Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCSD 05-12RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 05-12 CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ELLIS A VENUE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT JOB NO. 1-10; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE A IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING THE ELLIS AVENUE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT (ALTERNATIVE A), JOB NO. I-10. WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), ("Board") is considering the approval of Ellis Avenue Pump Station Replacement Project, Job No. 1-10, which consists of a new pump station and related sewer pipeline improvements to balance flows between Reclamation Plant No. 1 in the City of Fountain Valley ("Plant No. 1 ") and Treatment Plant No. 2 in the City of Huntington Beach ("Plant No. 2) by the year 2008 ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code§ 21000 et. seq.) ("CEQA"), as amended, and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs § 15000 et. seq.), Environmental Science Associates ("ESA") under the direction of OCSD, as the lead agency for the Project, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR") for the project that assesses the significant environmental impacts of the Project, identifies mitigation measures, and identifies alternatives to the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Draft EIR analyzed in project level detail the environmental effects of a new pump station at two (2) different alternative locations; one of the locations is a currently vacant area adjacent to the main entrance at OCSD's Reclamation Plant No. I ("Alternative A") and the other location is a commercial park near the intersection of Ellis A venue and Pacific Street ("Alternative B"); and, WHEREAS, OCSD has consulted with other public agencies and the general public, and provided such agencies and the public with several opportunities to provide written and oral comments on the project and the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, on February 17, 2005, OCSD staff held a duly-noticed public workshop to provide a further opportunity for the general public to comment on and respond to the Draft EIR; and, 1 .. ,f', ', WHEREAS, the 'corr1ments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either in full or in sur~rri~r);, t~gether. ~ith OCSD staff responses to significant environmental concerns raised in the re~iew and c9~sulti1iion.· process, have been included in the Final EIR; and, . -. ..... __ . ' .. , ! .r· .. . : . . WHE)lEAS; a Fi~a! EI,R>for the Project has been prepared consisting of the Draft EIR and ocsri'·.s -R~spoilseST to Comments on the Draft EIR; and, ... ', I / WHEREAS, the Board has determined that Alternative A is the most suitable location for the new pump station component of the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby resolves, determines and finds that: I. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and, 2. The Board has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approval of, or commitment to, the project; and 3. The Board determines that the Final EIR reflects OCSD's independent judgment and analysis; and, 4. The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project and adopts the Findings of Fact, attached as "Attachment A;" and, 5. The Board adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, which identifies the specific benefits of the project that outweigh the project's significant and unavoidable impacts that are acceptable in light of the project's benefits, attached as "Attachment B;" and, 6. The Board adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as "Attachment C" to ensure that all mitigation measures are implemented; and, 7. The Board approves the Ellis Avenue Pump Station Replacement Project (Alternative A), Job No. 1-10. 8. The Board specifies that the record of proceedings on which the Board's decision is based is located at OCSD's administrative offices at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California, 92708. The custodian of the record of proceedings is (the Office of the Board Secretary). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held May 25, 2005. ATTEST: ) \ FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS OF FACT I. FINAL EIR FOR THE PROJECT The Final EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15089 of the CEQA Guidelines, consists of the Draft EIR, comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments. II. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD CONTENTS OF THE RECORD The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these findings and the actions taken by the District in certifying the Final EIR and approving the project: 1. The Final EIR and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference in the Final EIR. 2. The Final PEIR for the 1999 Strategic Plan and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference in the Final PEIR, including the 1999 PEIR MMRP. 3. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the District in connection with the meetings and public hearings at which the Draft EIR or Final EIR was considered by the District. 4. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to any of the District's member districts in connection with the meetings, workshops and public hearings at which the Draft EIR or Final EIR was considered by the District's member districts. 5. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of meetings and other documents relied upon or prepared by District staff and consultants relating to the project. 6. Any other documents specified by Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e). LOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD The District is the custodian of the administrative record, including all CEQA documents and the other background documents and materials, which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the Board's decisions to certify the Final EIR and approve the project are based. The A-1 FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A administrative record is located at the District's administrative offices at 10844 Ellis A venue, Fountain Valley, California, 92708. III. PURPOSE OF FINDINGS The Final EIR, prepared in accordance with CEQA, evaluates the significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from the project. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the public agency approving or carrying out the project shall make written findings for each significant impact identified in the EIR, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. These findings include one of the following: 1. Changes or alterations have been required to, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as defined in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. These findings accomplish the following: 1. They address the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR for the approved project. 2. They incorporate all mitigation measures associated with these significant impacts identified in either the Draft EIR or Final EIR. 3. They explain why a significant effect is avoided or reduced by the adopted mitigation measures to a Jess-than-significant level. The conclusions presented in these findings are based on the initial study, the Final EIR and other evidence in the record of proceedings. IV. EFFECT OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the District hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely information. The mitigation measures identified as feasible and within the District's authority to implement for the approved project are express conditions of approval which the District binds itself to upon adoption of this resolution and project approval. The Board will adopt an MMRP concurrently with these findings to ensure that the all mitigation measures will be implemented. The MMRP includes applicable mitigation measures from the MMRP developed for the 1999 Strategic Plan Program EIR in addition to the newly identified measures developed as part of the EIR process for the proposed project. A-2 ( ) FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A V. PROJECT BACKGROUND The District maintains a collection system of gravity sewers, diversion structures, and pump stations. The collection system conveys wastewater from member cities and other local agencies to the District's treatment facilities: Reclamation Plant No.1, located in the city of Fountain Valley, and Treatment Plant No. 2, located in the city of Huntington Beach. During the preparation of the 1999 Strategic Plan, it became apparent that the District could maximize the use of its two existing wastewater treatment plant sites by better distributing flows between the two treatment plants. To achieve this balance, the 1999 Strategic Plan assumed that up to 60 mgd of flow from the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) could be conveyed to Reclamation Plant No. 1, instead of Treatment Plant No. 2. However, Reclamation Plant No. 1 will supply the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) with source water for future reclamation. The SARI is primarily a conveyance pipe for saline wastewater collected from the upper Santa Ana River watershed. Because the SARI trunk includes those saline flows and treated effluent from the Stringfellow Superfund site, the California Department of Health Services (OHS) expressed concerns in early 2002 about acceptance of treated wastewater from SARI as source water for reclamation activities. Based on those OHS concerns, several other collection system modifications were investigated to enable the District to divert SARI trunk flows back to Treatment Plant No. 2, while maintaining the optimal balance between the two treatment plants. The District investigated means to divert municipal collection system flows to Reclamation Plant No. 1 that would otherwise flow to Treatment Plant No. 2. The replacement of the Ellis Avenue Pump Station would enable the District to divert an additional 50 mgd from the Knott, Miller-Holder, and Magnolia Trunk Sewers to Reclamation Plant No. 1. The existing pump station has a 10 mgd capacity and is not suited for rehabilitation due to underground electrical equipment that is subject to flooding and not acceptable for current fire code regulations. In addition, site access for routine maintenance requires lane closures and must comply with confined space regulations. Increasing the size of this facility under these conditions is not considered to be feasible. The primary purpose of the project is to provide adequate pumping and conveyance capacity to balance flows between Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 by year 2008. In order to avoid over loading the treatment plant while its capacity is diminished during construction of the Headworks Replacement Project at Plant No. 2, OCSD would divert approximately 58 mgd of Plant No. 2 flow to Plant No. 1 via the Ellis Avenue Pump Station. The ability to divert the flow to Plant No. 1 would be dependent on the completion of the proposed Ellis Avenue Pump Station by 2008. The pump station will be used to convey flows to the Reclamation Plant No. 1 from the Knott, Magnolia, and Miller-Holder Trunk Sewers that currently are conveyed to Treatment Plant No. 2. To accomplish this, several distinct construction projects would be necessary, including a 60-inch gravity main within Ellis Avenue, a new 84-inch gravity sewer also within Ellis A venue from the Reclamation Plant No. 1 to Brookhurst Street to divert SARI flows to the Interplant Trunk Sewer, and three new diversion A-3 FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A structures to transfer flows between sewers. An additional diversion sewer would be constructed within Heil A venue in the City of Huntington Beach to convey flows from the Miller Holder Trunk Sewer to the Knott Trunk sewer system up-stream of the pump station. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing Ellis A venue Pump Station is located underneath the intersection of Ellis A venue and Bushard Street within the City of Fountain Valley. The District is proposing to construct a new pump station and abandon the existing pump station. The District conducted an extensive site screening analysis to identify potentially feasible locations for the proposed pump station. The District has identified two alternative locations for the proposed pump station (Alternatives A and B). Alternative A would be located in the northern comer of District Reclamation Plant No. 1 adjacent to the main plant. Alternative B would be located in the Commercial Park at one of three potential locations: 10950 Virginia Circle, 18475 Pacific Street, and 18475 Bandilier Circle, across the street from the treatment plant. Alternative A is the District's preferred pump station location alternative. As part of the project, a new 60-inch diameter gravity sewer pipeline would be installed within Ellis A venue approximately 1,000 feet west of Brookhurst Street to the new pump station. A 48- inch force main would connect the pump station with the District's Reclamation Plant No. 1. The project would also include a new 84-inch diameter diversion trunk sewer that would be installed within Ellis A venue from the Reclamation Plant No. I to the Interplant Trunk at Brookhurst Street, and two new diversion structures would be constructed; one, 300 feet south of Brookhurst Street to connect the new 84-inch diameter sewer with the Interplant Trunk and the other on Bushard Street, approximately 200 feet north of Ellis A venue. An additional junction structure and 36-inch gravity sewer would be constructed within Heil Avenue to convey flows from the Miller Holder Trunk Sewer to the Goldenwest Trunk Sewer system upstream of the proposed Ellis A venue Pump Station. The new pump station site will also include a wet and dry well structure that will extend approximately 45 feet below grade. A service building will be constructed above grade to house electrical equipment and other facilities such as bar screens. The project is generally located within the City of Fountain Valley except for the diversion sewer within Heil Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. Construction of the project is expected to last for 24 months, scheduled to begin in 2006. Construction methods would vary depending on the pump station location alternative or pipe alignment but could include excavation and trenching activities, pile driving, micro-tunneling, pipe jacking, cement pouring, building framing and constructing the pump station structure. NEED FOR PLAN The primary purpose of the Ellis A venue Pump Station project is to provide adequate pumping and conveyance capacity to balance flows between Reclamation Plant No. I and Treatment Plant No. 2 by the year 2008. The pump station will be used to convey flows to the Reclamation Plant A-4 FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A No. 1 from the Knott, Magnolia, and Miller-Holder Trunk Sewers that currently are conveyed to Treatment Plant No. 2. During the preparation of the 1999 Strategic Plan, it became apparent that the District could maximize the use of its two existing wastewater treatment plant sites by better distributing flows between the two treatment plants. The 1999 Strategic Plan assumed that up to 60 millions gallons per day (mgd) of flow from the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) would be conveyed to Reclamation Plant No. 1, instead of Treatment Plant No. 2 where it is currently treated. This would provide the necessary balance between the two treatment plants of about 235 mgd each. Reclamation Plant No. 1 will supply the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) with source water for future reclamation. The SARI is primarily a conveyance pipe for saline wastewater collected from the upper Santa Ana River Watershed. Because the SARI trunk includes those saline flows and treated effluent from the Stringfellow Superfund site, the California Department of Health Services (OHS) expressed concerns in early 2002 about acceptance of treated wastewater from SARI as source water for reclamation activities. Based on those OHS concerns, several other collection system modifications were investigated to divert SARI trunk flows back to Treatment Plant No. 2. The District investigated means to divert municipal collection system flows to Reclamation Plant No. I. The replacement of the Ellis A venue Pump Station would enable the District to divert an additional 50 mgd from the Knott, Miller-Holder, and Magnolia Trunk Sewers to Reclamation Plant No. 1. In addition, the pump station is needed to divert peak flows to Reclamation Plant No. 1 during the period needed to connect the new headworks facility at Treatment Plant No. 2. This connection period, during which the new headworks will be connected to the treatment facilities, will reduce the treatment plant's intake capacity by approximately one third for a period of up to 14 months. The connection period is scheduled to occur in 2008. The project objectives are summarized below: • Modify wastewater collection system infrastructure to ensure a wastewater flow balance between the two treatment plants to avoid exceeding treatment capacities at either plant • Provide conveyance infrastructure for continued diversion of Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) line peak 2020 flows to Treatment Plant No. 2 • Ensure that reliable minimum flows of high quality secondary effluent are available for reclamation by year 2008 • Ensure that Reclamation Plant No. 1 can accommodate peak flow diversion from construction of the new headworks at Treatment Plant No. 2 by winter 2008 • A void occupying property on Reclamation Plant No l needed to support wastewater treatment facilities A-5 FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A • Ensure that new facilities meet latest safety, building, and electrical codes • Minimize potential for spills • Minimize potential for odor emissions • Minimize disruption of residential and commercial areas during construction • A void displacing residences • Minimize traffic impacts to public streets The Final EIR was prepared to comply with CEQA. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published by the OCSD on August 8, 2003. The NOP was circulated to local, state, and federal agencies and other interested parties for at least 30 days. A revised NOP was prepared for six alternatives and circulated to the public on May 14, 2004. The NOP comment period ended on June 14, 2004. In accordance with Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR was circulated to local, state, and federal agencies and interested parties who wished to review and submit comments on its contents. The public review period lasted 45 days, from January 25, 2005 through March 14, 2005. A public hearing was held on February 17, 2005 at the OCSD Administrative Office Building in Fountain Valley. A total of 12 comments were received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR for the Ellis A venue Pump Station Replacement Project consists of the Draft EIR (in full as circulated on January 25, 2005) and the Response to Comments document. VI. FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AIR QUALITY A. Facts: I. The EIR analyzes potential air quality impacts in Section 3.2. According to the EIR construction would result in the emission of air pollutants including: 1) dust generated from excavation and directional drilling; 2) exhaust emissions from powered construction equipment; and 3) motor vehicle emissions associated with construction activities. 2. Mitigation measures from the PEIR are applicable to the project that would minimize emissions of fugitive dust and other criteria pollutants and reduce potential effects on local sensitive receptors. The EIR identifies Mitigation measures 7.5-la through 7.5-lc (from the 1999 PEIR). These measures reduce the volume of pollutant emissions from the construction site and include implementation of a dust abatement program to reduce fugitive dust emissions and further lessen impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, equipment maintenance and operational restrictions A-6 ' \ ) FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A (e.g. no operation during second stage smog alerts, engine shut off during loading and unloading activities, etc.). Additional feasible mitigation measures suggested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District have been included as part of the Final EIR. Nonetheless, the project would emit air pollutants greater than established daily thresholds of significance during construction. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. B. Findings: The Board finds that: I. Pollutant emissions during project construction will have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality; the mitigation measures described above are adopted and will reduce this impact, but not a level of insignificance. 2. This impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations adopted concurrently herewith. NOISE A. Facts I. According to the EIR, nighttime construction may be used on Ellis A venue to minimize impacts to traffic during peak hours. Nighttime construction activities may include activities associated with excavating the tunneling pit in Ellis A venue and tunneling down Ellis A venue. Noise would be generated by truck loading and tunneling activities as well as by stationary sources on the surface that could include generators and dewatering machines. Noise generation from stationary equipment on the surface could be substantially minimized with sound blankets and temporary barrier walls. The tunneling machine would be located in the tunneling pit near the proposed pump station site. Noise generated by the tunneling machine located 20-feet below- grade in the tunneling pit would be directed upward and would not likely result in excessive noise levels. Truck loading operations would occur on Ellis Avenue near 1-405. Construction noise generated from these activities is estimated to reach levels of 87 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Based on standard attenuation models, the 87 dBA noise level would be reduced to 60 dBA at 1,000 feet away and 54 dBA at 2,000 feet away, which is the approximate location of the nearest resident in Fountain Valley. The 54 dBA noise levels slightly exceeds the 50dBA for nighttime residential standard set forth in the City of Fountain Valley's general plan. This estimate does not account for barriers between the noise source and the receptor. Noise barriers (such as sound walls, vegetation, buildings, and the river levee) could substantially decrease noise levels at residential areas. According to the City of Fountain Valley's General Plan community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise contours for the 1-405 freeway, these residences currently experience noise levels between 65 and 70dBA. 2. The residences across the river in Costa Mesa are located approximately 1,000 feet from closest construction activity and are located below the river levee. At this distance this noise level would approximately be 60 dBA. This noise level is a conservative method and does not A-7 FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A take into account any intervening natural barrier, such as the river levee. These residences are currently located near the 1-405 and certain level of ambient traffic noise already exist. According to the City of Costa Mesa General Plan, CNEL noise contours for the 1-405 freeway, these residences currently experience noise levels between 65 and 70 dBA. 3. The EIR identifies mitigation measures M-3,9-2 through M-3.9-6. Measure M-3.9-2 requires the District to use sound blankets or temporary sound walls to reduce noise generation from stationary noise generating equipment during nighttime construction activities. Measure M- 3.9-3 requires that stationary noise generating equipment such as generators to be placed within the tunneling pits where possible to reduce noise during nighttime construction. Measure M-3.9- 4 necessitates that no pile driving or sheet driving to be conducted during nighttime construction. Measure M-3.9-5 requires nighttime construction activities to be limited to excavation and drilling activities within Ellis Avenue between 1-405 and Ward Street and measure M-3.9-6 requires noise monitoring to be conducted. Nighttime construction is allowed by the City of Fountain Valley pursuant to a variance. 4. With implementation of mitigation measures M-3.9-2 through M-3.9-6, nighttime noise from construction activities could potentially be reduced such that noise levels at the closest residential areas would be less than 50 dBA. Nonetheless, if this level were exceeded, it would constitute a significant impact of the project. Therefore, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. B. Findings The Board finds that: 1. Nighttime noise levels could exceed local nighttime standards and would be significant and unavoidable; the mitigation measures described above are adopted and will reduce this impact, but not to a level of insignificance. 2. This impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations adopted concurrently herewith. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION A. Facts I. The EIR discusses impacts to traffic and circulation in Section 3 .10. Construction of several project components would require lane closures and road closures that could temporarily worsen the level of service (LOS) along local roadways. According to the EIR, installation of the two sewers within Ellis A venue would cause significant reduction in LOS in Ellis A venue due to the closure of lanes needed for the tunneling pits and staging areas. Closure of one lane of traffic on Goldenwest Street at Heil and on Brookhurst Street, south of Ellis during installation of diversion structures would reduce the LOS levels on each street below LOS D which would be considered a significant impact. The closure of Bushard Street for four months (16 weeks) would A-8 ' ' \' ( \ FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A significantly affect traffic in Bushard Street and would cause significant reduction in LOS on Magnolia Street from detoured traffic. The District will obtain encroachment permits from the City of Fountain Valley, the City of Huntington Beach, and Caltrans prior to beginning construction. The encroachment permits will include Traffic Management Plans (TMP) that identify traffic control needed for lane closures and detours. Preparation of a TMP would reduce impacts to traffic and pedestrian hazards, maintain access to businesses, and keep public streets operational during construction. The TMP would provide for pedestrian access and parking access during business hours to the extent feasible for businesses blocked by trenching activities. 2. The EIR identifies mitigation measures M-3.10-1 through M-3. l 0-5 to minimize the effects of road and lane closures. Measure M-3 .10-1 requires that the import and export of material to and from construction sites be limited to non-peak traffic hours (i.e., trips shall not be made between 7 A.M. - 9 A.M. and 4 P.M. -6 P.M.). Measures M-3.10-2 through M-3.10-4 require implementation of equipment to be staged within the closed lanes, adequate signage to be provided informing local residents and business-owners of construction activities and cones and/or traffic guards to be employed to clearly indicate the locations and directions of temporarily altered traffic lanes where lane closures are necessary. Measure M-3. l 0-5 requires signage to be posted informing motorists of road closures along Bushard Street and delineating suitable detours both prior to and during the duration of construction activities. The EIR identifies mitigation measures 7.1-la, 7.1-lb and 7.1-le and 7.2-la through 7.2-lj, (identified in the 1999 PEIR), which require the District to: • comply with local ordinances and restrict construction activities to daylight hours or as specified in encroachment permits; • post notices or provide notification of construction activities to adjacent property owners (including homeowners and adjacent businesses) at least 72 hours in advance of construction and provide a contact and phone number of a District staff person to be contacted regarding questions or concerns about construction activity; • provide temporary signage indicating that businesses are open; • retain a qualified professional engineer to prepare traffic control plans prior to the construction phase of each sewer line project as implementation proceeds; • ensure that traffic control plans consider the ability of alternative routes to carry additional traffic and identify the least disruptive hours of construction site truck access " routes, and the type and location of warning signs, lights and other traffic control devices. Consideration will be given to maintaining access to commercial parking lots, private driveways and sidewalks, bikeways and equestrian trails, to the greatest extent feasible; • ensure that encroachment permits for all work within public rights-of-way are obtained from each involved agency prior to commencement of any construction; A-9 FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A • ensure that traffic control plans comply with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and/or the Manual of Traffic Controls as determined by each affected local agency, to minimize any traffic and pedestrian hazards that exist during project construction; • ensure that the construction technique includes consideration of the ability of the roadway system to carry traffic volumes during project construction; • ensure that public streets to generally be kept operational during construction, particularly in the morning and evening peak hours of traffic. Lane closures will be minimized during peak traffic hours; • ensure that public roadways are restored to a condition mutually agreed to between the District and local jurisdictions prior to construction; • attempt to schedule construction of facilities to occur jointly with other public works projects already planned in the affected locations, through careful coordination with all local agencies involved; • coordinate with emergency service purveyors. Additionally, measures to provide an adequate level of access to private properties shall be maintained to allow delivery of emergency services; and • contact OCT A when construction affects roadways that are part of the OCT A bus network. 3. With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, impacts to traffic would be reduced. However, since LOS within the heavily traveled Ellis Avenue would be reduced to unacceptable levels for up to 24 months, four weeks for Goldenwest and Brookhurst streets, and four months for closure of Bushard Street the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. B. Findings: The Board finds that: 1. Lane closures on Ellis A venue, Goldenwest and Brookhurst and the closure of Bushard Street during project construction would cause a significant and unavoidable traffic impact; the mitigation measures described above are adopted and will reduce this impact, but not a level of insignificance. 2. This impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations adopted concurrently herewith. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS A. Facts A-10 ( ( ' I J FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A I. The EIR analyzes the project's cumulative impacts in section 3.11. According to EIR, the project would require 24 months of construction. Since the air basin currently exhibits poor air quality, the Final EIR concludes that the contribution of air contaminants to the regional air basin over the construction period would be considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. 2. The EIR identifies Mitigation measures 7.5-la through 7.5-lc (from the 1999 PEIR) to minimize emissions of fugitive dust and other criteria pollutants and reduce potential effects on local sensitive receptors. These measures will reduce the volume of pollutant emissions from the construction site and include implementation of a dust abatement program to reduce fugitive dust emissions and further lessen impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, equipment maintenance and operational restrictions (e.g. no operation during second stage smog alerts, engine shut off during loading and unloading activities, etc.). Additional mitigation measures suggested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District have been included as part of the Final EIR. Nonetheless, the project would emit air pollutants greater than established daily thresholds of significance during construction. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 3. The EIR evaluates other environmental resources with respect to cumulative impacts. The EIR acknowledges that the project would affect the cumulative baseline condition for noise and traffic. However, construction would be short-term and would comply with local noise ordinances, and therefore noise is not considered a cumulatively significant impact. The EIR concludes that although the project would result in significant impacts to traffic, these impacts would be short-term and would therefore not be considered cumulatively significant to the region. B. Findings The Board finds that: 1. Pollutant emissions during project construction will have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on air quality; the mitigation measures described above are adopted and will reduce this impact, but not to a level of insignificance. 2. This impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations adopted concurrently herewith. VI. FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS BY MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT The Final EIR identifies significant impacts that are reduced to a "less-than-significant" level provided that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR are incorporated into the project. These measures either avoid, minimize, rectify, or reduce the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level. These changes and alterations are presented in the MMRP, which the Board is adopting concurrently with these findings. A-11 FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A AESTHETICS A. Facts 1. The EIR discusses aesthetic impacts in Section 3.1. According to the EIR, the proposed project would construct a below-ground pump station and a 12 to 20-foot high new above-grade electrical building within a light industrial area. An additional structure would be constructed to house the bar screens. The new structures could affect the existing character of the neighborhood. The architectural design and landscaping would be designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses without disrupting the local character. The proposed site (Alternative A) is located within the District's treatment plant on Ellis Avenue. The proposed architecture would match the existing facilities at the plant. The existing brick wall along Ellis A venue would be removed during construction. However, this wall may be replaced as part of the project to maintain security at the plant site. The replacement wall would partially screen views of the pump station from the street. The project would remove several large trees (approximately 100 feet tall) that currently screen the plant site from Ellis A venue. Implementation of mitigation measures would ensure the replacement of a visual screen. 2. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.1-1 that requires the District to retain a qualified architect to design the above ground electrical building and related landscaping to be consistent with the overall visual character of the immediate area. This mitigation measure will ensure that the visual character of the project site and its surroundings will be maintained post- construction. 3. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3 .1-3 that requires the contractor to replace the mature trees currently at the fence line with replacement vegetation to obscure views of Reclamation Plant No. 1 from Ellis Avenue and restore the construction area near the property boundary to a condition similar to existing conditions. This will ensure that there will be an equally effective visual screen from Ellis A venue. This mitigation measure will further ensure that the existing aesthetic quality and degree of visibility of the project site is maintained post- construction. 4. According to the EIR, the project could create a new source of nighttime light that could adversely affect neighboring land uses. The site is currently vacant and located within the boundaries of Reclamation Plant No. 1. The primary source of nighttime light in the area is street lighting in Ellis Avenue. The only nighttime lighting proposed as part of the project is low-level, low-intensity security lighting associated with the aboveground electrical building and bar screen building. Motion sensors shall be installed to control the lights when the station is unmanned. The security lighting would be similar to that of the adjacent business and facilities along Ellis A venue Therefore, the project would not significantly contribute to new nighttime lighting in the area. 5. Nonetheless, the EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.1-4, which requires that all permanent exterior lighting that is installed on the project site shall be designed directed A-12 ( I I I FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A downward and oriented to ensure that no permanent light source is directly visible from neighboring residential areas. Motion sensors shall be installed to control the lights when the station is unmanned. B. Findings: The Board finds that: 1. The recommended mitigation measures in the EIR are adopted. These measures will mitigate the aesthetic impacts during project construction and operation to less than significant levels. AIR QUALITY A. Facts: 1. According to the EIR, objectionable odors could be released during construction from excavated soils. The soils in the general area where peat bogs were once active and closer to the river are known to have high organic content and can sometimes emit odors when excavated or stockpiled. Local land uses including residential, open space, and commercial zones could be affected by nuisance odors during construction. Controlling odors emanating from the soils is difficult, but the condition would be short-term. The excavation of the pump station is scheduled to take three to six months. Once the tremie slab is in place at the bottom and the sides of the excavation to form the below grade structure, the potential for odors would decrease. 2. The EIR identifies mitigation measures M-3.2-1 to ensure that odors emitted do not result in a nuisance condition and would be considered Jess than significant. Excavated soils that emit objectionable odors will be covered with plastic sheeting while stockpiled and will be removed from the construction areas within three to four days of excavation. B. Findings The Board finds that: 1. The recommended mitigation measure in the EIR is adopted. This measure will mitigate the air quality impacts during project construction to Jess than significant level. BIOLOGY A. Facts 1. The EIR discusses impacts to biological resources in Section 3.3. According to Impact 3.3-1 of the EIR, removal of the trees could affect nesting activity of native resident or migratory birds. Site clearing activities for Alternative A would involve the removal of several 100-foot tall trees, some of which would be considered mature (a diameter at breast height of greater than 15 inches). The trees are silkfloss (chorisia speciosa) and camphor (ciannamomum camphora). A-13 FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A While no nests were observed during the field survey of the project alignment, the potential does exist that local species could be using the trees for nesting. Due to the potential presence of protected bird species, the removal of trees along the project alignment would be considered a potentially significant impact. However, with implementation of the mitigation measure M-3.3-1, impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant. 2. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.3-1 which requires a qualified biologist to conduct a nest search in all trees slated for removal. If it is determined that active nests exist, tree removal will be conducted outside the nesting season. Nesting season is typically between April and August. B. Findings The Board finds that: 1. The recommended mitigation measure in the EIR is adopted. This measure will mitigate the biological resources impacts during project construction to less than significant levels. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Facts 1. The EIR discusses impacts to cultural resources in Section 3.4. According to the EIR the project would involve excavating and tunneling to depths over 40 feet. Ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project could reveal previously unknown significant prehistoric and historic cultural resources. Without conducting an extensive subsurface investigation of the sites, its is impossible to know for certain whether such resources exist within the proposed alignment including along Ellis A venue, Heil A venue, Brookhurst Street or at the proposed pump station site. However, no archaeological sites have been recorded within the quarter-mile radius of Ellis Avenue along the project alignment. 2. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.4-1, which requires "provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction" shall be instituted. Therefore, if cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, large quantities of shell, historic debris, building foundations, or human bone, are inadvertently discovered during any ground disturbing activities, the District shall instruct its contractors to halt construction activity within 50 feet of the find and immediately notify the District about the find. The District shall then retain a qualified archaeologist who must assess the find and develop a mitigation plan that ensures that the resources are removed from the site or otherwise protected on-site. The District shall not resume construction activity within 50 feet of the find until the find is removed or otherwise protected in accordance with the archaeologist's recommendation. 3. According to the EIR, the proposed project may damage or degrade unidentified paleontological remains. Given the relatively young geomorphic characteristics of beach sediments and dune upland areas, the probability of encountering significant vertebrate A-14 ) FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A paleontological resources is considered low since vertebrate resources are rarely encountered in similar geologic settings. However, invertebrate fossils are common in the marine terrace deposits. 4. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.4-2 which requires that in the event of an unanticipated discovery of a fossil during construction, the District shall instruct its contractors to halt construction activity within 50 feet of the find and immediately notify the District about the find. The District shall then retain a qualified paleontologist, who must assess the find and develop a mitigation plan that ensures that the resources are removed from the site or otherwise protected in accordance with the paleontologist's recommendation. B. Findings The Board finds that: 1. The recommended mitigation measures in the EIR are adopted. These measures will mitigate cultural resources impacts during project construction to less than significant levels. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A. Facts l. The EIR discusses impacts to geology and soils in Section 3.5. The EIR concludes, based on geotechnical investigations conducted by Ninyo and Moore, that the soils along the proposed pipeline alignments are fine-grained and clay-rich, indicating that they are potentially expansive. Settlement could potentially occur from static loads. Settlement of soils at a specific site or alignment could therefore damage proposed foundations, structures, and utility lines. Expansive soils could damage foundations and above-ground structures, paved parking areas, and concrete slabs. Surface structures with foundations constructed in expansive soils would experience expansion and contraction depending on the season and the amount of surface water infiltration. These soil conditions may be encountered along Heil Avenue, Ellis Avenue, and at the pump station location. 2. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.5-1. The measure requires the District to follow the recommendation of the design-level geotechnical report and to construct new facilities in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) design standards and standard engineering practices. The District is require to construct all facilities in a manner that avoids settlement and expansive soils impacts through the use of one or more of the following engineering practices: • remedial earthwork; • structurally reinforcing improvements to withstand anticipated settlements; • removing and replacing expansive soils in the upper three feet; A-15 FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A • deepening foundations and providing additional reinforcement, and/or; • moisture conditioning of expansive soils. The measure requires the District to implement this mitigation through development of a design- level geotechnical evaluation prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer. 3. According to the EIR, the proposed project area is currently seismically active (potentially susceptible to groundshaking, liquefaction and earthquake-induced settlement). The pump station and each pipeline alignment would experience a similar response in the event of an earthquake in the region. Earthquakes could occur on one or more of the prominent fault zones in the project area, such as the Newport-Inglewood, Palos Verdes, Whittier, and/or Elsinore fault zones. Although some structural damage is typically not avoidable during an earthquake, building codes and construction ordinances have been established to protect against building collapse and major injury due to groundshaking during a seismic event. The project areas are located within liquefaction hazard areas identified by the California Geologic Survey. However, geotechnical surveys indicate that past geotechnical reports in the vicinity oft.he recommended pump station location reveal a foundation zone of dense silty sand with a low potential for liquefaction. For surface improvements such as service buildings and utilities, liquefaction potential is anticipated to range from low to moderate for the project site. 4. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.5-2, which requires the District to construct all facilities in a manner that reduces or eliminates the risk of seismic hazards, including liquefaction and/or earthquake induced settlement, through compliance with the seismic safety and applicable codes of the 1997 UBC with California additions (Title 24) and through the use of one or more of the following construction and design technique: • remedial earthwork to provide a mat of well-compacted soil beneath structure foundations; • structurally reinforcing improvements to withstand settlements; • in-situ densification of loose liquefiable deposits (may include vibro replacement stone columns, grout injection, and/or soil mixing); • dewatering of surface or subsurface soils; • construction of pile or pier foundations to support pipelines and/or buildings; and/or, • removal of material that could undergo liquefaction in the event of an earthquake and replacement with stable material. The measure requires the District to implement this mitigation through development of a design level geotechnical evaluation prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer. A-16 ( \ FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A 5. According to the EIR, potentially corrosive soils are likely to be present along the proposed pipeline alignments. Clay-rich soils identified in the area could be corrosive to ferrous metal pipes. In addition, soils could possibly contain high concentrations of soluble sulfate which can degrade concrete. However, the potential for sulfate attack on concrete was found to be low. 6. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.5-3 which requires the District to protect underground installations from corrosion and degradation. The District is required to select appropriate pipe materials, encapsulate pipes with sleeves, and/or provide cathodic protection to pipes. Type V cement shall be used for concrete construction to protect concrete from degrading due to sulfate attack. This concrete shall have a water-cement ratio of 0.45 or less by weight for normal weight aggregate concrete and a 28-day compressive strength of 4,500 pounds per square inch or more. 7. According to the EIR, historically, groundwater in the general area has been located approximately 3 to 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). However, published and referenced geotechnical reports in the vicinity of the pump station site Alternative A, groundwater levels have been measured at approximately 11 feet bgs. Additionally, during the recent construction of the trickling filters/clarifiers project at Reclamation Plant No. 1, groundwater was not encountered in excavations up to approximately 20 feet bgs. Therefore fluctuations in the groundwater level in the vicinity may occur due to local irrigation, seasonal fluctuations, or other unknown factors. In the event that excavation would reach groundwater levels, soils could loosen at the bottom of an excavation, resulting in unstable soil conditions. Additionally, dewatering could promote land settlement in surrounding areas, which could potentially damage nearby existing structures on the site. Dewatering operations will vary depending on excavation depths, groundwater levels, and shoring systems used. 8. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.5-4 which requires the District to conduct any dewatering in a manner that will protect the stability and integrity of existing and proposed structures through implementation of one or more of the following measures: • photo documentation of existing conditions and floor-level surveys of the adjacent structures; • during construction, monitor the shoring system and adjacent existing improvements for movement; • monitoring systems shall include survey points of reference, tilt meters, strain gauges, and inclinometers; • if possible, installation of monitoring wells outside of the excavation to monitor groundwater levels; and/or, • evaluate existing structures in the vicinity of planned excavations with regard to foundation type and dewatering-induced potential for settlement. The measure requires the District to implement this mitigation through development of a pre- construction survey of the surrounding structures. The survey shall provide design criteria for the A-17 FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A dewatering system for a chosen site so that one or more of the above engineering methods can be developed. B. Findings The Board finds that: 1. The recommended mitigation measures in the EIR are adopted. These measures will mitigate the geologic impacts during project construction and operation to less than significant levels. HAZARDS A. Facts 1. The EIR discusses hazards and hazardous materials impacts in Section 3.6. According to the EIR, contaminated soils and groundwater could be encountered during construction and could result in worker and public health hazards or could affect the environment. An environmental site assessment was conducted for the project site. The site assessment included reconnaissance surveys, review of aerial photographs, and regulatory records searches. The site was not identified as having documented historical environmental concerns. However, an environmental information database search listed Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) sites near or within close proximity to the proposed pump station site. The LUFT is an auto shop, approximately 400 feet west of the proposed site. According to an environmental assessment conducted by Ninyo and Moore report, dated July 28, 04, the gradient was reportedly to the southwest away from the proposed site. Two other listed LUFT site cases in the vicinity of Alternative A are closed and considered to be of no further concern. 2. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.6-1 that requires disposal of contaminated soils encountered on the project site during excavation activities in accordance with applicable hazardous waste regulations. The District is required to notify the Orange County Health Care Agency-local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) of remedial actions. 3. The existing below-grade structure in Ellis Avenue may contain lead-based paint and asbestos, which could pose a hazard to workers or the environment if not removed and disposed of in a safe manner in accordance with applicable regulations. The pump station would either be demolished as part of the project or used to house compressors or other devices and controls to operate flow diversion devices. The equipment and piping of the existing pump station would be salvaged. If the structure is demolished, the upper five feet of the below grade structure would be removed. 4. To reduce the risk of exposure to hazards and hazardous materials during construction, the Final EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.6-2, which requires that all structures to be demolished must be investigated for the presence of lead paint and/or asbestos containing material and precautions must be taken to insure the safe removal and disposal of these materials. A-18 ( FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A 5. According to the EIR, improperly abandoned oil wells may exist within the excavation alignments. New excavation for the pump station site location Alternative A could encounter abandoned oil wells. One plugged and abandoned well exists within the project boundaries. The well is identified on Division map W-I-6 as Exxon Mobil Corp "Ellis" I. 6. The EIR identifies mitigation measures 7.8-3e and 7.8-3f (from the 1999 PEIR) which require the District to identify abandoned oil wells in the project area prior to construction and to notify the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources should an abandoned well be discovered. B. Findings The Board finds that: 1. The recommended mitigation measures in the EIR are adopted. These measures will mitigate the hazards and hazardous materials impacts during project construction to less than significant levels. HYDROLOGY A. Facts I. The EIR discusses impacts to hydrology in Section 3.7. According to the EIR, construction activities such as grading, excavation, and construction could result in generation of contaminants that could be discharged to the storm drain system and ultimately to the ocean. Contaminants from construction sites can include sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, oils and grease, and other chemicals associated with construction activities. Grading operations generate silt and clay that are fine-grained enough to become entrained in storm water runoff. Bare soils exposed during construction activities including in staging areas could result in increased erosion and sedimentation to surface waters. In addition, chemical product spills (fuels, oils, grease, etc) from the machinery involved in the construction activities could affect local surface water quality. The project would involve excavation up to 45 feet deep for the below- grade wet-well and pump room, depending on the location of the pump room. No extracted groundwater would be discharged into the storm drain system. Water from dewatering activities would be disposed of into a nearby local sanitary sewer to be treated at Plant No. 1. 2. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.7-1 which requires the District to comply with the State General Construction Permit and include the following sample of measures as specific actions to mitigate water quality impacts during the construction phase of the project: • Use structural controls such as sand bags or hay bales, retain sediment disturbed on-site to the maximum extent practicable. • Stabilize slopes of stockpiled soil to eliminate or reduce sediment dispersal A-19 FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A from the construction site to surrounding areas and surface waters. • Contain at the construction site runoff from equipment and vehicle washing unless it is first treated on-site to reduce or remove sediment and other pollutants. • Store all reserve fuel supplies only within the confines of a designated construction staging area. • Refuel equipment only within designated construction staging area. • Regularly inspect all construction vehicles for leaks. The EIR identifies mitigation measures 7.7-la and 7.7-lf (from the 1999 PEIR) which require best management practices to prevent erosion and sediment impacts to surface water quality and spill containment to minimize the potential effects. 3. According to the EIR, tunneling activities within Ellis Avenue could encounter the Talbert Gap Sea Water Intrusion Barrier system operated by the Orange County Water District. These wells are connected by a pressurized conveyance pipeline. The temporary groundwater dewatering necessary during construction could affect the intrusion barrier. In addition, disruption to the injection or conveyance system could occur from tunneling activities. 4. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.7-2 which requires the District to coordinate with the Orange County Water District to locate existing injection wells along Ellis Avenue to discuss dewatering methods necessary to avoid affects to the intrusion barrier. These methods may include shoring excavations to minimize dewatering requirements prior to construction. Mitigation measure M-3.7-3 requires that the District ensure that underground construction activities (tunneling, excavation, and trenching) avoid the existing wells with enough buffer (not to be less than I 0 feet) to ensure that the integrity of well casings is not compromised. This buffer distance shall be confirmed by the Orange County Water District. B. Findings The Board finds that: 1. The recommended mitigation measures in the EIR are adopted. These measures will mitigate the hydrology impacts during project construction to less than significant levels. NOISE A. Facts I. The Final EIR discusses noise impacts in Section 3.9. According to the EIR, construction of the proposed project would generate day-time noise that could create nuisance conditions at A-20 \ FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A nearby land uses. The proposed project may result in an increase in noise levels during construction that could affect sensitive noise receptors. Construction activities associated with the proposed project that could generate noise include construction, boring, drilling, excavation, pile driving and vehicle traffic associated with work force transportation, material deliveries, and soil removal. The effect of construction noise would depend upon the amount of noise generated by the equipment, the distance between construction activities and sensitive receptors, and existing ambient noise levels. However, the additional noise would comply with local noise regulations and would occur only during the least noise sensitive hours of any given day. 2. The EIR identifies mitigation measure M-3.9-1 which states that all equipment used during construction shall be muffled and maintained in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine driven equipment should be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. B. Findings The Board finds that: 1. The recommended mitigation measure in the EIR is adopted. These measures will mitigate the noise impacts during day-time project construction to less than significant levels. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION A. Facts 1. The EIR discusses impacts to traffic in Section 3 .10. According to the EIR, during construction activities, lane and road closures would temporarily alter traffic patterns in the vicinity of the project components, particularly along Heil Avenue between Golden West Street and the railroad tracks (east of Gothard Street), along Bushard Street in the vicinity of Ellis Avenue, and along Ellis Avenue between Bushard Street and 1-405. During peak hours, it may be difficult for emergency providers to quickly access 1-405 from Ellis Avenue. Emergency responders may be detoured to Brookhurst Street to access or cross 1-405 during peak hours. In addition, the traffic control plans required to obtain encroachment permit from the cities and Caltrans will include emergency access detours for each construction area including the excavations within Brookhurst Street and Goldenwest Street. 2. The EIR identifies mitigation measure 7 .1-lc (identified in the 1999 PEIR), which requires the District to coordinate with officials of adjacent fire stations, the Police Department, and the Fountain Valley Regional Hospital to ensure that 24-hour emergency access is available. 3. According to the EIR, Class II, on-road, striped bike lanes exist within Ellis Avenue, Heil Avenue, Bushard Street, and Golden West Street. Construction activities blocking lanes in these streets would require re-directing bike traffic around the construction areas. Detours would most likely consist of diverting bike traffic onto the parallel arterial streets. The detours would be A-21 FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A identified in the traffic control plans to be approved by the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. 4. The EIR identifies mitigation measure 7.2-11 (identified in the 1999 PEIR), which requires the District to provide detours to locally designated trails and bikeways, as found in the County's Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails (RRHT) and Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) as appropriate. B. Findings: The Board finds that: 1. The recommended mitigation measures in the EIR are adopted. These measures will mitigate the traffic impacts during project construction to less than significant levels. VIII. FINDINGS CONCERNING IDENTIFIED IMPACTS WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT NEEDING TO IDENTIFY MITIGATION MEASURES The Final EIR identifies impacts that are considered to be "less than significant" not requiring mitigation measures. It is hereby determined that the following environmental impacts of the Project will be less than significant. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A. Facts I. According to the EIR, the proposed project could result in soil erosion during excavation, grading and other construction activities. Concentrated water and wind erosion, if not managed or controlled, can eventually result in significant soil loss and/or discharging of sediment into installed utilities and/or adjacent lots. Sediment from project-induced onsite erosion can also accumulate in downstream drainage facilities, interfere with flow, and aggravate downstream flooding conditions. During construction, the District would be required to comply with erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the NPDES General Permit for Construction Acti\'ities which involves preparing a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction phases of the project. The objectives of the SWPPP are to identify pollutant sources (such as sediment) that may affect the quality of storm water discharges and to implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants in storm water discharge. BMPs have been recognized as methods to effectively prevent or minimize the potential release of contaminants into surface waters and groundwater. Through the implementation of these proper construction techniques and practices, the impacts associated with soil erosion would be reduced to less-than- significant levels. B. Findings A-22 I \ FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT A The Board finds that: I. Project construction will have a less than significant impact on soil erosion at the project site. No mitigation measures are necessary. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY A. Facts I. The EIR analyzes potential hydrology and water quality impacts in Section 3.7. According to the EIR, once the project is constructed, storm water runoff could affect receiving water quality. The project area is currently fairly flat and little erosion is anticipated to occur from the project once the construction is complete since the majority of the site will be paved. Storm water within Ellis Avenue in the area flows to the Fountain Valley Channel that feeds the Talbert Channel and the Talbert marsh near the coast. Storm water within Heil A venue flows to the East Garden Grove Wintersberg Channel that discharges to the Balsa Chica Marsh. Although the District is not subject to the County's Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the District would comply with the intent of the regulations to minimize impacts to storm water quality. As such, the project design will incorporate source control measures to ensure that the pump station site does not contribute pollutants to runoff. Source control designs will include diverting storm water runoff on site to the pump station wet well, essentially eliminating storm water runoff from the site. 2. According to the EIR, the proposed Project would cross the Fountain Valley Flood Control Channel. Construction within Ellis Avenue would tunnel under the Fountain Valley Flood Control Channel. The District would obtain an encroachment permit from the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) prior to construction. Following conditions established in the permit would ensure that impacts to the channel would be minimized. B. Findings The Board finds that: 1. Project construction will have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality. No mitigation measures are necessary. LAND USE A. Facts I. The EIR analyzes potential land use impacts in Section 3.8. The proposed Alternative A pump station location is located within the existing wastewater treatment plant. The site is currently vacant except for a number of large mature trees. Reclamation Plant No. 1 is bordered to the west by the Administration Building parking lot, to the south by the plant main entrance roadway, and to the north by Ellis Avenue. The closest residential areas are located 1,000 feet (ft) east across the SAR in the City of Costa Mesa and 2,000-ft west across Ward Street in the A-23 FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A City of Fountain Valley. There are offices and commercial buildings located on the north side of Ellis Avenue which are in excess of 100-ft from the proposed pump station. According to the City of Fountain Valley's General Plan and Zoning Map, Reclamation Plant No. 1 is designated as a Public Facility and zoned under the Orange County Sanitation District Specific Plan and is therefore not anticipated to have any significant land use conflicts. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing or planned land uses. The only component of the project that will be constructed in Huntington Beach is the pipeline beneath Heil Aveneue. Sanitary sewer pipelines are commonly located in existing right-of-way and do not conflict with existing land use plans or policies. Once constructed the pipelines within city streets would not conflict with any surrounding land uses or zoning. Furthermore, architectural design and landscaping plans would comply with surrounding land uses without disrupting the local character. B. Findings The Board finds that: I. Project construction and operation will have a less than significant impact on local land use. No mitigation measures are necessary. NOISE A. Facts 1. The EIR analyzes potential noise and vibration impacts in Section 3.9. According to the EIR, the recommended project could expose persons to, or generate, excessive groundborne vibration. Construction activities such as grading, excavation, and demolition have the potential to generate groundbome vibration near the construction site. Vibration would be caused by heavy trucks, excavators, and dozers. Vibration from construction activities could affect nearby residences due to their close proximity to the construction site. Once constructed, no vibration would result from operation of the pump station. Residential areas along Ellis A venue and Heil A venue would be susceptible to vibration effects. Any vibration caused by the project would not be steady from stationary sources, but rather intermittent associated with construction activities. Perceptible vibrations are typically felt within ten or fifteen feet of the construction activities. Nonetheless, vibrations from construction equipment may be felt intermittently at local residences located adjacent to excavation activities within Ellis A venue and Heil A venue as well as at local businesses near pump station site. The potential vibration would be very slight and damage thresholds would not be exceeded. B. Findings The Board finds that: I. Vibration generation during construction will be temporary in nature and have a less than significant impact on neighboring receptors. No mitigation measures are necessary. A-24 I \ I \ FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A TRAFFIC A. Facts 1. According to the EIR, lane closures could temporarily reduce street parking and driveway access. Lane closures would occur on Ellis A venue, Brookhurst Street, Bushard Street, and Heil Avenue. Temporary lane closures on Ellis Avenue would not eliminate parking spaces, but could block driveway access to businesses adjacent to these streets. As discussed in the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments, the District will be preparing a traffic control plan prior to any lane closures. The traffic control plan will be reviewed by each affected City and will include measures that minimize lane closure impacts on driveway access to ensure minimal disruption on local businesses. Although driveway access could be blocked during brief periods, the potential disruption to businesses along Ellis Avenue would be temporary. The Draft EIR and Response to Comments concludes that the temporary inconvenience to local businesses is considered less than significant. 2. Lane closures on Brookhurst Street during construction of the proposed diversion structure and connection sewer would result in similar temporary impacts on driveway access. As discussed in the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments, the District will be preparing a traffic control plan prior to any lane closures. The traffic control plan will be reviewed by each affected City and will include measures that minimize lane closure impacts on driveway access to ensure minimal disruption on local businesses. Access to driveways to the commercial properties on the southeast comer of the intersection (Brookhurst Street and Ellis Ave) would be maintained. Residential driveways on Brookhurst Street are located south of the construction zone and would not be affected. In addition, lane closures would temporarily remove approximately fifteen to twenty parking spaces on the east side of Brookhurst Street. Any potential parking inconvenience that could result from the removal of these spaces will be temporary and is considered a less than significant parking impact. 3. Temporary lane closures on Heil Avenue are not anticipated to impact street parking, but would limit access to businesses with driveways on Heil and local residential feeder streets. Parking spaces that currently exist on the south side of Heil Avenue for two to three blocks within the proposed construction area may be affected. However, the encroachment permit issued by the City of Huntington Beach requires that a traffic control plan identify temporary parking such as potentially moving parking from the south side of the street to the north side to minimize on- strect parking and driveway access impacts. The traffic control plan would provide for pedestrian access and business parking access during business hours to the extent feasible for businesses blocked by trenching activities. Parking may be available at nighttime on the street. As open trench construction moves down the street, parking would be replaced as construction is completed. With implementation of a traffic control plans for the Cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach, temporary impacts to street parking and driveways would be less than significant. 4. The Final EIR analyzes potential long term traffic impacts in Section 3.10. According to the EIR, the operation of the project would generate minimal maintenance traffic. After A-25 FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A completion of construction of the proposed project components, existing traffic conditions would be restored. The pump station and associated project components would be visited occasionally for routine operation and maintenance tasks. Maintenance of the pump station at Reclamation Plant No. I, would generate a few trips per week and could slightly reduce roadway traffic trips, outside the District facilities, to service the pump station. These trips would not result in significant impacts to traffic. B. Findings The Board finds that: I. Construction of the proposed project will have a Jess than significant effect to street parking and driveway access. No mitigation measures are necessary. 2. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact to traffic following the completion of construction activities existing traffic conditions would be restored. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS A. Facts I. The EIR analyzes the project's cumulative impacts in Section 3.11. Locally planned projects that could contribute to the cumulative baseline are identified in the EIR. According to EIR, the proposed project would not contribute to the cumulative baseline with respect to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards, geology and soils, and land use. 2. The EIR evaluates other environmental resources with respect to cumulative impacts. The EIR acknowledges that the project would affect the cumulative baseline condition for noise and traffic. However, construction would be short-term and would comply with local noise ordinances, and therefore noise is not considered a cumulatively significant impact. The EIR concludes that although the project would result in significant impacts to traffic, these impacts would be short-term and would therefore not be considered cumulatively significant to the region. B. Findings The Board finds that: I. Construction of the proposed project will have a less than significant effect to the cumulative baseline for all environmental resources other than air quality. No mitigation measures are necessary. IX. FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES The EIR provides a description of the alternative screening process conducted to identify the recommended project. The District considered 19 alternative locations for the pump station. The initial alternative screening process eliminated eight of the nineteen sites from further evaluation A-26 I \ \ FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A due to the failure to meet minimum size or width requirements or due to being located outside of the effective corridor necessary to meet the project objectives. A second level of alternative screening was conducted for the remammg 11 sites. The alternatives were evaluated with respect to engineering and feasibility factors including: pipe length, operations and maintenance, utility requirements, efficient design, constructability, and future district operational flexibility. Based on this additional level of screening, the District selected Alternatives A and B to be evaluated in project level detail in the EIR. The EIR also identified and evaluated four other alternatives, including the No Project Alternative. For the reasons stated below, the Board finds that each of these alternatives as well as Alternative B is infeasible or less desirable than the proposed project (Alternative A). A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The EIR evaluates the No Project Alternative in Section 4.5. Under the No Project Alternative, the District would take no action to increase the pumping capacity of the existing Ellis A venue Pump Station. The project site at Reclamation Plant No. 1 would remain vacant and the existing pump station would remain in place. The No Project Alternative would avoid each of the identified significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the recommended project. However, the Board finds that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the recommended project and rejects this alternative for the following reasons: I. The No Project Alternative would not provide the balance between the District's two treatment plants necessary to meet the project objectives. The wastewater flows in Miller Holder Trunk, Magnolia Trunk, Knott Trunk, and Bushard Trunk would continue to flow directly to Treatment Plant No. 2 along with the SARI flows. This would substantially increase treatment capacity requirements at Treatment Plant No. 2 and would not assist in balancing treatment capacities. Future flows to Treatment Plant No. 2 could exceed the plant's treatment capacity, resulting in discharges to the ocean that could violate the District's discharge permit effluent quality standards. This would be considered a significant impact of the No Project Alternative. 2. The existing Ellis A venue Pump Station does not meet the latest safety, building and electric codes. The No Project Alternative would not provide upgrades to the aging equipment. 3. The No Project Alternative would not meet the project objective of reducing flow to Treatment Plant No. 2 during the connection period of the new headworks facility. The new Headworks facility is schedule for completion in the year 2008. The intake capacity of Treatment Plant No. 2 could be exceeded during the headworks 14-month connection period. This could result in a violation of permitted discharge water quality thresholds. B. ALTERNATIVE SITE B: COMMERCIAL PARK, ELLIS A VE./PACIFIC ST. Under this alternative, the pump station would be located within the commercial park near the intersection of Ellis A venue and Pacific Street or Bandilier Street. The proposed site includes a mix of single story and multiple story buildings housing a number of office and commercial A-27 FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A businesses. One of three buildings would be purchased and demolished to make room for the new pump station and above-ground electrical building. Three locations were considered for Alternative Site B: 1. Site 1 is located at I 0950 Virginia Circle, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 and is currently occupied by an approximately 34,709 square-foot building. The lot size is approximately 76,230 square feet. The building is currently occupied by "The Best of the Best." The site is the closest to Interstate 405 of each of the proposed Alternative B locations. 2. Site 2 is located at 18475 Pacific Street and is currently occupied by an approximately 24,202 square-foot building currently occupied by "Hobby People." The lot size is approximately 46, 173 square feet. The building is located west of Site 1. 3. Site 3 is located at 18475 Bandilier Circle and currently occupied by an approximately 23,947 square-foot building currently occupied by "Colgan Custom." The lot size is approximately 49,222 square feet. The Interstate 405 (1-405) freeway borders the site to the north. The Reclamation Plant No. 1 is located across Ellis A venue from the site to the south. Alternative B would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the recommended project. The Board finds that this alternative is less desirable than the proposed Project and rejects the alternative for the following reasons: I. The District does not own the Alternative B site. District staff estimates that acquisition of the Alternative B site could take nine or more months to negotiate based on the parties inability to arrive at a mutually acceptable purchase price for one of three commercial sites. As a result, this Alternative would not meet the most basic project objective of having a completed project by 2008. 2. This Alternative would replace an existing occupied commercial building that generates tax revenue for the City of Fountain Valley with a pump station. The City of Fountain Valley has expressed concern over the loss of tax revenue due to the removal of a viable commercial use. 3. Construction of this Alternative would require existing onsite structure(s) to be demolished. The structure(s) to be removed or demolished may contain lead-base paint and asbestos which could pose a greater risk of hazard to workers or the environment. The proposed project would avoid this impact since no aboveground structures will be demolished or removed. 