HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-06-291
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
Gentlemen:
June 22, 1972
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICT NO, 2
THURSDAY) JUNE 29, 1972 1 5:30 P.M.
10844 ELLIS. AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
TELEPHONES:
AREA CODE 714
540-2910
962-2411
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held June 14,
19'12, the Board of Directors of' County Sanitat:ton District No. 2
will meet in an adjourned ~egular meeting at the above hour and
date .
JWS:rb
...
II
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, California
DICTDICT Iv I l'I
2
Adjourned Regular Meeting
June 29, 1972 -5:30 p.m.
Roll Call
Appointment of Ch~irman pro tern, if necessary
P.O. Box 8127
108Lt4 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
AGENDA
ADJOURNMENTS ••••• = .........
COMP & MfLEAGE ••••••• t-::.:::
FIL!:$ SET UP ...... ~ ...... .,
RESOLUTIONS CERTIFIED.;;-
LITTEP.S WRITTEN ... P.::' ....
MINUTES WRITTEN ..... C-
MINUTfS FILED ...... ~
Report of Special Committee fo~udying An~exationt":1d ~.~·~ /-o
Connection Fee Policy {l.J 1--4 'Mo-t ......_ fl"'..dU.>.--~ D" ~ "c,....~
Consideration of motion directing the staff to request ~ N fn.r-rv
LETTER •••••••• ._ ...
A/C .•.. TKLR ....
comments from various public entities who have local U~
collection systems throughout the District on the proposed
connection charge concept
(6)
FILE'Q..~-·--
Further consideration of request of Anaheim Hills, Inc.
that annexation fees for 1,024.87 acres of p~oposed Anaheim
ments on the tax bill. See page "A" . . _,,, /v
Hills Annexation No. 1 be paid in five equalJfn ua~l in1tall-
u
Proposal submitted by Richard Terry & Associates for
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the
Santa Ana River Interceptor from Katella Avenue to the
Riverside Freeway, and the Robert F. Finnell River Crossing.
See page "B"
LETTER ···-··--j-a1
A/C •••• TKLR ·-
Consideration of motion to receive and fil~_proposal.
submitted by Richard Terry &-Associates, dated June 16 ,.
1972, and amendment to said proposal, dated June 22,
1972.
J.lr). ~erbal staff report
--~, / ~:_:6(c/ Consi~eration of proposal submitted ~;y Richct:'d Terry & '~~.~-~· Associates, as amended, for preparation of the
Ate .... TKLR ;;_ Environmental Impact Statement for the Santa Ana 1
--··············-River Interceptor from Katella Avenue to the Riverside /Je /)
-··-··········-··---·Freeway, and the Robert F. Finnell River Crossing. µ)<l U/
(7) Progress report on grant application for Santa Ana River
Interceptor Sewer from Treatment Plant No. l to Katella
Avenue, Contract No. 2-14-1. See page "C"
(8) Other business and communications, if any
(9) Consideration of motion to adjourn 7;1~
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Gentlemen:
M E M 0 R A N D U M
The Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No. 2
C. Arthur Nissan
General Counsel
Anaheim Hills Annexation
Deferred Payment of Annexation Fees
I was in error when I advised you at the last
Board meeting that there was no legal authority ~o authorize
the payment of annexation fees over a period of time as an
additional special tax. It is true that the Annexation
District Act does not authorize the Sanitation District
to do this on its own. However, Government Code §56470
permits LAFCO to authorize such a special tax with the
concurrence of the District to which anne~ation is being
sought.
This procedure has been followed b~ District No. 7
in its Annexation No. 14 and there appear to have been no
amendments to the Act which would change the proceedings at
this time, so, at your discretion you could recommend to
LAFCO that you would be receptive to spreading the annexation
fees over a period of time, plus interest, and as a special
tax levy.
CAN:ac
Agenda Item #5 A-1
C. Arthur Nissan
General Counsel
District 2
'
April 3, 1972
Board of Directors
Orange County Sanitation District
Number Two
10844 Ellis Avenue
Post Office Box 8127
Fountain Valley , California 92 708
Attention: Mr . 'Fred Harper
General Manager
FILED
In the O ffice o f t he S ec r ?t.ary
County S a nita tion D istrict
No __z.,._,;.... ______ _
ADO ,, r ) '9 72 ,I I\ 1 G t
Subj ec t: Request Fo r Annexation Into Sanitation
District N u~ber 2
Gent l emen:
On b eha l f of Ana h eim Hi lls Inc ., and Texaco Ventures , Inc ., I respectfully
submi t to you this request for annex a tion into San itation District Nu!!lbe r
Two fo r 1 024 .89 acres of land as described in the map and l egal description
at t ach ed . Al3o , enclosed is a check in the amoun t of $325 to cover toe orig-
i nal a p plication fee. Anaheim Hills i s presen tly develooing on part of the
former No hl Ranch . During this f i rst phase of annexat ion, we are requesting
annexation into the distric t for that portion of the Ana he im Hills p~ojec t
for wh i ch more specific p lans of development are now bein3 prepared . I would
like to draw your attention t o the fact tha t within the annexation a re a t he r e
presently exists three easements which prevent a ny develo pment from occurring
o n these three areas . We therefore , request th at the acre fee for th ese un-
d evelopab l e easements be waived a l thoug h they will be enclosed in the total
~nnexation area . These easements are as follow s : Four Corners Pipeline , Me -
tropo l itan Water District and So uthern California Ed iso n. Th i s amounts to a
total of 19.15 acres .
We und e r stan d that the present annexa t ion fee per acre into San i tation District
Number Two is $369 . Because of the larg e area of land requested in this anne x -
a t ion , we r espectfully r eques t another paymen.t me thod of these fees . We have
discuss e d this matter with membe r s of your s t aff a nd have b ee n advi sed that we
may proceed by placing our total a:no unt of fees o n o ur t axes a nd prorate them
over a five year period o f time in five equal encr ements .
1665 SOUTH B ROOK HU O.S T. ~NAHE IM _ CALIFORN l ft_ 92804, TEL EPHON E (7 14) 530 -7960
Ag e nd a Item i/5 A-2 Di s trict 2
Board of Directors
Orange County Sanitation District
Number Two
-2-
We look forward to working very closely with you on this annexation. We know
that it will enhance not only the development of this specific area, but will
assist the Sanitation District by increasing your total assessable land inven-
tory. If there is any additional information we may be able to provide for you,
we will certainly <lo so as soon as possible.
Sincerely, \
w~\~
Yilliam J. s~
President
WJS:lm
Agenda Item #5 ·A-3 District 2
June 9, 1972
Board of Directors
County of Orange
Sanitation District No. 2
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Attention: Mr. Fred Harper
Subject: Anaheim Hills An.nexation No. 1
Into Sanitation District
Gentlemen:
Included in this filing for annexation is a request that annexation
fees for 1,024.89 acres of the annexation area be paid in five equal
annual install~ents on the tax bill.
The directors might possibly be concerned as to how these tax paY1Tients
will be made in lieu of the fact that over the next f{ve years much of
the property will be sold to building companies and in turn to individual
home owners.
As you know, property taxes, as they become due, must be paid by the in-
dividual owners of the property. lfaen we as land owners sell our property,
full notice of all taxes and/or assessnents against the land must be made
· publicly. In turn, any builder who acquires land from Anaheim Hills must
make a public disclosure to any potential buyers of the sa!!le taxes and/or
assessments to be assumed. •
·Using this method, required by law, all buyers are completely advised of
the condition of the land under purchase and ·all encumbrances thereon.
I hope this will help to clarify our request. Please let me know, if you
need any further information.
