HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCSD 06-06RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 06-06
CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM TO THE DISTRICT 14 EIR AND
AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX
CERTAIN TERRITORY TO ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. OCSD-56 -IRVINE RANCH
WATER DISTRICT ID-253)
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ORANGE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM TO
THE DISTRICT 14 EIR AND AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF
PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX TO THE DISTRICT THE TERRITORY
KNOWN AS ANNEXATION NO. OCSD-56-IRVINE RANCH WATER
DISTRICT ID-253
The Board of Directors of Orange County Sanitation District,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1. That this proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local
Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of
the California Government Code; and,
Section 2. That this proposal is for the purpose of annexing approximately
13,500 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Irvine Lake, Santiago Canyon
Road and extends east to the Orange County/Riverside County boundary in an
unincorporated area of Orange County ("ID 253 Annexation Area") to provide sanitary
sewer service to said territory, as requested by the Irvine Ranch Water District, which
said service is not now provided. The boundaries the ID 253 Annexation Area are more
particularly described and delineated on Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated
by reference herein; and,
Section 3. That ID 253 Annexation Area is uninhabited; and,
Section 4. That proposed Annexation No. OCSD-56 is a "project" subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and,
Section 6. That the Irvine Ranch Water District, as lead agency for Annexation
No. OCSD-56, prepared and approved and Addendum, dated March 2006, to the Final
Environmental impact Report (EIR) for Formation of County District No. 14 and
Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of County Sanitation Districts
1
Nos. 7 and 13 ("District 14 EIR"), dated July 1985 pursuant to Resolution No. 2006-4,
dated March 27, 2006; and.
Section 7. That the District is a "responsible agency'' for the Annexation No.
OCSD-56 and complies with CEQA by considering the environmental document
prepared by the lead agency and reaching its own conclusions on whether and how to
approve Annexation No. OCSD-56. and,
Section 8. That the District has determined that:
(a) The annexation of the ID 253 Annexation Area to OCSD completes an action
envisioned by the previously implemented project that consisted of the formation of
County Sanitation District No. 14 (now District Revenue Area 14) (the "District 14
Project"). The action envisioned was ultimately extending sanitary sewer service into
the ID 253 Annexation Area.
(b) The District 14 EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the District 14
Project and the ultimate extension of sanitary sewer service into a sphere of influence
adjacent to District 14. The District 14 EIR identified the sphere of influence area as
Santiago County Water District's Improvement District No. 1, which is identified in this
Resolution as the ID 253 Annexation Area;
(c) Based on the Addendum, land use changes since the implementation of the
original District 14 Project have resulted in a substantial reduction in the wastewater
flows that the District 14 EIR estimated would be generated within District No. 14 and
the sphere of influence area, which included the ID 253 Annexation Area;
(e) Due to the reduction in wastewater flows, the Addendum concluded that none
of the conditions requiring the preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. There
are no new significant environmental effects that weren't already addressed in the
District 14 EIR and no substantial increases in the severity of previously identified
significant effects that require preparation of a Subsequent EIR. In addition, no "new
information of substantial importance" meeting the criteria of CEQA Guidelines section
15162 (a) (3) has surfaced that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR; and,
Section 9. The Board has considered the Addendum with the District 14 EIR
prior to making a decision on initiating the proposed Annexation No. OCSD-56
proceedings; and,
2
Section 10. That proceedings are hereby authorized to be initiated by Orange
County Sanitation District, and the Orange County Local Agency Formation
Commission is hereby requested to take proceedings for the annexation of territory
designated as "Annexation NO. OCSD-56-Irvine Ranch Water District ID-253"
according to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth in this Resolution in the
manner provided by the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985;
and,
Section 11. That proposed Annexation No. OCSD-56 shall not be subject to
annexation fees. Annexation fees are not applicable to Revenue Area 14 in accordance
with Ordinance No. OCSD-21; and,
Section 12. That the District hereby agrees to waive, pursuant to Revenue and
Taxation Code section 99.1, its ad valorem property tax allocation exchange with other
affected taxing agencies.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held April 26, 2006.
ATTEST:
Penny M. yle
Board Secretary
3
\,,; ' ... I·~ I
' \ ' ' ' ' /,'
":""·, , , I.(
~ 0 .' ·~; ' .. " . -~~~~ .. ~-
Chair . .,, ., .. . -~·, /"
v
' '( ,, ,,--,,/ )"· ..
'(I .. J. ".
( ' . ' .. ;J,j :::.'l''
10 .. 1 (10·253) Annexation No. DA 08..09 Q exH1a11 "A" !IE ~ ~ n w IE ~
to the Orange County Sanitation District OCS JUN 2 3 2006
LOCM. AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSK>H
1 All those certain lands located In the City of Orange and in the Unincorporated T Ell'itory
2 of the County of Orange, State of California, being a portion of Irvine's Subdivision per
3 map filed in Book 1, Page 88 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County
4 Recorder of said County, also being a portion of Rancho Lomas de Santiago recorded
s in Book 1, Pages 405 and 406 of Patents, Records of Los Angeles County, Callfomia
6 recorded on September 15, 1874, comprised of the Santiago County Water District,
7 Improvement District No. 1, in It's entirety, more partlcular1y described as follows:
8 Beginning at an angle point In the existing boundary of the Orange County Sanitation
9 District. as established by Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14, said point
10 being a PQJnt of intersection with the existing boundary of the Santiago County Water
" \ -\ •·' . '" ') r
11 ,O}stricf per -~~1'9cex:at1on No. 1 •;
') ... ,..':-, '. -· .,~ __ , ..... _,~,y-' .. _
12 -THENCE. NopJl;:4~~11 '41" West, 10,559.15 feet along said existing Santiago County
' . -
13 · Wate~Oistrlct;~~-dary and said Sanitation District No. 14;
14 ·' THENcei1ea~~9-said District No. 14 and continuing along said boundary of Annexation
1s ~~: .. 1~,·Nortll'.40·"8·19· East 21,464.32 feet;
16 THENCE leaving said boundary, and followlng along Improvement District No. 1, the
17 following courses: South 02·53·26" East 22,743.51 feet;
18 THENCE South aa·oo'19" West 2. 731.96 feet;
19 THENCE South 00"09'46" West 2,540.00 feet;
20 THENCE South 89"51 '40"East 2,801.00 feet;
21 THENCE South 17·47•oa· East 7,402.53 feet;
22 THENCE North s9·57•45• East 52.80 feet;
23 THENCE South 11·39•43" East 3,391.38 feet to the intersection with the centerfine of
24 Silverado Canyon Road as described In Bk. 562 Pg. 231 of Official Records, said point
Page 1of10
EXHIBIT "A"
10·1 (10·253) Annexation No. DA 08-09
to th• Orange County Sanitation District OCSD·58
1 being on a curve concave southeasterty and having a Radius of 400.00 feet , a radial
2 line through said point being South 06.33'11" West
3 THENCE along the centerline of Sllverado Canyon Road the following courses:
4 210.17 feet along said curve through a central angle of 30·05•19• to a line tangent
s THENCE South 53•20130'West 482.90 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
6 northwesterly and having a Radius of .500.00 feet; said point being hereby known as
7 "POINT "A"•
8 THENCE 13.01 feet along said curve through a central angle of 01 ·29'26" to a point;
9 THENCE leaving said centertine, South 32"29'01· East 134.65 feet;
10 THENCE South 69.21 '55" East 191.24 feet:
11 THENCE North 65"55'36" East 494. 79 feet;
12 THENCE South 17•39•43• East 3,824.35 feet;
13 THENCE South 39•4a•29• West 572.59 feet:
14 THENCE South 18.41'32" East 6,599.40 feet:
IS THENCE South 42·59•32• West 3, 149. 76 feet to a point on the existing boundary of the
16 Orange County Sanitation District, as established by Fonnation of County Sanitation
17 District No. 14;
18 THENCE In general northerty. northwesterty. northeasterly, southeasterly,
19 southwesterly, northeasterly, southeasterly, northwesterty and northeastet1y directions
20 along said existing boundary to the POINT OF BEGINNING ..
