Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1971-08-24
I ,.. 30AROS Of DIRECTORS County Sanitaticn Distr icts o f O range County, Cal ifornia DISTRICT No ~ _-_7_ P. 0 . Box 517 5 10844 Ell is Avenue Fountain Valley, Ca lif., 92708 II .. :==n============================= II (1) (2) ( 3) (4) ® (6) (9) August 24 , 1971 -5 :00 p .m. Roll Call ~intmen~r.hairm~pro ~· i~e ce~a ~ ~or~f the ~ist~Gen~al ~na~r R~ort o~e Geka1 C~n~ AG EN DA ADJCUllNr.;ENTS ....... 4 COMP & Ml LEJ\GE ... v.:-.... .. FILES SET UP ....... v. ...... .. RESOLUTIONS C:::fflflE~ LETTERS W'.llT-;-EN.~-·· MINUTES NtliTT£N ... ~. MINUTES tlLED ..... ~ ... / Consideration of action con.cerning subsidence on Red Hi ll betwe en Bryan and First St r eet in Tustin . ~Held over from August 1 1th meeting .) See pages 11 A1 and . 11 B11 · Considerat i on of motion to receive and file letter date d August 16, 1971, from Irv i ne Industrial Comple x relati~g to construction of ·oalance of r 1~cGaw Avenue subtrunk sewer and a portion of Jamboree Road subtrunk sewer from McGaw to Alton Street (Master Plan subtrunk sewers), to approve request to proceed with said r con struction, and declaring intent to enter into standard ~Jlaster Plan H.eimbursement Agreement upon completj_on . See pages 11 C11 and 11 E" Consideration of motio11 to receive and f ile letter da.ted August 18, 19'/l, from J:rvine It1dustri al Complex rel a ting to cons true ti on of a portion of the I•'.iain Street (formerly La.ne Road) sub trunk s~wer (a. portion of the Mas tel' Plan subtrunk sewer system ), to a.pprove r equ est to proceed wit h said construction , and declaring intent to enter i nto standard Ma ster Pl an Heimbursement Agreement upon completion. See pages 11 D11 and 11 E 11 Other business and comm.unica.tions, if any (a.) Consideration of inotion to receive and file amended petition dated August 16, 1971 from proponents of annexation of Tract · No . 7389 to the District.. See page 11 F 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn '"--" August 6, 1971 Mr. Fred A. Harper General Manager County Sanitation District ·P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California, 92708 Dear Mr. Harp~r: Agenda Item ;Jo.-1L ~~©&:ll\f [ij AUG 0 9 1971 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF. As you ~now, the City of Tustin's soil consultant and I have been discussing with you and your staff certain settlement problems which have occurred in Red Hill Avenue between Bryan and First Streets in the City of Tustin. This settlement took place over -your 18" trunk sewer main and was first observed during the City's work on the construction of median islands in Red Hill Avenue. At our meeting of August 2, 1971, we presented the results of the tests made by the City's soil consultant for this_proj~~t . which indicated that the backfill material within the sewerjtrench · was extremely soft when tested at depths of 5 and 10 feet beneath the surface. One interesting observation was the fact that.in all tests over the sewer trench the sampling tube was driven more ·than the necessary 18" for sampling by one blow of.the standard 140 pound hammer, while in a similar location on the opposite side of the median island in an area not over your trench, it required 17 blow~ per foot, using the same· hammer to penetrate the native soils \~i th the sampling tube. As you will recall, we discussed several methods of correcting . the problem and Mr. Conrad Hohener of .Boyle Engineering felt that the best answer was to establish a pressure grout curtain through- out the depth of the sewer trenc~ at the upper and-lower limits of the median island construction, flood the sewer trench for settlement, remove a portion of. the street structural section over the sewer trench, and with a vibratory roller, recompact the soils within the upper limits of the trench area. Following this, _the structural section would be. rep1aced and a new median curb would be constructed to replace the existing one which would have to be removed in this process. A second method was also discussed whereby within the approximate limits of the median island construction, pressure grouting would be introduced.into the soil at a number of locations "in order to ~ mechanically compact the soft soils within the trench area . by the injection .of the grout material under high pressures. This method would eliminate· the need to remove and replace the street structural section _as well as the newly constructed median CITY.HAL~. 1 t I} \V E S '1' S F; C 0 ~ D S 'l' R E E T T i.. ~ r l X, C A !. l F 0 H :<; I .A 9 :; o .~ iJ Agerida. Item #5 ·A-1 District 7 Page 2 Mr. Fred A. Harper . 