Sincerely,
o~~
James L. Barisic
Vice President
JLB:lm
380 ANAHEIM HILLS R0.'\0, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92806 PHONE (714) 998-2000
Agenda Item #5 A-4 District 2
r;-:.-)f:' ."?::.! ,.; r {-., .,.~. 'f"rl fr 0 f'!9 ~II
L,.._ ~ :t i ""'~ tJ Q ;t M" 11 \....r /; M lA
.~ u LL AND ASSOCIATES
~ '~" .-:u~ r;.q ..-~ r.""tt-1 t._-;; !l 1 ~1' u u:JJ n ! i.::: 1 1. en
science &. services
116 North Carousel St. Anaheim, Calif. 92806 Tel. ( 714) 630-2930
16 June 1972
Fred A. Harper, General Manager
County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County
P. O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Subject: Proposal to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement
for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County (Santa Ana River Interceptor)
Richard Terry & Associates/Environmental Science & Services
(RT&A/ES&S) is pleased to submit a proposal to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Districts.
The following is submitted for your consideration.
Part I --Statement of Work
~-Scope of Work
Prepare an EIS for the proposed 4-mile long Santa
Ana River Interceptor pipe between Ball Road to
Jefferson Street, Anaheim.
B. Format of Impact Statement
The EIS shall be prepared in accordance with the
State and Federal Environmental Impact Statement
guidelines that are currently ·available.
C. Briefings and Liaison
Agenda Item #6
1) For the purposes of preparation of the EIS the
Consultant shall be thoroughly briefed about the pro-
posed projects by County Sanitation Districts per-
sonnel, and all relevant fact~ shall be divulged.
2) A Project Engineer from the Districts shall be
assigned, to act as liaison, to resolve any problem
areas, and with Lowry & Associates.
3) The Consultant shall interface with the Districts'
engineers, Lowry & Associates, cognizant agencies,
such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
the Orange County \'later District, the Orange County
Flood Control District, other State and local offic-
ials and agencies, as required, as part of the
effort in preparing the EIS. ·
B-1 District 2
-2-
4) Progress reports or progress meetings will be
held periodically, if requested by the Districts.
D. Relevant Reports and Doclliuents
1) In addition to the oral briefings presented by
the Districts and Lowry & Associates, all relevant
doctnnents and reports shall be made available
to the Consultant.
2) All reports, drawings and documents provided to
the Consultant as part of this contract shall be re-
turned to the CSDOC or Lowry & Associates at the
completion of the contract.
E. Deliverables
1) A preliminary (rough) draft EIS shall be submitted
to the Districts for review by 15 August. Comments
provided by reviewers shall form the basis for the
preparation of the Final Impact Statement. All problem
areas shall be resolved, insofar as practicable, be-
fore typing the Final Impact Statement. The Final
Impact Statement shall be an approved Rough Draft report.
2) A total of 50 copies of the EIS shall be submitted
to the Dis~ricts. The Final EIS shall be submitted by
1 September, or earlier.
3) Prior to printing the Final EIS a copy of the Final
EIS shall be submitted to the Districts for final
approval. If the Districts require no more than a
week for review, the deadline will be met. No major
revisions are anticipated during thi~ final approval/
review process.
4) The Districts shall make available to the Consultant
reproducables of any drawings, maps, or other material
to be used in the Final Impact Statemen~.
Part II --Terms and Conditions
A. Richard Terry & Associates/Environmental Science &
Services acts as an independent coµtractor rendering
professional services. RT&A/ES&S, or its agents, will
not hold the Districts or the County of Orange liable
for any injuries incurred as a result of providing
professional services under the terms of this contract.
B. Work performed shall be based upon the tasks outlined in
Part I of this proposal. The Consultant shall make as
detailed Environmental Impact study as considered
necessary to fulfill the requirements of the State and
Federal governments.
Agenda Item #6 B-2 District 2
-3-
C. The Consultant ~;hall not be penalized for any signif-
icant delays resultin9 from changes in engineering plans,
Environmental Statenent guidelines, or changes in the
State, Federal or local regulations.
D. The Consultant shall not be penalized for delays that are
beyond his control_
E. Under the terms of this contract the Consultant shall
be reimbursed for any work performed. \·Jork on this con-
tract shall be considered complete when the Final EIS has
been submitted to the Districts. Any additional work
after the EIS has been submitted shall be at the same
rate as the basic contract.
F. RT&A/ES&S proposes to perform professional services on
a per diem basis. The rates are as follows:
Agenda ~tern #6
Dr. R. D. Terry In-town/in-of £ice
Out-of-town
Air Pollution/meteorologist
Economist (Ecolomist)
Sanitary Engineer/Chemical Engineer
Marine Biologist/Ecologist
Technical (Engr.) Assistant
Secretary
Estimated Expenses for Proposed Work·
Preparation of Final EIS
Photocopy work
Collation
Covers
Binding
Graphics
Reproduction of dwrs., maps etc.
Other Misc. Expenses
Xerography
Photography
Misc. office expenses
Travel
JJocal travel
Total expenses are estimated as $800.00.
B-3
$280/day
320/day
320/day
300/day
150/day
150/day
80/day
40/day
$200
20
40
50
100
·so
$460
$150
20
125
$245
$100
District 2
G. The maximum cost to prepare the Environmental Impact
Statement shall not exceed $4,500.00 without further
authorization, inclu4ing expenses.
H. The Consultant, RT&A/ES&S, shall bill the District on
actual work performed, based upon a per diem basis,
including expenses (and travel) . The Consultant shall
bill the Districts monthly.
I. Work on the environmental report can be started by RT&A/
ES&S as soon as notified in writing by the Districts .
Yours truly,
RDT:gbd
Agenda Item #6
. .
B-4 District 2
~·
·.; ~n richard terry
· W ""-..AND ASSOCIATES
116 North Carousel St. Anaheim, Calif. 92806
22 June 1972
Fred A. Harper, General Manager
County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County
P. O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California 92708 .
Dear Mr. Harper:
environmental
science & services
Tel. ( 714 J 630-2930
Enclosed is a new last page of our proposal for the Santa Ana
River Interceptor that I would like you to consider for sub-
stitution. The only change is the fee. My reason and need
for increasing the fee is based upon several factors that were
unknown to me at the time the proposal was submitted.
First, the comments on the Santa Ana River Interceptor EIS pre-
pared by James M. Montgomery were not available. These corrLments
suggest that considerable additional work will be absolutely
mandatory. Thus, in reviewing these comments it is apparent
that the air quality factor must be answered. Hence, this will
require the expertise of our air pollution expert, as well as
. gathering planning information for his use. The depth of
study required for adequately appraising this single important
factor is large and complicated, as .I'm certain you appreciate.
Second, the letter frora the Department of Fish and Game also
suggests additional work efforts; and if ocean investigations
are later considered necessary to effectively answer their
criticisms, the cost may well go even higher.
Third, already I have received telephone calls regarding the
interceptor, which were negative. Planning Department personnel
argue for an entirely new study, and specifically mention the
fact that Montgomery's EIS did not mention the nature (chamical
composition of the waste) and ocean impact ought to be considered.
The Department of Fish and Game also alludes to further objec-
tions (page 2) which surfaced during public hearings held in
July and September 1970. The nature of these objections are not
known to us at this time.
Clearly, this means that we will have considerably more research,
public contacts, objectionsto overcome, public hearings, etc.
which were not progranulled in the original budget --because
these environmentally-oriented problems were unknown at that time.
Agenda Item #6 B-5 District 2
·; tred A. Harper, General Manager, 22 June 1972, Page 2
I presume that the Districts have not yet had their meeting to
respond to our proposal. In fairness, to all concerned, I
believe that it might be appropriate to indicate at the Board
meeting the potential difficulties that we foresee in preparing
this environmental report. And, indeed, this is likely to be
a very difficult problem for all concerned.
At the same time I want to assure you that we will do only as
much work on the EIS as necessary to fulfill EIS requirements.
Thus, the higher fee does not ipso facto mean that we will re-
quire that amount. But it would be. unwise to undertake the
interceptor study knowing at the onset that we could not ade-
quately answer the known existing problem areas with the smaller
budget.
If you have any comments or recommendations as to what course
that we should follow, please let me know.