21
22 The above-described parcel of land contains 13,515.18 net acres, more or less.
23
24
25
Page2of10
I
2
EXHIBIT "A''
ID-1 (ID-253) Annexation No. DA 06-09
to the Orange County Sanitation District OCS0-58
3 EXCEPT THEREFROM those certain Parcels of land described as follows:
4
S EXCEPTION 1
6
7 A Deed to the United States of America recorded February 23, 1951 in Book 2149,
8 Page 124 of Official Records, more particularly described as follows:
9
to COMMENCING at the above referenced POINT "A" and continuing along said
11 centerline 402. 73 feet along said curve, concave northwesterly and having a Radius of
12 500.00 feet, through a central angle of 46·09·00· to a line tangent. said point being
13 hereby known as POINT "B";
14 THENCE leaving said centerline, radial to said curve, South 09·29•30• West 30.00 feet
is to the beginning of a curve concave northwester1y and having a Radius of 530.00 feet,
16 said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
17 THENCE southeaster1y 35.02 feet along said curve, through a central angle of
18 03·4709•;
19 THENCE South 09·29·30• West 413.15 feet;
20 THENCE North eo·31 ·30" West 435.00 feet;
21 THENCE North 09·29•30· East 412.12 feet:
22 THENCE South so·30'30" East 400.01 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
23
24 The above-described parcel of land contains 4.11 net acres, more or less.
25
Pagel of JO
EXHIBIT "A"
10·1 (ID-253) Annexation No. DA 08-09
to the Orange County Sanitation District OCSD-58
1 EXCEPTION 2
2
3 A Grant Deed to Santiago County Water District recorded May 6, 1964 in Book 7032,
4 Page 927 of Official Records, more partlcularty described as follows:
s
6 COMMENCING at the above referenced POINT "8" and continuing along said
7 centerilne North 80°30'30• West 592.41 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
8 northeasterty and having a radius of 500.00 feet:
9 THENCE 204.68 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 23·21·15• to a line
10 tangent:
11 THENCE North 57"03'15• West 320.03 feet to the beginning of a cutve, concave
12 southwesterty and having a radius of 500.00 feet:
13 THENCE 145.59 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 16"41'00• to a line
14 tangent;
15 THENCE North 73·44·15• West 284.21 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
16 northeaster1y and having a radius of 500.00 feet;
17 THENCE 243.62 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 27"55'00" to a line
18 tangent;
19 THENCE North 45•49•15· West 66.82 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
20 soutflwesterty and having a radius of 500.00 feet;
21 THENCE 253.36 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 29·02·00· to a line
22 tangent;
23 THENCE North 74·51·15· West 57.90 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
24 northeasterty and having a radius of 500.00 feet;
Page4of10
EXHIBIT "A''
10·1 (ID-253) Annexation No. DA 08-09
to the Orange County Sanitation District OCSD-58
t THENCE 236.64 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 27"07'00" to a lhe
2 tangent;
3 THENCE North 47"44'15" West 274.61 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
4 southwesterly and having a radius of 1000.00 feet;
s THENCE 216.36 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 12"23'45" to a line
6 tangent;
7 THENCE North 60"08'00"West 37.90 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
8 northeasterly and having a radius of 1000.00 feet;
9 THENCE 172.79 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 09·54·00· to a line
10 tangent:
11 THENCE North 50"14'00" West 93.17 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
12 southwesterly and having a radius of 1000.00 feet;
13 THENCE 246.39 feet along said curve. through a central angle of 14·01·00· to a line
14 tangent;
15 THENCE North 64"21'00• West 254.02 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
16 northeasterty and having a radius of 400.00 feet;
17 THENCE 180.87 feet along said curve. through a central angle of 25"54'30" to a line
18 tangent;
19 THENCE North 38"26'30• West 134.37 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
20 southwesterly and having a radius of 500.00 feet, said point being hereby known as
21 POINT uc" ;
22 THENCE 117.18 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 13·25·39• to the
23 TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
24 THENCE leaving said centerline, radial to said curve, South 38"07'51. West 30.00 feet:
2S THENCE South 20·25•55u West 294.34 feet;
Page S of 10
EXHIBIT "A"
ID·1 (10·253) Annexation No. DA 06.09
to the Orange County Sanitation District OCSD-56 ..
1 THENCE South 2s·19·00· West 50.00 feet to a point on a curve, concave
2 southwesterty, a radius of 1200.00 feet and having a radial bearing of South 2s·19·00·
3 West;
4 THENCE northwesterty 387.84 feet along said curve, through a central angle of
s 18"31 '05" to a point;
6 THENCE North 07"47'55. East 50.00 feet.
7 THENCE North 20·27·51" East 370.68 feet to said centerline;
8 THENCE South ee·2a·30• East 259.35 feet along said centerline, to the beginning of a
9 curve, concave southwesterty and having a radius of 500.00 feet ;
10 THENCE Southeasterty 153.64 feet along said curve, through a central angle of
11 1?936'21" to THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
12
13 The above-described parcel of land contains 3.62 net acres, more or less.
14
IS
16 EXCEPJION 3
17
18 A Grant Deed to Frederick E. Mielke et aux •• recorded June 29, 1976 in Book 11791,
19 Page 147 of Official Records, more particularty described as follows:
20
21 COMMENCING at the above referenced POINT ucn and continuing along said
22 centerttne, 270.82 feet along said curve, concave southwester1y, having a radius of
23 500.00 feet, through a central angle of 31 ·02·00• to a line tangent;
24 THENCE North e9·2s·30· West 289.35 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
2S southeasterly and having a radius of 300.00 feet;
Page 6of 10
EXHIBIT "A"
10·1 (ID·253) Annexation No. DA 08..09
to the Orange County Sanitation District OCSD-58
1 THENCE 283.01 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 54·03'00" to a Ji"le
2 tangent;
3 THENCE South 55·2s•30• West 550.58 feet to a point common to the centerline d
4 Sllverado Canyon Road as described in the abovementioned 0.R. 5621231 and the
s centerline of Santiago Canyon Road as described In Bk. 507 Pg. 343 and Bk. 561 Pg.
6 267, both of Official Records;
7 THENCE leaving said centerline of Silverado canyon Road and following along the
8 centerline of Santiago Canyon Road the following oourses;
9 North 56928'30" East 534.08 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave southwesterly
10 and having a radius of 150.00 feet;
11 THENCE 253.95 feet along said curve, through a central angle of eroo·oo· to a line
12 tangent;
13 THENCE South 25•31•30• East 142.64 feet to the beginning of a curve. concave
14 southeasterty and having a radius of 500.00 feet;
ts THENCE 193.15 feet along safd curve, through a central angle of 22·oa·oo· to a line
16 tangent
17 THENCE South 45•39•30• East 384.20 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
18 southwesterly and having a radius of 1000.00 feet;
19 THENCE 335.98 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 19·1s'OO" to a line
20 tangent:
21 THENCE South 29·24·30" East 452.51 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
22 southwesterly and having a radius of 1000.00 feet;
23 THENCE 340.78 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 19"31'30" to a line
24 tangent, safd point being hereby known as POINT "D" and the TRUE POINT OF
25 BEGINNING;
Page 7of10
EXHIBIT "A"
10·1 (ID-253) Annexation No. DA 08-09
to the Orange County Sanitation District OCSD-58
1 THENCE continuing along said centerline, South 09·53·00· East 533.98 feet;
2 THENCE leaving said centertine South ao·o1·00· West 30.00 feet;
3 THENCE South 03·37•23• East 145.30 feet;
4 THENCE South 05·55•11· East 57.89 feet:
s THENCE South 16°21·11· East 24.40 feet;
6 THENCE South 75·1e·o9•west 215.12 feet;
7 THENCE North 09·53•33• West 854.35 feet:
8 THENCE North 74"15'35• East 257.71 feet to a point on the aforementioned curve of
9 said center1ine, having a radius of 1000.00 feet;
10 THENCE 102.24 feet southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of
11 05"51 '28• to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
12
13 The above-described parcel of land contains 4.91 net acres, more or less.
14
15 EXCEPTION 4
16
17 Parcel No. 1 in a Grant Deed to Orange Unified School District recorded September7,
18 1958 In Book 3636, Page 329 of Official Records, more partlcufarty described as
19 follows:
20
21 COMMENCING at the above referenced POINT "D" and continuing 45.00 feet
22 northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 02"34'42" to a point;
23 THENCE leaving said centerline North ao·o1·00· East 386.17 feet;
24 THENCE South 31"57'15• East 367.42 feet;
2S THENCE South 01 "05'45" West 635.38 feet:
Page 8of10
EXHIBIT "A"
ID·1 (ID-253) Annexation No. DA 06-09
to the Orange County Sanitation District OCSD-56
1 THENCE South 15·55•49• West 273.83 feet to a point on a curve concave northeasterly
2 and having a radius of 600.00 feet, a radial line to said point being North 26" 52' 42•
3 East;
4 THENCE 142.47 feet northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of
s 13•3e·1a· to a line tangent.