8/6/71 . - t curb a·nd might even return the settled portions of the curbing t6 their proper grade without any replacement of curb whatsoever. On the afternoon of August 2nd, we met with Mr. James E. Lenihan who.is familiar with the procedures of pressure grouting and reviewed the problems and various methods of reso1ving them with him. . t Attached is a letter dated August 3, i971, from our soil consultant indicating the proposal made by Mr. Lenihan for performing his portion· o.f the work under the two methods outlined above. Al though - at the time o~ our meeting, he estimated the cost of pressure grouting the entire trench would be approximately $3,500, upon reviewing the test results and seeing how.soft the material ·actually was, he felt that i~ was possible that the materials and time to obtain adequate compaction might be nearly twice as much as originally estimated. Therefore~ his estimat~ for the pressure · grouting method which would be done on a time and materials basis contains a minimum estimate of $3,500 and a maximum of $7,000. He has also estimated the cost for the grout curtain walls jt each. end of the project and the section under the street b-etween 1 the · two islands at a minimum of $2,000 and a maximum of $3,00Q .. We estimate that in addition to the curtain wall work by Mr. Lenihan, the cost of removal ano replacement of street structural section and curbing woul~.run approximately $4,500. Total· cost for the repair work under either method sha.uld not exceed $8,000. Our soil consultant has indicated. that the amount of water needed to adeq~ately flood and jet the trench would be approximately one-third of the volume of the trench section, or roughly 60,000 gallons of water. Frankly, we are rather leary of putting this volume of water into the sub-base of Red Hill Avenue in that we' feel it ·carries with it a significant ·chance of resulting in a major structural failure of the street or of other utility trenches and of creating a problem of infinitely greater magnitude than we face at the present time. Under these circumstances, we feel that the pressure grouting method is by far the more preferable from the City's standpoint in that it involves considerably less risk of .damage to other facilities and to· other sections of the street itself as well as avoiding the· time and delay problems and. the public relations problems associated with flooding and jetting and the removal and replacement of the ~treet cross sections ahd newly constructed curb sections. In·addition, we have discussed this entire.problem with our City Attorney and he has indicated that it is his feeling the City cannot acquire the services of Mr. Lenihan on a time and material basis without resorting to competitive bidding inasmuch as his work will be considerably great.e.r tha·n $ 2, 500. He feels that this would be an illegal procedure even though it is.maintenance Agenda Item· //5 A-2 Dlstrict 7 · " . .. Page 3 Mr. Fred A. Harper 8/6/71 work and even.if funds from the County Sanitation District ~7's Main Trunk Fund held by the City were utilized fo~ this wo~k. ·Therefore, under these circumstances, we feel that under the provision~ of Section 2 of the Agreement dated July 18, 1962, between our agencies, the City must request that District 7 adequately maintain, repair and compact the backfill on its sewer line in this section of Red Hill Avenue~ The method ·of repair shall, of course, be at the District's option; howeve~, if flooding is utilized, the District muit be prepared to .accept the responsibilities o~ any failures or damage to other facilities in the area due to use of this method. ·- Very tr~ly yours, ·~~~ . Orville Myers ~ . · City Engineer Encs. cc: LaBelle Consultants, Inc. James E. Lenihan Co. 1 • I : I I Ray Lewis, Deputy Chief Engineer, Sanitation District of Orange County City Attorney Boyle Engineering, Attention: Conrad Hohener OM/dh ... Agenda. ·Item #5 : _A-3 District 7 · TO: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Agenda Item NO. ,., 1 of ORAN.GE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, ~ALIFORNIA 92708 . (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 -MEMORANDUM ----_._ ..... ------. ..,_ ... ~ Fred· A. Harper, General Manager FROM: Ray E. Lewis, Deputy Chief Engineer ·SUBJECT: Apparent Sewer Trench Failure Caused by Ci_ty of Tustin Median Island Construction -Job No. 7-3 . ' Conrad Hohener and myself met with Orville Myers, City Engineer of phe City of Tustin, to make a field investigation of an apparent . se·wer trench farlure caused by the City cons true ting median islands on Red Hill Avenue between Bryan Avenue and 1st Street, a distance of approximately 600 feet. See attached for. the findings as ob- served in field and from the District's records of construction of Job No. 7-3. From the nistri·ct's records, the follpwing are some ·of the pertinent facts regarding this section of this trunk sewer: 1. District 7 authorized preparation of plans and s~eci-:1 fications in. October, 1961. \wl · · 2. Plans and specifications were prepared by Boyle Engineering and presented to the Board for approval March, 1962. 