Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-01-23 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AREA COO TE D DE 714 q � 14 10 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA if 962-2-2411 �" °�� P. ❑. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270B 1OB44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) Janua r3- 16, 1974 NOTICE Or ADJOURNED REGL'LAk MEEUNG DISTRICT NO.. 7 VIEDNE DAY, JANUARY 23, 1074, 4 :?0 P : Yl 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: Pursuant to adJournment of the regular meeting held January 9, 1974, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. /101 Sec iAtary J'vV S:rb II MANAGER'S AGENDA REPOT County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 812710844 Ellis Avenue of Orange County, California Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 i eiephenes: Area Code 714 I� DISTRICT NO. r _ 962-2-2411 �' 9621 1 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 23 , 1971 - : 30 p .m. No . . 3 - Proposed Annexation of Irvine Industrial Complex Territory. The Irvine Industrial Complex is requesting the annexation of approximately 446 acres to the District . This property, which lies easterly of Browning Avenue and southerly of the Santa Ana Freeway, is in the City of Tustin and is planned for industrial use . Representatives of the Irvine Industrial Complex will be present to describe their proposed development and anticipated sewage flows . No. 4 - Annexation of Property in the Vicinity of Santiago Creek. In October, the Board declared its intent to annex certain areas in Santiago Creek which are presently in District No . 2 but tributary, drainage-wise, to District No. 7 . The Board has taken the following action (10-10-73) : That the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No . 7 hereby declares its intent to annex territory presently within District No. 2 which can most logically be served by District No. 7 , provided, however, that said territory be de-annexed from District No . 2; and, FURTHER MOVED: That District No. 7 hereby de- clares its intent to waive annexation acreage fees for said territory but that connection fees shall be due and payable prior to initiation of annexation proceedings . District No . 2 took action on January 9th to initiate pro- ceedings to withdraw the property within Tract No . 8149; however, we have a letter from the City ' s Public Works Department request- ing reconsid6ration of the Board ' s action that District No . 7 connection charges be paid as a condition of the annexation. No. 5 - Feasibility Study re : Los Alisos Water District Discharge to District No. 7 . Included with the agenda material are letter reports from the District ' s engineer and the Joint Districts ' treatment plant engineers relative to the proposal of the Los Alisos Water District to discharge 10 MGD to the District ' s facilities on an off-peak basis . The staff and engineers will be prepared to discuss the reports and the recommended capital recovery charges ( $9,100,100) if the off-peak discharge concept is acceptable to the Board. No . 6 - Request of the Orange YMCA for Relief from District Connection Charge Fees . The District has received a request from the Orange Young Men' s Christian Association (YMCA) for relief or a substantial reduction of District connection fees which have been assessed their new facility located on a 4 . 9 acre site adjacent to the City of Orange park located at the intersection of Yorba and Chapman. Additional information and a staff recommendation on this matter will be forthcoming at the meeting. _ Fred A. Harper General Manager FAF :j BOARDS OF DHIECTOP.S County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: DISTRICT No. 7yea Cove 714 540-2910 962-2411 �+ AGENDA ADJOURNED• REGULAR MEETING ADJOURNMENTS POSTED..., COMP & MILEAGE...+,,,....... JANUARY 23, 1974 - 4;30 P.M. FILES SET UP..................... RESOLUTIONS CERTIFIED.- (1) Roll Call LETTERS WRITTEN.............. (2) Appointment of Chairman MINUTES WRITTEN............. p pro tam, if necessary MINUTES NLED,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,. (3) Consideration of request of Irvine Industrial Complex • for annexation of approximately 11,46 acres of territory to the District in the area generally bounded ,by the LETTER .__._.._. Santa Ana Freeway,-- Jamboree Road, Santa Fe Railroad A/C ----TKLR .