6 THENCE North 49• 31'oo· West 149.31 feet to the beginning of a curve, concave
7 northeasterly and having a radius of 350.00 feet;
8 THENCE 242.11 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 39·35·00· to a line
9 tangent, said point being on said centerline of Santiago Canyon Road;
10 THENCE along said centerline, North 09·53•00• West 727 .45 feet to THE TRUE POINT
11 OF BEGINNING:
12
13 The above-described parcel of land contains 11.08 net acres, more or less.
14
IS
16 Unless otherwise noted, aH distances are ground and are based upon the C81ifomia
17 Coordinate System (CCS 83), Zone VI, 1983 NAO (1991.35 EPOCH OCS GPS
18 Adjustment). To obtain grid distances, muHiply the ground distances by 0.99991968.
19
20 The above-described parcel of land contains 13.491.46 net acres, more or less.
21
22
23 All as shown on Exhibtt ·e· attached hereto and by this reference, made a part thereof.
24
25
Page 9of10
EXHIBIT "A"
ID-1 (10·253) Annexation No. DA 08-09
to the Orange County Sanitation District OCSD-58
1 This document was prepared by me or
2 under my direction and supervision.
3
4
s
6
Dated th~ day of ~\LWL
7 Wanda Bale L.S. 7695
8 My license expires 12-31-06
9
• 2006
-
1 o This document does meet the approval of
11 the Orange County Surveyor's Office
12
Raymond L. M~he, County Surveyor 13
14
lS
"""~ " . Dated this '1:i. day of ->""~ 2006
16
17 Ra
18 LS. 6185, My license expires 3-31-08
Page 10of10
EXHIBIT "B"
ID-I (ID-253) ANNEXATION No. DA 06-09
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OCSD-56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGENQ I 4000'
I --------
-ANNEXATION BCl\JNOARY I GRAPMJC SCA(
I ''''' ) &f~'''~ Zl='-~NfV SAMITATllJN
1"•4000'
• 1~D\ifcTY,~ cfR~~~Mr~r~1fil.~~~·LED
'"-HS QTICllWISE NOTED. AU. BEMlllOS MO OISUHCU ON
r111s """ llC CllOIH) MID Mr BASED UPON 1'HE CAIFllAHIA COOllOINAfl STSTIU ICCSUI, ZDlll[ 111. 1983 HAD 1111111.3$ £PllCI'\
OC! GPS llDJUSh1U1T1.
fO-CllTADI Glllb DISTMCt.MULTIPl.T GIQINQ DIST.INC£
: llT 0.91111111116 I
· nnS .. PMCEL OF LMD CDN'JAINI I
\3491.411 ACMS
N'N· 1oa·3'1-l2 I
I
I f StGT
I I I L ----1-----+---
I I
I
I
I
N70"11'art
41$4.31" GPI Tll
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----h
II
II
II
11
11
II
11
II -----1
I
I
"'' l I I
I
I
susyeyoa:s SIAIEMfiNI
I I
RANCHO LOMAS de SANTI.AGO
fHIS ~ •.U PREPMCD llY II[ DR UIUlt llT Dlll(CflllN.
~Slq
WNIOA uu:.1..s. 111H
1111' LICCH$£ £XP111£5 12/ll/Di
CQUNJl SURYEYOR'S §IATEMEN't
THIS PRDP05AL oms ""' nc N'PllOllAL ,, ,,. ORNGl CCUITT SIAW[YDRS llFfl~
DAf[D THIS --:i.\ DAV Dr tt.. 20Ge.
- - -~ ·:.:::: .. 1-- ---- - -
EXHIBIT "B" SHUT 2 OF 12
ID-1 -(ID-253) ANNEXATION DA 06-09
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OCSD-56
2000' o· 1000· 2000· --------
GRAPHIC SCALE
1"•2000'
< I
,,,,,,
Corporotion Cron/ OetJd
Recorded Fe/J. 25, 1971,
Book 9SS4,Page JOI
IRVINEUKE
.._llOl/on ,._ I To T'-
S..'*1fo c~ Wot• a.Irk•
UNINCORPORAT~
TER!llTORY
DATA PER ADJOIHJNG ANNEXATION
ANNEXATION 60\JNDARY
EXISTING ORANGE CDWITY S"""ITATIDN
DISTRICT llQUllDARY
·-------------,
i
~
SU SHUT I
FClll OttAIL C:
?-l•'•7"E
1.246.lO'
"'-llfllitltt No. I To nt.
5'1tlliof0 C#t/11,, tlotw "*"ct l
•
EXHIBIT "B"
ID-1·(10-253) ANNEXATION DA 06·09
MET' l IF 12
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OCSD-56
UNINCORPORATED
TERR.ffORY
SEE !NET 2
1200' o• eoo· 1200· --------
I
I
I
\
\
\
GRAPHIC SCALE
1"•1200'
~<9---........... ,
' \
',, DETAIL r ~~
........... .,,,.,,..
RANCHO LOMAS de SANTIAGO
Sl'E SICIT I '1111 INDEX _,.
I I 041" PCR AOJOINING #INEllATIQN
-AN<IEXATION BOUNDARY ,,,,,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ------
........ _____ .,,,,.
crr_.n •
\
\
\
I
I
I
...
SO: Sta:T I nit DllEX IMP
!EGENQ
I I OATA P£R ~HING ~XATH»I
-·ANNEXATION ~y ,,,,,,
[l(ISTIMC ClRNtCIE COUNTY SMllAttDN
DISTRICT BIUIDMY
A
1200· o· 600" 1200' - -------
~IC SCll.C
1''•1200'
EXHIBIT "B"
ID· I (10·253) ANNEXATION DA 06-09
TO THE ORANGE COUNIY SANITATION DISTRICT OCS0.56
UNINCVRPORATED
TER.Rl7VRY
RANCHO LOMAS de SANTIAGO
l .
I. :.·
.\
'\ •· \
St€£T 4 OF 12
'.;
\
lfSJENQ
I I DATA P£R ADJOINIHC N!OEXATJON
ANNEXATIDH 80\Mll)MY ,,,,,,
EXISTING DRANGC COUNTY SMllATIDN DISTR CT IWNDMY
1200" o· 600' 1200" --------
GfUPHIC SC.Ill[
1~-1200·
EXHIBIT "B"
ID-I (ID-253) ANNEXATION DA 06-09
TO THE ORANGE. COUNIY SANITATION DISTRICT OCSD-56
lllDo
' IA
2
3 • s
UNINaJRPORATED
TERRrrORY
<TIO~, ... '"' 11£AAlllO DISTANCE NO:s·u·oo-• sos.oo
540"07 36-• 34,49·
549•20·00-. 1256.9%"
NIU"46 00-W 451.5)"
NOJ• !Kl. IIJ -~ 745.50·
NS&•sz·oo•w 1628.0Q"
RANCHO WMAS dt! SANTJAGO
SHE£t s or 12
·...... ~·"'' ' ... '' ··~ ...... 1
l71YOF
ORAN(,"£
-~1:25:34
EXHIBIT "B"
ID-I {ID-253) ANNEXATION DA 06-09
TO THE ORANGE COUNIY SANITATION DISTRICT OCSD-56
Corporation Cront Oeed
Recorded Feb. 25. 1971,
Boolt 9554, Page JOI
I
1200· O' 800' 1200· --------
GRN'HIC SClll.£
1"•1200'
I /RV/NE LAKE
-----L--------1 I
I
I
I I
UNINCORPORATED
TERRITORY
sa: llUT • I
... DETAIL c I
. •. RANCHO LOMAS de SANTIAGO :
-~\. I
'\~~· I
SU SIGT I FOii Da:I IUP .. ~, I
I ~~-. I
LEGENP
I l -,,,,,,
DAJA f"£R M>.IOINING NN:XATlON
MICXATJ(»f IOINDllRY
~f~UI~ ~(kJNTT SANIT~TION
'~· '--------~~;.~·-==-.----------___ .J
...... ~ .. ~ ..