-.fro~
I have had one follow-up call ~ the Planning Department re
the activated sludge project. They wanted to know to what extent
we intend to study the ocean, with special reference to the impact
on ocean life! I suppose, the best answer to that question is
to ask a question: Since certain projects involve air quality,
are we required to study the multitude of medical/health aspects
of air pollution and to correlate these health data with the
proposed project?
Sincerely,
Richard Terry & Associates/
Environmental Sci nee & Services
~_;;::u~
Richard D. Terry
Executive Director
RDT:gbd
Encl
Agenda Item #6 B-6 District 2
,:
-4-
G. The maximum cost to prepare the Environmental Impact
Report shall not exceed $7,000.00 without further
authorization, including expenses.
H. The Consultant, RT&A/ES&S, shall bill the District on
actual work performed, based upon a per diem basis,
including expenses (and travel) . The Consultant shall
bill the Districts monthly.
I. Work on the environmental report can be started by RT&A/
ES&S as soon as notified in writing by the Districts.
Yours truly,
Richard Terry & Associates/
Environm ntal Scien _;;& Services
(-:<-:-.. /~
~ ;:;~:L:~;' ;y Ph;t
Executive Di ector
RDT:gbd
Agenda Item #6 B-7
.·
District 2
I
0
I
.0 i <l .J ate : ; .1a y 11 , 19 7 2 -11 : O 0 J\ • l·L ENGINEEl~'S 1~STii1ATE:
(
COi'.:'I'lU\CT FOll: SJ\lrfA A1~A HIVEi: INTEI~CEPTOR
COHT1tACT ~JO. 2-14-1
co.rn~ACTOl{
50 :.IGD (54" pipe)
**1. Sully-~Iillcr Contractinr, Co.
Long Beach $5,515,616.83
2.
3.
4.
5.
6 .
. 7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Zarubica Cor.1pany
Sun Valley
KorJick [~ l~aJos, Inc.
l l u n t i 11 g ton .ik a c h
TAB Construction
Las Vegas
5 ' ~) 7 3 ' 7 {J 1 • 2 4
6,332,473.94
3,484,557.25
ALTERNATE I
ALTElU·JATE I I
ALTERNATE III
$5,622,610.(
6,510,921.~1
8,942,015.31
80 'IGD (63" pipe) 134 ~ 1rin ("l" 0·
J\LTim~ATE II AL TE !~;\ATE III
$6,273,936.40 $7,676,112~54
6,677,770.81 S,130,091.70
7,0~2,078.06 s ' 6 3 5 , 3 ·1 s . 71
CJ,077,968.61 10,296,555.59
pipe)
•...::i 11' .-(" . ,~MA~~:{\ '-lEft'S: A\~~NDA ~iEt')OR 'f
P. 0. b x 5175
10344 Elli s f..venu e
t< r" • r .. . ')' ... ! '\..Ull fllY .JiHllC<JU011 t J ~t r t i.:ts
'of"Orange Ct~unty , Cilifornis F ountllin V~!ley, Cll lif:, 927C3
T de;>hon~s:
I '1 ,
~II ==-~====---==
2
Areo C c<l e 7 1 l;
540 -29i0
962 -2 41 1
Jw1e 29th.-5 :30 p.m.
Agendc;. Item Uo . 4 ·-Reco1:rr11endat ions of t he Specia.l Crn:'1Yn :i.ttee
for s·cudJin,g_; Annexation e.nc Connect}-ori Fee .rrOiicy .
Enclosed H:l th the agenda. material i s a repQrt of t he
Special ConiI:1itti;;e ':ihich recorr .. 1Tle nd s th e a.doption of e..n &.n.ne :-::a -
tion fee f or the 1972-73 year at ~273 per acre . Said fee to
be increaf:>ed e.nnur,;,lly at the ra t e ·of $10 p e r acre pe:c year .
In ad.di tion; the Cornrni ttee is recormnending the.t a c onnection
charge for ne~ connections be established throughout the
District at ;plOO per dHelJ.ing m1i t (see conun :Lt tee repoTt 2-n
the agenda materjal).
ABendo. It.L-rn Ho. 5 -Request of Anal1eirn Eills, Inc., fo r
Deferr:-:c nt o].' .ii.nnG xa ti on :i•ec s .
At the J":...u,e 11.J th li1 ee·cJ.11g of th e Board ,, the Distri c:t.:> 1
General Coun sel advised the Directo rs that to defer annexe tion
fees i t would be necessary for an applicant to enter into 2n
agreement Hi th the Di st :c:Lct 1·rhicl1 would be secured by sor:1e
typ e o f negotiable instrt~rn e nt . He h a ve no':r r e ceived 2, co::-:-_":":u_r1ice..-
tion from the Gene r a l Counsel which advises that th e re is a pro -
c edure by which the Local Agency f'ormation Cor.1miss2.on could
a.utho:c:Lze a spec ial tax on the property to be annexed i-.:i tr, t he
conc u r rence of the District 3oar d . In view of this ne:·1 2-nfor!~:3.
tion, we have placed this matte r on the agenda for possible
r ec on siderat ion .
Agenda Item No . 6 -P r oposa l for Prepa r ation of Environmental
1rnpact Staten ent ~-
Pur suant to the direction of the Board , we have r eceived
a proposal from Hi chard 'I'er r y and Associates for the p r epa:-.'ation
of th e r equired Environ .. inental I mpact Sta ternent for the Sante. .:~r:e.
Ri ver Int erceptor from Kate lla Av en u e to t he Hi verside ?ree1·ray .
On June lLJ th , the :Boa rd e.uthorizcd the prc;pa:ca t ion of pl a ~s ar.d
s pecifj_ca tions for this segment of the Santa Ana Ri ver L1te r -
c eptor . Richard Terry and Associat es of Anaheim has been
previ ous ly engaged by the Joint Districts to prepare
Environme ntal Impact Statemen ts and vre hav e found the firm 's
work ve ry satisfactory. Dr. Terry has had recent experience
in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for
a Santa Ana Rive r Canyon County proje ct; therefore, it is t he
staff 1 s recommendation that the proposal to prepare t he
Environme nt al. Impact Statement for the Santa Ana River Inter--
cept or from Katella to t he Riverside Free way be authorized i n
an amount not to exceed $4 ,500 .
Agend a Item No . 7 -Progress Repo rt on State and Fe d era l Grant
.P1pplic at ion for fhe Construction of the Santa Ana River Inter-
ceptor .
Hopefully , by June 29th, we will have some favorab l e news
from the State Wat e r Resources Control Board concernin g the
District 's app lication fo r State and Federal financial assistance
for t he construction of the joint use facility . The State Board
staff is ready to c e rtify th8 project for this f i scal year as
it implements a n important segment of their adopted I nter im
Basin Plan to imp rove water quality in t he Santa Ana Rive r
watershed. However , they a r e holding up c ertifica tion pending
the outc om e of the Ore,nge Cour1ty Plannin g Comrnission 1 s r evievr
of the Di strict 1 s Rnvi ronmental Impac t Statement concerning
thi s p roj e ct on June 27th . T~e project must be c ert ifi ed by
J une 30th to be eligib l e for State and Federal fu:.nding . The
joint construction of the Santa Ana River Interceptor 1.-1:L th the
Chin o Basin Municipal Water Dis trict will save the taxpayers of
District No . 2 $2 .7 million . If the Grant is not fort hcom in g ,
the Chino Bas in Munic i pa l Water District will not participate
j_n the project.
Fred A. Harper
Gene r al Manage r
MEETING DATE June 2 9 , 19 7 2 T I M E 5 :30 p.m , DIST RICTS --------
DISTRICT 1 ACTI VE DIRECTORS
(HE RR I N) ...... GR I SE T .•..•.
