HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 02/25/2003 DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2003
MINUTES
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 P.m. by President Goodin. Director wilson led
the flag salute.
PRESENT: Directors Lightfoot, Sturgeon, Wilson, Goodin
ABSENT: Director Negrete
STAFF: Robert Martin, General Manager; Paul Dolter, District Engineer;
Mary Wallace, Administrative Assistant
LEGAL COUNSEL: Steven Kennedy
GUEST(s): None
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There being no written or verbal comments, President Goodin closed the public
participation section of the meeting.
DIRECTOR NEGRETE ARRIVED AT 2:10 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION
M/S/C (Lightfoot-Sturgeon) that the meeting adjourn to Closed Session.
The Board entered into Closed Session at 2:11 p.m. as provided for in the California
Open Meeting Law, Government Code Section 54945.9(a), to discuss those items listed
on the Agenda.
ADJOURN TO REGULAR SESSION
President Goodin declared that the meeting adjourn to regular Session.
SPECIAL MTG. MINUTES:02/10/03
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
The Board returned to session at 2:55 p.m. The items listed on the Agenda were
discussed in closed session with no reportable action being taken.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. until the next regularly scheduled Board
Meeting on February 11,2003.
Donald D. Goodin, President
Robert E. Martin, Secretary
2 SPECIAL MTG. MINUTES:02/10/03
DRAFT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
REGULAR BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY '11, 2003
MINUTES
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by President Goodin. Director Lightfoot
led the flag salute.
PRESENT: Directors Lightfoot, Sturgeon, Negrete, Wilson, Goodin
ABSENT: None
STAFF: Robert Martin, General Manager; Paul Dolter, District Engineer;
Brian Tompkins, Chief Financial Officer; Mary Wallace,
Administrative Assistant.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Steve Kennedy
GUEST(s): Jo McAndrews, Charles Roberts (Highland Community News),
Franke Santos (Press Enterprise)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Pursuant to Government code Section 54956.2(b)(2), the Board determined by
unanimous vote and at the request of the General Manager to add the following New
Business Item to the agenda as the need to take immediate action thereon arose after
the Agenda was posted:
12(a). Correspondence from Hank Stoy (Director, Cucamonga County Water District)
requesting the District's' support for his election to a position on the Board of
directors for the Association of San Bernardino County Special Districts.
Discussion and possible action.
M/S/C (Wilson-Negrete) that the February 11, 2003 Agenda be approved with
the revision recommended by the General Manager.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
President Goodin declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 2:02
p.m. There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was
closed.
APPROVAL OF JANUARY 28, 2003 BOARD MEETING MINUTES.
M/S/C (Sturgeon-Wilson) that the January 28, 2003 Board Meeting Minutes be
approved as submitted.
RESOLUTION 2003.09 - DEDICATION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
WITHIN TRACT 14326-2, LOTS 115-203 IN THE CITY OF HIGHLAND was presented
to the Board for approval.
M/S/C (Sturgeon-Wilson) that Resolution 2003.09 be approved.
RESOLUTION 2003.10 - DEDICATION OF SEWERS WITHIN TRACT 14326-2, LOTS
115-203 IN THE CITY OF HIGHLAND was presented to the Board for approval.
President Goodin, noted that the signature black on the Resolution which indicated
Edward S. Negrete, Board President was incorrect and that the signature block should
be corrected to read Donald D. Goodin, President.
M/S/C (Sturgeon-Wilson) that Resolution 2003.10 be approved with the revision
as noted by President Goodin.
RESOLUTION 2003.1t - DEDICATION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
WITHIN TRACT '16068 IN THE CITY OF HIGHLAND was presented to the Board for
approval.
M/S/C (Sturgeon-Wilson)that Resolution 2003.11 be approved.
REVIEW AND ACCEPT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2002.
M/S/C (Sturgeon-Wilson) that the Financial Statements for the period ended
December 31,2002 be accepted as submitted.
APPROVAL OF LIENS FOR DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER ACCOUNTS.
The General Manager stated that the charges identified by Account Numbers:
0170119-00, 0310067-00, 0530209-07, 0730215-01 and 0730224-06 had been paid
and should be removed from the lien list.
2 MINUTES: 02/11/03
M/S/C (Sturgeon-Wilson) that the liens for delinquent water and sewer accounts
be approved for processing with the exceptions as noted by the General Manager.
DISBURSEMENTS
M/S/C (Sturgeon-Wilson) that General Fund Disbursements #192016 through
#192181 distributed during the period of January 29, 2003 through February 5, 2003 in
the amount of $1,345,607.05 and Payroll Fund Disbursements for period ended
January 31,2003 in the amount of $87,759.04 totaling $1,433,366.09 be approved.
RADON RULE UPDATE
The General Manager reported on the District's progress with the Rule to date; that the
Omnibus bill was being prepared by House/Senate and that EPA would be "held to" the
Radon language within that bill. Information only.
SITE OF DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND RELATED FACILITIES UPDATE
(GENERAL MANAGER).
The General Manager recommended that the District's property on Highland Avenue
across from Patton State Hospital be the site of the District's Headquarters.
M/S/C (Wilson-Lighffoot) that the District proceed with the development of the
property on Highland Avenue to include new District Headquarters and Related
Facilities.
DIRECTOR'S FEES AND EXPENSES FOR January 2003 were presented to the
Board for approval.
M/S/C (Negrete-Wilson) that the Director's fees and expenses for January 2003
be approved.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM HANK STOY (DIRECTOR, GUCAMONGA COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT) REQUESTING THE DISTRICT'S SUPPORT FOR HIS ELECTION
TO A POSITION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE
ACTION,
M/S/C (Wilson-Negrete) that the Board President be authorized to cast a vote in
favor of Mr, Hank Stoy.on behalf of the District.
FEBRUARY 4, 2003 - RELEASES OF LIEN FOR DELINQUENT WATER AND
SEWER ACCOUNTS.
List of liens released on February 4, 2003 was reviewed. Information only.
3 MINUTES: 02/11/03
INVESTMENT REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002.
The Investment Report for Quarter ended December 31, 2002 was reviewed.
Information only.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
The General Manager reported on District operations to date; that the wrapping and
coating project at Plant #37 had been completed and the tank will now be filled and
tested; that the Blending Project at Plant #39 had been completed; that the drilling of
the District's new Well at #146 was ready to start and that sound-proof walls have been
installed; that District's Cull Plant, #132, was in the comment phase; that the City Creek
sewer project was underway. Information only.
ORAL COMMENTS FROM BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
Director Sturgeon expressed a desire to coordinate the District's 50 Year Anniversary
with the Dedication of the new District Headquarters. Information only.
President Goodin stated that he would like a general meeting arranged for all
employees to talk about the Board's decision to locate its new facilities on the Highland
Avenue Property as well as to answer any questions that they might have; that he had
received complimentary remarks about the District's Web Site when he attended the
dinner hosted by the Water Research Institute on February 8th. Information only.
There being no further verbal or written comments from the Directors, this section of the
meeting was closed.
SAN BERNARDINO AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE "BUSINESS AFTER
HOURS", hosted by CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK, 15§5 E. HIGHLAND AVE., SAN
BERNARDINO, CA. Information only.
WATER EDUCATION FOUNDATION'S 20TH ANNUAL EXECUTIVE BRIEFING,
MARCH 12-13, 2003, RADISSON HOTEL, SACRAMENTO, CA. Information only.
WATER EDUCATION FOUNDATION'S LOWER COLORADO RIVER TOUR, MARCH
26-28, 2003, LAS VEGAS, NV. Information only.
ACWA/VVEF "GROUND WATER QUALITY + GROUND WATER QUANTITY, APRIL
8-9, 2003, DOUBLETREE HOTEL, ONTARIO, CA. Information only.
WATER LAW INSTITUTE 11TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE, APRIL 10-11, 2003, PAN
PACIFIC HOTEL, SAN FRANCISCO, CA.
4 MINUTES: 02/11/03
AW1NA ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXPOSITION, JUNE 15-19, 2003, ANAHEIM, CA.
Information only.
2003 SPECIAL DISTRICT GOVERNANCE ACADEMY COURSE SCHEDULE
(information only):
GOVERNANCE FOUNDATION
April 8, 2003, Rancho Cordova, CA.
April 10, 2003, Doubletree Hotel, Santa Ana, CA.
Sept. 15, 2003, Resort at Squaw Creek, Olympic Valley, CA.
SETTING DIRECTION/COMMUNITY
May 2, 2003, Marriott, lrvine, CA.
May 20, 2003., Holiday Inn, Irvine, CA.
BOARD'S ROLE tN FINANCE & FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Sept. 15, 2003, Resort at Squaw Creek, Olympic Valley, CA.
Oct. 1,2003, Ayres Suites, Ontado, CA.
BOARD'S ROLE IN HUMAN RESOURCES
Oct. 21,2003, Marriott, Rancho Cordova, CA.
Oct. 24, 2003, Doubletree Hotel, Santa Aha, CA.
CLOSED SESSION
M/S/C (Wilson-Negrete) that the meeting adjourn to Closed Session.
The Board entered into closed session at 2:25 p.m. as provided for in the California
Open Meeting Law, Government Code Section 54945.9(a), to discuss those items listed
on the Agenda.
ADJOURN TO REGULAR SESSION
President Goodin declared that the meeting adjourn to regular session.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
The Board returned to regular session at 2:30 p.m. The items listed on the Agenda were
discussed in closed session with no reportable action being taken.
MINUTES: 02/11/03
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. until the next regularly scheduled Board
Meeting on February 25, 2003.
Donald D. Goodin, Board President
Robert E. Martin, Board Secretary
6 MINUTES: 02111/03
CERTIFICATE OF LIEN
FEBRUARY 25, 2003
ACCOUNT OWNERS PROPERTY AMOUNT
NUMBER NAME ADDRESS OWED
1. 0010097-02 $20.49
2. 0010097-02* $77.98
3. 0010248-00 $108.25
4. 0010248-00* $125.99
5. 0020074-02* $16.41
~.6. 0082714-04* $66.71
'[7d,-7. 0170184-04* $79.88
8. 0360102-03* $24.00
9. 0420061-00 $143.34
10, 0430003-01' $38.13
11. 0430092-01' $72,58
12. 0430092-01 $18.70
13. 0620091-06* $33.54
14. 0720195-10' $34.78
15. 0730108-07*+ $202.81
16. 0730108-07+ $233.73
17. 0810011-06* $33.60
18. 0820156-06 $617.60
19, 0820156-06* $34.02
20. 0920196-03*+ $119.29
21. 0940190-02* $t21.31
22. 1120097-06* $28.97
23. 1140226-01' $240.46
24. 1161660-02* $65.15
Page 1 of 2
,0,,,~.25. 1211254-01 $125.56
26. 1350141-05* $205.68
27. 1350192-00* $31.63
28. 1360058-06 $309.66
29. 1440004-04 $48.85
30. 1442991-02 $25.81
31. 1610120-02* $160.09
TOTAL $3,465.00
* STILL OWNS PROPERTY
+ MULTIPLE UNITS
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT "A"
RESOLUTION 2003.12
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the East Valley
Water District, as follows:
WHEREAS, based upon the certificate of completion executed by the
District for installation of a Fluoride Blending Station at Plant 39 (APN 0285-163-
07/08)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors
hereby determine that said contract is completed and the President and
Secretary are hereby authorized to execute a Notice of Completion on behalf of
the District, and the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to record said
Notice of Completion in the office of the County Recorder, County of San
Bernardino, State of California.
The foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of
Directors of the East Valley Water District upon motion duly made, seconded
and carried on February 25, 2003.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Donald D, Goodin, Board President
Attest:
Robert E. Martin, Board Secretary
(Seal)
W2198
2/1 2/03 .iw
RECORDING REQUESTED BY ]
]
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO ]
]
Name East Valley Water D[strtct ]
Street 1~155 Del Rosa Avenue ]
Address
City & San Bemardino, CA 92410 ]
State ]
APN NO. 0285-163-07/08
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice pursuant to CMl Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 days after completion. (See reverse side for Complete
requirements.)
Notice Is hereby given that:
1. The undersigned is owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the properly
hereinafter described:'
2. The full name of the owner is East Valta¥ Water District
3. The full address of the owne~ Is 1155 Del Rosa Avenue: PO Box 3427: San Semard~no. CA 92413
4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is, in fee.
(If othe¢ than fee, sixtke 'in fee" and [~er~ for example, 'pumhaser under contract of purchase, 'or lessee')
5. The full names and full addresses of all persons, if any, who hold flue with the undersigned as joint tenants or as tenants
in common are:
NAME ADDRESS
East Valley Water District. a County Water DistHc{
6. Aworkofimprovementanthepropertyhereinafterdesc~bedwascompletedonFebruarv6,2003 . Theworkdonewas:
F[ouride Btsndino Station at Plant 39
7. The name of the contractor, if any, for such work of improvement was Camo Dresser & McKee
3/14/02
~. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is In the rJty of San Bernardlno
g. The street address of said properS/Is NONE
(If no street address has been dEflculty assigned, Insert, 'none",)
East ValieyWater District
Date:
Verification for Individual Ow~ler
named iA paragraph 2 or his agent
Donald D. Goodin, Board President
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the Secrsta~' the declarant of the foregoing
('President of ', ' Manager of", 'A partner of", 'Owner of". Etc.)
notice of completion; I have read said notice of completion and know the contents thereof;, the sam e is true of my Imowiedge.
J declare under penalty of perjuP/that the foregoing is flue and correct.
Executed on ,20 , st San Eemardino , Caffiornia.
(Date of signature.) (City, where signed.)
Robert E, Martin, Board Secretary
East Valley Water District
Balance Sheet - Unaudited
January 31, 2003
ASSETS
UTILITY PLANT- at cost:
Utility plant in service - water department $69,670,926
Utility plant in service - sewer department 20,261,406
89,932,332
Less: Accumulated depreciation (28,978,787)
60,953,545
Construction in progress 10,984,334
71,937,879
RESTRICTED ASSETS:
Water department - bond funds - cash in bank 6,475
Certificate of Participation reserved funds - cash in bank 1,630,446
Reserved funds - designations - cash in bank 2,186,450
3,823,371
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash and Investments 13,726,573
Less: Restricted Cash and Investments 3,823,371
9,903,202
Accounts receivable (net of allowance) 823,873
Other receivables (net of allowance) 54,752
inventory 762,320
Prepaid expenses 289,256
11,833,403
OTHER ASSETS AND DEFERRED COSTS (Net of Amortization):
Bond discount and incidental bond expenses 26,540
Deferred financing charges 420,166
446,706
TOTAL ASSETS $88,041,359
East Valley Water District
Balance Sheet - Unaudited
January 31, 2003
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
LONG-TERM DEBT:
Certificates of Participation due after one year $13,768,867
Less: Deferred amount on refunding of COPs (746,420)
13,022,447
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
Accounts Payable 1,592,255
Accrued payroll and benefits 402,183
Customer service deposits 1,107,329
Deferred Rental income 2,500
Accrued interest payable 6,475
Deposits - refundable 283,660
Certificates of Participation due within one year 1,726,266
5,120,648
TOTAL LIABILITIES 18,143,095
EQUITY:
Contributed capital:
Invested in utility plant 24,588,200
Other contributed capital 3,695,064
Retained earnings:
Reserved for water bond funds 6,475
Reserved for emergencies 2,170,000
Reserved for unemployment insurance 16,450
Unreserved 37,794,186
Net Income for current year 1,627,889
TOTAL EQUITY 69,898,264
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY $88,041 ~359
East V ' ey Water District
Board Memorandum Date: FEB.25, 2003
From: Brian W. Tompkins / Chief Financia~
Subject: Disbursements.