-.. and Myford Road: -------- (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from Irvine Industrial Complex, dated January; 1974, FILE requesting said annexation. See page "A" LETTER .............. A/C ...TKLR - (b) Staff report re said request for annexation (c) ! Discussion re proposed annexation (4) Consideration of actions to adjust District's boundary to provide sewage service for an area presently in District No. 2 which can more logically be served by District No. 7 �, . in the vicinity of Wendes Road between Santiago Creek and a, line northerly of Santiago Canyon Road (Board declared intent to adjust boundary on October 10, 1973) : LETTER ...___.._ A/C ....TKLR (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from City of Orange, dated December 19, 1973, requesting deannexation of approximately 11.134 acres of territory from District No. 2 and requesting annexation of said FILED. ...... _ territory to District No. 7 • See page "B" ' LETTER ..._.._..... A/Q.__TKLR T (b) Consideration of motion to receive, nd file letter from City of Orange, dated January, 1974, requesting --- ��� waiver of connection fees regarding said annexation. See page FILE LETTER (C) Consideration of actior: on request from City of Orange A/C _..rKLR _. to waive connection fees -•-- (5) Consideration of request of Los Alisos Water District ---- regarding feasibility of participatinIg in County Sanitation District' s facilities for conveyance, treatment and disposal_ FUEP0, of Z-later District's sewage: LETTER --------- (a) Report of District No. 7 's Engineer re feasibility, A/C _TKLR and coneider•ation of&otion to receive and file said report dated January, 1974 (b) Report of Joint Districts' Treatment Plant Engineers re feasibility, and consideration of motion to receive and file said report dated January;'51974 (c) Discussion re furt;ier action on request of Los Alisos FILE Water District LETTER ---.- ' (6)T Other business and communications A/C ._.TKLR _..... 0(a) Request of YMCA for relief from connection charges (7) Consideration of motion to adjourn o � n Industrial ® Complex January 17, 1974 Board of Directors County Sanitation District #7 of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attn: Mr. Fred A. Harper General Manager Re: Irvine Industrial Complex - Tustin Gentlemen: The Irvine Industrial Complex respectively requests the Board of Directors consider the annexation of approximately 446 acres into Sanitation District V. The total subject area is now in Irvine Ranch Water District - Improvement r,r District #2 and will necessitate detachment in conjunction with the annexation proceedings. The following is a list of the. land uses with related net acreage and average flow for each use: 1. Industrial - 260 Acres @ 3880 G.P.D./acre = 1 ,008,800 G.P.D. 2. Commercial - 10 acres @ 3230 G.P.D./acre = 32,300 G.P.D. 3. Low to medium density residential - 176 acres @ 1990 G.P.D./acre 350,240 G.P.D. TOTAL FLOW 1 ,391 ,340 G.P.D. - It is vitally important to the Complex to have the subject area in Sanitation District #7 in that the existing sewering agency, IRWD, is unable to take industrial waste. Maps indicating the location of the project is attached for your reference. Very truly yours, • • . MI HAEL J. ABBITT �r Manager of Engineering cc R. Stoyer, IRWD Williamson S Schmid 2122 Campus Drive/Box 4404-Irvine.California 92664•(714)833.1010 AGENDA ITEM #3(a) -A- DISTRICT 7 4' " a Bryan Ave e # EXISTING. / San Juan t c a I RESIDENTIAL u DEVELOPMENT I Sant^ Ana fwy '',s ItoZrim 6litCh_I1 Ave Ave t PROPOSED -�--•. I INDUSTRIAL '.,j. x o `j�' DEVELOPMENT It{!Il�i�ilkWi Channel DISTRICT 7 BOUNDARY z NAVY NAY 0 PUNIP STATION00 ' 0-4 Santa Ana Fes! Marine Corp Air Station _ x Q w . o . . no LOCATION MAP tth 0 2000 IRVINE INDUSTRIAL CONTLEX Copy of letter to JWS ✓' d s! !lei �i E! W 1. J u:i�i,.�"-� t . �/ it ems.. �d d incorporated 1&Y8 o ran^^ �w:v Cc;,.yi nnn s♦ oL.apm,•. , v ... ,•f.. • G2106 . b.. ...... . °Wes/ actaa a.,wNu,a., al•Gl,uv•�rC�nyG^,Vdl�lUiiiip a��oo post office box 449 department of public works engineering division (714)532-0444 December 19, 1973 Mr. Ray Lewis Chief Engineer Orange County Sanitation District P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Regarding; Annexation-Deannexation of Tract #8149 Dear Mr. Lewis: On behalf of the developer, the City of Orange hereby requests that . all of the land known as Tract. #8149 be deannexed from Sanitary District No. '2 and annexed to Sanitary District No. 7. • The subject development has constructed a sewer that connects to the just completed Santiago Canyon Road Sewer which is within District No. 7. With the concurrence of the District, this area was master planned to be sewered to the Santiago Canyon Sewer at the time of its design.' The City was unaware at that time that District #2 boundaries extended south of Santiago Creek due to the physical restraints of this area ' sewering across the creek. It is also requested that due tr the extenuating circumstance- in this case, the formal annexation fil-.ng fees be waived. Since the houses in the tract are- presently under construction the annexation-deannexation procedure should be expedited as much as possible. It will be to the benefit of all to complete the process while the property remains under one owner. FILFID In the OPfica cf tn:• secretary County Sar•'!