3.·. Bids were received on April 25·, 1962. 4. The low bid in the amount of· $216,871.00 submitted by Scaler, Inc. was 19% under the Engineer's estimate p.nd ~.14,ooo.oo lower than the second low bidder. 5. This particular section was compl~ted approximately October, 1962, and the project was accepted as complete on June 3, 1963. ·6. The .roadway was in un1ncorporate9 territory at the time of construction and all street resurfacing and trench- compaction requirements l-2ere under the jurisdiction of the C~unty Road Department. -1- Agenda. Item #5 B-1 District 7 Memorandum to Fred A. Harper •• ~.Continued 7. Sub_sequent to the completion and acceptance by the Board the road\·iay was annexed by the ci·ty of Tustin. Annexation was completed on January 7, 1965. 8. To my knowledge, the se1~er trench has satisfactorily sustained traffic loads without any reported failure. \. There appears to be a basic question which not only District 7 but all our Districts should formulate some guidelines for staff, "If . we construct the backfill in accordance with the jurisdictional agency's requirements, and they accept the work as complete, and the trench has served satisfactorily for an extended period of time, is the District responsible for trench failures when the agency (or a new jurisdictional agency) change conditions \'lhich affect the stability-- . ~ of the trench?" j · As long as the District has no authority, or as in most cases:, no notifi-·· cation when conditions are altered, I do not feel the District should be responsible for this type of failure. If the District is to have perpetual liability of any sewer trench, then we should have the right to establish our own backfill requirements and have the right to be notified \·1hen the ·original conditions are altered • ... ·, 8/4/71 Agenda Item 115 B-2· ·District 7 ;?:> ro :::s ~ ~ H rt- C1) • s ~ Vl to . I VJ -- ! j· I 1. i. : ! \ " ' ,. ( ( {- ,l..EYiv/./ l-/L:1r.:;f.//S. 51J8-/1!1.1J/K COl/TRAt/ ;./fl. 7-:3 I I 1/-r I -T 3''Ar.!/13"'Ao5_C· -.. ' JQ--'" '' · "· y_ :.H.t,, ~---I_~,_..;;;;....-.;__ __ ~~~--~~-.~-.~--~~--__,..._ ________ ~ __ __, 1 L______...6__,/L<f6 E-r_;,pA.zX'P ____ ~_---11 I ,cc~ /~E/J/,/f.i1 I '\.2 '~I ~ 1:"' ,.; .,t• .;;.1•) -,,,. :-<\ :::::: lli ' fil :. """ ~ II\ £E: I 1\\\ ;1 ~ ~ ,,,; ~rll I t;I \\l;"'. r'~ \,-, 1 -; ,,, I i I~~~ l\11~ I ~1!!; 1-,,, ! 1-111 ::-.Ji,~ ..;;.-HI J:: ,·,, I .... ,-:::; . ;:. ,;;. _,,,, I i 'l';;-. I • ll~· ~11\ ·I ;;.1:1 ,,. 11r~. ,,,,~ ·? '''• I"'··· I "~ ,,, (: -,,, "r-,11 1Fi1~, ,,, ;(. I ~,,, I •;:t; ·di~' •z .. t lull . ., .. ..Jt_I ---J__:_ ___ I/ s// rc.P ;;a,/E1t ( " .. August 16; 1971 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Foun.ta in Va 1 ley, Ca 1 i forn i a 92708 Attn: Mr. Fred Harper,"General Manager t ' · R'e: McGaw Avenue -Jamboree B-lvd. (Reach No. 2) Subtrunk Sewer Genflemen: \. The Irvine Industrial Complex respectfully requests permission to construct a portion of the Master Plan Sewer System at the followi_ng locations: 1. 18 11 VCP in McGaw Avenue from the F09 Channe 1 to Jamboree Blvd. This .reach will complete the McGaw Avenue Subtrun~I Master Plan within the Complex limits. · . ·.· · . I 2. 18 11 VCP in Jamboree Blvd. from McGaw Avenue to Alton · Street, designated a portion of Reach No. 2. The following is pertinent information related to the above mentioned project: 1. Both subtrunk lines will oe constructed outside the paving area, but wi 11 be located within the future street right of way. ·2. Complex will grant to the District a temporary easement for ~ m~intenance until the streets are fully improved and dedicated · to the County. 3. Precise alignment of the stipulated length of Jamboree Blvd. has been established and is also a part of the Orange County ·Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 2122 Carl"pus Onvc /Box 4404 •Irvine. California 92664 "(714) 833· 1010 Agenda Item 116 C-1 District 7 Board of Directors County Sanitation District,No.