Recommendation:
Approve the attached list of accounts payable checks and
payroll issued during the period February 12, 2003 through
February 19, 2003.
Background:
Accounts payable checks are shown on the attached listing and include numbers 192182 to 192305 for
A total of $399,309.05.
The source of funds for this amount is as follows
COP Construction Funds
EPA Grant Funds
Unrestricted Funds $399,309.05
Payroll disbursed was for the period ended Febr ~ary 14, 2003 and included checks and direct deposits,
Totaling $81,956.56.
Fiscal Impact:
Total disbursements- $481,265.61.
qqqqqq ..
000 O0
,.~ d ood ~ odo
.~ ~ ~o~ oo°° ~
o o ~o ~
~1~°°°°°
000000
o~
RESOLUTION NO. 2003.13
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF TFrE EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AUTItORIZING
TI:IE DISTRICT TO BORROW FROM CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK
W~EREAS, the East Valley Water District (hereinafter referred to as
"EVWD") is a County Water District organized and operating pursuant to
California Water Code Section 30000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, EVWD is permitted under the authority granted by Section
30321 of the Water Code of the State of California to borrow from Citizens
Business Bank, a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Bank"), such
sums of money as EVWD may require to fulfill its statutory duties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that EVWD is hereby
authorized to borrow from the Bank such sums of money as, in the judgement of
the officers hereinafter authorized, EVWD may require; provided that the
aggregate mount of such borrowing, pursuant to this Resolution shall not at any
one time exceed the sum of Two Million and 00/100 Dollars ($2,000,000.00) in
addition to such amount as may be otherwise authorized.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following named officer:
Donald D. Goodin, President of the Board of Directors
of EVWD, be and is hereby authorized, directed, and empowered, in the name of
EVWD, to execute and deliver to the Bank, and the Bank is requested to accept,
the note, advance account agreements, acceptance of agreements, or other
instruments evidencing the indebtedness of EVWD for the monies so borrowed or
to be borrowed, with interest thereon, and said authorized officer is authorized
from time to time to execute renewals or extensions of said note or notes, advance
account agreements, acceptance agreements, or other instruments.
BE IT FURTI:IER RESOLVED that any two (2) of the following named
officers:
Donald D. Goodin, President
George E. Wilson, Vice-President
Glenn R. Lightfoot, Director
Kip E. Sturgeon, Director
Edward S. Negrete,Director
Robert E. Martin, General Manager
'~' Brian W. Tompkins, Chief Financial Officer
of EVWD, be and are hereby authorized, directed, and empowered, in the name of
EVWD, to execute and deliver to the Bank, and the Bank is requested to accept.,
authorization for advances of monies from said notes either in writing or verbally
for deposit into the general account of EVWD.
BE IT FURTm~,R RESOLVED that the signatures of the officers of
EVWD authorized to act pursuant to this Resolution are set forth as follows:
Donald D. Goodin George E. Wilson
President Vice-President
Kip E. Sturgeon Edward S. Negrete
Director Director
Glenn R. Lightfoot
Director
Robert E. Martin Brian W. Tompldns
General Manager Chief Financial Officer
BE IT FURTI:FC.R RESOLVED that the Bank is authorized to act upon
this Resolution until written notice of its revocation is delivered to the Bank, and
that the authority hereby granted shall apply with equal force and effect to the
successors in office of the officers herein named.
BE IT FURTFIER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect
immediately upon its adoption.
ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 2003.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Donald D. Goodin, President
Board of Directors
I, Robert E. Martin, Secretary of East Valley Water District, a Water
District formed under the laws of the State of Califomia, do hereby certify that the
foregoing is a full and correct copy of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of
said Water District duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors as said
Water District duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors as said Water
District in all respects by law, and by the by-laws of said Water District on the 25th
day of February 2003 at which meeting a majority of the Board of Directors of said
Water District was present and voted in favor of said Resolution. I further certify
that said Resolution is still in full force and effect and has not been amended or
revoked and that the specimen signatures appearing above are the signatures of the
officers authorized to sign for the East Valley Water District by virtue of this
resolution.
IN WITNESS WttEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand as such Secretary
this 25th day of February 2003.
ATTEST:
Robert E. Marlin, General Manager
Secretary to the Board of Directors
3
RESOLUTION 2003.14
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A QUITCLAIM DEED TO RICHMOND
AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION.
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the East Valley Water District
does hereby grant, convey, sell, assign and transfer to Richmond American Homes of
California, Inc., a Colorado corporation the real property located in the County of San
Bemardino, State of California, more particularly described in the Quitclaim Deed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be
attached to said Quitclaim Deed, and that the same be recorded in the Office of the
County Recorder, County of San Bernardino, State of California and filed in the records
of said Board.
The foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of
Directors of the East Valley Water District, by motion made, duly seconded and carried
unanimously on February 25, 2003.
AYES: DIRECTORS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Donald D. Goodin, Board President
ATTEST:
Robert E. Martin, Board Secretary
Plant108
~18/03jw
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPRING PACII~IC PROPERTIES, LLC.
15751 ROCK.FIELD BLVD.
IRVINE, CA. 92618
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDERIS USE
A.P.N. 288-251-10
QUITCLAIM DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a County water district, Successor-in-interest to EAST SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
does hereby REMISE, RELEASE AND FOREVER QUITCLAIM to
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION
the real property in the City of Highland, County of San Bemardino, State of California described as follows:
ALL THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED BY GRANT DEED, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 15, 1971, IN BOOK
7753, PAGE 494, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN BEKNARDINO COUNTY.
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Dated BY:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTy OF SAN BERNARDINO ) S.S. BY:
On
before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the withba instrument and acknowledged to me
that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
~nstrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the ~nstrument.
~NITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (This area for official notarial seal)
San Bemardi~o, CA, 2002-2003 - 0288-251-10-0000, Sheet:
RESOLUTION 2003.15
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A GRANT DEED FROM RICHMOND
AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Corporation Grant Deed
dated February 4, 2003 and signed by Alfredo F. Ayuyao and Chris Holmquist, as
Grantors, grants to the East Valley Water District, its successors and assigns, as
Grantee, real property located in the County of San Bemardino, State of California,
more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and the same is hereby accepted for and on
behalf of the said Water District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the attached Grant Deed be
accepted and all rights, title and interest in and to said property be vested in the East
Valley Water District, and that the Secretary of said District be and is hereby authorized
and directed to record this Resolution with the said Grant Deed attached hereto, in the
office of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California.
The foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of
Directors of the East Valley Water District, by motion made, duly seconded and carded
unanimously on February 25, 2003.
AYES: DIRECTORS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Donald D. Goodin, Board President
ATTEST:
Robert E. Martin, Board Secretary
Plant 108
02/23/03 jw
GRANT DEED
RECORDING REQUEST BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
East Valley Water District
1155 Del Rossa Avenue
San Bemardino, California 92413
Attn: Robert E. Martin, General Manager
The undersigned grantor declares:
Documentary Transfer Tax is $0.00
City Transfer Tax is $0.00
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Colorado corporation, hereby
GRANTS to EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a public agency, the following described
real property located in San Bemardino County, California:
See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., a Colorado corporation
Its: Vice President of Land 3:cquisition and
Development
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of California )
) ss
County of Orange )
On Tuesday, February 04, 2003, before me, Sara Koenig, personally appeared Alfredo F.
Ayuyao and Chris Holmquist personally known ........ ~
to me (,.. r .....to me cn *~.e ha:is cf
~) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their
signatures on the instrument the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted,
executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal
~ ~ No~a~/Publla - California ~
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PLANT NO. 108:
THAT PORTION OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARD1NO
BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT SURVEY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTI4EAST
1/4 OF SAID SECTION 35, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF
BASELINE AND WEAVER STREET; THENCE NORTH 40° 20' 06" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 662.46
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00° 09' 44" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
104.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42° 44' 37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 22.15 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 73° 52' 53" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 84.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 09' 44" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 47.88 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11° 54' 47" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 55.81 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 33° 34' 26" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 105.52 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78° 29' 03"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 15.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87° 20' 04" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 12.60
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 80° 20' 51" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 42.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77°
04' 47" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 90.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 70° 39' 50" EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 31.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 140 04' 55" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 308.14 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 890 50' 16" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 85.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXHIBIT "B"
BOUNDARY PLAT
SCALE: 1"=60'
42.3~
LINE TABLE
PLANT
1
08
15,52[ N78'29'OD"E
L2 J 12,60' N87'20'O4"W ~ 56,190
9, 85.50'
-'~'/ , ,~ ~ N89'5o'16"E
~' N 89'50'16" E
~_;.O,C. BEING THE SW
co.. oF sE ,/, oF BASELINE
~ SE 1/4 OF SEC. 35
San Bernardino, CA, 2~02-2003 - 0288-251 -'10-0000, Sheet: 1 of I
RESOLUTION 2003.16
A Resolution Of The Board Of Directors Of The East Valley Water District
authorizing execution of a Grant of Easement to the Southern California Edison
Company, an easement and right of way to construct, use, maintain, operate,
alter, add to, repair, replace, reconstruct, inspect and remove at any time and
from time to time overhead and underground electrical supply systems and
communication systems necessary or useful for distributing electrical energy and
for transmitting intelligence by electrical means, in on, over, under, across and
along that certain real property in the County of San Bernardino, State of
California.
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Grant of Easement
dated February 25, 2003 and signed by Donald D. Goodin, Board President for
East Valley Water District as grantor (s) to the Southern California Edison
Company, its successors and assigns a Grant of Easement over, under, through
and across the real property described therein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this
resolution be attached to said Grant of Easement, and that the same be
recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, County of San Bernardino, State
of California, and filed in the records of said Board.
The foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of
Directors of the East Valley Water District by motion duly made, seconded and
carried on February 25, 2003.
Ayes: Directors:
Noes:
Absent:
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Donald D. Goodin, Board President
ATTEST:
Robert E. Martin, Board Secretary
Plant 140
02/18/03 jw
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
EDISON
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
Corporate Real Estate
14799 Chesmut Street
Westminster, CA 92683-5240
A~:n: Distribution/TRES
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
EASEMENT lAND CONSIDERATION LESS THAN $100.00) Redlands 6431.-2354 2-2022
~ FiRM NAME APN N/A CORPORATE SLS/JS 10/10/02
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), hereby grants to
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a corporation, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as
"Grantee"), an easement and right of way to construct, use, maintain, operate, alter, add to, repair, replace, reconstruct, inspect and
remove at any time and from time to time underground electrical supply systems and communication systems (hereinafter referred
to as "systems"), consisting of wires, underground conduits, cables, vaults, manholes, handholes, and including above-ground
enclosures, markers and concrete pads and other appurtenant fixtures and equipment necessary or useful for distributing electrical
energy and for transmitting intelligence by electrical means, in, on, over, under, across and along that certain real property in the
County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as follows:
THE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY 5.00 FEET; EXCEPT THE NORTHEASTERNMOST 30.00 FEET
THEREOF, OF THOSE CERTAIN LANDS DESCRIBED IN CORPORATION GP,.ANT DEED RECORDED DECEMBER
31, 1992 AS DOCUMENT NO. 92-543649, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID CERTAIN LANDS BEING
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN
BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN;
TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TWO (2) PARCELS LYING WITHIN PORTIONS OF SAID
CERTAIN LANDS:
PARCEL 1:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHERNMOST CORNER OF SAID CERTAIN LANDS; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY 6.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID CERTAIN LANDS TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 20.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE
OF SAID CERTAIN LANDS TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 18.00 FEET ALONG A COURSE
EXTENDING PERPENDICULARLY FROM SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE TO AN ANGLE POINT, SAID ANGLE
POINT HEREINAFTER BEING REFERRED TO AS POINT "A"; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY PARALLEL WITH SAID
NORTHWESTERLY LINE TO A POINT IN SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG
SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2:
A STRIP OF LAND 5.00 FEET WIDE, THE CENTER.LINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POINT "A"; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 9.00 FEET ALONG
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL 1 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH-SOUTHEASTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT OF ENDING 1N THE SOUTHEASTERLY
LINE OF SAID CERTAIN LANDS, SAID POINT OF ENDING BEING LOCATED 34.00 FEET DISTANT
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE FROM THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID
CERTAIN LANDS; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS THEREOF LYING WITHIN EITHER THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED PARCEL 1 OR SAID SOUTHEASTERLY 5.00 FEET OF SAID CERTAIN LANDS.
This legal description was prepared pursuant to Sec. 8730(c) of the Business & Professions Code.
Grantor agrees for himself, his heirs and assigns, not to erect, place or maintain, nor to permit the erection, placement or
maintenance of any building, planter boxes, earth fill or other structures except walls and fences on the above described real
property. The Grantee, and its contractors, agents and employees, shall have the right to trim or cut tree roots as may endanger or
interfere with said systems and shall have free access to said systems and every part thereof, at all times, for the purpose of
exercising the rights herein granted; provided, however, that in making any excavation on said property of the Grantor, the
Grantee shall make the same in such a manner as will cause the least injury to the surface of the ground around such excavation,
and shall replace the earth so removed by it and restore the surface of the ground to as near the same condition as it was prior to
such excavation as is practicable.
EXECUTED this day of ,2002.
GRANTOR
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT,
a County Water District
Signature
Print Name
Title
Signature
Print Name
Title
2 DSE0269557
6131-2354/2-2022
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF .)
On ., 2002, before me, a Notary Public
in and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacities, and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand'and official seal.
Signature of Notary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF .)
