HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - San Joaquin Reservoir Conversion & 1996 Basic Integrated Reuse Project AgreementITEM 22
TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
FROM: Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager
Bob Burnham, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Conversion of San Joaquin Reservoir (SJR) and
1996 Basic Integrated Re -Use Project Agreement (BIRPA)
RECOMMENDED Staff recommends the following actions:
ACTION:
1. Approve, in concept, the conversion of the SJR to a reclaimed water storage
facility provided that the facility is operated in a manner that reduces or
eliminates any potential adverse odor or aesthetic impact on adjacent residential
communities;
2. Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute all documents
necessary to consummate the sale of the City's ownership interests in the SJR to
the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) subsequent and subject to IRWD's full
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
3. Request Council Members Ridgeway and Debay to meet with representatives
of IRWD to address and resolve any remaining issues regarding the long -term
"no discharge" scenario referenced in Section 6 of BIRPA and report to the City
Council.
4. Assuming completion of the sale of the City�s interest in the SJR, direct the
City Manager to use the proceeds to implement provisions of BIRPA or to
address issues related to reclaimed water discharges.
BACKGROUND: The San Joaquin Reservoir stands empty today in the hills just east of Newport
Beach's city limits. When it was last in operation
in the early 1990s, it held about
3,050 acre feet of potable water (an acre foot is the amount of water needed to
cover an acre of land with one foot of water).
The Reservoir is owned by eight
parties, including:
Owner
Percentage Ownership
Irvine Ranch Water District
47.90%
Mesa Consolidated Water District
19.11%
City of Huntington Beach
13.11%
Metropolitan Water District
9.84%
Laguna Beach County Water District
5.12%
The Irvine Company
2.10%
South Coast Water District
1.64%
City of Newport Beach
1.18%
San Joaquin Reservoir - 1993
By 1995, a series of problems - including infestations of midge flies and African
clawed frogs, a massive landslide and new regulations at the State level
requiring reservoir covers on potable reservoirs - caused the owners to re-
evaluate the use of the SJR. Because improvements to the SJR's ability to store
potable water would exceed $32 MN, IRWD has proposed using the facility to
store tertiary- treated reclaimed water (RW).
DISCUSSION A - Approve Concept of Converting SJR to Reclaimed Water Storage Facility
SJR has the capacity to store approximately 2500 acre feet of reclaimed water
compared to approximately 900 acre feet in Sand Canyon Reservoir and 700 acre
feet in Rattlesnake Canyon Reservoir. SJR is not subject to the same storm water
inflow as Sand Canyon since SJR has no watershed. Sand Canyon's capacity is
limited to 200 acre feet each October 1 to accommodate storm water inflow.
Conversion of SJR has several benefits:
• It will improve the aesthetics of the area;
• It will improve the views of the nearby residents;
• It will allow Harbor View Hills to save money by using RW to irrigate
the common area; and, most significantly,
• It allows for a 3x increase in the wintertime RW storage capacity of
IRWD.
The potential for odors or adverse aesthetic impacts can be eliminated or
minimized if IRWD adopts and implements appropriate operating protocols.
Staff believes the City Council should approve the concept of the proposed
conversion of the SJR to a reclaimed water storage facility because of the benefit
to nearby residents and the reduced potential for reclaimed water discharges in
the future.
B - Authorize the City Manager to Execute Documents Implementing the
Conversion and Sale of the City's Interests.
IRWD is the lead agency for the proposed conversion of SJR and has prepared a
Negative Declaration. The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC)
has prepared, approved and submitted comments on the ND (copy - with
executive summary - is included as Attachment A). The City is a "responsible
agency" under CEQA and should defer formal approval of any document
implementing the conversion or the transfer of interests until a determination is
made that the environmental document fully complies with the requirements of
CEQA. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to
execute the necessary documents if and when the Deputy City Manager and City
Attorney determine that IRWD has fully complied with CEQA.
C - Request Council Members Ridgeway and Debay to meet with IRWD
representatives to resolve issues related to BIRPA's "no-discharge scenario."
In 1996 the City, IRWD and the Orange County Water District (OCWD) entered
into the Basic Integrated Re -Use Project Agreement ( BIRPA) Some of the key
provisions of BIRPA are:
GAP 11. OCWD was required to construct a new 7.8 mgd pipeline (GAP
II) to connect to a similar pipe coming from IRWD's Michelson Water
Reclamation Plant (latter pipe known as the "Intertie ").
— Intertie. IRWD was required to construct a 7.8 mgd pipeline from the
Michelson Water Reclamation Plant to connect with the GAP II facility.
OCWD's Acceptance of Wintertime Flows. OCWD agreed to accept at
least 4.6 mgd and up to 7.8 mgd of IRWD's excess RW between October 1
and March 31 as long as the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)
agreed to take at least 4.2 mgd of the OCWD RW.
City End -User Agreements. The City committed to enter into agreements
with major purchasers of RW within the City (including the Big Canyon
Country Club and the Newport Beach Country Club).
No Discharge Scenario. The City and IRWD agreed to use their "best
efforts" to reach agreement on ways to achieve water quality
improvements without the discharge of RW into San Diego Creek.
Agreement on the "no discharge" scenario required the resolution of certain
issues identified in Section 6 of BIRPA (see Attachment B). Staff believes that
many of those issues - such as the construction of an outfall and identification of
a reliable source of water to irrigate the duck ponds - have been resolved. As
such, we believe that the City and IRWD may now be in a no- discharge
environment per the BIRPA. We recommend that Council Members Ridgeway
and Debay meet with representatives of IRWD to address and resolve any
remaining issues related to Section 6 and report back to the City Council.
D. Use of Sale Proceeds
We recommend that the proceeds of any transfer of the City�s ownership interest
in the SJR be earmarked to implement the "no discharge" scenario contemplated
by BIRPA or to address issues related to reclaimed water discharges.
ATTACHMENTS; Attachment A - Comments from the Environmental Quality
Affairs Committee on the Negative Declaration.
Attachment B - Section 6 of the Basic Integrated Re-use Project Agreement
(executed July 17, 1996)
p((WXMC+•K A
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor John Noyes and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
From: Sub - committee on San Joaquin Reservoir Project;
Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee
City of Newport Beach
Subject: IRWD Mitigated Negative Declaration on the San Joaquin Reservoir Project
(the "Project ")
Date: October 17, 2000
Cc: Michael Hoolihan, P.E., Irvine Ranch Water District
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration ( "DMND ") for the San Joaquin Reservoir Project (the "Project ").
First, we wish to thank you, the Members of the City Council, and several members
of the City's staff including Mr. David Kiff, Deputy City Manager, and Ms. Patricia Temple,
Director of Planning, for their invaluable assistance in developing these comments: they provided
insight, understanding and information all of which were necessary in order to understand the scope,
the impacts and the potential mitigation for the Project. Of course, these Comments are those of the
Committee and do not reflect the views of these pivotal public servants.
Further, we wish to thank Mr. Hoolihan and the Irvine Ranch Water District
( "IRWD" or the "District ") for extending the comment period for an additional two weeks until
October 24, 2000. Again, this extension removed a significant hurdle in our race to complete these
comments.
In addition to other comments received by the District, which we incorporate herein,
as well as our specific comments below, the DMND fails to fulfill its purpose for the specific reasons
set forth below. For those reasons, we recommend that the District prepare an Environmental Impact
Report and circulate that document for additional comments. Among other things, the EIR should
include, for the reasons set forth below, as a mitigation measure, specific benchmarks or standards
for discharges from the Sand Canyon Reservoir. The Project increases the storage capacity of the
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Mayor John Noyes
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 2
October 17, 2000
District's reclaimed water system: this increase is a growth inducing impact, which may be
mitigated by discharge limits.
As to specific comments on the DMND, we offer the following:
1. Section 1.0; "Introduction." Styled as a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Section 1.1 attempts to state the "Project Need and Objectives." This attempt is unsuccessful. This
section utterly fails to state the need for the Project: the Project more than doubles the District's
storage capacity for reclaimed water. As discussed here and elsewhere in our Comments, the DMND
fails to explain the need for this increased capacity and how this additional capacity will fit into the
District's growth plans.
Section 1.3 identifies the District as the lead agency under CEQA. As other
comments have indicated, the City of Newport Beach as well as other agencies may be responsible
agencies under CEQA. Any additional or final environmental document including an environmental
impact report ( "EIR ") must identify such agencies and state their roles.
More importantly, the DMND fails to satisfy CEQA's legal standards for such a
document. CEQA Guidelines section 15070(b) requires that a mitigated negative declaration show
that
"project plans or proposals ... would avoid the effects or mitigate the
effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur."
Id. (Emphasis added.)
However, as discussed below, the Project threatens to have many impacts including
seepage, noise, lighting, growth inducing impacts and others which have not been mitigated to a
point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Hence, as concluded below, the Project
requires a more complete environmental analysis; the Project requires a full EIR.
II. Section 2.0; "Project Description" The Project description is one of the key
parts of any environmental document. As the County of Invo Court noted long ago,
"Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders
and public decision - makers balance the proposal's benefit against its
environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the
advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the 'no project' alternative)
and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and
finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and
legally sufficient EIR."
Mayor John Noyes
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 3
October 17, 2000
County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 199. In addition, the CEQA
Guidelines section 15124 requires that an EIR describe the project "in a way that will be meaningful
to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision - makers." Discussion, Guidelines
section 15124.
The Project description in the captioned DNEND is wholly inadequate for several
reasons. First, as indicated above, the introductory section at the top of DMND Page 2 -1 fails to
discuss the IRWD's reclaimed water system capacity including the storage capacity of the system.
The Project more than doubles the District's reclaimed water storage capacity. If so, then an EIR
must explain why the District needs so much additional capacity and what will be the growth
inducing impacts of so much additional capacity (see comments below).
Second, the DiNLND states that the Project is necessary "to partially alleviate existing
and planned IRWD demand for additional storage." In order to understand the full impacts of the
Project, the final environmental document including an EIR must state what the demand is at present
and what is the planned demand.
Third, the DMND including Section 2.1 utterly fails to state the total acreage of the
Project. Given the breadth of the Project and its potential impacts, this size parameter is essential
to understand the Project's impacts, and available and potential mitigation. The final environmental
document including an EIR must state this crucial fact: how many acres does the Project cover?
Fourth, Section 2.1 is wholly misleading: the Project is within the City's sphere of
influence and more importantly, is within an area in which the City and the District are discussing
annexation to the City. In order to assess the areas which-may be subject to impacts, this information
is crucial. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR must identify the areas
including the annexation area.
Fifth, Section 2.2 which discusses "Project Characteristics" is misleading in several
respects. Section 2.2.2 which attempts to define the parameters of the pump stations is unclear. For
instance, it provides height and size of Pump Station 1 but does not include similar information for
Pump Stations 2 & 3. This information should be provided.
In addition, Section 2.2.5 discusses the "Chlorination Facility." However, this section
fails to define the size and transport requirements of the chlorine containers. The final environmental
document including an EIR must discuss and analyze these issues: whether the chlorine facilities
maintained by MWD are still in existence and what the size and transport requirements for the
chlorine facilities.
Further, Table 2 at DMND Page 2 -10 is very confusing. We understand Table 2 as
the District's projected demands for reclaimed water storage for the next twenty (20) years. The
DMND contains no information or data which supports or explains these projections. For instance,
capacity demands for the system in 2002 through 2005 and 2025 exceed 1900 AF but for the years
Mayor John Noyes
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Pa .-e 4
October 17, 2000
2010 through 2020 capacity demands decrease to a low of 1,083 AF in 2020. The DMND fails to
explain these numbers, and the rise and fall in demands.
Section 2.5 attempts to discuss mitigation measures, which would serve to reduce or
avoid identified environmental impacts. This section is confusing in that the exact extent of the
impacts remains unstated and the nature of the mitigation and/or its effectiveness is not explained.
The final environmental document including an EIR would be much more useful and fulfill its
purpose under CEQA if the discussion of mitigation measures were directly related to the discussion
of environmental impacts section. The current structure of the document does not provide for the
direct connection of impact to mitigation measure.
Further, as discussed below, the DMND's discussion of storm water runoff and
mitigation therefor must be expanded. As set forth below, this area is undergoing rapid
technological improvements and the Project should use these state of the art techniques. In addition,
our comments below address the impacts and proposed mitigation.
As to the mitigation measures generally, the standards are vague, do not set
understandable performance benchmarks, do not set time frames within which compliance is
assured, and seldom identify the monitoring party. All of this combines to undercut the public's
ability as well other third parties' including the City's ability to enforce these measures.
As to specific mitigation measures, we offer the following comments:
As to "General," subcategory 1, the DMND should specify that the State of
California's Department of Water Resources, Division of Dam Safety's ( "DSOD ") jurisdiction
over the Project, specify DSOD's role and standard of review and describe the character of
DSOD's approval.
As to "General," subcategory 2, these subsection uses vague terminology such as
"approved location," "regular intervals," and other undefined terms. Again, the mitigation
measures must have standards or benchmarks for enforcement. Without such standards or
benchmarks, enforcement of the mitigation measures is impossible. For instance, the requirement
to restore "disturbed areas" needs to include the standards for restoration, who reviews for
compliance, and the time frame within which the restoration must occur.
Regarding " Geotechnical, " the mitigation measures attempt to address the problems
of slope stability, faults and erosion but fail to discuss the exact nature of the impact or the
mitigation. This section should adopt the best available measures and should identify the agency
or entity charged with enforcement.
