 449 Director of Engineering County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Dear Tom: As a follow-up to our meeting of February 25, 198i, and the letter which was presented to you at that time, would like to summarize my understanding of our discussion of that date. The numbered and designated relief facilities shown on the exhibit contained in the notice of preparation of the draft EIR report for Amendment #1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection affecting District #2 is essen- tially schematic in form at this time, and if the cities have a need which the Sanitation District is not presently informed of to route the facilities differ- ently than shown on the exhibit, we will have ample opportunity to work with the ·District to provide the relief the District is attempting to accomplish while providing the maximum service to the city. Relief of the trunk sewer south of the Anaheim Stadium area to the Santa Ana River interceptor will satisfy the problem the city was concerned about in the vicinity of the City Drive and Garden Grove Boulevard. As in the past, the Sanitation District is most concerned with the timing and phasing of certain city projects and is cognizant of the most significant develop- ment proposals in the City area of the City of Orange and the Anaheim Stadium area. Your primary concern at this time is ability to deliver relief facilities in time with the city's needs and the District would be open to proposals to have rellef facilities constructed by the City of Orange under agreement with the Sanitation Districts if that method is necessary to accommodate the city's needs. It is my understanding that as these projects progress, the Sanitation District will get together with the city and revi.ew more detailed planning and ,..;.,..sing needs with the local agencies. March 2, 1987 Page 2 Thank you for a most informative meeting, as we have come to expect. We have discussed on several occasions, taking you up on your kind offer of having our staff tour your revised facilities inasmuch as it has been a number of years since any of us have been through your treatment plant, and I am sure such a tour would be very enlightening. Very truly yours, CITY OF ORANGE .. ;_/ ~-· (. -. -... _ -- __ ,,,. I,·~.-~~ ... ~ --4 ... Frank V. Page Director of Public Works FVP: dj s cc: GDJ -Ron Thompson -FVP - - ORANGE COUNlY WATER DISTRICT MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 8300 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92728-8300 10500 ELLIS AVENUE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY TELEPHONE (714) 963·5661 / 556·8260 DAm_~~~~t~~~'8~~~~~~~~- • suBJEcT_co;;;;;;o,,;s_l>_o __ C ____ /5=--........1 &--=------ 1~91JO erossroad..s THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE NO.OF COPIES I I I 8 11 vc.JJ Q(ENCLOSED DREQUESTED D SENT SEPARATELY VIA------------ DESCRIPTION . ,.cv1d~ '' '' Ha,;,, /J{ak-Ale, (/.. THE ABOVE ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED ~AT YOUR REQUEST D FOR YOUR REVIEW D FOR YOUR SIGNATURE D FOR YOUR FILES D FOR YOUR ACTION D FOR YOUR INFORMATION COMMENTS. &~~ M tJ"U. ~s.J., ~(!. e,,l!./os~d mo.lt.rlat._ .. .Sltou.Jt:l /J~IJ1J1dL !:JOU Wl.fft Q @&tpbitiL t>t, Oeu.Jl:J .fa.&lrh'S. -#lo. I-m 411 bl. tJf A a k d .h'1 -Hie tte6 m t11 e11d~ d. n /ie/:. ./6.4, ·,,It f s .shown on fjkl-' 1?14A -Pia.le Alo. /./. -as clo/.kfi_ i"n~r. OCWD Ad-20 Rev. 3/88 Ms. Hilary Baker ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY , .,\NNING MAR 3 1987 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 ERNIE SCHNEIDER DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 FILE NCL 7007 TELEPHONE: (714) 834-4643 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation for Amendment Number One to the Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection, Affecting District Number Two Dear Ms. Baker: The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency has received the above refer- enced document which addresses the environmental impacts associated with the pro- posed plan to correct sewer collection system deficiencies in County Sanitation i=-District Number Two. - We have the following comments: Flood Control According to Plate 4 (Recommended Relief Facilities), proposed trunk sewer lines will cross the following Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) facilities: Brea Creek Channel (A02) Fullerton Creek Channel (A03) Carbon Creek Channel (BOl) Tuffree Storm Drain (B01P23) Anaheim-Barber City Channel (C03) East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel (COS) Carbon Canyon Diversion Channel (E02) Atwood Channel (E04) Esperanza Channel (E06) Collins Channel (E07) Southeast Anaheim Channel (El2) East Richfield Storm Drain (EOlSOl) Walnut Canyon Storm Channel (E01S09) Yorba Park Storm Drain (E01P63) Ms. Hilary Baker Page 2 The proposed trunk sewer lines shown on Plate No. 4 (Recommended Relief Facilities) should be sufficiently deep to clear all OCFCD ultimate drainage facilities. An encroachment permit from the County of Orange will be required for each proposed s~··--trunk line that crosses an OCFCD facility. Specific clearance and encroach- ment requirements will be determined by Central Permits for each specific crossing. All sewer trunk lines entering the Santa Ana River interceptor m~st be compatible with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed Santa Ana River Main Stem Project. It is also suggested that the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County transmit environmental documentation and all future plans to the Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District office, for their review and comment in regard to the Santa Ana River Main Stem Project. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOP. We would appreciate receiving two copies of the draft EIR when it becomes available. Should you have any ques- tions, please contact Chris Miller at (714) 834-6932. CM:no(3)(037)7061 Very truly yours, ~~.~ Michael M. Ruane, Acting Manager EMA/Environmental and Special Projects STATE Of CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Long .Ee3. :::. , ·:.I-_ ( :13) 5'?·:~-=~:3 ---• -• * .--":' ~-: ~ :.) ~ -.::-·: ~ '. Orange County Sanitation District Dear Ms. t-1 = ~ ~ c. .. -• ..., ..... ~ .. --... GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN, Governor We ~~7e ~evie~ed the Notice cf Preparati~~ of a Dra:t EIR fer the Con:.::·:lidated M;;;: .. st.er Plan of Trunk Se~;ersiDi;:;trict 2 c SCH87020410}. We believe a Draft EIR should be prepared for this project and it should incl~de ~he following infcrmatibn: :;:._ ·=omolete s.sse.ssment of f lor3. and fauna within the project .3.:c-::a. Particular emphas :.s shc·uld be placed upon identifying enC.3.n·?"e!.-:d. .. t:hrea~ened, and lc=ally unique species . ..;. . I::c-cumentation of direct, indirect, and. cumu;..ati·1e impacts ez?ec~ed to adversely affect biological resources within and ~d~acent to the project site. Also, mitigation measures propose::. to off 3et su=h impacts should be included. Landscape proqrams should include native trees and shru~s to provide habitat for wildlife. Di-.rer-sicn or obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the =hannel, t·ed ·or bank of any river, stream, or lake will require nctification to the Department of Fish and Game as called for in ~he Fis~ and Game Code. Notification should be made after the p?."'cject: i~ approved by the lead agency but prior to such changes. Tt.an~: you :·or the o-pportuni ty to review and comment on this prcjec~. If you have any queEtions .. ;lease contact Jack L. Spr~ill of our Environmental Services staff at <213> 590-5137. • ~i~::~:.4-.'.:~ CH'(~ fr! Fred vfor.thleY Regional Manager Reqi,=n 5 cc: Office of Planning & Research REPLY TO t=I AT", ENTION OF Office of the Chief DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 2711 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90053-2325 April 17, 1987 Environmental Resources Branch Ms. Hilary Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 Dear Ms. Baker: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (D~IR) .for Amendment No. 1 to the Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection Affecting Dist. No. 2, Orange County Sanitation Districts, dated January 22, 1987. The cited Notice requested information as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to our statutory responsibilities relative to the proposed project. Our specific responsibilities include, but are not limited to, investigation, design, operation and maintenance of water resource projects, including preparation of environmental guidelines in the fields of flood control, navigation and shore protection. We are also responsible for administration of laws and regulations for the protection and preservation against pollution of the waters of the United States. We believe that the forthcoming document should address environmental impacts pertinent to those of our responsibilities enumerated above. A Corps of Engineers permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States," pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. "Waters of the United States" effectively includes almost all water bodies, waterways, and wetlands in the United States. "Discharge of dredged or fill material" includes, without limitations, groins, breakwaters, road fills, beach nourishment, riprap, jetties, grading (in some cases), landfills and disposal of materials excavated from waters of the United States. Activities associated with the proposed development might require authorization from the Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch. In order to determine if a permit is required for the proposed project, please contact our Regulatory Branch at (213) 894-5606. Please feel free to contact this off ice for any data that might assist you in preparation of the projected document. The contact person for this project is Mr. Jim Myrtetus, telephone (213) 894-3681. We would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed DEIR when it is issued. Sincerely, J)?a~trh~ \ <;,W-_ ~ Acting Chief, ~nning Division ~ 13 ue..aa uo sasuodsa~/s:i.uawwo:> a XION3dd'V ~ j I ~ l \ r I : r l r i' I , i-, r ' I r ! I ri I . l . r :, ~ i . ,.. I ./ I ~ i I ~ I r ) f'i I r i RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The following statements are responses to written comments concerning the Draft El R received during the 45-day review period. Copies of those comments fol low these responses. No oral comments were presented at the public hearing concerning this document, conducted by the CSDOC Board of Directors on May 13, 1987, at 7: 30 p. m., in the Board Meeting Room located at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. 