·7 · · of Orange County Page. Two August 16, 1971 ·: The District's engineers will design, stake and inspect the above project and the Complex will award the contract to.the lowest bidder with the District's approval. l After construction is completed and the final costs have been tabulated) the Complex will request the District to prepare the usual reimbursement agreement with the Complex for the said improvements. Very truly yours, ~~/'1~~efr1...- Michae1 J. Babbitt · Senior Project Engineer MJB/gw c~: Williamson and Schmid ... Agenda Item #6 C-2 : I I I . District 7 • . August 1 8, 19 71 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County 10844 E11is Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 ·: Re: Portion of Main Street Subtrunk Sewer ·Gentlemen: The Irvine Industrial Complex respectfully requests permission to construct approximate 1 y 235 1inea1 feet of 15 11 VCP which is an extension. of the existing Main Street subtrunk sewer east of MacArthur Blvd. and· ~ portion of the Master Plan Sewer System •. The Complex has provided and has obtalned the District's approval for the engineering design of the above mentioned project, which will be awarded to the lowest bidder after the unit prices have been reviewed by a District representative. . I Upon completion of construction and after the final costs ha;~ been:, ·tabulated, the Complex 1t1ill enter into the standard reimbursement agreement with the District for the engineering and construction costs.· Very truly yours~ • ·~.d4/.§d/~ Michael J. Babbitt Senior Project Engineer MJB/gw ... Agenda. Item #7 21 2 2 Campus Onve f Box 4 404 • Irvine. California 9 2 6 64 • (7 14) 833-1010 -D-District 7 August 16, 1971 County Sanitation District No. 7 of Oran~e County 10844 Ellis Avenue Post Off tee Box 8127 Fountain Valley, Cal Jfornia 92708 Attention: Mr. Ray Lewis Re: Petition for annexation of property of Marion E. Jones Estate (amended) County of Orange Dear Sir: Pursuant to procedure established for said distrlc~ we hereby request the fol lowing described property be annexed to County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange·County, · SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION The property ts a part of the Estate of Marion E. Jones, deceased. The executrix of said estate ts Martdayle Thompson Peay, The assessed value of the real property contained tn the estate of 37,204 acres is $83,790-00, or $2,252.18 per acre, · The property Is untnhabttated, Please apply the cashiers check submitted wtth earlier petition,. d~ted August 3, 1971, to this amended petition. Yours very truly, _./i/M~yt_,~..;~@~ Martdayle Thompson Peay Esecutrix of the Estate of Marlon E. Jones, deceased Agenda. Item #8a. F-1 District 7 - OR 10910S}) . That portion of the land ·allotted to liieve3 Lopez de Peral-00 as dezcrihcd "in t~1e final Decree of Partition of the Hancho Santiago de .Senta fu:a, which was entered September 12, lf6G in 'hook B, page Jno o!' Judg:.r.cnts of the District Court of the 17th Judicial Dif:;tl"ict in and for Los Anr:-elen C~tmty, t:alifornia, de!-tcribcd ns follows: Beginning a.t a point in the t:esterly line of the tract of la.nd e-1.lotted to Mary J. Bond by f'inul decree of pa.rti tion in the A~tion of Mort.an A. Kiefhabcr versus 11.ariJ J. Bo.ad and others, cane ilo. 3[Ql~ upon the Register of Action· of the Superior Court of Orange Co~'ty 3 Califon-1ia, naid point being distant South 3J..20 cha.ins O.;"ld 8. 02 clni.ns Ji:ast of the -:outheaot corner of Lot 20, Block "B" of the Land of Oge and Bond, as shcn·m on a Map recorded in book 3, page 430 of !·ascella'l'l.eoun Records of Los AnR.cles Ccun~l, ~:alif'arniaj thence cast 0.82 chains;-thence South 21~1.) 15" 00" Eo.st 3.03 chrJ.ins: thence ilorth 82~ 45° 00" East 2.o6 chains· thenct:: Sout.11 48'· l~5 1 00'' East 5.85 ctains; thence South 8lc 30' 00" Enst 3.05 cl"ains; thence North 33~ 30' 00" Ea~t 2~60 crains; thence Horth 63° !~5' 00 1 ~ East h.55 chains·. thence ·~ot1th 28'' 30' 00'' East 3.03 chains; thence South l~3<• 15' 00" West 1.52 ch-a.ins: thence South 22".' OOt 0011 • West 3.65 cttl.ins;. thence Sout.h 7 .11-2 clm.im:; more or less to the. Easterly pro- longation of the Southerly 1L11e of the land described in that certain Decree -of Dif3tl11ibut.ion, recorded ~·i~y 22, 19!I-2 in took 1150, :r;msc~ 21 of Off cio.l. Re- cords; thence along said ·proloncntio!l and said. noutherl,y line, Went 26 .22 cha.ins to the :::outlrwest corner of t.te Jnnd dcr.:.::rfl-:~ed in &t.id Decree.: thence lforth along the ~\ea-OOrl~::-line of r:a:lc1 last rr.entioned laJ1d, north to th-e :-·louth- weot corner of the lnnd d.esc1 .. ibed in deed to Ore.nee Unified 3chool District of Orange County, ·-aliforn:tu, rer.:orCl.ed Hovember J2, 1965 in book 7737, po.ge 759 of Cfficinl Records· thence Enstci.