HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 1985 - 0130q
RESOLUTION NO.85-130
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS.1,2,3,5,6,7,11 AND 13
CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
“FORMATION OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.14 AND
PROPOSED REORGANIZATON NO.79 INVOLVING REORGANIZATION OF
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS.7 AND 13”
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,
AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
*********************
WHEREAS,the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation
Districts Nos.1,2,3,5,6,7,11 and 13 of Orange County,
California,are hereby considering the approval of the formation of
County Sanitation District No.14 and the reorganization of County
Sanitation Districts 7 and 13,(“the Project”),and
WHEREAS,County Sanitation Districts Nos.-1,2,3,5,6;7,
11 and 13 (hereinafter “DISTRICTS”)are the designated Lead Agency for
the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for
formation of County Sanitation District No.14 and are Lead Agency for
the proposed reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos.7 and
13 as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,as
amended,(hereinafter “CEQA”)and the State of California Guidelines
for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act as
modified and adopted by the DISTRICTS (hereinafter “CEQA Guidelines”);
WHEREAS,in order to facilitate an objective assessment of
the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with
the formation of County Sanitation District No.14 and proposed
1
reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos.7 and 13,the
Districts have caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact
~eport,“Formation of County Sanitation District No.14 and Proposed
—Reorganization No.79 Involving Reorganization of County Sanitation
Districts Nos.7 and 13”,to address the significant environmental
impacts,mitigation measures and project alternatives associated with
the project;and
WHEREAS,the DISTRICTS have consulted with other public
agencies,and the general public and given them an opportunity to
comment on said Draft EIR as required by the provisions of CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines;and
WHEREAS,on June 12,1985,a duly noticed public hearing
was held by the Boards of Directors of the DISTRICTS to provide a
further opportunity for the general public to comment on and respond
o the Draft EIR at which time no person other than the DISTRICTS’
consultant spoke;and
WHEREAS,the DISTRICTS have evaluated the comments received
from public agencies and persons who reviewed the Draft EIR;and
WHEREAS,said comments and recommendations received on the
Draft EIR,either verbatim or in summary and the responses of the
DISTRICTS to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process have been included in and made part of said Draft
EIR to form the Final EIR for said Project as required by Section
15132 of the CEQA Guidelines;and
2
WHEREAS,said Final EIR has been presented to the members
of the Boards of Directors of DISTRICTS for review and consideration
nor to the final approval of,and commitment to,the formation and
eorgani zation.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Boards of Directors
of County Sanitation Districts Nos.1,2,3,5,6,7,11 and 13 of
Orange County,California as follows:
1.That the Boards of Directors of said DISTRICTS do hereby
certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report,“Formation of
County Sanitation District No.14 and Proposed Reorganization No.79
Involving Reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos.7 and 13”
is adequate and complete in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines and that the DISTRICTS have reviewed and considered the
information contained in said Final EIR prior to approval of,or
mmitment to,“the Project”.Said Final EIR is composed of the
following elements:
A.Draft Environmental Impact Report “Formation of County
Sanitation District No..14 and Proposed Reorganization
No.79 Involving Reorganization of County Sanitation
Districts Nos.7 and 13”and all appendices thereto;
B.Comments and responses to comments on said Draft EIR;
2.That the Boards of Directors of DISTRICTS do hereby find that
changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into the
Project which will mitigate or avoid any significant adverse effects
identified in the Final EIR as specifically itemized below.
3
A.Operational Impacts
Impacts Under projected operating conditions some 35
years in the future,the proposed District No.14,as now
conceived,would contribute about nine percent of the
anticipated DISTRICTS Joint Works flow.Thus,it is
expected to account for,about nine percent of the
operational impacts such as energy use,chemical use,
transportation requirements,air pollutant emissions,and
residue disposal.Impacts are generally less per million
gallons treated for a larger size facility due to the
greater efficiency achieved and economies of scale.
Findings Many of the measures now being implemented by
DISTRICTS to reduce the impacts associated with treating
greater flows at the Joint Works Facilities will be used
to mitigate any impact of treating flows from District
No.14.These include approximately $34 million in
environmental mitigation or improvement projects for odor
control and energy generation from digester gas and waste
heat from engines.Ongoing industrial and nonindustrial
source control programs and improvements to operations are
designed to further improve effluent quality.These
improvements are being made to assure compliance with
waste discharge requirements now and in the future.