As to "Water Quality," subcategory 1, these mitigation measures should include
a requirement that the Best Management Practices ( "BMP ") plan created should be implemented.
Water Quality, subcategory 3, provides inadequate mitigation. It proposes operational control of
Mayor John Noyes
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 5
October 17, 2000
emergent vegetation and algal matts, and reservoir cleaning similar to those used by MWD.
However, when the reservoir was in use, those operational controls proved inadequate. The
proposed mitigation measure must be higher so that it will be effective to mitigate the identified
impact.
"Water Quality," subcategory 4 attempts to identify specific water quality problems
including aesthetic, odor and insect problems. However, it defers mitigation of such problems for
another day. Under CEQA, such deferral is inappropriate. The District must provide the analysis
now. Further, the District should establish standards for what constitutes the identified problems
including aesthetic or odor problems, and must require that the identified mitigation will be
implemented. Likewise, Water Quality, subcategory 5, does not identify the agency or entity
which is responsible for monitoring and checking for compliance with the objectives of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board's ( "RWQCB ") Basin Plan.
As to "Air Quality," subcategory 1 again fails to identify the agency or entity
charged with monitoring or checking for compliance with SCAQMD rules. Subcategory 2 fails
to identify the agency or entity, which establishes "current emission standards" and what those
standards are. As to subcategories 3 and 4, these use vague standards: subcategory 3 should
define the phrase "excessive periods;" and subcategory 4 should define the term "periodically."
Regarding visual impacts or "Visual Quality," subcategory 1 must again identify
the standards for the determination of design compatibility as well as the agency or entity charged
with the review and approval of the proposed plans which must meet these standards. As to
subcategory 2, it must define the term "periodically."
As to "Public Safety," subcategory 2 ha$ several problems. First, the final
environmental document including DMND must identify which edition of the Uniform Building
Code applies. Second, this measure must require IRWD to redesign the project to eliminate the
need to use gaseous chemicals in the operation of the reservoir. Chlorine is a very hazardous
material, which creates significant hazard to residents which reside in close proximity to the
reservoir. Alternate technologies are available which eliminate the need to use gaseous chemicals.
Such technologies were used by the City of Newport Beach in the implementation of its reservoir
project at 16`h Street. Additionally, this measure proposes to submit a Risk Management and
Prevention Plan to the County of Orange Fire Department and the Southern California Air Quality
Management District. Submission without approval mitigates nothing. The final environmental
document including an EIR must require that the District's submittal be approved. If it is not
approved, then it is inadequate and must be revised. In addition, subcategory 3 must require that
the Project will implement the proposed control measures.
Regarding "Public Safety," subcategory 3 fails to require implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures. The final environmental document including an EIR must require
implementation.
Mayor John Noyes
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 6
October 17, 2000
As to "Biological Resources," subcategory 3 proposes a range of mitigation
measures including design solutions "to avoid impacts to riparian habitat associated with
development of the reclaimed water pipeline in this area." The final environmental document
including an EIR must state what exactly the proposed design solutions will be and how these
solutions will provide adequate mitigation for the identified impacts.
III. Section 3.0; "Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact." Section 3
discusses findings related to significant impacts and concludes with a proposed finding of no
significant impact. According to the DMND, this finding warrants the adequacy of the DMND.
Based on the comments contained herein, we believe that the DMND is inadequate and that the
District must prepare a full EIR.
As to Section 3. 1, subcategory 1, "Aesthetics," the DMND fails to address the
Project's varying water levels as storage rises and falls. When full, aesthetic impacts may be at
a minimum; when the reservoir is lowering, the final environmental document including an EIR
must discuss aesthetic impact and identify additional mitigation measures.
As to subcategory 3, "Air Quality," in addition to our comments above, the DMND
states that "Based on operational experience at IRWD's Sand Canyon and Rattlesnake reclaimed
reservoirs...," various mitigation measure will solve the impacts. However, as stated above, the
San Joaquin reservoir has experienced unique problems which require specific mitigation. The
final environmental document including an EIR must discuss these unique impacts and propose
specific mitigation measures to meet these concerns.
Subcategory 4, "Biological Resources," the discussion regarding wetlands impacts
is wholly inadequate. As indicated above, the DMND identifies impacts to riparian habitat but
fails to specify the exact mitigation measure. This subcategory fails to discuss the impact at all
and ignores mitigation. The final environmental document including an EIR must address this
impact and propose specific mitigation.
As to Subcategory 7, "Hazards and Hazardous Materials," the DMND proposed
finding that the use of flammable and/or toxic chemicals and disinfection chemicals will have a less
than significant impact. The Committee believes that this finding is unsupportable in that alternative
technologies have been developed which can eliminate the need to use such flammable gaseous
chemicals. Given these alternative technologies, the final environmental document including an EIR
should include these alternatives as the appropriate mitigation measure.
Subcategory 8, "Hydrology and Water Quality," contain important mitigation
measures. However, this subsection fails to identify current technologies which may further reduce
the level of impact. The treatment of storm water run -off is undergoing significant changes in terms
of requirements for new projects. For instance, the Marblehead project in south Orange County
includes a proposal to provide an underground pipe collection system to capture the heavy flows and
Mayor John Noyes
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 7
October 17, 2000
allow them to be introduced gradually into the drainage channels. Such a system eliminates erosion
and silt transport which is likely to occur with current storm water systems. Another example of new
technology is the Irvine Company's Newport Coast project which is investigating new drainage
control methods because of requests by the Orange County Coastkeeper organization and citizens
in Crystal Cove.
As to subcategory 9, "Land Use and Planning," as indicated above, the DMND fails
to recognize the City's proximity to the Project. The Project must recognize this and undertake to
identify any land use impacts to the City.
Subcategories 13, "Public Services" and 16, "Utilities and Service Systems," raise
significant issues regarding potentially growth inducing impacts. The DMND's analysis is
inadequate for a finding that the project does not have growth - inducing effects. As indicated above,
the DMND fails to explain the need for the Project and how tripling the District's storage capacity
for reclaimed water will meet current or planned needs. Indeed, the DMND fails to discuss current
needs and projected needs at all.
The Project more than doubles the District's storage capacity for reclaimed water.
This substantial increase in capacity will doubtless effect and increase the utilization of reclaimed
and potable water. The increase in reclaimed water is obvious: the increase in storage will increase
the capacity of the entire system. However, this increase in reclaimed capacity, will free up
substantial quantities of potable water. These newly available potable supplies will be available for
other growth- inducing uses. The final environmental document including an EIR must discuss these
capacity issues and their effect on growth.
IV. Section 4.0: "Initial Studv/Environmental Checklist." Again, Section 9
of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist fails to identify the areas with the City which may be
affect by the Project. Further, as to the Determination, as indicated above, we disagree: the DMND
fails to address the impacts and mitigation, and that the Project warrants the preparation of an EIR.
As to the Checklist itself, we incorporate herein our comments on Section 5.0 below.
V. Section 5.0: "Discussion of Environmental Impacts" Section 5.1,
subsection a) and d) address visual impacts. The District incorrectly relies on the fallacy of short
term impacts: short term impacts are not, in and of themselves, significant because they are
temporary. We disagree. Project- related short term impacts including excessive noise or light
spill can have significant impacts even if temporary. As to lighting, mitigation measures are
necessary: shielding of light sources, locating construction storage areas away from residences,
and screening access and construction areas are all necessary mitigation measures to ensure that
Project impacts do no create significant problems.
In addition, section 5.1, subsection d) proposes one 100 -watt yellow floodlight at
various facilities. Without more, the reason for this is unclear: security may warrant a higher
Mayor John Noyes
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 8
October 17, 2000
intensity and more focused light. The final environmental document including an EIR must
discuss, analyze and resolve this issue.
Further, the DMND fails to discuss the manner in which construction vehicles will
gain access to the site or the screening for such access. The final environmental document
including an EIR must address this issue and provide adequate mitigation.
Section 5.2 addresses agricultural resources. However, as indicated above, the
DMND's discussion of the Project location fails to discuss the impact of City annexation on the
Project. Moreover, the DMND fails to include information on current zoning and Williamson Act
contracts. The final environmental document including an EIR must include such a discussion.
Section 5.3 attempts to analyze air quality. However, this section utterly fails to
discuss the most important air quality concern: dust created by the Project's construction activities.
The final environmental document including an EIR must identify this impact, discuss avenues
for mitigation and recommend and discuss appropriate mitigation.
Further, in Section 5.3, the District again resorts to the Short Term Fallacy: short
term impacts are not significant. As before, this conclusion is fallacious: short term air quality
impacts, e.g. dust, can be significant: for instance, dust impacts can affect health, require frequent
street cleaning, impair the quality of surface water runoff, and so forth. As before, the final
environmental document including an EIR must address this issue, provide analysis and propose
suitable and enforceable mitigation.
Section 5.4 addresses impacts on "Biological Resources." Page 5 -10 addresses
"Operational Impacts" including seepage at a rate of 1/2 cubic feet per second ( "cfs "). However,
this section ignores the full impact of this seepage. t/2 cfs is up to 323,136 gallons per day or
2,261,957 gallons per week of reclaimed water with its peak in late spring when there is little
surface water to mitigate the impact.
The DMND fails to provide mitigation for this impact and also for the analysis of
"Water Quality." Instead, the DMND postpones analysis of the impact and its mitigation until
the District performs
"a site specific study that will quantify the amount of seepage and
nutrients /constituents. Should the analysis identify that reservoir
seepage would be in violation of (Regional Water Quality Control
Board) Basin Plan objectives, IRWD would utilize design solutions
such as re -pump of any seepage back into the reservoir and /or
downstream improvements to enhance removal of
nutrients /constituents to ensure compliance with RWQCB Basin
Plan objectives."
Mayor John Noyes
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 9
October 17, 2000
DMND, page 5 -10.
This impermissibly defers both the analysis and mitigation of potentially significant
impacts as to both "Biological Resources" and "Water Quality." `By deferring environmental
assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires
environmental review at the.earliest feasible stage in the planning process" Sundstrom v. County
of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation
Com.0975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282 (holding that "the principle that the environmental impact should
be assessed as early as possible in government planning. "); Mount Sutro Defense Committee V.
Regents of University of Califomia (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 20, 34 (noting that environmental
problems should be considered at a point in the planning process "where genuine flexibility
remains ").
More importantly, the DMND offers no assurances that "clearly no significant
effects [will] occur." Thus, as concluded below, an EIR is necessary for the Project.
Further, although the DMND refers to the RWQCB's Basin Plan objectives, other
resources agencies including biological resource agencies fall outside the purview of this review.
These agencies will likely have invaluable input and requirements in connection both the analysis
of the impact as well as the adequacy of any mitigation.
Section 5.8 addresses impacts to "Hydrology and Water Quality." This Section
concludes that nutrients entering the riparian ecosystem would be absorbed and filtered by the soil
and existing vegetation. However, the DMND contains no analysis to support this conclusion and
refers to no study which may do so. The final environmental document including an EIR must
provide reliable and credible scientific support for this conclusion.
In addition, Orange County has historically suffered extensive inundation from storm
waters from creeks and channels, or culverts and finally into natural creeks, scouring and eroding
the banks severely and carrying silt into the collector creeks and the bay. Not only is this extremely
damaging to the environmental resources but also it is costly to remove the silt from the bay. There
are new and better ways to mitigate for these storm waters. As discussed above, the DMND fails
to discuss these new technologies. The final environmental document including an EIR must
include a discussion of such new technologies and whether such are appropriate to mitigate
acknowledged Project related impacts.
Importantly, the City has struggled with the District's discharges from the Sand
Canyon Reservoir. The Project more than doubles the capacity of the District's reclaimed system.
As mentioned below, that increase may free up water supplies and thereby have growth inducing
impacts. These impacts would generate more reclaimed water thereby increasing the reclaimed
system demands and thereby increasing reclaimed supplies. In order to mitigate this increase in the
reclaimed system, the final environmental document including an EIR should include as a mitigation
measure, limits on discharge from the Sand Canyon Reservoir.
Mayor John Noyes
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 10
October 17, 2000
In addition, the DMND proposes use of energy dissipation structures but fails to
describe such structures. Several such systems have proven inadequate in the past. The final
environmental document including an EIR must address this issue, discuss the nature of the energy
dissipation systems and consider alternatives.
Section 5.9 addresses impacts to "Land Use and Planning.." As discussed above, the
DMND fails to discuss the impacts of the Project on the pending annexation of Newport Coast. The
final environmental document including an EIR must address this issue and provide analysis on the
nature and the extent of the Project's impacts on the annexation and the proposed incorporated areas
of the City.
Section 5.11 discusses "Noise" impacts. Subsection a) refers to County standards.
Given the annexation issue discussed above, the final environmental document including an EIR or
must discuss the impacts on the City's standards.
Further, Section 5.11 again relies on the Short Term Fallacy: noise impacts will not
be significant because they will be short term. Again, the final environmental document including
an EIR must discuss this issue and provide suitable mitigation for the short term impacts.
Finally, Section 5.17, "Mandatory Findings of Significance," subsection b) addresses
cumulatively considerable impacts. As discussed above, the Project may have growth inducing
impacts: increase in reclaimed capacity will free up substantial quantities of potable water. These
newly available potable supplies will be available for other growth - inducing uses. The final
environmental document including an EIR must discuss these capacity issues and their effect on
growth.
VI Conclusion Based upon the above comments, the DMND is inadequate.
