The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1972-10-11COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE ("EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) October 6, 1972 TO: MEMBERS OF TEE BOAHDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SAf\:ITATIGH DISTRICTS NOS. h_2, 3, 5~J ... ,,,, __ 8_, _A_N_D_l_l _____ _ Gentlemen: TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 The next regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11, of Orange County, California, will be held: Wednesday evening, October 11, 1972 at 7:30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue · Fountain Valley, California Tentative adjournments prior to next regular meeting: District No. 7 5:00 p.m., October 24 Executive Comml.ttee 5:30 p.m., October 25 I ti Ii I! II II II EtOt\ROS O F DIRECTORS Co unf y Saritation D i:,tric ts P. 0. Sox 812/ 10844 Ell;s Ave:<uc- Fou ntain Volley, Calif., 92708 of 01ange County, C.:i l ifo rn ia JOI N T AGENDA ADJOURNMENTS POSTE D ... ~ COMP & MILEAGE .... ~ FI LES SE.T UP ........ ~······· RESOLUTIONS CERTIFIED .. V""'" LETIERS WRITTE N .............. . October 11 , 1972 -7 :30 p .m. MINUTES WR IHEN ..... u.C. MINUTES HLED ........ w.'.'.°'.'. •• (1 ) Pl edge of Allegiance and Invocation 0-2 ) Ro ll Call (..-3 ) App o intment of Chairmen pro tern , if necessary -QUIL~ -u. Cr (4) EACH DISTRICT ~< 6) j.-8) Consideration of motions approving minute s of the following meetings , as mailed : !\\' s District .....-r Sep t embe r 13 , 1 972 regular c.r:d Septerr.ber 26 , 1 9 72 a.djourried "'' \ c; District .r2 September 13 , 1 972 regular N\ l S District -3 September 13, 197 2 r egul a r .~I s District fr September 13 , 1 972 r egul ar fl'\}~ D1strict --6 September 13 , 1972 regular ~/~ District /f September 13 , 1972 regular tv\ / s Dist r ict ...S Au g ust 9 , 1972 re g ular fi l Js District kl September 13 , 1 972 regular ALL DISTRICTS Report of the ·Joint Chairman ALL DISTR ICT S Report of the Assistant General Me n ager ALL D:i S'l'R I CTS Re po rt o f the General Co unsel ALL DISri'RIC 'IS Report of the Execu tive Comm ittee and con s ideration of motion to r e c e ive a nd file the Comm i tt ee 's writt e n r e port (9) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of action on items recommended by the Executive Committee: FILE •••• Lr'~}' Considera1;'.ion of Resolution No. 72-129 declaring that the LETIER .••.•••• ~ proposed Watson Property Tax Initiative would seriously we .... TKLR •••• restrict the ability to finance Districts' activities -·-······-·-and expressing the Boards' opposition to said Initiative. --See page "D" ~ c·~-~ ,_; ~~ -:,, ......... a. __ , .\>......: ~ ....... " ~ ~ l ·-~ tLll~u.,v.-) .(,0) .fUI?' / LETiER f.~ A/C •••• TKLR .... __ ............ Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from Richard Terry and Associates, dated September 14, 1972, regarding additional work required on the Environmental Impact Assessment for 1972-73 Joint Works Improvements and Additions because of changes in the State discharge requirements; and authorizing increase in maximum fee from $8,500 to $12,000 for preparation of said assessment. See page "E" FILE£······ -/ ~ ' r \ , . . ', LETTE :..-··-····· _ ) A/C •••• T ·- Consideration of motion authorizing staff to advertise for bids to lease approximately two acres of property located adjacent to the Santa Ana River on the Districts' interplant right of way FILEti_:?.(,«~}) Consideration of motion authorizing the staff to ~a~~~ proceed with testing required to determine the I.ETIER ······G-suitability of physical-chemical treatment to meet A/C •••• TKLR •••• advanced waste treatment requirements, in an amount --·-······ .. ········· not to exceed $7 8, 000. See page "F" F~ --·-················· tE~~--~~~~~~&r ALL DISTRICTS A/C ... TKLR --. Consideration of motion to convene in executive session to consider personnel matters 3:07 --········- -------) ALL DISTRIC11 S ~\~ Consideration of motion to reconvene in regular session ~-4~ · ~~ -~ <-1<.c -\:~ ~--s9 FILE ···········- \ LErTE~-~-•• Jl-2). ALL DISTRICTS ·-~ _ _, Consideration of action on i terns considered in executive A/C _TKLR ...... session ,~, lmER ••.........••• ALL DISTRICTS Report of Special Committee on State Board Ocean Policy A/C _.TKLR ·@) ALL DISTRICTS --·-·········· --Report of Special Flood Prevention Committee re Districts' ----- FILE ···········-····· lETIER ·······-····· R~solution No. 72-127 requesting the Board of Supervisors to improve portions of the Santa Ana River to mitigate the potential inundation of Districts Treatment Plants Nos. 1 and 2 in the event of flooding A/C •••• TKLR IV\.\ ~ (a-) Consideration of motion to receive and file resolutions from the various cities to the Board of Supervisors (b) fY\\ <; (d) Report on action taken by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Districts' Resolution No. 72-127 Staff report on estimated cost and scheduling of construction of flood prevention wall along northerly property line of Treatment Plant No. 1 to protect facilities from intindation Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to issue a change order to the plans and specifications for Influent Metering and Diversion Structure at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. I-8-3, for ~onstruction of flood pr~vention wall along northerly property line of Treatment Plant No. 1 in an amount not to ~xceed $85,000 -2- (~) ~ Fi u; J ••• ~;····-··-~;TTER .~ A/C •••• TKLR _N\ \ <:> --··-········ ......... r • " . /. (}6) ••• i. •••••• -·- ~R ••• ~'\\S A/C .... TKLR ~ (19) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to receive, file and accept proposal submitted by John Carollo Engineers, dated September 22, 1972, for engineering services in connection with preparation of Operation and Maintenance Manual for Activated Sludge Facilities at r1ant No. 1, on a per diem fee basis, not-to exceed $26,500. See page "G" ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion approving Addendum No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Additional Secondary Treatment at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. Pl-9-1, and Increased Water Reuse Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. J-4-1. See page. "H" ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to receive and file certification ·of the Assistant General Manager that he has checked all bills appearing on the agenda, found them to be in order, and that he recommends authorization for payment ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of roll call vote motion approving Joint Operating and Capital Outlay Revolving warrant books for signature of the Chairman of District No. 1, and authorizing payment of claims listed on page "A" ALL DISTRICTS .. -Other business and communications, if any FILE _----1~· DISTRICT 1 LETTER~v, Consideration of Resolution No. 72-130-1, accepting A/C .... TKLR .... I\/\\~ New Siphon, Greenville-Sullivan Trunk, Contract No. 1-13, .. _ .............. _ .. __ 1n as complete and authorizing execution of a Notice o·f ·-·--················ Gompletion. See page ''I'' ···~-~!STRICT 1 FILE···---·····-~ £Consideration of Resolution No. 72..:.131-1, to receive and LETIER-file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding A/c .... TKLR -· ~\\ ~ contract for Additional Secondary Treatment at Reclamation .......................... Plant No. 1, Job No. Pl-9-1,to James E. Hoagland Company .......................... and Hoagland Engineering Company (a Joint Venture), in the amount of $786, 300. See page "J" ,,-' ( ').." fllE -·--~ \ETTER •• Z we ___ TKLR _ N\ \ s E23) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of Resolution No. 72-132-1, to receive and f.ile bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding contract for Increased Water Reuse Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. J-4-1, to F. T. Ziebarth Company and Ziebarth & Alper, J.V., in the amount of $611,000. See page "K" DI8'f'RIG':PS 1 & 7 Considetfttion of motion approving suspense fund warrants, if any. See page "C" (24)' DISTRICT 1 .·· · N\\ S Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. 1 '' See page "B" ( ~5) DISTRICT 1 ~·· / Other business and communications, if any ~) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn y:3\ -3- ::.e; ~-DISTRICTS 2 & 3 A/C _.mR -Verbal report of ~pecial Committees on Connection Fee --·-··--Policy -.......... _l28) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of agreement with Anaheim Hills, Inc. and Texaco Ventures, Inc. providing for payment of annexation fees in five equal annual installments for approximately 1,025 acres of territory (Proposed Annexation No. 6 - ~ Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1) ~-~ v' Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from Anaheim Hills, Inc., dated October 6, 1972, relative to proposed agreement ·for deferral of payment of annexation fees. See page A/C .... TKLR - "L" ,,,.-~ .~) Consideration of Resolution No. 72-133-2, authorizing FILE .... --. / ·execution of agreement with Anaheim Hills, Inc. and ~n~-~ Texaco Ventures, Inc. providing for payment of KLR l annexation fees for proposed Annexation No. 6 -Anaheim A/C •... T -{\'\ S Hills Annexation No. 1 in five equal annual installments .................. --and providing for payment of 5 1/;;i-% interest per annum ·······-·············-· on the unpaid balance. See page "M" (30) (31") ;;>' DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "B" DI~RICT 2 "" otfier busines5--and commu~cations, if any ~ DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn q._3Vi .DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to receive, file and accept prop.osal submitted by Boyle Engineering, dated October 5, 1972, for engineering services in connection with Additions to Seal Beach Boulevard Pumping Station, Contract No. 3-12-1, --for a lump sum fee of $6,ooo. See page "N" ( 3~J,· DISTRICTS 3 & 11 /N\\S Consideration of motion approving suspense fund warrants, if any. See page "B" :· ~ DISTRICT 3 ~-~,\-~ Consideration bf motion approving warrants, if any. · !\\\S See page "B" (35) (37) (38) . ~ .. \ s DI~ICT 3 other busin~ and commb,nication~ if any DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn q~31 DI8TRIGT8 5 & 6 Consideration of motion approving suspense fund warran-t-s-, if any. See page "B" DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any . See page "B" -4- (39) DISTRICT 5 Other b¥siness and communications, if any DISTRICT 5 Consideration q "_3'] of motion to adjourn (41) DISTRICT 6 (43) /" ( 41+) FI LE •••.•• ':.:::·.=···-· ~--- we .... TKLR, -·· f'V\ \ s lg.2»_i.~ - (~5) Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. Sec page "C" DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications, if any DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourng:31 DISTRICT 7 Consideration of Resolution No. 72-134-7, authorizing acceptance of Grant of Easement from the City of Santa Ana, for a permanent easement relative to construction of West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 and 22, Contract No. 7-5-lR, at no cost to the District, as recommended by the General Counsel. See page "O" DISTRICT 7 Consideration of Resolution No. 72-135-7, authorizing acceptance of Grant of Easement from H.~J. Mabury Company, for a permanent easement relative to construction of West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reach~s 19, 20 and 22, Contract No. 7-5-lR; and authorizing execution of agreement providing for payment for said easement in an amount equivalent to the front foot connection charge as provided in the connection charge ordinance in effect when, and if, connections are made, as recommended by the General Counsel. See page "P" ( 46). -DISTRICT 7 .'.M\~ Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "C" (47) LETTER·-( 48) we .... TKLR - ··········--·------ (49) DI~RICT 7 ~ 0th& business and cornmlln.ications, if any DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn to October 24, 1972, at 5:00 p.m. re Assessment District No. 9 q~3q DISTR,ICT 8 Other""liusiness~ communiC'a-tions, if any ( 5J)..}----nrsTRICT 8 q .. 39 ~ -Consideration of motion to adjourn FILE -::-;' ( 51, DISTRICT 11 lETTER~' Consideration of Resolution No. 72-136-11, authorizing A/C •••• TKLR -M\S acceptance of Grant of Easement from Southern California Edison Company, for a permanent easement in connection with relocation of Newland Avenue Pumping Station Force Main, at no cost to the District. See page "Q" (52) DI~TRICT 11 Consideration of Resolution· No. 72-137-11, authorizing execution of a Quitclaim Deed for portions of existing District easement to Southern California Edison Company relative to relocatior. of Newland Avenue Pumping Station Force Main, after completion and acceptance of said r-._ ~ If~~············••··- lETTER .-- A/C 6,;..: __________ ...... relocatior1 by the Edison Company. See page "R'1 -5- (53) DISTRICT 11- Considcration of motion approving warrants, if a-ftY-. See page "C" (54) DI 0 RICT 11 - Othe business~ comrnunica~s, if any (55) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn q:~o i . -6- I' I I I 11 II II i BOARD S OF' DIRECTORS County Sanita tion Districts of O rang e County, California / -, . 6 iYh 11J ord'( \\ ·~ P. 0. Box 8J.2 . \\ 10844 E!lis Avenue Fou ntain Volley, Calif., 92708 JOINT BOl\RDS AGEN D A October 11 , 1972 -7:30 p.m. (1) Pl edge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call (3) App ointment of Chairmen pro t ern , if nece ssary (4) EACH DISTRI CT (5) (6 ) (7) (8) Con sideration o f mo ti ons approving minutes of the followi ng meet i ngs , as mailed: Di stric t 1 September 13, 1 9 7 2 regular and Septemb er 26) 1972 adjour ned District 2 Septembe::."' 13 , 1 972 r egular Distrlct 3 September J. 3 ) 1 972 regular District 5 September 13, 1 972 regulr::.r Di s tric t 6 September 13, 1972 regular Di stric t 7 September 13, 1 972 regular Di st rict 8 August 9 , 1972 regular ~ / District 11 -~ ~ September 13 , 1972 regular ~Q JV '• k .;\ .) ~} , 0 ~ I ALL DISTRICTS r\. ff' ' ""' J \1 f t Report of th.e ·Joint Chairman l'\.i "'J' ~ I) ''1t · \71 f'. "or· \ 1 •: I \. I() • l ~ \. '(/ /L' \ ~c o -ct..' ~- ALL DISTRICTS Report of' the Assistant General Manage!' -:At\.!." ..... )\, '- ALL DISTRICTS ~S.\. v ,.... ~ .. r \.. W.r ( . '.\~ fl r1. ~~. . ~ \).."· . t(J.," G l "tA~ ~Jt.a-v Report of the Genera l Counsel '\~- ALL DISTRICTS '\ Report of the Exec ut ive Committee ard cons :.deration {i \l' of mo tion to receive and file the Committ ee 's wrttt e n report oJf.)) 4£1 '· ill ~IS 0t1, 't~L )\µ.~~ yYv w ~~o~ -~f~.-:J ~ if< "\\V \ > ~ ·C"" (> ) . \!" ( r 'J' Vi r ~\J (9) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of action on items recommended by the Executive Committee: (a') / (ty) / (b) (d) / Considera~ion of Resolution No. 72-129 declaring that the proposed Watson Property Tax Initiative would seriously restrict the ability to finance Districts' activities and expressing the Boards' opposition to said Initiative. See page "D" Uuvv.~.( Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from Richard Terry and Associates, dated September 14, 1972, regarding additional work required on the Environmental Impact Assessment for i972-73 Joint Works Improvements and Additions because of changes in the State discharge requirements; and authorizing increase in maximum fee from $8,500 to $12,000 for preparation of said assessment. See page "E" Consideration of motion authorizing staff to advertise for bids to lease approximately two acres of property located adjacent to the Santa Ana River on the Districts' interplant right of way Consideration of motion authorizing the staff to proceed with testing required to determine the suitability of physical-chemical treatment to meet advanced waste treatment requirements, in an amount not to exceed $78,000. See page "F" (10) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to convene in executive session to consider personnel matters (11) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration r . . of motion to reconvene in regular session r I \ ~2 )'>ALL DISTRICTS Consideration session f''I<" of action on items considered in executive f ( · :.•" (13) (14) ~"" ALL DISTRICTS ~'• ~ Report of Specia:j. Commit_!_ee on State Boa~d oc7an.r _Po~ifY;J " )_,,~c-·-~·.n t it--... .:.-•' .--<f J .... '-_e, 1 ~1.:1·. -, pC:.(t._"-_ ALL DISTRICTS . Report of Special Flood Prevention Committee re Districts' Resolution No. 72-127 requesting the Board of Supervisors to improve portions of the Santa Ana River to mitigate the potential inundation of Districts Treatment Plants Nos. 1 and 2 in the event of flooding (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file resolutions ~ Ii from the various cities to the Board of Supervisors .~ I (b) Report on action taken by the Board of Superviso:r ~··· 4:. , . pursuant to Districts' Resolution No. 72-127 'iv ,-f tfi'' .'