Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1979-05-16‘ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.5 OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING May 16,1979 -7:30 P.M Newport Beach City Hall Upstairs Conference Room 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach,California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of May 9,1979,the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.5 of Orange County,California,met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date at the Newport Beach City Hall. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT:Paul Ryckoff (Chairman)and Donald Strauss DIRECTORS ABSENT:Thomas Riley STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:Fred A.Harper,General Manager,J.Wayne Sylvester,Secretary,Ray E.Lewis,William N.Clarke,Hilary Baker and Dennis Reid OTHERS PRESENT:Thomas L.Woodruff,General Counsel,and. Dayne Stiles *******.******** Public Hearing re Draft This being the time and place fixed for the EIR for Bayside Drive public hearing on the Draft Environmental Trunk Sewer Impact Report for the Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer,the chairman declared the hearing open at 7:36 P.M. It was then moved,seconded and duly carried: That the list of actions to date re Draft Environmental Impact Report for BaysIde Drive Trunk Sewer be,and is hereby,received and ordered filed.A copy of said listing is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. The Secretary reported that no written comments relative to the Draft EnvironmentalImpact Report for the Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer had been received,but that the City of Newport Beach had commented during the 45- day preparation period. The Chief Engineer then described the proposed project and the construction schedule and reported that it had been reviewed with the Newport Beach City staff and would be closely coordinated by the respective agencies.All residents along the construction route were contacted and advised of the project and the Eir hearing.Every effort will be made to minimize incon venience to the public during the construction phase.He also observed that a Coastal Commission permit will be necessary before the work can proceed. 5/16/79 District #5 Following a general discussion the Chairman called for further oral comments. Hearing none,he declared the hearing closed at 7:48 p.m. Approving Final EIR for There being no modifications to the Draft Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer Environmental Impact Report for the Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer the Chair declared said Draft to be the Final Environmental Impact Report,whereupon it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer be,and is hereby,received,ordered filed and approved;and, FURTHER MOVED:That the Board of Directors hereby certifies that said final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with State and District Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,as amended,and that the information contained in said EIR has been reviewed and considered by the Board prior to approval of the project. Directing staff to file for Moved,seconded and duly carried: Coastal Commission permit for Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer That the staff be,and is hereby,directed to file with the California Coastal Commission for a permit to construct the Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer~ Accepting Irvine Company’s The staff reviewed the alternatives fOr offer,in principle,re serving the Big Canyon Drainage Area con- financing of proposed Big sidered by the Board at their adjourned Canyon Drainage Area Sewer meeting on January 23,1979,as follows: System Alternate I.Gravity System Along the Back Bay Drive Although from an engineering,standpoint and overall cost;this alternative is the best and most reliable system to accommodate the sewage flows,because of the environmental concerns regarding the Back Bay and the previous decision from the California Coastal Commission denying the permit,this alternative is not a viable one for implementation. Alternate II.Improved Pump Station and Force Main This alternative is comparable in cost to the Back Bay Gravity Sewer and estimated to be approximately one-half of the gravity tunnel sewer in Jamboree Road,but the annual maintenance and energy costs may far exceed the cost of the gravity tunnel system.In preparing the cost estimates contained in the Facilities Plan,energy costs were computed at 3~per kwh.The Districts are presently experiencing costs of 4~ per kWh in the treatment plants and recent discussions with representa tives from the Southern California Edison Company indicate that these rates will increase substantially in the very near future.It does not provide the reliability of service unless standby generation is installed to avoid overflows in the Big Canyon Area and subsequently to the Back Bay. Alternate III.Gravity Tunnel System in Jamboree Road This alternative,although the most expensive in initial capital invest ment,may ultimately prove to be the least costly of the two viable alternatives. —.I -2- ~/l6/79 District #5 At the January 23rd meeting staff recommended that since there was a con siderable amount of difference in the capital cost of the pump station versus the tunnel gravity system,as well as the projected amortization cost of both projects,a more accurate assessment of the cost of the gravity tunnel system in Jamboree Road.(Alternate III)should be further investigated.It was estimated that preliminary engineering could be done, along ~with soil borings and input solicited from responsible contractors to evaluate the actual cost of the gravity tunnel system for approximately $25,000.The results could then be compared against the pump station facilities alternatIve. Preliminary work by staff indicates a rather wide.variation in the potential gravity tunnel system construction cost over that estimated in the planning report ‘(cost estimated between $1.0 and $2.0 million),depending on subsurface conditions.Further,the impact of recent electrical utility decisions imposing time-of-day rates on the power cost of the pump station alternative should be re-evaluated. The Chief Engineer thus recommended that the Boards now proceed to engage consultants to perform a soils investigation of the gravity tunnel area and to complete an energy analysis of the pump station power requirements to enable refinement of the planning report construction cost estimates for, the alternative projects. Following a clarification of the budgetary funds available for the con sulting work,and that said work would,be included in the final project cost to be incorporateci into the proposed agreement with the Irvine Company relative to financing the Big Canyon Drainage Area Sewage System,it was moved,seconded and duly carried: That the staff be authorized to engage consulting firms to perform soils investigation,preliminary engineering and construction cost estimates in connection with the proposed gravity tunnel alternative and preliminary engineering and energy investigations in connection with the proposed pump station alternative for a maximum amount not to exceed $25,000.00. Approving offer of Irvine The General Manager reported that,pursuant Company re financing Big to the Board’s directive on January 23rd, Canyon Drainge Area project the staff had contacted the Irvine Company in principle,and directing requesting that the company finance the General Counsel to draft proposed facilities to serve the Big Canyon agreement providing for Drainage Area.He referred Directors to financing of selected pro the response from the company included with ject by the Irvine Company the agenda and advised the Board that staff did not foresee any problems with the terms proposed by.the Irvine Company. •The General Counsel suggested that a new agreement be prepared to replace the original agreement for financing the gravity system ‘along Back Bay Drive to serve the Big Canyon Drainage area,since that project was denied by the Coastal Commission.The new agreement would describe the selected project and set forth all the terms and conditions for financing the facility. -3- 5/16/79 • District #5 With regard to fixing the amount of the financial requirements,Mr.Dayne Stiles,representing the Irvine Company,reaffirined his company’s willingness to work with the District.The Irvine Company recognizes that the Board is dealing with a planning report and preliminary estimates and endorsed the Director’s decision to engage consultants to perform additional investigative work and preliminary engineering to further define the projects and alternative costs. Following further discussion it was moved,seconded and duly carried: That the offer of the Irvine Company re financing of the Big Canyon Drainage Area project be approved in principle,subject to final determination of the cost of the selected alternative;and, FURTHER MOVED:That the General Counsel be,and is hereby,directed to draft an agreement providing for financing of the selected project by the Irvine Company. Adjournment Moved,seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.5 be adjourned.The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:15 p.m.,May 16,1979. . Chairman of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District.No.5 of Orange County,California Secretary of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No.5 Orange County,California •S -4-