::-..
~-~ ..... "'!~ ...... ·.,
' .,
EXHIBIT "B" MET 1 OF' IJ
ID-1 (ID-253) ANNEXATION DA 06-09
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OCSD-56
Corporolion Cron/ OeefJ
Recorded Feb. 25. 1971.
Book 9554. Poge JOI
DETAIL B
JRVINELAKE
UNINCORPORATED
TERRITORY
RANCHO LOMAS de SANTIAGO
·-------
400' 0' 200' 400' - -------
GRAPHIC SCALE
1"•400'
SU SHll:T I 'Dll ll'Clll WP
Sit SHIET 11 'Dll CO&ll'll U81.1
!EGENO
( I -'>>'>>
DATA PER ADJOININC NINEXATION
ANNEXATIDN BOUNDARY
EXISTING OllANGE CQUHTY SANJT.-.TION
DISTRICT BOUNONIY
G ...
i
!ii
..
'
Corporoll()ll Grant Deed
Recorded Feb. 2:J. 1911.
Book 9554, Poge 301
IRVINl:.·ut.KE
400' o· 200' 400· --------
CIUPHIC SCAI.£
1"-400'
EXHIBIT "B"
ID-I (ID-253) ANNEXATION DA 06-09
TO THE ORANGE COUN1Y SANITATION DISTRICT OCSD-56
,,,,. ... ---...... ,
/ ......
/ ' / '
OETAILC
UNINCORPORATED
TERRITORY
/ ' .,.-.--..-.
SEE DETAIL Cl \
. \"
\"·.
\\.·.
9,..\.
\
\
\
. \'
~\ ~ '· ' ·,. ·, ·,
HEREON \
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
RANCHO LOMAS di:-SANJ1AGO
SEE !NU I FCll Ila:• ....
SU !Kl:T U FUii callSI: Tai
1 EGfflQ
I l -,,,,,,
'16QCIDl&iJl:46Ntt-------------'--· -------
St££T 8 rs: 12
... w
I
SHE:ET aF 12
EXHIBIT "B"
ID-1 (ID-253) ANNEXATION DA06-09
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OCSD-56
-. Ct
c:r
CJ ,..
I'~
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl ,.,
t:I
Cll
Cll ,.,.
CZI
UNINCORPORATED
TERRnORY
CUAVl DAT I TAIU .. Tl AAOIUI U'NGTN
n•:s1 21-500 .... lllJ, 14
1:s• s '11" "" .ao 142.47'
.ll ... oo· "" .oo z4z,n•
t • . ·I.,. ,ti ... .
t • . . I'"' .n . . .... .
I . . , ... .ll . " .
t • 14 '1 . I .II . ,, .
u• ,., •• . I " . ,, •-.
' . •• . A o II .
' • a•, .. • .... ,ft. " .
! • b' "" .. l'U,11 . -· "
I •oa•ni " .n • IG' .
111•111•n • • .111• '"··· .
1!••n•t1 • I .n • .... 4'
19°3f ] ·-' lll
,a J4D. 'I'
Sii HIT I '°" ltCll:I IUI'
!EG$ND
I I -DATA PER ADJOINING ANNEXATION
NINEKATlQN 80\INDAR'I'
QEJAILD
200· o· 100· 200· --------
GRAPHIC SCALE
1"•200'
£xc<1ptlan 4
Bk. J6J6/.129
11.08 Acres
NAP
• ...
i
Iii
EXHIBIT "B"
ID-I (ID-253) ANNEXATION DA06-09
TO THE ORANGE COUN'IY SANITATION DISTRICT OCSD-56
200' o· 100· 200· --------
S(£ SIQf I rm llCJ[Jl !IMP
!EGENQ
UNINCORPORA71iD
TF.RRITORY
I I DATA PER ADJO!NINC ANllEXATIOll
MNEJIATllJN lllOUJl>ARY
Ex1s11NG llRMGE COUNTY S#llJTATUJH
I er llOUNDMY
,,,,,,
/
/
/
/
/'"
/
/
/
/
/
/
DETAILE
/
/
/
/
/
/
4:2S~tPM-~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,,,.,.......
/
/
/
/
/
...... .....
\
/
/
/
\
\
> /
RANCHO LOMAS tk SANTIAGO
SIGT IO OI 12
COURSE TMl.£ 1LIN£51
No. BEARING DISTMC£ ,.. ssz•n·o1 11'.&S
CURVE DATA UBL£ ..... DELTA IUOIUS LEJIGTN
C4 03•41•09• 530.00' 1s.02·
C!I 30"05 ,,-400.oo· 210.n
C& 01•29°26• !500.ao· tJ.01.
C7 13•21 ,5-soo.oo zoe.&a'
C8 1&•41•00• sao.ao· 145.s•·
C9 z1·ss·oo-soo.oo· zu.gz
----------------~r------------
EXHIBIT "B" SHEET II~ 12
ID-1 (10-253) ANNEXATION DA06-09
TO THE ORANGE COUN1Y SANITATION DISTRICT OCSD-56
COURSE TABLES
COURSE U&[ COUllSC T.t81..E CQURS( 1'Alll.E COURSE Ua.£
No. BURlllG Dl5T.ua'. No. llEMlllG Dl5TAllC[ No. BEAIUllG DISTANCE No. Ko\RlllG DIS7AllCE
1'1 555•49·00·· n.59• 61 506°1!1 00"£ 54,94 10J ..... 00 JO-.;: 290.11• 145 111o4•1s•1s·w t::ss.12·
20 soz·oo· 40"! 159.57' 62 see•JS' 10·£ 45.tt 104 N11"1J'90"1 211.11· 146 IMZ-2& 40"1 214. 16
21 111&•sa·20-. to.It' ., 542"51 10~ 145,91• 105 S12"09"ZO""E 140.01 147 .... 2J 15"1: uz.14·
22 s11•Js oo-. 111.11· 64 553• 10• 40"E 112.&1 105 s5z•11·2o"'E no.oo· 141 569°» 00'"£ ... 29·
23 515•2:s • 10-. tS1.15· 65 s1:s•ao zo-.;: ,,,,.. 101 S40"5J 20 HO.to 149 •1s•o· 1s·• 119.99'
24 530-S:S'40"t ns.n· 66 569"U'JO._ 40.1J' IOI sn•44•50 229.49• 150 114ze43· JO"'I 210.s4·
2S 565•11·10-. 219.41• 61 SOI" J2 20 "£ 111.46 109 1111"21 40 4'4.tz 151 56Z"OS JO•w J11.a:s·
26 $51° :SI :SOP: Ui6.4l' 61 S41"J6'40"W Jl.01 '10 SZ0-21 00 105.42 tSZ N&O"Q? 20"11 109.85
21 520" OI :so·w 115.65' 69 51Z-JS 40"• 249.94 tit NH"!O'SO"I 1t2.9:S' ISJ szs•11·1s•• l5.JJ
ll sn•u·:so· 1'6.49' 10 501°11 20"'E 66.12· 112 ssz-dTJO UJ.10' 154 Sl:S-21 15-. 152.Jl
29 ~·1o·:so 1J.S9' " 1112•30 50'"1: 112.o:s 11] 529"22'45 121.s:s· 155 NZOOOZ"CIO"I l0.19
:so SOJ•oo•40 64.18 12 571"54'10"1: 105.ff 114 sn•2z·4s t84.J8' 156 ll08•18' 10 E 284.J4'
31 sss•2:s 20 249.JJ' 1J 56,. JI ':SO"! 160.58" 115 501°43'50 t9J.Sl' 15'1 •z·n·zo 1 420.21
32 w•s1 10 1M.IJ' 14 551°42 40"£ llO.S4 11& 1111•111. 00"! 200.u· ISi NJS• 21 'oo-. 43.H
33 s11•2roo 51.57 lS st:t•11 20-w 154. 14' '" $45°" oo-s 118.49' ,,, N10"11 OO-c 13'.'11 ,. lllfi•zo .... • 119.41' " 569°19' JO"t 46.20 Ill SOJ• 39' 20-. 74.17• 60 1174° 40• 30•• zu.01·
JS NSr5S'40"W '15. IJ n s21·s1·40~ tl1.J4' "' 587"40' .JO"E 19,57• 161 NJs•21·00-. 211.22•
S6 505·4~ 20-w 99,57 .,. 533°06 • 40"1: 161.20' 120 S45"J9 OO"I' :H1.11· 162 1126• 41 • oo·• 334.34· ,, 553"24 so•w 112.59
:SI S6l•:st'OO 1s:s.12·
19 S70-SS'10'"1: 32.11
ao 570-SS' 10"E 121.11·
121 ss1•m·20·w 119.69'
121 S21'0 5J JO-. :SU.OJ'
t&J 111u•4s·so-w zu.:so·
164 M01•29' IO"E JSJ.H'
J9 S.0048 JO 212.94 II ssz•s9• '°"! 212.65' 12J lllJ•OI JO"I: CJl.91 165 SM•2t·oo-.;: 196.12'
40 512•21·10 101 .:rs·
41 516•43•40 IS4.44
12 so1•u•2o~E 114.IJ
IJ 581°41 40-W IH.40
124 IOS"Ol' JO"[ 40l.91'
IH SJ6°5ll QO"T 111.11·
,. su• 24 'OO"E 541-11
167 SJ6•4t'IO"'E 115-43'
42 sot•Of'SO JY'li.SJ .... 11114"4• oo•w 14S.ll8' 126 5n•H"JO"T 251.JS' , .. s1g.o• 10-r. 123.45