On ,2002, before me, a Notary Public
in and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacities, and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
3 DSE0269557
6431-2354/2-2022
San Bemardlno, CA, 2002-2003 - 0288~251-43-0000, Sheet:
·
,
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
2150 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
TEL (909) 882-3612 · FAX (909) 882-7015
E-MAIL ~onramp.eom
February 19, 2003
Mr. Robert Martin, General Manager
East Valley Water District
1155 Del Rosa Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92413
Subject East Valley Water District's (EVWD) Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development
Project (SCH #2003011063)
Dear Mr. Martin:
The public comment pedod on the proposed Negative Declaration closed on February 14, 2003. No
adverse comments were received. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a Negative Declaration
is the appropriate CEQA determination for this project. If District staff concurs, it should provide the
Board with the following data in the Staff Report.
An Initial Study that meets current CEQA requirements was prepared for this project. Based on data
provided in the Initial Study, it was determined that potential impacts to the environment were either
non-significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of fha
mitigation measures provided in the Initial Study. The Initial Study andproposed Negative Declaration
were circulated for public review and comment in a manner prescribed by CEQA, including the State
Clearinghouse. The public review and comment period ended on February 14, 2003. One comment
letter was received from the California Department of Health Services (DHS). This letter clarified
DHS's permitting responsibilities for the project. No new issues that were not evaluated in the Initial
Study were raised. DHS acknowledged that the Initial Study appeared to be adequate for its
consideration under CEQA. A response to the DHS comment letter is attached to the Initial Study.
Because no impacts to biological resources were identified in the Initial Study, it is appropriate to adopt
a De Minimus Impact Finding for the project. If staff concurs, its recommendation to the Board shall
be to:
Adopt the Negative Declaration; Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; adopt a De Minimus Impact Finding; and File the Notice of
Determination and Certificate of Fee Exemption with the County of San
Bemardino Clerk of the 'Board of Supervisors and the State Office of Planning
and Research, State Clearinghouse.
Enclosed are the following:
One (1) Negative Declaration
· Ten (10) copies of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mr. Robert Martin
February 19, 2003
Page 2
· One (1) Certificate of Fee Exemption
Two (2) Notice of Determinations
· Ten (10) copies of the Initial Study
Posting of the Notice of Determination and Certificate of Fee Exemption with the County requires the
District to pay a $35.00 administrative handling fee to the County.
Thank you for allowing Tom Dodson & Associates to assist you with this project and should you have
any questions or comments, please call.
Vice President
BG/cmc
Csp03/0219BG1 (EV-056)
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lead Agency: East Valley Water District (EVWD) Contact: Mr. Paul Dolter, P.E.
1155 Del Rosa Avenue (POB 3427) Phone (909) 888-8986
San Bemardino, CA 92413
Project Title: EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT'S (EVWD) PLANT 132 WELL
REHABILITATION / DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
State Clearinghouse Number: SCH #2003011065
Project Location: Northwest i/4 Section 5, TiS, R3W SBM, City of Highland, County of San Bemardino
Project Description: EVWD is proposing to rehabilitate existing wells and/or construct new wells at its Plant 132
site. Water produced at Plant 132 contains h/gher than acceptable concentrations of nitrates. This project includes
the installation and operation o f a nitrate removal system and a water disinfection system to treat water extracted from
the wells. Pipelines will be installed to convey the treated water to EVWD's existing water distribution system.
Finding: EVWD's decision to implement this well rehabilitation/ development project such as the proposed project
is a discretionary decision or "project" that requires evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). This negative declaration is the East Valley Water District's CEQA determination for this project.
Initial Study: Copies of the Initial Study are available for public review at the East Valley Water District,'l 155 Del
Rosa Avenue, San Bemardino, CA 92413. The public review period for the Initial Study closed on February
14, 2003.
Mitigation Measures: All mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been adopted as conditions of the
project and will be implemented through a mitigation monitoring and reporting program adopted with the Negative
Declaration.
Signature (Public Agency) Date Title
Mitigation Monitoring / Reporting Program
for East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project
Introduction
This mitigation monitoring and compliance program has been prepared for use by the East Valley
Water District (EVWD or District) as it implements mitigation measures for this project. This
program has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the State and Agency CEQA Guidelines.
Assembly Bill 3180, effective January 1, 1989, required adoption of a reporting or monitoring
program for those measures or conditions imposed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects
on the environment. The law states that the monitoring or reporting program shall be designed to
ensure compliance during project implementation.
The monitoring program contains the fctlowing elements:
1. The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure
compliance. In some instances, one action may be used to verify implementation of
measures, such as grading plan review and erosion control plan review.
2. A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each mandatory
mitigation action. This procedure designates who will take the action, what action will be
taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported.
3. The program contains a separate Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Record for each
action. On each of these record sheets, the pertinent actions and dates will be logged, and
copies of permits, correspondence or other relevant data will be attached. Copies of the
records will be retained by the District as part of its project files.
4. The program has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to
compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those
responsible for the program. If changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures
and records will be developed and incorporated into the program. The total program,
including any modifications, will be retained by the District as part of the project files.
The individual measures and the accompanying monitoring/reporting actions follow. They are
numbered in the same sequence as presented in the Project Initial Study.
EV~56~MRP -4-
MITIGATION MEASURE
I-1 Ail above-ground structures shall be covered with neutral, non-reflective coatings that blend
with surrounding uses and color schemes.
IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION
1. This requirement shall be included in the contract with the construction contractor.
2. Verification shall be provided by District inspectors.
COMPLIANCE RECORD
1. Copies of the contract shall be kept in the project file at the District's office.
2. Copies of the inspection reports shall be kept in the project file at the District's office.
WHEN REQUIRED
1. Prior to construction.
Prior to acceptance of the wells and reservoir and final payment to the contractor.
CQMMENTS
VERIFICATION BY:
EV-O56/MMRP -2-
MITIGATION MEASURE
Ill- 1 The District's contract with the contractors shall require the contractor to provide verification
that all equipment is in proper tune per the manufacturer's recommendation.
IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION
1. A copy of the contract shall be kept in the project file at the District.
2. A copy of equipment maintenance record shall be provided to the District by the contractor.
COMPLIANCE RECORD
1. Copies of these documents shall be kept in the project file at the District's office.
WHEN REQUIRED
1, Prior to the start of construction.
COMMENTS
VERIFICATION BY:
EV-O56/MMRP -3-
MITIGATION MEASURE
V-1 In the event cultural resources are encountered during construction of these water facilities,
activities in the immediate area of the finds should be halted and an onsite inspection
should be performed immediately by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist. This
professional will be able to assess the find, determine its significance, and make
recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the g uidelines of the California
Environmental Quality Act and/or the Federal National Policy Act.
IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION
1. This requirement shall be included in the contract with the construction contractor.
2. Compliance shall be verified by District staff.
COMPLIANCE RECORD
1. Copies of the contract shall be kept in the project file at the District's office.
2. Copies of the inspection reports shall be kept in the project file at the District's office.
WHEN REQUIRED
1. Prior to construction.
2. Ongoing during construction.
COMMENTS
VERIFICATION BY:
EV~56/MMRP '4-
MITIGATION MEASURE
XI-1 The District shall require that non-well drilling construction activities be limited to the hours
of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION
1. The District's contract with the construction contractor shall contain this requirement.
2. Verification shall be provided during inspections by District staff. The inspector reports shall
include identification of any violations and the remedial actions taken.
COMPLIANCE RECORD
1. A copy of the contract shall be kept in the project file at the District's office.
2. Copies of the inspection reports shall be kept in the project file at the District's office.
WHEN REQUIRED
1. Prior to the start of construction and ongoing during construction activities.
2. Ongoing during construction.
COMMENTS
VERIFICATION BY:
EV-O561MMRP -5-
MITIGATION MEASURE
XF2 The District shall respond to any noise complaints received for this project by measuring
noise levels at the affected receptor. If the noise level exceeds an Ldn of 60 dBA exterior
or an Ldn of 45 dBA interior at the receptor, the District shall implement adequate measures
such as the use of noise attenuation curtains or enclosing equipment within structures to
reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible.
IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION
1. Copies of any noise complaints and identification of actions taken by the District staff shall
be kept in the project file at the District's office.
COMPLIANCE RECORD
1. Copies of all complaints and the actions taken by District staff shall be kept in the project
file at the District's office.
WHEN REQUIRED
1. Ongoing during construction and operation of the weft.
COMMENTS
VERIFICATION BY:
EV~5WMMRP -6"
MITIGATION MEASURE
XV-1 The District shall review and approve a construction traffic management plan for work in
public roads that complies with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook or other applicable
standards to provide adequate traffic control and safety during construction activities.
IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION
I. The District shall review and approve a traffic management plan prior to work being
performed in public roads.
2. Verification of compliance with the plan shall be provided by District inspectors.
COMPLIANCE RECORD
1. A copy of the traffic management plan shall be kept in the project file at the District's office.
2. Copies of the inspection reports shall be kept in the project file at the District's office.
WHEN REQUIRED
1. The traffic management plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the start of work in
public roads.
2. Inspection shall be ongoing throughout construction.
COMMENTS
VERIFICATION BY:
EV~5~MMRP -7-
MITIGATION MEASURE
XV-2 The District shall require the pipefine contractor to propedy backfifl and compact excavated
areas. The District shall also require that all disturbances to public roadways be repaired
in a manner that complies with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction
(green book) or other applicable standards,
IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION
1. Construction plans shall incorporate this requirement.
2. Verification shall be provided by District inspectors.
COMPLIANCE RECORD
1. Copies of the construction plans shall be kept in the project file at the District's office.
2. Copies of the inspection reports shall be kept in the project file at the District's office.
WHEN REQUIRED
1, The construction plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to the start of construction.
2, Inspection shall be ongoing throughout construction.
COMMENTS
VERIFICATION BY:
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title / Location (include county):
East Valley Water District's (EVWD) Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project
Northwest 1/4 Section 5, TIS, R3W SBM, City of Highland, County of San Bernardino
Project Description:
EVWD is proposing to rehabilitate existing wells and/or construct new wells at its Plant 132
site. Waterproducedat Plant 132 containshigher thanacceptableconcentrations of nitrates.
This project includes the installation and operation of a nitrate removal system and a water
disinfection system to treat water extracted from the wells. Pipelines will be installed to
convey the treated water to EVWD's existing water distribution system.
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
EVWD provides water service to existing development in a highly urbanized area of the
cities of Highland and San Bemardino. No natural topography or native vegetation or
habitat exists on or near the site. System improvements (pipes, valves, well equipment, etc.)
will be placed on the existing Plant 132 site and existing roads. No wildlife or native habitat
will be affected by this project.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not identify or
cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game
Code.
Mr. Robert Martin
Title: General Manager
Lead Agency: East Valley Water District
Date:
Notice of Determination
To: ~' County Clerk of the Board From: East Valley Water District (EVWD)
County of San Bemardino 115 $ Del Rosa Avenue (POB 3427)
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue San Bemardino, CA 92413
San Bemardino, CA 92415
Subject: Filing ofNotice o f Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
East Valley Water District's (EVWD) Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Proiect
Project Title
SCH #2003011065 Mr. Paul Dolter, P.E. (909) 888-8986
State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area Codefrelephone/Extension
(If submitCed to Clearinghouse) Contact Person
Northwest 1/4 Section 5, TlS, R3W SBM, City of Highland, County of San Bemardino
Project Location (include county)
Project Description:
EVWD is proposing to rehabilitate existing wells and/ur construct new wells at its Plant 132 site. Water produced at
Plant 132 contains higher than acceptable concentrations of nitrates. This project includes the installation and operation
ora nitrate removal system and a water disinfection system to treat water extracted from the wells. Pipelines will be
installed to convey the treated water to EVWD's existing water distribution system.
A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was posted with the State Clearinghouse and the Clerk of the San
Bemardino County Board of Supervisor on lanuary 16, 2003. One comment letter was received from the California
Department of Health Services. Responses were provided to the comments. The EVWD Board of Directors considered
these comments prior to adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
This is to advise that the East Valley Water District has approved the above described project on
~ Lead Agency [] Responsible Agency
and has made the following determination regarding the above described project:
(Date)
1. The proj oct [ca will a will not] have a significant effect on the environment.
2. ~3 An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
a A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures Ia were o were not] made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations [n was [] was notl adopted for this project.
This is to certify that the Initial Study and record of project approval is available to the General Public at:
East Valley Water District, 1155 Del Rosa Avenue, San Bemardino, CA 92413
Signature (Public Agency) Date Title
Notice of Determination
To: ~ Office of Plarming and Research From: East Valley Water District (EVWD)
State Clearinghouse 1155 Del Rosa Avenue ('POB 3427)
1400 Tenth Street San Bemardino, CA 92413
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Filing ofNotice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
East Valley Water District's (EVWD) Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Proiect
Project Title
SCH #2003011065 Mr. Paul Dolter, P.E. (909) 888-8986
State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone/Extension
(If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person
Northwest I/4 Section 5, TI S, R3W SBM, City of Highland, County of San Bernardino
Project Location (include county)
Project Description:
EVW-D is proposing to rehabilitate existing wells and/or construct new wells at its Plant 132 site. Water produced at
Plant 132 contains higher than acceptable concentrations of nitrates. This project includes the installation and operation
ora nitrate removal system and a water disinfection system to treat water extracted from the wells. Pipelines will be
installed to convey the treated water to EVWD's existing water distribution system.
A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was posted with the State Clearinghouse and the Clerk of the San
Bernardino County Board of Supervisor on January 16, 2003. One comment letter was received from the California
Department of Health Services. Responses were provided to the comments. The EVWD Board of Directors considered
these comments prior to adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
This is to advise that the East Valley Water District has approved the above described project on
Ig Lead Agency [3 Responsible Agency
and has made the following deterrdnatinn regarding the above described project:
(Date)
1. The project [tn will [] will not] have a significant effect on the environment.
2. [] An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
[] A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures [[] were o were not] made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations [/3 was [] was not] adopted for this project.
This is to certify that the Initial Study and record of project approval is available to the General Public at:
East Valley Water District, I 155 Del Rosa Avenue, San Bemardino, CA 92413
Signature (Public Agency) Date Title
Initial Study
for the
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation /
Development Project
Prepared by:
I=AST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
1155 Del Rosa Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92413
(909) 888-8986
Preparation assistance by:
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92405
(909) 882-3612
JANUARY2002
East Valley Water Distdct
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................... 1
Introduction .................................................... 1
Location ......................................................