(CAS PERS ) •..•. BA TTI N .••.. ·======
(W ELSH) • • • · •• , MI LLER ...•.. ___ __ ·--
PO RT ER •••..• ~~ ___ _
r -~T R I CT 2
::>.-s .,/
(PEREZ)· .... · SMITH .. • • .. ------
CULVER . .. .. / ¥ --~LANG ER) . ._. • . . F INN ELL • . . . / ----
~ KOWA LS !( IJ .... FO X ......•. --:71~.JJF---
~GR I SET) ...... HERRI N ••.•• -~-./-D.:___ ----' ) v \HOLLINDEN ... JUST ....•.• ------
(ROBERTS). : · · · NEV IL ..•••• _{_ ----
~CASPERS).···. PHILLIPS .•• ~ ----~REINHARDT) .•• ROOT ...•.•. __:!.._ ___ _
!DUTTON) ...... ST EPHE NSON • _../ ____ _
CASTRO) ...... WE DAA. ..••.• -. ..;-___ _
POTTER) ...... W I N ~ .•••..• _I ____ _
DISTRICT 3
CULVER····· -----· -
(CASPERS ).;,·· BATT I N····· ------
(HINES) .... • .. DAVIS ...... __ --__
!KOWAl,.SKI) · · · FO X ········ ------
COEN).······· GREEN •. · ..• _____ _
FRANKIE WICH). LACAYO · .... _____ _
(NUIJENS ) · · • • LEWIS······ ------
!MILLER}····· LONG ······· _____ _
GRISET} .. · .. HERRIN .... • _____ _
BARNES}····· HOLDEN··· .. _____ _
MC WHINNEY. _____ _
1
REI NHARDT) ... ROOT······· _____ _
HOLLINDEN) · · SCOTT···· •. _____ _
DUTTON) · · • • · STEPHENSO N. _____ _
(ROBERTS)···· STEVE NS ···· _____ _
(BYRNE)······ VANDERWAAL • _____ _
DISTRICT 5
1
CROUL) • · .. • · • MC INNIS · • ·
BAKER)· · · · · · CASPERS . · • ·
MC INNIS)··· KYMLA • •• · · ·
DISTRICT 6
PORTER·····
(PHILLIPS)··· CASPERS····
(MC INNIS)··· STORE······
DISTRICT 7
(WELSH)· • • • • •
(CASPERS)· • • ·
(HERRIN).····
I "ISCHBAC~) ••
C INNIS J • • •
(PEREZ)· · · · • •
DISTRICT 11
MILLER····· ------
CLARK· • • · • • ------
GR I SET .•••. ·-----
PORTER .••••• ------
QUIGLE Y ••.. ·-----
ROGERS .•.... -----
SM ITH ..•.••• -----
(COEN) .. • • • • GIBBS · · · • .. ------
(CASP(:RS) •..• BAKER .•....• -------
(COEN)··· •.•• DUKE .••.•.• -----
DISTRICT 8
GOLDBERG • • • -----
(CLAR K)······ CASPERS • • • • - ---
MITCHELL • · • -----
5/1 0/72
1 JO I NT BO,~RDS ACTIVE DIRECTORS
(HO LLI ND EN) .•. J US T ..•..... ___ _
(CASPERS) ...•• BAK ER ...•... ___ _
( r " ro :-"\ r-R· " \ '"'A..,..~ ,. •' ,...,,_,,1 rc.; ;:;,1 • • • • • .0 I I il'l • • • • • • ___ _
CAS PERS .. ,,· ___ _
f ,..11 ""~.-Rs" C'·A~" \1....1-\.::>r c. / • • • • • L K l\····•·· ___ _
CULV ER······
(HINES)······ ·DAV IS······· ----
(COE N)···· ····DUK E········======
(LANGER)······ FINN ELL····· ----(Km~A l..SKI ) ····FOX········· ----
(COEN ).··.·.· ·G IBBS······· ___ _
(CO EN)·· · • • • • ·GR EE N· · · · · • · ___ _
(HE RRIN)····· ·GRIS ET · • • • • · ----
(GRIS ET ) .••••• f-IERRIN· · · • · · ----
(BARN ES) •••• •• HOLDE N······ ----
(M C INN I S) .•• • l<YM LA · · · • • • • ----
(FRANK IE WICH ) .LACA YO ••••.. ----
(NUIJENS) .•.•• LEWI S······· ----(M ILLE ~) .. ·••· LO NG ········ ----
(CRO UU ••.••• -M C I NNIS···· ----
MC WH I NN EY·· ----
(W ELSH )······ ·MILLER······ ----
(RO BERT S)···· ·N EVI L ······· ----
(CAS PER S)···· ·PHIL LIP S···· ----·
PORTER··· • · · ----(F ISCHBACH ) .. ,QUI GLE Y, •••. ___ _
. (M C INNI S ) ..•• ROGERS ••••.• ___ _
(R EINHA RDT ) ROOT· ••. •••· ----
(HO LLINDEN) ··.SCOTT······· ----
(P EREZ)······ ·SM I TH······· ----
(DUTTON)······ STEPHENSON·· ----
(R OB ERTS)···· -S TEVENS····· ----
(M C INNIS)··· ·STORE······· ----
(BYRN E )······ ·VAND ER WAA L · • ----
(CAS TRO )····· ·WEDAA · • • · • · · ----
(POTTER)····· ·W INN········ ___ _
OTHERS
I 1~.~
* * * * *
GOLDBERG· • · · ----
MITCHELL···· ----
HARPER
BROWN
SYLVESTER
LE WIS
DUNN
CLARKE
SIGLER
NISSON
TAYLOR
BROWN
BOETTNER
CARLSON
FINSTER
GAL LO WAY
HOHENER
HOWARD
HUNT
KEI TH
LYNCH
MADD OX
MAR TI NSO N
MURO NEY
P IERSALL
-(
-r-
-r-
·--
ST EV ENS ~A'l'1 S1 c_ --v:7'
/IA or<, <;.L.'f lc... £!<; e> V\
Aienda Item No. 5 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
April 7, 1972
FOUNTAIN VALLE)', CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
(714) 962-2411
STAFF REPORT
Re: REQUEST OF ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., AND TEY~CO VENTURES, INC.,
FOR ANNEXATION TO DISTRICT NO. 2
The enclosed letter dated April 3, 1972, from Anaheim Hills,
Inc., requests annexation of approximately 1025 acres to the
District, with the following conditions or exceptions:
(1) That the acreage annexation fee be
waived for utility easements totaling approx-
imately 19 acres.
(2) That the annexation fee be collected
through a special tax on the land and improve-
ments over a five-year period of time.
The staff has held discussions with representatives of
Anaheim Hills, Inc., and staff members of the City of Anaheim
concerning the proposed development of the area. The densities
anticipated by the City for the area are.substantially consistent
with the District's Master Plan.
The District's staff has the following recommendations:
(1) Deny the request that the annexation
fee for the undevelopable easements be waived.
This recommendation for denial is made on the
basis that if the fee for easements is to be
waived, then the fees for all other undevelop-
able areas such as streets, hillsides, etc.,
should also' be waived. If this should occur,
sufficient funds would not be generated to
finance the needed facilities.
(2) Approve the request that the annexation
fees be collected through taxes over a five-year
period. This arrangement appears equitable to
both the District and the property ovmer since the
developers, Anaheim Hills, Inc., will be requiring
sewer service for the annexed area in phases.· The
$390,000 annexation fee will be collected through
a special assessment against the land and improve-
ments within the annexed area.
(3) If Item No .. 2 above is acceptable to
the Board of Directors, it is recommended that
the developer be required to pay to the District
prior to annexation the sum of $5,000 to defray
the annual expense to the District to determine
for the County Tax Collector the sums assessable
to the various owners within the area for which
the annexation fee has been deferred.