·., f,... ~(, '\.'' · I ( c) (d) Staff report on estimated cost and scheduling of ~·-,« ·1C~·/· construction of flood prevention wall along northerly /,~··· ~~ 1 property line of. Treatrn:nt Plant No. 1 to protect . / ~y· facilities from inundation .r\li ·" ';"·~\ \ ~ ,; :ll Consideration of motion authorizing the General 0.,f'Y1 ,, " Manager to issue a change or er to e p ans an ~ d th 1 d "t·' \QI specifications for Influent Metering and Diversion Structure at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. I-8-3, for tonstruction of flood pr0vention wall along northerly property line of Treatment Plant No. 1 in an amount not to exce~.d $85, 000 __ ,. i ~' l -2- ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to receive, file and accept proposal submitted by John Ca rollo Engineers , dated September 22, 1 972, for engineering services in connection with preparation of Operation and Maintenance Manual for Activated Sludge Facilities at r1ant No . 1, on a per diem fee basis, not -to exceed $26 ,500. See page "G" ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion approving Addendum No. 1 to the plan s and specifications for Additional Secondary Treatment at Rec lamation Plant No . 1, Job No. Pl-9 -1, and Increased Water Reuse Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. J-4-1 ·. See page . "H" ( ~ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to receive and file certification ·of the Assistant General Manager that he has checked all bills appearing on the age nda, found them to be in order, and ~ that he recommends authorization for payment (}AD ALL DISTRICTS /' Consideration of roll call vote motion approving Joint Operating and Capital Outlay Revolving warrant books for signature of the Chairman of District No . 1, and authorizing payment of claims l isted on page "A" / 9) ALL DISTRICTS I I: ~ · Other b~s fidµess and "'comm nic~tions, if any ,, · ,(./) .. ,c,, -h:> fl.Pu.-" \,(~ /\.f (!. /J 1'-\1 ' (Iv }j;...v' ~(I.Ar v\°'3--rf cJ l,/•/\.V r ISTRICT 1 l Consideration of Resolution No . 72 -1 30 -1, accepting New Siphon, Greenville -Sullivan Trunk, Contract No. 1-13, as complete and authoriz ing execut ion of a Notice ~f Completion. Se e page "I" f?x<· DISTRICT 1 . . ~~, Consideration of Resolution No . 72~131-1,. to receive and file bid tabul ation and rec omme ndation, a nd awarding contract for Additional Secondary Treatment at Reclamation Plant No . 1 , Job No. Pl -9 -1,to James E . Hoagland Company and Hoagland Engineering Company (a Joint Venture), in the amount of $786 ,300 . See page "J " DISTRICT 1 Consideration of Resolution No. 72 -132-1, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding c ontract for Increased Water Reuse Facilities at Plant No . 2, Job No . J-4 -1, to F . T . Ziebarth Company and Ziebarth & Alper, J .V., in the amount of $611 ,000. See page "K" .· (~~DISTRICTS 1 & 7 ~J Consideratio n of motion appr oving suspense fund warrants, if any. See page "C" C?)t'Y--DISTRICT 1 /' Consideration of motion approving warrants , if any . See page "B" ~) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications, if any ~D I STRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn t;·,")6 -3- . . (27) DISTRICTS 2 & 3 Ve~bal report of Special Committees on Connection Fee Policy '\ f .J· · : , '\i\ Vltvr t·V ·~-( · ..i )'\o l \,t(\,\ (28) DISTRICT 2 ~ ,,. ,,"',~.\ .... 31~ vv{ ~~}y{» 1{.~-1< Consideration of agreement with Anaheim Hills, Inc. and Texaco Ventures, Inc. providing for payment of annexation fees in five equal annual installments for approximately 1,025 acres of territory (Proposed Annexation No. 6 - Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1) ~Consideration of motion to receive and f'ile - "'" ,~ 'b!> j ~,o?? ~ &.o~' { ,.,Ol•f.. / a>.5'J../Z letter from Anaheim Hills, Inc., dated October 6, · 1972, relative to proposed agreement ·for deferral 1t;)£J of payment of annexation fees. See page / "L" /~ ~8~ ":9'" · ~ Consideration of Resolution No. 72-133-2, authorizing i 9¥l execution of agreement with Anaheim Hills, Inc. and ~~11 Texaco Ventures, Inc. providing for payment of ..fl,{Ju annexation fees for proposed Annexation No. 6 -Anaheim ~,fl( Hills Annexation No. 1 in five/,;:qual annual installments ::;::::::::. and providing for payment of ~% interest per annum on the unpaid balance. See page "M" ( 29) DISTRICT 2 le; '•t~l /J.f P. ··r< Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "B" (30) DISTRICT 2 Other business and communications, if any ( 31) DISTRICT 2 / Consideration of motion to adjourn q~~"7 <12-r / /3) ~/ (36) (38) / .DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to receive, file and accept prop.osal submitted by Boyle Eng~neering, dated October 5, 1972, for engineering services in connection with Additions to Seal Beach Boulevard Pumping Station, Contract No. 3-12-1, for a lump sum fee of $6,ooo. See page "N" DISTRICTS 3 & 11 Consideration of motion approving suspense fund warrants, if any. See page "B" DISTRICT 3 Consideration bf motion approving warrants, if any. See page "B" DISTRICT 3 Other business and communications, if any DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn DISTRICTS 5 & 6 Consideration of motion approving suspense fund warrants, if any. See page "B" DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "B" -4- (39) DISTRICT 5 Other b¥siness and communications, if any (40) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn (ln) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "C" (42) DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications, if any (43) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn (44) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of Resolution No. 72-134-7, authorizing acceptance of Grant of Easement from the City of Santa Ana, for a permanent easement relative to construction of West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 and 22, Contract No. 7-5-lR, at no cost to the District, as recommended by the General Counsel. See page "O" (45) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of Resolution No. 72-135-7, authorizing acceptance of Grant of Easement from H. J. Mabury Company, for a permanent easement relative to construction of West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 and 22, Contract No. 7-5-lR; and authorizing execution of agreement providing for payment for said easement in an amount equivalent to the front foot connection charge as provided in the connection charge ordinance in effect when, and if, connections are made, as recommended by the General Counsel. See page "P" (46) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "C" (47) DISTRICT 7 (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) Other business and communications, if any DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn to October 29, 8:t 5:00 p.m. re Assessment District No. 9 q·~~I DISTRICT 8 Other business and communications, if any DISTRICT 8 Consideration of motion to adjourn DISTRICT 11 1972, Consideration of Resolution No. 72-136-11, authorizing acceptance of Grant of Easement from Southern California Edison Company, for a permanent easement in connection with relocation of Newland Avenue Pumping Station Force Main, at no cost to the District. See page "Q" DISTRICT 11 Consideration of Resolution· No. 72-137-11, authorizing execution of a Quitclaim Deed for portions of existing District easement to Southern California Edison Company relative to relocation of Newland Avenue Pumping Station Force Main, after completion and acceptance of said relocatio,1 by the Edison Company. See page "R" -5- (53) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "C" (54) DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications, if any (55) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn i . -6- AGENDA October 11, 1972 ( 1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation ( 2) Roll Call ( 3) Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary ( 4) Approval of minutes ( 5) ALL DISTRICTS Report of Joint Chairman ( 6) ALL DISTRICTS Report of General Manager ( 7) ALL DISTRICTS Report of General Counsel ( 8) ALL DISTRICTS R & F Executive Committee Report ( 9) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of action on items recommended by Executive Committee: (a) Consideration of resolution opposing Watson Initiative~-~-~ (b) Consideration of motion authorizing increase in fee of Richard Terry & Associates for preparation of. 1972-73 .'.J.Jv,~ Environmental Impact Assessment from $8, 500 to $12, 000 ~-,~•t.'12· (c) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to advertise for bida to lease approximately two acres of District interplant right of way (d) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to proceed with physical-chemical treatment experimental wor!c for an amount not to exceed $78, 000 ~t.\... ~'"'-,'t" ~ (10) ALL DISTRICTS ( \ \ ) \~(U) Consideration of motion to convene in executive session to consider personnel matters ~t.("<'<'-v-Q.'''-L :.. •• -)\~~~' b.L~·~i__,..,,...,, ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of action on items considered in executive session (<fr~\'·"'-· ·t ~"' \ ALL DISTRICTS Report of &peei-a±---C--ommittee GB-S-t"ate Board Re Hearing ALL DISTRICTS Report of Special Flood Prevention Committee (a) R & F resolutions from cities requesting Board of Supervisors to improve portions of Santa Ana River to mitigate the potential inundation of Treatment Plants Nos. 1 and 2 (b) Report on action taken by Board of Supervisors pursuant to Districts' Resolution No. 72-127 requesting improvements to portions of Santa Ana River to mitigate the potential inundation of Treatment Plants Nos. 1 and 2 (c) Staff report on estimated cost and scheduling of construction of flood prevention wall along northerly property line of Treatment Plant No. 1 to protect facilities from inundation (d) Consideration of motion authorizing General Manager to issue a change order to ~tePplant Influent Iutercepto!", Job No. I-8-3, for construction of flood prevention wall along northerly property line of Treatment Pla~t No .. 1 G in an amount not to e~ceed. $_6.0, oop -~~-·b-1 ... ~'\N..'--'t.~'C\ ~~,"-~""-'<~.-_: .l\"t.~1...t.itY-~ o>v ~t).OL•N-c:0:-"-o.r-'-10~,,.J.r .,._c:. · \ · \ J 1S-("i-4-) ALL DISTRICTS . John Carollo proposal re preparation of Operation & Maintenance Manual for Activated Sludge Facilities at Plant No. 1, Pl-16-?~'~ )~(l:S.) ALL DISTRICTS ( Addendum No. 1 to Pl-9-1 and J-4-1 -~~ .. ~--- RIC TS rova of ant No. (17) ALL DISTRICTS R & F certification of General Manager (18) ALL DISTRICTS at Roll call vote motion approving JO & CORF warrant books (19) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications (20) DISTRICT 1 Accepting Contract No 1-13 a.s complete as of 10/6/72 \.\ . .Q...1", ------ (21) DISTRICT 1 Award of Pl-~-1 (22) DISTRICT 1 Award of J-4-1 (23) DISTRICTS 1 & 7 Approving suspense fund warrants (24) DISTRICT 1 Approving warrants (25) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications (26) DISTRICT 1 Adjournment (27) DISTRICTS 2 & 3 Verbal report of Special Committees on Connection Fee Policy ( 28) DISTRICT 2 Anaheim Hills agreement (/.() f}..1--Q./· ------- (29) DISTRICT 2 Approving warrants (30) DISTRICT 2 Other business and communications ( 31) DISTRICT 2 Adjournment (32) DISTRICT 3 Consider2 ~-ion of proposal of BoyL Engineering for engir.ee,'ing services re increasing capacity of Seal Be~ch Blvd. Pump Station, Contract 3-12-1 ~ --:~-· ,· i, .. -'- fL ( 3 3 )\ D I~TR I~ , ---.____ ---- Q Balsa Chi'c-a Road An-ne)~'illl, Annexatj __ or. No. 3 (?) '-"' .')~(~ ') ?l.\~ . -,5(~) 7({·(3-7-) ?'\ (-4Q} 3itltN ~,-ti-421 yo(~ Yl flt-4..l ~Z-(~ '1 ('%__) ') DISTRICTS 3 & 11 Approving suspense DISTRICT 3 Approving warrants DISTRICT 3 Other business and DISTRICT 3 Adjournment DISTRICTS 5 & 6 Approving suspense DISTRICT 5 Approving warrants DISTRICT 5 Other business and DISTRICT 5 Adjournment· DISTRICT 6 Approving warrants DISTRICT 6 Other business and DISTRICT 6 Adjournment DISTRICT 7 Acoepting easement "-'-~··· • .. •.~Uc~ DISTRIC.T 7 Accepting easement fund warrants communications fund warrants communications communications . r, ~6 from Santa Ana re Contract 7-5-lR ~ ---·· .\\-·~· e_0. from Mabury re Contract 7-5-lR ru..~ ------- xxx~xx~X~X'RX~~xx ~~~~1M~rxtt~Mx~:rxro~xt~MXX»t~~r1~1~:gx:r~1~»r~1ro~~xx~rxi~~2x~~ X~XXN~tlMXWXX*rXW~~X~X!M~Xr*~X!~~xx~xE!mxrx~l~~!* ~~ ('4-9-} DISTRICT 7 Approving warrants ·-t 11l (-§.OJ_ DISTRICT 7 Other business and communications l{'b t-51+ DISTRICT 7 Adjournment to 10/24/72 at 5:00 p.m. re Assessment District No. 9 DISTRICT 8 Other business and communications DISTRICT 8 Ad~i ournment ~\ (-§.1.ll DISTRICT 11 A~rnc;,~.i}i%~-·~,~--:.:,P~~1:~~: .,~r easement from Edison Company \·,1 ~ t;z,tss-t DISTRICT 11 o Authoriz2..ng execution of qui tclair'.1 deed to Edison Company R~,;;, ----· -3- ... DISTRICT 11 Approving warrants :,~l~~ DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications DISTRICT 11 Adjournment -·4- J MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, October 11, 1972 7 :30 p .m. Post Office Box 8127 l 0844 Ellis Avenue Fountain· Volley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 962-24 11 October 6, 1972 The following is a b ri ef exp l anation of the more important non- routine items which appear on the enclosed agenda and which are not otherwise self-explanatory. Ha rrant lists are not a tt ac hed to the agenda since they a r e ~ade up immediately preceding the meeting but will appear in the comp lete agenda available at the meeting . Joint Boards Nos . 9 through 12.-REPORT OF EXEC UTIVE CO:MMITTEE AND ACTIONS ON COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS : The Committee met on the evening of September 26, with Directors Lacayo and Sales as guests . A written report of this meeting, togethe r with the recommendati ons to the Joint Boards was mailed on Oc tob er 3 . I tem No . 9 is consideration of actions recom,~ended by the Committee to the Joint Boards and Item No . 12 is conside r ation of the emp loyment of a labor relations con- sultant as described in Item 2 of the Committee 's report . No. 13 -REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON STATE BO.l\.RD OCEAN POLICY : Since the September Joint Board meeting, new developments have occurre d concerning this policy and the Committ ee met on October 4 to con s ider them . Chairman Finnell will have a verba l repor t for the Joint Boa r ds . No. l l~ -REPORT OF SPECIAL FLOOD PREVENTION COMMITTEE : As directed by the Boards a t the September meeting , a re so lution was prepared and submitted to t he Board of Supervisors asking that the l evees of the Santa Ana Rive r be strengthened in the reach between 1 7th Street and the San Diego Freeway . The Sup e r visors are scheduled to consider this resolution on October 10 and it is a nticipated that Chairman Just of the Committee will report on the Board of Supervisors 1 act ions in connection with thi s matter . As directed, our engineering staff has been studying the construction of a flood protection wall a long the northerly p roperty line of Treatment Plant ~lo. 1 and has concluded that it will be feasible a n d beneficial . The engineering staff wi ll r eport on this matte r and desc ri be the wall proposed . Sub -item (d) of this item wo u ld a u thorize us to issue a change order to a curr ent. Plant No . 1 -construction job for construction of this wall as soon as p ossible in an amount not to exceed $85,000 . Members of our staff have dis- cussed this change order with the staffs of the State Wate r Resources Control Board and the Environmental Protec tion Agency who have indi- cated that this change order will be approved, thus making it elig i b le for 80 % State and Federal funding. No. 15 -PROPOSAL FOR PREPARATION OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE FACILITIES AT PLANT NO . 1: As a condi ti.on to approval of plans and specifications prior t o receiving State and Federal grants on thi s project, a detailed and comprehensive operation and maintenance manual must be submitted. The Directors will recall that John Carollo Enginee rs were employed to design the activated sludge facilities and the design work will place th~m in an excellent position to prepare the required manual simultaneously . We there fo re have solicited a proposal from the engineers (copy included in the agenda material) and we recommend that it be accepted for a total fee not to exceed $26 ,500. No. 16 -ADDENDUM NO . 1 TO PLANT JOBS NOS . Pl-9-1 AND J -4 -1: Bids for these two jobs were taken on September 26 . During the course of bidding, it was nece ssary to prepare an addendum incorporating certain technical changes. Since both jobs were bid under a s ingle set of plans and specifications, the addendum r e lates to both jobs . We r ecommend its approval prior to award (Items No s. 2 1 and 22). District No. 1 No. 20 -COMPLETION OF CONTRACT NO . 1-13 : This small contract, a new siphon on the Greenville Trunk a t Wa rner Avenue, was successfully completed this week by ·the contractor . Accordingly, we recommend adoption of the customary r es olution accepting the job as comp l ete and authorizing the filing of a Notice of Completion. Nos. 21· and 22 -AWARD OF PLANT JOBS NOS Pl-9 -1 AND J -4 -1: As stated under I tem No . 