HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-05 <Z::�
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O.BOX$127,FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
y � 10844 ELLIS.FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
(714)962-2411
April 26, 1988
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7 & 14
THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1988 - 7: 30 P .M.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of April 13, 1988,
the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 6, 7
and 14 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour
and date to consider a report on joint sewage conveyance facilities
to serve said Districts.
S cretary
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
•r 0 ORANGE COUNTY,CAUFORmA
1pBM2WeAV
P.Q B 61"
r FC{IMYM VP1l2Y.CYIW WUP RY2&B12]
ma s@ xn
r
INITIAL STUDY
and
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
r
Replacement of Portions of Standby Ocean Outfall
Job No. J-22
r (Replacement of a Deteriorated On-shore Portion
of Outfall No. 2 at Orange County Sanitation Districts'
Treatment Plant No. 2)
r
r April 1988
r
r LEAD AGENCY
County,Sanitation Districts of Orange County
10644 Ellis Avenue
_ Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018
(714)962-2411
as
Contact: Thomas M. Dawes, Director of Engineering
..1
d
w
..I
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CAUFORNUI
r
1pBd�HL6/VBIIIE
YQB 0127
iWMYN VPYEY.fA4i0Ap�!@72&B12)
INITIAL STUDY
and
N. NEGATIVE DECLARATION
w
Replacement of Portions of Standby Ocean Outfall
Job No. J-22
(Replacement of a Deteriorated On-shore Portion
of Outfall No. 2 at Orange County Sanitation Districts'
Treatment Plant No. 2)
r
r April 1988
r
LEAD AGENCY
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018
(714)962-2411
Contact: Thomas M. Dawes, Director of Engineering
r
.r
r
r
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
r Public Notice Section I
Notice of Determination Section II
r Project Description Section III
Alternative Analysis Section IV
r
Environmental Assessment Section V
Findings Section VI
Required Permits Section VII
Initial Study Section VIII
- Explanation of Comments in Initial Study
r - Environmental Impact Assessment
r
r
r
r
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
April 20, 1988 W ORANGE COUNTY. CAUFORNIA
1L EW6AWE E
P.O.W%2127
WOMNN VPLIEY.CPOMO 92 A127
M41W2 11
a
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION
r
PUBLIC NOTICE
.e
TO ALL CONCERNED PARTIES:
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of Negative Declaration re
r' Replacement of Portions of Standby Ocean outfall , Job No. J-22
ti The County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange
County, California have determined to prepare a Negative Declaration for
Replacement of Portions of Standby Ocean Outfall (Job No. J-22) located adjacent
to the Santa Ana River and under Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach,
California.
As required under Sections 15070 and 15073 of the State Guidelines Implementing
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, this "Notice of
Preparation" declares that the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County,
having reviewed an Initial Study of the project and having found that the
. project will not have a significant effect on the environment, have prepared and
the Boards of Directors will consider the adoption of a Negative Declaration for
subject project on June 8, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' administrative
offices at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at the above address
and telephone number. If you wish to comment, please respond by May 23, 1988.
iu
omas M. Day es
Director of Engineering
r
r
I
r
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
r
TO: X Governor's Office of Planning FROM: County Sanitation Districts of
and Research Orange County
1400 Tenth Street P.O. Box 8127
Sacramento, CA 95814 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127
Attention Chris Groggin
and
r County Clerk
X County of Orange
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with
Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
PROJECT TITLE.
Replacement of Portions of Standby Ocean Outfall , Job No. J-22
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON TELEPHO E NUMBER
r (if submitted to Clearinghouse)
Thomas M. Dawes 714/962-2411
PROJECT LOCATION
Adjacent to Santa Ana River in an easement outletting to Pacific Ocean
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Replace existing 800-foot section of 78-inch outfall under Pacific Coast Highway
with a 120-inch diameter pipeline
This is to advise that the Count Sanitation Districts oP Oran a County
ea Agency or e spa
nsible Agency
has approved the above described project and has made the following
determinations regarding the above described project:
.r
1. The project _ will , X will not, have a significant long term
effect on the environment.
2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, entitled EIR for Master Plan
of Sewage Collection, Districts 2, 3 and 11.
X A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant
to provisions of CEQA.
The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval
may be examined at:
r County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
10844 Ellis Ave. , Fountain Valley, CA 92708
r 3. Mitigation measures _ were, were not, made a condition of
the approval of the project. _
., 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerati was, X was not,
adopted for this project.
.. Date Received for Filing
na ure Thomas m. Dawes
Director of Engineering
Title
II
April 20, 1988
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Replacement of Portions of Standb Ocean Outfall
Job No. J- 2
Background -
'� The County of Orange and CALTRANS are proceeding with the design of a new
Pacific Coast Highway Bridge over the Santa Ana River adjacent to the Districts'
Huntington Beach Treatment Plant. The new bridge will be higher and wider, and
.y is designed for the future river channel widening proposed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. In a related project, the County' s Talbert Flood Control
Channel will be relocated to a more westerly ocean outlet so that its right-of-
way adjacent to the Santa Ana River can be utilized for the wider river channel .
As part of the relocation of the Talbert Flood Control Channel , a seventeen-acre
site bounded by the treatment plant on the north and Pacific Coast Highway on
the south, between Brookhurst Street and the Santa Ana River, will be restored
'd as a wetland.
The Districts' ocean outfalls, the five-mile long 120-inch outfall and the
.. standby one-mile long 78-inch outfall , parallel the Santa Ana River and cross
the Pacific Coast Highway just west of the Santa Ana River mouth and the
existing Talbert Channel outlet. The ocean outfalls will fall between the river
and the relocated Talbert Channel as proposed.
Recently, Surge Tower No. 2 was extended as part of the construction of the new
outfall booster station underway at the Huntington Beach plant. At that time,
the 78-inch outfall was dewatered and inspected as far as Districts' personnel
could walk into the pipe. The pipeline, which was built in the early 1950's,
was found to be deteriorating on the inside. Further, the 78-inch outfall pipe
was not designed structurally for the higher and wider embankment required for
the new bridge approach and, thus, structural protection of the pipe must take
place to accommodate the CALTRANS/County work.
The Directors have authorized preparation of a new master plan for future
treatment needs and, as part of that plan, the outfall disposal system will be
studied. It is clear, however, from preliminary results that sections of the
standby 78-inch outfall will have to be rehabilitated or replaced for structural
integrity, and that the outfall will probably have to be converted at some
future date for continuous ocean discharge. This will require lengthening the
d outfall and probably enlarging the size. This would occur in phases over the
next fifteen years.
d In order to provide necessary protection of the Districts' ocean outfalls, in
February the Boards granted staff authority to negotiate with the County of
Orange and/or CALTRANS, as appropriate, to include appropriate portions of said
III-1
r
work in the proposed improvements of Pacific Coast Highway and Santa Ana River
Bridge to ensure the structural integrity of the pipeline and to minimize costs
and accommodate future outfall repairs and/or modifications.
Discussion
d CALTRANS is replacing the bridge over the Santa Ana River to remove a major
constriction in the Santa Ana River and widening the bridge to remove a traffic
bottleneck. As mitigation for this work, CALTRANS must construct a sand dune
area north of Pacific Coast Highway and south of the Huntington Beach treatment
plant over the Sanitation Districts' 120-inch operating ocean outfall and the
78-inch standby outfall . Just west of the sand dune area, the Huntington Beach
Coastal Conservancy is excavating an approximately 17-acre site bounded by
Brookhurst Street on the west, the Sanitation Districts' plant on the north and
Pacific Coast Highway on the south to create the wetland. The sand dune area by
CALTRANS and the wetland area by the Coastal Conservancy (financed by the
�+ County of Orange) are all intertwined. For example, the excavated material from
the wetland area will be used for the abutment fills necessary for the new
bridge. Staff has allowed the County to store this excavated material within
the treatment plant for later removal and use as part of the bridge work at an
estimated savings to the County of $400,000. In addition, CALTRANS cannot
proceed with the road widening or the bridge replacement until it fulfills its
mitigation requirements, i.e. creation of the sand dunes. The Coastal
Conservancy, in turn, would like the sand dunes built as soon as possible and
would also like to use this area as a staging area for portions of the wetland
project.