Environmental Setting ............................................ 1
Project Characteristics ........................................... 1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...................... 3
DETERMINATION ..................................................... 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .......................................... 5
I. Aesthetics ................................................... 5
II. Agricultural Resources .......................................... 6
III. Air Quality ................................................... 7
IV. Biological Resources ........................................... 10
V. Cultural Resources ............................................ 11
VI, Geology and Soils ............................................. 12
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................. 14
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................... 16
IX. Land Use and Planning ......................................... 18
X. Mineral Resources ............................................. 18
XI. Noise ....................................................... 19
XII, Population and Housing ......................................... 21
XIII. Public Services ............................................... 21
XlV. Recreation ................................................... 22
XV. Transportation/Traffic .......................................... 23
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems ..................................... 25
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................ 26
MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................... 27
REFERENCES ........................................................ 27
EV-~561tnitial Study/011403 -ii- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Location ............................................ 28
Figure 2 Location Map ............................................... 29
Figure 3 Photograph of Plant 132 ....................................... 30
EV-056/Initlal Study/011403 -iii- Tote DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Introduction
East Valley Water District (EVWD or District) is a public agency formed to provide domestic water
servfces to customers in the easterly portion of the City of San Bernardino, the City of Highland and
some adjacent, unincorporated areas of the County of San Bernardino. The District is governed
by a Board of Directors (Board) comprised of five members elected at large from within the District.
It is the District's responsibility to provide safe, reliable source of potable water to its customers.
One of the District's facilities, Plant 132 had three water production wells, two booster pump
stations, and a hydropneumatic tank. The District has removed most of the old equipment from
the site. The remaining wells are relatively shallow (less than 300 feet deep) and have produced
water that contains higher than allowable concentrations of nitrates. These wells were originally
developed by Southern California Water Company (SCWC). EVWD assumed operation of Plant
132 when it took over operation of the SCWC system. At this time, EVVVD is proposing to
modernize Plant 132 by rehabilitating the existing wells or by drilling new wells, installing a nitrate
removal system, rehabilitating existing or installing new equipment (tanks, pumps, motors,
pipelines, etc.). The purpose of this project is to remove nitrates from water produced at Plant 132
to provide water that meets current drinking water standards.
Location
Plant t32 is located on the easterly side of San Francisco Street about 300 feet northerly of Sparks
Street and about 1,000 feet southerly of Baseline in the City of Highland. The site is located within
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 5, TlS, R3W SBM. Figure 1 is the Regional Location and Figure 2
is a Vicinity Map.
Environm,ental Setting
Plant 132 has been graded, leveled and developed with water production facilities. The site is
regularly disked or mowed to control weeds. No native habitat or plant species occur on the site.
Plant 132 is surrounded by urban development. Residential units exists on three sides. To the
east is a former drive-in movie theater and a vacant field. The vacant field is disked regularly for
weed control. No native habitat exists on or near the project site.
Pipelines to connect the Plant 132 facilities to the District's water distribution system will be placed
in existing roadways that have been paved. Figure 3 contains photographs of the Plant 132 site.
Proiect Characteristics
The District's modernization of Plant 132 will include reequipping and relining existing wells, adding
gravel pack, and sanitary seals. Water from the rehabilitated wells will be treated onsite at a
portable ion exchange unit that removes nitrates. The project also includes addition of a sodium
hyperchlorite facility to disinfect water from the wells.
Ev-056/In~dal Study/011403 -1 - TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
The project will also include installation of new pipelines and valves onsite and within nearby public
roads. The offsite pipelines will be placed in San Francisco and Sparks streets and Victoria
Avenue. One of the pipelines will serve as a drain tine and will be connected to an existing drain
line in Victoria Avenue. The line will periodically discharge water from the wells to the local storm
drain system. The second pipeline will transport water from Plant 132 to an existing EVWD water
distribution line in Victoria Avenue.
Initially, EVWD proposes to rehabilitate one of the existing wells. Depending on the success of that
well, EVWD may rehabilitate the other wells or drill a new well.
Rehabilitation of the existing wells would include removal of remaining mechanical equipment. New
well lines, pumps, motors, gravel packs, and sanitary seals would then be installed.
Installation of a new well would require drilling of a new hole, after which, outfitting the new well
would require essentially the same equipment and materials as the well rehabilitation.
The nitrate removal facility will have the ability to treat about 800 gallons per minute (gpm) of water.
The unit is portable and other units could be added to treat water from other wells as needed. The
treatment facility forces water through a resin which replaces the nitrates with chloride. This
process will generate between about 2,000 to 4,000 gallons of waste brine per day, The nitrate
laden brine will be disposed of either in the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI Line) or at
possibly another industrial waste disposal facility. It is projected that nitrate removal activities will
generate between 1 and 2 truck trips per day to deliver waste brine to disposal facilities. This
project will also include the use of sodium hyperchlorite to disinfect water before it enters the
District's distribution system. This chemical is similar to household bleach and will be stored in
small quantities (about 100 gallons) onsite.
Implementation of the project may also include some land leveling. Installation of subsurface
facilities (pipelines, valves, etc.) will require excavation and backfilling of trenches, the delivery of
materials and equipment, and maintenance of the facilities by District staff. EVWD estimates that
300 horsepower motors will be used to pump water.
Funds to construct these facilities will or have been provided from developer fees and the District's
reserve fund. Implementation of this project requires the Board of Directors (Board) of the EVWD
to approve the expenditure of the funds to construct and operate the proposed water improve-
ments. While these approvals will not result in any direct effects on the physical environment, it
will provide the mechanism for the activities that could cause physical change to the environment.
Such a decision by the Board is discretionary and considered a "project" under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). As such, the Board must
consider the potential impacts to the environment from approving and implementing this project and
comply with the requirements of CEQA to make a determination on the significance of the potential
impacts.
This document will also be prepared in such a manner that DHS and/or other agencies can utilize
this document and the Lead Agency's CEQA determination to make decisions on the project.
This concludes the project description. If the Board provides the approval needed, the project will
be implemented as outlined above. The remainder of this Initial Study consists of the most recent
EV~56~nr~a~ Study/014403 -2- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Develepment Project INITIAL STUDY
District CEQA Environmental Checklist Form and the substantiation required to support the
conclusions presented in this Form, Based on the findings and conclusions of this Initial Study, the
Board has made a preliminary determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appro-
priate CEQA determination for this project. A final environmental determination will be made follow-
ing the close of a 30-day comment period. Any comments received on the initial Study will be
reviewed and considered by the Board when making the final environmental determination. The
Board will make a final decision regarding the appropriate environmental determination for this
proposed project according to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines prior to making a decision
on the proposed project. The Environmental Checklist follows.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
o Aesthetics Q Agriculture Resoumes O Air Quality
Q Biological Resources Q Cultural Resources Q Geology & Soils
Q Hazards & Hazardous Materials Q Hydrology &Water Quality Q Land Use & Planning
~1 Mineral Resources CI Noise r~ Population & Housing
Q Public Services Q Recreation [:3 Transportation / Traffic
E:I Utilities & Service Systems Q Mandatory Findings of Significance
EV.056/~nrda~ Study/0~403 -3- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation, the following finding is made:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
· Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent or adequate mitigation has been provided
to reduce potential impacts below a level of significance. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
[] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it may analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier aIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
I~'ill Gatlin (signa ure) Da{e
Prepared by Tom Dodson & Associates
Rober[ Martin, General Manager
East Valley Water District
av-o56/In~t[al StL~dy/011403 -4- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST;
Potentially Less than Less than
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? I-I r~ [~ ·
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but r-i ~ all
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ~ {~ ·
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare F3 r-t ·
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a&c. Plant 132 is located within a developed portion of the City of Highland. Surrounding uses are residential
development with infrastructure. The wells, appurtenant facilities, and anyequipment housing structures
will occupy less than 0.5 acre and will not exceed about one-story in height which is similar to existing
structures around the site. All above-ground structures and equipment will be painted neutral colors
that blend with the surrounding uses. No scenic vistas will be affected by the project.
Based on the above, it is concluded this project has no potential to cause a substantial effect on a
scenic vista or substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site and the developed
surrounding area.
To further mitigate potentially non-significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible, the following
measure shall be implemented:
I-t All above-ground structures shall be covered with neutral, non-reflective coatings
that blend with surrounding uses and color schemes.
b. This project will not result in damage to any scenic resources. No significant trees, reck outcropping
or historic buildings exist on the site. The site is not located adjacent to a state scenic highway corrido[.
Based on the type and size of project proposed and the nature of current development adjacent to the
site, it is concluded this project will not be visible from or adversely effect any scenic highways or other
scenic resources.
Because no impact can be identified, no mitigation is required.
d. No extedor lighting will be associated with this project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1-1 above
is judged adequate to mitigate any potential impacts associated with glare to a less than significant
level.
EV-056/Inttial studyl011403 -5- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STU DY
11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or I~ I~ Q []
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a [-I E:I ~ []
Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment r-t I~ F3 []
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a-c. The project site and surrounding area has been developed with primarily residential units. No
agricultural activities have occurred in the area for at least 50 years. According to Exhibit V-3 of the City
of Highlands General Plan, no prime, unique or statewide important farmlands occur on or near the site.
The City designates the site and adjacent property for residential uses. Therefore, this project will not
convert any farmland to non-agricultural uses, conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Willliamson
Act contract, nor result in the potential conversion of farmland to other uses.
Because no impact will result, no mitigation is required,
EV*O56/Initial Study/011403 -6- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project N ITIAL STU DY
Potentially Less than Less than
Slgnifican~ $l§nlflcenl with Significant No
Ill, AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the r-i i~ · []
applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute [] O · [~
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ~1 [] · F~
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant CI CI · []
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial F3 [] · O
number of people?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a-c. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), The South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SGAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations within the
SCAB, The SCAQMD has published its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (CEQA Handbook) that identifies
threshold values for emissions to assist local agencies in determining if a project's emissions could
pose a significant threat to air quality and air quality standards.
These construction thresholds of significance are:
ROG (Reactive Organic Compounds) 75 lbs/day
NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) 100 lbs/day
CO (Carbon Monoxide) 550 lbs/day
PM~0 (small particle dust) 150 lbs/day
SOx (Sulphur Oxides) 150 lbs/day
Chapter 6 of the CEQA Handbook provides screening tables to assist in determining the significance
of impacts associated with proposed projects. Table 6-3 identifies grading operations that disturb less
than 177 acres per quarter year or 3 acres per day as not potentially causing significant air quality
impacts. Plant 132 has been graded and prepared for construction. No additional site preparation
other than some trenching or minor earth movement is required. No significant air emissions will result.
EV-OS611nii~al Study/011403 -7- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project mAE STU DY
The pipelines connecting Plant 132 to the District's existing system will be installed in public roads. It
is anticipated that about 300 feet of pipeline can be installed each day. Based on data in Table A9-8-A
of the CEQA Handbook, it is projected that pipe installation will generate the following emissions:
CO 11 lbs/day
ROC 3 lbs/day
NOx 21 lbs/day
SOx 2 lbs/day
PM~0 7 lbs/day
Rehabilitation of an existing well result in emissions that are similar to pipeline installation. Should the
District decide to replace a well, well drilling activities will generate the following emissions:
CO 16 lbs/day
ROC 4 lbs/day
NOx 42 lbs/day
SOx 5 lbs/day
PM~o 36 lbs/day
Total Construction Emissions
Based on the above, it is forecast that this project could generate the following emissions depending
on the timing of construction:
CO 27 lbs/day
ROC 7 lbs/day
NOx 63 lbs/day
SOx 7 lbs/day
PM~0 43 lbs/day
These are unmitigated impacts and are substantially below SCAQMD's threshold of significance. To
mitigate potential impacts to the greatest extent feasible, the following measure shall be implemented:
II1-1 The District's contract with the contractors shall require the contractor to provide
verification that all equipment is in proper tune per the manufacturer's recommen-
dation.
Other potential short-term sources of emissions are the delivery of construction materials, mechanical
equipment, and workers commuting to the site. Based on the few number of workers required (less
than 20) and the anticipated short-vehicle tdps associated with worker commutes and material
deliveries, it is concluded these potential short-term impacts do not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds
of significance for daily emissions.
Once the wells are operational, they will be powered by electricity supplied by Southern California
Edison Company (SCE). The Distdct anticipates the pump motors will be about 300 BHP. Based on
the relatively small size of these motors, the long-term emissions associated with SCE generating the
small amount of electricity needed to operate this equipment are considered non-significant. Recent
studies and reports indicate that adequate generation and distribution facilities are available to meet
the anticipated demand for electricity in the SCE service area.
It should be noted that this is essentially a well replacement or rehabilitation project. Therefore, energy
has historically been used at the site to power the wells and this project does not create a new energy
consumption use, Because no significant impact can be identified, no mitigation is required.
EV-OSS/~nI~al Study/0~4403 -8- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 1:32 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
b. The only pollutant associated with development and operation of the welts are those generated as
emissions from the combustion of petroleum products used by the equipment. The emissions are
below the SCAQMD's threshold of significance. Due to the few pieces of equipment required at any
given time, the amount of petroleum products consumed have no potential to expose receptors to a
significant amount of pollutants. Implementation of Mitigation Measure II1-1 is considered adequate
mitigation for potential impacts.
c. The rehabilitation or construction and operation of domestic water wells and underground pipelines
have no identifiable potential to alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause a change in
climate. No mitigation is required.
d. The only odors which will be generated by this project will be those from the construction equipment.
These odors will be associated with exhaust emissions from the consumption of petroleum products
(gasoline, diesel, etc.). Such odors are common in the urbanized areas near the project site. Due to
the few pieces of equipment required, the short duration of construction and 'the ambient odor levels
in the project area, it is concluded this project will not result in the creation of a significant amount of
objectionable odors. Mitigation Measure II1-1 will reduce potential impacts to the greatest extent
feasible.
EV-0$6/In[tial Study/011403 -9- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less than Less than
Significant Significant with Significan[ No
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ~) I-I CI ·
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian r-t cI I~ ·
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ~ [~ r~ []
protected weitands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. · interfere substantially with the movement of any I-I ~J I-I []
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ~ ~) [~ []
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat (~ [~ r-i []
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a-f. The project site and adjacent areas have been graded, developed, and all vegetation removed. No
habitat for any sensitive plant or animal species exists on or adjacent to the site. No wetlands or
riparian communities exist. The site is within residential development that does not serve as a wildlife
corridor or nursery site. The site does not contain any protected trees nor is it within a conservation
plan area (see Figure 3).
No impact to biological resources will result and no mitigation is required.
EV-OS~ni~I Study/O~403 -1 0- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less than Less than
V, CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the [] [~ · I~
significance of a historical resource as defined in
{}15O64.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the F'I · I~ O
significance of an amhaeological resource pursuant
to {}15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological FI · 1'3 t~
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred O ~ · [~
outside of formal cemeteries?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a-c. The site has been graded and compacted. No natural topography or habitat exists. Therefore, no
potential for surface or near surface cultural resources or unique geologic features exists. Some minor
excavations for structure footings, pipelines and equipment will occur. However, due to the disturbed
nature of the sites, the potential to encounter subsurface cultural resources is considered very unlikely.