Instead of the DMND, the District should issue an EIR for the Project. As indicated at the outset,
among other things, the EIR should include as a mitigation measure, limits on discharge from the
Sand Canyon Reservoir.
pTrAc�a� Q
o. LONG TERM "NO DISCHARGE" SCE Doto
.� A. City and IRWD agree to use t eir b reach agreement on ways
to fully achieve Project Objectives without the discharge of Reclaimed Water into San
Diego Creek or Newport Bay. City and IRWD acknowledge that development of a long
term "no- discharge" scenario requires the resolution of the issues identified in this
section.
B. OCWD has expressed a willingness to accept 7.8 mgd of Reclaimed Water
from IRWD on a continuous basis during the period from October 1 through March 31 if it
has the ability to beneficially use, or lawfully dispose of, excess flows. The Parties have
been advised that disposal of excess flows directly into the outfall facility maintained by
CSDOC is feasible and is estimated to cost approximately $100,000. Accordingly, by
January, 1997, there must be an agreement between the City and IRWD regarding the
oreparation of, and payment for, all necessary environmental documents, the processing
and approval of all necessary permits, the design and construction of any physical facility
jischarge, and payment a:' costs related to the actual discharge or
,ransm!s,lon of. that portion ofthe excess flows that OCWD Is unable to beneficially use
C To satisfy Project Objectives and its obligations pursuant to the Grant Deed,
IRWD must have a reliable source of water to irri ate the Duck Pons and the MMA's
from October 1 through March 31. Possible sources of irrigation water include San
Diego Creek and Reclaimed Water which is retreated and distributed to IRWD's
customers. Diversion of flows from San Diego Creek during the winter will involve the
12
construction of an instream facility which may require environmental documentation and
mitigation. The cost of construction is uncertain as is the source of funding. IRWD is
uncertain about operational feasibility issues, including the cost to retreat Reclaimed
Water used to irrigate the Duck Ponds and MMA's. City and IRWD shall discuss, in good
faith, the irrigation alternatives, the responsibility for implementing the preferred
alternative and the funding of any costs associated with the preferred alternative.
D. WWSP has the potential to significantly reduce nutrients in Newport Bay
during the'summer. The external monitoring program and the baseline characterization
studies will provide the SARWQCB with information helpful to establishment of standards
pursuant to the Clean Water Act and other actions which will improve bay water quality.
City and IRWD will attempt, in good faith, to reach agreement on continued summertime
creek diversions, monitoring, and other activity important to improvement in bay water
quality in the event IRWD is not obligated to do so because it is not discharging pursuant
to the Permit.
13
•
•
ITEM 17
I�
NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL
September 26, 2000 Regular Meeting
TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
FROM: Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager .a y_ U J
SUBJECT: Ownership Transfer and Joint Statement of Objectives - San Joaquin
Reservoir
RECOMMENDED Authorize the Mayor to execute all documents necessary to consummate the sale
ACTION: of the City's ownership interests in the San Joaquin Reservoir to the Irvine Ranch
Water District (IRWD) and to approve the Joint Statement of Objectives with
IRWD relating to the Newport Bay Watershed.
BACKGROUND: The San Joaquin Reservoir stands empty today in the hills just east of Newport
Beach's city limits. When it was last in operation in the early 1990s, it held about
3,050 acre feet of potable water (an acre foot is the amount of water needed to
cover an acre of land with one foot of water). The Reservoir is owned by eight
parties, including:
Owner
Irvine Ranch Water District
Mesa Consolidated Water District
City of Huntington Beach
Metropolitan Water District
Laguna Beach County Water District
The Irvine Company
South Coast Water District
City of Newport Beach
Percentage ownership
47.90%
19.11%
13.11%
9.84%
5.12 °%
2.10%
1.64%
1.18 °%
San Joaquin Reservoir —,1993
Newport Beach City Council
Page 2
By 1995, a series of problems - including infestations of midge flies and African
clawed frogs, a massive landslide and new regulations at the State level
requiring reservoir covers on potable reservoirs - caused the owners to re-
evaluate the use of the Reservoir. Because improvements to the Reservoir's
ability to store potable water would exceed $32 MN, IRWD has proposed using
the facility to store tertiary- treated reclaimed water (RW).
Reclaimed Water. IRWD is one of the State's leaders in the production and use
of RW. Residents, government agencies, and businesses throughout the
District's boundaries - including all of Irvine and portions of Lake Forest, Tustin,
Santa Ana Heights, and Newport Coast use RW for landscape irrigation, cooling
systems, and several other non - potable uses. Reclaimed water typically sells for
less than potable water, with IRWD selling RW at $250 /acre foot, while the price
for potable water is about $279/ acre foot.
The District produces the RW at its Michelson Operations Plant adjacent to San
Diego Creek near Michelson and Harvard in Irvine. Tertiary- treated RW goes
through four separate treatment operations:
(1) Removal of settle -able solids,
(2) Removal of soluble organics,
(3) Filtration, and
(4) Disinfection.
IRWD can produce about 15 million gallons per day ( "mgd ") of RW from the
Michelson Plant. RW Demand exceeds 26 mgd in the summer months, but it •
reaches only about 5 mgd in winter months.
As noted above, during most winters IRWD produces more RW than it can
distribute. As such, it stores the water in one of two RW storage facilities - the
Sand Canyon Reservoir near Turtle Rock (Irvine) and the Rattlesnake Canyon
Reservoir in the foothills north of Irvine. During significant rain events, IRWD
can discharge RW from Sand Canyon Reservoir into San Diego Creek (which
drains into Newport Bay) under a permit authorized by the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region ( "Regional Board "). This permit
is known as Order 94-22.
Order 94 -22. Order 94-22 allows discharges from Sand Canyon during "a
catastrophic, chronic, or cumulative storm event (rainfall occurring over a 7 -day
period or less which is equivalent to that from a 25 -year, 24 -hour storm event)."
A 25 -year, 24 -hour storm event equals about 5" of rain. The Regional Board
reports that Sand Canyon has discharged 6 times in 22 years due to this type of
storm event - in 1980, 1983, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1997 -98.
Any discharge of RW into San Diego Creek and Newport Bay is a sensitive issue
for residents of Newport Beach, since many in Newport believe that any point -
source discharge of reclaimed water into the Bay degrades the Bay's water
quality. A point- source discharge (a sewage treatment plant's ocean outfall, for
instance) is one that is identifiable and can often be regulated. A non -point
source discharge (urban runoff) is less identifiable and therefore harder to track
and regulate. •
Page 3
Wetlands Water Supply Project. In 1995 -96, the City opposed IRWD's Wetlands
Water Supply Project (WWSP), a proposal that would have diverted up to 5 mgd
of reclaimed water from the Michelson Plant into a series of marshes adjacent to
the Plant. Once the water passed through the marshes (over a 7 -day detention
period), IRWD proposed releasing it into San Diego Creek. WWSP envisioned a
2 -year demonstration phase and a subsequent permanent phase. IRWD received
permits from the Regional Board (Orders 96 -2 and 96-3) to implement WWSP.
At the time, the City - along with the Chamber of Commerce, the Balboa Island
Improvement Association, and other groups including a new advocacy group
called "Defend the Bay' - argued that the point- source discharge of RW into the
Creek and Bay could impair the Bays health in a number of ways, including
adding nitrogen to the Bay and by potentially adding a variety of contaminants
associated with the reclamation process. IRWD disputed most if not all of the
City's assertions, arguing that RW had far less impact to the Bay than the urban
runoff and nuisance flows contained in San Diego Creek.
Readers who wish to know more about the 1996 WWSP can review the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 95011047). The document is available at
the Newport Beach Public Library.
Basic Integrated Re-Use Pry. The Cit/, s opposition to the WWSP led it to
propose a Basic Integrated Re -Use Project (BIRP) to attempt to address IRWD's
wintertime oversupply of RW. The BIRP proposed, among other things:
• GAP II. Green Acres Phase II envisioned the construction of a new 7.8
million gallons per day (mgd) pipeline from the Orange County Water
District (OCWD) to an Intertie pipe (see below) coming from IRWD's
Michelson Operations Plant.
— Intertie. The Intertie is a 7.8 mgd pipe that goes from the Michelson
Operations Plant to the end of GAP II's pipe.
OCWD's Acceptance of Wintertime Flows. OCWD would accept at least
4.6 mgd and up to 7.8 mgd of IRWD's excess RW between October 1 and
March 31 as long as the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) agreed
to take at least 4.2 mgd of the OCWD RW which OCSD would use instead
of secondary- treated RW.
City End -User Agreements. The City would commit to entering into
agreements with major purchasers of RW within the City (including the
Big Canyon Country Club and the Newport Beach Country Club).
BIRP is in place today. In the Agreement which set the BIRP in motion (dated
July 17, 1996), IRWD and the City proposed a Long -Term No Discharge
Scenario whereby IRWD and the City would use their "best efforts" to avoid any
RW discharge into the Bay. Included in the Scenario was the goal to work
together towards a permanent water source to irrigate the marsh system.
San Toaquin Reservoir and the Joint Statement of Objectives. As noted, the
Reservoir has a historic capacity of about 3,050 acre feet of water. IRWD believes
that it can add the San Joaquin Reservoir to its existing RW storage system
. (including Sand Canyon and Rattlesnake Canyon) to manage IRWD's wintertime
excess RW to reduce the need for future new point- source discharges of RW into
San Diego Creek except under the extraordinary circumstances described in
Page 4
Order 9422. The City agrees that adding the capacity of the SJ Reservoir will •
greatly reduce any need on 1RWD's part to discharge and therefore supports its
conversion.
The City is the only ownership partner of the SJ Reservoir that has not yet
consented to the transfer of its ownership to IRWD. In anticipation of this
transfer, City representatives have met with 1RWD over a series of months to
develop a joint Statement of Objectives that would help identify and make
public the ways in which the City and 1RWD will cooperate to reduce or
eliminate point- source discharges of RW into the Bay. These include:
— Continued and permanent diversion of San Diego Creek water into the
marsh system to limit nitrogen inflows into the Bay.
— Sediment removal in Campus -area catch basins to implement the
Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
Effective operational management of the San Joaquin Reservoir to
minimize impairments to the neighboring residential communities.
Seeking additional ways to use surplus RW outside of the San Diego
Creek watershed, including the continuation of the Green Acres Project,
the OCSD outfall, and the Intertie.
Promotion of water conservation throughout the region.
Greater public access to information, including to 1RWD's operational
data associated with its RW storage network.
Participation in future water quality studies involving Newport Bay.
— Promotion of additional uses for RW, including possible expansion into
Newport Beach's Harbor Ridge community.
Compliance with existing orders and permits of the Regional Board,
specifically Order 9422 relating to Sand Canyon overflows during
extraordinary rain events.
Transfer Documents and Sale Price. if the City Council agrees with the
recommended action, the Council will authorize the Mayor to transfer the City's
approximate 1.18% ownership right in the San Joaquin Reservoir to 1RWD for
$360 /acre feet of ownership (about $13,000). Any transfer of ownership rights
also includes a transfer of any liability obligation on the City's part for the future
use of the Reservoir. City staff believes that this $13,000 sum should be used in
part to support and monitor the Joint Statement of Objectives.
1RWD staff has told us that transfer documentation (to be signed by the Mayor
when these documents are prepared) will include language which would negate
the transfer and return the City's ownership share to the City should 1RWD
choose at a later date NOT to convert the Reservoir to a reclaimed water storage
facility.
11
0
•
0
Page 5
Conversion Schedule. IRWD recently issued a mitigated Negative Declaration
(ND) that describes the likely environmental impacts of the Reservoir's
conversion to a reclaimed facility. The full conversion schedule is as follows:
Circulation of ND
Adopt Final ND
Finalize Construction Plans
Authorize Construction Bid
Commence Construction
Complete Construction, begin Fill
Complete Fill
September 2000 - Oct 2000
October 2000
July 2001
July 2001
August 2001
April 2003
June 2003
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Resolution 2000 _ Authorizing Transfer of City�s Ownership
of San Joaquin Reservoir to the Irvine Ranch Water District
Attachment B - Joint Statement of Objectives between IRWD and City of
Newport Beach
Attachment C - Letters in support of SJ Reservoir conversion from Orange
County CoastKeeper and Surfrider's NB Chapter
Page 6
Attachment A
Resolution 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP
OF THE SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR AND A
JOINT STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES FOR THE
NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach is one of eight owners of the San Joaquin Reservoir located
just east of the City's boundaries in the San Joaquin Hills; and
WHEREAS, the City's ownership is approximately 1.18% or 36 acre feet of the Reservoir's 3,050 acre
foot capacity; and
WHEREAS, the Irvine Ranch Water District, as the agency with the greatest ownership stake in the
Reservoir, has sought and received transfers of ownership from the other six owners with the intent to
convert the Reservoir into a facility which stores tertiary- treated reclaimed water; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that the use of the Reservoir as a reclaimed water storage facility
provides specific benefits to. the City and to City residents, including:
the restoration of a "blue water' view for neighboring residences;
an increased ability for IRWD to serve reclaimed water to a greater number of customers,
including customers in the Harbor Ridge and Spyglass Hill communities;
a minimization -- if not elimination -- of the need for IRWD to discharge excess reclaimed water
into San Diego Creek and Newport Bay; and
WHEREAS, the City therefore supports the conversion of the Reservoir into a reclaimed water
storage facility; and
WHEREAS, the City and IRWD have agreed to state their joint objectives in managing the Newport
Bay Wateshed's resources in a manner which protects water quality throughout the region; and
WHEREAS, these objectives include preserving, protecting, and extending the limited and
extraordinary discharge authorization provided in IRWD's Order 94 -22 as issued by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana region, and
WHEREAS, the City lends its formal support to the Joint Statement with the expectation that the City
and its residents will sincerely and forcefully protect the Objectives of the Statement before any relevant
regulatory body should any matter arise between IRWD and the City that would impact the Statement's
Objectives; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Council hereby authorizes
Mayor Noyes to execute all documents necessary to implement a transfer of the City's ownership in the
San Joaquin Reservoir to the Irvine Ranch Water District at a price of $360 per acre foot of ownership
provided that such transfer documents include language which returns the City's ownership share to
the City should IRWD not convert the Reservoir to reclaimed water storage; and be it also
E
Page 7
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Council hereby authorizes
Mayor Noyes to sign the Joint Statement of Objectives for Newport Bay Watershed Protection which
describes the intent and objectives of the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Ranch Water District for
the protection of water quality in the Newport Bay watershed; and be it also
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that it hereby directs that all proceeds
from the transfer of ownership of the Reservoir be used to monitor and support the Objectives within the
Joint Statement; and be it also
RESOLVED the transfer of the City�s ownership interest will not become effective until IRWD fully
complies with all applicable State and Federal laws relating to the transfer including the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
ADOPTED this 26th Day of September, 2000.