4J 5t4•0t 10 201.12• IS N&J0 56'00"'W 92.61 127 554•04'15"[ 214.st' 69 S7J• IS' 25 "I 462.TJ'
44 1118a•12 zo•w 1'6.22' 116 •6°08 40-. 161.14 128 559•51 00 HO. TZ 110 1116°28'40"£ 429.56
45 511•u·10 92.30· 11 uo•s4• 1o"E 19.52 129 511•01 50 !: 110.za· 111 1110•12·00-.;: 624.11
46 563°56 40 :1&3.92 .. 551" 19 40"1: u:.az IJO 915&"40 JD • s1s.11· 112 sao• :so· 40"E J1J.OS'
41 541•21·10· 154.84' ., sao-J6·zo-w 209.10• 1J1 N44°4J 15 539,04• ITJ •1·:sz 10"£ 598.0I
41 sz1•21 10 2s1.m· .., S24"40'IO"f: s10. 12·
IO 516°40 so-. 271.51
91 sn·ot zo-w s1.10
IJZ N:SZ"09 00-W :so.zs·
IJJ "45°49.-20"• 216.14'
114 $1t"4t IO"l 204 ...
ITS sao• 24' OO"E 134.01•
50 lllO"ST 20-w 211;.10· 92 •11•34·zo-. 232.21'' ., .. N05•11 40-S 151.57• 176 NJe• 44 JO"£ 241.80
SI 534•59 00"• 112.so· 9] SS2•01·so-. 101.511• llS 54z•04 10--• 122.19· 117 sn·:so 1s-r. 16T.4J
sz H1•04•00-w 215.'8' 'J4 529•11·20·· 302.tn • 116 N45°49'ZO•w 14.44' ITI NJT•25 oo·E 321.se
51 511•21 ':SO"'E uz.m• 9S S4T•u·zo-. 94.J1. UT NJO•H'30"W 91.10
S4 se1·n·20·c 1'0 .... 96 S&rt"S4'40 .. 141 .JO' UI NJl"51°30•w 1S9.J4
55 ss1•10 :ro"t 247. 71• 91 540-10 IO"W 541.54' flt ll02° 'H • OO"t 111-67
S6 572•44 50"[ 111.15• 91 sn•21·10-w 271'.04' 140 S68"4t":so•w 1os.as
SJ SfS•JZ'20"t 204.48' 99 S&0"44'SO"I' 51 .. ll' 141 I01°58'JO"• 16.42'
$1 566°51'50"1: 104.32• 100 .. ,.,, 10"[ na.s2• 142 1MJ•1a•zo•w 268.J5'
59 561°41 10°£ 129. , .. 101 N19".ll' IO"E 11'1.&I 141 N26•4z•zo•• 161.H
Ml su·se·1o·c o.oo· 102 llOJ-Ol'OO-W 91.09· 144 IMO" 42. Io-. HS. It'
EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 12 DF' 12
ID·l (10·253) ANNEXATION No. DA06·09
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OCSD·56
, 4000' :• 2000' 4000' l!"!liiil!!iii~~-·liiiiiii'
GRAPHIC SCAL£
1"•4000'
(' ,, ,,
'
ASSESSOR PARCEL LOCAT)ON
' ,, ,, .,. ...... ., ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ........ ,, --,, ,, ,, ,,
\\
Proposed Annexation
to the Orange County
Sanitation District
.... ,., '·
::::-.
I ~''·:1W D
r~~
0 0,5
105 ACRE DEVELOPMENT AREA DETACHED FROM
SCWD AND ANNEXED TO IRWD AND OCSD BY
12114/05 LAFCOACTION (ID 1531253 FORMATION)
OCSD RA 14 Boundary
City of Orange Boundary
e-"'\++Ml\iiiiiill MDes
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR FORMATION OF SANITATION
DISTRICT NO. 14 AND PROPOSED
REORGANIZATION NO. 79 INVOLVING
REORGANIZATION OF COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 7 AND 13
Final Addendum.doc
Submitted to:
Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Avenue
P.O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California 92728
Contact: Jim Burror
(714) 962-2411
Prepared by:
Irvine Ranch Water District
15600 Sand Canyon A venue
Irvine, California 92618
Contact: Greg Herr
(949) 453-5577
March 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT ........................................................ 4
3 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT .............................. 7
4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................. 7
5.0 EFFECTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT ................................................................. 8
6.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................. 10
7.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................. 11
8.0 FINANCIAL IMP LI CA TIO NS .................................................................................................... 11
9.0 SECONDARY IMPACT EVALUATION ................................................................................... 11
10.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................ 12
11.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRITRIEV ABLE COMMITMENT OF ENERGY
AND OTHER RESOURCES SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED ....................... 12
12.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................................ 12
13.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................... 13
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 4
TABLE
TABLE 1: FLOW PROJECTIONS ...................................................................................................... 6
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.lBACKGROUND
The Orange County Sanitation District (OCWD) and Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) have
prepared this Addendum No. 1 to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Formation of County
Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of County
Sanitation Districts Nos. 7 and 13 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the CEQA Guidelines. This Addendum addresses annexation oflmprovement District No. 1 of the
Santiago County Water District into Revenue Area No. 14 of the Orange County Sanitation District.
1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The 1985 Final Environmental Impact Report for Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and
Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 7 and
13 (EIR) addressed the formation of a new sanitation district to allow the IR WD master plan area to
be served by the regional facilities of OCSD and to allow portions of existing sanitation districts Nos.
7 and 13 to be served more efficiently through sharing of new and existing trunk sewer capacity in
newly formed sanitation district.