_ntion oistnct No AGENDA ITEM #U (a) B-1 DISTRICT 7 Mr. Ray Lewis Page 2 December 19 , 1973 Enclosed for your use is a reproducible copy of the annexation map including the legal description. Very truly yours, ohn V. Fonley Director of Public-`�dorks JVF:WWR:rh cc; GDJ WWR JVF File Engr. . AGENDA ITEM #4 (a) B-2 DISTRICT 7 BOARDS OF DI62L-CTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 s: phon Telee DISTRICT No. Area Code 714 . 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING t •'� �' �< JANUARY 23, 1974 '- 4:30 P.M. V (1) Roll Call (2) Appointment of Chairman pro tem, if necessary .(i � y•' ` Y'1 (3) Consideration of request of Irvine Industrial Complex Cv �J for annexation of approximately 446 acres of territory to the District in the area generally bounded .by the Santa Ana Freeway,- Jamboree Road, Santa Fe Railroad 1 . and Myford Road: Jol Consideration ,of motion to receive and file letter �� i, from Irvine Industrial Complex, dated January, 1974, t� requesting said annexation. See page A .c � a (b) Staff report re said request for annexation (a) Di.s Ku ion re proposed annexation _/J (4) Considerati6n o�actions to adjust District's bcundary to provide sewage service for an area presently in District No. 2 which can more logically be served by District No. 7 1 ' in the vicinity of Wendes Road between Santiago Creek and ..� � a line northerly of Santiago Canyon Road (Board declared v intent- to adjust boundary on October 10, 1973) : ( Consideration of motion to receive and file letter , from City of Orange, dated December 19, 1973, requesting _4 deannexation of approximately 11.134 acres of territory f from District No._ 2 and requesting annexation of said pa° territory to District No. 7.. See page "B" (, ?� (jrr Consideration of motion to receive and file letter / from City of Orange, dated January, 1974, reauesting waiver of connection fees regarding said• annexation. See page "C" Consideration of action on request rom City of Orange to waive connection fees (5) Consideration of. request of Los A`lisos dater District regarding feasibility of participating in County Sanitation District's facilities for conveyance, treatment and disposal of Water District's sewage:. (a) Report of District No. 7's Engineer re feasibility, and consideration of motion to receive and file said report dated January, 1974 (b) Report of Joint Districts' 'Treatment Plant Engineers re feasibility, and consideration of motion to receive and file said report dated January, 1974 (c) Discussion re further action on reauest of Los Alisos Water District (6) Other business and communications , (a) Request of YMCA for relief from connection charges (7) . Consideration of motion to adjourn ;,�� ' jr, ,v► - L� V 3� 4411A J - zl- u ,1v . M'�7-4 • 0 Q � iudustriei ® Complex January 17, 1974 Board of Directors County Sanitation District #7 of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attn: Mr. Fred A. Harper General Manager . Re: Irvine Industrial Complex - Tustin Gentlemen: The Irvine Industrial Complex respectively requests the Board of Directors consider the annexation of approximately 446 acres into Sanitation District #7. The total subject area is now in Irvine Ranch Water District - Improvement District #2 and will necessitate detachment in conjunction with the annexation proceedings. The following is a list of the land uses with related net acreage and average flow for each use: 1 . Industrial - 260 Acres @ 3880 G.P.D./acre = 1 ,008,800 G.P.D. 2. Commercial - 10 acres @ 3230 G.P.D./acre = 32,300 G.P.D. 3. Low to medium density residential - 176 acres @ 1990 G.P.D./acre 350,240 G.P.D. TOTAL FLOW . 