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-