ATTEST:
LaVonne Harkless
CITY CLERK
John E. Noyes
MAYOR
Page 8
Attachment B
City of Newport Beach
Irvine Ranch Water District
JOINT STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES FOR
NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED PROTECTION
September 26, 2000
The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and the City of Newport Beach (CNB) are committed to
improving the water quality in the Newport Bay by, among other things, enhancing the water quality of
its tributary watershed. The City, IRWD and residents interested in water quality all agree that the
conversion of the San Joaquin Reservoir to a reclaimed water storage facility will greatly reduce potential
reclaimed water discharges in the future. Since 1996, the City and its residents have worked to prevent
new point source discharges to the Bay. The conversion of the reservoir represents a significant step
towards that objective. For these reasons, the City Council intends to sell its small capacity interest to
IRWD and work with IRWD to implement the conversion. IRWD is committed to operate San Joaquin
Reservoir in a manner that enhances the nearby residential communities much like Sand Canyon
Reservoir enhances the homes around that facility.
The City and IRWD also support and will promote the increased use of reclaimed water as an alternative
to importing potable water supplies. By increasing the year -round demand for reclaimed water, the City
and IRWD will increase the beneficial use of reclaimed water - an important goal of the State - while
further reducing the potential for future new point source discharges of reclaimed water into San Diego
Creek.
IRWD, the City and the scientific community disagree as to the environmental impacts of routine wet
season reclaimed water discharges into San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. However, IRWD and
the City acknowledge the importance of continuing to strive for a balanced, scientifically sound approach
to managing all potential sources of water quality impairment in Upper Newport Bay. By adopting this
Joint Statement, the City and IRWD support implementation of the following measures that are designed
to improve water quality throughout Newport Bay and its watershed.
San Diego Creek Urban Runoff Diversion and Treatment: The agencies acknowledge that existing
diversions of San Diego Creek through the marsh system have resulted in substantial nutrient reduction
and improvement in the overall quality of water returning to San Diego Creek and ultimately Upper
Newport Bay. To further improve San Diego Creek water quality, IRWD plans to construct
improvements to expand the capacity of the San Diego Creek diversion system and protect the facility
from siltation so that year -round diversion of creek water through IRWD's San Joaquin Marsh system can
be implemented prior to the winter of 2001/02.
Sediment Removal Initiatives: IRWD plans to continue to remove the sediment from the San Diego Creek
in- channel basins per the existing agreement with the County of Orange. IRWD's actions will reduce
sedimentation in Newport Bay. Both agencies, have in the past, and will continue to support the
Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee's programs for in -bay basin sediment removal and
channel deepening.
Operation of San Joaquin Reservoir: IRWD intends to construct necessary improvements and operate the
San Joaquin Reservoir as a reclaimed water storage facility. IRWD plans to design and operate the
reservoir to minimize odors or other potential impairments to the adjacent residential communities, and
maximize reclaimed water storage during the winter when production from the Michelson Reclamation
Plant exceeds demand. Both agencies acknowledge the proposed operation of the reservoir will
9
Page 9
minimize the need for exporting surplus reclaimed water outside the San Diego Creek watershed. IRWD
and the City believe the reservoir will minimize the need for IRWD to seek prospective changes in its
NPDES permit to allow new point source discharges of reclaimed water into San Diego Creek in the
future.
Use and Disposal of Surplus Reclaimed Water Outside the San Diego Creek Watershed: Both agencies
will support efforts to find additional beneficial uses and alternative means of disposal of surplus
reclaimed water to projects outside IRWD and the San Diego Creek watershed area. IRWD and the City
will work together to continue current deliveries of surplus reclaimed water to the Green Acres Project
and the OCSD outfall. Both agencies will support renewal of agreements with the Orange County Water
District and Orange County Sanitation District to continue these deliveries in the future. Both agencies
will actively search for and support other regional projects that would take deliveries of surplus
reclaimed water from IRWD.
Water Conservation to Reduce Urban Runoff: Both agencies will continue to promote water conservation
as a measure to minimize runoff in accordance with the California Urban Water Council's Best
Management Practices.
Public Education and Information Programs: Both agencies support and actively participate in programs
to educate the public regarding practices to minimize non -point source pollution of urban runoff entering
San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. Both agencies support measures to provide increased public
access to IRWD's reclaimed water system operating and water quality data, including placing timely
operational data regarding Sand Canyon Reservoir on IRWD's website. The City and IRWD believe that
increased public access to this information will confirm IRWD's full compliance with permit conditions
and promote an understanding of the reclaimed water system, its overall operation, and its benefits.
Upper Newport Bay Watershed Protection Research: Both agencies support and will continue their
participation in current and future studies which IRWD and the City mutually develop or which are
proposed to them, and which they concur will advance the sound scientific understanding of water
quality problems and solutions for the watershed. Currently proposed studies include: the Regional
Water Quality Control Board's ( RWQCB) watershed health risk assessment study, the RWQCB /City of
Newport Beach Newport Bay pathogen source study, the RWQCB long -term monitoring program, the
RWQCB Total Maximum Daily Load programs, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Newport Bay
Watershed Feasibility Study which will determine the hydrology and hydraulics in the watershed and
sediment baseline characteristics.
Promotion of Additional Reclaimed Water Irrigation Uses: Both agencies will work diligently to expand
the uses and user base of reclaimed water in the San Diego Creek watershed area. The first priority will
be uses that offset current potable water demands and minimize the potential for new point source
discharge into the San Diego Creek. Additional reclaimed water service may include expansion into
Harbor Ridge and other areas of Newport Beach where it is both cost effective and within the best
interests of the City to provide such service.
Compliance with Reclaimed Water Use and Discharge Regulations: IRWD and the City acknowledge that
IRWD's current NPDES permit (Order 9422 - attached) operating restrictions and entitlements, including
permitted incidental discharges, effectively meet reclaimed water quality and discharge objectives for San
Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. As such, the agencies will actively pursue the renewal of IRWD's
NPDES permit under terms so as to preserve reclaimed water supply benefits and maintain water quality
protections for the community, the Newport Bay and its tributary area. Both agencies acknowledge that
the continuation of the operating restrictions and entitlements of Order 9422 are integral to this Joint
Statement of Objectives.
Page 10
This Joint Statement of Objectives was approved by the Newport Beach City Council on September 26,
2000 and by the Board of Directors of the Irvine Ranch Water District on September . 2000.
Darryl Miller, IRWD John E. Noyes
President of the IRWD Board of Directors Mayor of Newport Beach
9
iORANGC COUNTY COASTRCCPCR
3416 Via Oporto, Suite 201 Newport Beach, California 92663
6ce: (949) 723 -5424 Fax: (949) 675 -7091 Email: coastkeeperl @earthlink.net
I http: / /www.coastkeeper.org
2000
Thompson
of Water Quality
anch Water District
chelson Drive
:alifornia 92619 -7000
J p rpose of this letter is to lend our support to the San Joaquin Reservoir Project.
T ;co cept to save reclaimed water during the winter months is a good one. Though
J ; e are riot fully developed to utilize reclaimed water, and the winter months
re it less irrigation consumption, there Is, nevertheless, a value for reclaimed water.
• T ! w nter surplus should be saved where feasible. Converting the San Joaquin
R ry it appears to be both feasible and economical.
y, the Orange County CoastKeeper is interested In seeing Increased beneficial
reclaimed water be developed rather than any discharge of reclaimed water Into
Jewport Bay. The conversion of this reservoir to a reclaimed water storage
houid help ensure that no water is discharged into the bay.
the City of Newport Beach to support this project.. We would like to suggest
Is realized by the City, for their share of the reservoir, be allocated to such
as further monitoring of water quality and promoting reclaimed water use In
If �}e �an be of any assistance in gaining the approvals necessary for this project to
b mg a reality, please let us know.
1
J
Surfrider
Foundation
Ken Thoz 0son, Director of Water Quality
Irvine Raflih ata District
3512 Mi lson Drive
Irvine; C 2612 -1799
RE: Sup*prt for the conversion of the San Joaquin Reservoir to store reclaimed water
Dear
The S I Foundation, its 26,000 members,. and the Newport Beach Chapter support water
reclamati as a means of water conservation. ..Reclaimed water is a valuable commodity that
should n e wasted. The Surfrider Foundation advocates the use of reclaimed water and feels
that the c version of the San Joaquin Reservoir will provide extra storage and prevent the
excess w r production that is reclaimed from being wasted. This support is conditional on the
fact that excess water will be drained out of the reservoir and into the Newport Back Bay. It
has been sured to the Surfrider Foundation from the Director of Water Quality that the site is
not pron spilling over due to a negligible amount of watershed.
The Surf er Foundation is dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world's waves and
beachesf all people, through conservation, activism, research and education. In California, we
have ovej 0,000 members and seventeen grassroots chapters ranging from F.Iumboldt County to
San Dieg including a chapter in Newport Beach. We find that the goals of the Surfrider
Foundatii t parallel those of the Irvine Ranch Water District's water reclamation program.
Namely t educe the quantity of treated water used and to reduce the amount of water that is .
sent of thlipanitation district and discharged into the ocean.
The Surf Foundation believes it is essential that that one positive environmental action does
not lead anouiler negative action and therefore we belie c fist it is assentisl tit the conversion
process a the new reclaimed water facility does not contribute treated or untreated water to the
Newport each Back Bay. The Back Bay estuarine ecosystem is rare in Califotnia, where over
90% of o wetlands have been destroyed, and it must be protected to the utmost.
Thank y for seeking the. opinion of the Surhider'Foundation in this matter and we support the
conversi of the.San Joaquin reservoir to a reclaimed water reservoir.
'ZONAL OFFICE - 122 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL, FM8 C67 - SAN CLEMENTE. CA 92672
(949} 492.8170 - FAX (949) 492.8142 a wwwsurfddor.org - E -MAIL infogsuridder.org V ^Y
� nrroe N 6rtnau»
r
ITEM 22
TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
FROM: Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager
Bob Burnham, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Conversion of San Joaquin Reservoir (SJR) and
1996 Basic Integrated Re -Use Project Agreement (B1RPA)
RECOMMENDED Staff recommends the following actions:
ACTION:
1 Support Approve, in concept, the conversion of the SJR to a reclaimed water
storage facility provided that the facility is operated in a manner that reduces or
eliminates any potential adverse odor or aesthetic impact from the operation of
the facih on adjacent residential communities;
2 Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute all documents
necessary to consummate the sale of the City's ownership interests in the SJR to
the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) when the environmental document for
the protect has been certified, and the City has complied with its obligations o.,
responsible agency, pursuant to subsegaenl and subWHedRWA%4A
compliance w drthe California Environmental Quakily Act.
3 Request Council Members Ridgeway and Debay to meet with representatives
of IRW D to address and resolve any remaining issues regarding the long-term
"no discharge" scenario referenced in Section 6 of BIRNA and report to the City
Council.
4. Assuming completion of the sale of the City's interest in the SJR, direct the
City Manager to use the proceeds to implement provisions of BIRPA or to
address issues related to reclaimed water discharges.
BACKGROUND: The San Joaquin Reservoir stands empty today in the hills just cast of Newport
Beach's city limits. When it was last in operation in the early 19905, it held about
3,050 acre feet of potable water (an acre Emit is
the amount of water needed to
cover an acre of land with one foot of water)
The Reservoir is owned by eight
parties, including
Ou-ner
i nYntage ownerslup
Irvine Ranch Water District
57.900%
\less Consolidated Water Distnct
19.11 %
City of Huntington Beach
13.11%
\1etropolitan Water District
9.84%
Laguna Beach County Water District
5.12%
The Irvine Compam•
2,10%
South Coast Water District
1.640%
City of Newport Beach
1 18%
San loaqum Rrseriry - 1993
By 1995, a series of problems - including infestations of midge flies and African
clawed frogs, a massive landslide and new regulations at the State level
requiring reservoir covers on potable reservoirs - caused the owners to re-
evaluate the use of the SJR. Because improvements to the SJR's ability to store
potable water would exceed $32 MN, IRWD has proposed using the facility to
store tertiary - treated reclaimed eater (RW)
DISCUSSION A - Approve Concept of Converting SJR to Reclaimed Water Storage Facility
the SJR has the capacity to store approximately 2500 acre feet of reclaimed water
compared to approximately 900 acre feet in Sand Canyon Reservoir and 700 acre
feet in Rattlesnake Canyon Reservoir SJR is not subject to the same storm water
inflow as Sand Canyon since SJR has no watershed. Sand Canyon's capacity is
limited to 200 acre feet each October 1 to accommodate storm water inflow.