1 ,391 ,340 G.P.D. . It is vitally important to the Complex to have the subject area in Sanitation District #7 in that the existing sewering agency, IRWD, is unable to take industrial waste. Maps indicating the location of the project is attached for your reference. Very truly yours, • MI HAEL J. ABBITT NOW Manager of Engineering cc R. Stoyer, IRWD Williamson & Schmid 2122 Campus Drivo /Box 4404•frvino.California 92664•(714)833.1010 AGENDA ITEM #3(a) -A- DISTRICT 7 Bryan Ave -c 1 c Q EXISTING San Juan t cm RESIDENTIAL I e I DEVELOPMENT I o Santa Ana Fwy tch•� A z l Ii iitl!' �I _ t Y J Rill i ll'•J ,�,!jl lli �� - a Q �I III I! PROPOSED , INDUSTRIAL j�1l�l��' �. DEVELOPMENT; 10, cz hannel. DISTRICT 7 BOUNDARY z NAVY JAY a PUMP STATION ( ) vo . Santa Ana 0-4 Marine Corp Air Station O = Z C� W o a no - LOCATION MAP `tn o 2000 IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX ropy of letter to JWS ✓ 3 •a►� �: �y�i� a �._._:.Y- incorporated 1688 orango c c. cv�7 our. C .NTa:i• :i.unuo•oranga,cuiiivn -,;a 32000- post office box 449 department of public works engineering division (714)532-0444 December 19 , 1973 Mr. Ray Lewis • . Chief Engineer Orange County Sanitation District P.O. Box 81.27 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Regarding: Annexation-Deannexation of Tract #8149 Dear Mr, Lewis: On behalf of the developer, the City of Orange hereby requests that . all of the land known as Tract #8149 be deannexed from Sanitary District No. 2 and annexed to Sanitary District No. 7, ' The subject development has constructed a sewer that connects to the just completed Santiago Canyon Road Sewer which is within District No. 7. With the concurrence of the District, this area was master planned to be sewered to the Santiago Canyon Sewer at the time of its design. The City was unaware at that time that District #2 boundaries extended south of Santiago Creek due to the physical restraints of this area sewering across the creek. It is also requested that due tr the extenuating circumstance- in this case, the formal annexation fil -ng fees be waived. Since the houses in the tract are•presently under construction the annexation-deannexation procedure should be expedited as much as possible. It will be to the benefit of all to complete the process while the property remains under one owner. In the Offic- of the F,^cretary County Sor •ntion !';Str;Ct No AGENDA ITEM #4 (a) B-1 DISTRICT 7 J Mr. Ray Lewis Page 2 December 19 , 1973 Enclosed for your use is a reproducible copy of the annexation map including the legal description. Very truly yours, Zohn V. Fonley rector of Public'Works • JVF:WWR:rh cc; GDJ WWR JVF File Engr. AGENDA ITEM #4 (a) B-2 DISTRICT 7 Agenda Item B0y/0 ErlQiniaLWIM7 CofP0f0t10n 412 South Lyon Street consultlnq engineers y architects P.O. Box 178 Santa Ana, California 92702 714 / 547-4471 k Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Manager January 17, 1974 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Enclosed is our report on the Investigation of Feasibility of Transporting Sewage from the Los Alisos-Water District through the Sunflower-fnterceptarto-Treatment Plant Now 1 . In general, the report.has been-prepared in. accordance with the guidelines discussed at the November 29, 1973, meeting with the Los Aliso�-Water District representative: = We are available to meet with the board of directors at their adjourned meeting on January 23, 1974, to discuss the report in detail and answer any questions the directors may have. BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION Conrad Hohener, Jr., PE Principal Civil Engineer Id Enclosure INVESTIGATION OF FEASIBILITY OF TRANSPORTING SEWAGE FROM LOS ALISOS WATER DISTRICT THROUGH THE SUNFLOWER INTERCEPTOR TO TREATMENT PLANT NO. 1 Overview The Sunflower Interceptor begins at Treatment Plant No. 1 and extends easterly to the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Main Street in the city of Irvine and is composed of three different-sized reaches. Reach 1 extends from. Treatment Plant No. 1 through Santa Ana River easements and Sunflower Avenue to Bear Street and is comprised of 14,120 feet of 84-inch-diameter pipe with a peak capacity of 85.4 mgd. Reach 2 continues easterly in Sunflower Avenue 7,290 feet to Main Street and is 78 inches in diameter with a capacity of 72.7 mgd. Reach 3 runs southerly and easterly in Main Street to Red Hill Avenue and is 2, 140 feet in length, has a capacity of 58.1 mgd, and is 66 inches in diameter. Flows from Los Alisos Water District would discharge into the interceptor at the intersection of Main Street and Red Hill Avenue. Reaches 1 and 2 are jointly owned by Districts 7 and 1, with• percentage owner- ship of 70 and 75, respectively, for District 7, and 30 and 25 for District 1 . Reach 3 is totally owned by District 7. Expenditures to date for Reach 1 total $2,678,349; Reach 2, $1 ,507,490; and Reach 3,.