Loading...
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