After holding several discussions with the parties, it became obvious that all
parties could best be served if the Sanitation Districts replaced the 78-inch
,r outfall , not only under Pacific Coast Highway but northerly of Pacific Coast
Highway to a point just south of the Talbert Channel as shown on the attached
map. The outfall replacement can easily be included in the CALTRANS project as
a first item of work, thereby allowing CALTRANS to proceed with the construction
of the sand dunes. The Coastal Conservancy and CALTRANS could then use the site
and proceed with the bridge/road work. Accordingly, the Coastal Conservancy has
informally requested that we proceed with the replacement of the 78-inch standby
�+ outfall pipe as soon as possible.
Our planning consultant, Carollo-Boyle, has indicated that the new outfall
,r pipe should be at least 120-inch in size. Therefore it is recommended that the
replacement be 120 inches internal diameter so that the Districts will not have
to enter into this property in the future. In two to three years, the
Talbert Channel will be turned south to the ocean at a location approximately
mid-point between Brookhurst Street and the Santa Ana River. At that time, the
78-inch can be replaced between the proposed northerly terminus (just south of
the existing Talbert Channel) and Surge Tower No. 1. Waiting until the channel
is relocated avoids the necessity and expense of a siphon under the Talbert
Channel . The planning team estimates that the 78-inch standby ocean outfall
will have to converted to full time use within the next planning period. This
,r will require lengthening the pipe, which now terminates about 1-1/2 miles
offshore, as well as phased replacement of the existing section. Replacing the
deteriorated land section now and in the next few years, will avoid the
duplicate costs of rehabilitation followed by certain future replacement.
III-2
Because this project complements projects by others, i.e. the improvements to
Pacific Coast Highway and creation of a wetlands, it is believed that a negative
s, declaration can be prepared to comply with CEQA requirements.
Environmental Setting
.. The environmental setting consists of description of the area in the immediate
vicinity of the project site and a description of the major Santa Ana River
bridge project which is proposed for the area.
s
Santa Ana River Bridge Project
The Santa Ana River Bridge, constructed' in 1923 and subsequently widened to four
lanes in 1932, is showing definite signs of deteriorating with cracking and
spelling, and corrosion of exposed reinforcing steel is evident. For this
reason and the fact that the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Orange County
Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) have determined that the existing
structure may not survive the effects of a severe storm. CALTRANS Office of
Structures considers the replacement of this bridge as a high priority.
e The existing bridge across the Santa Ana River is 51.8 feet wide and 17 feet
above mean sea level . The new structure will be 110 feet wide, 23 feet above
d sea level and 245 feet from the California Least Tern area.
The existing bridge has two 10-foot and two 11-foot lanes with no median. In
addition, there is a recently-constructed wooden decked 6-foot wide
sidewalk/bike path attached to the ocean side of the bridge. During
construction, the existing bridge would remain in place while one half of the
new bridge is constructed on the ocean side. All traffic would then be directed
to the new half bridge while the old bridge is removed and the remainder of the
new bridge is completed. Provision for a bike lane would be made on both sides
of the new bridge to connect with existing bike trails and a bike trail under
r the up-coast side of the bridge to connect the inland side trails to the ocean
side trails. Bridge design and location have been coordinated with the Cities
of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the Coast
Guard, State Fish and Game, State Parks and Recreation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the County of Orange with the Talbert Channel relocation and
widening.
r The relationship of the old and new structures to the CSDOC's two ocean outfall
pipelines is shown in Figure 1. Also shown is the location of the proposed
replacement project for Outfall No. 2 (Job No. J-22).
Existing Environmental Conditions
The environmental conditions in the Santa Ana River are well described in the
+' final EIS for the CALTRANS widening project as well as other projects for
widening the river mouth proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Of key
importance in describing the existing conditions are the proposed projects for
r the area and the needs of endangered or threatened species which inhabit the
Coastal Zone in the immediate vicinity of the proposed projects. The fallowing
briefly summarizes those key aspects of importance in considering the proposed
pipeline replacement project.
III-3
r
The Santa Ana River and nearby flood control channel contain waters derived
from three sources; winter rainfall in the drainage channel , urban runoff
wastewater, and seawater from the Pacific Ocean. Urban runoff wastewater is
'~ the only source of fresh water in this habitat during the summer and, except
for brief periods of time during storms, seawater makes up most of the water in
the river mouth and channel.
Vegetation is relatively inconspicuous. Marine algae is the predominant
vegetation, but the algae is not particularly conspicuous because it is grazed
by the abundant marine fauna.
The Santa Ana River and Talbert Channel have rock riprap or concrete sides.
The bottom sediments in the river and channel habitat range from sandy to
muddy.
The endangered California Least Tern forages heavily in the river and channel
s areas. This habitat is particularly important to fledglings who are learning
to forage. The endangered Brown Pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis californicus,
also forages in this habitat. Because of this activity, this habitat is con-
sidered a biological habitat of statewide significance.
The most striking feature of the study area for the CALTRANS project is the
presence of the Coastal Dune-Coastal Marsh Habitat Complex encompassing about
385 acres of coastal marsh. About 115 acres are located west of the Santa Ana
River with the remainder located east of the Santa Ana River. About 8.7 acres
of Coastal Dune Habitat exists near the Santa Ana River mouth. This area is
e 35% of the remaining Coastal Dune Habitat in northern Orange County. These
habitats are considered part of a single complex because of the ecological
Interactions between the dunes and the marsh. In addition to the above, there
are 2.9 acres of upland vegetation dominated by Mock Heather Haplopappus
ericoides and Phacelia Phacelia ramoosissima included as part of the complex.
This area was historically coastal marsh but now contains upland vegetation.
This area is located just northeast of the intersection of Route 1 and
Brookhurst Street and is part of a major proposed restoration project.
The Coastal Dune-Coastal Marsh Habitat Complex is a remnant of a once extensive
.y wetland and dune system that existed at the mouth of the Santa Ana River which
originally encompassed about 2,950 acres. Both the wetlands and the dunes
underwent significant reductions while the segment of coastal marsh west of the
Santa Ana River has been formally classified as wetland by the State of
California since at least 1971.
The sand dunes, although supporting upland vegetation, act as a buffer between
the degraded marsh and highway and supply refuge for marsh animals when the
marsh is flooded.
+' Vegetation in the Coastal Dune-Coastal Marsh Habitat Complex responds to rather
minute differences in topography substrate, salinity, and soil moisture
creating a very patchy mosaic of species. However, between the Edison Plant
and the Santa Ana River there is a general pattern from the highway inland.
The gradation shows a Coastal Strand/Dune Zone, the Dune Slack Zone, a brackish
water transition (either the Juncus or the Scri us zone) , and finally, the
r Coastal Salt Marsh Zone.
111-4
r
Sensitive, Rare and Endangered Species
Several sensitive species utilize the Coastal Dune-Coastal Marsh Habitat
Complex. Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldin s) ,
which is a state listed endangered bird, nests and forages in the oastal Salt
Marsh Zone of the coastal marsh and is an obligate salt marsh bird that
r requires this habitat for survival .
The Wandering Skipper (Pano ulna errans) is a small butterfly that is
restricted to the CoastaJE arsh Habitat and found in close association
with Salt Grass (Distichlis s icata). Larva of the Wandering Skipper seem to
live only on Salt rah ass that periodically wetted, and high humidity
seems to be required for larval development. The population of the Wandering
Skipper has declined primarily due to the filling and dredging of coastal
wetlands. This butterfly is of scientific interest because, unlike many other
insects, it can tolerate large amounts of salt in its diet. The importance of
s the area to the survival of the Wandering Skipper is unknown. However, a small
population of this butterfly is known to exist between the Edison Plant and the
Santa Ana River.
The California Legless Lizard (Anniela ppulcra) is a lizard which inhabits
loose friable soil . Populations in orang���hounty have declined primarily due
to loss of coastal dune habitat. None of these lizards were found during the
. `" CALTRANS biological survey of the area.
California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) is a federal and
r state listed endangered species wFTch periodically forages in the nearshore
marine habitat and in the river and channel habitat. The study area does not
make up a significant portion of the foraging area of the California Brown
Pelican.