20, bids for these two plant jobs, which have been p r eviously described in earlier agenda r ep orts, were op e n ed on September 26 . A total of seven bids were received and as can be seen from the b i d tabulations, included with the agenda material> they both exceeded the engineer's estimate . Howev e r, it is obvious that the bids were realistic and the engineers and staff a r e r e commending that Joo No. Pl -9 -1 be awarded to James E . Hoagland and Hoagland Engineering Co ., A Joint Venture, and Job No . J-4 -1 to F . T . Ziebarth Co., and Ziebarth & Alper, J .V. It will be noted that on Job No . J-4-1 (Item No . 22) the contractor who wa s l ow submi t ted a q u a lified bid in that he filed an exception, re f using to take this contract unless awarded the contract fo r Pl-9 -1 also . On a dvice of Coun se l, we are r ecomme nding award to the second low bidder . Districts Nos . 2 and 3 ~o. 27 -RE PORT OF SPECIAL CO MM ITTEES ON CONNECTION FEE POLICY : The Special Commlttees in each District met jointly on September 28 fo r a very comprehensive discussion on the prob l ems conne ct ed with the esta- blishment of a uniform connection cha r ge in both Dist ricts . It is anticipated that the respective chairmen, Directors Smith and Culver, -2 - -will wish to give the Boards a brief verbal report of progress to date. District No. 2 No. 28 -ANNEXATION NO. 6 (AHANEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 1): The Directors will recall that this 1,025 acre annexation was approved several mo nths ago subject to certain conditions, one of which is the execution of an · agreement for deferred payment of annexation fees. Included in the a g enda material i s a letter from the annexation pro- ponents with respect to the interest to be paid on these deferred payments. If the Board makes a decision on the amount of interest to be charge d,_ approval of the agreement, which has be en app roved as to form by the General Counsel, will b e in order. District No. 3 No. 32 -PROPOSAL FO R ENG INE ER ING SERVI CES FOR INCREASI NG CAPACITY OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD PlWi.PI NG STATION : Rapidly increasing flows to this station, t o get her with the app roved discharge to it from t he City of Seal Beac h, which is expected to commence next year, makes it imperative that the pumping capacity of this station be increased. We have solicited a proposal from the Dis trict's e n gineers, Boyle Engineering , for design services for this project. A l etter from the eng ineers describing the work to be done a nd proposing a lump sum fee of $6,ooo f or the work is include d i n the agenda material~ We r e com- mend a cceptance of the pjoposal . The total estimated construction cost for this budg eted project is $85,000. Dist1~ict No. 7 Nos . l.~4 and 4 5 -ACCE PTANCE OF EASEMENTS FOR CO NTRA CT NO . 7·-5-l R : The Di rectors rec e ntly authorized the General Counsel to file court actions fo r immedi ate possession of the necess a ry easements fo r this project, West Re lief Trunk Sewe r. One parcel is owned by t h e City of Santa Ana (Item No . 44), an easement over which is bein g g r anted a t no cost to the District . Acquisition of ·anothe r p a rcel throug h the Mabury Ranch has been n egotiated with the landowner . Th e ease - ment a g reement will stipulate that the District will pay t o t h e H. J. Mabury Company a n amount equivalent to the fu tur e f ront foot connection charges wh e n, and i f , c onnect ions are made . This sum is estimate·d not to e xc eed $1 9 , 000, which is much l ess than would h a ve to be paid unde r condemna tion proceeding s . No. 48 -AD JOURNMENT TO 5:00 P .M., OCTOBER 2 4: Assessment District No . 9 i s now comp l e t ed a nd a public he a ring on confirming assess - ment s is required. we recomme nd that the Board adj ourn to the ab ove hour and date for this h earing , notic es for which h ave a lready been mailed. District No. 11 Nos. 51 a nd 52 -EXCHANG E OF EASEMENTS WITH TH E EDISON COMPANY: Expansion of oil storage facilities at the Edison Company steam generation station required the r e location of a n ow inact ive Dist~ic t -3- 1 • --. force main. A portion of the original force main was constructed in an easement over Edison property where the new tanks were built . Accordingly, it is necessary for the District to accept a new easement for the relocated alignment and the execution of a quitclaim deed from the District to the Company for the former loc at ion of the facility . In accordance with our agreement with the Edison Company for this relocation, the construction work and new easement·will be at no cost to the District . -4- Fred A. Harper General Manager Chairman Finnell Report of the Joint Chairman Call meeting of the Executive Committee for 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 25th~ Invite Directors Green and Kymla, or Directors Gand-~~ The meeting has been shifted from Tuesday to Wednesday because of the holiday on the 23rd, and possibly some of the members will be attending delayed council meetings on the 24th. It appears that Directors Davis, Mcinnis, and Don Smith will have conflict. Chairman Finnell Report of the Joint Chairman Call meeting of the Executive Committee for 5:30 p .m ., Wednesday, October 25th~ Invite Directors Green and Kymla, or Directors Long and Nevil. The meeting has been shifted from Tuesday to Wednesday because of the holiday on the 23rd, and possibly some of the members will be attending delayed council meetings on the 24th . It appears that Directors Davis, Mcinnis, and Don Smith will have conflict. October 11, 1972 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Joint Chairman Finnell and Director Just SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 14(a) We have received resolutions from the following cities supporting_ the Districts request to the Board of Supervisors (Districts' Resolution No. 72-127) to improve portions of the Santa Ana River to mitigate the potential inundation of Districts' treatment facilities in the event of flooding: JWS:rb Orange Santa Ana Buena· Park Fullerton (Council took action endorsing the Districts' resolution.) J. Wayne Sylvester Secretary of the Boards of Directors October 11, 1972 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Joint Chairman Finnell SUBJECT: Agenda Items Nos. 10 & 11 If the Joint Boards concur with the Executive Committee's recommendation that the staff conduct the meet and confer sessions with the Orange County Employees Association, and approve employment of Jerry Patterson as Special Labor Counsel, the following motion should be adopted after the Boards reconvene: JWS:rb That the staff be directed to conduct meet and confer sessions with representatives of the Orange County Employees Association in connection with personnel matters; an~ that the staff be further authorized, if deemed necessary, to employ Jerry M. Patterson, Attorney at Law, as Special Labor Counsel for a total amount not to exceed $1,000 for the period October 1, 1972 through September 30, 1973, at a basic fee of $50 per hour, or $150 per half day, or $250 per day, whichever is the lesser. J. Wayne Sylvester Secretary of the Boards of Directors cc: Vice Chairman Davis MEETING DA TE Qct obe r 11, 197 2 TIME 7:3 0 o .m . DI S TR ICTS 1 ,2 .3 .5 .6 ,7 .8 & 11 DIST R ICT 1 ?H ERR IN)····· -.CASPERS) •••• (WELSH) •••••• DISTRICT 2 (PEREZ) ...... C'LJ(NGER) ••••• (KOWALSKI) •• • !GR I SET) ••••• HOLLIND~N) •• ROBERTS)···· (CASPERS) •••• (RE I NHARDT) •• (DUTTON) ••••• (CASTRO) ••••• (POTTER) ••••• DISTRICT 3 l,U~V'w ~~- ACTI'IE DIRECTORS ~ ,..,, 7<.-""- GR IS ET····· ~ _:i_ -- BATTIN •••.• ~ -__ MILLER..... ~ :y=: __ PORTER . • • • • ~ ~ __ SMITH.····· ~ 1-_ __ CULVER····· ___.,,_:::::::_ ~ FINNELL •••• ~ ~ ==== FOX········ ~-+---- HERRIN .····· ~ J.:L_ -- JUST •• • • • • • ~ _x__ -- NEV IL······ ~ _r_ -- PHILLIPS ••• ~ ~ -- ROOT ••••••• -IL:_ _L_ -- STEPHENSON. _.L _1_ __ WEDAA •••••• ---l..C.. --=--- WINN ....... ~--=----- CULVER ••••• ~ -, __ (CASPERS) .••• BATTIN ••••• ~ ---v-__ !HINES) ...... DAVIS...... v ---!.--__ KOWAl-S KI) ••• FOX • • • • • • • • ___L_ _:J_ __ COEN) •••••.• GREEN . • • • • • ~ _y_ __ (GRISET) •.•• · HERRIN·····--~__µ__ -- (FRANKIEWICH). LACAYO····· ~ _E:__ -- (NUIJE NS) •••• LEvns...... ~ _:f._ -- (MILLER) ..... LmJG....... v ..-X-__ MC WHINNEY ·---~ --t.---- (REINHARDT) •• ROOT ••••... .:.__L _i_ __ (BLACKMAN) •••• SALES •••. -:. ~ _y __ _ (HOLLINPEN) ... S COTT...... Z J_ __ (DUTTON) .••••• STEPHENSON. ~ ,,...r__ __ (ROBERTS) .•••• STEVENS ..•• ~ __:L___Y __ _ (BYRNE) ••••••• VANDERWAAL • ____lL _0 __ _ DISTRICT 5 iCROUL) •••••.• MC I INNIS ••• ~ ± -- BA KER) .•••••• GAs -pie~·S •••• ----- MC I NNIS).". • • lffMLA • • • • • • (f)?' --.S::-__ -- DI STR l CT 6 PORTER • • • • • _lli_ ~ -- (PH I LL I PS)··· GASPERS···· ~ ~C . -_ (MC INNIS) • • • SWRf: · • • • · · ~ DISTRICT 7 I \ l..WELSH 1 •••••• MILLER ..... (CASPE RS) • • • • CL ARK······ (HERRIN)····· GR I SET····· PORTER ••••• iFISCHBACH) ••. QUIGLEY •••• MC INNIS) •••• ROGERS ••••• PEREZ) •••••• SM I TH .••••• D"r$TR I CT 11 (COEN) ... • ... GI BBS...... V _J___ --(CASP~RS) .•.• BAKER • • • • • • __L ~ -- (COEN) • • • • • • • DUKE • • • • • • • __h/---¥--- DISTRI CT 8 (J OHNSON). • • • • BOYD • • • • • • • / x't( -· - (CLARK) ••••••• -.GASP ERS • • · • _L -- MITCHELL··· ~ -- 9 /25/?2 JO I NT BOARDS ACTIVE DIRECT ORS LANG ER . . • • . • F I N N E LL • • • • • !./"' . CASPERS) •••• BAKER ••••••• --V--- CASPERS) •••. BATTIN •••••• ~ -- CASPERS ••.•• --0:::--- (CASPE RS) •••• CLARK. • • • • • • v -. - CUL VER • .. • • • • .../' === !HINES) ....... DAVIS....... / __ COEN) ........ DUKE........ / __ KOWAl-SKI ) •••• FOX • • • • • • • • • ~ (COEN) ........ GIBBS....... ~ -- ( C 0 EN ). • • • • • • • G R E E N • • • • • • • ,,,,___..--=== (HERR I N ). • • • • • GR I SET • • • • • • ~ __ (GR I SET) .••••• HERRIN •••••• ~ __ (HOLLI NDEN) ••• JUST •••.•••• -iL __ · (MC INN Is) .••• KYMLA ....... ~ -- (FRANKIE WICW · LACAYO······~ -- !NU I JENS) ..... LEWIS • .. • • • • !/"" -- MI LL.ER) ...... LONG ........ ----iL -- CROUL) ••••••• MC INNIS •••• ~ -- MC W H I N NEY • • _.i:::::::::_ -- (WELSH) ••••••• MILLER ••• •• • ~ -- (ROBERTS) ••••• NEV IL ••••••• ~ -- (CASPERS) ••.•• PHILLIPS •••• ~ -- PORTER ••• • • • ___&__ -- (FI SCHBACtJ) •.• QU IGLEY ••••• ~ __ (MC INNIS ) •••• ROG ERS·· ••• ·~ __ (RE I NHARDT ). • • ROOT · • • • • • • • ~ -- (BLACKMAN) · • • SA LES······· ~ -- (HOLL I NDEN). • • SCOTT • • •• • • • t/ -- (PEREZ) ....... SMITH .. • .... ~ -- (DUTTON) ..•.•• STEPHENSON •• _iL_ -- (ROBERTS) ••••• S!E ~E N S • • • · • __£ -- (MC INNIS) •••• S1 0R E .•.•••• ~ -- (BYRNE) •.••••• Vl\NDER\'>/AAL • • V' __ (CASTRO). • • • • • WEDAA • • • • • • • v -- (POTTER).····· WINN········~-- (JOHNSON) OTHERS * * * * * BOYD········ ---- MITCHELL···· ---- HARPER BROWN SYLVESTER LEWIS DUNN CLAR KE SIGLER NISSON TAYLOR BROWN BOETTNER CARLS ON FINSTER GALLO WAY HOH EN ER HOWARD HUNT KEITH LYNCH MADDO X MARTI NS ON MU RONEY PIE RSALL STE VENS KENNEY MEETI:~G DATE October 11, 1972 TIME 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS l,2,3,5,6,7,8 & 11 DI STR I c r 1 AcTrlE DIREcToRs . Jo I NT BOARDS AC'l 1IVE DIREcToRs ./ (HERRIN) • • • • • GR I SET····· _J_ fu __ \ ~LANGER)°) ••••• FINNELL ••••• ____ · (CASPERS) •••• BATTIN ••••• _v' ___ v. __ 1'l CASPERS •••• BAKER ••••••• _L._ __ (WELSH) •••••• MILLER ••••• _1 ___ J_ __ (CASPERS) •••• BATTIN •••••• _I __ _ PORTER ••••• _.ft:_ __fc:_ __ , ) CASPERS ••••• ~r __ \CASPERS •••• CLARK ••••••• CULVER •• ·•••• ../ == DISTRICT 2 (PEREZ) ••• • •• SMITH······ -7--~ ~ , __ CULVER··.·. ~ l1'\NGER) ••••• KO WA LS l< I) .•. GRISET) ••••• HOLLIND~N) •• ROBERTS) • • • • CASPERS) •••• REINHARDT) •• DUTTON) ••••• (CASTRO) ••••• (POTTER) ••••• DISTRICT 3 FINNELL.... ~ ~ == FOX • • • • • • • • " .J HERRIN····· ---5-~· == JUST ••••••• ~ ---- NEVIL······ ----"-L_ PHILLIPS ••• -"-__.!E.~-- ROOT • • • • • • • -"-_L_ __ STEPHENSON. ~ I ~EI DNANA • • • • • • ~ . i£t: ,, ...... . CULVER ••••• _.,,·-. ~-- (CASPERS) •••• BATTIN ••••• _\ii .. ___ r __ _ ~HINES) •• ) •••• DAVIS ••••.• ~ _../ __ _ KOWAl-S KI • • • FOX • • • • • • • • _j,/_ _ ... __ _ COEN) ••••••• GREEN •••••• -"-/ _ .. __ _ ! ) . ~ ~ GRISET • • • •• HERRIN····· --1~- FRANKI EWICH). LACAYO····· ~ ___E!"_'· - NU I JENS) •••• LE~ll S • • • • • • _t1_ --"'-__ MILLER) ••• • • LONG • • • • • • • --7---+ -- MC WHINNEY • ------,---~ ) ~ J REINHARDT •• ROOT ••••••• __ ---- BLACKMAN) •••• SALES •••••• -""'-' _:!_ __ (HOLLINPEN) •.. SCOTT .••••• __ v ~ __ ~DUTTON) •••••• STEPHENSON • ~ ( ___ _ ROBERTS) ••••• STEVENS •••• __.:£_j~ __ BYRNE) ••••••• VANDERWAAL. --L ~ __ DISTRICT 5 (CROUL) ••••••• MC INNIS ••• __:[_ -"--- (BAKER) ••••••• ~ •••• _:f_ _J_~- (1'4£::>1 ;a; IS). • • • KYM LA • • • • • • __£ ~ -- ~ H I NE S ). • • • • • • DAV I S • • • • • • • --7-__ C 0 EN ). • • • • • • • DUKE • • • • • • • • __ __ KOWAl-S KI) •••• FOX ••••••••• -"-__ ( C 0 E N ). • • • • • • • G I BB S • • • • • • • ./ -;-- \ (COEN) •••••••• GREEN ••• • • • • ~ -- t-> (HERR I N ). • • • • • GR I S ET • • • • • • --, -- (GR I SET) •••••• HERRIN •••••• -'II-, __ (HOLL I NDEN) ••• JUST •••••••• _v __ _ (MC INNIS). · • • KYML:'A"" • • • • • • • __k_ -- (FRANK I EW I CH)· LA CAY 0 • · • • • • __fl:_ --~NU I J ENS). • • • • LEW I S • • • • • • • --4L -- MILLER). • • • . • LONG •••••••• ---7 -- CROUL) ••••••• -t4C I Nbf IS •••• ---- MC WHINNEY •• _J_ -- (WELSH) ••••••• MILLER •••••• __::f_ -- (ROBERTS) ••••• NEV IL ••• • •• • ~ -- (CASPERS) ••••• P.Hi LLI P-S • • • • --. -- PORTER •••••• ____:!. -- (FI SCHBACtf ) ••• QUIGLEY • • • • • --./ -- (MC INNIS) •••• ROGERS • • • • • • __l_ __ (RE I NHARDT ). • • ROOT • • • • • • • • __ .1 -- (BLACKMAN) • • • SALES • • • • • • • __L -- (HOLL I NDEN ). • • SCOTT • • • • • • • _.1_. -- (PEREZ) ••••••. SM I TH • · •• • ••• __ ..; -- (DUTTON) •••••. STEPHENSON •• _.,,_ -- (ROBERTS) ••••• STEVENS ••••• _J_ -- (MC INNIS) •••• STORE ••••••• _fE._ -- (BYRNE) ••••••• VANDER\'./AAL •• _ _J_ -- (CASTRO).····· WEDAA • • • • • • • ----7 -- (POTTER).····· WiNN • • • • • • • • ---- * * * * * (JOHNSON) BOYD········ ---- MITCHELL···· ---- OTHERS D lSTR I CT 6 PORTER • • • • • (PHILLIPS)··· €ASPeKS • • • • ~. . (), , R ~ ~-+----\ \j)o ... t. ~-t q ("u,~ l HARPER BROWN SYLVESTER LEWIS (MC I N N I S ) • • • STORE • • • • • • ·I ~· t1. ~ -.,;-· " --11 !~, ' ------'.jlt DISTRICT 7 (WELSH) •••••• MILLER····· (CA S PERS ) • • • • CLAR K • • • • • • (HERRIN)····· GR I SET····· PORTER ••• • • (FISCHBACtf) ••• QUIGLEY •••• (MC INNIS) •••• ROGERS ••••• (PEREZ) •••••• SMITH •••••• D~fRICT 11 ~ J ----;----r --, __ ./ ---r -- --. --i--~~-- v J -;;--.,-. --./ ~== (coEN) .••.•.. GIBBS • • • • • • .I -"'---~ ) -v'-J CASP~RS • • • • BAKER • • ·J~· • --"T --y--- COEN) ••••••• DUKE • • • J~ • v DISTRICT' 8 CJOH:~SQN ) ••••• BOYD • • • • • • • _.;_, ---- (CLARK) ••••••• -G,A.SPe~ • • • • _:J_ ---- MITCHELL • • • _..!&_ ---- 9/2.S/?2 ,..... ' _,, ! ' .. ~t· . ' ...)1'.' '' '"iii. ,I DUNN CLARKE SIGLER NISSON l TAYLOR BROYIN BOETTNER CARLSON FINSTER GALLOWAY HOH EN ER HOWARD HUNT KEITH LYNCH MADDOX MARTINSON MURO NEY PIERSALL STEVENS KENNEY _v_, -\/'- RESOLUTIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -~ October 11, 1972 -7:30 p.m. . . WARRANT NO. 18828 18829 18830 18831 . '"'832 ~833 18834 18835 18836 18837 18838 18839 18840 18841 18842 18843 18844 18845 18846 18847 18848 18849 18850 18851 18852 18853 18854 18855 18856 18857 18858 18859 18860 18861 18862 18863 18864 18865 18866 18867 18868 18869 18870 18871 18872 18873 18874 18875 18876 18877 18878 18879 18880 "'"'q81 ~82 18883 18884 18885 18886 18887 18888 18889 JOINT OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT All Bearing Service, Inc., Bearings, Couplings $ 228.90 The Allen Company, Pump Parts 148.85 American Compressor Company, Compressor Parts 1,046.84 Arnot Controls, Valves 36.94 The Anchor Packing Company, Tape, Gaskets 61.16 Apco Supply, Electrical Supplies, Thermostats 151.23 Appliance Refinishing Co., Equipment Refinishing 685.00 Atomic Absorption Newsletter, Technical Manual 7.50 Azusa Western, Concrete 553.35 Baker Plywood Company, Inc., Building Materials 56.0l Bearing Specialty Company, Bearings, Seals 1,159.91 Bell Pipe & Supply Co., Pump, Valves 206.35 Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Janitorial Supplies 40.95 Bomar Magneto Service, Inc., Magneto Repair 202 .44 Bristol Parle Medical Group, Inc., Pre-employment Exams 25.00 H.B. Brown Co., Boiler Parts 121.72 Brown's Mobile Home Movers, Move Inspector's Trailer 150.00 Butler Compressor & Spray Equipment Co., Equipment Repair 55.41 C & R Reconditioning Co., Engine Repair 175.00 C .s. Company, Valves 52. 