Other treatment plant improvements being studied or
implemented by DISTRICTS as part of the Master Plan
include new landscaping,improved vehicle access to Plant
4
No.1 with a direct signalized entry near the Euclid
off—ramp of the San Diego (405)Freeway and an outdoor
lighting and energy ôonservation study.
B.Construction Impacts —Joint Works Treatment Facilities
Impacts Over the next 3—5 years,the DISTRICTS will be
constructing proposed Master Plan improvements.
Sufficient capacity will be available for an interim
period •to serve initial District No.14 flow needs (excess
in amount of water reclaimed at Michelson).Serving this
capacity will necessitate accelerating the next
incremental increase in treatment plant capacity which
will specifically address District No.14 flow needs for a
longer period of time.Facilities needed to serve
District No.14 flows are listed in Table 1—2 of the Draft
EIR and include increasing the size of the headworks,
three primary sedimentation basins,a sludge digester
tank,sludge thickener,two aeration basins,two secondary
clarifiers,and~one belt filter press.With the exception
of the headworks,these new facilities may need to be
built to handle flows for District No.14,if the Master
Plan facilities are not built on an accelerated schedule.
Master planned facilities to be constructed in phases for
the entire DISTRICTS’service area will have to be
constructed and utilized at an accelerated pace in
comparison to what is now set forth in the Master Plan.
However,flows within the DISTRICTS’service area over the
past several years have not increased at the rate the 1983
5
Master Plan predicted,thus the actual Master Plan
recommendations may be sufficient under present conditions
to serve the present DISTRICTS’service area and District
No.14 through the year 2000 without any major changes
other than those mentioned above.
Findings The construction impacts associated with the
addition of new facilities and modifications of existing
facilities to meet existing DISTRICTSt service area needs
are described in detail in the March 1985 Master Plan
Draft EIR (CSDOC,1985).The impacts associated with
accommodating District No.14 flows would be of similar
nature,but represent an incremental increase of
approximately one—ninth.Construction would occur at the
same time as the 1983 Master Plan improvements,and,
therefore,would not result in any major extensions in
construction periods.Also,new facilities will
incorporate more environmental improvements in response to
both local community needs (i.e.,odors,noise,visual
appearance,etc.)and environmental regulations (i.e.,air
pollution control regulations,effluent discharge
limitations,and energy conservation needs).Thus,future
flow increases are not expected to result in local impacts
which will be incrementally noticeable compared to
existing operations.Mitigation measures proposed in the
Master Plan EIR are also applicable for the construction
impacts associated with any new facilities or upsizing of
6
facilities associated with District No.14 flows.These
mitigation measures are listed below.
(1)Soil and geological studies will be conducted to
evaluate foundation resistance.During construction,
soil subject to wind blowing will be watered to
minimize dust.
(2)Desanding of water and water disposal in accordance
with EPA and RWQCB NPDES Permit guidelines.
(3)During construction,use of well tuned and properly
maintained equipment can reduce gaseous pollutant
emissions.Discontinuing construction during second
stage smog alerts will also reduce air pollution
problems on poor air quality days.
(4)No additional site survey work is needed to identify
cultural artifacts.However,if something of
potential scientific,cultural or historic interest is
discovered during construction,an expert should be
called in to investigate and work stopped in the
immediate area.
(5)A traffic management plan should be developed in
cooperation with the selected contractors,the District,
CalTrans,and the Cities of Huntington Beach and
Fountain Valley.Plant No.1 has almost direct access
to the San Diego Freeway which should minimize local
7
impacts.Relocation of the existing service entrance
and access road has been proposed to provide direct
signalized access to and from Plant No.1.
(6)Construction activities should not commence before
7:30 a.m.nor extend past the hour of 5:30 p.m.or the
hours stipulated by local ordinances.Low noise level
equipment and noise barriers should be used.If
feasible,pile drivers should not be used.
(7)Maximize use of materials by good design and one—time
construction of major structures to be fitted with
equipment when needed.
C.Construction Impacts —Baker Street Force Main
Impacts Placement of sewer lines will require excavation
of some portions of each roadway.Minor to moderately
significant impacts in terms of traffic congestion and
changes to present patterns of circulation could result.
Potential hazards to traffic could exist due to improper
traffic control techniques and warning signs.