Conversion of SJR has several benefits:
• It will improve the aesthetics of the area,
• It will improve the views of the nearby residents;
• It will allow Harbor View Hills to save money by using RW to irrigate the
common area; and, most significantly,
• It allows for a 3x mcrease in the wintertime RW storage capacity of IRWD.
The potential for odors or adverse aesthetic impacts can be eliminated or
minimized if IRWD adopts and implements appropriate operating protocols
Staff believes the City Council should approve the concept of the proposed
conversion of the SJR to a reclaimed water storage facility because of the benefit
to nearby residents and the reduced potential for reclaimed Hater discharges fn
the future.
B - Authorize the City Manager to Execute Documents Implementing the
Conversion and Sale of the City's Interests.
IRWD is the lead agency for the proposed conversion of SJR and has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Environmental Quality Affaus Committee
(EQAC) has prepared, approved and submitted comments on the MND (EQAC's
comments - with an executive summary provided by City staff - is included as
Attachment A). The City is a "responsible agency" under CEQA and should
defer formal approval of any document implementing the conversion or the
transfer of interests until IRWD has certified a-determinatien isnnade -that the
environmental document and the City has fullycompheds with its obligations as
a responsible agency pursuant to therequiremenlsef CEQA Staff recommends
that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary
documents if and when the Deputy City Manager and City Attorney determine
that IRWD and the City haves fully complied with CEQA.
C - Request Council Members Ridgeway and Debay to meet with IRWD
representatives to resolve issues related to BIRPA's "no- discharge scenario."
In 1996 the City, IRWD and the Orange County Water District (OCWD) entered
into the Basic Integrated Re -Use Project Agreement (BIRPA) Some of the key
provisions of BIRPA are.
- GAP 11. OCWD was required to construct a new 7 8 mgd pipeline (GAP
11) to connect to a similar pipe coming from IKWD's Michelson Water
Reclamation Plant (latter pipe known as the "Intertie ").
- Intertie. IRWD was required to construct a 7 8 mgd pipeline from the
Michelson Water Reclamation Plant to connect with the GAP II facility.
OCWD's Acceptance of Wintertime Flows OCWD agreed to accept at
least 4 6 nigd and up to 7.8 mgd of IRWD's excess KW between October 1
and March 31 as long as the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)
agreed to take at least 4 2 mgd of the OCWD R W.
City End -User Agreements. The City committed to enter into agreements
with major purchasers of KW within the City (including the Big Canyon
Country Club and the Newport Beach Country Club)
No Discharge Scenario. The City and IRWD agreed to use their "best
efforts' to reach agreement on ways to achieve water quality
improvements without the discharge of RW into San Diego Creek.
Agreement on the "no discharge' scenario required the resolution of certain
issues identified in Section 6 of BIRPA (see Attachment B). Staff believes that
many of those issues - such as the construction of an outfall and identification of
a reliable source of water to irrigate the duck ponds - have been resolved. As
such, we believe that the City and IRWD may now be in a no- discharge
environment per the BIRPA We recommend that Council Members Ridgeway
and Debay meet with representatives of IKWD to address and resolve any
remaining issues related to Section 6 and report back to the City Council
D. Use of Sale Proceeds
We recommend that the proceeds of any transfer of the City's ownership interest
in the SIR be earmarked to implement the "no discharge" scenario contemplated
by BIRPA or to address issues related to reclaimed water discharges.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Comments from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee
on the Negative Declaration.
Attachment B - Section 6 of the Basic Integrated Re -use I'rolecl Agreement
(executed July 17, 1996)
Attachment A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
of the
Comments of Environmental Quality Advisory Citizens' Advisory Committee
San Joaquin Hills Reservoir Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conclusion
Upon detailed review of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) prepared
by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) for the San Joaquin Hills Reservoir project,
EQAC concluded that the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration does not fully comply
with CEQA and that based on current information an Environmental Impact Report is
necessary. This conclusion was based, in part, on the potential growth inducing
impacts in that the Project would allow IRWD to better manage the use of reclaimed
water, thus reducing the need to use potable water for irrigation and therefore allow
potable water supplies to sustain additional growth.
Other Considerations
In addition to this conclusion, EQAC found flaws in other aspects of the DMND
including the following:
• Certain mitigation measures are vague and /or fail to specify benchmarks or
performance standards against which to judge compliance;
• Certain mitigation measures do not identify parties responsible for insuring
compliance;
• Conclusions as to the significance of the environmental effect of water seepage are
made without any technical information to support the conclusion;
• Short -term impacts are all determined insignificant simply because they are short-
term in nature; and
• There is insufficient analysis of alternatives to the use of gaseous chlorine in the
operation of the reservoir.
These issues should be addressed before the City accepts the environmental document
as adequate.
((or the remainder of Attachment A (full text of EQAC's comments J, please see the Agenda
information for this item u8nch was distributed Wednesday, October 18, 2000)
JOHNSON & EDWARDS LIT
KRVIN K 1O)LNSOW
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
IOILN8 EDWARDS
INCLUDI.NO A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
1006 4r STREET 6TH FLUOR
DAVID o CR066
ATFoRNEYS AT LAW
6ACRAAIENTO. CA 951.1
HEIDJR BROWN
602 WEST BROADWAY. 51117E 1140
1RA?IN_R L )A"X %,WON
SAN DIEW. CALIFORNIA 92101.1712
TE11YRa/d6 (916).v2a1+
JARED NAN60N
FAX(916)4924510
TELEPHONE (619) 696.6211
••l�o.rrt qu+
FAX (619) 69647516
' •uo•o.n.s r,Irr�•
"RECEIVED AFTER AC>I NOA
October 24, 2000 'IiINTED:11 .- ��= a-`i.0 v
YIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL- —�
Hon. John E. Noyes, Mayor
1
Newport Beach City Council l
Robert Bumham, City Attorney
City of Newport Reach
P 0. Box 1768 _
Newport Beach. CA 92658 -8915
Re- Conversion of San Joaquin Reservoir (SJR) and 1996 Basic Integrated Re -Use
Project Agreement (B1RPA)
October 24, 2000 Regular Meeting
Honorable Members of the City Council
We represent Defend the Bay, Inc , a California non -profit organization dedicated to
protecting Newport Bay and its watershed. We refer to our letter to the Council dated September
26, 2000 regarding the City's duties as a responsible agency under the California Environmental
Quality Act ( "CEQA ") with respect to the San Joaquin Reservoir project as background for the
following comments.
We have reviewed the staff report regarding the Council's consideration of the project at the
October 24, 2000 regular council meeting We are writing to inform the Council that the staff s
recommended action with respect to the project still represents a failure to comply with CEQA, for
the following reasons
StafTs first recommendation is to authorize the execution of all documents necessary to
effectuate the sale of the City's interest in the reservoir. Staff has apparently attempted to comply
with CEQA by adding the following language. "when the environmental document for the project has
been certified, and the City has complied with its obligations as a responsible agency, pursuant to
[CEQA.]" As an initial matter, it is unclear whether staff is recommending signing the documents
immediately and including a provision in the documents that the sale will be effective after the stated
conditions, or whether they are recommending waiting to sign the documents until after the stated
conditions have occurred.
In either event, such an action by the City would violate CEQA as an approval of the project
before environmental review is completed. As a responsible agency, the City must, prior to its
approval, consider the environmental impact report or negative declaration prepared for the project,
as well as the effects of the project identified in that document. Pub. Res Code § 21002(d), CEQA
Guideline 15004(a).
■ __. [4 J'J _c. 7i __...'.c _:. R cvnAn_a to =It :n_c _wit
Hon. John E. Noyes, Mayor
Newport Beach City Council
Robert Burnham, City Attorney
October 24, 2000
Page 2
Staffs recommendation, however, commits the City to a definite course of action on the
project (i e., selling its interest in the reservoir) regardless of the content of the environmental review
document. Staffs recommendation does not condition the sale upon a favorable or acceptable
environmental review of the project, but only provides that the sale will occur A2= the environmental
review. Following through on staff's recommendation, therefore, would constitute an approval of
the project prior to the environmental review required by CFQA
We also have serious concerns with staff's first recommendation, which is to support the
project in concept provided the facility is operated so as to reduce or eliminate potential adverse odor
or aesthetic impacts We first note that the term "reduce" is far too vague to constitute any
meaningful condition. Reduce from what? Reduce by how much, or to what level? Such a
"condition" is essentially meaningless
More importantly, by conditioning the City's support of the project only upon these two
issues (odor and visual impacts), the City completely ignores the myriad other potential impacts the
project will have For instance, potential environmental impacts have been identified with respect to
human health, water quality, vectors, growth inducement, and sensitive and threatened wildlife
species
We have attached letters from various experts in these areas, who have concluded that project
will have numerous potential environmental impacts Richard M Gersberg, Ph D., has concluded that
the project has the real potential for adversely impacting public health as a result of accidental
chlorine releases, vector problems and degradation of the groundwater Robert Patton, a biologist,
has concluded that the project may have significant adverse impacts upon sensitive habitat and
sensitive and threatened wildbfe. Also, Craig Jones, a professional planner, has reviewed the project
and found that it has a strong potential for significant growth inducement, an important environmental
impact Finally, Karl A Johnson, a professional engineer, has identified potential adverse impacts
from insects, seismically induced soil liquefaction and water discharges
In light of these serious potential iinpacts from the project, staff's recommendation to support
the project conditioned only upon a vague standard with respect to odor and visual impacts is
insufficient In order to comply with CEQA, the City must consider all environmental impacts that
affect its interests See Pub. Res Code § 21002(d).
In summary, the action recommended by staff constitutes an approval of the project prior to
the completion of environmental review. We again caution the City that such an approval would be
in violation of CEQA
Sincerely,
JO %H/NSON�& EDWARD LLP
Jared Phil Hanson
Enclosures
cc: Robert Caustin
JOHNSON & EDWARDS LLP
KFVIN K JOHNSON'
A REG:SI ERnD 1 IMI rLD IJAD I LITY PARTNERSHIP
:n^F EDWARDS
LAW CORPORATION
DAVIDD CROSS
AI- IORNEYS AT LAW
5a:b1E DROWN
403 WESI BROADWAY. SUITE 1140
T'.A%NF 1 M.1KINNON
SAN DIEGO. C'ALIFURN :A 97101 1513
JAAEnP HA%%ON'
TELEPIIONE (619) 696.6111
•. wow o•w u.
FAX (619) 696.7516
Auo+e.t..59 r MR9M
October 9. 2000
VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. IIA L
Michael Hoolihan• P E•
Irvine Ranch Water Disli:: t
15600 San Canyon Avenic
Irvine, CA 92618
LL
SAC� NTO OFFICE
0064111 5=11T, 6TH FLOOR
1A('RAMPA7O.CA954 +
TELhPHO]T (9165497 w1:
FA)(;91:)497 )570
Re Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for San Joaquin Reservoir Project
Project No 30011
Dear Mr Iioolihan
Thank you for your notification las( week via telephone that the Water District will be
accepting comments on behalf of Defend the Bay until O; tober 23, 2000 We are continuing our
work with several consultants w" -o are in the process of reviewing and preparing comments on the
subject proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
I:r the nl%n'.i ;ne• we we:e `'ad:tg to you, un:iei separate cove:, comments nn) n•-1 c health
expert, Richard Gc :sbe ;� and alto sepa. ;.:e c.,)wmeiits from planner. Craig Jor.cs, to.:c', nu on a
number o' the defic.enc.es Iden::fied within the Mitigated Negative Declaration
We also, a: ms ;r::e• wsh to scbmrt tiie :ollowir.g interim comments regare c,, the Mitigated
Negative DecL.ra :ton As explained below rind cons.s:ent with the comments from Mr Jor.es and MIr.