Reorganization No. 79 included the following actions:
1. Inclusion of approximately 59,000 acres of area within IRWD in OCSD as District No. 14
(now called Revenue Area No. 14).
2. Minor changes in the existing District No. 7 service area.
3. Minor changes in the District No. 13 service area.
4. Establishment of a sphere of influence for District No. 14 to include a part of the
unincorporated portion of the County of Orange currently within the IR WD sphere of
influence and a portion of SCWD known as SCWD Improvement District No. l (ID No. 1 ).
5. Allowing sewer pipe installations to occur anticipating all future flows from the areas to be
served, including the sphere of influence, to avoid future reconstructions of the sewering
pipes in the street within the area.
Projected wastewater flows from the proposed District No. 14 were estimated in the EIR to be 32.0
mgd during November through March and 17.0 mgd during the rest of the year. The seasonal
difference in flows was attributed to the increased reclaimed water demand during the drier months.
An additional 4.9 mgd was estimated in the EIR for the ID No. 1 proposed sphere of influence area.
A portion of ID No. 1 comprising 105 acres (now designated Improvement District No. 253 of
IRWD) was previously annexed to OCSD and IRWD. This Addendum No. l evaluates the proposed
annexation of the remaining portion of ID No. 1 to OCSD identified in the original EIR. Estimated
average wastewater flows from the original RA No. 14 area are now estimated to be 7.26 mgd at
build out in 2025. Daily average flows during the low reclaimed water demand months are estimated
2
to be 11.94 mgd. This does not include 3.69 mgd from the Irvine Business Complex and other areas
of IRWD that flow directly to OCSD but are not metered at the Main Street Pumping Station.
Wastewater flows from the previously annexed 105-acre portion of ID No. 1 are also estimated to
average 0.08 mgd year round. Wastewater flows from the area to be annexed under this Addendum
No. I (ID No. 1) are estimated to average 0.38 mgd. The sum of wastewater flows from the current
District No. 14 area, the recently annexed portion of ID No.1, and the proposed annexation area of ID
No. I will range seasonally from 7.72 mgd to 12.40 mgd on an average daily basis. These total
combined flow estimates for the annexation area and the current District No. 14 service area are
considerably lower than the flow estimates in the EIR. These lower flow estimates are the result of
less intense development in the District No. 14 and ID No. 1 areas and increased water reclamation by
IRWD.
1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The following environmental documents have been prepared in support of the annexation of ID No. 1
to OCSD.
Final Environmental Impact Report (1985)
The 1985 Final EIR (FEIR) examined the impacts of the project, which included the formation of a
new sanitation district to allow the IRWD master plan area to be served by the regional facilities of
OCSD and to allow portions of existing sanitation districts Nos. 7 and 13 to be served more
efficiently through sharing of new and existing trunk sewer capacity in newly formed sanitation
district
1.4 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM 1
The 1985 Final Environmental Impact Report for Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and
Proposed Reorganization No. 79 Involving Reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 7 and
13 (EIR) addressed the formation of a new sanitation district to allow the IRWD master plan area to
be served by the regional facilities of OCSD and to allow portions of existing sanitation districts Nos.
7 and 13 to be served more efficiently through sharing of new and existing trunk sewer capacity in
newly formed sanitation district.
The OCSD and IRWD are proposing to annex additional lands to OCSD that were identified in the
1985 FEIR to be within the OCSD sphere of influence. This requires the preparation of Addendum 1
to the 1985 FEIR. The Lead Agency for Addendum 1 will be IRWD, and OCSD will be the
Responsible Agency, as defined by CEQA. Although additional lands are proposed to be annexed to
OCSD, the total flow tributary to OCSD projected in the FEIR is substantially reduced.
When a proposed project is changed or there are changes in the environmental setting, a
determination must be made by the Lead Agency as to whether an Addendum or Subsequent EIR is
prepared. Criteria, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, are used to assess which
environmental document is appropriate. The criteria for determining whether an Addendum or
Subsequent EIR is prepared are outlined below. If the criteria below are true, then an Addendum is
the appropriate document:
3
• No new significant impacts will result from the project or from new mitigation measures.
• No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project
was originally proposed and the FEIR was certified; therefore it will not require major revisions
to the FEIR since no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified impacts will occur.
• No substantial increase in the severity of environmental impact will occur.
• No new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts previously found
not to be feasible have, in fact, been found to be feasible.
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR or Negative
Declaration shall be prepared "if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." This
Addendum reviews the changes proposed by the project and any changes to the existing conditions
that have occurred since the FEIR was certified. It also reviews any new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence
at the time that the FEIR was certified. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any
new information, a subsequent EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the
provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their
applicability to the proposed project. IRWD reviewed information regarding the annexation under
consideration and determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR applied. Based upon the information provided in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this
document, the proposed modifications will not result in new significant impacts or substantially
increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the FEIR, and there are no previously
infeasible alternatives or mitigation measures that are now feasible. Therefore, an Addendum is
appropriate, and Addendum No. 1 has been prepared to address the environmental effects of the
refinements to the project.
1.5 CONCLUSIONS
Addendum No. 1 addresses the environmental effects associated only with the proposed annexation.
The conclusions of the analysis in this Addendum are not substantially different from those made in
the FEIR. The same unavoidable significant impacts identified in the FEIR remain. No new
significant impacts will result and no substantial increase in severity of impacts will result from those
previously identified in the FEIR. This is confirmed by the City of Orange SEIR for the Santiago
Hills II and East Orange Planned Communities (SCH #1988110905).
2.0 Description of Modifications to the Project
2.1 MODIFICATION TO THE PROJECT
The following discussion describes the annexation and how it modifies the project in greater detail.
Figure 1 depict the area to be annexed, and Table 1 indicates estimated flow projections.
4
2.1.1 Background
The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) have
prepared this Addendum No. 1 to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project
designated "Formation of County Sanitation District No. 14 and Proposed Reorganization No. 79
Involving Reorganization of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 7 and I 3," pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. This Addendum addresses
annexation of the remaining portion oflmprovement District No. 253 of IRWD (formerly,
Improvement District No. 1 of the Santiago County Water District (SCWD)) into Revenue Area No.
14 of the Orange County Sanitation District.
2.1.2 Project Overview
The EIR addressed the formation of a new sanitation district to allow the IR WD master plan area to
be served by the regional facilities of OCSD and to allow portions of existing sanitation districts Nos.
7 and 13 to be served more efficiently through sharing of new and existing trunk sewer capacity in
newly formed sanitation district.
Reorganization No. 79 included the following actions:
1. Inclusion of approximately 59,000 acres of area within IRWD in OCSD as District No. 14
(now called Revenue Area No. 14).
2. Minor changes in the existing District No. 7 service area.
3. Minor changes in the District No. 13 service area.
4. Establishment of a sphere of influence for District No. 14 to include a part of the
unincorporated portion of the County of Orange currently within the IR WD sphere of
influence and a portion of SCWD known as SCWD Improvement District No. I (ID No. 1 ).
5. Allowing sewer pipe installations to occur anticipating all future flows from the areas to be
served, including the sphere of influence, to avoid future reconstructions of the sewering
pipes in the street within the area.
Projected wastewater flows from the proposed District No. 14 were estimated in the EIR to be 32.0
mgd during November through March and 17.0 mgd during the rest of the year. The seasonal
difference in flows was attributed to the increased reclaimed water demand during the drier months.
An additional 4.9 mgd was estimated in the EIR for the ID No. 1 proposed sphere of influence area.
A portion of ID No. 1 comprising 105 acres (now designated Improvement District No. 253 of
IRWD) was previously annexed to OCSD and IRWD. This Addendum No.1 evaluates the proposed
completion of the annexation of ID No. 1 to OCSD as envisioned the original EIR. Estimated
average wastewater flows from the original RA No. 14 area are now estimated to be 7.26 mgd at
build out in 2025. Daily average flows during the low reclaimed water demand months are estimated
to be 11.94 mgd. Wastewater flows from the previously annexed 105-acre portion of ID No. 1 are
estimated to average 0.08 mgd year round. Wastewater flows from the remaining portion of ID No. 1
are estimated to average 0.38 mgd. The sum of wastewater flows from the original District No. 14
area, the recently annexed portion of ID No. I and the proposed annexation area of ID No. 1 thus
5
ranges seasonally from 7.72 mgd to 12.40 mgd. These total combined flow estimates for the
annexation area and the original District No. 14 service area are considerably lower than the flow
estimates in the EIR for the original service area of District No. 14 alone, and none of the additional
flow amounts originally contemplated for the annexation of the ID No. 1 area will be generated.