___ ,.. ~ --... COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE Cou~nv. CALIFORN!A ...
t P. 0. E!OX 8127
June 27, 19'/2
10844 ELLIS /N!:N 1..:E
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714). 54::>-2910
(714) 962-241 I
REMARKS BEFORE THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Don E .. Smith
Chairman, County
SanitatJ.on District No. 2
Councilman, City of Orange
Re: Santa Ana River Intereeptor Environmental Impact Statement -
Proposed Construction from Sanitation Districts 1 Treatment
Plant No. 1 to Katella Avenue
The Santa Ana River Interceptor project in it3 entirety
extends from the Orange Cow1ty Sanitation Districts' treatment
plant in Fountain Valley north1.·mrd along the Santa Ana Ri"ver
to the Orange County-Sa.n Bernardino County line. There are two
general purposes for the project. One is to pro"vide interceptor
sewer capacity in Orange County for County Sanitation District
No. 2 and the other is to provide a safe means of disposal of
high saline \-:aters from Riverside and San Bernardino Counties
for the protection of the ground and surface ·waters of the
bar.; in.
An average of 100,000 tons of dissolved salts each year
are being added to the grotmd '·:aters of the Upper Basin (above
Prado Dam), over and above that being exported from the ground
water basin. This general situation, coupled with other pro-
jections of water use over the future years, has resulted in the
prediction that the quality of water passing Prado Dam will
6ontinue to deteriorate unless substantial changes are made in
the water use and \·:aste disposal r.1ethods of the basin. Tl~e
proposed Santa Ana River Interceptor is a feasible method to
deal with a part of the problem, that is, to syphon off the
collectible fraction of saline wastes and remove them to the
ocean.
For several years the Orange County Sanitation Districts
have been holding discussions with upstream water pollution
control agencies as well as State and Federal representatives
to provide a means whereby waste ·water from Upper .Santa Ana
River Basin dischargers that would be deleterious to the
ground water supply of Orange County, can be transported
through a closed system to the Sanitation Districts! treatment
facilities. The contractual agreements provide for the joint
construction of waste water transportation facilities and
waste treatment capacity rights for the Upper River Basin
interests in the existing and future facilities of the Sanita-
tion Districts. The quality of the waste water discharged into
the Sanitation Districts' facilities at the Orange County line
will meet the same quality criteria established for any dis-
6harger within the Sanitation Districts' system, now and in the
future.
A daily quality monitoring program for the Upper Basin
will be established and all costs thereof will be borne by
the Upper Basin dischargers.. In the event the ·waste water
delivered by Upper Basin dischargers fails to meet the quality
criteria, the Sanitation Districts ·reserve the right to suspend
all or part of the Upper Basin's use of the existing facili tj_es
of the Sanitation Districts.
The joint County Sanitation Districts have petitioned
the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a review of the
Districts' ocean discharge·requirements with particular
reference to establishing specific numerical standards on
toxicants discharged to the ocean.in conformance with the
Water Quality Plan for the Ocean Waters of California estab-
lished by the State Water Resources Control Board. These
standards will be applicable to upstream waste water discharged
to the proposed Interceptor.
Based on the present construction program to accomplish
the actual building of the Interceptor Sewer, this facility
will not be ready for use by the Upper River Basin dischargers
W1til late 1975. State and Federal regulatj_ons concerni.ng the
discharge of liquid wastes to the marine· envirori..rnent will then
be firmly established and the Sanitation Districts will be well
W1der way with the construct:ion of those facilities which will
be required to meet the established requirements.
If current Federal legislation is passed as proposed in
both Houses of C8ngress, the Sanitation Districts will construct
and have in operation by January 1, 1976, secondary treatment
facilities for all flows processed through its facilities. In
addition, and probably more importantly, the Districts will
have implemented their rigorous point-source control program
(see attached) which significantly restricts the.industrial
discl1arge of hazardous substances. We are placing specific
controls on YJ10vm, or highly suspect, toxic materials that.
can damage the marine environment.
The costs of implementing the portion of the project
to improve the ground water supply of Orange County are being
borne by the Upper Santa Ana Hiver Basin dischargers and State
and Federal Water Pollution Control agencieso In fact, this
multiple participation in the construction of the Santa Ana
River Interceptor will save the taxpayers of Coun-ty Sanitation
District No. 2 (which encompasses all or parts of the Citles
of Orange, Placentia, Villa Park, Brea, La Habra, Santa Ana,
Fullerton, Anaheim, Fountain Valley, the Garden Grove Sanitary
District and a considerable portion of unincorporated territory)
$2.7 million dollars, in that additional sewerage facilities
are required in the northeastern portion of the District which
must be provided if this joint project is not constructed.
This often misunderstood project will help enhance
Orange County's ground water supply at no co$t·to us, and, at
the same time, place the determinatj_on and control of discharges
to the marine environment in the hands of Orange County citizens.
COUNTY SANITATION DIS1~RICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92700
10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
TELEPHONES:
AREA CODE 714
540-2910
962-2411
February 8, 1972
INDUSTHIAL WASTE MONITOHING
For many years our Districts have recognized the
need for comprehensive lmmrledge of the discharge quality
of the 2500 \·1et industries located v1i thin Orange County.
Historically, industrial discharges that cause major
treatment and disposal problems to many sewering entities
, throughout the country have not been located within our
collection system as Orange County has never attracted the
stereotype industries that are the nemesis of many treat-
ment processes. However, as additional data became available
to indicate that discharges of a more subtle nature, i .·e.,
·heavy metals, ~ay cause deleterious effects to the marine
environment, the Districts adopted a Uniform Connection
and Use Ordinance that is designed to serve a tv10-fold
purpose. First, to more equitably distribute the cost
among users for use of the Districts' facilities. Secondly,
and probably of greater significance, the Ordinance estab-
lished a monitoring program to individually sample, on a
routine basis, the discharge of industries discharging to
the Districts' system of trunk sev1ers.
During the calendar year 1971, the Districts'
Industrial Waste Division collected more than 1300 samples
of industrial discharges with 4300 laboratory analyses
being performed. We are searching for heavy metals and
other lmovm toxic materials, as 1·re believe that point-source .·
control can significantly reduce the discharges of hazardous
substances to the marine environmeQt. At present, we are
concerned about the industrial discharge of the following
constituents: :
Arsenic
Cadmiwn
Chromi wn· (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Cyanide
.Phenolic Compounds
Total Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Ammonia (N)
Chlorine
Iron
Nickel
Silver
In addition, we are considering establishing maximuro
allowable concentrations of the following:
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Seleniwn
Incorporated in our.Districts' new $300,000 laboratory
is the instrumentation needed to accomplish a meaningful
monitoring program. The acquisition of a Perkin Elmer
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer with a flameless mercury
analyzer has not only increased the detection limits for most
analyses, but has also increased productj_vity to the point
where many samples can be analyzed quickly and accurately.
Organic compo1mds such as chlorinated hydrocarbons and
phenols are being determined on two Hewlett Packard Gas
Chromotographs with dual flame ionization detectors.
During the first six months of 1971, 45 industries were
cited for violation of the Ordi.nance 1 s quality requirements.
By the end of the year, 90 percent of these industries had
remedied their quality problems vri thout the n~cessi ty of
legal action initiated by the Districts.
The technique of point-source control has been used by
many responsible public entities. For example, the City of
Los Angeles has maintained an effective industrial ·waste
control program for many years. They currently operate an
industrial permit system which involves the surveillance of
i3;000 industrial discharges. Copies of their current ordinance
and regulations are enclosed. The City of Phoenix, Arizo1E
implemented an industrial waste control in 1964. They have
been successful in enforcing their ordinance· and many of their
industries have installed pre-treatment facilities in order to
comply with the regulations; in fact, there are fifty metal
finishing industries connected to their sewer system. All
except two are pre-treating to acceptable limits and the re-
maining two have pre-treatment facilities under construction.
~
Again may~we re-state our belief that using the technique
of point-source control to prevent discharge of toxic sub-
stances to the marine environment can significantly reduce
pollution and at the same time save the taxpayers millions of
dollars in expensive treatment processes to remove minute
quantities of toxicants from a homogeneous wastewater flow.