72 Cal-State Seal Company, Gaskets, Seal Material 201.12 California Auto Collision, Inc., Truck Repairs 501.24 California Collator Sales, Reproduction Supplies 28.35 California Hardware Company, Hardware 163.38 California Motor Express Ltd., Freight 10.55 State of California, Safety Manuals 21.0Q Cardinal Industrial Finishes, Paint Supplies 25.73 R.B. Clapp Co., Inc., Electrical Supplies ·126.64 College Lumber Company, Inc., Building Materials 898.02 Consolidated Electrical Distr., Electrical Supplies 1,165.02 Constructors 3upply Company, Line Cleaning Supplies 437.64 Control Specialists, Inc., Regulators 80.61 Paul A. Cooper, Grit Removal 1,320.00 Costa Mesa Auto Parts, Inc., Truck Parts 577.00 County Sanitation District No. 2 of L.A. County, Disposal Fee 46.94 Clarence S. Cummings, Employee Mileage 24.06 D & C Concrete Pumping Service, Concrete Pumping 40.00 Daniels Tire Service, Tire Repair, Tools 56.71 De Guelle & Sons Glass Co., Equipment Repair 20.94 Diamond Core Drilling Co., Core Drilling 115.00 Die.sel Control Corp., Governor Parts 209.09 Wilber R. Eads, Employee Mileage 5 .10 Eastman, Inc., Office Supplies 129. 7'1 Electric Supplies Distributing Co., Electrical Supplies 225.04 Elliott Company, Compressor Parts 495.60 Enchanter, Inc., Ocean Research & Monitoring (MO 12-14-66) 2,355.00 Ensign Products Co., Metal Preserver 169.15 Enterprise Printing Company, Printing 101.01 Environmental Surveys, Inc., Ecological Research 50.00 Farr.company, Filters 96.52 Fire Safety Industries, Safety Equipment, Fire Extinguishers 96.76 Fischer & Porter Co., Telemetering Supplies 1,468.67 Fisher Controls Company, Regulator Parts, Freight 128.56 Foss Company, Foam System 42.00 Fowler Equipment Inc., Equipment Rental 249.00 William Fox, Employee Mileage 18.00 Edward R. Francis, Reimburse Travel Expense 161.94 Freeway Machine & Welding Shop, Machining 228.00 City of Fullerton, Water J~. 75 Garden Grove Lumber & Cement Co., Building Materials 82.43 General Binding Corp., Maintenance Agreement 119.50 General Te:.,~phcne Company 1, 930 .68 A-1 WARRANT NO. 18890 18891 18892 18893 18894. 18895 1896 ~897 18898 18899 18900 18901 18902 18903 18904 18905 18906 18907 18908 18909 18910 18911 18912 18913 18914 18915 18916 18917 18918 18919 18920 18921 18922 18923 18924 28925 18926 18927 18928 18929 18930 , 18931 18932 18933 18934 18935 18936 18937 18938 18939 18940 18941 18942 18943 18944 J ("\1 45 ~46 18947 18948 18949 18950 18951 18952 18953 IN FAVOR OF Georgia Pacific Corp., Chlorine $ W.W. Grainger, Inc., Electrical Supplies Diann Gray, EmplGyee Mileage Graybar Electric Company, Electrical Supplies Fred A. Harper, Various Mtg. & COD Expense Fred A. Harper, WPCF Conference Expense (MO 8-9-72) Haul-Away Containers, Trash Disposal C. Hayes, Employee Mileage Howard Supply Company, Rope, Hose City of Huntington Beach, Water Huntington Beach Equipment Rental, Equipment Rental Industrial Water Conditioning, Lab Water Inland Nut & Bolt Company, Hardware Jessop Steel of California, Steel Plate Kar Products, Inc., Hardware Keenan Pipe & Supply Co., Pipe Supplies King Bearing, Inc., Bearings, Bushings, Belts, Seals Kleen Line Corp., Janitorial Supplies Knox Industrial Supplies, Hardware LBWS, Inc., Welding Supplies, Equipment Repair, Hardware L & N Uniform Supply Co., Uniform Service {Two mo~ths) Lacal Company, Inc., Pump Packing Lanco Engine Services, Sweeper Parts Larry's Bldg. Materials, Inc., Building Materials Judy Lee, Employee Mileage Ray E. Lewis, Reimburse Travel Expense Lewis Bros. Battery, Batteries Lodi Truck Service, Delivery Charges (MO 9-13-72) Mc Coy Ford, Truck Parts Mc Master-Carr Supply, Hardware, Tools Majestic Fasteners Company, Hardware Marine Biological Consultants, Inc., Ecological Research (MO 7-12-72) . . Mesa Supply, Engine Parts Mobil Oil Corp., Grease Monroe Division, ~~intenance Agreement NCR Systemedia Division, Forms Nakase Brothers, Refund Deposit- National. Chemsearch Corp., Cleaner National Lumber & Supply Inc., Building Materials City of Newport Beach, Water C. Arthur Nisson, Gen'l. Counsel Retainer, Legal Services Oakite Products, Inc., Cleaner City of Orange, Water Orange County Radiotelephone Service Pacific Telephone Company Parker Supply Company, Gauges John J. Phillips, Employee Mileage Plastic Industries, Inc., Lab Supplies Pneumatic Machinery Co., Compressor Parts Postmaster, Postage Lee Potter Co., Inc., Maintenance Supplies Douglas E. Preble, Employee Mileage The Purdy Company, Rail Rainbow Disposal Co., Trash Disposal Harry F. Richards, Employee Mileage Roseburrough Tool, Inc., Tools Routh Transoortation, Oil Removal Santa Ana Blue Print Co., Printing, Drafting Supplies Santa Ana Electric Motors, Motor Rewind & Repair Santa Ana Electronics Company, Electrical Supplies Sargent-Welch Scientific Co., Lab & Operating Supplies Schick Moving & Storage Co., Moving Expense Scott Refri~eration Service, Inc., Equipment Repair City of Seal Beach, Water A,-2 AMOUNT 2,517.23 98.23 13.80 151.43 197-77 160.00 105.00 6.oo 180.43 7.42 307.72 40.00 192.88 46.20 90.26 335.11 736.62 496.35 49.91 989.23 3,617.14 452. 59 205.39 15.40 17.70 23.10 69.14 1,387.75 21+. 33 34.91 131.09 2,203.29 83.16 37.49 55.00 61.45 250.00 456 .24 74.58 15.35 902.50 99.91 10.87 74 .19 . 397.27 55.13 97.02 49.67 379.32 80D.OO 82.52 48.66 51.98 360.00 15.00 26.15 . 255. 70 112.01 531.51 9.66 470.01 184.25 88.20 27.87 WARRANT NO. 18954 18955 18956 18957 18958 18959 360 ~961 18962 18963 18964 18965 18966 18967 18968 18969 18970 18971 18972 18973 18974 18975 18976 18977 18978 18979 18980 18981 18982 18983 18984 18985 18986 18987 i8988 18989 18990 18991 18992 18993 18994 18995 18996 18997 18998 18999 19000 ')01 ~~02 19003 19004 19005 19006 19007 IN FAVOR OF S. F. Serrantino, Employee Mileage The Sherwin-Williams Co., Paint Supplies A.H. Shipkey, Inc., Truck Tires John Sigler, Employee Mileage AMOUNT 12.00 331.11 122 • 5r{ 14.10 102.85 68.25 25,291.39 1,059.77 Singer Business Machines, Postage Meter Rental, Mtce. Agrmt. Smith Bros. Co., Iron Southern Calif. Edison Southern Calif. Gas Co. Southern Calif. Water Co. Sparkletts Drinking Water Corp., Bottled Water Speed-E Auto Parts, Truck Parts Standard Oil Company of Calif., Gasoline & Oil State Compensation Insurance Fund, Insurance Premium Superior Upholstering, Repair Chairs Bruce Taylor, Employee Mileage 39 Stake & Building Supplies, Construction Stakes Thomas Bros. Maps, Atlas c.o. Thompson Petroleum Co., Kerosene Tony's Lock & Safe Service, Hardware Triangle Steel & Supply Co., Steel Tripace Engineering Sales Co., Gauges J.G. Tucker & Son, Inc., Safety Equipment Tustin Water Works, Water Harry L. Twining, Employee Mileage Union Oil Company of Calif., Gasoline Ultrasystems, Inc., E.I.S. Course Vaniman Camera, Photo Processing & Supplies John R. Waples, Odor Consultant Warren & Bailey Company, Inc., Hardware Waukesha Engine Servicenter, Inc., Engine Parts Robert Webber, Employee Mileage Russ Wold, Employee Mileage {Two months) World Travel Bureau, Inc., Meeting Travel Expense Donald J. Wright, Employee Mileage John M. Wright, Employee Mileage Xerox Corp., Reproduction Service Zodiac Paper Company, Reproduction Supplies John Carollo Engineers, Engineering Services TOTAL JOINT OPERATING CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FID·ID WARRANTS TN FAVOR OF John Carollo Engineers, Engineering -Plant Constr. Carollo and Keith, Survey I-8 County of Orange, Compaction Test I-8 $ Daily Pilot, Bid Notice Pl-16?' East Bay Municipal Utility Dist., Pilot Plant (MO 9-13-72) Ficker Architects, Architectual Services J-13 Freedom Newspapers, Inc., Notice P-16, J4-l/Pl-9-l J. Putnam Henck, Contractor P2-17 Hewlett Packard, Calculator ~ ~.E. Hoagland & W.W. Hoagland, Contractor P2-19 E.T.I. Kordick, Contractor P2-ll-l Kordick & Rados, Contractor I-8 B.H. Miller Construction Co., Contractor J-7-2 Osborne Laboratories, Inc., Pipe Testing I-8 Scientific Products, Lab Equipment Tardif Sheet Metal, Air Conditioning PW-024 TOTAL CAPI'I!.L OU'l.1LP.Y REVOLVING $ 3.98 101.44 223.11 712006 10,144.87 160.00 15.90 91.06 21.44 130.22 32.73 427.53 378.19 368.31 94.07 23.70 33.84 250.00 48.64 233.00 159 .96 2;587.80 40.74 62.97 58.00 79.56 30.30 989.01 282.64 60.50 60,624.oo 5,404.oo 1,113.50 47.98 15,005.00 4,485.00 132.66 62,472.01 419.70 76,053.27 52,275.97 409,088.11 8,195.89 3,225.00 651.00 5,695.00 TOTAL JOINT OPERATING & CORF 790,193.53 A-3 DISTRICT NO. 1 WARRANT NO. ACCu~LATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF 19010 19011 19012 19013 19014 19015 19016 19017 19018 19019 19020 19021 Bebek Corporation, Contractor 1-13 Boyle Engineering, Survey 1-13 DISTRICT NO. 2 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Lowry and Associates, Project Report 2-14-2 DISTRICT NO. 3 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Boyle Engineering, Engr. Service 3-17, 3-17-~ & 3-18 DISTRICTS NOS. 3 & 11 SUSPENSE FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Boyle Engineering, Survey 3-17 Joseph R. Callens, Temporary Easement 3-17 County of Orange, Compaction Testing Osborne Laboratories, Pipe Testing 3-17 J. F. Shea Co., Inc., Contractor 3-17 DISTRICT NO. 5 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Daily Pilot, Public Notice, Ordinance 507 Shuirman-Simpson, Engineering Services FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Fairbanks Morse, Inc., Sewage Pump & Drive Shaft 5-12-B -B- AMOUNT $ 21,625.20 97.50 $ 21,722.70 $ 5,588.81 $ 1,110.25 1,100.00 43.03 3,328.13 339,935.40 $ 345,516.81 $ 61.69 305. 55' 2,210.84 $ 2,578.08 DISTRICT NO. 7 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT 19022 Boyle Engineering, Engineering Service $ 63.75 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS ..._.,. IN FAVOR OF 19023 Osborne Laboratories, Pipe Testing 7-5-lR $ 150.00 CONSTRUCTION FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF 19024 Boyle Engineering, Survey 7-6-3 $ 327.00 FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF 19025 Boyle Engineering, Engineering 7-2C-2 & 7-2D-6 $ 2,160.00 $ 2,700.75 -C- RESOLUTION NO. 72-129 EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO WATSON INITIATIVE (PROPOSITION 14) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 AND 11, DECLARING THAT THE PROPOSED WATSON PROPERTY TAX LIMITATION INITIATIVE WOULD SERIOUSLY RESTRICT THE ABILITY TO FINANCE DISTRICTS' ACTIVITIES AND EXPRESSING THE BOARDS' OPPOSITION TO SAID INITIATIVE * * * * * * WHEREAS, an initiative Constitutional amendment, commonly known as the "Watson Initiative", purporting to limit taxes on real property to, 1.75% of market value ($7 per $100 assessed value) within incorporated areas, has qualified for submission to the voters at the forthcoming general election in November, 1972; and, WHEREAS, said Proposition 14 further provides that ad valorem taxes levied on behalf of intra-county special districts wholly within one county or one city may not in the aggregate exceed an amount equal to what $.50 per $100 assessed valuation would raise on the tax roll of the entire county; and, WHEREAS, said property tax limit would seriously restrict the ability of cities, counties and special districts to raise needed revenue for operating purposes, without providing a source of replacement revenue for these local governmental entities; and, WHEREAS, enactment of Proposition 14 would also restrict the bonding capacity and affect ~he debt limits of all local governmental agencies, and thus would undermine the foundations of "home rule"; andj WHEREAS, the provisions of Proposition 14 would result in $2.1 billion or 37% of the property taxes being shifted, which would have grave implications for the residents of California by increasing other taxes; and, WHEREAS, enactment of Proposition 14 would provide windfall benefits to real estate speculators and large landowners of .commercial and industrial property, but would harm the interests of the average businessman and homeowner; and, Agenda Item #9(a) D-1 All Districts WHEREAS, enactment of Proposition 14 would required the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County to implement costly alternative methods of financing their water pollution control activities presently serving approximately 1,400,000 citizens in Orange County and protecting the integrity of the marine environment off the Orange County coastline, which would increase the expense of administration and revenue collection, NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 1, 8 and 11, of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: That these Boards of Directors hereby declare that the proposed Watson Property Tax Limitation Initiative would seriously restrict the ability to finance the Districts' activities; and, That for reasons heretofor enumerated, these Boards of Directors hereby express their vigorous opposition to Proposition 14 and urge all voters to vote NO on said proposal; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That these Boards do, however, support responsible legislation which would provide for equitable and meaningful property tax reform. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held October 11, 1972. Agenda Item #9(a) D-2 All Districts ~n richard terry W ~AND ASSOCIATES 116 North Carousel St. Anaheim, Calif. 92806 14 September 1972 Fred A. Harper. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. 0. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 environmsntal science & services Tel. ( 714) 6J0-29JO Subject: Environmental Impact Statements, 1972-73 Plant Projects Nos. 1 & 2 In preparing the Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for Projects Nos. 1 and 2 for the Districts, costs have exceeded the original maximum authorized ($8,500.). This was not the result of our actions, but as a result of events that were beyond our control. Work started on the EISs on June 9 when we met with John Carollo Engineers (JCE). On July 6 the State changed its Ocean Discharge Requirements. About July 17, JCE sent us a copy of their Preliminary Project Report which re- flected their latest thinking, and included changes brought abou~ by the State's changes ~n the Discharge Policy. The updated Project Report and change in the State Ocean Discharge Policy necessitated major revisions in the EIS because the EIS must conform to the_ Project Report. On July 20 a meeting with JCE and the Districts resulted in newer informa- tion that required further revisions, and between July 20 and 24th there was considerable rewriting and new calculatipns --which were done so that the EIS and Project Report coincided. On July 25 an essentially Final Draft EIS had to be prepared for a meeting with EPA and the State Board. And, as a result of this meeting, the EIS was again revised in accordance with recom.mendations made at the meeting. This draft became the basis for the Final Draft EIS. Our proposal (which was accepted by the Districts) has several key points: (1) we would not be held responsible for changes that were beyond our control (such as engineering changes or changes made by the State); (2) we would be reimbursed for work performed; and (3) our work efforts were completed when the EIS was submitted to the Districts. Since considerable extra work was done as a result of changes that were be- yond our control, and there currently is insufficient funds in the allocation, request therefore is made for reimbursement for work already completed, as well as sufficient allocation.to.cover: (1) completion of EIS No. 2, and (2) to cover expenses that will incur as a result of holding public hearings and to respond to any State, Federal, public and private entities that might comment on the EISs. Request therefore is made for a revised maximum authorization not to exceed $16 000. Agenda Item #9(b) -E-All Districts TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (71"") 962-2411 ·September 21, 1972 Paul G. Brown, Chief Engineer Ray E. Lewis, Deputy Chief Engineer Program for the Evaluation of Physical-Chemical Treatment of Wastewater -Sedimentation Basin K The Sanitation Districts have received· verbal indication from . the State Water Quality Control Board that our request that the State share in a $100,000 experimental program to evaluate advanced primary sedimentation at Basin K at Plant No. 2 has be~n rejected. In discussing this matter with the staff per- sonnel in Sacramento, they have indicated that the State Board is changing their policy in funding experimental work of this nature. They are attempting to reserve all Clean Water Bond Issue monies for construction. If the experimental work con- ducted on Sedimentation Basin K proves that this is the best · method of treatment at Plant No. 2 and provides the design parameters needed to design additional facilities at this Plant to meet the State and Federal discharge requirements, then any funds expended in this experimental pilot work could be refunded as part of the engineering for that project! It is my opinion that the Districts must proceed with the experimental work on this Sedimentation Basin in order to assist the staff and the consulting engineers in determining what method of operation is best at Plant No. 2. Itemized below is the estimated project cost for a three month operation as submitted to the State and the revi·sed costs that are now required to proceed on our own. Under the present policy of the State Board, it would not be possible to be ~eimbursed for the $78,000 to conduct the experimental. work on Basin K. Of the $78,ooo only $41,500 is direct out-of-pocket expense, the balance bein:.:; labor costs incurred by Districts' personnel in reassigning of duties. Agenda Item #9(d) F-1 All Districts Paul G. Brown September 21, 1972 Page Two Personnel Project Director Assistant Project Director Plant Operation Maintenance Personnel Laboratory Chemical Cost Contingencies -Including on- si te laboratory equipment, miscellaneous process equip- ment and piping, etc., as required. Consulting Engineers TOTAL ESTIMATED COST * Proposal to State Cooperative Program $ 5,000. 