To mitigate the potential for impacts to cultural resources to the greatest extent feasible, the following
measure shall be implemented:
V-l In the event cultural resources are encountered during construction of these water
facilities, activities in the immediate area of the finds should be halted and an onsite
inspection should be performed immediately by a qualified archaeologist or paleon-
tologist. This professionalwlil be able to assess the find, determine its significance,
and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guide-
lines of the California Environmental Quality Act and/or the Federal National Policy
Act.
d. No data suggests that buried human remains may occur on the project sites. Additionally, no such
remains are known to have been encountered during grading activities on the site. Based on the above
data and the relatively small area to be disturbed, it is concluded the potential to encounter human
remains is very unlikely. State law requires that the appropriate authorities be contacted if human
remains are encountered, in this case, the San Bernardino County Coroner's Office has jurisdiction.
Compliance with these laws is adequate mitigation for potential impacts. No further mitigation is
required.
Ev-os6/th~a~ stu~y/O~403 -1 1 - TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water Distdct
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less than Less than
GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as O Ct [] Ct
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
Strong seismic ground shaking? r-i I-i [] I-i
Seismic-related ground failure, including Ct Ct [] Q
liquefaction?
Landslides? Ct r-i Ct []
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of [~ [] Ct r~
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, Ct [] ~ Ct
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 Ct r~ [] [-i
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the r~ r~ E3 ·
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a. Implementation of this project will result in the rehabilitation or construction and operation of one or
more water wells and appurtenant above and below ground facilities (pipeline, valves, control panels,
etc.). No human occupancy structures will be associated with this project. Based on data provided on
Exhibit 11-4 of the City's General Plan, the site is not within or near an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone.
Due to the type and location of this project, the potential for this project to expose people or property
to the hazard of earthquake fault rupture is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
sv-0s~..~,~ study/o~4403 -1 2- TOM DODSON · ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
As with most of southern California, it should be anticipated the site will be subjected to strong seismic
groundshaking during the life of the project, However, no human occupancy structures or large water
storage facilities will be located onsite. The type of structures existing or proposed for the site (wells,
pumps, pipelines, etc.) are not susceptible to seismic damage that could expose people or propertyto
a high potential or risk of loss, injury or death from strong groundshaking or ground failure. No
mitigation is required.
Available data from the District indicates the depth to groundwater beneath the site exceeds 50 feet.
Due to the depth of groundwater and the lack of human occupancy structures onsite, the potential for
this project to expose people or property to adverse effects associated with liquefaction is judged to be
less than significant. No mitigation is required.
No hills or steep terrain exists on or near the project site. No potential for landslide exists and no
mitigation is required.
b. The site has been graded, compacted and is fiat (less than 1% slope). The rehabilitation or
construction of water supply facilities will result in minimal land disturbances. Presently, drainage
occurs as sheet flow to San Francisco Street. No change in this pattern will result from this project.
Water discharged by well test pumping will be discharged to hardsurfaced areas such as pipelines,
storm channels, or paved roads. The potential for this project to result in substantial erosion or loss of
top soil is less than significant. No mitigation is required.
c-d. Due to the type of project proposed and the lack of people onsite, no potential exists to expose people
or property to unstable earth or geologic conditions. No mitigation is required.
e. No onsite disposal facilities are proposed by this project.
EV-OS~ni~l Study/011403 -'~ 3- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the r~ ~ · ~
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the I~ ~ · E~
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or [~ ~ · [~
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of I-I F-I ~ ·
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan ~ I-I ~ ·
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airpor~ or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, I-'1 ~ r-1 ·
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with r-t r-I r~ ·
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of r-) [~ ~ ·
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a-c. Other than some petroleum products used during construction, this project will not include the use or
storage of explosive substances. Operation of the well will include the use of sodium hyperchlodte to
ensure the water extracted meets domestic water standards. This chemical is similar to household
bleach and will be stored in small quantities (about 100 gallons) and is not explosive, The storage of
this chemical is regulated by State and local regulations that have been determined to be adequate to
prevent or control accidental release. Additionally, the project will produce nitrate laden brine. This
EV-O56/In~al Study/011403 -1 4- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water Distdct
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
brine is not explosive or flammable. The transport and disposal of this waste is also controlled by state
and local regulations that are deemed adequate to reduce the potential risk of accidental release to a
less than significant level. Based on the above, it is concluded the potential for this project to result in
the accidental release of materials, explosion, or create a health hazard is non-significant with
implementation of applicable laws and regulations. No further mitigation other than that required by
current regulations is required.
d. The project is not located on or near a site which appears on the Cai-EPA Facility Inventory Data Base
Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. The site has been used for residential use and as a water
production facility. No known past uses indicate any past activities onsite that would include the use
of hazardous substances. No mitigation is required.
e-f. The project site is not within an airport land use plan but is within 2 miles of an existing public airport.
No private airstrips exist near the site.
The project is the continued operation of an existing water facility that does and will not include people
residing or working onsite. The continued operation of Plant 132 has no potential to result in an aircraft
safety hazard to people or property. No mitigation is required.
g. No known emergency response or evacuation plans affect the project area. Therefore, the project will
not affect such plans. No mitigation is required.
h. The project area has been completely developed with urban users. No wfldlands exist on or near the
site. No potential for risk or adverse effect to people or property from wildland fires will result. No
mitigation is required.
EV-0S611n~al Stu~ly/011403 ~4 5- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
PolentJally Less than Less than
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste I-I {~ E~ ·
discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or r~ I-i · r-I
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the r-t ci · I-i
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or
offsite?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [] [] · []
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding onsite or offsite?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would [] [-I · []
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as Ct Ct r-i ·
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures [] [] [] ·
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [] ·
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? E~ [] [] ·
EV-056/]nitial Study/011403 -1 6- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
SUBSTANTIATION:
a&f. This project proposes the development of domestic water supply facilities. No wastewater will be
generated or discharged bythe facilities. No contaminants which could affect suffacewater qualitywill
be associated with the project. The only chemical which will be stored or used onsite will be sodium
hypochlorite to treat the water extracted from the wells. This chemical is about 12.5-peroent chlorine
and is similar to household bleach. Only about 100 gallons of this chemical will be present onsite at any
given time. The storage and use of this chemical is controlled by regulations deemed adequate by the
agencies responsible for controlling such substances.
Up to 4,000 gallons of nitrate laden brine wastes will also be present onsite at any given time. The
storage, transport and disposal of these wastes is governed by state and local regulations and laws.
Compliance with these laws and regulations is mandatory and considered adequate mitigation for
potential impacts to water quality.
The project will not require the issuance of waste discharge requirements. Other than compliance with
applicable regulations, no further mitigation is required.
b. EVWD extracts water from a large groundwater basin beneath the San Bemardino Valley known as the
Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin (Basin). Water extraction rights to the Basin have been generally
adjudicated, in that a total annual extraction by all users has been identified, but no limit on the amount
of water each user can extract has been established. Should the maximum annual extraction be
exceeded for the entire Basin, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Muni) is to replace
the excess volume of groundwater extracted by spreading and percolating State Water Project Water
back into the Basin.
EVWD estimates that the Bunker Hill Basin has about 5,000,000 acre-feet of water in storage of which
about 2,000,000 acre-feet is available without adversely effecting the supply and quality of water in the
Basin. Based on the availability of groundwater in the Basin and the current groundwater recharge
policies, it is concluded this wells replacement project will not substantially increase groundwater
extractions; result in a significant adverse effect on the quantity of groundwater; nor substantially alter
the direction of flow of groundwater in the Basin, Existing recharge policies are considered adequate
to mitigate potential impacts the quality and quantity of groundwater to a non-significant level. No
further mitigation is required.
c-e. Plant 132 has been graded and leveled. Drainage from the site occurs as sheet flow toward the west
and into San Francisco Street. The project will result in the rehabilitation of existing wells and/or the
drilling ora newwell. Ancillary equipment such as a disinfect[on system, nitrate removal unit, pipelines,
etc. will also be installed. No grading of the site is proposed nor will substantial hard-surfacing occur.
No stream or river exists on or near the site.
Based on the above, it is concluded this project will not alter existing drainage patterns or the course
and flow of a river or stream. Because no impact can be identified, no mitigation is required.
g-i. This project does not propose any housing and is not situated within a 100-year flood hazard area. As
such it has no potential to place housing at risk to flooding or impede the flow of stormwater.
The project site is not situated near a large waterbody that has a potential to generate a tsunami or
seiche. No areas exist around or near the site that could generate substantial mudflow, Because no
impact can be identified, no mitigation is required.
EV-056/~nitJal Study/011403 -1 7- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? r~ [~ [~ ·
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or CI ~ O []
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan rR F'I I-'1 ·
or natural community conservation plan?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a. Plant 132 is an existing water production facility located within a residential community. The continued
use of the site as a water production facility has no potential to physically divide a community. No
mitigation is required.
b. California Government Code Section 53091 exempts water supply facilities from local zoning
restrictions. Such facilities are considered compatible with all land use designations. Therefore, the
continued use of the site for water supply facilities has no potential to conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy or regulations. Because no impact can be identified, no mitigation is required,
c. The project site and adjacent areas have been developed with urban uses. No native habitat or
topography exists in the area. No known habitat or natural community plans exist on or near the
project. No impact to such plans will result and no mitigation is required.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [~ ~ ~1 ·
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important I~ [~ ~ ·
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a-b. The project site is an existing water production facility. No known minerat resources occur on or near
the project site. The City of Highland General Plan identifies mineral resource zones in undeveloped
areas, The mineral resources which occur in the area are sand and gravel used for construction
materials. These resources are located within active channels such as the Santa Ana River. The City's
General Plan indicates that no such resources are known or suspected to occur on or near the project
site, Because no impact will result, no mitigation is required.
Ev-oss/~nr~.~ study/o~403 -1 8- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project IN ITIAL STU DY
Xl. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive CI I-I I-t ·
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ~ · T~ r-il
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan I-1 [~ I~ ·
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, FI O I-I ·
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a-d Rehabilitation or development and operation of wells has some potential to generate noise. In the short
term, well drilling and pipeline trenching activities will generate noise. In the long term, the mechanical
equipment at the wells will generate noise. The project sites are located within an urban area with
residences located within about 100 feet of the site.
Generally, well drilling and pipe installation activities can generate noise levels of about 75 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet from the equipment. A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the response to the
human ear of a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against the very Iow and high
frequencies of the audible spectrum. A-weighted decibels reflect those which are audible to the human
ear.
Equivalent sound levels ara not measured directly but rather calculated from sound pressure levels
typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) is the constant
levels that, over a given time period, transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-
varying sound. Equivalent sound levels are the basis for both the Ldn and CNEL scales,
Day-night average sound levels are a measure of the cumulative noise exposure of the community.
The Ldn value results from a summation of hourly Leq's over a 24-hour time period with an increased
weighting factor applied to the nighttime period between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a,m. This noise rating
EVq)5611n16al Study/011403 '1 9- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water Distdct
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
scheme takes into account those subjectively more annoying noise events which occur during the
normal sleeping hours.
Noise diminishes at a rate of about 6 d B for each doubling of the distance from the source. This means
that construction noise levels at the nearest receptors (residences located about 100 feet from the site)
will be about 69 dBA on the exterior of those receptors. This no[se level is within the City's Zone B
compatible noise level for residences with mitigation. However these noise level increase are short
term and are not health threatening.
Well drilling activities, should they occur, will be continuous 24-hours per day for up to 10 days while
pipeline, pump stations, etc. will occur during normal work hours. To mitigate potential impacts from
noise at sensitive receptors, the following measures shall be implemented:
XI-1 The District shall require that non-weft drilling construction activities be limited to
the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
XI-2 The District shall respond to any noise complaints received for this project by
measuring noise levels at the affected receptor. If the noise level exceeds an Ldn
of 60 dBA exterior or an Ldn of 45 dBA interior at the receptor, the District shall
implement adequate measures such as the use of noise attenuation curtains or
enclosing equipment within structures to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent
feasible.
Implementation of these measures is judged to be adequate to mitigate potential short-term construc-
tion noise impacts to a non-significant level.
In the long term, mechanical equipment at the site will generate some noise. This equipment produces
noise levels that are substantially below the construction equipment. Based on the District's knowledge
for noise levels at other well sites, it is forecast that noise levels generated by this project at the exterior
of the nearest receptor will be well below 60 dBA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure XI-2 is judged
adequate to mitigate any potential long-term noise impacts to non-significant levels.
Due to the type of construction proposed, it is concluded the rehabilitation or drilling of a well, installation
of pipelines, and other facilities will not expose people to extensive groundborne vibration or ground-
borne noise levels.
e-f. The project sites are not within an airport land use plan area nor near a private airstrip. This project
does not propose any development that could result in the exposure of people to excessive noise levels.
EV-O56/Inltial Study/011403 -20- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
Pote~t[ally Less lean Less thar~
XlI. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, Q ~ r-I []
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, [~ [] r~ []
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, ~ ~ r3 []
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a-c. This project does not propose the development of any new housing. The project site contains existing
water supply facilities. No housing exists onsite and no existing housing will not be affected by this
project. The District is mandated to provide an adequate supply of water to customers in its service
area. The type and density of development in the District's service area is controlled by land use
designations established by the agencies having jurisdiction over such issues (cities and county). As
such, this project is considered growth-accommodating not growth-inducing in that it will help provide
water service to development that is approved or allowed by the agencies having jurisdiction over land
use issues. Because no impact can be identified, no mitigation is required.
Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES -Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered govern-
mental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? ~ ~ I~ []
Police protection? r~ [~ [] ·
Schools? ~ [] [] ·
Parks? '[~ [~ [~ []
Other public facilities? I~ i~ [] []
SUBSTANTIATION:
The proposed project is viewed as a benefit to public services in that it will help maintain an adequate
water supply in the District's service area, This is a particular benefit to fire protection services.
V
EV-O56/InI~I Study/011403 -21- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
Construction, operation, and maintenance of the well and other facilities will require the expenditure of
funds by the District. Funds for projects such as this are generated from fees charged by the District
for water service. It will be the District's responsibility to set an adequate fee schedule to generate the
needed funds.
XlV. RECREATION-
a. Would the project increase the use of existing ~) E~ ct ·
neighborhood and regional parks or ether
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or [] E~ [] ·
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a-b. As previously discussed in this document, this project will not contribute to an increase in the population
of the area beyond that already allowed or planned for within the District's service area. The project
does not propose any new development or will not affect any existing or proposed recreational facilities.
Because no impact can be identified, no mitigation is required.