June 2.0, 1972
COUNTY SANITAT!ON DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O.EOX8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALiFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
(714) 962-241 I
SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR STUDYING A:NNEXATION AND CONNECTION
FEE POLICY -COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2
Recommendations:
Committee members:
Don Smith, Chairman
Edward Just
Wade Herrin
Mark Stephenson
Henry Wedaa
The Committee has met on three occasions and has
considered information which was supplied by the staff
and engineers. We have determined that a more equitable
annexation policy can be established which not only con-
siders the acreage to be annexed but also the land use.
Based on the ·enclosed information:, it is the Committee's
recommendation that the annexation fee for the 1972-73
year be adopted at $2'l3 per acre, to be increased $10/acre/
year, and that a dwelling connection charge be established
throughout the District at 100 per dwelling unit; com-
inerc-ia1 and industrial connection fees wil be consistent
with the charges for individual dwelling connections.
The Committee recognizes that the establishment of
a connection charge throughout the Di.strict will affect all
of the local sewering agencies, such as the cities, the
Garden Grove Sanitary District, and water districts having
authori t~r over individual connections to the sewer system.
It is therefore recommended that if the connection charge
concept appears to be feasible and acceptable to the Board
on June 29th, that each Director submit this information to
his individual council or Board for their comment. If the
concept is considered favorably, it would be the Cc~ittee's
recommendation that our District Board enter into agreements
with each of the local sewering entities within the District
to collect the connection charges for·new connections. The
District would reimburse the local entity for the expense of
collecting the District's connection charges.
In District 5, the City of Newport Beach collects the
District's connection charges; these funds are forwarded to
the District monthly. The expenses incurred by the City are
reimbursed by the District at the rate of $4.00 for each single
family detached residential unit, and $4.00 for each 20 "fixture
uni ts 11 for all other types of construction, including commerc:Lal
buildings and multiple residential buildings.
Based on the anticipated new construction within the
District, the $100 connection fee will generate between
$600,000 and $1,000,000 per year (see Page 4 -blue en-
closure). This is equal to a 6¢ to 10¢ eventual reduction
in the District's tax rate.
Enclosures
,3-n/(_2r.-L--z>?JQ
Don E. Smith
Chairman
Effective Date
Ma.rch 12, 1969
Ja.nuary 1, 1970
Ja1ma.ry 1, 1971
January 1, 1972
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of 0RA~GE CoUNlY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAJN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
(714) 962-2411
Janu_ary 22, 1971
ANNEXATION POLICY
DISTRICT NO. 2
Fee
$250 per a.ere
$260 per a.ere
$297 per acre
$369 per acre
Ba.sis
Established by
Resolution No. 69-17-2
Minimwn increase ner
Resolution No. 6~-17-2
Based on increase in
Federal Hater Quality
Administra.tion per
construction costs index
for Los Angeles metro-
politan area as follows:
Oct. '68
Oct. '69
Oct. '70
( 114·. 5 x $260
Oct. '71 ·index
Base Index
(Oct. '69)
~
140.6
142.9
157.4
i4.5
= $297.70)
184.8
142.9
( 141. 9 x $ 260 --
41.9
$368.94)
-
I
I·
L
I
Annual indexes 1913=100
. ·.
' I ..
I
·I .•
E .. N GIN E" E ·n·r NG NEWS.
:•
R E C 0 R D I.·N D E X·.
.. --~.
BUILDIHG PEPJ·lITS FOR D~·TELLING U!TITS
1971
Single Multiple. Estimated in
City Family Familz Total District No. 2
Anaheim 862 1,443· 2,305 1,000
Brea 274 2 276 150
Fountain Valley .. 1,560 48 1,608 400
Fullerton 24~-1,273 1>517 700
Garden Grove 193 675 868 400 .
La Habra 62 726 788 300
Orange 241 933 1,174 800
Placentia 684 229· 913 913
Santa Ana 592 1,519 2,111 500
Villa Parl~ 96 0 96 96
Yorba Linda 772 69 848 848
TOTALS ~587 ~17 12~501+ 6,107
.--c---
Est'd. District No. 2 Units 22730 3,377 6.107
. .~
BUILDH~G PER~·fl TS FOR DHELLI~G UNITS
1970
. .,
Multiple Estimated.in
City Single Fardly Family Total District No. 2
Anaheim 376 3,993 4,369 2~000
Brea 188 18 206 150
Fountain Valley 768 688 1,4~6 300
Fullerton 150 1,045 l, 195 . 500
Garden Grove 14 305 319 150
La Habra 0 881 881 300
Orange 137 274 411 300
Placentia 89 72 161 161
Santa Ana 191 2,624 2,815 800
Vil Hi Park 103 0 103 .· 1.03
Yorba Linda 450 8 458 458
TOTALS 9,908 12,374 5, 22_2
. .
.·
.·
June
COUNTY SANI TAT I ON DISTRICT NO. 2
AREA OU TSID E OF EXI ST I NG DIST RICT
Land Use Area Flow
Number of (l)
Connections
AC mgd
Low Density 18,856 12.314 35 ,180
Med. Density 716 l. llO 3 ,170
Med. High Density 225 .872 2,490
High Density 129 . 751 2,150
Commercial 87 .282 800
Recreational 514 .098 280
Oil Production 4,782 4.782* 13,670
TOTALS 25,309 20.209 57 ,740
(l)350 gal per day p e r connection
Equivale nt to me dium-low density resi de ntial
FUNDS TO BE RAI SED FROM OUT SID E OF DIS TR I CT
20 mgd
160 mgd =
ExistiE .. 8 Sewer Syste m:
12.5%
$12 ,279,000 x 12.5% = $1.53 million
Future Sewe r System:
$18,644,000 x 12.5 % = $2 .33 million
Future Treatment Pl a nt Ca pacity:
20 mgd x $410 ,000 = $8 .20 million
TOTAL $12.06 million
(1)
8, 1972
Perc ent of
Tot al Fl ow
61
6
4
4
l
24
100
FUNDS TO BE RAISED BY ACREAGE AND CONNECTION CHARGES
Percent Raised Acreage (1) Percent Raised Connection
By Acreage Charge Charge by Connection Chg_. Charge
100% $524 0% $ 0
75% 393 25% 52
50% 262 50 % lOL1
25% 131 75 % 156
10% 52 90 % 187
0% 0 100% 209
(~)23~000 AC assumed for ultimate annexation
(2)
Land Use
Low Density
Med. Density
Med. High Dens.
High Density
Commercial
Industrial
Recreational
Oil Production
Unclassified
TOTALS
June 8, 1972
ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT
AREA WITHI N EXISTING DISTRICT
Number. of (l) Percent of
Area Flow Connections Total Flow
AC mgd
6,568 4 .26 1 2,170 2.8
24,522 38 .00 108,570 25 .3
2,462 9 .55 27 ,290 6 .3
4 '726 27.50 78,570 18.3
5 ,894 19.04 54 ,400 12.7
9,526 36.96 105,600 24 .5
2,609 .50 1,430
3,636 3.64(2 ) 10,400 2 .5
5 t 724 11 .45 32,700 7.6
65,667 150.90 431,130 * 100
(l) 350 gallons per day per connection
( 2) Equivalent to medium-low density r esidenti al
* Total Potential Number of Connections
(3 )
..
FUNDS TO BE RAISED WITHIN DISTRICT
Future Sewer System:
$18,644,000 x 87.5% = $16.31 million
Future Treatment Pla nt Capacity:
150 mgd x $410,000 $61. 50 million
TOTAL $77. 81 million
POTENTIAL FUNDS Tll.A.T COULD BE RAISED BY CONNECTION CHARGES
Charge Per
Connection
$ 50 15.0
100 30.0
150 45.0
200 60.0
25 0 75.0
Present Average Flow in District -45 mgd
Ultimate Average Flow in Present
District Boundaries -150 mgd
Potential Number of Future
Connections
105 mgd
350 = 300,000
Total Amount Eer Ye a r Amount er Year
Amount 6,000 Conn./Year 10 ,000 Conn. Year
" millio·n $ 300,000 $• 500,000
million 600,000 1,000,000
million 900,000 1,500,000
million 1,200,000 2,000,000
million 1,500,000 2,500,000
(4)
COUNTY SANrrNI1IO N DISTRICT NO . 2
,J
.i REVISED SCHEDULE OF DI STRICT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
·-
.)