Findings Guidelines which will significantly reduce
traffic and circulation impacts should include the
following:tunneling under adjacent intersections;
restricting construction hours;where feasible,locating
sewer lines within public right—of—way and along
centerline,but outside travel lanes;eliminating existing
8
on—street parking;relocating sewer lines to less busy
roadways;and preparation of traffic control plans before
construction.For roadways in the 0.70 to 0.90 volume to
capacity ratio,the following measures should be utilized:
restrict construction to off peak hours and maintain all
through traffic lanes at intersections.For traffic
volumes within the 0.30 to 0.70 volume to capacity ratio:
no need to limit construction hours,at least one
through—travel lane maintained,and any striped median
should be eliminated.
Impacts Increases in exhaust and fugitive dust emissions
affecting primarily the immediate vicinity but also adding
to the cumulative emissions load region—wide will result.
The potential exists for the release of objectional odors
into the atmosphere during construction of sewer trunk
lines.
Findings Compliance with Rule 403 of the.SCAQMD Rules
and Regulations will mitigate fugitive dust emissions
during construction.DISTRICTS’normal mode of operations
for tie—ins to existing sewer facilities (requirement for
full structure before tie in and tie—ins during low—flow
periods)should be continued.Construction equipment
should be maintained in proper tune to meet emissions
standards.
9
Impacts Coordination between DISTRICTS and all utility
companies will be necessary to avoid conflicts and
properly time future utilities improvements.
Findings Each of the affected utility companies will be
contacted prior to construction to coordinate respective
planning efforts.To the extent possible,other utility
facilities will not be interrupted during project
construction.A check for existing utility locations will
be made prior to final route locations.DISTRICTS will
comply with the Department of Health and Safety’s criteria
for separation of water mains and sanitary sewers.
Impacts Increased erosion and siltation due to soil
disturbance may occur as local groundwater infiltrates
into open trenches.
Findings Groundwater infiltration can be controlled by
portable sump pumps discharging into the existing sewer
line or into existing catch basins after desilting;these
practices would be in accordance with DISTRICTS NPDES
discharge permit,which allows such practice.Surface
runoff will be handled by the existing storm drain system.
Approved dewatering techniques will be implemented to
dispose of excess water which collects in the open trench
or around the installed line.Sandbagging or another
appropriate method will be employed to protect open
trenches from storm flows.
10
D.Secondary Impacts
Impacts District No.14 population projections exceed
current general plan projections in the City of Tustin.
Findings If proposed land use amendments currently
before City of Tustin are not approved,District No.14
plans will be revised to reflect approved projections,for
that area.
Impacts Population and housing projections used by
District No.14 (IRWD)for long—range service need
estimates are inconsistent with local government
projections in two areas:
(1)District No.14 growth projections for the City of
Orange,5,846,are based on the middle (not the
high end)of the city’s growth projection range of
from 3,506 to 8,789 units.
(2)District No.14 projections for the County of Orange
Laguna Laurel subarea are higher (by 4,000 units)
than the county’s projections.
Findings District No.14 long—range service plans will be
revised to reflect the higher growth projections for the
City of Orange,and the lower growth projections for the
County of Orange Laguna Laurel subarea.No change in the
overall capacity of District No.14 in DISTRICTS ‘is required,
as the discrepancies essentially balance one another.
11
3.The Boards of Directors of DISTRICTS further find that
although changes,alterations or conditions have been incorporated
~to the Project which will substantially mitigate or avoid
z~ignificant effects identified in the Final EIR,certain of the
significant effects cannot be mitigated to fully acceptable levels.
The remaining impacts identified below may continue to be of
significant adverse impact even when all feasibly known and identified
mitigtaion measures are applied.
A.Construction Impacts —Baker Street Force Main
Impacts Construction noise will temporarily increase
background noise levels and may impact nearby residential
areas along route.Noise levels will vary with different
stages of construction but can be expected to range from
70 dB(A)to 105 dB (A)at 50 feet.
Findings All construction activities will comply with
the noise limitations set by the individual cities or the
County of Orange.Proper use and maintenance of noise
reduction devices on heavy equipment will help to mitigate
the problem and construction activities will be limited to
daylight hours in noise sensitive areas.
Impacts Short—term visual impacts from machinery will
occur during construction.
Findings Efforts will be made to minimize the aesthetic
impacts during construction.Mitigations include
re—establishment of landscaped areas after construction.