Gci%berg• we believe s :ronL :\ that a full em ;ronrlental Impact report needs to be prepared : egarding
th;s p:o;ect
}nir Areumrnt Standard
Purscant ;n ;he Ca' form. Environmental Quality Act (•'CEQA" ), ar. ageccv ci r. F.-epare a
nega: ve declnratlon (or n_r.gated negative declaration) rather than an Environmentel lmpac: Report
( "FIR") only w•her. these :51iv substa::t.al e, idence ;hat the project may have a sigr, ;`can: Impact on
the em'rronmer.: PLbhc Resources Code ('•PRC') g 21080(c)(1) Thus. an FIR is req:ured when
substantial ev)den :e Creases a fair arcu nen'. that a significant envi.onmen:al wra-i m.;y occur
No 01l Ice v. City of L-03 Angeles (1974) 13 Cn: 3d 68. ?5
The ••fair zraunirn[' standard is meant to estabhs :i a "low threshold " C 'izeII5 Action to
Serve 511 $; Id nrs v Thom! ,-,. (1990) 223 Cal App 3� 14S• 754 An EIR ;s nececc.iry to re; ^;ve aa1'
Michael Ifoolihan, P l
Irvine Ranch Water Disti ict
October 9, 2000
Page 2
uncenatnty created by co:tfliccing assertions No Oil, "i La. 13 Cal 3d at 85 If there is any conflict
to submantial evidence. an EIR is requited 1;J a: 75
Our review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration reveals that substantial evidence exists to
slow that the proposed project wi:l have several significant impacts on the env;: onm.ent, as outlined
below. Accordingly, the Wuter District must prepare an EIR rather than a mrtiga:ed negative
declaration before approving the protect
RUMMI'llFiTo r
As discussed in Mr )ones letter, dated October 6, 2000, the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is erroneous m its assumption tha: the project will not be growth - inducing
Furthermore, an action's pole ntia: for inducing growth is a specific environmental
consideration tha; must be addressed anal aralyze:i during the environmental review. GI:Acllne §§
15126(d). 15126 2(d) Thus. Guideline sec::on 15126 2(d) provides the following mandate for the
content or an EIR
Growth- Imittcing Impact of t:•ie Proposed Project. Discuss the ways
in which the proposed project could foster economic or popu:ation
gro%%ih, o; the construction o`aaditional housing, either direct:y of
ind:rect!y, in the surro :mdirg environment Included it this are
protects which woul;l remove obstacles to population growth (a n:e;or
c.epP..r: ;ion of a waste wa:c: t: evrnent plan: mirh:, for example, allow
fo: nVre lonstrli.tion ir. ser.re n:eac )
The corm in C14_ff.A -lti2Qh v (` ( ),ir : :J (1986) 197 Cad App 3d 1315 cons:dcrec these
same effects with respect to a pro; osed cDns;mc:ion of sewer facilities and roa:lways �%htch was
app:oved b;; a nwn,c- paii:y w:k.)ut p: eparnttar. of an ER The coon conclt-de:! that such anticipated
effects required p:cpara::on oftae E-fR, des-::e t :ieir uncer.a;n:v
IOjur de ::sio;: in tits case a�:ses out o: tl-c realization t!ta: the <c!e
:easo:l r? cons::a :ct :::a roar! enc sewer project is :o provide a ca:a:; s;
fo: 5u1lier d.velopme tl in the immediate area BCCan5C C0ni1rLCha11
of the projeci cot.ld cot eas'.y be undone, and because achie� emea: of
r.s p. rpuse woc:d a!ntost cer.a.utly gave ;isnificant environmen::J
mpa_ts, cor;;nt :tion c ;t0u ;:'.:w: be permmed t0 corrmence unld s:icl'
impacts a:e eval. aced in the manner prescr.bed by CEQA
IS'/ CaJ App ;d it l;_', see asn B,)?ung v Local Agenc )F9rma t )_U 'n (1970 I : Cal 3d 263
(E1R required pno: to app:o.,al o;'a city's ar.ne.eation ofnnal property because deveiopm. -:n ofthe.
property ��a; an;ic:pated)
Michael Hoo'ih w. IJ L•
Irvine Ranch Watcr Dist:ict
October 9. 2000
Page 3
Other ai:alogous p:ojects which have been held to require preparation of an L'IR include
adoption of an ordinance authorizing alternative sewage d sposa'. systems. li nirgc'r v, Board of
S=i yj g5 (1966) 186 Cal App 3d 60! , and expansion of a sewage treatmen: p!; nt and addition of
new percolation pond--. Cor:miss:On for a IJggt�5g :xe G. IItQY _x._S ;ate.lYntc[.Reso.ir :es Control Bd.
(1987) 192 Cal App 3d 647
Deferred Mitigation for Hydrology and Water Ott y Lrnparts
The proposed Mitiga:ed Negative Declaration improperly defers future studies of the
hydrological features of the ex ;sun.g facility as they would impact such things as water quality, odor
and vector; As pointed out by Nlr Gersberg in his October 9. 2000 letter, this type of deferral is
who:ly inapproptiate given the potential for negacve impacts on the environmen; and :be need to deal
with those impacts up front in terms of project redesign ar.d /or appropriate mAigat on measures
Mitigation mens%ires tha: ate "tentative and vag: e" are insufficient to mi::gate a project's
adverse emirun :nemal inmpacts Leazl :e for Protection of Oaks na d's AicI,its'tu'sl and Hrstp k
Rt:sources v. Qty of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal App.4th 696, 909 In addition. :he principle that
deferred mitigation measures are inadequa:e is most readily drawn from cases involving mitigated
negative dec'aiations
Fo: example the co:irt in Slirie.stropiy _ County Mendocino (1936) 202 Cal App.3d 296,
inval dared a mI;gatec! negative dec;aratio:i that required as mitigation the prepa: ation of a hydrology
study in tl:e f::r:re idea: fy:ng potentia; environmental effects and propasme m.tiga:ion measures
The coot cuncludrd thr.: a "re :u emn:: that l °e app ;scant adopt m :nSn:ion mez.s.res recommended
W a fitt.ire sit:a/ is it direct con0 :c: wi:l: the i.,•pien:enling CF,QA T;: is procedwe
is ec ":rP.: % to lay. " S. c.i> m.r. v CO.,llty Nlendocwt, ( 19SS) 2C3 C.i: Apt; i;! ? <ii:. 305 307
measure tha: iequiics :he app 'icar.t to ccmp:': ssiw :ecorr.:nenaa:ions in
z. re;morl or s!. d,: -:ef,.rcd ire the f.•IGTe i.rpTopnrl,J deters rr{ngaaor. and vi late; CF OA j;, . CjSZLy
v 'i;y o[Mum-leu (199 ) 36 Ca: App 4:h 1359. 1196
Future Expumion of the ITOLD Watte Water Reclaimition System
T:r_ proposed M.::ea:et Negative Dec!ara:ion fn.s to ;:!em:fc f t;Gre p.a:rs `Or expansion of
the IR \VD Rec:amat on S;,stem A_ e there, fu: examp:e, curren:'v, plan; to expand the A.:ure of the
capaa:y of : ;tie San Joagr. n Reservo O If nj:, is an expansion, likely to be :reeved a tr.e: at San
Joal.un or at a:: the: exislxg fact::! : What othz: s ;es has t`te Wii:ct Disir,c: :can!..' cd fc: possible
or pro�ab.e expansion of iu reel ^wntioi: system'' How wiil these future r. :Pas re:a:e to the expansion
Of pota;;;c %\a:c: sr.pi:hes as t'ev w.11 suppo:t t owe resicenlial a:id noi:•res ::.- iit:al dcvc.opment?
How w.11 C.Kpa:,s :on n:` rim was,c %ce:ei sys:ew impact accidental re'eases o` po;Ltan :s ir,;o Newport
B ay'
■ __ YS �v II J:..
Michael Hoolthan, P.E
Irvine Ranch Water District
October 9, 2000
Page 4
These arc just a few of the short- and long -terin planning issues that need to be studied in
detail More information and analysis is obviously needed in order to piopcily assess the probable
and potential environ:uental impacts associated with the San Joaquin Reservoir redamation project
As noted above, we are working with additional expeits in the fields of reclamation, biology
and archeology. We will provide comments on these and other subjects in due course and in no
event, no later than October 23, 2000
Thank you for careful consideration of these issues.
Very truly yours,
JOHNSON & EDDWARDS LLP
. Johnson
KKJ kaw
cc Defend The Bay, Inc
10 /09 /00 MON t0'34 FAX 6t95946t`?
C'ed"11 Stheal of Iu6Lr lacks
(alkp4 0l HMtlth End N.aro Sr'kos
pnpo 56:h D.vecz4y San kic SCre tM[oa q
5500(emp:, fi D'ne
San C ago (A 97182.4167
14. fiti•594.6317
FAX 619.594.6117
October 9,2000
SDSI; PUBLIC HEALTH
Mr Micbael Honlihan. PE
Irvine Ranch Water District
15600 Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine. CA 92618
Dear Mr. Hooliham
1 have been asked by Defend the Bay to review and comment on the Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the San Joaquin Rcservoir Project, prepared by Dudek and
Associates (September, 2000). I am a Professor of Environmental Health at the Graduate
School of Public Health at San Diego State University, with a broad background, and
mono than 20 years of experience, in water quality. wastewater reelainatlon, and risk
assensmt:nt research. In the San Joaquin Reservoir Project, IRWD proposes to cunvcrt the
reservoir site to non - potable water storage of reclaimed water, as well as construct three
pump stations. a reclaimed water pipeline, and a chlorination tank storage facility, which
will operate with as many as 12 1-ton chlorine containers on -site at any given time.
After review of the Draft Mitigated Declaration, 1 find that this document is inadequate.
in both scope and detail. in addressing several major human health and environmental
impacts of the San Joaquin Reservoir Project including:
1. tlic risk ofaccidentdl chlorine release to the neighboring community
possible public health and aesthetic problems resulting from hn:h vectors and
odors arising from storage of high - nutnent containing reclaimed wastewater at
the reservoir.
3. seepage of such high-nutrient wastewater out of the reservoir. and possible
degradation of groundwater quality
1 will now discuss these impacts is detail• n1 each case sbowing how the Draff Mitigated
Negance Declaration is inadequate in its evaluation of each of these adverse pl:bbc health
or environmental consequences of the Reservoir Project
First. since reclaimed wastewater needs to be chlorinated to a much higher residual (as
per CCR. Title 22) than does drinking water, the storage of as marry as 12 1 -ton
containers of chlorine on the site at any given time, represents a significant risk to the
nearby population in the case of an accidental release Chlorine is an acutely ha7ardou�
material, and even was rlsed as a poison gas in World War I. Its discharge in an
accidental release from the site as a cloud of gaseous toxic chemical. can have severe
: J'.':e1 %.: Silt; '.I. sFlsll' 1.4 :i �! b ;v.Y ii trig Un . '[, r..K ;u * +r •'n') cia•el Yp•; ... la( fie %! . l% irol'a
If} 0 0 2
10/0q/00 N0\ 10.15 P.tX 61n39461'° 9DS1 P11131.IC 1F.i1:11
(even fatal Consequences to human populations downwind. As it now exists. the Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration is totally, insufficient in identifying and analyring the
possible serious hiunan health impacts The statement made on pogo 2 15 in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration that 'IRWD will submit a Risk Mwiagettteni and
Prevention Plan .....prior to approval of construction drawtngs" 1s wholly inadequate In
allowing public agencies and the interested public, to know with some precision before
project approval . the location and number of people wbo may be adversely affected by
chlorine release. In ligbt of this, it is imperative for the San Joaquin Reservoir Project to
have a Risk Management and Prevention Plan incorporated into a full Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) done before, and not after, project approval.
With regard to other possible public health and aesthetic impacts resulting from the
storage of reclaimed wastewater, Ditdek & Associates state on page 2 -13 of the Draft
Mitigated Negative Declatatiun that "During project design and prior to filling the
reservoir, IRWD will perform a water quality analysis of the reservoir that will predict
the range of various water quality parameters...... Should the analysis identify specific
water quality parameters that are predicted to cause aesthetic. insect , or odor problems at
the reservoir, IRWD would utilize design solutions such as biological wnttol,
aerationtcirculat ion, and or chemical treatment to maintain water qualil." Again, it is my
strong conviction, that such a water quality analysis should be performed as part of it full
EIR done before project approval in order that public agencies and the interested public
fully appreciate the impacts of the project on human health. This is extremely Important,
since expansion of habitat for vectorborne disease - carrying insects (e.g. those that harbor
malaria or encephalitis) may have significant public health implications. Indeed, since
IRWD already operates two reservoirs used for similar storage scenarios, then it should
include monitoring data In a full EIR that supports their claim that such rescrvuirs may be
managed so as trot to inerca9e vector populations above some baseline condition. There is
no such data presentation or analysis in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We are only
left with a rather vague assurance that IRWD will design solutions should these probl=
arse. In my view. when pubb:; health may be put at risk, then n full analysis of the
problem scenarios mus! be p7esented fully beforehand in an EIR Additionally. it would
be prudent to include within a full EIR- the design and scope of u vector monitoring
program that will be fully incorporated into the Reservoir Project operational plan.
The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration states on page 3.13 that" Duiwl; design and
prior to filling the ieservo -:. IRNI D will perform a site - specific study thc. will quantify
the amount of iesenoir 5et:pagc..Should the analysis identify that reservoir seepage
would be in violation of Rte QC13 Basin Plan objectives. IRWD would urjh7.e design
solutions......" Howe%cr, as with the vectorborne impacts aoovc, i; is impuriant that
1RWD perform this seepage analysis in a full EIR before the approval of the project. This
is particularly imperative in this situation, since a great amount of research bas
demonstrated that once contaminated. a drinking water aquifer is nearly irnpossible to
remediatt: to drinking seater standards. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration stales
on page 3 -5 that reservoir modifications including repair and �- mallatinn of the liner
will ensure that any seepage of reclaimed ...woiild not exceed that which previously
occurred at the reservoir (less than '/, cfs),- However it is important to note here tbat
1? 003
i. 11 .:L -. :L . 1 ._nn niv
10/09/00 MON 10.36 FAX 61959453- SM'' PUBLIC HEALTH ZOO:.
seepage which may have previously occurred at the reservoir. was seepage of drinking
water. In this case. the San Joaquin Reservoir will store reclaimed wastewater, with
among other nutrients, a very high level if nitrogen. Indeed. A cfv of reservoir seepage is
no small volume, but amounts to over 300,000 gallons per day. At this rate of seepage, as
much m 67 kilograms per day of nitrogen could be released into the groundwam. Since
the drinking water standard (maximum. contaminant level) is relatively low for nitrate, at
10 mg/L. then this arnount of seepage could contaminate. to above the drinking watec
standard, more than a million gallons of groundwater every day. At present, no such
analysis of this significant impact on groundwater quality is included in the Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is imperative that a dutailcd seepage and groundwater
quality analysis be included m a full EIR, so that public health and regulatory agencies
realize the true threat to groundwater quality posed by the project, and can require timely
and appropriate, avoidance and mitigation measures. .
S' el /���
'chard M. Ciersberg. Ph.D
Professor of Environmental Health
LG J'd ..'l3: 1 L .