I
Pro.ject
Santa Ana Ri v e r Inter-
c ep tor (Plant No . 1 to
K a t<.:!lla Avenue)
Sa nt a Ana River Inter-
ceptor (Kate lla Ave .. to
Rive r side Fr eeway)
Robert F . Finnell
River Cro.:;sing
Santa i\na Rive r Inter-
c e pt or (Riverside Free -
~ay t o near Co u nty l ine )
1:Jate r Re clam2.tion Plant
Tot a l
$ 8,450,000
3,100,000
100,000
5,900,000
8,500,000
$ 2,600,000
1,200,000
3,700 ,00 0
5 ioo ooo* ' '
( Yo r ba Linda Pump St at ion
2nrj Foree Hain 795,000
394,ooo
1,478,000
~n~n Avenu e Interceptor
Cci.rbon Ca.ny on Inte rc ept or
S out h Santa Ana River
Int e rceptor
Y...r a eme r I n te rceptor
Ca r b oa Canyon Dam
I ritercep tor
I\OTJ.::S :
745,000
323,000
__ 5_l~~9..2 000
$30,332 ;000
1 11 I Costs include engineering and cont ingencies
Dc min?r a lization Faci litie s to be constructed
by Orange County Wa ter Dis t r ict
Dist . No . 2
$5,850 ,000
1,900,000
1 00 ,000
2,200 ,000
3,Lwo ,ooo
793,000
39l~' 0 0 0
1,478 ,000
7 45,000
323,000
__ 5 4_9,000
$17,7 32 _~
1:9-70/71/72 1972-73
$350 ,000 $2,750,000
_$350' 000
500,000
396 ,oo o·
1 97 ,000
739 ,000
1973 -74
$2,750 ,000
1,400 ,000
1 00 ,000
1 ,100 ,000
1,000 ~0 00
397,000
1 97 ,000
739,0 00
323,000
$8 ' 006·, 0 00
Ma y 18 <' ~a··-,,~~
Rev i sec
-~7 4 -7 5
$1 JlOO,OOO
2,4-oo ,ooo
275,000
h1'75,000
1975 -76
$ 7 4 5,00(
__ 2_7_1L ~GC\
$] 01 () ')"
. l ,_ l \... '-'..:
I
I::
I
t_j
I
( COU~'TY SANITATION DISTIUCT NO. 2
PRO,JEC1'ED CASH FLOW STATE~illNT
FISCAL YEARS 1971-72 THROUGH 1975-76
Descriotion
REVEr!UE
Tax Revenue (at current tax rate
of $.4255)
Other Revenue
Federal & State Participation
Joint Works Projects
District Facilities
C:ql:1HD Treatment Capa.ci ty
Mis cellane<?_us
~
~. ' ...
Carry~bver from Previous Fiscal Year
Total Funds Available
EXP:Z~mITU3ES
.... -
District Construction
Bond Retirement
Operating and Joint Works Expansion
(Does not anticipate new requirem.~nts
for secondary treatment)
Total Expenditures
Carry-Over to Following Fiscal Year
Less: Necessary Reserve for following
year dry period
Fund 3al~nce or (Deficit)
One cent added to tax rate will raise
1971-72
$ 4,017,000
1 ·428 000 ' '
653,000
8.,567,000
$14;665;000
$ 74,ooo
634,ooo
3,265,000 ..
$10, 692, 000 .
$ 5,907,000
. $ 91,300
1972-73
$ 4,083,000
1,841,000
553,000
500,000
l0,692.,000
$17,669,000
$ 4,582,000
612,000
4,213,000
$ 9,407,000
$ 8,262,000
6,236.,000
$ 95,960
1973-74
$ 4,287,000
1,423,000
845,000
4o·o ,ooo
8,262,000
$15,217,000
$ 8,006,000
590,000
3,722,000
$12' 318.'I 000
$ 2,899,000
3,835,000
$ (936,000)
$ l00,758
(
1974-75
$ 4,502,000
1,013,000
800,000
227,000
. . .. 350,000
2,899,000
$ 9,791,000
$ 3,775,000
571,000
3,153,000
$ 7,499,000.
$ 2,292,000
2,478,000
$ ( 186' 000)
$ 105,800
5-18-72
Revised
$ 4,727,000
998,000
1,920,000
350,000
2,292,000
$10.,287,000
$ 1,019,000
554,ooo
3,224,ooo
$ 4,797~000
$ 5,490,000
3,016:000
$ 111,086
.. '
June 20, 1972
Mro Fred A. Ha~per
General .. Manager
County Sanitation Districts,,· ·
P. o. Box 8127
: .!
Fountain Valley; California.92708
Re: Request of Anaheim Hill's" etco
Dear Fred:
R~sponding·to your letter of June 16" 1972 and
the enclosures therein, please be adv-ised that I was in
error in my statements regardir1g the ability of ·the District
to collect annexation fee over a period of timeQ My conversa-
tion with the attorney for the developer ·related to provlsions
in the Health and Safety Code with refer·ence to tile ability or the District to spread such annexation. fees., The District
in its own act does no~ have such power but·LAFCO does under
the provisions of Section 56470 of the Government Code.
This is a LAFCO power and I overlooked its application to the
District in this annexation proceedingm
The procedure followec ·'!:ly Distr'ict No. ·7
in Annexation No.14 is the correct procedure to be followed
ir\ this matter.
CAN:cp
Y~trt~ly,
c. Arthur Nissan
TO:
FROI:i:
Gentlemen;
. ;
MEMORANDUM
The Board of Directors
County Sanitation District No: 2
c. Arthur Nisson
General Counsel
Anaheim Hills Annexation
Deferred Payment·of Annexation Fees
I was in e:cror when I a.dv~.sed you at the last
Boa::d meeting that there ~ ... ;as no legal authori·::y to authorize
the payment of annexation fees ave= a period of time ~s an
additional special taxo It is t~ue that. the ~~nne;~Qtion
Di.strict Act ·does not authorize the Sanitation District
to· do this on its owno However 0 Government Code §56470
permits LAFCO to authorize such a special ta:~ ,,Ji th the
. concurrence of the District to which annelr.ation is being
sought.
This procedure has been followed by District No •. 7
in its Annexation Noo 14 and there appear to have been no
amendments to the } .. ct which would change the procs-edings at
.this time, sov at your discretion you could recommend to
LAFCO that you would be receptive to spreading the annexation
fees over a period of tima, plus interes~, and as a ~pecial
tax levyo
CAN~ac
e~_L_2-_
c. LJ:tnur Nissan
<'.:::~:~:~~:c~l counsel
.,.._ . '
....
#3
DISTRICT 2
6,/29/72
The Chairman reviewed the activities
of the Special Committee for Studying~
Annexation and Connection Fee Policy
~District No . 2. The Committee
has determined that a more equitable annexation policy should
be established which not only considers the acreage to be
annexed, but also the land use. It was the Committee's recom-
mendation that the annexation fee for the 1972 -73 year be adopted
at $273.00 per acre and be increased $10.00 per acre per year~
and that a dwelling connection charge re established throughout
the District at $100 .00 per dwelling unit ~ 3 ommercial and ,.1.;t-eJJ;..Lv~c..-{ ~
industrial connection fees should beAconsistent with the charges
for individual dwelling connections . ~@4-nteil mit-tJaa.t.,
{;---;-;;;. the most part,~u:tr ;-;,l -charg~resently covered by
the District 's Uniform Connection ,.-and Use Ordinance . Chairman
Smith pointed out that the Committee 's recommendation would
provide 1iX;di~'tr or facilities needed to serve the area presently
4 :t.~~~
outside the Districts)Oapprox:fkately one-half from annexation
fees and one-half from connection charges .