California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni) , a federal and state listed
endangered species, nests and forages in the area. The area is of critical
r importance to the existence and recovery of this species, and extensive
correspondence between CALTRANS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
concerning the California Least Tern has occurred to assure protection of the
.� habitat needs of this species.
Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldin s) is a state
listed endangered species which nests in the pickleweed alicornia) of the
Coastal Dune-Coastal Marsh Habitat Complex. Recent surveys of the area for
Belding' s Savannah Sparrow show no nesting birds in the Santa Ana River to
Brookhurst Street corridor, but high use in the Brookhurst to Magnolia wetlands
area.
r
r III-5
r
a i
5 4GE 7DW NO• I
Su 6E MIMS W.2
a � PLF
AA
\ ,PJVEZ -..
\1
w,
`Q5
r. ,Mer g®R ,OUTFALL. I
,r LNANMEC
/ AC16I✓MENT -L 120
�< OUTFALl
r \
\ �20fDSE0
s p,1L/FIG COAST ANNNrrr{{{
Q/tc-R
Hwy.
PROPOSED RMACEMEN /
OF 79" OUTFALL ..�
W/ 120" OUTFALL /
.y COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF
/ ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
REPLACEMENT OF STANDBY
L FECP03ED OCEAN OUTFALL SEWER
Ex/57G NEW BE/06E JOB NO. J-Z2
JUNLTIOA/ _
672U47rt/R6
�REOPOER NO.AIOIBLLUYPES4 III_6
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
ti
., As a result of the March 1985 Draft EIR and recent discussions concerning the
proposed CALTRANS widening project for the Pacific Coast Higthway and the
potential impacts on the Districts' existing and future outfall pipelines, a
planning level of analysis of several alternatives that could be implemented by
the Disricts was prepared in February 1988 by John Carollo Engineers (JCE) .
In an October 1987 memo, the loading impacts (from the additional fill required
for widening PCH) on the two existing outfall pipelines were analyzed. It was
found that the 120-inch outfall would not require any additional protection,
but that the 78-inch outfall could not support the new loads.
A subsequent internal inpsection of the 78-inch pipeline revealed substantial
deterioration of the concrete resulting from H2S attack during the period when
.. the 78-inch outfall was operated only partially full . As a result, the
long-term viability of protecting the 78-inch outfall was questioned and
several viable alternative options were evaluated. These included:
1. Installation of casing (open cut) and 78-inch would be removed, then
reinstalled within the casing. The casing would be sized to accept larger
outfall pipe (i .e. 120-inch diameter). (Estimated cost: $400-600K)
2. Installation of a section of 120-inch diameter outfall pipe to replace the
existing 78-inch diameter outfall pipe within CALTRANS right-of-way.
Junction structures would be required at each end of the 120-inch outfall
for transition down to the 78-inch outfall line. (Estimated cost: $500K.
Extending the replacement through the future wetlands project will cost
$1000K)
3. Provide a concrete cap for the existing 78-inch outfall (as previously
proposed ) and install a parallel section of 120-inch outfall pipe
adjacent to the 78-inch outfall alignment. For preliminary planning
purposes, we have assumed that the section of 120-inch pipeline would be
located to the north of the existing 78-inch outfall . (Estimated cost:
$450-750K)
4. Cap the 78-inch outfall similar to (3) and assume that the future outfall
pipeline would be tunneld under PCH (in a similar manner as the existing
'd 120-inch outfall) . (Estimated cost: $510-850K)
We have prepared a summary table (Table 1) which presents a comparison of these
.r four alternatives based on their apparent advantages and disadvantages. The
cost of replacing the 78-inch pipe with 120-inch (Alternate 2) and extending
the replacement north of PCH to allow construction of the sand dunes, the
r recommended project, is $1 million. All costs are based on protection of the
pipe for the CALTRANS project.
a�
,� IV-1
1
Based an this preliminary analysis, JCE recommended that the Districts pursue
Alternative 2 which involves replacement of the existing 78-inch outfall with a
120-inch pipeline. This pipe would be installed at a depth similar to the
existing 120-inch outfall pipe to maintain a similar hydraulic grade line.
This alternative provides the Districts the best combination of costs and
future flexibility of any alternative.
All of the alternatives would have similar environmental impacts.
s
d
a
r
r
IV-2
r
TABLE 1
OUTFALL MODIFICATION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Advantages 1. Provide for future 1. Maintain same 1. Provides near-term 1. Minimal political
expansion alignment protection of impact
existing 78-inch
2. Maintains same 2. Straight forward 2. Provides for future 2. Minimal impact on
alignment installation expansion PCH project
3. No transition 3. Minimizes future
structure required impacts
C
w _Disadvantages 1. Unknown condition of 1. Required construc- 1. Costly interim 1. Does not provide
existing 78-inch tion of transition solution future expansion
structures
2. Longer, involved 2. Potential political 2. Construction outside 2. Inflated costs for
construction process impacts (growth) existing alignment construction
(political impacts)
3. Potential unknowns in 3. Potential impacts 3. Unknown constraints
pipe removal and on PCH project for road tunneling
replacement
r
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
r
Environmental impacts associated with the replacement of the existing 78-inch
pipeline with a 120-inch line basically involves the excavation of a corridor
r, some 800 feet long and approximately 20 feet wide. By excavating the entire
replacement portion as shown on Figure 1 at one time, the Districts will be able
to avoid major disruption to the Huntington Beach Coastal Conservancy Wetlands
Project in the future, and allow the surface area over the pipe to be utilized
for construction of sand dunes. In the future when the Talbert Channel is
modified and connected to the ocean at a location westerly of its existing
outlet, the Districts can complete construction of a connector pipeline between
.. the outfall surge tower and the proposed project.
The proposed excavation will include digging out and removing the 78-inch pipe
r and replacing it with a 120-inch pipeline. The Districts will have CALTRANS and
its contractors incorporate this particular construction project within the
overall greater project encompassing the Pacific Coast Highway widening project
and construction of a new bridge over the Santa Ana River. In this way, the
contracts proposed by CALTRANS will be carefully coordinated and integrated with
their proposed schedule and the responsibility for construction and mitigation
will be more coordinated and consistent.
r
r
r
r
ry
r
r
r
M
V
r
r FINDINGS
The proposed project will involve construction activities which will generate
r noise, minor air pollutant emissions from construction equipment and some fuel
usage. Materials used in the pipeline will consist of concrete pipe which has
expected life of 50 years. The project will be constructed as part of a much
r larger project to widen Pacific Coast Highway and construct a new, larger bridge
over the Santa Ana River. As proposed, the project will not have a significant
long term effect on the environment, and the short term construction-related
impacts can be adequately mitigated through standard construction
specifications.
r
r
r
s
s
r
,r
r
tnV
r
vI
REQUIRED PERMITS
The CALTRANS Final EIR identified the following state and federal permits which
r must be obtained prior to the construction of the widening of Pacific Coast
Highway and the Santa Ana River Bridge.
r 1. De artment of Fish and Game
A 1601 permit Stream Bed Modification) will be required due to proposed
construction of the new Santa Ana River Complex Bridge.
2. State Coastal Zone Commission
A coastal zone permit and consistency determination are required as this
project is within the coastal zone limits.
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
A nationwide permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
authorizes the discharge of certain fill incidental to the construction of
bridges authorized by the Coast Guard. These fills include cofferdams,
foundation seals, piers, and temporary construction fills. An individual
Section 404 permit would be required for fills not authorized by the
nationwide permit, including causeways and approach fills.
4. Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region
permit is required due to construction of the new anta Ana River Bridge
and also for grading close to major waterways.
5. Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA)
An encroachment permit will be required from OCEMA for the construction of
the new Santa Ana River Complex Birdge which will span the Talbert Channel ,
Greenville-Banning Channel and Santa Ana River. All three of these
facilities are under OCEMA jurisdiction for hydraulics and maintenance.
6. U.S. Coast Guard
AA Coast permit will be required for the construction of the
bridges across navigable water.
7. Cit of Huntin ton Beach
ALTRANS is required to obtain a coastal development permit from the City
of Huntington Beach. A portion of the project is within the City's
r
certified Local Coastal Program.
Careful coordination of the proposed project to replace the Districts' outfall
will help expedite acquiring the needed permits for the outfall replacement.