•ly along the ~:outht~-rly line of sn.id le.st mentioned lo.nd, 627.00 feet t-o the .?outhenst corner thereof'; thence northerly elo:'lf:: the I:.asterly line of saicl Oro.nge Unified r:c 1-.:ool District land 3 .06 cha.ins to the point of heg:!.nninf{· Except therefrom tmt portion thereof dencrirjed as f ollowc: , Beginning at a point in the Easterly line of Tract No. 2372, as shown on a . ~m.p thereo·r recorded in book 135, PS&ea 5 find 6 of }·iisl:ellaneous l·~ps, records of ca.id County,_ distant ~"3outh 0° 08c Oli." East 2.50 feet ·t::ercon, from the inter!Jection of said Easterly line with the ccnt~.r line of' AYeni~ Pnlw.r, as shm,-n o..~ the ~J? of E:3id Tract; thence South C'9'-' 43' !~o" East 673.50 feet to the ~~~-point of ber;inning: thence Horth O;. 16° 20" East 185.70 feet; thence South 89~ 43 1 ~0 11 East 210.00 feet~ thence North 29'-' 32' 56" En.$t 25.00 feet; thence ~;outh 60' 27 9 04" I1:ast 95.51~ feet; Sou·th O' 16' 20" West 207 067 feet; thence South 53 1 .. 16a 20" Went 110.00 feet; thence :iorth 8'.Y. 43' 40" lTeS't 130.00 feet.; thence lforth 44'"' !~3 ° !ton West 12l~. o4 :feet: thence North · 0° 16° 20" East 25032 feet to the true point of beg~nning. ~· E:xce:pting therefrom one-half or any t-mter or oil which r::n.y be developed there- on, tt!J reserved 'by Mary J. I'.ond e.nd ~ilas Bo~1d, "Qy cleed recorded Decem"ber 10, 1908 in book 162, paee 206 ·of t~d.s. ******* WHB:lil Pnge 5 {continued.) Agenda Item #8a F-2 District. 7 -i I ·~ MILLER, NISSON & KOGLER ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLARK MILLER C:. ARTHUR NISSON NELSON KOGLER . 2014 NORTH. BROADWAY SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92'706 TEL.BPHONE 1542-6771 H. LAWSON MEAD , City Council City of Tustin Tustin, California August 25th l 9 7 l Re City of Tustin Median Island Construction -Job No. 7-3 Gentlemen: The directors of County Sanitation Dis- trict No. 7 have considered the problem of subsidance of a portion of the curbing of your median construc- tion in Red Hill Avenue northerly of Bryan Ave~ue. ·I It appears that the construction of the ; sewer by County Sanitation District No. 7 in Red Hill Avenue some nine years ago was not the cause of the subsidance. The sewer was constructed and the back- fill compacted according to county requirements which were controlling at that time. The road was resurfaced and used for the intervening nine years without failure. Your median construction changed the structure of the road ·and was ·the direct cause of the subsequent subsidance. The directors of County· ·sanitation District No. 7 do reco9nize a legitimate difference of opinion · regarding this problem. They also recognize the urgency of the need for repairs and the emergency nature of the situation. · . As a ·compromise and without admitting liability, the· directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 will approve the use of sewer connection fees collected by the City of Tustin for payment of the costs of repairs to correct subsidance in Red Hill Avenue for the 600 ft. section of median now under construction by the City of Tustin under the following terms ~n~ conditions: · 1. County Sanitation District No. 7 . eng~neers and the City Engineer of the City of.Tustin sh~ll prepare and approve the plans and. specifications· for· -. -. . . ~ ,• l 12 City Council August 2~, 1971 correcting the subsidance involvede 2. County Sanitation District No~ 7 will have the repair work performed according to said approved plans and specifications and the City of Tustin will pay for the cost of repairs from said connection fees heretofore collec- ted by it for conn~ctions to district sewers. ··. . 3. The City of Tustin will assume all responsibility for further subsidance in Red Hill Avenue in the 600 ft. area involved after completion of this repair project. ; 4. · The City of Tustin will not undertake to alter the structure of Red Hill Avenue in the future in any area of Red Hill Avenue without.fi~st notifying County Sanitation District No. 7.of its.proposed construction work. . r s. The County· Sanitation District No. 7 does not admit liability for any subsidance in any other part of Red Hill Avenue should it occur in the future. If this proposal for settlement of the problem is satisfactory, pleas.e advise the DLstrict in writing and in- struct your City Engineer to act in accord with,.this proposal. CAN:mjb be:· Mr. Paul Bro111n Respectfully yours, c. Arthur Nissan General Counsel for County Sanitation District No. 7 Hr. Clifford c. ~illor . 