$1,262,709. These expenditures include costs for construction contracts, engineering design, design surveying, construction staking, construction inspection, testing services, fees for permanent and temporary easements, utility relocations during construction, printing costs, bid notices, -as-built surveys, street re-striping, workorder changes, and capitalized interest. Costs for the first two reaches were shared in accordance with ownership percentages between Districts 7 and 1 . The above statistics and other pertinent facts are summarized in Table 1 . Existing Flow Conditions In order to determine the existing flow conditions in the Sunflower Interceptor, continuous flow measurements over a one-week period from January 2 through January 9, 1974, were taken at a manhole approximately 860 feet west of Red Hill Avenue on Main Street (Station 230+36). During this period, considerable rainfall occurred. The flow measurements should have reflected existing maximum conditions in the interceptor since any inf i Itraf ion from local collector sewers would probably have been at a maximum. From these measurements, the maximum daily flow was selected for analysis of existing conditions. Maximum conditions occurred on Wednesday, January 9. Curve A on Plate 1 is a plot of the January 9 hydrograph. Peak flow occurred at one o'clock in the afternoon at a rate of 11 mgd, which is equivalent to 19 percent of maximum capac- ity. Currently, about 2 mgd peak is still flowing down the Red Hill Avenue trunk into the Gisler trunk, which, in about three months, will be diverted into the Sunflower Interceptor. This diversion is dependent upon work being completed in the metering and diversion structure in plant 1 . Curve B is a representation of conditions in Reach 3 as they will appear when the diversion is made. Peak flow in this case is 13 mgd, which is 23 percent of maximum capacity. Projected Flow Conditions The Sunflower Interceptor has been designed to carry the peak flow which is expected to be generated sometime in the future when full land use occurs within the master plan study area. It is prognosticated that this condition will occur sometime between the years 1995 and 2000. When peak flow does occur, the only capacity available for conveyance of flows which originate outside the masterplanned area will -2- be during off-peak hours. To determine what capacity might be available during off- peak hours at ultimate flow conditions, a hydrograph was constructed reflecting flow conditions in the interceptor when at peak capacity. This is illustrated as Curve C on Plate 1 . This ultimate hydrograph was arrived at by extrapolating the variations in current flows to a condition where the peak flow approaches the capacity of the I interceptor. Also, as a guide in the projection of this ultimate peak capacity hydro- graph and for comparison of characteristics, an examination was made of two hydrographs on the Miller-Holder trunk sewer in District 3 and one in District 2, where the capac- ity of the trunks are about equal to the Sunflower Interceptor at Main and Red Hill. in these three cases, the peak flows were within 85 to 95 percent of capacity, suggest- ing the characteristics of these trunks would probably represent those at peak capacity. N.r In comparing the Sunflower Interceptor hydrograph for projected ultimate flow with the three examples, flow variations between low flow, average flow, and peak flow were within a few percentage points from each other and follow the some pattern, although the time at which the peak and low flows occurred was shifted slightly in each case. From these comparisons and the extrapolation of existing flows, it is our opinion that Curve C is a good representation of the ultimate hydrograph for the Sunflower Interceptor at Main Street and Red Hill Avenue. Los Alisos Water District Existing and Proposed Flow Conditions We have been informed by the manager of the Los Alisos Wafter District that, for purposes of this study, 10 mgd is their estimated ultimate average flow. The district's present average flow into their treatment plant is 0.9 mgd. -3- Projected Off-peak Capacity Available The area between the peak-capacity line (58.1 mgd) and the projected ultimate peak capacity Curve C represents the total amount of flow which could be introduced into the interceptor at Red Hill Avenue and Main Street and conveyed to Treatment Plant No. 1 . The vertical distance between the peak-capacity line and any point on the curve represents rate of flow available in the trunk at-any specific time. We have superimposed a 10 percent safety band over and above Curve C which reduces the off- peak capacity available for outside flows. Thus the available area for off-peak flows lies between the peak-capacity line and Curve D. It was felt that the addition of the 10 percent safety band was the prudent thing to do since the forecasting of sewage •.