These permits will include a Corps of Engineers 404 permit, RWQCB, OCEMA and
City of Huntington Beach approval.
At the present time it is envisioned that any necessary permits for the proposed
project will be obtained by the Sanitation Districts directly, however, if the
proposed project can be embodied within the permits proposed for the CALTRANS
project, then as necessary these permits for the proposed replacement pipeline
will be integrated with those of the CALTRANS project.
VII
r
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
.f ORANGE COUNTY. CAUFORNIA
r 1(WO FWSIVENUE
ao eo.etn
wumuM v1un,cww,twl zz>znnz>
mnaezxtt
r
r
INITIAL STUDY
r (To Be Completed by Lead Agency)
Background
A. Name of Proponent County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
r
B. Address and Phone Number of Proponent
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708 (714)962-2411
C. Contact Person Thomas M. Dawes
D. Title and Location of Project
r
Replacement of Portions of Standby Ocean Outfall , Job No. J-22
Treatment Plant No. 2
22212 Brookhurst Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
E. Description of Project Replacement of deteriorated section of
r 78-inch diameter pipeline with 120-inch diameter pipeline
r
r
r
r
r VIII-1
r
r II. Guidelines
A. Does the proposed activity qualify as a project as defined in Section
r 28.
Yes X No —
(If activity does not qualify as project, do not complete remainder of
form).
B. Does the project qualify as:
1. Ministerial (Section 6) Yes — No X
r
2. Emergency (Section 13) Yes _ No X
3. A feasibility or planning study (Section 33) Yes — No X
4. Categorically exempt pursuant to Article 8 of the State Guidelines
(Section 40) Yes — No X
r
5. Involves another agency which constitutes the lead agency
(Section 36) Yes — No X If yes, identify lead agency:
r
(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" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets) .
Yes Maybe No
v
A. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
1. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? X
2. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
r or overcovering of the soil? X
3. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? X
4. The destruction, covering or modification
r of any unique geologic or physical features? — X
5. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? X
r —
VIII-2
r
r
Yes Maybe No
S. Changes in desposition 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
r ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X
7. Exposure of people or property to geological
r hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure or similar
hazard? X
B. Air. Will the proposal result in:
1. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
r 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:
r 1. Change in currents or the course of
direction of water movements in either
marine or fresh water? X
r
2. Changes 1n absorption rates, drainage
patterns or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? X
3. Alterations to the course of flow of
flood waters? X
r
4. Change in the amount of surface water
In any water body? X
r
5.. Discharge into surface waters or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including, but not limited to, temperature,
'r dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
6. Alteration of the direction or rate
r of flow of ground waters? X
7. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
r
VIII-3
Yes Maybe No
8. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? X
9. Exposure of people or property to related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X
_ D. Plant Life. Will proposal result in:
1. Change in the diversity of species or
numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops and aquatic
plants)? - X
2. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? X
3. Introduction of new species of plants into
" an area or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? X
4. Reduction in acreage of any agriculture
crop? X
E. Animal Life. Will 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? X
2. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? X
3. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area or result in a barrier to
r the migration or movement of animals? X
4. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat? X
F. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
.. 1. Increase in existing noise levels? X
2. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
r G. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
light or glare? X
r VIII-4
Yes Maybe No
H. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area? X
r I. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
1. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources? X
2. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? x
J. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
r 1. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil , pesticides, chemicals
r or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions? x
2. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? X
K. Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density or growth
rate of the human population of an area? X
L. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing or create a demand for additional
housing? X
r
M. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
r
1. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
2. Effects on existing parking facilities
or demand for new parking? X
3. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? X
r 4. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? X
r
5. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic? X
r VIII-5
Yes Maybe No
6. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X
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? X
2. Police protection? X
3. Schools? X
4. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
5. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X
r -
6. Other governmental service? X
0. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
1. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? - - X
2. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy or require
the development of new sources of energy? X
P. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
r 1. Power or natural gas? X.
2. Communications systems? X
.. 3. Water? X
4. Sewer or septic tanks? X
5. Storm water drainage? X
r 6. Solids waste and disposal? X
Q. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
1. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health?) X
VIII-6
r
Yes Maybe No
2. Exposure of people to potential health
r hazards? X
R. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
r 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 the public view? X
S. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
r impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities? X
T. Cultural Resources.
r
1. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric
or historic archeaological site? X
2. Will the proposal result in adverse
r, physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure or object? — — X
r 3. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values? X
r
4. W111 the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X
r 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 of restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal ,
or eliminate important examples of the
r - major periods of California history or
prehistory? X
r
VIII-7
r
Yes Maybe No
2. Does the project have the potential to
r achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one which
r occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time, while long-term impacts
will endure well into the future). X
r
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulative
considerable? (A 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). X
4. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
y
either directly or indirectly? X
IV. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
See attached sheet.
w
V. Discussion of Zoning Compatibility
Installation will be replacing existing facilities.
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
r 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
r measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. XXX
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
r Date: COUN ANITATION D RICTS OF
OR GE OUNT�
mas M. Dawe
Director of Engineering
r
VIII -8
r
r
r
EXPLANATION OF COMMENTS IN ITEM III OF INITIAL STUDY
r
III. Environmental Impacts
r A.S.: Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off
the site? MAYBE.
r Standard construction techniques would mitigate this potential
Impact, such as watering to control dust.
F.1.: Increase in existing noise levels? YES.
There would be an increase over existing noise levels due to
construction activities. However, the construction is likely to
occur at the same time that major highway expansion improvements
are underway and there will be an increase in background levels
for the period of construction. No nearby residential dwellings
,. are likely to experience adverse impacts from replacement of the
outfall pipeline.
r
r
r
r
r
VIII-9
r
r
EXPLANATION OF ITEM IV OF INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
r
r Name of Project: Replacement of Portions of Standby Ocean Outfall
Job No. J-22
Location: County Sanitation Districts Treatment Plant No. 2
r 22212 Brookhurst Street
Huntington Beach, California
r
Entity of Person Undertaking Project:
A. District Thomas M. Dawes, Director of Engineering
B. Other
4
Staff Determination:
The Districts' staff, having undertaken and completed an Initial Study of
this project in accordance with Section 15063 of the Amendments to the
California Environmental Quality Act, for the purpose of ascertaining
-,� whether the proposed project might have significant effect on the environ-
ment, has reached the following conclusion:
XX 1. The project will not have a significant long term effect on the
r environment because of the mitigation measures incorporated;
therefore, a Negative Declaration can be prepared.
.. 2. The project could have a significant effect on the environment;
therefore, an EIR will be required.
r
April 20, 1988
Oate Thomas M. Dawes
Director of Engineering
r
r
r
VIII-10
r
r
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
8127
County Sanitation Didfriela v 8 4 511 eox
Gldornla tn V Ellis Avenue
of Orange County, Fountain alley, Calif., 92708
Tekphd
Am Cede 714'
DISTRICT Nos. G, 7 & 14 �2411
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1988 — 7:30 P.M.
(1) Roll call
(2) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Boards
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 the following re Joint Sewage conveyance
Facilities to Serve Districts Nos. 6, 7 and 14:
(a) Report of consultant
(b) Discussion
(c) Consideration of motion approving Project Report for
Joint Sewage Conveyance Facilities to Serve Districts
Nos. 6, 7 and 14, Contract No. 14-1 (Copy enclosed with
Directors, agenda material) .
(d) Consideration of motion authorizing the Selection
Committee to solicit a proposal and negotiate Addendum
No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Boyle
Engineering Corporation for preparation of said Project
Report, providing for design of the Baker-Gisler
Interceptor Sewer, Contract No. 14-1-1; and Baker Street
Force mains, Contract No. 14-1-2.
(4) Other business and communications, if any
(5) Consideration of motion to adjourn
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Pmr Ofam ea, 8127
OF Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
T Am Co& 714
DISTRICT Nos. 6, 7 & 14 f62-211
v'a2-ul1
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1988 — 7:30 P.M.