4. The Alternative B site is the only alternative located in a commercial park. Neighboring commercial businesses would be located within 50 feet of the site. Due to the site's proximity, this Alternative would result in a greater level of noise impacts to the surrounding businesses during project construction over the proposed project. A-28 ( c. FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A ALTERNATIVE SITE G: PACIFIC DECORATING CENTER, TALBERT/BUSHARD Under this alternative, the pump station would be located at 9520 Talbert A venue, which is currently developed with a single-story commercial building occupied by the Pacific Decorating Center. The comer commercial building has pedestrian street access. As part of the project the existing building would be demolished and the underground pump station and above-ground electrical building constructed. Neighboring land uses include both commercial and residential. The site is bordered to the north by Talbert A venue and to the west by Bushard Street. Neighboring land uses to the east and south are primarily residential but also include a church on the south side. Alternative G would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the recommended project. The Board finds that this alternative is less desirable than the proposed project and rejects the alternative for the following reasons: 1. The District does not own the Alternative G site. Therefore, the District would be required to negotiate a mutually acceptable purchase agreement with the property owner, which may or may not ultimately occur. Due to the uncertainty of eventually acquiring the site and the likelihood of prolonged negotiations, the District's ability to implement this alternative in timely fashion would be jeopardized. As a result, implementation of this Alternative would not meet the most basic project objective of having a completed project by 2008. 2. This Alternative would remove a commercial building currently occupied by the Pacific Decorating Center and would have similar tax ramifications on the City of Fountain Valley if it were replaced with a new pump station. 3. Construction of this Alternative would require existing onsite structure(s) to be demolished. As a result there would be a greater impact on air quality, noise and hazard/hazardous material from demolition of structure(s) which may contain lead-base paint and asbestos, creating a greater risk of hazard to workers or the environment. The proposed project would avoid these potential impacts since no aboveground structures will be demolished or removed. 3. This Alternative has the longest installation of pipeline and involves open trench construction along Ellis A venue and Bushard Street, resulting in greater impacts to both air quality and traffic over the proposed project. The proposed project has a shorter installation of pipeline and involves underground tunneling. 4. This Alternative G would require further investigation to determine the status of the soil and groundwater beneath the site; it is a site of former shell station abandoned in 1975. The potential for contamination mitigation would increase the risk of project cost and pose an additional schedule delay. As a result, the objective of the project to be completed by 2008 may not be achieved. 5. Unlike the project site, the Alternative G site is adjacent to residential areas. Neighboring residential uses within 50-feet include five homes to the east and one home to the south. Due to A-29 FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A the site's proximity to adjacent residential uses, this Alternative would result in greater noise and air quality impacts during project construction than the proposed project, which will be constructed within the boundaries of Reclamation Plant 1. D. ALTERNATIVE SITE H: METHODIST CHURCH, BUSHARD STREET Under this Alternative, the pump station would be located at 18225 Bushard Street on property owned by the Fountain Valley United Methodist Church. The site includes several existing facilities including a chapel, child daycare center, offices, and a parking lot. The proposed pump station site is physically located behind the church and is currently occupied by storage sheds. As part of the project, the storage sheds would be demolished and rebuilt following completion of the underground pump station and above ground electrical building. The proposed site is bordered to the north and west by existing residential homes. To the east, the site is bordered by the existing church buildings, including the child daycare center and to the south by the church parking area. Alternative H would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the recommended project. The Board finds that this alternative is less desirable than the proposed project and rejects the alternative for the following reasons: 1. The District does not own the Alternative H site. District staff estimates that acquisition of the Alternative H site could take a year or longer because negotiations with the National United Methodist Church as opposed to the local (Fountain Valley) church organization. Due to the uncertainty of eventually acquiring the site and the likelihood of prolonged negotiations, the District's ability to implement this alternative in timely fashion would be jeopardized. As a result, this Alternative would not meet the most basic project objective of having a completed project by 2008. 2. This site would require demolition of existing structures, such as storage sheds and result in greater air quality impacts to residences, including the church and day care center, than the proposed project. The proposed project would avoid this impact since no aboveground structures will be demolished or removed. 3. This Alternative would require the second longest installation of pipeline on Ellis Avenue and Bushard Street. Similar to Alternative G, and unlike the proposed project, the pipeline would be installed using open trench construction. As a result there will be greater impacts to air quality and traffic then the proposed project. The proposed project has a shorter installation of pipeline and involves underground tunneling. 4. Unlike the proposed project site, the Alternative H site is located behind a church and adjacent to residential areas. Neighboring residential uses within 50-feet or less include four homes, a church, and a child daycare center. Of all the alternatives, this option is the closest to the neighboring properties. Due to the site's proximity, this Alternative would result in greater noise impacts during project construction over the proposed project. E. ALTERNATIVE SITE I: ELLIS AND BUSHARD, TWO HOMES A-30 / FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A Under this alternative, the pump station would be located at 9465 and 9479 Ellis Avenue (northwest comer of Ellis A venue and Bushard Street), which is currently occupied by two single-family residences. As part of the project, the two houses would be vacated and demolished to make room for the underground pump station and aboveground electrical building. A frontage road runs parallel to Ellis A venue and serves as the main entrance to the properties. The residential side street and cul-de-sac are located to the south of the site. The existing frontage road and cul-de-sac would be preserved to maintain access to the existing properties and to the pump station for routine operations and maintenance tasks. Neighboring land uses are residential. Alternative I would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the recommended project. The Board finds that this alternative is less desirable than the proposed project and rejects the alternative for the following reasons: I. The Alternative I would require the displacement and demolition of two single family residences, thus this Alternative fails to meet a project objective to avoid displacing residences 2. District staff estimates that acquisition of the Alternative I site could take a year or more to negotiate because the District would be required to negotiate with two separate property owners. Due to the uncertainty of eventually acquiring the site and the likelihood of prolonged negotiations, the District's ability to implement this alternative in timely fashion would be jeopardized. As a result, this Alternative would not meet the most basic project objective of having a completed project by 2008. 3. Although this Alternative has a shorter installation than Alternative G and H, this Alternative will also involve open trench construction along Ellis A venue and Bushard Street, resulting in greater impacts to both air quality and traffic over the proposed project. The proposed project involves underground tunneling compared to open trench construction. 4. Unlike the proposed project site, the Alternative I site is within 50-feet or less of a residential tract of homes. Among all the alternatives, this option would be the second closest site to the neighboring properties. Due to the site's proximity, this Alternative would result in greater noise and air quality impacts during project construction over the proposed project. E. ALTERNATIVE SITE J: ELLIS AND BUSHARD, BELOW-GROUND Under this Alternative, the pump station would be located beneath the street on Ellis A venue adjacent to 9465 and 9479 Ellis Avenue approximately 200 feet west of Bushard Street. The site would be entirely within the public right-of-way and would not require purchasing property. The frontage road at the site would be used for construction operations and parking equipment. The frontage road and median would be preserved and restored at the conclusion of construction. After construction, the frontage road would be used for maintenance truck parking. District staff is anticipated to visit the site one or two times a week. Neighboring land uses are residential. Alternative J would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the recommended project. The Board finds that this alternative is less desirable than the proposed project and rejects the alternative for the following reasons: A-31 FINDINGS OF FACT-ATTACHMENT A 1. The Alternative J site would be the only facility constructed in the public right-of-way that would require full road closure of Ellis A venue during a 12-month construction period. Consequently, this Alternative fails to meet the project's objective to minimize disruption to residential and commercial areas during construction over the proposed project. Full closure of Ellis A venue for up to 12 months would be considered a significant impact of this alternative. 2. The Alternative J site would be the only pump station to be constructed underground and within 50-feet of a residential tract of homes. Due to the site's proximity, this Alternative would result in greater noise and air quality impacts during project construction over the proposed project. 3. The Alternative J site would place District personnel at greater safety risk during routine operation and maintenance of the facility. Since Alternative J would be located underground, the pump station would be classified as a confined space. Traffic control, including lane closures and special safety procedures would be require on Ellis A venue to access the site. As a result of this Alternative, the project's objective of meeting safety requirements would not be met by this Alternative and would place District personnel at greater safety risk of injury. 4 The underground drywell and electrical areas of Alternative J would be subject to flooding. Although the facility would be design to be water-tight, any submerged facility would be at greater risk of flooding particularly during stormwater events, when storm drains become plugged and surface water enters the wastewater facility through hatches and manholes in the street, increasing the potential for an electrical shutdown and wastewater spills. Therefore, this Alternative would not meet the project objectives to minimize potential spills and odors. X. ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires a public agency making findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 to adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes to the Plan which it has adopted or made a condition of Plan approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The Board hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Board further finds that said program meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 by ensuring compliance during project implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to these findings as Exhibit C. A-32 ~· FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires that the decision makers balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. (Public Resources Code §2108l(b); 14 Cal. Code Regs §§15043, 15093(a)). As documented in the EIR and explained in the Findings of Fact for the project, the project will potentially result in four significant and unavoidable impacts to the environment as follows: • Air Quality during construction • Traffic during construction • Cumulative Air Quality • Noise during nighttime construction This Board has balanced the Project's benefits against the Project's significant unavoidable impacts on air quality, traffic, and noise during nighttime construction. The Board finds that the Project's benefits outweigh the Project's significant unavoidable impacts, and the impacts are therefore acceptable in light of the Project's benefits. The Board finds that each of the following benefits is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of the project notwithstanding Project's significant and unavoidable impacts: 1. Balance In-flow to Treatment Plants As described in Section 1.3 of the EIR, the purpose of the project is to balance flows between the District's Reclamation Plant No. 1 located in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2 located in Huntington Beach through the diversion of up to 50 mgd of wastewater from the Knott, Magnolia, and Miller-Holder Trunk sewers to Reclamation Plant No. 1. This would provide the necessary balance between the two treatment plants of about 235 mgd each to maximize the treatment capacity of each plant site. 2. Support Implementation ofGWRS Reclamation Plant No. 1 will supply the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) with source water for future reclamation. The Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) conveys wastewater, primarily saline wastewater, from the upper Santa Ana River watershed to the District's treatment system. Because the SARI trunk includes those saline flows and treated effluent from the Stringfellow Superfund site, the California Department of Health Services B-1 FINDINGS OF FACT -ATTACHMENT B (OHS) expressed concerns in early 2002 about acceptance of treated wastewater from SARI as source water for reclamation activities. Based on those OHS concerns, the proposed project was developed to divert SARI trunk flows to Treatment Plant No. 2. This diversion of approximately 50 mgd of wastewater required offsetting diversion of wastewater from the Knott, Magnolia, and Miller-Holder Trunk sewers to Reclamation Plant No. 1. As such, implementing the project will support GWRS while addressing OHS water quality concerns. 3. Support Implementation of Treatment Plant No. 2 Headworks The District is constructing a new headworks facility at Treatment Plant No. 2. During the period needed to connect the new headworks facility, the treatment plant's intake capacity will be reduced by approximately one third for a period of up to 14 months. The connection period is scheduled to occur in 2008. During this period, if in-flows exceed the treatment capacity, effluent discharged to the ocean could exceed permitted water quality thresholds. Implementing the proposed project will provide the necessary relief during the new headworks installation period to avoid potential discharge permit water quality violations. 4. Provide upgraded facilities to meet existing safety, building, and electric codes The existing Ellis Pump Station was last upgraded in the 1970s. The existing pump station is subject to flooding. The existing electrical equipment within the dry-well does not meet current electrical code. The pump station is classified as a confined space requiring special procedures to access. Traffic control within Ellis A venue is required to access the existing pump station. Implementation of the proposed project would upgrade the Ellis Pump Station with new equipment that meets Occupational Safety and Health Agency safety requirements as well as current electrical and building codes. B-2 ATTACHMENT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (ALTERNATIVE A) ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AESTHETICS ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ELLIS AVENUE PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT ALTERNATIVE A Impact 3.1-1: The proposed above ground structure could conflict with the character of the Fountain Valley neighborhood. Measure M-3.1-1: The District shall retain a licensed architect or landscape architect to design the above ground electrical building and related landscaping to be consistent with the overall visual character of the immediate area. Measure M-3.1-3: For Alternative A, the District shall replace the mature landscape trees currently at the fence line with replacement vegetation to obscure views of the Reclamation Plant from Ellis A venue. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE 1. Retain a licensed architect or landscape architect 2. Include mitigation measures in contract specifications 3. Submit plans to the City of Fountain Valley MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Record pre and post-construction conditions for administrative record Maintain record of coordination with the City of Fountain Valley C-1 MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction activities \ - ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact 3.1-2: The project could create a new source ofnight-time light which could adversely affect neighboring land uses. Measure M-3.1-4: All permanent exterior lighting that is installed on the new project site shall be directed downward and oriented to ensure that no permanent light source is directly visible from neighboring residential areas. Motion sensors shall be installed to control the lights when the station is unmanned. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE 1. Design all permanent exterior lighting to prevent direct visibility from neighboring residential areas. 2. Include in contract specifications. 3. Include motion sensors in design to control the lights when the station is unmanned. AIR QUALITY MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with architectural contract specifications. Record compatibility with neighboring residential areas. Monitor post-construction compliance with contract specifications. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction activities. Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project would emit air pollutants. Estimated daily average construction emissions of criteria pollutants would exceed significance thresholds set by the SCAQMD. Measure M-7.5-la in the PEIR: Dust Control. The District shall require the contractors to implement a dust abatement program that would reduce fugitive dust generation to lessen impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The dust abatement program could include the following measures: • Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks having soil, sand, or other loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of free board. C-2 ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM • Apply water as necessary, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers specifications on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas al construction sites. • Sweep daily using SCAQMD Ruic 1186 certified water sweepers and recommend water sweepers using reclaimed water all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily using SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified water sweepers and recommend water sweepers using reclaimed water if visible soil materials is carried onto adjacent streets. Water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders according to manufacturers specifications to exposed soil stockpiles. • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph or less. Measure M-7.5-lb in the PEIR: Exhaust Emissions. Contractors shall maintain all on-and off-road equipment-according to manufacturers specification and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. Such equipment shall not be operated during first or second stage smog alerts. Measure M-3.2-2: The District shall appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PMIO generation. Measure M-3.2-3: The District shall replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Measure M-3.2-4: To avoid tracking dirt onto city streets the District shall conduct one of the following: • Install wheel washers for haul trucks exiting unpaved areas onto paved roads; • Wash off trucks exiting unpaved areas onto paved roads; • Configure site to keep haul trucks on paved areas so that dirt from unpaved areas is not tracked onto city streets. • Provide "knock-off' screens or plates for trucks to drive over when exiting construction sites. C-3 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE l. Include air emissions restrictions and standard operating procedures for construction work in contract specifications. 2. Include dust reduction measures listed in mitigation measures in contract specifications. 3. Conduct oversight of construction activities to ensure scope of work is carried out. \ / ATTACHMENT C -MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of construction oversight for administrative record MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction Measure M-7.5-lc in the PEIR: Truck Emissions Reductions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading or unloading queues shall be kept with their engines off, when not in use, to reduce vehicle emissions. Otherwise, restrict vehicle idling to five minutes or less. Construction activities shall be discontinued during second-stage smog alerts. Measure M-3.2-5: The District shall provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, where necessary to maintain smooth traffic flow. Measure M-3.2-6: The District shall reroute construction trucks away from congested streets, residential areas or schools where practical. Measure M-3.2-7: The District shall provide dedicated tum lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off-site. Measure M-3.2-8: The District shall utilize electric power generation equipment where feasible. C-4 ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE l. Include measures in construction contract specifications 2. Conduct oversight of construction activities to ensure scope of work is carried out. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of site inspection (i.e. truck trips, coverage for administrative record) Impact 3.2-2: Excavation could release naturally occurring objectionable odors. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction Measure M-3.2-1: Excavated soils that emit objectionable odors will be covered while stockpiled on site and will be removed from the construction areas within three to four days of excavation. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE l. Include in construction contract specifications BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Monitor compliance with construction contract OCSD specifications Impact 3.3-1: Implementation of the proposed project could lead to the destruction of bird nests during vegetation removal. MONITORING SCHEDULE During construction Measure M-3.3-1: Prior to construction, at the direction of the District, a qualified biologist shall conduct nest search in all trees slated for removal. If it is determined that active nests exist, tree removal will be conducted outside the nesting season. Nesting season is typically between April and August. C-5 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE I. Include requirements in contract specifications. 2. Retain qualified biologist. CULTURAL RESOURCES \ ATTACHMENT C -MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM l\IO~ITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Maintain record of construction oversight for administrative record. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to construction. Impact 3.4-1: Implementation of the proposed pump station could affect unknown or poorly recorded, potentially significant archaeological resources. Measure M-3.4-1: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (f), "provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction" shall be instituted. Therefore, if cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, large quantities of shell, historic debris, building foundations, or human bone, are inadvertently discovered during any ground disturbing activities, the District shall instruct its contractors to halt construction activity within fifty (50) feet of the find and immediately notify the District about the find. The District shall then retain a qualified archaeologist (per 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61), who must assess the find and develop a mitigation plan that ensures that the resources are removed from the site or otherwise protected on site. The District shall not resume construction activity within fifty (50) of the find until the find is removed or otherwise protected in accordance with the archaeologist's recommendation. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE I. Include requirements in contract specifications. 2. Conduct oversight of construction activities to ensure scope of work is carried out. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Maintain record of construction oversight for administrative record. C-6 MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction. ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact 3.4-2: The proposed project may damage or degrade unidentified paleontological remains. Measure M-3.4-2: In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a fossil during construction, the District shall instruct its contractors to halt construction activity within fifty (50) feet of the find and immediately notify the District about the find. The District shall then retain a qualified paleontologist, who must assess the find and develop a mitigation plan that ensures that the resources are removed from the site or otherwise protected on site. The District shall not resume construction activity within fifty (50) of the find until the find is removed or otherwise protected in accordance with the paleontologist's recommendation. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE I. Include requirements in contract specifications. 2. Conduct oversight of construction activities to ensure scope of work is carried out. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Maintain record of construction oversight for administrative record. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD Impact 3.5-1: The proposed pump station and new sewers could be subjected to expansive soils and settlement. MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction. Measure M-3.5-1: The District shall construct all facilities in a manner that avoids settlement and expansive soils impacts through the use of one or more of the following engineering practices: • remedial earthwork; • structurally reinforcing improvements to withstand anticipated settlements; • removing and replacing expansive soils in the upper three feet; • deepening foundations and providing additional reinforcement, and/or; • moisture conditioning of expansive soils. The District shall implement this mitigation through development of a design-level geotechnical evaluation prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer. C-7 \ ,. ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE 1. Conduct design-level geotechnical evaluations. 2. Include design-level geotechnical evaluations in construction contractor specifications. 3. Require compliance with California Building Code in contract specifications. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of specifications for administrative record. Maintain record of specifications for administrative record. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to construction activities. Prior to construction activities. Impact 3.5-2: Project facilities would be located in areas susceptible to primary and secondary seismic hazards, such as ground shaking, liquefaction, and earthquake-induced settlement. Measure M-3.5-2: The District shall construct all facilities in a manner that reduces or eliminates the risk of seismic hazards, including liquefaction and/or earthquake induced settlement, through compliance with the seismic safety and applicable codes of the 1997 UBC with California additions (Title 24) and through the use of one or more of the following construction and design technique: • remedial earthwork to provide a mat of well-compacted soil beneath structure foundations; • structurally reinforcing improvements to withstand settlements; • in-situ densification of loose liquefiable deposits (may include vibro replacement stone columns, grout injection, and/or soil mixing); • dewatering of surface or subsurface soils; • construction of pile or pier foundations to support pipelines and/or buildings; and/or, • removal of material that could undergo liquefaction in the event of an earthquake and replacement with stable material. The District shall implement this mitigation through development of a design level geotechnical evaluation prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer. C-8 A TT A CHM ENT C -MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE I. Conduct design-level geotechnical evaluations. 2. Include design-level geotechnical evaluations in construction contractor specifications. 3. Require compliance with California Building Code in contract specifications. l\IO~ITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications Maintain record of construction specifications, geotechnical evaluation, soil surveys and construction oversight for administrative record. Impact 3.5-3: Underground utilities could be exposed to potentially corrosive soils. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to approving final design and construction Prior to construction Measure M-3.5-3: To protect underground installations from corrosion and degradation, the District shall select appropriate pipe materials, encapsulate pipes with sleeves, and/or provide cathodic protection to pipes. Type V cement shall be used for concrete construction to protect concrete from degrading due to sulfate attack. This concrete shall have a water-cement ratio of0.45 or less by weight for normal weight aggregate concrete and a 28-day compressive strength of 4,500 pounds per square inch or more IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE 1. Include recommended materials in contractor specification. 2. Conduct oversight of construction activities to ensure scope of work is carried out. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Maintain record of construction oversight for administrative record. C-9 MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction. ( "'· ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING ~RAM Impact 3.5-4: Dewatering during construction of the proposed project or any of the alternatives could create unstable soil conditions, creating risks to proposed and nearby existing structures. Measure M-3.5-4: The District shall conduct any required dewatering in a manner that will protect the stability and integrity of existing and proposed structures through implementation of one or more of the following measures: • photo documentation of existing conditions and floor-level surveys of the adjacent structures; • during construction, monitor the shoring system and adjacent existing improvements for movement; • monitoring systems shall include survey points of reference, tilt meters, strain gauges, and inclinometers; • if possible, installation of monitoring wells outside of the excavation to monitor groundwater levels; and/or, • evaluate existing structures in the vicinity of planned excavations with regard to foundation type and dewatering-induced potential for settlement. The District shall implement this mitigation through development of a pre-construction survey of the surrounding structures. The survey shall provide design criteria for the dewatering system for the site so that one or more of the above engineering methods can be developed. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE I. Include recommended measures in contractor specification. 2. Conduct oversight of construction activities to ensure scope of work is carried out. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Maintain record of construction oversight for administrative record. C-10 MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction. ATTACHMENT C -MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 3.6-1: Contaminated soils and/or groundwater could be encountered during construction. Measure M-3.6-1: Contaminated soils encountered on the project site during excavation activities shall be removed from the project site and disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable regulations. The District will notify the Orange County Health Care Agency actions-local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) of remedial actions. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE l. Include in construction contract specifications 2. Notify Orange County Health Care Agency and other regulatory agencies as necessary MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Contractor's SPCC Plan to be approved by the OCSD District's Safety Division Obtain approval from DTSC and other agencies if necessary. OCSD Impact 3.6-2: Structures to be demolished may contain lead paint and/or asbestos containing materials. MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction. Measure M-3.6-2: Structures to be demolished or removed will be investigated for the presence of lead paint or asbestos containing material and proper precautions will be taken for safe removal and disposal of these materials in compliance with applicable hazardous material abatement and disposal regulations prior to demolition activities. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE 1. Include in construction contract specifications MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Compliance with asbestos and lead paint removal plans. Monitor removals and maintain administrative record. C-11 MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to demolition. ( ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING ~RAM Impact 3.6-3: Improperly abandoned oil wells may exist within the exca\'ation alignments. Measure M-7.8-3e In lhe PEIR: ldtnllf~· Abandoned 011 Wtlls. Prior to construction, the District shall identify existing and abandoned oil production wells within the project area using the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), District I well location maps. Access to identified non-abandoned oil wells will be maintained. Previously abandoned wells identified beneath proposed structures or utility corridors may need to be plugged to current DOGGR specifications including adequate gas venting systems. Measure M-7 .8-3f in the PEIR: Abandon Wells. Should construction activities uncover previously unidentified oil production wells, the DOGGR will be notified, and the well will be abandoned following DOGGR specifications for well abandonment. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE 1. Include in construction contract specifications Monitor compliance with approved construction contract specifications. OCSD Prior to and during construction. HYDROLOGY Impact 3.7-1: Construction activities could result in erosion and discharge of pollutants in surface runoff that could adversely affect receiving water quality. Measure M-3.7-1: Comply with the State General Construction Permit and include the following sample of measures as specific actions to mitigate water quality impacts during the construction phase of the project: • Using structural controls such as sand bags or hay bales, retain sediment disturbed on-site to the maximum extent practicable. • Stabilize slopes of stockpiled soil to eliminate or reduce sediment dispersal from the construction site to surrounding areas and surface waters. • Contain at the construction site runoff from equipment and vehicle washing unless it is first treated on-site to reduce or remove sediment and other pollutants. • Store all reserve fuel supplies only within the confines of a designated construction staging area. • Refuel equipment only within designated construction staging area. • Regularly inspect all construction vehicles for leaks. C-12 ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Measure M-7.7-la in the PEIR: Contractor BMPs. Construction contractors will implement Best Management Practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation to avoid significant adverse impacts to surface water quality. Measure M-7.7-lfin the PEIR: Spill Containment. The District shall incorporate into contract specifications the requirement that the construction staging areas be designed to contain contaminants such as oil, grease, and fuel products so that they do not drain towards receiving waters or storm drain inlets. If heavy-duty construction equipment is stored overnight, drip pans will be placed beneath the machinery engine block and hydraulic systems. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE l. Include in construction contract specifications. 2. Periodically inspect construction sites. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain compliance with SWPPP for administrative record. Maintain record of site inspections for administrative record. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD Impact 3.7-4: Construction within Ellis Avenue could affect the existing network of injection wells. MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction. Measure M-3.7-2: Prior to construction, the District shall coordinate with the Orange County Water District to locate existing injection wells along Ellis A venue to discuss dewatering methods necessary to avoid affects to the intrusion barrier. These methods may include shoring excavations to minimize dewatering requirements. Measure M-3.7-3: The District shall ensure that underground construction activities (tunneling, excavation, and trenching) avoid the existing wells with enough buffer (not to be less than 10 feet) to ensure that the integrity of well casings is not compromised. This buffer distance shall be confirmed by the Orange County Water District. C-13 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE l. Coordinate with OCWD. 2. Include in contractor specifications. 3. Periodically inspect construction sites. NOISE ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING ~RAM MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of communication with OCWD. Maintain record of site inspections. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction. Impact 3.9-1: Construction of the proposed project would generate noise that could create nuisance conditions at nearby land uses. Measure M-3.9-1: All equipment used during construction shall be muffled and maintained in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine driven equipment should be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE 1. Include in construction specifications 2. Provide construction oversight to ensure scope of work is carried out. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Maintain record of construction oversight for administrative record MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction Impact 3.9-2: Nighttime construction may be used on Ellis Avenue to minimize impacts to traffic during peak hours. Noise generated from nighttime construction could exceed standards and cause nuisance conditions in neighboring residential areas. Measure M-3.9-2: Noise reduction measures such as the use of sound blankets or temporary sound wa11s sha11 be employed to reduce noise generation from stationary noise generating equipment during nighttime construction activities. C-14 ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Measure M-3.9-3: Stationary noise generating equipment such as generators shall be placed within the jacking pits where possible to reduce noise during nighttime construction. Measure M-3.9-4: No pile driving or sheet driving shall be conducted during nighttime construction. Measure M-3.9-5: Noise-generating nighttime construction activities shall be limited to excavation and drilling activities within Ellis Avenue between 1-405 and Ward Street. Measure M-3.9-6: If nighttime construction is conducted, noise monitoring at the closest sensitive receptors shall be conducted. Reports of noise monitoring shall be submitted to the City of Fountain Valley. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MONITORING SCHEDULE 1. Include measures in construction specifications Maintain record of construction oversight for administrative record OCSD Prior to and during construction 2. Provide construction oversight to ensure scope of work is carried out. TRAFFIC Impact 3.10-1: Construction of several project components would require lane closures and road closures that could worsen LOS along local roadways. Measure M-3.10-1: Where construction equipment must import/export materials to/from any sites of project components, trips shall be limited to non-peak traffic hours (i.e. trips shall not be made between 7 A.M. - 9 A.M. and 4 P.M. - 6 P.M.). Measure M-3.10-2: Where lane closures are necessary for project implementation, all construction equipment shall be staged within the closed lanes or in staging areas out of city streets. For construction of the pump station, all construction equipment shall be staged within the proposed project site and not on adjacent roadways. Measure M-3.10-3: Where lane closures are necessary for project implementation, adequate signage shall be provided informing local residents and business-owners of construction activities prior to commencement of construction activities. Measure M-3.10-4: Where lane closures are necessary for project implementation, cones and/or traffic guards shall be employed to clearly indicate the locations and directions of temporarily altered traffic lanes. C-15 .. A TT AC HM ENT C -MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING I>,,_ .,RAM Measure M-3.10-5: Signage shall be posted informing motorists of road closures along Bushard Street and delineating suitable detours both prior to and during the duration of construction activities. Measure M-7.1-la in the PEIR: Construction Hours. The District will comply with local ordinances and restrict construction activities to daylight hours or as specified in encroachment permits. Measure M-7.1-lb in the PEIR: Construction Notification. The District shall post notices or provide notification of construction activities to adjacent property owners (including homeowners and adjacent businesses) at least 72 hours in advance of construction and provide a contact name and 24-hour phone number of a District staff person to be contacted regarding questions or concerns about construction activity. Measure M-7.2-la in the PEIR: Traffic Control Plans. Traffic control plans will be prepared by a qualified professional engineer, prior to the construction phase of each sewer line project as implementation proceeds. Measure M-7.2-lb in the PEIR: Alternative Routes. Traffic control plans will consider the ability of alternative routes to carry additional traffic and identify the least disruptive hours of construction site truck access routes, and the type and location of warning signs, lights and other traffic control devices. Consideration will be given to maintaining access to commercial parking lots, private driveways and sidewalks, bikeways and equestrian trails, to the greatest extent feasible. Measure M-7.2-lc in the PEIR: Encroachment Permits. Encroachment permits for all work within public rights-of-way will be obtained from each involved agency prior to commencement of any construction. Agencies involved include Caltrans, the Orange County Planning and Development Services (PDS) (Development Services Section) [County Resources and Development Management Department (RDMD)] and the various cities where work will occur. The District will comply with traffic control requirements, as identified by Caltrans and the affected local jurisdictions. Measure M-7.2-ld in the PEIR: Traffic Control Plans. Traffic control plans will comply with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and/or the Manual of Traffic Controls as determined by each affected local agency, to minimize any traffic and pedestrian hazards that exist during project construction. Measure M-7.2-le in the PEIR: Traffic Disruption Avoidance. The construction technique for the implementation of the proposed sewer lines, such as tunneling, cut and cover with partial street closure, or cut and cover with full street closure, shall include consideration of the ability of the roadway system, both the street in question and alternate routes, to carry existing traffic volumes during project construction. As required by local jurisdictions, trunk sewers will be jacked under select major intersections, to avoid traffic disruption and congestion. Measure M-7.2-lf in the PEIR: Street Closure. Public streets will generally be kept operational during construction, particularly in the morning and evening peak hours of traffic. Lane closures will be minimized during peak traffic hours. Measure M-7.2-lg in the PEIR: Roadway Restoration. Public roadways will be restored to a condition mutually agreed to between the District and local jurisdictions prior to construction. Measure M-7.2-lh in the PEIR: Sewer Construction Coordination. The District will attempt to schedule construction of relief facilities to occur jointly with other public works projects already planned in the affected locations, through careful coordination with all local agencies involved. C-16 ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Measure M-7.2-li in the PEIR: Emergency Services. Emergency service purveyors will be contacted and consulted to preclude the creation of unnecessary traffic bottlenecks that will seriously impede response times. Additionally, measures to provide an adequate level of access to private properties shall be maintained to allow delivery of emergency services. Measure M-7.2-lj in the PEIR: Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Coordination. OCTA will be contacted when construction affects roadways that are part of the OCT A bus network. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE l. Retain qualified engineer to prepare Traffic Control Plan. 2. Provide Traffic Control Plan for local city review and Caltrans review. 3. Include measures in contractor specifications. 4. Provide construction oversight. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Ensure that construction vehicle traffic complies with Traffic Control Plan. Provide record of construction oversight. Impact 3.10-3: Lane and road closures could impede emergency service providers' access. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction Measure M-7.1-lc in the PEIR: Emergency Services Access. The District shall coordinate with officials of adjacent fire stations, the Police Department, and the Fountain Valley Regional Hospital to ensure that 24-hour emergency access is available. C-17 ATTACHMENT C-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING Pkv~RAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE I. Include in contractor specifications. 2. Conduct oversight of construction activities to ensure scope of work is carried out. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Maintain record of construction oversight for administrative record, including post construction inspections. Impact 3.10-5: Construction would require detours to bike lanes. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction. Measure M-7.2-11 in the PEIR: Trails and Bikeways. Short term construction impacts and closures to locally designated trails and bikeways, as found in the County's Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails (RRHT) and Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP), shall be mitigated with detours, signage, flagmen and reconstruction as appropriate. Long term impacts such as permanent trail link closures should be mitigated with provisions for new rights-of-way for trails and/or bikeways and reconstruction. IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE I. Include requirements in contract specifications. 2. Conduct oversight of construction activities to ensure scope of work is carried out. MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIONS Monitor compliance with construction contract specifications. Maintain record of construction oversight for administrative record. C-18 MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY OCSD MONITORING SCHEDULE Prior to and during construction.