4 Jliee ting Date iJ~y /7 1 DI8TRIC'l' 1 ----- Griset Miller Porter Battin· DISTRICT 2 P""'i.th ,cistie Clark Cu lve r Finnell He rrin Just S im s Stephenson - Wedaa -- Winn -- Bat tin DISTR1CT 3 Hyde Berton Christie Clark Cu lve r Davis Gr een Harpe r Ha rvey He rri n He me on rT lde n 1'.m'VJhi nney Sims Stephenson __ Ba ttin DIS'fRI CT 5 Pars ons Hi rth Battin DI ST RICT 6 Po rter Mc Innis Ba ttin WJ:.z=/=F.Ic::.. C=T=. ~J / Mille r v Grise t -Y Po rte r --:7 Roge rs 7 Smith __d./ Battin ./ DIS'I'RI CT 11 ,.. ipley en Battin · DISTR ICI' 8 Bbya r.:i tche ll Battin Herrin Coco Hileman Root Jacks on Gomez Gris et Harpe r Zuniga Dutton Machado Schniepp Kroes en West ra Root Jackson F o nte McCr acken Just Kan e l Gris e t Lewi s Hoga rd Zuniga Dutton Croul Hi rth Co co He rrin H-i r th Hi l em a n McCracken Goldberg Time ...,._ Districts 471 7 JOI NT BOAHDS Jus t Berton Christie Clark Coen Cul ver Davis Finnell Green Gris et __ .Harper Harvey . Heme on He rrin· Hirth Ho l den Hyde Mcinnis McWh inney Mille r Parsons Porter Harper -Westra Ro ot Jackson __ Fonte __ Gomez __ Mc Cr acken He rrin Just Kane l Lewis Gris e t Croul __ Ho g ard Kro es en Hirth Coco Rogers --Hirth · Shipl ey --Mc Cr acken Sims --Zuniga Smith -Hileman Stephenson--Dutton Wedaa · --Machado Winn -Schniepp Ba ttin - Mitchell Boyd --Goldberg OTHERS Harper ~ Brm·m ..; Sylv es t er~ Lew is if Dunn Clarke Sigler ~ _i.L Carlson Finster Gallm·i ay --.L Hohe ner \/ Hun t Keith Lowry Maddox Martinson-- Nis son Piersall S t e v ens :_-_..,i~j~r~ .~:---- • 1-• -I • #5 -Miller -The subsidence on R~ill between Bryan and First was discussed at the last counci l meeting of City of Tustin . City feels that the sewer funds that the City has in trust can be used - some $300 ,000 in funds avai l able -project estimated at $8,000 -there is no other par t i cular use of these funds . The City would like the District to do work because city has to do repair with plans and specs and take bidts , etc where they (the City council) feels the Districts do not have to go through this for repair work . Nisson -For repair work we can get by with negotiated contract since it is not a new job . Questions whether it is a p r oper charge against Sanitation Districts . Contractor took permit out from County because it was County Road then -when City took over road it assumed County 's responsibility . Permit states that if repairs a r e due to settlement , etc . from original excavation permitee shall pay to county the cost of repairs . Our engineers feel that subsidence was not caused by excavation for sewer since ~Drk was done nine years ago -feels that problem came in when City of Tustin put in median . This was when subsidence bagan . If City or County puts med i an up RedHill ~HXKHMXMK~ all the way , it is possible that sub sidence could go all the way down this road . Lewis -When we comply with r equirements of any agency as far as backfill KHiK we may not necessarily agr ee with thPir methods , but we still have to meet them . IX They would let us use no water in backfillling . Since proce dure used in entire project was the same as far as backfill, we could have problem all along mHli:.bm line if median put in . J We are talking about 8 ,000 for current sub s idence problem . Mo difications of trench XMK~ bed caused subsidence not the original excavations . The street h as se r ved the area for t h e conditions o rigina.llly requi red -street modificati ons caused sub sidence Mi Tier -These funds have to be sp ent w it h~~t the p ermi ssion of both the City and the Sani tation Districts . regardless of cost sugsid enc e prob l em mu st be fixed . Fixing all the way down red h ill no problem as far as city c ouncil concerned - funds a.re there for sewer purposes. Sm ith -If:fund used could we possiblyp a y this time and agree not to be responsible in the future Mi l ler -in other lfern words, admit no liability? Smith -and no responsi b ility Ni ssan -Also possible agreement that i f city h a.s no further use of funds City wo u ld turn i t over to use by S anitation Districts for use outside of City of Tustin -sometime this Tustin f und isa ue will have to be t a.k en care of since money is accummulating whic h can not be used -possibly could say to use within sph ere of influence of Tustin Gris et -Since in this particular instance it is pre tty clea.