(1) Roll call
(2) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Boards
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 the following re Joint Sewage Conveyance
Facilities to Serve Districts Nos. 6, 7 and 14: -
(a) Report of consultant
(b) Discussion
(c) Consideration of motion approving Project Report for
Joint Sewage Conveyance Facilities to Serve Districts
Nos. 6, 7 and 14, Contract No. 14-1 (Copy enclosed with
Directors' agenda material) .
(d) Consideration of motion authorizing the Selection
Committee to solicit a proposal and negotiate Addendum
No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Boyle
f Engineering Corporation for preparation of said Project
pf/ Report, . providing for design of the Baker-Gisler
Interceptor Sewer, Contract No. 14-1-1; and Baker Street
Force Mains, Contract No. 14-1-2.
(4) Other business and communications, if any
(5) Consideration of motion to adjourn 01ry�
MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT
County Sanitation Districts Pwr Ofmca Box e127
of Orange County, California t V Ellis Avenue
Fountain n Volley, Calif., 92708
Telephpnae:
A. Code 714
DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7 and 14 540 a40-2411
11
II
MEETING DATE: MAY 5 1988 - 7:30 P-M.
Districts' Administrative Offices
DISTRICTS 6, 7 AND 14
(3) : CONSIDERATION OF PROJECT REPORT AND AUTHORIZATION FOR SELECTION
COMMITTEE TO NEGOTIATE ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE ENGINEERING ERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION FOR THE DESIGN OF JOINT
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES TO SERVICE DISTRICTS NOS. , 7 AND 14,
CONTRACTS NOS. 14-1-1 AND 14-1- .
In April 1983, an engineering services contract was awarded to Boyle
Engineering Corporation to prepare a project report to select alignment,
determine size and prepare cost estimates for joint conveyance facilities to
serve District 7 and the north half of District 6. The work was suspended when
it became evident that the Irvine Ranch Water District was going to request
formation of a new Sanitation District to serve the Irvine area and join the
Joint Administrative Organization. District No. 14 was ultimately formed and
the Main Street Trunk Sewer, Von Karmen Trunk Sewer and Main Street Pump Station
were all sized to provide for the future flows of Districts Nos. 7 and 14.
Flows have been transported from District No. 14 through an interim connection
to the Sunflower Interceptor Sewer.
In December 1986, the Directors approved an Engineering Services
Agreement with Boyle to address the joint sewage conveyance facilities which
would serve not only the north half of District No. 6 and District No. 7, but
also include the needs of District No. 14. The report (copy enclosed) has been
prepared and circulated to the City of Costa Mesa, the Costa Mesa Sanitary
District, the City of Irvine, the Irvine Ranch Water District, and the County of
Orange.
The proposed project includes the construction of force main sewers and
gravity trunk sewers from the Main Street Pump Station, located on the north
side of Main Street within the John Wayne Airport 'Clear Zone' , to Reclamation
Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. The recommended sewer facilities include an
84-inch to 78-inch trunk sewer from Reclamation Plant No. 1 to Bristol Street in
the City of Costa Mesa, sized for a peak flow of up to 103 million gallons per
day; and dual Baker Street Force Mains, sized for a peak flow of 77 million
gallons per day, extending from Baker Street at Bristol Street to the Main
Street Pump Station.
-1-
May 5, 1988
The Baker-Gisler Interceptor Sewer, Contract No. 14-1-1, would be
constructed jointly by Districts Nos. 6, 7 and 14; the Baker Street Force Mains,
Contract No. 14-1-2. by Districts Nos. 7 and 14. The double-barrel force main
Is proposed for the Baker Street Force Mains to maintain maximum flexibility,
allowing one barrel to be in use in the early years of the project life to keep
the velocities as high as possible, with the second barrel as backup. In later
years, both barrels would be used to reduce pumping energy costs. In the event
of an outage of one of the barrels, the second barrel would provide the
reliability necessary during repairs. Forty-two-inch diameter pipe barrels are
recommended for the dual force main system.
Permits will be required from the City of Costa Mesa, the Orange County
Environmental Management Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CAITRANS, the
Division of Industrial Safety, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the
State Department of Fish and Game. The project will be closely coordinated with
the City of Irvine and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District as it will be
constructed within those cities. Easements are required at four locations
including Southern California Edison Right-of-Way, the Mesa Verde Golf Course,
the County of Orange and the Orange County Flood Control District.
The Project Report includes the District No. 6 parallel Fairview Relief
Interceptor Sewer between Baker Street and Wilson Street. However, initially,
only the portion between Baker Street and the south side of the Paularino Flood
Control Channel , a distance of about 800 feet, will be constructed.
The total project cost for construction of the Baker-Gisler Interceptor
Sewer, the Baker Street Force Mains and the Fairview Relief Interceptor Sewer is
estimated to be $24,400,000. The costs are allocated to the benefiting
Districts, based on capacity requirements, as follows:
LSD No. 14: $15,670,000
CSD No. 7: 5,050,000
CSD No. 6: 3,680,000
4,400,000
The formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 provided that the
construction of the joint conveyance facilities to service Districts Nos. 6, 7
and 14 be completed by 1990. The existing agreement provides that the Districts
negotiate with Boyle for the necessary design and construction services.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the Directors receive, file and approve the
Project Report, and authorize the Selection Committee to solicit a proposal and
negotiate for the design, right-of-way engineering, and the construction
services with Boyle Engineering Corporation necessary for the construction of
the joint sewage conveyance facilities to serve Districts Nos. 6, 7 and 14.
Enclosed is a copy of the consultant's Project Report. Staff and the
consultant will review it for the Directors at the adjourned meeting.
-2-
W
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
County Sanitation Districts Nos. 6, 7, and 14 of Orange County
Joint Sewage Conveyance Facilities
to Serve Districts Nos. 6, 7, and 14
May 5, 1988
I. HISTORY LEADING TO PROJECT REPORT
II. ORIENTATION
III. CURRENT STATUS OF CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
IV. PROPOSED FACILITIES
V. COST ALLOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
VI. SCHEDULE
VII. SUMMARY _
Houle anolneetlno comora[lon
TABLE 31
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NO 6, 7, AND I/
SEWAGE CONFIYANCI FACILITIES
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
_ _______________ ___________
COST ALLOCATION
---------------------------------------
Item Description 0uanit7 Unit Unit Price Total Cost CSD 6 CSD 7 CSD II
___________________________________________ ... ------------ ___ ____-.__
6A111-GISLBI INTIRCIPTOR
1 90' I.C.P. Sever 13,550 L.P. $730 $9,890.000 11,190,00D $1,950.000 $6,750.000
2 81' B.C.P. Sever 1,980 L.P. 675 1,310,000 10,000 320,000 1,010,000
(Fairview Rd. to Weadusa St.)
3 81' R.C.P. Sever 4,890 6.P. 645 3,150,000 750,000 2,400,000
(Mendosa St. to Delhi Channel)
1 118' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Bristol St. 96 L.P. 2,270 220,000 50,000 170.000
5 118' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Fairview Rd. 120 L.P. 2,270 270,000 60,000 200.000
6 132' Jacked Casing/Tuonel-Rarbor Blvd. 111 L.P. 2,550 290,000 30,000 $0.000 200.000
7 Junction Structure-Painieo and Baker 1 L.S. 50.000 50,000 10,000 10,000 30.000
8 Siphon-Santa low River 1 L.S. 400.000 400,000 50,000 80,000 270.000
9 Siphon-Greenville/Banning Channel 1 L.S. 550,000 550,000 70,000 110,000 380,000
10 84' Manhole 300 Y.P. 700 210.000 30,ODO 40,000 140,000
(Treatment Plant No. I to Painiev Rd.)
11 84' Manhole 10 Y.P. 700 30,000 10,000 30,000
(Painiev Id. to Mendoza St.)