1 • Response to Comment by Pacific Bell, Dated March 24, 1987. Detailed plans specifying precise alignments and locations of the proposed sewer facilities are not yet available. These plans will be prepared in cooperation with all affected utility agencies to ensure that proposed sewers will cause minimal disruption to utility facilities. Please refer to Page 3-17 for the complete program of mitigation measures that provides for careful coordination during the detailed engineering effort and for proper methods of conducting and monitoring construction activities. 2. Response to Comment by the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, bated May 6, 1987. The text has been revised to incorporate the proper reference to the "Santa Ana River Main Stem Project" on Page 3-6. 3. Response to Comment by the State of California, Project Notification and Review System, Office of the Governor. The State Clearinghouse number assigned to this document, 8702041 O, now appears on the title page and will be included on the Notice of Determination and any other future correspondence. - PACIFlct:teELL y 3939 East Coronado Street First Floor Anaheim, California 92807 March 24, 1987 County Sanitation Districts P. 0. Box 8127 Fountain Valey, Ca. 92728-8127 Attention: Ms. Hilary Baker Re: EIR on Amendment No 1 to the consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for County Sanitation Districts 2, 3 and 11 Dear Hilary: This is in reply to your request, regarding the above. I have reviewed y'bur plan with our Facility Engineers. Due to the lack of more detailed plans, we are unable to determine the scope of impact this project will have on our cable. facilities. When more informationj.s.available please contact us again for a more in depth review of possible impaction. This letter covers both our Ananheim and Tustin offices. If you have any questions, please contact me on 714-666-5716. Very truly yours, /""'~ w71 c~'f ~ -~·1 1· / (., I ... c;.. / M. J. Mc Card Engineer, Liaison FILED In the Office of the Secretary county sanitation District No cSl.... MAY 13 1987 j - - - - - - - - - - - C>UNTV C>F ~ sQRANGE v ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING May 6, 1987 Ms. Hilary J. Baker County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 ERNIE SCHNEIDER DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA P.O . BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O . BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 FILE NCL 7007 TELEPHONE: (714) 834-4643 SUBJECT: Draft EIR for Amendment Number One to the Consolidated Master Plan of Sewage Collection Dear Ms . Baker : The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency has reviewed the above referenced document which addresses the environmental impacts associated with the construction of approximately 18 miles of new trunk sewers in Orange Count y. We have the following comment regarding the Santa Ana River Main Stem Project : On pages 3-6, Item No. 3, the text incorrectly states that all corrections to the SARI line be consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) STEM project. The correct name for the COE project is "Santa Ana River Main Stem Project." The tex t should be corrected to indicate this. Thank you for . the opportunity to respond to the Draft EIR. Should you have any questions, please contact Chris Miller at (714) 834-6932. CM:pa (003) FILED In the Office of tht: se:cr~tary County Sanitation District No ~ MAY 13 1987 Mana gt & Special Projects J I St A ff OI CAllfOtlNtA-()IFICf OI THE GO'lflNOtt GfOllGf OEUttMf JIAN Go"•'"'" l:mi' ~ .. OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1.00 ff NTH $Tiffi . UCIAMINTO, CA 9511' Hilary Baker County Sanitation District Orange County . ··. 10844 Ellis . Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 (916/4j&5-0613) May 15, 1987 Subject: Draft EIR: Amd. #1 to Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewer SCH# 87020410 Dear Ms. Baker: 'lbe State Clee.r1nghowse autm1tted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies tor review. 'the review period is closed and none or the atate. agencies have ocmwmts. 'Ih18 letter acknowledges that you have ~lied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements tor draft enV1roumental doc1.llllnta, pursuant to the Calitomia F.nv1rcnmental QJal.1ty Act. Please call Glenn Stober at 916/4~5-0613 1f yai have any questions regarding the env1ra1Dental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse 1n this matter, pleaae uae the eight digit State Clearingbouae nuni>er so that we may reapcnd prall)tl.y. Sincerely, I 1 I l l j I I I I I -- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .- State of California Project Notification and Review System Office of the Governor (916) 41J,_0613 AMENiflENT il '10 M1\STER PLAN OF TRUNK SEWERS.r. t srATE CLENUNGffOUSE NUMBER: 87020410 RE.VIEW srARTS: 04/01/87 RE.VIEW moo: 05/15/87 cnrrPCr: GLENN sroBER (RE.VIEW srl\RTS CN NEJer W0RKDG Dl\Y WHm Jl:lCUMEN'l\,lS RJ!XElVED AFrER 10:00 A.M.) ~ \ Please 1Jse the State Clearinghouse Number on future correspondence with this office and with agencies approving or reviewing your project. ; this card does not verlf y compliance with envlronmehtal review requirements. A letter containing the State's comments or a Jetter confirming no State comments wlU be forwarded to you after the review ls complete. Rev. 8/82 ·1 I J ) I ID 1 I I I 1 ) I I