The Committee further recommends that if the connection charge
concept appears to be feasible and acceptable to the Board,
that each Director submit this information to their individual
Q
council or board for their comments. If the~t is considered
favorably , to aeeemod~te adrninist~ation of the ...-G o.tl.ne.ct i.on--=e-Qa~ges
District 2 woul~ter into an agreement with each of the local
sewering entities ~ ~h~ D.~st.~ict A tq collect z:e coQPect:ip n '_j,,...· A,1 ~· ~~ ~ ~A;,~o.JL ~Q~ l>''~c'~'~'l')v,~TL'Q
charges~f~r andr connectiGHS. The District would then reimburse
~
the local ent it y for the eK~-!re-es collecting the Diatr ict '~
connection ~s.
The Board then entered into a l engthy discµs~ion of the
Ju /'I/ V.-r i;..IM..J..
Special Committee 's recornrnendations Q-Y' ~t"was a l so pointed out
that the boundary between District No. ,2 and District No . 3 cuts
• ~ t;Jl,1-~ -rtv.. c..-..... ~ .... '-"? ~
through several of the citi es.~~ perhaps~ i t would be advisable
°'-~ to request that District No . 3 consider establishing ~n anne*ation
fee equivale~t to t~e~ proposed by District No . 2 . Following
furthe r discussion of the p r ocedur es which must be followed to
implement
:e:mar~i:e the Special Committee 's recommendati·ons , it was moved ,
seconded and duly carried:
That t h e recommendations of the Special Commit tee for Studying ·
Annexat i on and Co nnecti on Fee Policy for County Sanitat ion
District No . 2 , dated June 20 , 1972, be received 1 ~ ordered
~}~~· /
filed& and!~ ,;
FURTHER MOVED : That the staff be directed to draft an ordinance
providing for implementation of a connection fee and a standard
)
agreement which co uld be entered int o with the lo cal sewering +u ',£
agencies !WQ~Hg for collection of said. ?O £nection fees, for
~ J CQ\,t.\.~ ..tf,_t-f
review l)by the respect ive public e ntitie s .wftd have l oca l co l l ec tion
systems throughout the Di st ri ct) ,P.@queoting .{.::J/!~tre on tfic f!!HH
p:roposcd connecUQl'L.Qh;i:cge_ concept. ~-~~L,1;....,:. ~ ~ ~~
---t '-..._ I /turi.~._~f t:_
~ e.v,.S L-1'1,,,_ '\_ , "' Th e Board entered j nta a dJ ~~u.ssi on
!or r > ) ~M. ~~ ,· L. ............ QJ ·] r;;:onc~Fn±irg tfis-w,emorandnm K~ the
General Counsel ~.O.vioi ng the Doa:r·d
,
t.JiiMa.t in connection wi th the request of Anahe im Hills, Inc .~
provisi ans o f the Ge~nt Gode p1·o~e that annexation fees
fo r 1;jfe proposed Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1 ~ be paid
\ft.....~ ~c~ .. L ·~~ 4,J ~h~u~ #2
~ V"Lt~ ~~a 6 ~~. ~ ... ~. ___ .. ~~.1 p. 3 ~y-(1.. ~'fitc. !JA~tl rfu~~~J'} wifA
:-tJ._. ~~IJ1f:L.. ~ ~"'"" , --. .. '
in five equal annual installments on t he tax bill. <Ji'Following
funther discussion concerning the method of spreading the annual
charges and ~ provisions for ~ interest on any unpaid
balance it was moved , seconded and duly carried: J~.~.~,. c..,_;,..k,.~ er-I
ThaJ,\tb;"request of Ana~eim Hills, Inc. that annexation fees
for 1,024.87 acres of proposed Anaheim Hill s Annexation No. 1
be paid in five equal annual installments on the tax bill, be
deferred to the regular meeting to be held on July 12 , 1972)~J)
The General Manager reported that
subsequent to mailing of the ~enda
material, the staff had received an
amendment to the pnoposal submitted
by Richard Terry & Associates for preparation of the En vironmental
Impact Statement for the Santa Ana River I nterce p tor fro m Ka tella
Avenue to the Riverside Freeway and the Rob e r t F . F innell River
/
Crossing. Fol l ow ing a brief discussion of the am e nd e d prop osal,
it was moved, seconded and duly carried :
That the proposal submitt e d by Richard Terry & Associat e s, dated
June 16 ~ 1972, and the amendment to said propos a l, d at e d Jun e 22 ,
1972, be receive~ erdered filed, and accepted; and,
FURTHER MOVED : That the Genera l Manager be authoriz e d to di r ect
Richard Terry & Associates to proceed with preparation of said
fee
Environmental Impact Statement on a per diem/basis in accordance
with the terms of the proposal, for a maximum amount of $7,000 .00,
as follows: (See attached)
;
-3-
....
C. The Consultant shall not be penalized for any signif-
icant delays resulting from changes in engi e-f!n'g plans,
Environmental Statement guidelines, or nges in the
State, Fede~al or local regulation
D. The Consultan~,shall delays that are
beyond his contra~ .
......
E. Under the terms of contract the Consultant shall
be reimbursed for y rk performed. Work on this con-
onsidere omplete when the Final EIS has
been subnit to the Distr ts. Any additional work
after th IS has been submitt shall be at the same
the basic contract.
F. /ES&S proposes to perfo~ profes~al services on
a per diem basis. The rates are as follbws:
R. D. Terry In-town/in-office
Out-of-town
Air Pollution/meteorologist
Economist (Ecolomist)
Sanitary Engineer/Chemical Engineer
Marine Biologist/Ecologist
Technical (Engr.) Assistant
Secretary
I ~~
Es 'mated ~~penses for Proposed Work
Prep ration of Final EIS
Ph ocopy work
Coll tion
Cover
Binding
Graphics
Reproducti
Other Misc.
Xerogra y
Photo aphy
Mis ·. office
travel
$280/day
320/day
320/day
300/day
150/day
150/day
80/day
40/day
\.,J.\ ,..~ .. ....-
,,. .. ~
$200
20
40
50
100
50
$460
$150
20
125
$245
$100
#7
#2
p. 4
The General Manager reported on the
status of the grant application for
the Santa Ana River Interceptor from
Treatment Plant No. 1 to Katella Avenue, Contract No. 2-14-1.
The State Water Resources Control Board is expected to certify
the project on June 30th and the Environmental Protection Agency
,11 $ . '~ . within 60 days. The grant appl ~ation was submitted on UN.~~~'
Alternate II~O ~Q..~apacity) the proposed project. The
L,L;
grant would provide 80%~~ ct l'°no Basin Municipal Water District~
f~~gd share of the joint project .
~J~~..,(. ~
Mr. Harper pointed out that Alternate ::CII would lp:roui'1eb ~ ~ m:gei
~ tfll M-~ J. 4-ri ~
capacity from Plant No. 1 to Katella Avenue/'\~ additional
investment of only $1.4 mil l ion., cm tao $7 .6 mi-3_..3..~~e.G.t.-
~ t~ ' ~ 'fa~lity would provide District 2 with an extremely
flexible system which could util~ze upstream reclamation
~~-4-IA;,,,. 1 h
facilities; or provide for "cl.i veJ;?.s1 on o ~otal flow ~ the
joint treatment facilities . Present cash flow projections
indicate that Alternate III could be constructed without increas i ng
~ fu,,. then
the ~tax rate .'\\The Board/entered into a general discussion
of the feasibility of constructing the 184 mgd capacity Santa
Ana River Interceptor from Treatment Plant No . 1 to Katella Avenue .
~~f)·-t_~
~ Chairman Smith reported that he had appeared before the Orange
County Planning Commission in connection with the Santa Ana
~ River Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement;for ~proposed
construction from Plant No . 1 to Katella Avenue. He advised
tNoct the Board that the Planning Commission had overruled their
staff's recommendation artd approved the project.
Adjournment 7; 1 5