12
The Boards of Directors find the above mitigation measure
will substantially reduce the impact and that further
measures are not economically feasible for a short-term
impact.
B.Secondary Impacts
Impacts Oversizing the capacity of sewer line trunks may
facilitate future growth and land use intensification in
the District No.14 service area.
To the extent that the project allows for the continuation
of existing growth trends in the IRWD service area,
long—term population growth may generate further impacts
including:
Alteration of natural landform
•Changes in hydrology
Loss of prime agricultural soils
•Increased erosion and sedimentation
•Introduction of urban contaminants into natural
bodies of water
Disruption of natural biotic communities
Increased traffic with potential for congestion
•Additional mobile and stationary source emissions
into the air basin
Increased ambient noise levels
•Increased demands for public services,utilities,and
energy resources
•Loss of open space
•Disruption of archaeological,paleontological and
historical resources
13
Findings For the most part,the adverse impacts
associated with the population growth and concomitant
urban devel6pment are not wholly unavoidable.Most of
these impacts can be mitigated through the implementation
of appropriate measures in the context of a comprehensive
planning process by appropriate planning entities.A
creative approach to environmental design that emphasizes
integrated solutions to the diversity of environmental
problems associated with growth is necessary if adverse
cumulative impacts are to be minimized.These impacts are
under the purview of local jurisdictional agencies
responsible for land use planning.
4.Certain changes or alterations (e.g.,mitigation measures)are
required in or incorporated into “the Project”through the permitting
esponsibility and jurisdiction of a public agency other than County
Sanitation Districts Nos.1,2,3,5,6,7,11 and 13.These changes
will be included in permits obtained from the applicable agency by
DISTRICTS or its contractor as itemized below:
A.Applicable rules of the Air Quality Management Plan to the
Projects when implemented provide partial mitigation for
short—term air quality impacts.The South Coast Air
Quality Management District is responsible for insuring
compliance with and implementation of these rules.
DISTRICTS’staff is working closely with that agency.
B.A California Coastal Permit will be required for any
construction at Treatment Plant No.2 in Huntington Beach.
14
The City of Huntington Beach is responsible for issuance
of the permit and insuring implementation of certain
projects in accordance with the rules of the Local Coastal
Plan.
C.Approval from CalTrans and the City of Fountain Valley
will be required for entrance modifications at Plant No.1.
CalTrans is responsible for insuring compliance with such
requirements.
D.A dewatering permit will be required for discharge of
groundwater encountered during construction.The Regional
Water Quality Control Board is responsible for insuring
compliance with dewatering permit requirements.
E.Any facilities encroaching upon Environmental Management
Agency (EMA)Flood Control facilities will require a
permit and project approval from EMA.
5.The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos.
1,2,3,5,6,7,11 and 13 have balanced the benefits of the proposed
“Project”against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining
whether to approve said Project.The Boards do hereby further find,
determine and state,pursuant to the provisions of Section 15093 of
the State Guidelines,that the occurrence of those certain significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and set forth in
paragraph 3 above have been found acceptable and will be permitted
without further mitigation due to the following overriding
considerations:
15
A.The project is economically and environmentally’beneficial
to accommodate wastewater flows from ongoing development
approved by the local planning zoning authorities within
proposed District No.14 after required environmental
reviews.The DISTRICTS are a single purpose agency with
the responsibility to collect,treat and dispose of
wastewater generated within the DISTRICTS’service area.
Construction of facilities associated with the Project
identified in the EIR are necessary to provide sewerage
facilities to serve development approved by the cities and
county in proposed District No.14 after separate
environmental review by the approving entity as identified
in local land use plans.
B.The Boards of Directors find that implementation of the
project alternatives identified in the Final EIR are
-
environmentally and economically infeasible as follows:
1.Expansion of IRWD’s Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
and Construction of Ocean Outfall Interceptor
Under this alternative,IRWD would produce up to 15
MGD of reclaimed water at the Michelson Water
Reclamation Plant (MWRP)on a seasonal basis.Flows
exceeding the seasonal reclamation rate would be
treated at MWRP and conveyed through an IRWD
interceptor for ultimate disposal through the
Districts’ocean outfall.The environmental impacts
associated with this •alternative are similar or the
16
same as those addressed in the EIR for the proposed
“Project”.Construction impacts will be associated with
expansion of the treatment plant and the interceptor
to the ocean outfall.The urban and natural
environment in the vicinity of the MWRP would be
impacted by construction,whereas with the proposed
“Project”,the majority of construction impacts would be
experienced in the vicinity of the existing CSDOC
Plant No.1.In addition,the interceptor facilities
which will be used to convey the wastewater to Plant
No.1 under the “Project”are planned facilities to
accommodate existing Sanitation District flows and the
upsizing of the facilities will not result in
additional environmental impacts,whereas conveyance
facilities to take IRWD flows to the DISTRICTS’
existing ocean outfall would be constructed in other
areas.