EV-056/~nitial Study1011403 -22- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation /Developrnent Project INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less than Less than
Significan[ Significant w{th Sigt)iticant No
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- Would the project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in r--i [] · []
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of [] I-I · [~
service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including I~ [] r~ ·
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety dsks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design ~ [] F-I ·
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersec-
tions) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? [] r~ [] ·
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?. [] r~ [] ·
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [] [] CI ·
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a,b,
d&f. This project does not propose any new roads or the reconstruction of any existing roadways. In the
short term, construction of the proposed facilities will result in the generation of up to about 40 additional
vehicle trips on the adjacent roadways by construction personnel and the delivery of construction
materials. This increase in traffic will be for a few weeks at any given time and is not considered
sufficient to affect the level of service of roadways or cause congestion at any intersection.
Once constructed and operating, the only traffic that will be generated by this project will be occasional
visits to the site by District personnel to inspect and maintain the facilities and vehicles to transport the
nitrate laden brine to disposal facilities. These activities will result in one or two additional trips on any
given day. Adequate parking area is available onsite and along roadways to accommodate the parking
requirements.
In the short term, the installation of pipelines in public roads has the potential to create a traffic hazard
due to the presence of open trenches and equipment. To mitigate potential impacts to a less than
significant level, the following measures shall be implemented:
EV-056/~nitial Study/011403 -23- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East VaLley Water Distdct
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
XV-I The District shall review and approve a construction traffic management plan for
work in public roads that complies with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook
or other applicable standards to provide adequate traffic control and safety during
construction activities.
XVo2 The District shall require the pipeline contractor to properly backfill and compact
excavated areas. The District shall also require that all disturbances to public
roadways be repaired in a manner that complies with the Standard Specifications
for Public Works Construction (green book) or other applicable standards.
c. These water facilities have no potential to generate an increase in air traffic volumes or affect air traffic
patterns, Because no impact can be identified, no mitigation is required.
e. The project design includes direct access to public roadways which is considered adequate for
emergency purposes. No fur[her mitigation is required.
g. The construction and operation of water wells has no potential to impact alternative transportation
policies. No mitigation is required.
EV-O56/InitJalStudy/011403 -24- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project ~NITIAL STU DY
XVI,UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-Would the
project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ['-t [] ~ ·
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or F'I I-I ~ ·
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm [] Fl · I~
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the FI [] [] ·
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater r~ I~ CI ·
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill(s) with sufficient permitted FI Ct · CI
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and r-'l [] r~ ·
regulations related to solid waste?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a-g. The proposed project Js a water service improvement. It will provide water service to development that
will generate wastewater. The development being served is either existing or planned for development
that will not affect the existing or planned for capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities. The project
will also generate nitrate laden brine. This waste will not be discharged to the municipal wastewater
system, but will be transported for disposal at an approved industrial waste disposal facility. No impact
to existing wastewater treatment facilities will result from this project. Other than a small amount of con-
struction wastes, this project will not generate solid wastes and will not adversely affect the existing solid
waste collection and disposal system.
The proposed project will not significantly increase surface water runoff from the site. Adequate drain-
age facilities are available to accommodate surface water flows from the site. Because no impact to
services and utility systems can be identified, no mitigation is required.
Ev-05~/~n~, s~dy/o~403 -25- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STU DY
XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ~ E] ~ ·
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually ~1 l~ · D
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulative-
ly considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which I~ r--i [~ ·
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectl~
SUBSTANTIATION:
a. The project site and roads have been disturbed by human activities. No native vegetation or habitat
occurs on or near the site. The site is located within an urbanized area where no sensitive plant or
animal species are known or suspected to occur. The site is about 0.5 acre and is adjacent to much
larger develepment that has altered the physical character of the area. The extraction of groundwater
and the supplying of domestic water produces minimal air emissions, traffic, noise or other impacts
which can degrade the quality of the environment.
No structures or other potentially important examples of early California history or prehistory exists
onsite and none will be affected.
b. This project will result in the extraction of water from the groundwater basin. Such extractions when
combined with other extractions could have the potential to degrade the quantity and quality of ground-
water. However, an adequate groundwater basin recharge program using imported water is imple-
mented to reduce potential impacts associated with basin overdraft to a less than significant level. It
should be noted that this project is the modernization or rehabilitation of an existing water supply facility
which will allow the continued extraction of groundwater at the site. No significant individual or
cumulative significant impacts can be identified.
c. The provision of an adequate domestic water supply is viewed as a benefit to human beings. The
project will not create any hazardous conditions that could either directly or indirectly affect human
beings.
Ev-os6/~.,~l s~.y/0~403 -26- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
East Valley Water District
Plant 132 Well Rehabilitation / Development Project INITIAL STUDY
v
MITIGATION MEASURES:
I-1 All above-ground structures shall be covered with neutral, non-reflective coatings that blend
with surrounding uses and color schemes.
I11-1 The District's contract with the contractors shall require the contractor to provide verification
that all equipment is in proper tune per the manufacturer's recommendation.
V-1 In the event cultural resources are encountered during construction of these water facilities,
activities in the immediate area of the finds should be halted and an onsite inspection
should be performed immediately by a qualified amhaeologist or paleontologist. This
professional will be able to assess the find, determine its significance, and make
recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California
Environmental Quality Act and/or the Federal National Policy Act.
XI-1 The District shall require that non-well drilling construction activities be limited to the hours
of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
XI-2 The District shall respond to any noise complaints received for this project by measuring
noise levels at the affected receptor, if the noise level exceeds an Ldn of 60 dBA exterior
or an Ldn of 45 dBA interior at the receptor, the District shall implement adequate measures
such as the use of noise attenuation curtains or enclosing equipment within structures to
reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible.
XV-1 The District shall review and approve a construction traffic management plan for work in
public roads that complies with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook or other applicable
standards to provide adequate traffic control and safety during construction activities.
XV-2 The District shall require the pipeline contractor to properly backfill and compact excavated
areas. The District shall also require that all disturbances to public roadways be repaired
in a manner that complies with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction
(green book) or other applicable standards.
REFERENCES:
City of Highland General Plan
South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook
Tom Dodson & Associates, Site Evaluation, December 2002
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation service, Soil Survey San Bernardino County,
Southwestern Part, California
EV-O56/[nltia[ Study1011403 -27- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
Source: USGS - San Bernardino, 1:250,000 Quadrangle
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
FIGURE 2
Location Map
Source: USGS - Red]ands Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series topographic
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
FIGURE 3
Photographs of Plant 132
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmenta/ Consultants
COMMENT LETTER ~1
State of California--Health and Human Sen/ices Agency
Department of Health Services
February 11,2003 F£R I I 200.1
Paul Dolter i
East Valley Water District ,STATE OLEARI G HOUSE
1155 Oel Rosa Avenue (PCB 3427)
San Bernardino, CA 92413 ,,
Dear Mr. Dolter.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT-
EAST VALLEY WATER DISI'RtCT'S PLANT132 WELL NO. 3610064 (SC H#
REHABiLiTATION/DEVELOPMENT pROJECT-WATER SYSTEM
2003011065)
for the opportunity to review the above document. The Department of Health
Drinking Water and Environmental Management (DHS) is
;ervices, OMsion ofproposing to rehabilitate existing we~ls and/or
responsible for water supply permits administered under the Safe Ddnking Water
Program. If East'Cal~e¥ Water District is DH$ may need to amend the current permit or
construct ne~ wells at its plant 132 site,
new water supply permit. Accordingly, DHS would be a responsible agency
)ursuant to CECA and may need to consider an envkenmental document when
edd~ng whether to permit the new facilities. Please contact Kalyanpur Bafiga, District
Engineer, of the San Bernardino District Office at (,909) 383-4328 if you have an'/
.questions regarding permits, permit applications or permit amendments.
Before a permit or amended permit can be issued we will need a copy of (1) the
adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, (2) all
comments received and your responses, and (3) the Notice of Determination filed with
he Governods O~ce of Planning and Research
' n general, the Mitigated Negative Declara~on would be adequate ~or our consideration
under CEQA. please call me at (.916) 445-4287 if you have any q~estions regarding
our environmental review of this project.
Environmental Review Unit
, .' ' mia save energy, To earn mere about saving energy, visit the following web site:
~)0'~1~"~' Division oi Drink ng W~ter and environmental
Response to Comment Letter #1
California Department of Health Services (DHS)
1-1 Your comment is noted. East Valley Water District will provide DHS with all its CEQA
compliance documents for the project.
Mr. Paul Dolter
Page 2
February 11, 2003
cc: State Clearinghouse
P.O Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
San 8emardino District Office
Government Center, 4th Floor
464 W. 4th Street, ff437
San Bemardino, CA 92401
Memo
TO.' Robert Martin- ,-.-3 ,~--, ///
CC: Brian Tompkms
Date-" 02/20/03
Re.' Payment Retention for new Plant 37 Project
The Distdct awarded a project to SSC Construction last year to build our new Plant 37
facilities. The project has been progressing quite well, espedally when compared to similar
projects. A few months ago, SSC had requested that we limit the retention on their progress
payments to 50% of the total contract pdce as provided for in the "Green Book". Our
specifications cleady indicate that a 10% retention would apply to the entire contract. We
denied the request at that time and SSC responded by requesting that the retention be sent
to an escrow account where the money could accrue interest for the benefit of SSC. The
District would release the money and accrued interest, less escrow fees and expenses, back
t~ SSC when the project was finished and all SSC's financial obligations were met
Recently SSC sent in another request (attached) to reduce the 10% retention amounts to
50% of the total contract pdce as previously asked. However, this time they indicated that
they were ahead of schedule by almost three months and that they had demonstrated proven
efficiency. The Distdct sent the request to CDM for comments. CDM is our design,
construction management and inspection consultant for this project. CDM's reply (attached)
indicated that SSC has performed quite well when evaluating their construction practices, but
their peripheral work and site cleanliness has not deserved the same praise. CDM also
indicated that a major portion of the work consisting of the pipeline and tank construction had
not been thoroughly tested to date. Accordingly, I would concur with CDM's second
recommendation to suspend the provisions of Section 00500 6.2 temporarily and limit the
10% retention to 75% of the contract amount. I would also recommend that this specification
change have the stipulation that the Distdct can revert to holding the full 10% retention at its
sole discretion. We must remember that the 10% retention for the entire contract was based
upon CDM's recommendation and our expedenca with other major projects such as this.
· Page 1
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
January 15, 2003
East Valley Water District J.~// /' .~
Attn: Paul Dolter . ,
1155 Del Rosa Ave.
San Bernardino, CA 92410
Ref: Plant 37 Relocation
Request for Reduction in Retention
Dear Mr. Dolter:
As of the January, 2003 billing, SSC Construction, Inc. will have completed 80% of the Plant 37
relocation project, and we are progressing at a pace that is 2 months ahead of the first
milestone, and 3 months ahead of final contract completion. Those that will benefit from our
progress will be the District and its constituents.
In general, the withholding of 10% retention for the project's duration pertains to marginal
contractors. SSC Construction, Inc. has demonstrated that we are far superior to that
classification. It has been our experience with many other owners that even though the
specification does not specifically allow or disallow the reduction of retention, our performance
has convinced them to grant such a request. We are requesting that due to our efficiency and
progress, a waiver be granted in respects to the payment schedule. In keeping with the
Greenbook, Section 9-3.2, SSC Construction, Inc. is requesting that the amount of retention
being withheld by the District be limited to 10% of the first half of the project.
Your consideration and granting of our request will be appreciated. Please contact me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Controller
2073 Railroad Street · Corona, California 91720. 909-278-1177 · Fax 909-278-2538 · State Lic. No. 767170
Memorandum
?o: Paul Dclter, EVWD
From: Mark Van Dam, CDM
Date: February 1 I, 2003
Subject: SSC Construction request for Reduction in Retention
I have received and reviewed the le~er dated January 3.5, 2002 from SSC Const-ruction
concerning theh' request to reduce the retention for the Plant 37 Relocation project. SSC
Construction is requestL~g that the retention from their progress payments, c~rrently at 10%,
be reduced to s total of 10% of the first half of the project as specified in the Greenbook.
The relevant specifications section (Section 00500 6.2) states, "Prior to Substantial Completion,
progress payments will be tn an amount equal to 90 percent of the value of the Work
completed." ~ Construction knew going into tl~.s project that ~.0% Of tI'm progress
payments would be withheld as retention throughout the whole proiect.
While I tend to agree with SSC that the withholding of 10% retention fox' the project's
duration generally pertains to marginal contractors, it also pertains to "unknown"
conb'actors, or contractors that the owner is not familiar witlx.
SSC Consh'uction has shown then~elves to be a competent contractor, and they are quite a bit
ahead of schedule. Their work on the tank, pipelines and vaults has been excellent. But they
have slxown a tendency to let other things besides the acfual construction of the tank and
pipelines fall by the wayside, and tl-d,s concerns me. Things such as site cleanliness, t~ash,
storm water pollution prevention, and environmental protection have not had the same
attention from SSC that the acVaal consbmction itself has.
It should also be noted, that at this timer most of the work performed by S$C Consb'uction has
not actually been tested. The tank, pipelines, vanes and vaults have not been tested yet. It
might be premature to reduce the retention prior to testing these items.
Paul Dotter
February 11, 2003
Page 2
My recommendation at this time would be to follow the Specifications and deny this request,
at least until the t~'mk and pipelines have been tasted. At that point, this request could be
reevaluated based on the r~sults of the tests. Or perhaps we could meet SSC halfway, and
l~'aR retention to the first 75%of the project, essentially keeping the total retention where it is
now, and not withholdh~g any further retenHo~ from the future progress payments.
[~ you have any questions or conunents, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Shicerely,
Mark Van Dam
cc: CDM 1;ilo
.~g co~S~W~o~v ,.
SAN BERNABflDINO VALLEY WATER~ CONSEI~VATION DISTB3CT
~q~ , 0.~ Established 1932
1630 West R~edlands Boulevard, Suite A EO. Box 1839
Redlands, CA 92373-8032 Redlands, CA 92373-{)581
(909) 793-2503 ~,,O Email: info~sbvwcd.dst.ca.us
Oo/~ NJli,/E 15 OUR Fax: (909) 793-0188 ~t~ ~
February 18, 2003
Don Goodin ,c'~/,~ ii:
President, Board of Directors
East Valley Water District
P.O. Box 3427
Sma Bemardino, CA 92413-3427
Dear Mr. Goodin:
The San Bemardino Valley Water Conservation District ("Conservation District") has
developed a partnership program with the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers ("Corps of Engineers") for a project within their Environmental Restoration
Program. The project is the "Seven Oaks Dam Borrow Pit Groundwater Conservation and
Habitat Restoration Project" ("Project") (Please see the attached Location Map). The Corps of
Engineers has prepared a Preliminary Restoration Plan ("PRP") for the Project, and will soon
begin a feasibility and environmental analysis, known as the Detailed Project Report or "DPR".