Craig B. Jones. Principal
10055 Wildlife Road
a:, a,., :1:
San Diego. California 92131 Telephone (858) 695 -1998
October 6. 2000
Michael Hoolihan, P.E.
Irvine Ranch Water District
15600 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine. CA 92618
Re: Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, San Joaquin Reservoir Project
Dear Mr. Hoolihan:
This submittal is made on behalf of the organization Defend the Bay. I am acting as a consultant for that
group. A statement of my professional qualifications is attached.
Under many circumstances a project involving the reclaiming of waste water can be environmentally
advantageous. This should be shown, however, in an accurate environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA-
The draft mitigated negative declaration for the San Joaquin Reservoir project provides an unsubstantiated
conclusion of no growth inducing effects. This conclusion is compounded over several areas of
discussion of environmental impact. With further evidence, however. this conclusion appears to be
erroneous. The way to correct this error is to prepare an environmental impact report .
On page 5.31. section 5.12. Population and Housing, the draft mitigated negative declaration presents the
fohowmz:
Q Would the project i;:-uce substantial population growth in an area, either directly . . or indirectly?
A The proposed prajcc: does not involve any increase in IRWD's capacity to produce reclaimed
«titer The protect vvili not provide additional long -term employment opporturutics 1\o residences
a-- cropusea as pan, o tie proposed project. and no extension of services beyond that currently
pia.mcd fo- is associated µith the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not
eer.erate addi:ionai popuLcion or cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections, nor would induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly. [emphasis
added;
With no further evidence or analysis to demonstrate it, the conclusion is simply stated that since this
project will only store reclauned water. no impacts related to the production of reclaimed water apply.
The rnitigated negative declaration relies on this statement in several other sections to also conclude no
5100 iiificant negative impacts Public sen•ices. police protection (p. 5.32), schools (p. 5.32), parks (p. 5-
33) other public facilities 1p 5.33). and recreation (p. 5.33)
i7. teiephone discussion « :h Mr Michael Hoolihan on October 2. it was clarified that, while this project
does r.oi itself directl) mvo :vc the production of reclaimed waste water, it does directly and substantially
create the water district's capacity to store and market such water. This reclaimed water is intended for
sale to customers for non - potable purposes (for the time being), during high- demand Summcr months.
The State's limited water supply is a constructive limit to uncontrolled growth. For every gdllon of
reclaimed water marketed by the IRWD, a gallon of potable, treated water from the Metropolitan Water
District is made available for other purposes. This increases the water district's contracted water supply.
which, consistent with common sense and planning experience, is likely be used to increase local and
regional land growth and development.
This project constitutes the possibility of a significant growth inducement by creating an expanded water
supply. The draft mitigated negative declaration is wrong in its unsupported conclusions of no growth
inducement related to population and housing, and public services including police services, schools.
parks. recreation, and other public facilities. While the draft mitigated negative declaration does not
provide discussion of growth inducement related to other areas, clearly, local and regional growth made
possible by increased water supplies also has the potential for significant negative effects related to traffic,
loss of agricultural lands, air pollution, and the full range of other finite natural and built resources.
In our telephone discussion Mr. Hoolihan further offered that IRWD engages in pumping of groundwater.
The water district does not currently provide its own treatment of water for distribution as potable. The
proposed San Joaquin reservoir and storage tank are intended not only to store reclaimed waste water, but
also specifically to allow a greater amount of ground water to be pumped, and then stored for marketing
along with the reclaimed water. This is contrary to the statement in the draft mitigated negative
declaration p. 5.22, in a section devoted to discussion of depletion of ground water. that' ehe project also
does not involve any ground water withdrawals." Clearly, this project directly increases the capacity of
the water district to pump ground water, and will lead to increased ground water withdrawals.
In creating a substantial storage capacity for non - potable water, the 1RWD is s short step away from
treatment to market this water as potable. This should also be addressed in an EIR discussion of increased
water supply as a growth inducement.
The draft mitigated negative declaration is erroneous in its unsupported offerutg that there is no
significant growth inducement. Clearly, this project does have the strong potential for significant growth
inducement. This issue has not been studied. and CEQA requires that h should be. to a full EIR.
I am available for questions related to this submittal
- S.t incerely.
Craig B. io es
Principal
i4 C.:
CRAIG S. JONES
DDOT PLANNING SYSTEMS +
10055 Wildlife Road
San Diego, California 92131
tele.: (858) 695 -1998
QUALIFICATIONS
Twenty four years experience in community, city and regional planning including zoning &
development review, application processing, environmental review and analyses, coastal
permitting, redevelopment and economic development, general and specific planning.
Employment with seven California cities and the San Diego region Council of Governments.
Management of both current planning (development processing) and long -range planning
programs for Southern California cities. Participation in several regional planning programs
through the San Diego Association of Governments (SA.YDAG). Expertise in land use planning;
zoning & development administration; environmental analysis; regional & local circulation and
transit planning & development; redevelopment & economic development; public facilities and
capital facility planning & development.
a.et r t , . . 1 . . : t.
California State Planning. Zoning &
Development Laws
State Subdivision Map Act
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)
California Coastal Act
California State Housing Laws & Regulations
California Redevelopmen: Law
National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA)
Federal Endangered Species Act
California Natural Communities Conservation
Planning Act (NCCP)
California'Tanrrc:' Act (Huwdvus Waste
Management Planning)
Wor ' g knvwlcd>tc of thr fol owH7g_gre>is of planning k#yg o ment:
Local coning use end devetopmen:
regulations
Development exactions & impact fees
Parking requirements, demands & design
Residential, commercial. & industrial project
site layout & design
Gencral/master planning
CB)1MFtLE5lAGL5EXV1611 r,V4 I I
Development proje:r landscaping
Development project trettic generation &
impact assessment
Major & minor subdivisions
Truffle & circulation planning & assessment
Av1 ..•tt
Specifidprocise plans
Planned developments
Bicycle facilities planning
Public transit (rail, bus. other) planning &
development
Public facilities planning
Economic development
Traffic & circulation modeling & projections
Development projections
Growth management
Redevelopment & economic development
Coastal permitting
Local coastal program (LCP) development
Biological resource impact assessment
Air quality impact assessment
Noise impact assessment & planning
Open space /conservation planning
EXPERIENCE
Multiple habitat conservation planning
State & local environmental regulations &
processing
Housing Element development
Housing programs coordination/monitoring
CDBG funding, project development &
monitoring
4(d), 10(a). 401 streambed, other resource
agency project permitting
Public safety & emergency service planning:
police, fire, emergency response planning
Park facilities planning & development
Capital facilities planning & development
Intergovernmental coerdination/liaison
Urban design
Historic preservation
Code enforcement
Aoril 1994 - Present. Owner/PrinciDaL_DDOT Planning Systems +
Land use planning, mediation & conflict resolution, and writing consultant senices to the public
and private sectors Land use /development analyses; environmental assessmen!s and impact
reports. Represent clients to regulatory agencies, facilitate project processing. Coordinate
project design & development between client's objectives, marketing needs, regulatory• controls,
environmental constraints, and community input. Overall project work programming and
management. Third -party dispute resolution & facilitation services. Writing/ communications
consultant services.
Special Projects' Land use feasibility study & project manage, land purchase & expansion of
Pacific Nissan, San Diego, CA. Site analysis to identify jurisdictional control, likely development
requirements, and development feasibility. Coordinate between applicant, architect, and City;
represent to approval authority. Mediation services through San Diego Mediation Center and
independently.
CaIAyDFII.£S I.L(3LSER V(4/13,94• 1)
- !4',Z
r!
June 1987- nil 1994. Senior Planner. City of EnciniW5 CA
Manage Advanced Plartrung Division of the Community Development Department. Supervise &
direct professional staff. Prepare /administer annual Division budget. Prepare & carry out
Division project work programs. Administer consultant contracts & seniccs. Liaison with other
jurisdictions & agencies, represent City in regional planning programs. Manage adoption &
maintenance of City's General Plan. Reports to Community Advisory Boards. Planning
Commission, City Council.
Special Projects. Adoption of City's first General Plan and zoning code. Prepare award- winning
Downtown Encinitas, North Highway 101 Corridor specific plans including creation of
computerized data base, overall project work programming, direction of citizen advisory
committees. 1990 comprehensive Housing Element revision. Defense in major General Plan -
related litigation. Annual comprehensive General Plan review & revision. Maintenance & update
of the Encinitas Traffic Assessment Model & General Plan Circulation Element. Create City's
environmental review, 4(d) permit, coastal bluff overlay, and other development review
requirements & procedures. Encinitas partnership in north County Commuter Rail light transit
service planning & development. Act as Housing Programs Coordinator. SANDAG and regional
pluming projects: San Diego Regional Open Space Element; San Diego Regional Hazardous
Waste Management Plan development & implementation; Regional Energy Plan Technical
Committee; Mid - County Transportation Technical Committee; north County Multiple Habitat
Conservation Planning (MRCP) and State Natural Communities Conservation Planrung (NCCP)
programs.
November I285 -June 1987. Seri r_ Planner. City ofIrn_perie]_$1ach&A.
Manage current planting functions (development review & processing) of the City. Supervise
professional, technical & clerical staff. Supervise application processing: staff support to Plariaing
Comunission & Design Review Board; production of staff reports and action documentation:
environmental and coastal permit processing. Coordinate City departments involved in
communtity development. liaison with other agencies. Represent staff, presen: reports at Planning
Commission, Design Review Board, & City Council meetings. Coordinate & supervise zoning
code enforcement program. Produce new City ordinances. policies, admut strative regulations &
procedures. Interim C:ommuriry Development Director.
Special Projects Revise all Department systems & procedures related to current plarining/project
processing, imiuding clerical procedures: application tracking & processing s%ctems: produce new
development applications & applicant information manuals, revise staff repot, formats. Establish
coordination between City departments & outside agencies in development processin_e. &
commuruty development. Establish building permit tracking system. Create administrative policy
allowing project final occupancy. Produce /administer City Landscape & Irrigation Standards
Produce City ordinance adopting vesting subdivision reap allowance, Ongoing area zoning, Lund
use studies. Admtiruster Seacoast Specific Plan implementation. CDBG project administration.
March 198 - November 1985. Associate Planner. City of La Mesa CA
Manage assigned current and long -range planning activities: supervise Department personnel in
related field work and preparation of reports. Prepare iii-house draft/final emironrnental impact
reports (EIRs); coordinate outside consultant services in preparing EIR and other studies from
CB3AyDFlLES1 1 0LSr.RVN'1 3.v4, i ;
contract preparation through final product. Represent Planning Department at City Council.
Plaruting C:onunission, and hoard of -Zoning Adjustments. Staff support services to Board of
Zoning Adjustments. Acting Ptarrung Director in D'irector's absence.
Special Projects: City -wide mobilehorne /trailer park study resulting in establishment of new City
policies. Gateway Redevelopment Project manager, including preparation of project area study &
justification under State redevelopment law; conduct workshops & hearings; draft /final EIR City
analysis of proposed East Count} San Diego Trolley extension, resulting in memorandum of
understanding between City and MTDB. West - Central Area Specific Plan. Create voluntary City
historic preservation policy & program; manage Historic Review Board; liaison with I iistorical
Society. Zoning & Subdivision ordinance revisions. Create & supervise City code enforcement
program.
Febntery 1978-Much 1980. Assistant Planner. City of F.1 Ce1om CA.
Analyze projects & write staff reports for applications for zone changes, variances, conditional
use permits, site development plans, plaruted developments, specific plarts, and tentative
subdivision traps. Prepare initial environmental studies per California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for private development and City capital improvement projects. Negotiate project
design with applicants & designers. Report to Planning Commission & City Council on studies to
amend zoning ordinance and General Plan. Annual General Plan review & applications for land
use designation amendment. Telephone/counter public contact. As City's environmental
specialist, coordinate consultant preparation of EIRs; %rite in-house EIRs; coordinate processing
per CE QA.
Feb %ry 1 Q]6- February 1978, Junior /Assistant Piwer. City of RidgecreA.
Analyze applications & write staff reports for zone changes, variances, conditional use permits,
changes of non - conforming use, site plan reviews, planned unit developments. Analysis and
prepare reports to Planning Commission & City Council on special studies. Prepare initial
environmental studies and EIRs. General public contact Research & compile data on population
& housing. Chair Planning Commission meetings, present reports to City Council
Special Projects. Land use & housing study, Ridgecrest Heights area Home occupation
amendmen! to zoning ordinance Comprehensive research for General Plan update. Analy t,
write & produce EIR for off-roar' vehicle park. International Conference of Building Officials
(ICBO) training, plan checking
January- Febrngia 1976, Plaruu. g 1nteM City of Los Angeles, CA.
Prepare housing section of Huma;t Resources Element of City General Plan
1975, Planninglntem. Comprehersive g_Organization for the San DiegQjieglon (�:F_Q_),
S� llie¢o. CA•
Data research & writing for Regional Energy Resources and Allocation element of the Regional
Plan. Work on: Regional Capital Facilities Improvement program; Regional Traffic Network
development. Regional Industrial Center /Activity Center Coordination program
1974, Planning Intern. rite of San Diego. San Diego, CA.
C6JA)/DFILE51-LGLSEitV(4'1 3 v4.1)
Research & write Grantville Precise Plan study. Zoning research for Sorrento Valley industrial
section of Torrey Pines Community Plan. Generate data for computer traffic volume forecast
study. Research, prepare & write demographic /housing background analysis and Public Facilities
element of final Ocean Beach Precise Plan. Research for Oaslamp Planned District study.