12 81' Manhole s0 Y.R. 700 40,000 10,000 30.000
(Mendoza St. to Delhi Channel
_______ ___________ ___________ _____________
. BTOTIL 116,110,000 41,391,011 $3,450,000 $11,600,000
BAIER STIIIT FOICI MAIN
1 Two /2' D.I.P. Sever (Double Barrel) 9,400 L.P. 500 4,700,000 1.320,000 3,380,000
2 Two 66' Jacked Casing/luanel-Maio St. 90 L.P. 2,350 210,000 60,000 150,000
3 Two 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-San Diego Ivy. 250 L.P. 2,350 590,000 170,000 420,000
1 Iwo 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Delhi Channel 70 L.P. 2.350 160,000 40,000 120,000
5 Junction Structure (With Interceptor) 1 L.S. 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000
------------ --------- ----------- -------------
SUBTOTAL $5,680,000 $1.600,000 11,080,000
PURVIEW ROAD PILIIF INYIRCIPTOR
1 33' Y.C.P. Sever 800 L.P. 280 220,000 220,000
2 27' F.C.P. Sever 5,300 L.P. 240 1,270,000 1.270,000
3 21' I.C.P. Sever 2,700 L.P. 190 510,000 510,000
1 66' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Baker St. 90 L.P. 1,140 100,000 100.000
5 51' Jacked Casing/Tunnel-Pair Dr. 75 L.P. 700 50,000 50,000
6 Manhole 72' 1/3 F.P. 650 90,000 90,000
7 Manhole 60' 78 Y.P. 650 50,000 50.000
_____ ----------- -----_______
SUBTOTAL 12,290,000 12,290,000
"MIL $21,110,000 13.681.010 $5.050,000 $15,680,000
------------------------- ------------------------------''----------------------------
PROJECT SCHEDULE
..✓
C.S.D. Nos. 6,7 & 14
SENASE CONVEYANCE FACILITIES
page I
NM 4 B 9 10 11 12 1 2
DO t
YY BB 89 89 89 89 89 90 90
-------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
I . . I . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . I. . . . .I
1 . . 1 . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . i . . . . ,. . . . .,
BAKER-BISLER INTERCEPTOR : I ' ' ' 'I. ' ' I 1• • • I • I I
PLANT it to HARBOR BLVD. I : : 1 . . . .+. . . . I . . . . . . . . . : : . j: : . : :j
Final Design & Contract Documents I I . . . .I• . • . I • • • �• - • • I• • • •I
Advertise I . . F . . . .I. . . . . . . . . . . . . ` . . . . ,. . . . .�
Receive Bids I . . 1 . . . .I. . . . . . . . ... . . .
Award & Notice to Proceed I , I . . . .I. . . . , . . . .I. . . .
Construction
HARBOR BLVD. to FORCE MAIN j ' ' 1 ' ; ' I• ' ' ' I I • • • I
Final Design & Contract Documents
Advertise I . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
d.d Receive Bids I 1 ' I' I • • •1 . • . • ; • 1 I
Award & Notice to Proceed I 1 I I I I I
Construction I ' ' I " "I" " " "I I • I I
-�--•-�-----r- r-ram. .I
BAKER STREET FORCE MAIN ' ' I ' ' ' 'I' ' ' ' ' 'I• • • • I • I I
Final. Design & Contract Documents I I • • • •I • I I• I
Advertise 9 . . 1 . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . .I
Receive Bids I I " "I• • I . I
Award I . . I . . . ... . . . . . . . .I. . . . , . . . . I. . . . .I
Construction
FAIRVIEW ROAD RELIEF INTERCEPTOR I . . I . . . .�. . . . I . . . .I. . . . I • • �• •I
BAKER ST. to NILSON AVE. I . I . . . •I• . I • • • • • • • I • • • • • • . •I
Final Design & Contract Documents I • • I • • • .
I• • 1 • . • . . . • • I • I• •I
Advertise I . . I . • • •I. • . . , . . . .I. . . . , . . . , . . ,
Receive Bids , . . I . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . ..
Award , . . I . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . ..
Construction I—
MEETING DATE May 5, 1988 TIME 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTs 6, 7 D 14
DISTRICT 1 JOINT 80ARDS
(EDGAR)........HOESTEREY..._ _ _ (DAVIS)............ARNOLD...... _
(CRANK)........HANSON......_ __ (PICKLER)..........BAY......... _
(YOUNG)........ORISET......_ _ (MURPHY)....... ....BIGONGER....
(ROTH).........STANTON....._ (NORBY)....... .....CATLIN......
(PLUMMER)..........COX......... _
DISTRICT 2 (PERRY)..... ... ....CULVER......
_ (KENNEDY)... .......EDGAR.......
(NORSY)........CATLIN......_ _ _ (WINCHELLI.. .......ERSKINE.....
(FLORA)........MAHONEY....._ _ _ (MC CUNE)..........GRIFFIN..... _
(PICKLER)......BAY........._ _ _ (YOUNG)............GRISET......
(MURPHY).......BIGONOER...._ _ _ (CRANK)............HANSON...... _
(YOUNG)........GR15ET...... (COX)..............HART........
(NELSON).......LEYTON...... (EDGAR)............HOESTEREY..._
(SCOTT)........NEAL........ _ _ (EDGAR)............KENNEDY.....
(TYNES)........NEWTON...... _ _ (NELSON)...........LEYTON......
(CULVER).......PERRY......._ _ _ (FLORA)............MAHONEY.....
(PASSENGER)....SILZEL......_ _ _ (PLUMMER)..........MAURER......
(PEREZ)........SMITH......._ _ _ (GREEN. P).........MAYS........
(ROTM).........STAN TON....._ _ (AGRAN)............MILLER. S..._
(BIGONGER).........MURPHY......
DISTRICT 3 (SCOTT)............NEAL........
(SUTTON)...........NELSON...... _
(HERMAN).......POLIS ...... _ _ (TYNES)............NEWTON......
(WEISHAUPT)....SAPIEN......_ _ _ (CULVER)...........PERRY....... _
(DAVIS)........ARNOLD......_ _ _ (HERMAN)...........P041S.......
(PICK4ER)......BAY......... _ (STANTON)..........ROTH........ _
(WORST)........CATLIN......_ _ _ (WEISHAUPT)........SAPIEN......
(PERRY)........CULVER...... _ (WILES)............SIEFEN......
(WINCHELL).....ERSKINE..... _ (FASBENDER)........SILZEL......
(MC CUNE)......GRIFFIN..... _ _ (PEREZ)............SMITH.......
(YOUNG)........GRISET...... _ (ROTH).............STANTON..... _
(FLORA)........MAHONEY... .. _ (NELSON)...........SUTTON......
(SCOTT)........NEAL...... .. _ (MILLER. D)........SWAN........
—
(SUTTON).......NELSON.... .. _ (BERNAL)...........SYLVIA......
(WILES)........SIEFEN.... .. _ (GREEN.N/JOHNSON)..WAHNER......_ _
(ROTH).........STANTON..... _ _ (CLIFT)............WILSON......
(BERNAL).......SYLVIA.... ..
([LIFT)........WILSON......_
STAFF:
DISTRICT 5 SYLVESTER...Je
BROWN.......JL
(COX)..........HART........_ _ _ ANDERSON...._
(PLUMMER)......COX......... CLARKE......J�
(STANTON)......ROTH........_ _ _ CLAWSON.....
DAWES........hie
DISTRICT 6 DEBLIEUX...._
HODGES......_
(JOHNSON)......WARNER...... ✓ KYLE........
(PLUMMER)......MAURER...... 7 LINDER......
(STANTON)......ROTH........ OOTEN.......
STREED......J�
DISTRICT T VON LANGEN
(KENNED YINSOR......
........EDGAR...• .. _ _
(AGRAN)........MI LLER. 5...
(PLUMMER)......COX.........
(YOUNG)........GRISET......
(STANTON)......ROTH........
(PEREZ)........SMITH.......
(GREEN, H).....WANNER.........e— _ OTHERS: WOODRUFF...._
IDE.........
DISTRICT 11 HOHENER.....
HOWARD......
(GREEN. P).....MAYS........ _ HUNT........
(NINCHELL).....ERSKINE..... _ KEITH.......
(ROTH).........STANTON....._ _ _ KNOPF.......
LINDSTROM..._
DISTRICT 13 LYNCH.......
STONE.......`
(BIGONGER).....MURPHY...... _ _ YOUNG.......
(PICKLER)......BAY.........
(STANTON)......ROTH........_
(PEREZ)........SMITH.......
(NELSON).......SUTTON...... _
DISTRICT 14
V
(AGRAN)........MILLER. 5... _
(MILLER. D)....SWAN........
(EOGAR)........KENNEDY....... �
(5TANTONI......ROTH..... .... _(PERE2)........SMITH.......