These lower flow estimates are the result of less intense development in the District No. 14 and ID
No. 1 areas and increased water reclamation by IRWD.
Table 1
FLOW PROJECTIONS (mgd)
FEIRP . f ro.1ec ions c urren t D" t . t 14 p . f 1s nc ro.1ec ions
District 14 MWRP HATS ID Remainder Sludge
Area Area Annexation of ID 1 and
Area Carriage
Water
from
MWRP
Average 32 0 8.95 0.08 0.38 2.56
Annual
Seasonal 4.56 8.95 0.08. 0.38 2.1
Peak*
Peak NA 7.43 13.82 0.18 0.76 NA
Hour(l)
*Due to seasonal variations in reclaimed water production at MWRP.
Totals
11.97
16.07
6
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT
This section identifies any environmental impacts that may differ from the impacts originally
identified in the 1985 FEIR. There have been no substantial changes to the regulations and the
circumstances under which the proposed project is being undertaken. Planning horizons and dwelling
unit densities have been modified (i.e., reduced) since certification of the FEIR in 1985. These
developments reflect the type and intensity of uses identified in the City's General Plan and do not
represent a substantial change to the environmental baseline condition. Additionally, there has been
no substantial change in the regulatory environment identified in the FEIR since its certification.
As discussed below, the modifications to the project will not result in substantial new impacts or new
mitigation measures due to the considerable reduction in projected flows. An Initial Study Checklist
has been prepared and is included as Appendix A. The IS concludes that No Impact will occur as a
result of the modifications to the project.
Schedule
IRWD expects to complete the administrative record regarding the annexation (including the
following discretionary actions: CEQA actions, LAFCO approval, SCWD approval, OCWD
approval, and OCSD approval) by April 30, 2006.
4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AL SETTING
This section corresponds to the same section in the 1985 FEIR, which describes the whole of the
project in detail. As summarized in Chapter 1.0, Sections 1.2 and 1.4, the proposed action would not
result in changes to the physical environment beyond those already analyzed in the 1985 FEIR. As
depicted on (HOOLIHAN MAP REF HERE), the proposed annexation is an action taken to most
effectively serve the remaining portion oflmprovement District No. 1. This addendum completes
the origininating analysis in the FEIR. As envisioned, ID 1 was to be included within the proposed
sphere of influence of District No. 14, in order to receive service using both IRWD's Michelson
Water Reclamation Plant and capacity in OCSD's regional treatment facilities. This optimizes
reclaimed water service by IRWD in a manner consistent with IRWD's current provision of service
throughout District No. 14.
While no changes to the physical environment would be necessary to complete the proposed
annexation, the previous environmental documentation did describe the facilities that would be
7
serving the anticipated flows. Because those flow projections have been considerably reduced, no
new facilities would be proposed beyond those currently serving the project area.
5.0 EFFECTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT
The annexation provides an administrative mechanism to efficiently and effectively serve the
remaining un-annexed area in ID No. 1. Because flows from RA 14 will be considerably reduced
from those envisioned and analyzed in the 1985 FEIR, including those from ID 1, any
environmental effects would also be reduced, eliminating any potential significant effect. Based
on this conclusion andon the Initial Study Checklist, this Addendum's discussion of the effects of
the proposed annexation upon the previously evaluated project is focused on the impacts
analyzed in the 1985 FEIR. (Accordingly, the sections below correspond to Operational Impacts
and Mitigation Measures in the 1985 FEIR. It should be noted that minor numeration errors
occurred in the original document. Numeration of the sections below adhere to a corrected
sequence.)
5.1 Projected Wastewater Flows and Line Capacity
The EIR evaluated a pipeline capacity of 45 mgd based upon District No. 14's anticipated flow of
32 mgd, uncertainties, standard engineering practices for OCSD trunk sewers, the conclusion that
a larger diameter will result in no greater magnitude of impacts except for a slightly larger
excavation, and the larger diameter's preclusion of the additional construction impacts of future
parallel pipelines. The District No. 14 flow with the annexation will be well below the 32 mgd
estimated in the EIR, and therefore, the annexation will have no effect upon pipeline capacity.
5.2 Waste Discharge Requirements
The EIR evaluated the impact of the District No. 14 formation upon OCSD's NPDES discharge
requirements, which at that time were based upon a 30l(h) modified NPDES permit, precluding the
need to meet federal secondary treatment requirements for ocean discharge. The EIR concluded that
if permit modifications were approved, District No. 14' s requirement to be responsible for its regular
share of the costs of treatment and disposal as a member of the joint works system or, if necessary,
limitations upon flows, would assure compliance with such permit. Currently, OCSD is
implementing full secondary treatment. District No. 14 remains subject to the same cost-sharing
requirements as originally contemplated.
As stated above, the substantial reduction in flows from the combined District No. 14 service area and
annexation area are below the flow estimates evaluated in the EIR for the District No. 14 service area
alone (without the annexation area). This would result in a corresponding reduction in waste
discharge from that evaluated in the EIR. This reduction, coupled with the reduced environmental
impacts as a result of full secondary treatment, results in the annexation having a lesser impact than
was evaluated in the EIR.
8
5.3 Solids and Sludge Handling
Consistent with current practice and with the 1985 FEIR, IRWD is not a solids and sludge handling
agency, but conveys sludge removed during the wastewater reclamation treatment to OCSD for final
disposal. The action to annex the remaining portion ofID I does not affect, and is not affected by,
the current method of solids and sludge handling and disposal. It is not anticipated that total
conveyed solids and sludge would significantly increase as a result of the annexation.
5.4 Ocean Outfall
The EIR concluded that because ofIRWD's EPA-approved industrial source control program
implemented in coordination with OCSD, and the NPDES permit requirements which continue to
govern OCSD, including District No. 14, the formation of District No. 14 would not be expected to
have a significant impact on the OCSD outfalls. Upon annexation, the annexation area would
become subject to such requirements.
As stated above, the substantial reduction in flows from the combined District No. 14 service area and
annexation area are below the flow estimates evaluated in the EIR for the District No. 14 service area
alone (without the annexation area). This would result in a corresponding reduction upon OCSD's
ocean outfall requirements.
5.5 Summary of Operational Impacts
The EIR examined the impacts of adding the District No. 14 flows to OCSD's projected flows, upon
operational impacts such as energy use, chemical use, transportation requirements, air pollutant
emissions and residue disposal. These were evaluated at a District No. 14 flow of 15 mgd, increasing
to 32 mgd. Reduced development intensity generally for RA 14, and specifically for the remaining
portion of ID 1, would result in a substantially reduced percentage of the operational requirements
identified in the 1985 FEIR.
As stated above, the substantial reduction in flows from the combined District No. 14 service area and
annexation area are below the flow estimates evaluated in the EIR for the District No. 14 service area
alone (without the annexation area). This would result in a corresponding reduction in the EIR's
projected operational impacts.
5.6 Operational Mitigation Measures
The primary mitigation to address operational issues, such as odor control, energy generation,
industrial source control, landscaping, vehicle access, energy conservation, are the financial
projections and instruments identified in the 1985 FEIR. In addition, the EIR concluded that water
conservation enforced by IRWD would augment those mitigation measures. Those projections,
funding mechanisms, and infrastructural investment have been in place over the duration since the
1985 FEIR. Stringent water conservation measures and practices have become more sophisticated
and effective since those that were implemented on a voluntary basis in 1985. No changes would
occur as a result of the annexation.