Research for San Diego Design Manual (Kevin Lynch -Don Appleyard study). In -housc analysis
of Departmental growth.
EDUCATION
San Diego Mediation Center, November 1995, award of Mediator Credential; June 1994,
Intermediate Mediation Skills Training; July 1993, Mediation Skills Training
international Conference of Building Officials, September 1976, Short Course in Plan
Examination
San Diego State University, 1973 -75, post - graduate study, Urban History/Planning. Published,
critique of The Urban Future, Ely Chinoy, ed.
University of Southern California, B.A. 1972, U.S. & Urban History major, German minor.
Magna Cum Laude; Dean's List seven semesters. Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Kappa Phi academic
honor societies.
MEMBERSHIPS & AFFILIATIONS
American Planning Association • Member 17 years; periodic committee memberships, California
Chapter, San Diego Section
Scripps Ranch Community Planning Group - Board of Directors, 1994.2000; Chair. New
Developments/Environmental Subcommittee, 1994; Board Chair, 1995; City of San Diego
Community Planners Committee representative, 1995 -96
North San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Planning (MRCP) Ad%isory Committee,
1992 -1994
Member. San Diego Zoological Society
CR1AMFILES I •LOLSERV(u 13/94.1)
Opt -11 -00 02!47P Rnher
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Pages: 2
Michael Houlihan. P.E.
Irvine Ranch Water District
13600 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine. CA 92618
(949) 453 -0228
22 October 2000
Patton
868' 00923
_., Robert T. Patton
. . ___ . Consulting Dlologlet
4444 to Cuenta Or.
San Diego. CA 92124
(569) 560-0923
Re: Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Joaquin Reservoir Project
I have been retained by Defend the Bay, a California non - profit organization dedicated
to the preservation and enhancement of Upper Newport Ray and its watershed. I have
reviewed the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Joaquin Reservoir Project
prepared for Irvine Ranch Water District by Dudek & Associates. 1 was alarmed at the failure
to address potential impacts resulting from the project as it whole, inchuding the potential for
growth resulting ftom the project. potential cumulative impacts. and potential indirect impacts
to biological resources. Including sensitive species and habitats. Such impacts should be
addressed ihrrmgh a full Environmental Impact Report.
By way of background. 1 have been employed as a hlologist and consultant speciallzing
in endangered bird species and habitats in wastal Southern California for the past 20 yeare.
The bulk of my work has involved monitoring, management. and enviruumentad impact
assessment of breeding and wintering populationh and habitats of threatened western snowy
plover and California guatcatclaer, endangered light- fnnted clapper rail. California least tern.
and Beldiag's savannah sparrow My current on -going projects include monitoring and
management of birds and habitat for U.S. Fiqh & Wildlife Service San Diego National
Wildlife Refuge Complex. Deparunent of Defense. Zoological Society of San Diego and San
Diego Unified Port District.
Overall. direct impacts to biological resources resulting from the immediate
construction activities were addressed in the document, with the notahle exception of details on
the footprint of construction- related activity. including equipment staging. storage, and
stockpiling of soils. Each of these has the potential for significant negative impacts to
sensitive coastal sage scruh and riparian habitats. and suhsequently the potential for negative
impacts to endangered and sensitive species, such as California gnatcatcher (federally listed a,
threatened). least Bell's vitro (federal and state endangered). and rufou%- crowned sparrow
(federal and state species of concern), due to habitat degradation or dettrueuon.
P.02
-i /1. UV lLl :L /. l'_-:. J.... } __. AI -�
Oa t. -22 -00 02!48P Rnhaar- T. Patton
oi> c-
86617 1092-A
Section S. 10 notes the Increase In nutrients in the reservoir resulting from the shift
from potable to reclaimed water, and cites the need for completion of a seepage study to
determine whether negative impacts may result from the Increase in nutrients Such a study
should be completed as part of an EIR prior to permitting the project to proceed. Increased
nutrients in seepage from the reservoir may result in increased growth of vegetation in the
seepage and drainage areas. a shift in plant species composition of those habitats, and
significant negative impacts to unsitive and endangered species reliant on those habitats. I�or
example, increased nutrient and moisture levels in soils of coastal sage scrub may result in
invasion of non- native species and establishment of taller and woodier species This change in
habitat Composition and physical structure and profile may preclude continued use by coastal
sage scrub obligate species such as California gsateaicher and rufous - crowned sparrow since
the specific plants, plant density, habitat height, and prey insect assemblage no longer match
their requirements.
Mscusslnn of potential impacts from the storage of chlorine on -site and the potential
for accidents is limited to permitting by the local fire department. The potential for significant
negative impacts to endangered and sensitive wildlife through accidental release or spillage of
liquid or gaseous chlorine should be addressed through an FIR. Public safety concerns should
mandate preparation of an emergency plan and an accident contingency plan should include
mitigation requirements for impacts to biological resources in adjacent sensitive coastal sage
scrub and riparian habitats, as well as downstream In Upper Newport Bay.
There is no discussion of land uae plans on surrounding properties. If development is
planned, this project represents "piecemeal" permitting and does not address cumulative
Impacts. l.lkcwlsc, there is no discussion of growth inducing impactS from the project. nor
the resulting indirect and cumulative negative impacts to biological rcumrccc, particularly
relative to loss and degradation of sensitive coastal sage scrub and riparian habitats, and
resultinb declines is populations of endangered and sensitive species, including California
gsateatcher, least Bell's virco. and rufous- crowned sparrow. The purpose of the project is to
increase reclaimed water in order to decrease the demand on Southern California',. limited
supply of potable water. However, there are no mechanisms in place to prevent that reduction
in potable water demand from triggering increased urban development to meet the water
supply. Such scenarios have played out throughout the Southwest and are in large part the
reason that habitats and species such as those mentioned in this document have declined to the
point of requiring legal pmtectinn and designation its "sensitive ". •endangered ". or
'threatened ". A full EIR should addreas these cunccrns.
Sincerely,
Af % 7—_" -
Robert Patton
Consulting Biologist
P.0.3
October 23 2000
�'Jin : ► u a
Michael Hoolihan, P E
Irvine Ranch Water District
15600 San Canyon Avenue
Irvine, CA 92615
Karl A Johnson, P.E
1234 Lit Granada Dr
San Marcos, CA 92069
Re Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Project 9 30011, the San Joaquin
Reservoir Project
Dear Mr Hoolihan
I have been asked by Defend the Bey to review and comment upon the draft Mitigated
Negative Declnratton for the San Joaquin Reservoir p:oJect As owlined bellow, my review of the
Nf\D indicates tha; there are severa: potential, significant environmental impacts Lom the projec!
which req.iire the preparation of an Environment?] Impact Report A: t'-t: outset. I wuul:t rate that.
in my experience, I hive never seen a protect t:vs large ap; roke: wilh by an NfND ralke: than an ErR
Nly backproun,' a.i f expene:rce wr:h respect to water qua::Iy an: water s,o.; ;e fac::rtv issues
includes the foLokving. I obtained by B S degree m cavil engineering fror.. ;he L.nive.sity of
California at Berkc:cp i:r 1945 and am Currently licensed as a profeisional engineer rr. California.
license no CE5282 I served as the D:recter of :he Metropoktan Wa:er District from : "M -1980 and.
:n that capacity, had experience w:th issues related to the San Joaquin Reservoir I w s ?-.!so General
Manager of the Cray of Pasndcna Water and Power Department from 1977 -1985 ari I': es::lcr.: of the
Southern Cahfo::r:. Public Power Awrixity from 1983 -1985 In adjitior• 1 ha%e haul t`.ree years
experience as an assoc,nte en -.rec: will: tl•e Water Qcality Control Beard, Los A:.,:;:ic� ri -iec, an
fo.c %cars experience as an assrs:art engineer or tirc Los A-i3eies Departr,!en: of \ \.ilcl n-1 Power
With respect to the MND. sections 2 4 2 and 2 5 mention anticipated problems kk:!h insects
and odors However, the NTND fails to mention the severity of the anticipated problems or am
difficulty in controlling those problems Indeed, the NINTI) defers any "further ana:� s � im::i after the
project is opera :tonal
The NLND ncxnoMedc;es t):,: such :ssr.es w;:l be n problem bw febs to suFp'y air
regardir.g :ce sever.ty of the problems or how :hcy will be dealt w:ih, stating onl. t`.ra: IR%\ -D has
■ .. t4 'J .. __. :t tt _ — .n a .., :I- _ . -- t.. rr
dealt with them at their other reservoirs. No information is given about how IRWJ) has dealt with
the problem at its oth:!r properties Givcn the relative size of tl:is project, one would expect the
potential problems with insects and odors to be greater than IRWD has had to manage In the past
These a.e potential impacts and mitigation meanies that should be cvalua :cd in nn FIR.
In section 2 5, Visual Qua! .`.y• no men :ioe a nta:le of the dlflerence of the past op[intior.s of
the reservor for domestic water storage a::d Its new use as a reclaimed water icsc.vorr I:I my
experience, opa ators of a reclaimed Ovate :eser voii ate. in all probability, likely to d:.Iw do« n water
levels in the reservoir more frequently and Ino:e severely thar. are operators of domestic water
icsc.voirs The MIND makes no mention of tHs likely environmental impact, nor any potential
twigation therefor Neighbors sho,l!d be warned that, in all p:obability• late summer d:aw downs will
be more frequent and more severe end o`the asso:iateJ vis,ial impacts
In section 3 1, the proiect's new "visual resources" arc written ofras a "beneficial change"
This is misleading While this characterization is accurate when comps eJ to Fw empty reservoir, it
is not nue when compared ;o its prior use as a domestic water reservoir Full rmiron:nen:ul review
of al ter natives. as requited by an EIR. would disclose this information
Section 5 1(a) states that operation and maintenance measures lime beer: incorpora;ed into
the project to reduce visual impacts Any description of such measures is referred back to section
2 S. wlt;ch essentially states that orly such problems wiil exist To be mear.Ingti l• the NfiND should
describe the measures that are being implemented to mitigate the visual imposts
In section 5 3(b), potential odor problems and their control is compa.ed to IRWD's Sand
Canyon and Rartlesr.ikc resvr o:rs However, no infonr.aiion is provided regard:ng the rcla : :ve size.
depth, side slopes, m orthe San Joaquin Reservoir w;th respeci to these otl.e. resod,) rs. Clearly.
pro.e ir!bnnation and frrt :•:er con:pa :icon of the :escrvous is necessary it orde ::n c :elt ate IRWD's
abih:y to ccntrol odor p: ,blems and d:eir t::casares for do::: s:
!:I ,tcnaii 5.S• :he e.'-cts of storm w :me: nrnoff and seepage fio:r. the s.:e :ue d:sCG: Sed and
ahele:! "less th;:n s :,!nifica: :t•' wchou. rea. substantiation The ef`e::. of ate: d.sci:ars;e down
>tream during per.onic or eme:ger.cy cleaning opera_ ons are r.ot n:e °: or.e:: 'I I :� is a serious
om :�s :on from the MEND. as tius co.dd well'bc the most Cri:ica: ofal. u:ipacas br : :.cs. o :• c.lbstannitl
poterria! for adverse :} crloaCI - duwnstrcan: svate:wavq e::d tiir'?ay
e :n;'ie :;, :: 1:. a.iCh c ear.i : :gs r. :e necessa and r.rcitab!e 'f :r \INi) a: r.° :.%:edges u:
p.m_e � 6 tn:r. rec.,1IMt. l wane. con:a:as z. highe: level o�nu:rents As a resu. :, the .::r.. :!,:c reservoir
• . l�c.5 0� al s l Coincstic Vd!C1 *• 5:::.'1 grO�K�
.. :::0. ^I:n '
on the :esenoir walls necrssari :y must be cleared oEI'uccas on ! :y
The envi.onmerta. impact of such cleanings arises frorn h w One d.sgcses of the water In
my expe.ier.ce, these are two options (1) col.ec:rng suer Nate: in tmicks and transporting it to
a:Iothcr loca:-or, zn: (2) d:schargir; the «titer from ti:e reservo: , I e Jumg :m!t It coW:ut :tzm and
Into die bay Gvcn the s:zc c' the San Joaq :.in Reservoir ti:r :,rs: opt or. ni.:} % t•rovP to be
rcer.omicallc in`eas o: - eq :. :r.ne use Of r.
the seco:td op: J, wh.cli c:r;rl% I ::; :I s.gn:5cant
a '14 -s Ja, .[ I nn'u _'. a 0 :I 1� ;._ :A-- "/"
environmental impact
I would also note that no incntion is made of how 1RNN'D intends to deal with potential leaks
in the reservoir wall The irxestigation and repair of such leaks may necessitate the di aining of the
reservoir, resulting ir, a d schnrgc of the water downstream These impacts should be thoroughly
evaluated in an L•IR They are essentially ignored in the UND
In section 5 6-111, the risk of seisinicn!ly induced soil liquefaction rs discussed ntid described
as" lugh " This poses a s g Akan! threat to the public welfare and tl:e subject should not be deferred
until "later" as recommended in tire MNID At the very least, the conclusion of the prior NIWD
seismic study should be presented
Finally, section 5.17(c) states that the project wi!I have "no significant direct or indirect effect
on human beings " For the reasons discussed above, this statement cannot be substantiated by the
content of the draft MND
For the for ego:ng reasons, my review of the NfND for this project indica:cs that the project
as currentlp designed has potential, significant emironmentai impacts that are not being mitigated
Accordingly, 1 recommend that a ful! Environmental Impact Report be prepared and considered for
the project
Sincerely,
Karl A Johnson