The Project will restore the approximately 200 acres of land in the Seven Oaks Dam pervious
borrow pit to a series of groundwater recharge pemolation basins, surrounded by and
supporting native habitat (please see the attached Project map). The recharged water will
provide high quality groundwater in the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin ("Basin") to
customers in the San Bemardino Valley, Since 1969, the Conservation District has recharged
annually nearly 16,000 acre-feet of Santa And River water and nearly 6,000 acre-feet of Mill
Creek water, the principal tributary to the Santa And River. Additionally, the Basin is one of
only three in the Santa And River watershed that has improved its quality in total dissolved
solids and nitrate-nitrogen, two of the most prominent water contaminants. The marked
improvement in water quality in the Basin is attributable to the continued recharge of the
Basin by the Conservation District. With the current drought, the uncertainty of future state
water project deliveries, and the drastic reduction in California's use of Colorado River water,
projects like this one are essential to securing the water future of this region and the state.
The Project is also compatible with the Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan for
the Upper Santa And River Wash, a cooperative planning effort by cities, counties, water
agencies, mining companies, state and federal wildlife agencies, the Corps of Engineers, and
Bo3a:co Bert Marcum, Jr. Arnold L.Wright Cheryl A.Tubbs GENEtl. AL D. Burnell Cavender, AICP
OF Clare Henry Day SterlingWoodbury Melody Henriques MANAGER.
DIR.ECTOR.S Manuel Aranda. Jr.
the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to assure a balanced land allocation amongst
water conservation, mining of sand and gravel, wildlife habitat, recreation, and infrastructure
uses (Please see the attached Concept Plan map). This cooperative project is now under
contract to develop the environmental analysis and implementation documents.
Representatives from the Corps of Engineers have advised that the DPR will be accomplished
this fiscal year with available funding; however, the Corps of Engineers will need additional
funds to prepare construction plans and specifications. Therefore, the Conservation District
has requested Congressman Jerry Lewis to sponsor an addition to the FY 2004 Energy and
Water Bill for $400,000 in the Section 1135, Environmental Restoration Program, for this
very important project. Construction funding in the amount of $5.0 million will be sought in
the FY 2005 appropriation. The total project estimate is $7.0 million. The Conservation
District will fund the local share above $5.0 million.
We are extremely pleased about the enthusiasm of the Corps of Engineers for the Project.
Our hope is to preserve the momentum that their support has generated and move towards
completing this important groundwater conservation and environmental restoration project
associated with construction of Seven Oaks Dam. We would, therefore, appreciate your
support for this regionally significant Project by sending a letter to Congressman Lewis
endorsing the need for the $400,000 appropriation in the FY 2004 budget, and follow on
construction appropriation in the FY 2005 appropriation. A sample letter is attached for your
consideration. If you believe it to be more appropriate, you may address a letter to the
Conservation District, and we will advise Congressman Lewis of your support.
We appreciate your support of the Project. Should you need any additional information,
please contact our General Manager, D. Bumell Cavender, at 909-793-2503 or email at
bcavender~sbvwcd.dst.ca.us.
Yours truly,
Sterling Woodbury, President
Board of Directors
cc: Robert Martin, General Manager
Enclosures: Location Map
Seven Oaks Dam Borrow Pit Groundwater Conservation and Habitat Restoration Project
Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan-Concept Plan Map
Sample Letter to Congressman Jerry Lewis
SAMPLE LETTER
date
The Honorable Jerry Lewis
United States House of Representatives
2112 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Lewis:
The (agency) supports the San Bemardino Valley Water Conservation District's
("Conservation District") project to restore land for significantly important groundwater
recharge percolation basins, surrounded by and supporting native habitat. The Conservation
District's project is the "Seven Oaks Dam Borrow Pit Groundwater Conservation and Habitat
Restoration Project" ("Project"). The Project is the result of a partnership with the Los
Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps of Engineers") for funding in
the Corps of Engineers' Environmental Restoration Program. With the current drought, the
uncertainty of future state water project deliveries, and the drastic reduction in California's
use of Colorado River water, projects like this one are essential to securing the water future of
this region and the state.
The recharged water will provide high quality groundwater in the Bunker Hill Groundwater
Basin ("Basin") for citizens in the San Bernardino Valley. Since 1969, the Conservation
District has recharged annually nearly 16,000 acre-feet of Santa Ana River water and nearly
6,000 acre-feet of Mill Creek water, the principal tributary to the Santa Ana River.
Additionally, the Basin is one of only three in the Santa Ana River watershed that has
improved its quality in total dissolved solids and nitrate-nitrogen, two of the most prominent
water contaminants. The marked improvement in water quality in the Basin is attributable to
the continued recharge of the Basin by the Conservation District.
The Project is also compatible with the Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan for
the Upper Santa Ana River Wash, a cooperative planning effort by cities, counties, water
agencies, mining companies, state and federal wildlife agencies, the Corps of Engineers, and
the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to assure a balanced land allocation amongst
water conservation, mining of sand and gravel, wildlife habitat, recreation, and infrastructure
uses. One element of the project is a land exchange between the Conservation District and
BLM, which has been initiated. This cooperative project is now under contract to develop the
environmental analysis and implementation documents. The (agency) is a participant in this
complex, but very important planning effort.
The Corps of Engineers has prepared a Preliminary Restoration Plan ("PRP") for the Project
and will proceed with the feasibility and environmental analysis (Detailed Project Report or
"DPR") with available funding; however, additional funds in the mount of $400,000 are
needed in the federal fiscal year 2004 Section 1135, Environmental Restoration Program
appropriation to prepare construction plans and specifications. Construction funding in the
amount of $5.0 million will be sought in the FY 2005 appropriation. The total project
estimate is $7.0 million, with the Conservation District funding the share above $5.0 million.
The recharge activities of the Conservation District are extremely important to the Valley;
therefore, we heartily endorse the Project. We would appreciate your support to obtain the
necessary FY 2004 funding for the construction plans and specifications, and follow-on
construction funding in FY 2005. Should you need any additional information, please ask
your staff to contact (name/telephone/email).
Thank you for your continued support of the people in the San Beruardino Valley.
Yours truly,
nalne
President, Chairman, Mayor, etc.
Copy to: San Beruardino Valley Water Conservation District
.~ co~s~v,~r~o~v ..
.,~,.. :: :: "/~ SAN BEKNARDINO VALLEY WATER. CONSERVATION DISTRICT
~4~ .~O,a Established 1932
-. 1630 West P,.edlands Boulevard, Suite A EO. Box 1839
P,_edlands, CA 92373-8032 t~edlands, CA 92373o0581
~ (909) 793-2503 Email: info~sbvwcd.dst ca.us
Fax: (909) 793-0188
oo~ '~M~ ~s°u.
SEVEN OAKS DAM BORROW PIT
Groundwater Conservation and Habitat Restoration Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
I South Canal $1,200,000
2a Perimeter Road $200,000
2b East Basins $1,200,000
2c North Basins $1,200,000
2d Middle Basins $1,200,000
2e South Basins $1,400,000
2f Surface Storage Basin $300,000
2g Surface Storage Feeder $200,000
2h Equipment Storage Area $100,000
TOTAL $7,000,000
V
BOAP..D Bert Marcum, Jr. Arnold L.Wright Cheryl A.Tubbs GENERAL D. Burnell Cavender, AICP
OF Clare Henry Day SteflingWoodbmy Melody Henriques MANAGER
D IB. ECTOt~.S Manuel Aranda, Jr.
Memorandum
To: Bob Martin, General Manager; Paul Dolter, District Engineer
From: Ron Buchwald, Assistant District Engineer ~,~, 2./'2] ] O~
Dato: 02/21/03
Ro: Request for payment for facilities constructed at Plant 148 and Plant 140
The District entered into an agreement with Spring Pacific Properties on November
13, 2001, for the installation of domestic facilities within Tract 15985 and 16014.
This agreement prescribes the cost sharing between Spring Pacific Properties and
the District for the domestic facilities stated. Of those facilities listed in the
agreement, the reservoir (at plant 148), booster station (at Plant 140) and the
asSOciated piping between them have been constructed, approved and dedicated to
the District to date.
spring Pacific Properties (SPP) has incurred a cost of $1.452 million for the project
and iS now seeking reimbursement from the District for our share. SPP solicited the
proposals, hired the designers and contractors, inspected the work (in conjunction
with the District), and reviewed and paid the invoices. SPP has compiled the
invoices and tabulated the data onto a spreadsheet with the cost-sharing breakdown
for District review. The District has incurred a cost of $45,274.58 for the CEQA
documentation and work-related inspections for this project.
The invoices provided by SPP have been reviewed and verified. However, two of
the costs listed have limited data as backup. The contractor who performed the
work has elected not to invoice SPP due to SPP paying the subcontractors directly
for lack of payment from the contractor. SPP and the contractor are now settling
their differences in court. The two items in question are minor in cost ($1,450 &
$4,000) compared to the total cost. The items are located at the bottom of the
Replacement Water Line category on sheet 2. Both items can be readily estimated
from the invoices provided for similar items. SPP has provided a letter stating that
once EVWD has reimbursed SPP, they shall release EVWD from any obligations
should they occur in the future.
The District entered into another agreement with SPP to adjust the boundary of the
District's Plant 108, dated November 13, 2002. This agreement exchanged land for
February 2'1, 2003
improvements to the District's Plant. Among the improvements listed in the
agreement, a sum of $20,000.00 was to be contributed to the District for coating the
reservoir. The reservoir has been coated and the fee is now due. SPP has requested
that the fee be credited to the amount the District owes SPP.
Landscaping of the disturbed areas in and around Plant 108 was among the
improvements listed in the agreement. SPP provided landscaping plans for the
entire site, including areas outside the limits of their required landscaping. The two
areas are identified as phase I and phase II. Phase I consists of the work that is
required and Phase II is the extra work not required. The District requested SPP to
solicit a bid for Phase II work in addition to Phase I. SPP provided the proposal
(attached for your review) from Soltis as the best price among other bids. The
District solicited a bid from their landscape contractor and received a proposal for
$8,500.00. The bid from Soltis includes maintenance period of 90 days and
eliminates the hassle of dealing with coordinating two contractors in addition to a
better price for the work.
Therefore, the total adjusted price the District would owe SPP, as you can see on
page 2 of the Cost Tabulation is~--~470,914.~'~ After careful review of the data
presented by SPP, I recommend the IJ~stnct pay S'PP as indicated.
2
COST TABULATION
WATER RESERVOIR AND BOOSTER STATION
COST INCURRED BY SPP
. ,:il :~'. i'S~PFo~rI Fair "
I~, ,," ~ DESCRiPT.ON i CONTRACT .it{NfPRICEi Q[JANTITY UNiTM ~T ShR;e ~ SP~ ; Share :
~ATER ~SERVOiR Contract A
~[te/Accesss Road/Piping
Ex~vat~n Con~act A 76,010.00 1 Is 76,010.00 66.7% 50,698.67 33.3% 25,311.33
~" AC w/fine grade Con~ract ~CO 1.31 31,670 sf 41,487.70 66.7% 27,672,30 33.3% 13,815.40
3erich Drain ConVac~A 44.5~ 150 If 6,682.50 66.7% 4,457.23 33.3% 2,225.27
Na~ ~ln DIP- 12" Contract A 44.0C 80 If 3,520.00 66.7% 2,347.84 33.3% 1,172.16
Nater Main CML&C - 16" Contract A 66.0C 1,567 If 103,422.00 66.7% 68,982.47 33.3% 34,439.53
]2" Clow Flap Va~e ConBact A 3,080.00 1 Is 3,080.00 66.7% 2,0~.36 33.3% 1,025.64
16" Bu~ed~ Valve Con~act A 3,740.00 I ea 3,740.00 66.7% 2,4~.58 33.3% 1,245.42
12" Gate Valve Con~act A 2,530.00 I ea 2,530.00 66.7% 1,687.51 33.3% 842.4;
~" Concrete Paving Contract ~CO 5.59 1,163 sf 6,501.17 66.7% 4,336.28 33.3% 2,164.8;
8" Co.crete Curb Con~ractA 13.5~ 83 If 1,127.97 66.7% 752.36 33.3% 375.61
8" Concrete Gu~ter (3' wide) Con~ac[~CO 17.71 315 If 5,578.65 66.7% 3,720.96 33.3% 1
8" Curb & Gutter Contract A 11.00~ 1,482 [f 16,302.00 66.7% 10,873,43 33.3% 5,428.57
8" ~ncrete cu~ & Gu~er Contract ~CO 1.00~ 950 Is 950.00 66.7% 633.65 33.3% 316.3~
3on~lnment Wall Contract A 100.75 314 If 31,635.50 66.7% 21,100.88 33.3% 10,534.62
~etain[ng Wall Contract A 223.31 94 If 20,991.14 66,7% 14,001.09 33.3% 6,990.0~
Chainlink Fe~ :on.act ~CO 62.00 126 If 7,812.00 66.7% 5,210.60 33.3% 2,601.4C
Chainiink fence core drilled into block wall Con~act ~CO 851.0~ 1 Is 851.00 66.7% 567.6~ 33.3% 283.38
ChainlinA Gate Con~act A 6~.0~ 1 Is 6~.00 66.7% 402,87 33.3% 2C1.13
2" x4" Redwood Header Con~act A 4.6~ 1,450 If 6,757.00 66.7% 4,506.92 33.3% 2,250.08
Hydroseed Soltis & Co. 4,770.0C 1 Is 4,770.00 66.7% 3,181.59 33.3% 1,588.41
Warranty Bond Contract ~CO 6,3~0.0C I Is 6,300.00 66.7% 4,202.10 33.3% 2.0S7.9C
Block Wa~l Contract ~CO 106.84' 247 Is 26,389.48 66.7% 17,601.78 33.3% 8.787.7C
16" Elbow w/field lock gaskets Contract ~CO 1,639.0~ 18 Is 29.502.~ 66.7% 19,677.83 33.3% 9,824.17
Th~st Blocks per plan Conffact ~CO 550.0~ 18 Is 9,900.00 66.7% 6,603.3Q 33.3% 3,2~6.70
Pipe gate Con~act ~CO 908.0~ 1 Is 908.00 66.7% 605.64 33.3% 302.36
1fade around ~nk due to Eng. changes Con~act ~CO 1,275.0C 1 Is 1,275.00 66.7% 850,43 33,3% 4~:4.58
~aff~ baffel fire hydrant Contrac~CO 8,032.92 I Is 8,032.92 66.7% 5,357.96 33.3% 2,674.96
Install vault around chlroination valve Contract ~CO 2,443.98 I Is 2,443.98 66.7% 1,630.13 33.3% 813.8~
Install valve cans to grading changes Contract ~CO 268.1a 1 Is 268.18 66.7% 178.88 33.3% 89.3C
Install 6" c & g w/reverse fall for drainage Contract ~CO 2,7~.00 I Is 2,760.00 66.7% 1,84~.g2 33.3% 919.0~
1,124.00~ Is 1,124.00 749.71 33.3%
Install 52 If ~ 8" curb only Contract ~CO I 66,7% 374.29
Build Rip Rap C~tract ~CO 1,193.11~ 1 Is 1.193.11 66.7% 795.8~ 33.3% 397.31
Eros~n ~trol and repair PacEIc Sou~west 9,825.00 1 Is 9,825.00 66.7% 6,553.28 33.3% 3,2;'1.73
Sub-Total ~ 4~,274.30 289,777.68 147,9~3.34
Steel Tank with AppuAenances (.75 Mglion Gallon) Contract B
Tanks & Rlngwall Contract B 294,400.00 I Is 2~,400.00 66.7% 196,3~.80 33.3% 98,035.2~
Flex-Send Conffact B 7,098.00 1 Is 7,098.00 66.7% 4,7~.37 33.3% 2,363.63
~ub-Total 325,846.28 217,339.47 108,506.81,
8" Meter Conffact C 5,8~.00 I is 5,8~.00 66.7% 3,891.28 33.3% 1,942.7~
Tie-In Contract C 5,0~.00 I Is 5.000.00 66.7% 3,335.00 33.3% 1,665.0C
Piping &AppuAenances Conffact C 63,932.00 I Is 63,932.00 66.7% 42,~2.~ 33.3% 21,289.36
40 HP Pumps & AppuA. Con~act C 15.946.0~ 2 Is 31,892.00 66.7% 21,271.96 33.3% 10,620.~
Electfi~l System Con~act C 22,886.~ I Is 22,886.00 66.7% 15,264.96 33.3% 7,621.04
Concrete Slab & Shed :ontract C 4,500.0~ I is 4,500.00 66.7% 3,001.50 33.3% 1,498.50
Ex~vate wl~ b~kh~ f~ 8" line Contract C 196.95 5.50 hr 1,083.23 ~ 66.7% 722.5" 33.3% 360.71
Ex.rate w[~ backh~, potholeing Conffact C/CO 196.95 4.25 hr 837.04 66.7% 558.30 33.3% 278.73
B ac~llin~compacting In lifts Contra~ C/CO 196.95 16.50 hr 3,249.68 66.7% 2,167.53 33.3% 1,082.14
~nera~r Rental Conffact C/CO 16,~0.0~ 1.00 Is 16,~0.00 66.7% 11,098.88 33.3% 5,541.12
Sub-Total 193,724.94 12g.214.53 64,5~0.a0
C~st est. 11-02E'~VD Fair Share.x~s Revlsecl 12/5~2
2/20/035:25 PM 1
COST TABULATION
WATER RESERVOIR AND BOOSTER STATION
:~ .. . , . · , , ' I . '~'~ ':'i~.'' ' '1
,_ ,, BVW~"
~ .= I ', I '=:, ?';.,_~.' "
· ', ~ .E .S.~RIP ~!.0_U o
N tRACT , iUNIT PRICE _G.U_.At~ TO'? ,~PP EVWO
COST INCURRED BY EVWD
! I I : ~PP Fair
DESCRIPTION ......................... CONi'RACT !UNT PRiC. t:' Q~A,~rlI'Y : [;N=T I COR'~' Share SPP EVWB
Other inspections Harper/ATSI/Clerk 34,274.58J 1 34,274.58 22,861.14 11,413.44
Grand Total Paid by EVWD I 45,274.58 15,076.44
OWED BY SPP
ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS
I
TO EVWD J '
Plant 108 Landscaping JN/A J $ 8,197 J 1ils J$ 8,1971 O'/. I a,~eT.oo
FINAL ACCOUNTING
FINAL COST TABULATION ~SPP TO E~D
Cost est. 11-02E".AN D Fair Share.xls Revised 12/5/02
2/'20/035:25 PM 2
SOLTIS
9~,~,g210 F~ 9~.~l~Gll
~ Li~ ~ ~3937
J
~T ~C~.~ ~ ~Y,W~. ~S~VO~
~ ~d Z~p: I~ ~ 92618
~: 949.~51.4994
F~: ~9~gl.4137
~I~ ~: ~/~002
~: 01~9/2003
~o~ ~0
L~pe and ~ ~t E~ r~ir V~ EN~ PLAN - ~o ~s~
2. ~-&mp~ ~d ~- F~H: $ ~197.00
~. ~t~ for ~ ~h~ Co~: $ ~160.~0
T~ ~ ~ ~, f~ a ~ of ~ ~bilim~.