� flows is not an exact science. While the projected ultimate peak-capacity hydrograph (Curve C) has been compared and tested with very similar situations in Districts 2 and 31 it was reasoned that there should be a safety factor applied for protection of the district. The crosshatched area represents the total volume of 10 mgd which would ultimately be received from the Los Alisos Water District. As can be seen from the hydrograph, this flow would have to be introduced in the Sunflower Interceptor in varying flow rates beginning at 4 o'clock in the evening and continuing through until approximately 9 a.m. the next morning. The maximum discharge rate would have to be approximately 26 mgd, occurring at approximately 5 o'clock in the morning. We have not discussed these discharge limitations with the Los Aiisos Water District. We assume that if the directors of District 7 did give favorable consideration to accepting 1"W their flow, proper arrangements would be made-within their system to store and release -4- flows to the Sunflower Interceptor as hydrographic conditions dictated. If an agree- ment were entered into with the Los Alisos Water District for conveyance of flows to Treatment Plant No. 1 , we would certainly- recommend that the projected peak- capacity hydrograph be reviewed periodically for accuracy. This review would involve following the same procedures used in constructing the hydrograph. Analysis of Sunflower Interceptor Costs The Sunflower Interceptor capital and maintenance costs were analyzed in an effort to determine conveyance costs as a basis of reimbursement to County Sanitation District No. 7 for leasing off-peak capacity in the interceptor to Los Alisos Water Dis- trict. The total original costs, which include those items described in the Overview section of this report, were inflated to the present date using the-E-PA; Water Quality Office, Sewer Construction Index to reflect present replacement costs of the interceptor. Since the Sunflower Interceptor has been in operation for approximately two years, a total depreciated value was calculated based on straight-line depreciation over a 50 year life. Dividing the depreciated value by the.peak capacity of the interceptor results in a present day value, or cost per unit of capacity (million gallons per day), for each reach. The above values for each reach are listed in Table 1 . An estimate of an annual maintenance cost of $31000 for the three Sunflower Interceptor reaches was received from the district's maintenance superintendent. This is based on cleaning the line once every two years and cleaning the siphons at the Greenville-Banning flood control channel and the Santa Ana-Delhi flood control channel four times a year, each. This cost was then pro-rated over the three reaches and an annual maintenance cost per unit of capacity calculated. Table 1 also contains these values. -5- In an effort to determine an equitable reimbursement basis, the capital and maintenance costs were combined and the amount of reimbursement calculated. Two methods of reimbursement were considered; a lump-sum payment at the beginning, and equal annual payments. An interest rate of 6 percent was used. The lump-sum method of reimbursement would consist of one initial payment of $720, 100, which includes $7141000 for the cost of the capital improvements plus $6, 100 for the present worth of annual maintenance costs of $390. Equal annual reimbursements would cons i st of yearly payments of $46, 100 over the remaining life of the facility. If the Sunflower Interceptor were not used for conveyance of the Los Alisos flows to Treatment Plant No. 1, the cost of a new line, including engineering, surveying inspection, and all of the usual miscellaneous costs, to carry strictly Los Alisos flows is estimated to be $2,350;000. The line would be 39 inches in diameter, 23,500 feet in length, and would require four siphons to clear known existing utilities. -6- TABLE 1 J Total Total cost Annual Maintenance Cost Peak Original Inflated to Depreciated Value Cost for Cost Cost for Reach Bid Date Size Length Ca aci Cost Jan. 1974 1 Value 2 mgd 10 mgd Total mgd 10 mgd 1 Feb., 1971 84" 14,120' 85.4 mgd $2,678,300 $3,562,100 $3,348,400 $39,200 $392,000 $1,800 $21 $210 2 April, 1971 78" 7,290' 72.7 mgd $1,507,500 $1,929,600 $1,833,100 $25,200 $252,000 $ 930 $13 $130 3 Sept., 1971 66" 2,140' 58.1 mgd $ 371,700 $ 422,200 $ 405,300 $ 7,000 $ 70,000 $ 270 $ 5 $ 50 $714,000 390 1Cost inflation based on EPA, Water Quality Office, $ewer Construction Index. 