2.Expansion of IRWD’s Michelson Water Reclamation Plant
and Construction of a New Ocean Outfall
Under this alternative,IRWD would provide for
meeting.the majority of its ultimate treatment and
disposal requirements without the joint utilization
of existing or planned DISTRICTS facilities.Under
this alternative,the discharges would be made through
a new ocean outfall constructed,either wholly or in
major part,for the use of IRWD.Since IRWD would
17
retain ownership of its 15 MGD of disposal capacity
in the DISTRICTS outfall,it is probable that the new
outfall would be constructed adjacent to the CSDOC
outfall.In this manner,IRWD could instead utilize
a single trunk system to discharge into both outfalls.
By utilizing a single trunk system,the additional
on—land construction impacts would be similar to or
the same as those described in this EIR.Construction
of the new IRWD ocean outfall adjacent to the existing
DISTRICTS outfall would also have fewer impacts than
construction of the new outfall in another location
due to familiarity with the current location gained
through past construction efforts.This familiarity
would minimize the risk of unforeseen impacts and
enhance the ability to develop a viable mitigation
program.However,the impacts of construction of a
major ocean outfall in the marine environment would,
in itself,be a significant environmental impact.
Assuming construction by IRWD of an outfall with
similar depth,length and diffuser capabilities,it
is probable that the marine impacts would be
equivalent to those experienced during construction of
the DISTRICTS outfall.
3.Anaheim Forebay Reclamation Project
This project would include the construction of a
wastewater reclamation facility to treat wastewater
from Sanitation District No.2 near the basin recharge
18
area in the City of Anaheim.Eventually this facility
could be enlarged to treat up to 50 MGD.The primary
reason the project has not been implemented is the
very high costs associated with it and the lack of
firm regulatory guidance on water quality levels
needed for groundwater recharge.
4.Seal Beach Water Reclamation Plant
This project includes the construction of a
reclamation plant that would treat up to 5.6 MGD of
flow for augmenting the Los Alamitos groundwater
barrier project near the San Diego River.This
project has limited capacity reduction and has not yet
been identified as economically feasible.
5.No Project Alternatives
Under the No Project alternative,IRWD would continue
to serve the wastewater (as well as water)needs
within its service area.County Sanitation District
No.14 would not be formed,nor would District.Nos.7
and 13 be reorganized.IRWD would continue to utilize
its existing capacity in MWRP.At the same time IRWD
would re—evaluate its remaining options for serving
the long range treatment and disposal needs within its
service area.
PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 24,1985
19
STATE OF CALIFOPNIA)
SS.
~OUNTY OF ORANGE
I,RITA J.BROWN,Secretary of the Boards of Directors of County
Sanitation Districts Nos.1,2,3,6,7 and 13 of Orange County,California,do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.85—130 was passed and adopted
at an adjourned regular meeting of said Boards on the 24th day of July,1985,by
the following vote,to wit:
AYES:Michael Beverage,Richard Buck,Sam Cooper,Norman Culver,
Richard B.Edgar,Don R.Griffin,Dan Griset,Robert Hanson,
Ronald B.Hoesterey,Carol Kawanami,Philip Maurer,James Neal,
Richard Olson,Richard Partin,Richard Polis,Joyce A.Risner,
Don Roth,David Sills,Jean Siriani,Don E.Smith,James Wahner,
Dorothy Wedel
NOES:None
ABSENT:Ruth Bailey,Buck Catlin,Evelyn Hart,Roger Stanton,Charles
Sylvia,John Thomas
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of County Sanitation District No.1 on behalf of itself and Districts
Nos.2,3,6,7 and 13 of Orange County,California,this 24th day of July,
1985.
Rita J.Browr~Secretary
Boards of Directors,County
Sanitation Districts Nos.1,2,3,
6,7 and 13 of Orange County,California