~ tha t the District is no t to blame for t h is prob l em and the City doe:an 't purposesly do it -would it be agree able to make i t clear t h at the Districts have no liability but because of cost ($8 ,000) we a.re going along with it . Feel s t hat this problem whould be settled for the futu r e . Griset - Miller - How much more wi ll City of Tustin annex in future Tus tin 's boundaries pretty wel l a g r eed on except for air base -;J- Smith -Feels that turning over unused funds should not be agreed to at this time and if done should be done in all cities Mille r This fund is a jointly administered fund -if everyone feels that this money can be used without admitting liability feels this would be suitable Smith -Fee ls liability s h ould have to be limited now Lewis -Plaza Drive contract is example of t h is type XX of t h ing - If water line breaks, etc. entire X~ line goes down -requirements for backfiiling this area are sand only -Feels t h at if we are allowed to set our own backfill requirements the r e would be no subsidence . Smith -If the District approved expenditure out of funds are we admitting liability on the rest of this line? Nisson -not if we clarify that this is a disputed claim -admit n,o liability -c~~~~ compromist agreement only Griset -If this is a city liability we can not spend money on it? Nissan -Th at is correc t Smith -Is it clear whose responsibility it is Nis san -We ll, road was good until alterned by another agency Lewis -7 feet out made median be ~X~~ epoxy ing it to existing surface . As long as conditions remained same no problem -wh en altered by City sewer failed . Ill!! -• ... Miller -unforeseeab le problem • Gris et -In view of grey area go 50 -50 and deny liability and KtaXX admit problem of difference of opinion MiTier -Funds can not be spent without District and District ~~ can not spend without Tustin • I Smith -Doesn't see anything wrong in paying wit hout liability . Smith City Engineers of Tustin aware of problem now -not happen again I • Mil ler -make funs available for District to repair since District can do it easier Lewis -Solicit bids a.nd not preparep l ans and specs , etc . Nisson -Will City waive any claim in event of subsidence the future Lewi s -District should approve specs and h ave control over methods -City should consult Districts on future Smith -How much time for prepartion of plans and specs Miller we should act to accomplish this Niss on Suggested action Authorize the GC to make an agreement between the City and the District : $8000 of 1. NIX~I~X City may use/funds out of this sewer 2 . 3 . 4 . fund to repair this 6 00 foot stri p with out acknowledging any future liability or liability on this one Th at the District wi ll actually handle the l§Ji to specs approved by City of Tustin repairs and d o it according X~X~:XX~X~KX~~KK~K~~MK Th at the City waives NIKIXX~ District liability for any futur e sub sidence on this strip (Red Hill) Any further a.lt er;riatior1' of the street for this ,,...,....... type of thing, the District will have to b e 5 . v 6 . notified ,, -· District does not agree to pay any future subsidence problems -Does not admit liability for any future failures due to median work GC be authorized to prepare letter to City Council of Tustin .~ ...... ---.-. Moved, seconded and dul y carried: Distric t enginer to proceed with preparation of plans and specs, etc . Jrn:XM~XI~IDCMM~~~~~~X~XX That the Engine e r be aut h orized to MX K~ meet with City of Tustin on specs and work to be done on RJ.Hill in the most expe diuous manner possible, declare ~~~~ emergency ,etc. 6 & 7 -Unit costs are h igher on -these reimbursement agreements becau se small strips of sewer line awarded at t i me not l ong strips Brown ,,J .. Miller -is there any way for us to li:l&M~Xfip[ll:zfXM: keep from paying these high costs Would they contract for these together Brown -This was sugge sted and that they ma i ntain cost place t hem on same job with another sewer -they didn 't Smith -Have we been doing this in the pas t ? BroNn -This is the smalle~t one we h a ve done put a minimum amount on any ra agreement 1 Nissan -Have to be very careful of policy -since we h a ve always done this in t he past Lewis -Arn outp of RA agreed up on -approve le ss than contractor's price as on McGaw when u nit price was nego·t iated . MS&DC -if unit cost is too h igh we cut RA amount #8 -PGB First petition for 10 acres -staff said who l e thing should come in at once -staff h as been studying projec t and is running into proclems Density is considerably h igher than when master plan report prepared w a bout 2/3 mu st s ewer to the We st lbo Santiago trunk -ma y overload sewe r ... • Lewis Discussed wi th City e ngineer of Tu s tin -both under estate -planning and zoning approved HX -contractor has no obj ections to sewe ring southerly to City of Orange Se wer Th is would be preferable to us ing S ant iago capacity. The development has no feelings about annexations, etc only wan t s sewer se rvic e available -our concern is to ~~~~X~~ reserve cap a city i n Santiago p roperty in District -5 - Miller -why shoul d we allow h i m to use £a p a.cit y in our trunk that others have paid for? PGB -We should take a h ard llok at annexing any property t h at ..