2Depreciation figured on straight-line basis for 50-year life. METHODS OF PAYMENT: I. O ne I um sum = $714,000 + 390 (15.64) _ $720,100 II. Equal annual payments = ($714,000) (.0639) + 390 = $46,100 I ,� rr TL i i L JJ 14 i ! OM . T i R�' ) E(1!L AUE'.kA I ! '- 6. ' ' i NII ' ! AAESTY BA - ! --- -! - -C,11t. IfIE'- - -- -- 109.. I F�ROJEdTED--IBC RA TF_pEAK__CAPA-Cl rK AI..DRQGRAPA _.! ; c_/R- - _ -- � ___►__L__i__ .i _�___�_ ice!_.__�_. _� � � - i I � � _.__ Q 0600 1206 16W 2400 Tl ME OF .TRAY PL A TE I Agenda Item No._,..S.Lh . — JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS ` \ PHOENIX WALNUT CREEK SANTA ANA ARIZONA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA JOHN A. CAROLLO. P.E. (1906.1971) WALNUT CREEK PLAZA, SUITE 750 H. HARVEY HUNT, P.E. 1990 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD. HOWARD M. WAY. P.E. WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 ROBERT G. WILLIAMS, P.E. AREA CODE: t4151 932.1710 DONALD R. PREISLER, P.E. GAIL P. LYNCH. P.E. January 15, 1974 Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Subject: Los Alisos Water District In accordance with instructions from the CSDOC General Manager, Mr. �r Fred Harper, we have performed a preliminary study involving CSDOC treat- ing and disposing of wastewater which would originate in the Los Alisos Water District. Said wastewater would be discharged to the CSDOC system in Dis - trict 7 and would arrive at Plant No. 1 in the 84-inch Sunflower Interceptor. We understand that the quantity of wastewater flow would be up to 10 MGD and are assuming that characteristics would not vary substantially from current CSDOC wastewater. In performance of this study, we have developed data relative to CSDOC wastewater flow and variation -of wastewater flow arriving .at the CSDOC Joint Works treatment plants. We have also updated unit costs that were developed for primary treatment and disposal in 1969 and have estimated unit costs for adding secondary treatment based on the activated sludge plant which was re- cently designed for Plant No. 1 Following are statements relative to the CSDOC system with regard to wastewater flows. 1. Current wastewater flow normally arriving at Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 is 79 MGD and 77 MGD, respectively. 2. At present about 46 MGD is treated at Plant No. 1 and about 110 MGD is treated at Plant No. 2. 3. Wastewater arriving in the Sunflower Interceptor is di- verted to Plant No. 2. This diversion will probably continue until Plant No. 1 is expanded and a new Head- works constructed (projected for early 1980's). %..e CSDOC 1/15/74 Page 2 4. Based on the best information we have at this time, on the average, the variation in wastewater flows arriving at the two plants is about as shown on the attached plates 1 and 2. For Plant No. 1, below average flow occurs from 12:00 midnight to 9:00 AM with a minimum flow of about 50 percent of average occurring about 5:00 AM.- For Plant No. 2, below average flow occurs from 3:00 AM to about 1:00 PM with a minimum of about 55 per- cent of average flow occurring about 8:00 AM. . 5. Current planning is to operate Plant No. 1 at nearly a constant flow rate after startup of the new activated sludge plant (early 1976). Plant No. 1 peaks would be diverted to Plant No. 2 for treatment. This mode of op- eration would continue until Plant No. 1 is expanded and a. new Headworks is constructed (early 1980's). 6. It is technically feasible for the Districts to treat and dispose of an additional 10 MGD of wastewater which originates from outside present Districts boundaries. This wastewater flow would be a small percentage of total wastewater flow treated in the Districts' Joint Works.Treatment and Disposal System. 7. Unit costs for purchase of capacity rights for primary treatment and disposal were developed in 1969 and are set forth in the Irvine-Riverside Joint Use of Facilities Study. We have updated costs developed in that Report to current cost levels. Based on current Engineering News Record Index for Los Angeles Area (ENR-LA) of 2100, those 1969 costs would be escalated to about $625, 000 per MGD of capacity right. This is for pri- mary treatment and disposal of Plant No. 1 wastewater and includes costs for .interplant piping from Plant No. 1 to Plant No. 2. 