2. ~o~al b~ ~ ~D~ ~.
g. C~ or ~C ~tallaa~ ;~g, ~h~g, ~ml ~d d~M ~h~l b~ by
Ag~h~be~tr~dpr~rta~.
9. ~d~ ~ rem~ ~ d~p~M shah be ~ ~.
oth~.
d~o~ ~ite, or ro~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/- ~ I0' of ~A ~e, ~ ~ r~ ~ ~t~ above
~~ ~ got~ ~ C~p~. Ina ~1 ~ ~ ~ */. 0.10' of ~ ~.
22, ~ ~pl~n, ~ m~nt~ of ~ ~ Pollutton ~o~on Plan ~ oth~.
V
RELEASES OF LIEN
V FEBRUARY 14, 2003
ACCOUNT OWNERS PROPERTY AMOUNT
NUMBER NAME ADDRESS OWED
1. 0150192-03 97.31
2. 0170199-02 155.20
3. 1520036-01 55.17
4. 1520151-01 28.67
TOTAL ~ $336.35
+PAIDTHROUGHTAXROLLS
Page 1 of 1
~ 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~qqqqqqqqqqq~ h
000000 O00 O0 ~
~00000000000 ~
n~
City of Rialto
CALIFORNIA
February 6, 2003
Honorable Nell Soto, State Senator
215 North D Street, Suite 101
San Bemardino, California 92401
Re: Senate Bill 34
Dear Senator Soto:
This letter is to thank you for your concerted efforts in obtaining statcwide recognition of the dire
problems caused by several parties who have contaminated the soil in Rialto, resulting in a plume
ofperchlorate contamination in and around the Rialto/Colton Water Basin. The City of Rialto is
extremely appreciative of your efforts to cause the responsible parties to pay for the cleanup of
the contamination, and to obtain financial assistance in the meantime so that the City will be able
to continue delivering safe, clean water to its and your constituents. We believe, in this regard,
you are doing an outstanding job of asserting the just rights of the citizens of Rialto and the
surrounding communities. We thank you immensely for those efforts and encourage you to
continue on in this regard.
Despite our sincere appreciation for those efforts, we also must advise you of the City of Rialto's
opposition to SB34 and to the establishment of any water authority, regional special district or
any other governmental entity to address contamination or management of water resources within
the Rialto/Colton Basin. The City Council was advised that you were surprised when Rialto's
Director of Public Works, Brad Baxter testified at the recent Senate Heating that Rialto was not
in favor of the establishment of such an authority. The City Council has therefore carefully
reconsidered the pros and cons of supporting such action under the present circumstances, but it
nevertheless remains unanimously and steadfastly opposed to it. We thought it only fair to advise
you of the reasons for our decision, and of the strength and magnitude of our opposition.
First, it should be understood that the Inland Empke's water resources are, for the most part,
governed by various public agencies (cities, water districts, special districts, etc.), all of whom
have a board of directors which is elected by, and hence answerable to, the citizen voters in their
respective jurisdictions. In Rialto, we view the Rialto/Cokon water basin as one of the most
precious and valuable resources over which the City exercises its municipal authority. It is a
traditional "municipal affair," the control of which we believe should remain, local.
150 SOUTH PALM AVENUE, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA 92376
Second, the state obviously has no money to fund newly formed levels of government, and
payment to administer any such water anthodty would necessarily have to come from increased
taxes or fees amongst the pumpers and/or citizens of Rialto, Colton, Fontan~, and surrounding
communities (probably including those in the Chino Basin, most of whom are within your
district). Even if significant seed money were obtained from the state or federal governments,
experience of other water authorities shows that taxes and/or fees will eventually become
necessary.
Third, there has been no demonstrated malfunctioning of the programs and projects of the water
agencies currently involved in management of the basin. In short, there is no reason for an
authority. The existence of an authority would not have avoided the private contamination which
began back in the World War II era. Nor would it assist in the clean up efforts. In fact, we
believe it would only complicate matters.
Fourth, since all involved have just begun to learn of the magnitude of the perchiorate problem
within the last year, the existing legal tools akeady available to us to seek remediation from the
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) have barely been utilized at this time. They should be given
an opportunity to work before resorting to such drastic measures as forming an additional level of
government. In short, we believe it is premature to talk about a regional authority.
Fifth, with the advent of SB221 from the 2001 legislative session, the City has serious concerns as
to whether an authority could interfere with, or even eventually control, directly or indirectly, the
issuance and/or approval all subdivision map approvals, development permits and development
agreements within the City. Such concerns strike at the heart of all cities' plenary authority to
have local control over their own growth.
Finally, but not least importantly, no one has ever articulated for us any benefits that would be
served by forming an authority.
After consulting with the other affected water purveyors, it is clear that the City of Colton and
West San Bernardino County Water District have no deskes for such an authority either. Fontana
Water Company is the 0nly purveyor in the task force which might be advocating such an
authority. Even it, however, has indicated that it is not yet able to take a position on SB34.
Furthermore, although we have only begun to discuss the issue with other Inland Empire water
agencies, it is clear to us that there is wide-spread opposition to such action at this time. Last
week, our staffmet with stafffrom the following agencies, all of whom indicated that, for their
own various reasons, they oppose the establishment of a water authority or anything like it at this-
time:
The City of San Bemardino
The City of Kiverside
The City of Redlands
The City of Colton
The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
The West San Bernard[no County Water District
The East Valley Water District
The San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
All of these agencies seem to agree on this issue, which is a rarity amongst water purveyors.
None of the water agencies whom we have contacted have indicated any support whatsoever for
an authority. We are simply unable to locate any affected agency which supports SB34. Perhaps
it would help if you advised us who or what agency(s) support it. Who is the sponsor of the bill,
and at whose request was it introduced?
Each of the above referenced agencies, and others, have developed significant programs and
projects implementing water resource management practices, and they further believe their
programs are successful and appropriate. None of them believe a regional authority is necessary
or appropriate at this time.
Until now, you apparently were not aware of the City's opposition regarding the establishment of
an authority. If our attorney or other consultants failed to advise you of this fact, we apologize to
you for such failure. We assure you, however, that we have consistently stated our opposition to
an authority when asked by them or others. Additionally, we note that prior to the Senate
Committee Hearings last week, Rialto, was not made aware of your or anyone else's desire to
establish such an authority. When the bill was first introduced, our attorney assured us that it was
only a"spot bill" which was being used to persuade PRP's to cooperate, and that no one had any
realinterest in establishing an authority. Despite any miscommunications, you are nevertheless
uniquely positioned to assist us and to put an end to this threat to Rialto and Inland Empire
citizens by immediately withdrawing SB 34 and refusing to introduce any similar legislation.
While our staffattempted to meet with you to discuss these issues prior to the senate hearing, we
were advised that you would not meet with us without Barry Groveman being present. We still
desire to meet with you to discuss these issues, without anyone else present. We trust and hope
that you wilt agree with our City Council that the citizens of the Inland Empire do not deserve to
be taxed for an additional level of government which would divest local jurisdictions of their
municipal authority over such a precious resource as the Rialto/Colton Basin and be of dubious
other benefit. We therefore thank you in anticipation of your assistance by withdrawing SB 34. If
you have any questions pertaining to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Henry Garcia
City Administrator
HG:dr
cc: Rialto City Council
Bernie Kersey, The City of San Bernardino
Dieter Wirtzfeld, The City of Riverside
Douglas Headrick, The City of Redlands
Dean Derleth, The City of Colton
Robert Reiter, The San Bernard[no Valley Municipal Water District
Anthony Araiza, The West San Bernard[no County Water District
Robert Martin, The East Valley Water District
Thomas Crowley, San Bernard[no Valley Water Conservation District
John Longville, Assembly Member
March 27, 2003
8 a.m. - 3 p.m.
Napa Valley Marriott Hotel
Cosponsored by
Association of California Water Agencies
Regions 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities
Association of California Water Agencies
Leadership Advocacy Infom~ation
' HIGHLRNO
,.. -- SENIOR CENTER
' GolfToumament&Outstanding
Senior Recognition Award Dinner
2003 Honoree: George H. $chnarre
Thursday, April 10, 2003
San Bernardino Public Golf Course
1494 S.Waterman Ave.
Co-Chairs
Anne Benjamin & Doris Jaynes
Arrowhead Credit Union
~ Highland SENI~]R Center
Highland District Council on Aging, Inc.
~'~ "Seniors Helping Seniors"
Executive Board February 12, 2003
Fresident
Dr. Paul Scott
President Elect MatT Wallace
Donna Itunter East Valley Water District rt:c, ] 8
vice President 1155 Del Rosa Avenue
ivlartyMiller San Bemardino, CA 92410
.Treasurer
Bill Calvert Dear Ms. Wallace:
Secretary . . ~.! ·
Louise Lorenzen Another year has quickly passed and the kh or~iand oemor Center is ~',*w gearing up/hr our
Annual High_land Senior Center Golf Tournament and Outstanding Senior Recognition
Fast President Award Dinner, to be held at San Bemardino Public Golf Club. We are pleased to
Mark Edwards
announce that this year's "Outstanding Senior" recipient is George H. Schnarre. So,
Board of Directors mark your calendars for Thursday, April 10, 2003.
Tom Battaile, Jr. We hope you can come out and join us tiffs year. Enclosed you will find a player entry
Fred Berry form. (Please note that we welcome you as either a player and/or a sponsor.)
~ll~large Booth AS you know the Highland Senior Center is a nonprofit organtzattoa and continues'to serve
Ralph Cock its members in the conm~rmity. Each month over 5,000 member and non-member seniors
participate in over 50 weekly scheduled activities. The Ends raised from this tournament
Margaret Hill will continue to be put to good use for many of our projects and to reach out to more
Doris 3'aynes $ ,lllors. Your support will help us accmnplish our goals.
Lil Laufin Dofft miss the fun, get your entry form in by April 3, 2003. We look forward to hearing
Audrey Martinez from you!
Alice Miller
Don Rude Penny Lilburn
Emerald St. John Executive Director
Claudia Stoll
~ohn~ac~t~ Don't forget to signify the division in which you
~,:~,~e~or would like to play on your sign up sheet!!!!
Penny Lilburn
Law Enforcement Division - Senior Division - Regular Division
3102 E. Highland Avenue, Patton, CA 92369 o P.O. Box 948, Highland, CA 92346
(909) 862-8104 · Fax (909) 862.8196 o e-mail- HighSenCtr~aol.com
~ ARROWHE&D UNITED WAY AGENCY