__...... overloads our sewer Smith -Appeared before county planning commission city of Orange f eels that these problems X~M would become t h eirs and is willing to provide service on this problem Brown -isn 't to adv ant a ge of District IDO annex Ni sson -Doesn 't master plant take care of this? PGB -Planning is completely off¢ of master plan due to density - Miller -Do annexation fees and connection fee s generate d by this pay for additional future capacity? PGB -No -They buy in on wh at we h ave and ~not what we will have - in the future Battin -Votes against h igh densi ty -very seldom is it t urned down Planning Comm ission recomme nds and they h ave to approve d or deny zoning changes Gris et -What is difference in annexing property and letting t h em use our facility and Riverside using our facilities . Let 's se t a reasonable price like we did for Ri ve rside f igure Battin -instruct s taff to ~~M~Xout what a reason a©l e fee would be to allow ~or expansion of t h e s y stem and raise .fees upward according to new sc hedul e -annexation fee b ased on density Staff study and give report on this back to b aard ~s soon as possible . -~- AVCNUC AVENUE A V£NUC ROAD HOY.~L ;NOUS rAIES OffAE ~;TAES S«•N nooucrs co. .\Ll ON AME'i<C,\N HOSPITA.L . '"~L'f>PLV t,'I, ": . .,..1 ~ M.\.c-;~ ~ ~fie: :. =-!:i:-~·---- "' l'l.A·. 1 al'ld 4 :t ~ !g'.... 63 12 '.,,.,.. AEV t 40LOS MOREX I ·oF\P. 15 •••" 1• ,,,:1r / ;J',f:"ll\l. ,..., re ; f Q~~Dilli 1 L.:--~------··-·--------------------------- CO~V1PLEX OFFIC E: 2 122 C AM PUS D RI VE, IRVIN E C ALIFOR 2 IA 92 664 (2~3) 62 8 -4204 (714) 833-1010 . Q) -4;(c &°1'9w-./-4M E/b.e&E SV$7"£v,,..,4::_ .5Et..vc.,,t;;_ \ . \~A .~ 4'1,t1J./,_,t J'(./$~~ ..$£"IVG£ M ARI NE CORPS A IR FACILIT Y BARRANCA cmHA1~:c:n CORPORATION • SCMLAGE E. LOCK ~-COMPANY ~.38AC. A VEUU E I-USF MOBILE l HOMES I I Ei11C S ON . YACHT ).OOAC':. PGI LM(T, INC. S.OO AC.1 <.62/.C. STRL5Sr<.IN p;;o r~ucrs co ror,1, ,r,..a,L (J{•'•ll '2: •f"l,.l' 0 :;; < fl(M !:X t:Li.f;inOUiCS " a; > < CALll'OllM COfiPORl\TI ON OF AMERICA ~J \o1';f1'ti (:, 140Ll0.'IAY C"O. !;iU1LH .. G tUCTt1tC umo1;~ flOlllV":"co u 4.!.9AC, ~·---- :;;; •1u1HY PCCr< ~ 1.c.:o. ~ w :J z ___ _ w w 1 ~ ~ ---------·Q ~ -------.:! ~ n ROAD AVENUE 1 7.(<~/.C. CC'1v1J ~~.~~!~C l(AISLA A Y(fttU£ I Trac t No. 6410 I A/HPOHT H.OUt",,TfU/•L co~.~FlD. 1.o OP Item No. ~:\= J l°IA '-10Alt. ~~~ ,.. r r;10-..•(P.U.j! ri..:'.t•'-•:; u ~,..,, ~ ,1 . mD~C (,,,1;~r..OY ~ C\RTER NALLACE UOMC. \ I \ Q ,/rAMEYE1l 1/-/t.rw:'.HOUSE ,.. 2 z 5 ----.-~ ----(J 0: < a.$6A C. ~·----- ~ --* ~~-9!*• __ \;. ~,g.,,;t rc.:MC. r---· \ \ BfRTEA '\COi'FOR ATION t ~ E.-~ .. A IRPOR T \ ........ \ I 1•t.C>',11A•L I 1PJOU~l'ilL S 01.IAC .....,,.,.~·· .... P/.ih<F.fl HANNfflN CORP. 0 < ~ ci > _, al . ·.~E~ --~-r~j : ~f.l ,,i I --o 0 " " ~ '° ~ ~-I.a 10 ,u u --' Tract No'. SG87 ' . 10SAG. I .,:;, ""' OIAIVE I - f "J·O"• G<...,.,,.,r, I z 0 > z ~ ., EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR JO IN T MEET I NG OF THE BOARDS OF DIRE CTO RS OF COUNT Y SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS . 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 an~ 11 , OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A regu lar joint meeting of t h e Board s of Direct~rs of County San ita tion Dis t ricts Nos . 1, 2 , 3, 5, 6, 7, an ct 11, of Orange County, California, was held at the hour of 7:30 p.rn ., August 11 , 19 71 , 10844 Ell is Avenue, Fountain Valley , California . The Chairman of t h e Joint A1ministrative Orga n ization called the meeting to order at 7:30 p .n . The roll was ~al led anrl the Se c retary re por te , a ouorum present for each District 's Boar0 . * * * * * * * * * DISTRICT 7 Adjournment Moved , seconded and duly carried : That this mee ting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, be adjourned to August 24, 1 971 at 5 :00 p .m. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8 :27 p.m ., August 11, 1971. STATE OF CALIFORN IAl SS, COUNTY OF ORANGE I, J . WAYNE SY LV ESTER, Sec r etary of each of the Bo arrls of Directors of County Sanitation Distri:ts Nos. 1, 2 , 3, 5, 6, 7 , an d 11 , of Orange County, California , •1 0 her e by certify t h at the above and foregoing to be full , true an0 correct copy of minute entries on meeting of sai':I Boar :1 s of Directors on the 11th day of August 19 71 ' IN WI TN ESS WHEREOF, I h ave h ere unto set my h ann t h is 11th .~1ay of August , 1971 1, S-1 0 7