9
The 1985 FEIR addressed the capital construction, replacement, and operation and maintenance costs
based on future projections for formation of District 14 (RA 14). No new analysis is warranted by the
annexation action. It is presumed that present-day costs have been reduced as a result of the
substantially reduced District No. 14 flow projections described above. However, the Orange County
Sanitation District recognizes that emergency events may occur on a temporary basis requiring short
term higher than anticipated flows.,
5.7 Michelson Water Reclamation Plant Operations
MWRP is an 18 mgd rated water reclamation plant. Increasing demand for reclaimed water within
the IRWD will necessitate the expansion ofMWRP. Under a separate CEQA document (Michelson
Water Reclamation Plant Phase 2 and 3 Capacity Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report)
that expansion has been analyzed for impacts. The annexation will not adversely affect the
optimization ofreclamation at MWRP, because the annexed area will be included in both District No.
14 and IRWD, thereby expanding the area that can be served by both the MWRP and OCSD plants.
The combination of increasing reclaimed water demands, expanded MWRP, and reduction in ultimate
flow projections in RA 14 will result in the most efficient method for wastewater treatment and
disposal options. The annexation action would not affect, or be affected by, MWRP operations.
5.8 Sand Canyon Reservoir (Reclaimed Water Storage Reservoirs)
The EIR concluded that the formation of District No. 14 would have a beneficial effect in terms of the
reduced potential for winter releases of reclaimed water from Sand Canyon Reservoir, by providing
IRWD with a means of winter excess wastewater disposal to the OCSD joint works facilities. In
addition to the implementation of the District No. 14 formation and the connection to the joint works,
since the time of the certification of the EIR IRWD has converted the San Joaquin Reservoir to
reclaimed water storage, thereby increasing its seasonal storage capacity. IRWD owns and operates
three reclaimed water storage reservoirs: Sand Canyon Reservoir, Rattlesnake Reservoir, and San
Joaquin Reservoir. Efficient use ofreclaimed water remains a high priority for IRWD. IRWD's
augmented storage and subsequent reuse of reclaimed water limits releases into the watershed and
downstream resources such as the Upper Newport Bay. The annexation action would not affect, or be
affected by, the continued use of these reservoirs.
6.0 Construction Impacts and Mitigation Measures-Treatment Plant
Sites
The agreement between County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (hereafter OCSD) and IRWD
signed on March 13, 1985 for the formation of District 14 states that a planned flow of 32 mgd will be
accepted by OCSD for treatment and disposal. This was the projected flow expected to be the
average annual IRWD flow in the year 2030 or thereafter. To the extent that the revised projected
reduction in flows reduce the need for new and upgraded facilities, it can reasonably be concluded
that construction impacts would correspondingly be reduced.
10
6.1 Capital Improvements Required for Proposed Flows
Construction of facilities necessary to serve the project have either been constructed or are under
consideration for construction as described and analyzed in the 1985 FEIR. Modifications to the
project presume that revised projections for reductions in flow correspond to, and will result in,
reduced construction impacts for those facilities yet to be constructed.
6.2 JWTF Capital Improvements Needed to Accommodate District 14 Flows
Formation of District 14 and purchase of treatment capacity for handling up to 32 mgd of wastewater
flow diverted from the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant to OCSD necessitated changes to the
facilities existing at the time of the original agreement. The original agreement established terms of a
planned 15 mgd flow through a year 2000 horizon. Present flows to OCSD average approximately 14
mgd. A subsequent and revised document and the 1999 Orange County Sanitation Districts Strategic
Plan established and analyzed the capacity needs as originally envisioned in the 1985 FEIR, and
impacts associated with the expansion of existing facilities owned and operated by OCSD.
Consequently, no new or non-analyzed impacts are associated with the proposed action, changes in
service, or terms of agreement between agencies.
7 .0 Construction Impacts and Mitigation Measures-Baker Street Force
Main Route
Section 7.0 has been eliminated from further study or analysis. The Baker Street Force Main has
been constructed and is not affected by the annexation action. Since the flows from RA 14 are less
than originally anticipated, no reconstruction would be required.
8.0 Financial Implications
The 1985 FEIR addressed the capital construction, replacement, and operation and maintenance costs
based on future projections for formation of District 14 (RA 14). No new analysis is warranted by the
annexation action. It is presumed that present-day costs have been substantially reduced as a result of
the reduced flow projections described above.
9.0 Secondary Impact Evaluation
Section 9 .0 of the 1985 FEIR primarily addressed the issue of population growth and its relationship
to infrastructure needs. Long range development plans for the westerly half of SCWD are based
largely upon plans developed by the Irvine Company. This 13,500-acre region is anticipated to
contain an ultimate residential population of 41,400 (16,805 dwelling units), as well as a variety of
commercial uses (Table 9-3, 1985 FEIR.). Current projections for the area estimate approximately
1350 dwelling units and a population of 4,000.
11
Cumulative Secondary Effect of the Proposed Reorganization
The reorganization and formation of RA 14 did not result in new growth. IRWD does not have
jurisdictional authority over development and population growth decisions. The substantial reduction
in projected growth in the ID 1 area is a result of decisions made by the local jurisdictions having
such authority.
10.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
No alternatives previously deemed infeasible will become feasible, due to the substantial reduction in
flows from the combined District No. 14 service area and annexation area below the flow estimates
evaluated in the EJR for the District No. 14 service area alone (without the annexation area).
11.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Energy Supplies and
Other Resources Should the Project be Implemented
No commitment of energy supplies or other resources will be worsened as a result of the annexation,
and some of such impacts will potentially be lessened, due to the substantial reduction in flows from
the combined District No. 14 service area and annexation area below the flow estimates evaluated in
the EJR for the District No. 14 service area alone (without the annexation area).
12.0 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and
the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
No relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity will be worsened as a result of
the annexation, and some of such impacts will potentially be lessened, due to the substantial reduction
in flows from the combined District No. 14 service area and annexation area below the flow estimates
evaluated in the EJR for the District No. 14 service area alone (without the annexation area).
13.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No unavoidable adverse impact will be worsened as a result of the annexation, and some of such
impacts will potentially be lessened, due to the substantial reduction in flows from the combined
District No. 14 service area and annexation area below the flow estimates evaluated in the EJR for the
District No. 14 service area alone (without the annexation area).
APPENDIX A -INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
12
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
I. AESTHETICS --Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? x
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic x
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or x quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in x
the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland x
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or x a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in x
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY --Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the x aoolicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
x
13
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
lncornoration
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state x ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant x concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial x number of peoole?
JV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in x local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or x
by the California Department of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, x
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife x
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree x
preservation nolicv or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation x Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation olan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the oroiect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in x
Sec.15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Sec.1506 x
14
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorooration Impact
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic x
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? x
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or x
death involvine::
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known x
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? x
iv) Landslides? x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? x
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral x
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating x
substantial risks to life or orooertv?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal x
of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or x
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous x
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste x
15
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, x
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would x
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people x
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or x emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including x where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste x discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the x
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the x course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the x
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-or off-site?
16
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorooration
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial additional x
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? x
g) Place housing within a I 00-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood x Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a I 00-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows? x
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including x
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation bv seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? x
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the
proiect:
a) Physically divide an established communitv? x
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan, x specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? x
X. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the oroiect:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the x
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated on x a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
17
XI. NOISE Would the oroiect result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general x plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
x
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
lncorooration
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing x without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels x existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would x
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in x
the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes x and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing x
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction ofreplacement housing x
elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for
18
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? x
Police protection? x
Schools? x
Parks? x
Other public facilities? x
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
x
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect x
on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORT ATIONffRAFFIC -Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in x
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections}?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county x congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in x
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) x
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e} Result in inadequate emergency access? x
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? x
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, x
bicycle racks)?
XVI: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-
19
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the x aoolicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing x facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing x facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
x
Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
lncorooration
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the x project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projectO projected demand in addition to the
providerD existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste x
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and x regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF x
SIGNIFICANCE -
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, x
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
orehistorv?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually x limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a x
20
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, x
either directly or indirectly?
21