J�
03/2l/A
DISTRICTS 6, 7 6 14 ADJOURNED MTG. NOTES - 5/05/88
#3(a) - Report of consultant
The General Manager reported that the latter part of 1986 the Districts
completed construction of the Main Street Pump Station. Shortly thereafter, the
Boards engaged Boyle Engineering for a preliminary engineering study re bringing
wastewater from the Main Street Pump Station to Plant 1. The pump station
serves a portion of District 7 and all of District 14. He then introduced
Conrad Hohener from Boyle Engineering and Mr. Hohener introduced his associate,
Phil Stone.
Conrad reported that this report is a culmination of several investigations and
project reports. The report was originally completed last year but then in
December IRWD, through District 14, requested that the size of the Baker-Gisler
Interceptor be increased. That is why the report is entitled "Revised". He
then distributed revised Table LA and Table 8A to be included in the report
previously mailed to Directors. The tables detail the capacity of each Director
and their costs. He then reviewed a wall map of the drainage area. He
indicated that there was 76,000 acres of drainage for District 14. The north
half of District 6 contains 7,000 acres and District 7 has 3,200 acres (2,500 of
which are in the Irvine Business Complex) , for a total of 86,200 total acres of
drainage to these facilities. Some of the facilities have already been built.
Two years ago District 7 up-sized facilities. The Main Street Pump Station has
a capacity of 80 million gallons. It is the largest pump station outside the
treatment facilities in the entire Districts.
He then discussed the three facilities the Boards were interested in designing:
v Baker-Gisler Interceptor Sewer; Baker Street Force Mains; and Fairview Road
Relief Interceptor. He reviewed the routes and various pipe sizes proposed.
Three major alternative routes were considered and 27 sub-combinations were
studied. They worked with the City of Costa Mesa, Costa Mesa Sanitary District,
Corps of Engineers, airport people, and EMA. Boyle processed this report
through all of these agencies and came up with a consensus alignment. It will
impact the areas where there is construction but have a lot of mitigation
measures.
He then reviewed various capacities of the various lines. He said District 6
has two old lines that were inherited from the Army Air Corps after World War II.
Air Base Line No. 1 will be taken out of service because of its deteriorated
condition, and portions of Air Base Line No. 2 will also be taken out of service.
Phil Stone from Boyle Engineering then addressed the Board. He reviewed the two
revised tables distributed to Directors and explained the methodology re capacity
allocation and provided criteria definitions. Pipe size determination is made
by limiting the peak flow depth to a depth of 75% of the diameter. Capacity is
that flow which the pipe line will convey at a depth of 92% of the diameter
(capacity freeboard ??). Average Daily Flow is the average flow within a
24-hour period. There are two Peak Daily Flows within each 24-hour period.
Peak Flow is based on pipe size determination. The Districts allocate capacity
charge based on average flow. Table LA indicates the design flow which is
projected on average daily flow based on land use ??? The Baker-Gisler
Interceptor is comprised of three flow reaches. The pipe is sized for design
peak flow at 75% of diameter. Capacity is 92% of peak flow. Average flow
capacity and peak flow capacity are figures upon which we allocate capacity.
Districts 6 and 7 are based on peak flow and remaining capacity is allocated to
District 14. Upon this allocation, we based construction cost allocation. He
referred to blue Table 8A. He highlighted the costs for the three facilities.
Conrad then reviewed the design and construction phase schedule. He noted
that when District 14 was formed, it was believed that these facilities would be
in place by January 1990 (See schedule). Districts 6, 7 8 14 participate in
the Baker-Gisler Interceptor to Mendoza Drive and then from Mendoza directly to
... pump station is strictly Districts 7 8 14. He also reviewed the capacity
allotments marked in red on wallmap. He stated that the schedule is ambitious.
Can cone close but have to get moving on the program at this time.
Peer Swan asked if facilities would be in place or under construction by 1990.
The General Manager replied that the formation agreement said will be in service
by 1990.
Director Wahner asked about the current capacity of the Fairview Trunk Sewer.
Phil Stone said the existing line was at capacity and surcharging at times. Tom
Dawes added that when we had to relocate a portion of it, it was two feet above
the pipe.
Director Edgar stated that he thought it was critical to have that conservative
policy and oversized capacity. Mould prefer to see something bigger. Conrad
replied that IRWD had asked for extra capacity for the Irvine Business Complex
and the District 7 upsized two sizes and carried it through the trunk sewer
system for the District. There are two major trunks for District 7 that will
carrying wastewater.
Peer Swan asked what the capacity for the Main Street Pump Station was? Conrad
answered that the capacity is master-planned for 80 million gallons. This can
be increased. The structure is adequate to handle larger pumps and more
horsepower but currently only sized for 23 million gallons. Pumps wear out in
10-15 years. The Main Street Trunk also has capacity for 80 million gallons.
If District 14 had more sewage than originally master planned, then would have
to get it to the Main Street Pump Station and reallocate costs and increase
velocity in pipe. That would handle the extra capacity in freeboard request in
December's letter. He added that these two force main pipes don't have to be
Increased, and would actually recommend against it in a force main. Should flow
at 2 feet per second with maximum of 61f feet per second.
Peer commented that the two parallel lines were both 42 inches and asked if
there was any benefit it making one of the pipes larger? Could switch back and
forth, as needed. Conrad said there might be, depending on flow and power
source. They did study this and their recommendation was for two 42-inch pipes.
Tom Dawes added that the Districts have had reliability standards for many
years. For all major pump stations, always use two force mains. It is
standard practice to size them both the same size in case of an emergency
situation. One pipe will carry the flow for 16 hours, not for 24 hours.
Peer questioned preliminary allocation figures, Table 8A. Tom Dawes said
allocation is based on pipe size requested by IRWD. Cost estimates are
preliminary right now. Edgar addded that the ultimate allocation is down after
we have recorded flows. The General Manager advised that the Districts'
allocations are based ultimate peak flow and on design capacity. If flow
requirements of owners of trunk sewers change dramatically, then can enter into
negotiations and exchange capacities. Wahner asked if this was based on IRWD's
buy-in. JWS said it was based upon IRWD's requested capacity in these
facilities.
-2-
Director Swan commented that when they asked for these facilities to be upsized,
they expected to pay for what they asked for, but was concerned in comparing new
tables that everyone else's costs went down and theirs went up. Conrad
explained that increasing size, increases construction costs and is based on
average flow. District 14 has surplus but District 7 does not. They have built
that surplus in their receiving lines. No contributary areas in District 7 to
this line. Mr. Hohener added that if we upsize the line over and above the
original request, it has to be allocated to the requesting agency which is
District 14. If District 7's allocations increase and District 14's don't, can
go back and reallocate costs. The General Manager advised that the Boards have
established a procedure and formula on how to do this. Peer questioned their
costs further.
Tom Dawes indicated that he thought the request to upsize was a good one. Maybe
we can take another look at why other Districts' costs went down. Conrad added
that the larger the pipe gets, the lower the unit cost is. He stated that they
followed the Districts' procedures as they have in the past.
Edgar said he thought Peer Swan's point was very valid. By upsizing the pipe,
it should not be a financial reduction in price for Districts 6 and 7. The
Boards' policy is to upsize the pipes. It was pointed out that before the
actual checks are written by all three Districts, there should be some careful
analysis of the figures. Peer questioned capacities all along the line. He
was told that we can match capacity between pressure section and gravity section
of pipes. District 14 now has an average flow of 43.5 million gallons.
#3(c
Director Roth then moved to approve the Project Report. Motion seconded and
carried.
#3 d
Director Edgar moved to authorize negotiations with Boyle Engineering for design
of Contract 14-1-1 and 14-1-2. Motion seconded. Supervisor Roth abstained.
Motion carried.
-3-
4^i1 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 6, 7 8 14
F ORANGE UNTY, CA IF RNIA
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
May 5, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
�.✓ 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of April 13, 1988, the Boards of
Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 6, 7 and 14 of Orange County,
California, met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The roll was called and the
Secretary reported a quorum present.