7,500. 6,ooo. 3,000. 20,000. 35,000. 18,500. 5,000. $100,000. Districts Only $ 3,500. 7,500. 4,ooo. 3,000. 18,500. 30,000. 6,500. 5,000. $78,ooo. * This does not include general overhead, supervision, power, maintenance supplies, and other miscellaneous items associated with plant operation. REL:hjm Agenda Item #9(d) F-2 All Districts I. CAROLLO ENGINEERS PHOENIX ARIZONA JOHN A. CAROLLO, P.E. < 1906-1971 > H. HARVEY HUNT, P.E. HOWARD M. WAY, P.E. ROBERT G. WILLIAMS, P.E. DONALD R. PREISLER, P.E. GAIL P. LYNCH, P.E. LAFAYETTE CALIFORNIA Mr. Fred A. Harper, General ~anager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA 3690 MT. DIABLO BOULEVARD LAFAYETTE, CALIF. 94549 AREA CODE: (415) 283-3895 September 22, 1972 Subject: Proposal to Prepare Operation and Maintenance Manual for Activated Sludge Facilities at Plant No. 1 This letter is our proposal to perform those engineering services that you desire regarding preparation of an Operation and Maintenance Manual for the improved treatment facilities at Plant No. 1. This manual will fulfill the requirements as set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board. This manual will include the following sections, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board Guidelines published May, 1972: I. Introduction A. Purpose of the Project B. Project Description C. Design Criteria II. Unit Processes A. Purpose and Intent. B. Recommended Operating Parameters c. Achievement of Design Operating Parameters D. Special Problems and Emergency Procedures E. ·Maintenance F. Safety G. Typical Unit Process Outline Agenda Item #15 G-1 All Districts Continued Page # 2 Proposal to Prepare Operation and Maintenance Manual for Activated Sludge Facilities at Plant No. 1 September 22, 1972 III. Abnormal Operating Conditions IV. Appendix A. Preventive Maintenance List B. Reference Material List C. Waste Discharge Requirements D. Personnel We will accomplish the Manual in the three phases set forth by the State Guidelines, namely: (1) Three copies of a complete draft of the Opera~ion and Maintenance Manual (exclusive of equipment and equipment maintenance information) will be submitted to the Division at the time final plans and specifications for the treatment plant are submitted for review and approval . . (2) Three copies of the final Operation and Maintenance Manual containing all necessary revisions and all necessary equipment maintenance information for the "as-built" plant will be submitted together with three copies of the "as-built" plans not later than one month prior to the final p~yment inspection. (3) Three copies of revisions which may become necessary after plant start-up and prior to the first annual inspection. I This manual will be bound so as to facilitate updating and revisi6ns. We will.furnish the necessary copies of each of the three. submissions to meet State and Federal requirements. Our fee for performing this work will be in accordance with the terms of our Contract dated July 1, ~970, and as set forth in Item M, Paragraph Second, and in accordance with the following schedule of prices: Principal Engineer Senior Engineer Associate Engineer Assistant Engineer Draftsman Clerical Agenda Item #15 G-2 Hourly Rate $30.25 27.75 22.75 18.70 14.25 9.00 All Districts Continued Page # 3 Proposal to Prepare Operation and Maintenance Manual for Activated Sludge Facilities at Plant No. 1 September 22, 1972 Plus out of pocket expenses for photography, printing, binding and reproduction. Based on the scope set forth herein our· estimated maximum fee for this work is $26,500 .. JOHN CAROLLO HHH/lm Agenda Item #15 G-3 All Districts ·~ ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR September 14, 1 972 Page 1 of 5 ADDITIONAL SECONDARY TREATMENT AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1 JOB Pl-9-1 INCREASED WATER REUSE FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2 JOB J-4-1 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS· OF . ORANGE COUNTY A. DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS I. Page 40-6, Section 40-1; VERTICAL TURBINE PUMPS. In subsection {j)(2), change the last sentence on the page to read: "Water for cooling shall be obtained by making a pipe connec;tion on the discharge piping from the pump to the inlet side of the oil cooler (size of connection shall be as recom1nentlcd by the hyd1·aulic coupling manufacturer and subject to the Engine~r 1 s apprpval). 11 II. Page 40-7, Section 40-1; VERTICAL TURBINE PU:MPS. In subsection (j )(2), add to the first paragraph: "The heat exchanger shall be desjgned to operate on screened (40 n1esh) secondary effluent. Minimum tube size shall be 5/811 I.D." ID. Page 40-28, Section 40-7; GAS COMPRESSOR. IV. Change the first sentence of subsection {k}, Unloader, to read: "A constant-speed, three-step unloader with automatic dual COntrO}S Shall be installed 0Il the COlnpreSSOr. It Page 40-29, Section 40-7; GAS COMPRESSOR. Add the follo\ving sentence to the first paragraph: Agenda Item #16 H-1 All Districts .· ·. .· - September 14, 1977. Page 2 of 5 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SECONDARY TREATMENT AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1 -JOB Pl -9-1 INCREASED WATER REUSE FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2 JOB J-4-1 -COUNTY SANITATION DISTlUCTS OF ORANGE COUNTY v. "Anchor bolts shall be made of stainless steel as specified in the ANCHOR BOLTS AND ANCHOR INSERTS Section of the STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. Page 43-2, Section 43-2; TEST AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES. Change the sentence in (e) Physical Abrasion Test to read: "The percentage of wear as determined by the Resistance to Abrasion Test ASTM C535 shall not be more than 40 percent. 11 VI. Page 43-3, Section 43-3; HANDLING AND PLACING MEDIA IN FILTERS. Change the first sentence in the second paragraph to read: "Leveling of the top surface of the media shall be accomplished by using a wood board hand screeded, by hand packing, or by some other rnethod approved by the Engineer which will prevent . breakage of the stone. 11 VII. Page 33-3, Section 33-5; SEQUENCE OF WORK. In subsection (g), New Well No. 2.,. add the following sentence: "The Contractor shall allow in his bid price for all costs for supplying power to the new well pump No. 2 except the Districts will pay the power bill. Vlll. Page 33-5, Section 33-6; ITEMIZED BREAKDOWN OF CONTRACT PRICE. Under Schedule I -Plant No. 1 add item 14 Sump Pump IX. Page 38-9. Add a new Section 38-14 GATE VALVES FOR UNDERGROUND SERVICE: "Gate valves shall be 200-pound, iron body, bronze mounted, double disc, parallel seat valves with nut handle and ends as shown on the Plans. Underground gate valves shall be Mueller Series A2380 with Everdure stems, Kennedy Valve lv1anufacturing Company, Inc., Figure 561X or 671X, or approved equal. Agenda Item #16 H-2 ·· All Districts -., September 14, 1972 Page 3 of 5 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SECONDARY TREATMENT AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1 -JOB Pl-9-1 INCREASED WATER REUSE FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2 JOB J-4-1 -COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY .. 11 Each underground valve shall he installed with a valve box as specified elsewhere in these Specifications. Two tee handle operating keys, long enough to fit an underground gate valve shall be iurnished. · t 11 Underground valves shall be painted as specified in the BURRED VALVE Section of these Spe.cifi~ations. 11 B. PLANS I. Drawing A-9 - A Plan. Connection to existing 6 11 MJCIP shovm at upper left hand corner of the sheet, coordinates should be 2 + 90. Ot E - 4 + 10. 0+ N . instead of 2 + 90. Ot E -0 + 10. Ot N. II. Drawing A-2 Schematic. (a) Add a l" BSP line and gate valve from the inlet gas filter drain connection to the l" BSP low pressure condensate line doy .. mstrean-1 of the moisture cha.1nbcro (b) The l" BSP low pres sure condensate line shall be routed to the trap in the tunnel. III. Drawing A-6 H-Schematic. The pilots for the new incinerator shall burn natural gas instead of digester gas. The Contractor shall install a 3 /4" BSP natural gas line from the existing incinerator to the new incinerator. IV. Drawing A-10, Section K. The section shown is typical for the installation of the new piping to be installed. Existing piping may vary from the section detailed on the Plans. V. Drawing A-15, V-arrangement. Change the underground portion of the City /Well water pipe between the 4" gate valve and the connection to the existing 2-1 /2" water pipe fron1 4 11 GSP to 611 C.-L. CIP. Add the following note: "The Contractor is expected to vis it the site to determine the complexity of the '\vork and shall include in his bid special .pipe fitting work which may be re- quired to overcome difficulties. 11 , Agenda Item #16 H-3 All Districts September 14, 1972 Page 4 of 5 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SECONDARY TREATh1ENT AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. l -JOB Pl-9-1 INCREASED WATER REUSE FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2 JOB J-4-1 -COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY VI. Drawing EA-3, C-Plan. Circuit number for plant water Pump No. 1 should be F41 l instead of FA-411. Circuit number for plant water Pump No. 2 should be F-412 instead of FA-412. VII. Drawing EA-6, A-Detail -Concrete encased conduit. Horizontal reinforcing bars shall be ff4 continuous at 12" minimum spacing. VIII. Drawing EB-2, Plot Plan Chlorination Water Pump Station vent fan (circuit ST 426) shall be 3 horsepower instead of 1 horsepower. IX. Drawing EB-3 -Schematic Diagram right hand si~e of page, middle of page. The schematic is typical for 5 circuits instead of 9 circuits. This schematic is typical for circuits ST -416, 417, 418, 422 and 426 only. X. Drawing T-4, T-60; SLUICE & SLIDE GATE SCHEDULE. XI. Mark 2 gates - 3 gates are required at the Plant No. 1 Plant Water Pump Station. Type of Location Casting Operator Inlet to Sc re en Flange back Manual Between Screen and Pumps F-Frame Manual Screen Bypass Flange back Motorized Drawing B-1 and B-2, Plot Plan A & B. The aboveground portion of the concrete supports for the existing grit hopper shall be removed flush with ground. The paving shall be patched to match the existing paving. XII. Drawing B-4, Section D. Agenda Item #16 One foot of gravel fill shall be placed below the 8" slab east of ~he plant water pump station. H-3 All Districts . --...... - September 14, 1972 Page 5 of 5 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIO~AL SECONDARY TREATME"NT AT RECLAWiATION PLANT NO. 1 -JOB Pl-9-1 -~ INCREASED 'NATER REUSE FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2 JOB J-4-1 -COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY XIII. Dra:wing B-6, Floor Plan D. Detail for installation of aluminum louver in transformer building -Reference to Details X and Y .shall be deleted. Louver shall be installed per Section 35-3 of the DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS. XIV. Drawing B-7, Section H. xv. Bubbler tube shall be of stainless steel as detailed in Detail T-41 Sheet T-3 in lieu of GSP. Drawjng B-7, Elevation R. If overall height of traveling water screen is greater than 7 1 -6", then the roof and masonary walls of the building shall be higher than shovm. Top of walls shall be not less than 1 1 -0" higher than the top of the highest point of the screen. Height of building shall be subject to the Engineer's approval •. XVI. Drawing B-8, Plan X. The light post located in the new entrance road to the city water pump station will be relocated by others. XVII. Drawing B-11, Section B. The existing prechlorination pipe going into the tunnel is an 8 11 pipe rather than the 10" pipe shown on the section. New fittings and valve shall be 8 11 size. XXIII. Drawing B-11, Section C. At Chlorinators 1 and 2, the Contractor shall install new rubber lined piping up to the discharge flange of the 4 11 ejector. XIX. Drawing B-12, Plan U. Agenda Item #16 The light post located near the. shaker screens will be relocated by others. JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS H-4 All Districts RESOLUTION NO. 72-130-1 ACCEPTING CONTRACT NO. 1-13 AS COMPLETE A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIREnTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CONTRACT NO. 1-13 AS COMPLETE * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the contractor, Bebek Corporation, has completed the construction in accordance with the terms of the contract for the New Siphon, Greenville-Sullivan Trunk, Contract No. 1-13, on October 6, 1972; and, Section 2. That by letter, Boyle Engineering, District's engineers, have recommended acceptance of said work as having been completed in accordance with the terms of the contract; and, Section 3. That the Chief Engineer of the District has concurred in said engineers' reco~Jnendation, which said reco!TL~enda- tion is hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 4~ That the New Siphon, Greenville-Sullivan Trunk, Contract No. 1-13, is hereby accepted as completed in accordance with the terms of the contract therefor, dated the 12tb day. of September, 1972; and, Section 5. That the Chairman of the District is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held October 11, 1972. Agenda Item #20 -I-District 1 RESOLUTION NO. 72-131-1 APPROVING AWARD OF JOB NO. Pl-9-1 ADDITIONAL SECONDARY TREATMENT AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AWARD OF ADDITIONAL SECONDARY TREATMENT AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. Pl-9-1 * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the written recommendation this day submitted to the Board of Directors by John Carollo Engineers, District's Consulting Civil Engineers, and concurred in by the Chief · Engineer, that award of contract be made to James E. Hoagland Co. & Hoagland Engineering Company (a Joint Venture), for ADDITIONAL SECONDARY TREATMENT AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. Pl-9-1, and the tabulation of bids and the proposal for said work, are hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 2. That award of contract to James E. Hoagland Co. & Hoagland Engineering Company (a Joint Venture), in the total amount of $786,300.00, in accordance with the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein, be approved; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and the Secretary of the . District are hereby authorized and directed to enter into and sign a contract with said contractor for said work pursuant to the provisions of the specifications and contract documents therefor; and, Section 4. That all other bids received for said work are hereby rejected, and that all bid bonds be returned to the unsuccessful bidders. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held October 11, 1972. Agenda Item #21 J-1-District 1 Engineer's Estimate: $700,000 BID TABULATION S H E E T Contract For: Additional Secondary Treatment at Reclamation Plant No. 1 Job No. Pl-9-1 CONTRACTOR James E. Hoa6la~d co. & Hoagland l. Engineering Co. (A Joint Venture) 3254 Cherry Avenue Long Beach, Calif. F.T. Ziebarth Co. & 2. Ziebarth & Alper, J.V. P. O. Box 207 TorrancP, Cali~ 00~07 3. Margate Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 307 Wilmington) C~lif. 90744 J. Putnam Henck, A Corporation, & 4. Henck PRO., A Joint Venture P. o. Box 2476 San Bernardino. Calif. q24o6 5. Maecon, Inc. 13546 E. Imperial Highway Santa Fe Springs, Calif. 90670 6. E.T.I. & Kordick (J.V.) P. O. Box 279 Baldwin Park, Calif. 91706 7. Coneen Construction Corp. 1003 Pioneer Way El Cajon, Calif. 92020 8. 9. ~ . 10. Agenda Item #21 J-2 Date Sept. 26, 1972, 11:00 a.m. TOTAL BID $ 7?6,300 801,500 830,000 855,102 935,732 995,000 1,228,489 District 1 ) RESOLUTION NO. 72-132-1 APPROVING AWARD OF JOB NO. J-4-1 INCREASED WATER REUSE FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AWARD OF INCREASED WATER REUSE FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. J-4-1 * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the written recommendation this day submitted to the Board of Directors by John Carollo Engineers, District's Consulting Civil Engineers, and concurred in by the Chief Engineer, that award of contract be made to F. T. Ziebarth Co. and Ziebarth & Alper, J. V., for INCREASED WATER REUSE FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. J-4-1, and the tabulation of bids and the proposal for said work, are hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 2. That award of contract to F. T. Ziebarth Co. and Ziebarth & Alper, J. V., in the total amount of $611,000.00, in accordance with the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein, be approved; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and the Secretary of the Distric~ are hereby authorized and directed to enter into and sign a contract with said contractor for said work pursuant to the provisions of the specifications and contract documents therefor; and, Section 4. That all other bids received for said work are hereby rejected, and that all bid bonds be returned to the unsuccessful bidders. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held October 11, 1972. Agenda Item #22 K-1 District 1 Engineer's Estimate: $550,000 B I D TABULATION SHEET Contract For: Increased Water Reuse Facilities at Plant No. 2 Job No. J-4-1 CONTRACTOR 1. Margate Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 307 Wilmington, Calif. 90744 F.T. Ziebarth Co. & 2. Ziebarth & Alper, J.V. P. C. Box 207 Torrance. Cnlif. 90507 James E. Hoacland Co. & Hoagland 3. Engineering Co. (A Joint Venture) 3254 Cherry Avenue Lon z "Rf' !) c h , <> 1 ; -f' • J. Putnam Henck, A Corporation, 4. & Henck PRO., A Joint Venture P. O. Box 2476 San Bernardino. C1lj~. 9?h06 5. E.T.I. & Kordick (J.V.) P. O. Box 279 Baldwin Park, Calif. 91706 6. Maecon, Inc. 13546 E. Imperial Highway Santa Fe Springs, Calif. 90670 7. Coneen Construction Corp. 1003 Pioneer Way El Cajon, Calif. 92020 Date Sept. 26, 1972, 11:00 a.m. TOTAL BID $ 606,368* 611,000 655,400 729,000 731,592 8li7 ,373 *Contractor subm~tted qualified bid refusing to accept contract unless awarded Job No. Pl-9-1 also. The total of his two bids exceeded two other contractors. Agenda Item #22 K-2 District 1 /) . £\ \~ anah-eim hills, inc. A'\-;;A~~ A Subsidiary of Grant Corporation October 6, 1972 Board of Directors County of Orange Sanitation District ~o. 2 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Mr. Fred Harper Gentlemen: ,; Your honorable body has coming before it on October 11 for final approval, the Anaheim Hil].s Annexation for approxir.1ately 1, 025 acres into Sanitation District No. 2. We have been working very closely with the Board of Directors and the Sanitation District Staff for a number of months to resolve the many unanswered questions related to this annexation. Approxinately one month ago, this annexation was approved by the Local Agency Connnission. Several Months ap,o at your boa:r~ hearing when this annexation was approved and fonrnrded to LAFCO, our request for a five year install-cent payment of the total annexation fee was accepted by the board, however, at that ti~e it was specified that Anaheim Hills should compensate the Orange County Sanitation District for the lack of the use of the funds which they nort!'!ally would have·. This compensation would take the fern of pa~ent of an annual interest rate on the unpaid balance of the total annexation fee. We have re- cognized your concern in this matter. ~fo have proposed and are in agreement with the payl!lent of 4% per annum on the unpaid balance. '!'his is in addition to the 1/2~~ fee which we r.mst pay on the bond which is required by the Sanitation District. This amounts to a total of 4 1/2% on the unoaid balance of the conies. This interest rate is designed to reflect the ar:iount of return which the Sani-•' tation District would realize should they have this fund in advance f~>r invest- ITlent purposes. In addition, during the past several months as we have attempted to refine our future development plans, we have found that the total number of units and average daily demand projected originally was not correct. In the original study it was 380 ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92806, PHONE (714) 998-2000 Agenda Item #28(a) L-1 District 2 Board of Directors Sanitation District No. 2 October 6, 1972 anticipated that beeinning in June, 1973, an:lincreasing proportionately till June of 1977, the average daily denand would start at 233,120 GPD and increase to a total requirement of 1,165,600 GPD. '!'hcse demand ex- pectations were based on annual buildin~ rates of approxiD~tely 926 dwelling units with a total build-out in five years of 4,629 dwelling -2- units. The following, however, is the nost accurate buildine forecast which we now have based upon the following: Hore definitive land planning; escrows now open with prospective buyers; and tentative maps now on file with the City of Anaheim. It is now anticipated that there will be a total developMen t of approxinately 3, 003 d·wellin~ units in the next five year period with approximately 600 units being constructed annually. The total average daily denand into that five year period is anticipated to be 753,753 GPD with an annual incremental need of 150,750 GPD. This is considerably less fron what we had originally anticipated. In addition, some 54 acres located within the 1, 025 acre annex.at ion area have now been designated, by both Anaheim Hills and the City of° Anahei;:i, as parks and/or open space areas. This will preclude any develop~ent wit~1in the sites and also will preclude any sir,nificant discharge requirenents into the Sanitation District lines. It is hoped that the Board of Directors will take this reduced use of qistrict facilities into consideration as they con- sider in their final action on the five year deferment of annexation ~ees. On behalf of Anaheim Hills Corporation, we want to thank the Sanitation District Board of Directors and the Sanitation District Staff for their co-operation in processing this annexation. If any additional information is requirt!d please do not hes~tate to contact us. Sincerely, ~~~~ }jm~s L. Barisic Vice President JLB:lm Agenda Item #28(a) .. •' L-2. District 2 RESOLUTION NO. 72-133-2 APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF ANNEXATION FEES FOR ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIHECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. AND TEXACO VENTURES, INC., PROVIDING FOR DEFERRED PAYMENT OF ANNEXATION FEES FOR ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 1 * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain Agreement dated ~~-----------' with Anaheim Hills, Inc. and Texaco Ventures, Inc., providing for payment of annexation fees for Proposed Annexation No. 6 -Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1 in five equal annual installments, be approv~d; and, Section 2. That said agreement shall provide for payment of _____ % interest per annum on the unpaid balance of said annexation fees; and, Section 3. That said agreement shall provide for posting of a Performance· Bond in the amount of the unpaid balance from time to time issued by a surety approved by the General Counsel, guaranteeing payment of said annexation fees and interest thereon; and, Section 4. That the Chairman and the Secretary of the Board of Directors are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the District as prepared by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held October 11, 1972. Agenda Item #28(b) M-1 District 2 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this -----day of-------' 1972, by and between ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., a California corporation, and TEXACO VENTURES INC., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner"), and ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 ("District"). WHEREAS, Owner owns approximately one thousand twenty-five (1,025) acres in the County of Orange, State of California, more particularly de- scribed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto ("Subject Property"), which it proposes to have annexed to District; and WHEREAS, District has consented to such annexation; and WHEREAS, in consideration of such annexation Owner shall be liable for an annexation fee ("Annexation Fee") payable to District; and WHEREAS, Owner and District wish to provide for the payment of the Annexation Fee over a period of time upon the terms and conditions herein specified; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 1. Owner and District agree that the Annexation Fee shall be the product of Three Hundred Sixty-Nine Dollars ($369.00)and the number of acres in Subject Property. 2. Owner agrees to pay the Annexation Fee and District agrees to accept ·such payment in five (5) equal annual installments.. The first of said installments shall become due and payable one year from the date that said annexation into Sanitation District #2 becomes final. 3. In addition to the Annexation Fee, Owner agrees to pay to District interest on the unpaid balance of the Annexation Fee at a rate of percent ( %) per annum on such unpaid balance, with all accrued interest payable annually together with the installment provided for in Paragraph 2. Agenda Item #28(b) M-2 District 2 4. Owner agrees to secure the payment of the Annexation Fee and interest on the deferred balance thereof by posting with District a Per- f ormance Bond ,in the amount of the deferred balance unpaid from time to time, such bond to remain in effect until the Annexation Fee has been paid in full. Said bond to be issued by a surety to be approved by the district. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. Agenda Item #28(b) M-3 ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., a California Corporation Its --------------------------- By~--~-----~----~---- Its -------------------------- TEXACO VENTURES INC., a Delaware Corporation By ---------------~~~--------~ Its ------------------------~ By------------- Its --------------------------- . "Owner" ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 Its ------------------------~ By ------------------------------~ Its --------------------------- "District" District 2 "f:'JJ A /}// /%/. Ii·(]~~ ... .A /11 ,-1) . u /,r /. ,, ,1 .' /.· .? ... " \..'.;:Y L:'. ,0:.i., '~ j -ENGINEERS• ARCHITECTS ENGINEERlNG u 412 SOUTH LYON STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE <714> 547-4471 REPLY TO POST OFFICE BOX 178 October 5, 1972 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County P. 0 . Box 81 27 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Manager Seal Beach Pumping Station -Contract No. 3-12-1 Peak flow into the station has been steadily increasing and is now approaching the total capacity of the existing pumps (14 mgd). Pumps of greater capacity (14-inch size) conforming to master-plan requirements should be installed in pump positions 2 and 3. The existing 10-inch pumps in positions 1 and 4 are master-plan size and need not be replaced. The addition of two 14-inch pumps wi 11 bring the west bank of pumps (1, 2, 3, and 4) and the force main (1st unit) up to a pumping capacity of 19 mgd with required standby pumping capacity. Assuming the city of Seal Beach delivers a peak flow of 2 mgd to the station in mid-1973 and flow from the drainage area continues to increase at approximately 1 mgd per year, the west bank of pumps and the existing force main should be adequate until about 1976. At that time the east bank of pumps (5, 6, 7, and 8) will have to be installed and the 2nd unit of the Wesf·minster Avenue Fo 1rce Main constructed. ·A contract for installation of the two 14-inch pumps and appurtenances should be let as soon as possible. A project of this type usually takes about nine months for completion because of the lead time required in purchasing equip- ment. The estimated project construction cost is $85, 000. Regarding your request for a proposal, we would furnish the following engineering services for a lump-sum fee of $6, 000. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING A N D ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Agenda Item #32 N-1 District 3 County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County Page 2 October 5, 1972 l. Prepare system head curve for the proposed pumping units. 2. Prepare detailed plans and specifications. 3. Prepare estimates of quantities and costs. 4. Deliver original plans and reproducible plates of the specifications for the district's use in preparing the necessary number of copies for record purposes, distribution to prospective bidders, etc. 5. Assist the district in securing bids, tabulation and analysis of bid results, and letting contract. 6. Check shop and working drawings as submitted by the contractor. 7. Review laboratory reports on equipment and material tests and correlate such reports within intentions of the plans and specifications. 8. Furnish consu I tat ion and advice to the district during construction. 9. Observe initial operation of the project, witnessing performance tests as required by the specifications, and r·eporting same to the district. 10. Prepare as-constructed drawings when the work has been completed and accepted by the district. Payment to be 90 percent at time of delivery of plans and specifications, with l 00 percent payment when the project is completed. We .are prepared to proceed with the work and if authorized to do so at the October board meeting, we would expect to have plans and specifications ready ·for advertising of bids by the December 1972 board meeting. BOYLE ENGINEERING ~t.uOJ/-fZL,,,ZV:.i,Q, ! f/ Conrad Hohener, Jr. C. E. 10951 Id B-C03-111-00 BOYLE ENGINEERING Agenda Item #32 N-2 District 3 RESOLUTION NO. 72-134-7 - ) AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM CITY OF SANTA ANA RE CONTRACT NO. 7-5-lR A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM CITY OF SANTA ANA * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That certain Grant of Easement dated ------' 1972, wherein an easement for sanitary sewer purposes is granted to County Sanitation District No. 7, is hereby accepted from the City of Santa Ana; and, Section 2. That the real property over which said easement is granted is more particularly described and shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", attached hereto and made a part of this resolution; and, Section 3. That said easement is granted in connection with construction of West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 and 22, Contract No. 7-5-lR; and, Section 4. That said easement is accepted at no cost to the District; and, Section 5. That the Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, be authorized and directed to record said Grant of Easement in the Official Records of Orange County, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held October 11, 1972. Agenda Item #44 -0-District 7 RESOLUTION NO. 72-135-7 ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM H. J. MABURY COMPANY RE CONTRACT 7-5-lR ) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ~O. 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASE- MENT FROM H. J. MABURY COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF SAID EASEMENT * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That certain Grant of Easement dated October 5, 1972, wherein an easement for sanitary sewer purpo~es is granted to County Sanitation District No. 7, is hereby accepted from the H. J. Mabury Company; and, Section 2. That the real property over which said easement is granted is more particularly described and shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", attached hereto and made a part of this resolution;and, Section 3. That said easement is granted in connection with con~truction of West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 and 22, Contract No. 7-5-lR; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, be authorized and directed to record said Grant of Easement in the Official Records of Orange County, California; and, Section 5. That the certain Agreement dated October 5, 1972, with H. J. Mabury Company, providing for payment for said easement in an amount equivalent to the front foot connection charge as provided in the connection charge ordinance in effect when, and if, connections are made to the West Relief Trunk within the boundaries of said easement; and Section 6. That the Chairman and the Secretary of the Board of Directors are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the District in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held October 11, 1S72. Agenda Item #45 -P-District 7 .. l •• RESOLUTION NO. 72-136-11 AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM SOUTHER~ CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain Grant of Easement dated August 2, 1972, wherein the Southern California Edison Company grants to County Sanitation District No. 11, a permanent easement for sewer purposes situated in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, in connection with the relocation of Newland Avenue Pumping Station Force Main as provided for in that certain agreement dated December 9, 1971 by and between County Sanitation District No. 11 and Southern California Edison Company, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That the real property over which said easement is granted is more particularly described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part of this resolution; and, . Section 3. That said Grant of Easement is accepted at no cost to .the District as provided in the heretofor referenced agreement; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be authorized and directed to record said easement in the Official Records of Orange County, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held October 11, 1972. Agenda Item #51 -Q-District 11 ._ I t ~ RESOLUTION NO. 72-137-11 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEED A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEED * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitatiqn District No. 11, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain Quitclaim Deed for portions of existing District easement; dated ~~~~~--~~~ , from County Sanitation District No. 11 to Southern California Edison Company, be approved; and, Section 2. That the real property to be quitclaimed as provided for in that certain agreement dated December 9, 1971 by and between County Sanitation District No. 11 and Southern California Edison Company is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" and Exhibit !'B" attached h~reto and made a part of this resolution; and, Section 3. That upon completion and satisfactory operation of the Newland Avenue Pumping Station Force Main, the Chairman of the District be authorized and directed to execute said Quitclaim Deed, quitclaiming the District's interest in the certain real property hereinabove described upon receipt by the District of Grants of Easements from South~rn California Edison Company, relative to construction in County Sanitation District No. 11. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held October 11, 1972. Agenda Item #52 -R-·· District 11 H_ARRJS0:-1 GRAY OTIS, 1881-1917 HARRY CHAi\DlER, 1917·1944 NOR:\IAN CHAXDLER, 1944-1960 ·' OTIS CHA7'DLER, Publisher ROBERT D. ~ELSO~ Executive Vice President and General .Manas~r WILLIA~! F. THO~!AS Editor CHARLES C. CHASE, Vice PresiJrnt-Production ROBERT C. LOBDELL, Vice President-Administration-General Counsel RICHARDS. ROBI:'\SO:;\, Vice PresiJent-Assi~tant to the Publisher V AXCE L. STICKELL, Vice President-Sales JAMES BASSETT, Associate Editor JA~iES BELLO\\'$, Associ.lte Editor A~THO:\Y DAY. Editor of the L!itorial.PJges ROBERT J. DO:\OVA:\, AssociJtc Editor FRAi\K P. HAVIS, Man.1,;in.r; Editor R · 8-Part II FRIDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 6, 1972 * Prop. 14: a Cruel Hoax Proposition 14, the ta~ initiath·e on the Novem- ber ballot, promises to cut your taxes, but it \vould actuaHy raise them for nearly ewryone. It would also badly damage public schools and cripple local government. Prop. 14 would place a· ceiling on prope1·ty taxes and shift all welfare and some public school costs to the st:i.tc. It would increase the sales tax and taxes on cigarets, liquor, banks and corporations and insur:rnc0 com~)anies and impose a se,·crance tax on oil and minel'als. But what it would not clo is generate sufficient revenues to offset the lo:::~es it would create for state and locHl governments and school districts. Estimates ya1·y, but there is general agreement that the measure is underfunded bv more than Sl billion. That means that if it is ·enacted new tax ·sourc.es will ha\·e to be found or other existing reYenues increased. The personal income tax would be a Jogic:11 place to turn in that e\·ent and making up a Sl billion "shortage'' could boost that levy by 60~c. Furthermore. by shifting from taxes that are now deductible to le'.·ics that are not. Prop. 14 could increase federal income taxes fol' Califor- nians by an estimated S32 million. A recent anay:;is by the .As:scmbly Re\'enue and Taxation Committee shows that Prop. 14 would re- duce' property t~xes statewide by S:2.9 billion. But only SG6-l million of 1 hat bC'ncfit 'vould accrue to homeO\rners: S:?.3 billion \rnuld go to ownei·s of busine~ses and income producing property and \·a- cant lots. Tl'lephone comp~rnies would rceei\·c S96.6 1)1illion in reductions, utili1 ics SSO.S million and railroads $1 LS million. One Los An~dcs industry 4 alone would get an $11.133,000 tax reduction. Prop. 14 would cst:-iblish an $823 per pupil sup- port le,·el from state and local schools for public sehools. That is S170 le!'s thnn the present a\·erage support lc\·el and would produce a S770 million loss for the schools of the state. The result would be a d1·astic rollback in educational progrnms at a time when 1he schools are already strapped fo1· suffi- cient funds to 1woyicle an adequate. proper educa- 1 ion for ou1· children. The lo~s to the Los Angeles . Unified School Dist1·ict is rstimated at SlO.f,340,- 000. In amending the SCJ]es tax law. Prop. 14 wipes out the S133 million mass transit fund wisely created by the Legislature only last year. Los Angeles, sorcJ~r in need of solutions to its transportation problems. \\"ould be stripped of more than S36.3 million. By freezing property tax rates into the state con- stitution without providing local go\·ernment with adequate l'C'placement ren~nucs or revenue raising authority. Prop. 14 would create fiscal chaos and an inability to pro\·ide needed services in cities throughout the state. · These are just a few of the reasons why Gov. Reagan and forrne1· Gov. B1·own are aligned against the measure and why the League of Wom- en Yoters. California Federation of Labor, Califor- nia State Chambc1· of Commerce. League of Cali- fornia Cities. the Lo5' Angeles l\AACP. County Su- per\"isol's Assn. of California, the Democratic State Centl'al Committee. dozens of educational agencies and organizations and scores of other groups arc opposed to Prop. 1-1. In 1968 the rnter::; of Califor;1ia turned down a tax limitation initinti\·e by 1he same autho1·-Los Arn::;clcs Assessor Philip E. \VJ.t~on-by a vote of more than~ to 1. Prop. 14 should be defeated by an cven largel' margin. It is a cruel hoax. I t \...._/ D1>lL Y P I LOT J OCT 7 2 Plant Districts to Prot ec t S ewage Facili t y ·? ., . 0 ., ~-.~=--~· &--~· .... -. ..,..,........,_,...._, .. -· .-...--·----· .. -.__..:..---'"-~~-""\,& .. \•---·':Pi:..;..... __ ':'-.......'._ .. --·~ .... -... ~--:... -·· .. ----~: .• -..-'-• __ ..... :..!..----~---...;..=~ ........ j "' .,....; I - By JOHN ZALLER Of the !lailv P ilot St aff The Orange County joint sanitation d istricts have undertaken a crash con- structi on program to protect their Foun - b h t <.i n Valley sewage t reatment pla nt fro m r e ac ,-a@ncl1iin t he Santa Ana Rive r levee . A bric k an d earthen wall -possibly 500 yards long, two to th ree yards thick, and six to eight feet hi gh -is being ru shed throu gh desi gn stages in an effor t to have it constructed by fl ood season t his January, accordin g to Fred Harper, manage r of the joint di st ricts. "O ur directors are concerne d that with the very erratic weath er we've been hav- ing t his sum mer, we mi gh t ge t a repea t of 196 9 flood ing when we nearly lost the levee," Harper said. "One of the thing s t hat . we lea-rne(C ' from the big floods in other parts of the coun try last year was th at afte r a majo r disa ster, the )f key to ret urn to normalcy is the proper functioning of sewage and wa te r services." Lewis sa id the aim of th e wall would be to pre vent "the touch a nd go situa ti on we had in 1959 when we didn 't know whe the r · we'd be ab le to keep the plan t at all." Carl Ne lson, ass ista nt ch ief enginee r for th e Oran ge Co unty F lood Control Di strict, ag reed th a t the re is "cause fo r alarm" over the possibility of floodinE!. "We've know n ·for two ·years that -the Santa Ana River levees aren't adequat e to . restrain a projE:ct sto rm." he said . A "project storm " is the worst storm ever kn own to occur in an area, and is wor se than a 100-year storm. The 1969 . fl ooding, by contra st, was caused by a 35-, year storm, or one that occurs on t he · average every 35 yea rs.) · Nel so n applauded effo rt!: of the sanit a-· ti on district to pro tec t its facilities. but he added that "the re !s no reason to Ha y Lcw_is, dep uty chief en gineer fo r the distrlc~ explain ed t hat if the rive r broke a11y\;·he re north of the Sa n Diego Freeway, the large em bank men t would catch all the wa ters and funnel the m through the Eu clid Stre et und ercrossing , $ which is immed iately across the street_ 1 0 ' 0 0 0' ooo-from -fhe ::.$100 000 -sewage treatment __ i;_ · beli ev e this yea r 's floo ding will be as ba d or wor se than 196 9. Th ere is no scient ific way to predict weather over a whole ' season . Our concern (at the flood con tro l · di~trict) is with wea ther than is a ma tt er of hours away." faciliti es . "We'd be facing a wall of water that could rip everythi ng up from the foun - dation s if it weren't pro tected," Lewis ,;_j;!id. .. '• . ---• Nelson also noted th at there was "probabl y no way to pro te ct the treat- ment fac ilities . Iro m inundation if a serious ilood occ urred. But a wall in front of them could protect them from the impact of a r apidly moving wall of water." · ' :..... ,;_,._-. ..::. ...... .... ----·--·~ ....... '' I ' oc By STAN OFTELIE !formation on the costs of their Register Staff Writer a c ti on s, said John Parker, SANTA AN'A-A coalition of,CEEED president. builders, developers and union HSome of the doomsday rheto- leaders have organized a busi-!ric and unreasonable demands ness-oriented environmentol1put forth by extremists have; groap designed to temper pro-jbcen an embarrassment to all! C"Cology "hysteria" \\ith econom· ! of us 'I.' ho) are trnlv conc~erned 1 ._, ' •. I ic facts and figures. !about the environment,'' Parkerj The 150,00-0-member groupJs<tid. ; called CEEED will com1Jat en-1 He said tha n~w organi7.a:t1on I vironmental extremists \\iith in-1\vould "fund and accompiish. the economic studies .. tlrnt must a~~t company the proposals for im~ proving the environment and limiting growth. v.·;,,; .all need to lc<ffn the consequr.P-c£s in terms .of costs since we '•·ill aU surely !pay irr 0110 way or the other." I P<1rker ann{lunc0d Gilbert W.; '.Ferguson, former vice presi- jdent of corpor:dc comnll:nica- !tions at the In·i'.:.e Co.~ would be the e x e c u t i \' t: director of CEEED. CEEED '"~·s formed partially to reveal the economic consequ· cnccs CJf the state Supreme Court's nc\\' ruling requiring en- \'ironmental impact statements! (EIS) for private development. Ko price tag on the new EISJ requirement has been set. ! I "The environmental impact· ·St ate mo n t doesn't cost the- 1builder or developer a thing," .Parker told a press conference Wednesday. l(Tru·n To Pa~e A2. Column 4) 5 OCT 72 ,.;- --------~~-··--- ! (Continued fro~ page' AO and a strong Economy tb .JUgh ! " , . . planned Development, is pat. It s go~ng to cost the . con-tern eel after a similar group in sumer. Prices are passed along San· Diego County. and the increased costs due to Like the San Diego group~. the environmental impact state-Ferguson said the component' ment is just another cost that's parts ol CEEED will provide going to be tacked on to the cost specialized expertise . t? ~·eveal costs of some of the '·p1e-m-the- of a new hou~e.'~ sky" programs that have ·far-, . The orgamzati.on of CEE~D reaching economic impact. 1 mcludes th~ basic f~rces which "They (CEEED mcmbers)i . argued aga1~i:it the first draft of understand the harmful efiects ! the county s . prop?sed · open new governmental regulations space plan earlier tlus year. and moratoriums, prompted by; Builders, developers; busi-no growth pressures, will ulti-! nesses. 'in d u s try and Union mately have on the public, the spokesmen charged the open creneral economy and employ-, ,, • b 1space ptan was ~,n ·envn~~n-ment," F'erguson added. : mental bo~ndoggle· that fa1.ed Among the f 0 u nd e r 3 of to even give cursory looks at CEEED are the Building and the costs involvni. . 'Trades Council, the Orange, In the after1?1ath of the. open County Central Labor Council,, spa~e battle, l' erguso~ said ~.he banks, utilities. and members of various groups decide~ to the business community. . bring about a balance m the h t £. environmental 'no-growth' dia· Tom l\Iatt ews. secre a~y. o ; logue by supplying the com pan-. th~ 50,000 ~nei~ber Bu1ld.~ng ion facts that have so far been i T1 a~es Council, \\as named ."~ce · · g,, president of CEEED and Alic1ta m1ssm . I . f St l To provide the information,, Lewis, mayor o an on, was, CEEED was formed from the named secreta:y-treasurer. . ranks "of aclive environmental-l\fatthews said he was attract-_ ists.,, . . . ed to the CEEED concept be- The name .(In acronym for cau~e "the ;o~ts of trying to Council for ~n Environment of achieve .Utopia m one burst an.ct Excellence, full Employment atte1:11ptrng ~to h~lt growth is hurting the working man and his family." "It reduces the number of jObs in Orange County. not only those in the building industry, but across the board, so all the workers are hurt.'' l\latthews said. · ''Thev (environmental extremists) ~re also causing home prices to go up. "Each new demand prices an· other income group out of the new home market,'' l\htthews declared. '·It is not fair." Ferguson added that CEEED ;would sfart a membership drive ;to enlist the aid of other busi- )lesscs and interested citizens. No dates for the drive were set. ~.. -- ( >. OSBORNE ;: ENGINEER ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 400 CIVIC CE~TER DRIVE WEST SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA TC:L.EPHONE: 934-2300 ARE.\ CODE 714 October 3, 1972 MAILING .A00R£S5: P.O. BOX 1078 SANTA ANA 0 CAL.IFO~NIA ~2702 F'ILE No. EOl. 21 The Honorable Board of Supervisors Orange County Flood Control District Santa Ana, California SUBJECT: Santa Ana River -County Sanitation Districts' resolution re flood hazard (All Districts) SYNOPSIS: The Santa Ana River Channel downstream from 17th Street is inadeauate. Gentlemen: The inadequacy began with the work of the Newbert Protection District around the turn of the century. Improvements have been made but more are necessary. Until the Corps of Engineers study is completed (Novem- ber 1973) the capacity requirements remain unknown. Budgeting ·for west-side rock work between 17th Street and the San Diego Freeway is no~ being studied. If feasible, construction could be completed in 1973. Additional work needs to be based on the Corps of Engineers study. This is to corr.meat on the County Sanitation Districts' resolution trans- mitted to the Board of Supervisors by letter dated September 20, 1972. The resolution mereorializes the Orange County Flood Control District to take steps to reduce the flood hazard arising from the size and strength inadequacies of the Santa Ana River Channel downstream from 17th Street. In order to place th~ problem in proper perspective some historical back- ground is needed. The levees of the Santa Ana River downstream from Santiago Creek were originally constructed by the Newbert Protection District around 1900. The prot~ctive district was dissolved in 1941 and title to its real property, in- cluding the Santa Ana River·Channel, was automatically vested in the two local political jurisdictions affected --the County of Orange and the City of .Santa Ana. In or about 1955, the County of Orange transferred its ownership and rr.ain- tenance responsibilities to the Orange County Flood Control District. Subsequently, a land exchange was completed with the City of Santa Ana which vested title to cer- tain off-channel are~s near Santiago Creek in the City of Santa Ana. In exchange the flood control district received certain lands occupied by the Santa Ana River Channel and Santiago Creek. At the time of the 1938 flood the Newbert Protection District levees were breached on both sides in several loc?tions producing widespread inundation upon what was then predomir.antly farm lands, but is ~ow intensive urban development. ! \ The Honorable Board of Supervisors Page 2 At the time the county assumed ownership and responsibility (1941) the channel had been repaired but remained grossly inadequate with a capacity less than 10,000 cubic feet per second. This condition continued virtually unchanged until 1957. Under the 1956 flood control district bond issue certain improvement work was undertaken in 1957-1958. For 3000-feet inland from tidewater penranent works of rock an~ concrete were constructed. Upstream from the permanent works the channel was widened and deepened to the present location of the San Diego Freeway crossing and rock riprap side protection installed all on an interim capacity basis. From the _San Diego.Freeway location to 17th Street similar work was accom- plished but in place of rock riprap it was necessary to utilize a cheaper and less secure bank protection of reinforced asphaltic concrete. This was due to ·inadequacy of bond funds. The engineers retained by the Board of Supervisors -for preparation of the 1956 bond election report made certain determinations of the ultimate required capacity of the Santa Ana River. Their estimate of 35,500 cubic feet per second at Coast Highway has, as explained below, been found to be faulty. The perman- ent work was designed for this capacity .. The work upstream was designed in accordance with the limitations of the bond report providing Ior 50 to 65% of the 35,500 cubic feet per second. In 1962, the Board of Supervisors requested the Congress to authorize a re- study of the fed·eral flood control program in Orange County tn the light of vastly changed conditions since the original formulation in 1936. That study has been under way .since· 1964 and has revealed an alarming deficiency .in the Corps of En- gineers Prado Reservoir project. The project, it has been discovered, has in- sufficient capacity to contain the new Project Flood and the expect~tion is that a major flood will produce very large uncontrolled spillway flows with resultant ' widespread flooding and damage in Orange· County. The~e new flood f~ows are far in excess of those determined by the bond issue engineers. Remedial measures proposed by the Corps of Engineers include greatly inFreasing:the channel capacity through Orange County or raising the height of the dafu to achieve a larger reser- voir, or a combination of the two. t { . The.two floods .experienced in the winter of 1969 were kept within the Santa Ana River Channel, but only by heroic efforts of floo~~fighting forceso The most serious contributing factor to the crisis was the massive erosi.on that took place · . ·in and ·along the river channei from Katella Avenue to Prado Reservoir and the sub- sequent deposition of much of the material in the lower five miles of the channel. This resulted in abnormally high flood water elevations threatening the tops of · the levees. Severe difficulty was experienced with the asphaltic concrete lining of the river between San Diego Freeway and 17th Street. Portions became under- mined and were kept in place and the levees saved only by the.emergency placement of rock work by means of heavy equipment. Much remedial work on the river since the 1969 floods has been or is under construction. A continuation of the rock protection work between Katella Avenue ~ The Honorable Board of Supervisors Page 3 and the MWD outlet (nine miles) which will greatly reduce the future erosion and deposition in the lower part of the channel is now in the completion stages. Sur- plus sediment has been removed from the lower five miles of the river and deposited on the beaches. Additional height of rock riprap in the ~each between the San Diego Free~ay and the Coast Highway has been installed. The asphaltic concrete lining from the San Diego Freeway to 17th Street has been patched and restored to its condition previous .to the flood. The Corps of Engineers studies are continuing and a report on the Santa Ana River is expected in 1973. The report will contain the Corps of Engineers recom- mendations and should serve as a basis for planning interim protective works for the Santa Ana River from 17th Street to the Coast Highway. Within this area, the portion between 17th and the San Diego Freeway is considered to be the most vul- nerable portion of the river at this time. Budget studies for, the 1973-1974 fiscal year have started and top priority has been assigned to remedial work in this reach. Repiacement of the west side asphalti.c concrete lining;' with rock riprap from 17th Street to the freeway at.this writing appears to be t~e most effective expenditure of local funds and may be possible during ~he surmner and fall of 1973. I 'When the CorpS·of Engineers publishes its report; on the ~anta Ana River (due in 1973) better information will be available on whic~ to base· additional improve- ·-ments. In the meanwhile the above work appears to be ~he limit of local capability at this particular time. · ~ . RECCl--lMENDATION: 1. Receive and file. . " 2. Forward copy to County Sanitation~ District~.,· Respectfully submitted, / H. G. Osborne, Chief Engineer HGO:mn October 11, 1972 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: ·Joint Chairman Finnell SUBJECT: Agenda Items Nos. 10 & 11 If the Joint Boards concur with the Executive Committee's recommendation that the staff conduct the meet and confer sessions with the Orange County Employees Association, and approve employment of Jerry Patterson as Special Labor Counsel, the following motion should be adopted after the Boards reconvene: JWS:rb That the staff be directed to conduct meet and confer sessions with representatives of the Orange Counts Er:.ployces As sooi!'.:l.t j on in connect t~p --"'li tl}_ .. ---· ... personnel matters; and, that the,~-~l:l! the~ authorized, iJ' deem-e..0.-._n.e . .ce.&S-ary-;··-to.-emplov. Jerry--.-M. Patterson, Attorney at Law, as Spec· abor Counsel for a total amount o exceed $1,000 for the period Octob , 1972 through September 30, 1973, at a basic e of $50 per hbur, or $150 per half day, or $~50 per day, whichever is the lesser. . .J I I I J. Wyne Sylvester of Directors cc: Vice Chairman Davis ~c11i.J~·~ # ~ ~~~~ ce-o~ ~-zz.;< . . . 1:; f;;i/7;;-~ ~~ tftA, :::~I ' OCTOBER 11, 1972 Joint Meeting #5 -Report of Joint Chairman Finnell reported the Water Pollution Control Bill had been passed by both Houses of Congress a~d was sitting en the President's ~esk. The administrator of EPA has recommended that the President sign the bill with certain reservations. Mr. Haroer feels those reserva- tions are concerned ~vith the financial aspects of the bill. If Pr·esident vetoes the bill and submits it back to Congress before Congress adjourns, there is a possibility that Congress will pass a resolution continuing the present funding le~el. If there is a pocket veto, will have no water pollution funding at all. FAH recom- mended that telegrams be sent to Congressmen and President urging that the bill ·be approved and telegrams were sent on 10/9. President was scheduled to be in Atlanta on 10/12 and may present his position to the AMSA Conference. Was mentioned that it was the intent of one of the EPA committees to consider where the waste is discharged in arriving at requirements for secondary treatment. Finnell sa~d Mr. Harper indicated on the phone that there was a great many compliments given to our Districts in Atlanta for work that had been done by Directors and staff in attempting to persuade Congress relative to the requirements. Consultant firm has been employed by EPA to put together definition of secondary treatment. EPA should· consider a cost benefit analysis in definition. The Chair entertained a motion that a telegram be sent to the President opposing a pocket veto if it is his intent to veto the Water Pollution Control Blll. Motion was seconded and carried. Was mentioned that if he vetoes, will have to do it by Friday. Recognize President's position on financing but would hate to see whole philosophy of bill be lost because have spent about two years working on it. Joint Chairman called a meeting of the Executive Committee for Wednesday, October 25th at 5:30 and invited Directors Long and Nevil to attend. #6 -Mr. Brown mentioned that this was the first meeting Mr. Harper had missed in 6-1/2 years. Hoped he wasn't setting a precedent. #7 -Reoort of General Counsel Nissan recommended that Board of Directors appoint a committee of staff and General Counsel to work out policy to determine type and number of projects that are likely to require Environmental Impact reports. Would be proper to have a special.committee to develop a policy with some uniformity. Green suggested that if possible, it might be better to have the Districts work with other Districts in California to come up with an overall guideline for whole state. Nissan answered that somebody has got to start the work. LA County General Counsel.had called and asked what we were going to do. Said LA County ~as requiring EIA reports on each special assessment district they were ~onducting. Agreed that we did not think that would probably .. p.2 be a requirement unless assessment district was going into area where there was no development whatsoever. Should not require EIA reports on property already developed. Nisson said that once we develop a plan, then should coordinate with others but question is who is going to do it first. Question was asked why a special committee of CASA wouldn't be the logical place to work that problem. Finnell stated that the Chair did not intend to appoint a committee this meeting. Then a motion was made that a committee be appointed.· Just said to set up a committee from here and have staff work with CASA also. Finnell indicated that at Executive Committee meeting on the 25th will have the CASA representative and perhaps that would be an appro- priate time to appoint the committee and attempt to secure some uniformity. An amendment to the motion was made that the Board of Directors at the next meeting of the Executive Committee appoint a special committee to work out guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment reports. Motion was seconded and carried. ~9(a) -Herrin stated that he wanted to·be recorded as registering a vote in opposition of Resolution No. 72-129 (Watson Property Tax Initiative) The Chair then called for a roll call vote on resolution. Passed in all Districts with the exception of District No. 6 because of a lack of a quorum in No. 6 at that time. #9(d) -Question was asked if this amount for physical-chemical treatment testing could be refunded, and it was answered that if we do go ahead with this, would probably be refunded also. #12 -Items considered in executive session: Winn moved that the staff be directed to conduct meet and confer sessions with representatives of the Orange County Employees Association in connection with personnel matters; and, that the General Counsel be directed to provide legal counsel as needed and that he be authorized to obtain special counsel when unusual problems arise. Motion was seconded and carried. McWhinney then asked if we can still take actions representing all the Districts when District No. 6 does not have a quorum. Nisson answered that we could under the Joint Administrative Organization setup. #13 -Report of Special Committee on State Board Ocean Policy Reported that Committee. has met and has another meeting scheduled for October 26th in Sacramento with Mr. Livermoore(?), Director of the Dept. of Resources of the State of California under which Water . Resources Board operates·. Results of that meeting will be submitted to the Joint Boards at next meeting. Nisson mentioned that in this regard the decision which we have heard so much about re the Friends of Mammoth gives us quite a bit of strength against the Water Board if we have to go to court. Are going to require thew to file an EIA report. Item No. 14 -Flood Control Prevention Committee ~ir~ctor ~ust apDeared before Board of Supervisors on 10/10. Mr. Osborne from Flood Control District informed them that they should hold up on any action and they ended up just receiving and filing the Districts' letter. He felt that we needed to wait until after they had the report from the Corps of Engineers. Osborne was talking about San Diego Freeway to 17th Street in Santa Ana, not 17th Street in Costa Mesa. Still have no action planned along those lines. Mr. Just said should consider 17th Street on to the ocean. Would like to have some ideas as to what should be our next step. We have taken some steps internally but still need something done and don't believe we should wait another two years for Corps of Engineers report due in December 1973. Supervisor Clark stated that there can't be any work begun this year because we are in flood season right now. It was brought out at meeting that this construction was slated for next year. Would be impossible to begin this year. Just restated that it was just that section between the San Diego Freeway and 17th Street in Santa Ana that was scheduled for next year. Just talked to Geo. Osborne about rock face in this section here but he said it would be a problem because of time and lack of money. The question then is what do we have lined up for emergencies? Ray Lewis said main concern is weakest point in river bank from San Diego Freeway to 17th Street. Flood Control is reluctant to spend money prior to Corps of Engineers report in the event what they do in not consistent with their report and would not be reimbursed. Finnell asked what action the Committee felt that Sanitation Districts can take other than what has already been taken. Ray Lewis stated that Carl Nelson had set up meeting with representative- from cities on Flood Committee and with Osborne and some, of the Corps of Engineers people to see if something can be done and make recommenda- tion. Meeting is scheduled for the 24th of October. Finnell asked if on the 24th recommendations were made, where would we go then. Will we go back to Osborne or what? Ray Lewis answered that it would possibly.be brought back to Board for their action or go to Osborne. Finnell said perhaps our .recommendations should go back to Board of Supervisors. Just said we have to wait for technical recommendation but need to know what kind of chance we want to take. Is Flood Control's problem but we have a problem also. Do we want to do anything further at thispoint? Question was asked -What further can we do? Should we take it back to Board of Supervisors.· Who is going to gamble? -. Green asked if Co rps report could be speeded up . /VI u cL \ 4\u ) ~{.,.v '· Ray Le wis said fu n ding will take several years even if report is speed e d up . Nee d t o know what we ca~ do in e mer g e n cy situat ion . Really isn't much that Flood Control District, or Board of Supervisors can do at this time . Just said the onl y thing we can do is direc t the staff to set up some emergency proc e dures to follow . It was mentioned that we are bucking red tape routine. Should keep Committee and get some e mergency procedures se t up . Didn't have any set up in 1969 . It was mov e d to direct the staff to develop ernerge _ncy procedures to protect against the 35-year type flood and work with the Flood Control District to set up these procedures. An amendment to the motion was made that the Board explain to the Flood ·Control District the dangers from flooding for the people living in the low lands in th e area and request that they take this into consideration in developing emergency procedures for them also. Norma Gibbs asked if there were any funds available when flooding occurs and was answered just the disast~r funds. It was asked if the project from San Diego Freeway to 17th Street would be in the bud g et for next year and was answered that it will be placed on the budget but has to be approved yet . Finnell :called for the question and motion was seconded and carried . Supervisor Clark mentioned that Flood Control District is very concerned with Corps of Engin e ers and a proposal with them that they are going to simulate the 1969 flood at Prado Darn, and Flood Control District is opposing this. Committee should be aware of the fact that this is pending and we would oppose it from this group and all of the cities should a l so. Baker said he had talked to the Flood Control people at a later time and they had told him that this would be only a hypothetical case. #14(c) Ray Lewis reported on construction of f l ood wall at Plant and costs, etc. Nisson recommended that we submit a report on this construction to the Planning Commission o f Fou ntain Valley and also do an Environmental I mpact Assessment o n the project . This recommendation was made into a motion, seconded and carried. Miller mentioned an article he had read entitled ·something like "Red Tape for State's Cl e an Water" a n d sugg ested that the staff xerox co p ies of the article and d i stribute to the Directors. After reading article, he felt everyone should write their Co ngressman and sugg est they take some kind of legislative interest in this . .. EXCERPTS FROM Th'E MINUTES OF. TW. REGULAR JOINT MEE'l1ING OP THE 30ARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2!' 3, 5_, 6, 7 and 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A regular joint meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, Calif0r11ia, was i-1eld a-c the hour 01· ,..(:30 p.m., October 11 , 1972 , 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. The Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for each District's Board. * * * * * * * * * DISTRICT 7 Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned to October.24, 1972, at 5:00 p.m. ~e Assessment District No. 9. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:39 p.m., October 11, 1972. STATE OF CALIFORNIA~ SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE I, J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, Secretary of each of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing to be full, true and correct copy of minute entries on meeting of said Boards of Directors on the 11th day of October 1972 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have 11th day of October, 1972. S-107 ' set my hand this e Boards of Directors itation Districts Nos. , 7, and 11