DISTRICT 6:
DIRECTORS PRESENT: James A. Wahner, Chairman, Philip
Maurer and Don R. Roth
DIRECTORS ABSENT: None
DISTRICT 7:
DIRECTORS PRESENT: Richard B. Edgar, Chairman, Dan
Griset, Don R. Roth, Don E. Smith and
James A. Wahner
`..d DIRECTORS ABSENT: John C. Cox, Jr. and Sally Anne Miller
DISTRICT 14•
DIRECTORS PRESENT: Peer A. Swan, Chairman pro tem, Ursula
Kennedy, Don R. Roth and Don E. Smith
DIRECTORS ABSENT: Sally Anne Miller
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager,
Rita J. Brown, Secretary, Thomas M.
Dawes, Gary G. Streed and W. N. Clarke
OTHERS PRESENT: None
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Report of consultant re joint The Chair recognized Mr. Conrad Hohener
sewage conveyance facilities to from Boyle Engineering Corporation, and
serve Districts Nos. 6, 7 and 14 his associate Mr. Philip Stone, Districts'
consultants engaged to prepare a project
report to select alignment, determine size and prepare cost estimates for joint
sewage conveyance facilities to serve portions of District 7, the north half of
District 6 and District 14. Mr. Hohener reported that the project report
recently provided to the Directors was a culmination of several investigations,
project reports and studies since 1983.
05/05/88
Districts 6, 7 8 14
Originally, the firm had been engaged to do a preliminary study for District
7 and the north half of District 6. The work was suspended when it became
evident that the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) was going to request
formation of a new Sanitation District to serve the Irvine area and join the
Joint Administrative Organization. District 14 was ultimately formed and
the Main Street Trunk Sewer, Von Karmen Trunk Sewer and Main Street Pump
Station were all sized to provide for the future flows of Districts Nos. 7
and 14. Flows have been transported through an interim connection to the
Sunflower Interceptor Sewer.
He advised that the project report was basically completed last year;
however, before it was presented to the Boards, they were directed to
address a request from IRWD to upsize the Baker-Gisler Interceptor Sewer
line. The "Revised" Project Report includes the upsizing and was prepared
in cooperation with, and has been circulated to, the City of Costa Mesa, the
Costa Mesa Sanitary District, the City of Irvine, the Irvine Ranch Water
District and the County of Orange. Three major alternative routes were
considered and 27 subcombinations were studied before all of the agencies
arrived at a consensus relative to the alignment.
The proposed project includes the construction of force main sewers and
gravity trunk sewers from the Main Street Pump Station, located on the north
side of Main Street within the John Wayne Airport "Clear Zone" to
Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. The recommended sewer
facilities include an 84-inch to 78-inch trunk sewer from Reclamation Plant
No. 1 to Bristol Street in the City of Costa Mesa, sized for a peak flow of
up to 103 million gallons per day; and dual Baker Street Farce Mains, sized
for a peak flaw of 77 million gallons per day, extending from Baker Street
at Bristol Street to the Main Street Pump Station.
The Baker-Gisler Interceptor Sewer, Contract No. 14-1-1, would be
constructed jointly by Districts Nos. 6, 7 and 14; the Baker Street Force
Mains, Contract No. 14-1-2, by Districts Nos. 7 and 14. The double-barrel
force main is proposed for the Baker Street Force Mains to maintain maximum
flexibility, allowing one barrel to be in use in the early years of the
project life to keep the velocities as high as possible, with the second
barrel as backup. In later years, both barrels would be used to reduce
pumping energy costs. In the event of an outage of one of the barrels, the
second barrel would provide the reliability necessary during repairs. Two
42-inch diameter pipe barrels are recommended for the dual force main
system.
The Project Report also includes the District No. 6 parallel Fairview Relief
Interceptor Sewer between Baker Street and Wilson Street to relieve the
current facilities which are flowing at capacity. Initially, only the
portion between Baker Street and the south side of the Paularino Flood
Control Channel , a distance of about 800 feet, will be constructed.
Mr. Stone further reviewed current and future capacity requirements of each
District and gave a detailed explanation of the methodology used in
determining the recommended capacity allocations. It was agreed that the
Districts should continue their current policy of upsizing facilities,
whenever possible, to allow for future capacity requirements.
-2-
Y
05/05/88
Districts 6, 7 a 14
It was pointed out that the agreement relative to formation of County Sanitation
1� District No. 14 provided that the construction of the joint conveyance facilities
to service Districts Nos. 6, 7-and 14 be completed by 1990. Mr. Hohener
commented that he believed this was an ambitious schedule but could be adhered to
if the Boards moved forward with this program as soon as possible.
The consultants then reviewed the total project cost for construction of the
Baker-Gisler Interceptor Sewer, the Baker Street Force Mains and the Fairview
Relief Interceptor Sewer, which is estimated to be $24,410,000. The costs are
allocated to the benefiting Districts, based on pro-rata capacity requirements
(including the upsizing requested by IRWD) , as follows:
CSD No. 6 $ 3,680,000
CSD No. 7 5,050,000
CSD No. 14 15,680,000
Total $24,410,000
The Directors then entered into a discussion of the cost allocations. It was
pointed out that the calculations, on a pro-rata basis in accordance with the
Boards historical policy, and as provided in the District 14 formation agreement,
reduces the cost per unit of capacity (mgd) for all participating Districts;
decreases the total cost for Districts 6 and 7; but increases the total cost to
District No. 14 because of the allocation of all of the additional capacity to
District 14 in response to the IRWD request for upsizing.
IRWD requests that the upsizing costs be allocated to District 14 on an
incremental basis rather than a pro-rata basis. Under this formula District 14
would pay only the incremental cost of upsizing the facilities. Thus Districts 6
and 7 would pay a higher cost per unit of capacity (mgd) than District No. 14 but
the same total cost calculated before the upsizing; and District 14 would pay a
lower cost per unit of capacity and a lower total cost for the upsizing compared
to the pro-rata method. Following further discussion, it was the consensus of
the Directors that the cost allocation method would be reviewed by the Directors
at a later date prior to a final determination on cost-sharing for these
projects.
The Directors also discussed the pump station capacities, the von Karmen and Main
Street sewer capacities and the possibility of increasing the size of one or both
of the Baker Street parallel force mains. The consultant advised that based on
their studies, they recommended the two 42-inch lines and still felt that would
best meet the Districts' needs. Increasing the size of one or both of the force
mains may lead to operational problems.
A rovin Project Re ort for Joint Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Sewage onveyance Facilities to
Serve Districts Nos. 6, 7 and 14 That the Project Report for Joint Sewage
Conveyance Facilities to Serve Districts
Nos. 6, 7 and 14, Contract No. 14-1, dated April 1988, prepared by Boyle
Engineering Corporation, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved,
subject to further review of the method of allocating facilities' costs to
the participating Districts.
aJ 3-
05/05/88
Districts 6, 7 8 14
Authorizin the Selection Committee Moved, seconded and duly carried:
to ne o ate Ad endum No. 1 to the
agreement with Boyle Engineering That the Selection Committee be, and is
corporation for preparation of hereby, authorized to solicit a proposal
Protect Report for Joint Sewage and negotiate Addendum No. 1 to the
Conveyance Facilities, to rovide Professional Services Agreement with
for design of Contract Nos. Boyle Engineering Corporation for
and 14-1-2 preparation of Project Report for
Joint Sewage Conveyance Facilities to
Serve Districts Nos. 6, 7 and 14, for additional services to design the
Baker-Gisler Interceptor Sewer, Contract No. 14-1-1, and Baker Street Force Mains,
Contract No. 14-1-2.
Director Don R. Roth requested that his abstention from voting on this item
be made a matter of record.
Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried:
That this meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts
Nos. 6, 7 and 14 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so
adjourned at 8:22 p.m., May 5, 1988.
Secretary. lJoards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts Nos. 6,
7 and 14 of Orange County, California
-4-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE J
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954 .2,
I hereby certify that the Agenda for the Adjourned Regular Board
Meeting of DistrictsNoi.b,1`lyheld on , 19_%L was
duly posted for public inspection at the main lobby of the
District' s offices on Q �� QL0 , 19N .
IN WIIT—N'E'SSn WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this oZfn:
day of 19�.
Rita S. Brown, Secretary of the
Board of Directors of County
Sanitation DistrictsNom, b, 9 l}
of Orange County, California