8. Recently adopted State and EPA regulations require ad- ditional treatment above and beyond primary treatment. The Districts are currently planning a staged program to implement improved treatment at the Joint Works. The first stage will be construction of a 46 MGD'activa- ted sludge secondary treatment plant at Plant No. 1. Design is presently complete and bids will be requested for construction as soon as approval it received from EPA. Based on estimates of cost for this first stage of improved treatment, unit cost for activated sludge would be $570, 000 per MGD of capacity at an ENR-LA of 2100. CSDOC 1/15/74 Page 3 9. Costs for operation and maintenance of the CSDOC facili- ties must be recovered if the Districts treat and dispose of waste originating from outside their Districts. Unit costs for primary treatment and disposal were about $35 per million gallons in fiscal 1972-73. The Districts are currently using about $50 per MGD for projected opera- tion and maintenance costs for primary treatment in cash flow studies. 10. Costs for operation and maintenance of the added secon- dary treatment facilities are calculated to be $56 per mil- lion gallons at current cost levels. These costs will es- calate in future years. Future costs for operation and maintenance could best be determined based on the Districts' cost accounting records for the actual period of use. The above facts and figures speak to what is actually happening at the `'01 Districts. Costs are based on what it actually costs or is estimated to cost the Districts to construct facilities. Actual cost to construct a 10 MGD sec- ondary treatment plant could be more. Cost of facilities to handle off peak flows could be approximated by assuming that those facilities designed to handle peak flows such as pump stations, pipelines and outfalls would not be charged to the agency delivering flow at off peak periods. This would amount to a reduction in total project cost of $357, 000 per MGD of capacity. (625, 000 + 570, 000 less 357, 000 = 838, 000. ) The above information is for your use in discussing feasibility of treatment and disposal of wastewater from the Los Alisos Water District. We suggest that before anything is finalized that Los Alisos be requested to furnish projected flows, daily variation of flow and estimated wastewater characteristics. As soon as you have had a chance to review the above information we would like to discuss it with you, and upon receipt of the flow information dis- cussed above we will prepare our final report. JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS Wff!;'t <R. Howard W RH:dh Encl. 160 150 140 130 — 120 I10 . O J �- 10 0 Ld 0 Q 90 W > 60 Q LL OLd ra z U o/ 60 W lee d 50 40 30 20 10 0 MIDNIGHT 3AM 6AM 9AM 12NOON 3PM 6PM 9PM MIDNIGHT JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS PLANT N2 I PLATE NO. OF DAILY VARIATION PHO-..IX• WALNUT CREEK • SANTA ANA ORANGE COUNTJALIFORNIA OF WASTEWATER FLO.. 160 150 — 140 — 130 —--- --— --- -- 120 O J 0" 10 0 W Q 90 — x W > 80 — Q i W O TO -- Z W 60 — or or c W 0— 50 — i 40 30 20 10 0 MIDNIGHT 3AM GAM 9AM 12 NOON 3PM 6 PM 9 PM MIDNIGHT JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS PLANT N° 2 PLATE NO. OF DAILY VARIATION 2 PHOE._)X -WALNUT CREEK •SANTA ANA ORANGE COUNT) , 6LIFORNiA OF WASTEWATER FLJ DISTRICT 7 - 1/23/74 (6a) YMCA Chairman Smith asked that this item be taken up first . Mr. Harper reported that there were representatives of the YMCA present if there were any ozipstions . Briefl17 explained that they had 4 . 9 acres, much of which was going to be undeveloped . Only 1 acre parcel is being developed, and the rest is not being improved at this time. Stated that the staff is recommending that -the District charge for the improved area only which would amount to about one acre . Charge would be $500 instead of about $2, 500 . Much of this area extends into Santiago Creek. Saltarelli moved to approve staff recommendation. Motion was seconded. Nisson asked if there would be some provision regarding future development of this area, and Mr. Harper answered, yes . Saltarelli asked that that provision be made part of the motion. Motion passed by roll call vote. (3b) Irvine Industrial Complex request for annexation Mr . Harper advised that Mr . Babbitt of IIC was there to explain project . First FAH reviewed past activities, particularly regarding annexations along eastern border of District : In 1969 _ proposed to District withdrawal of 1, 015 acres--pointed out area on map . At that time 80 acres were annexed into City of Tustin and ' ifaFd they would serve rest of area. Originally planned a line down Browning--gravity line into where we had proposed Red Hill Trunk. Pump station was put in and pumped over to Red Hill Trunk. This was a temporary pump station and had 8-inch force main. Authorized withdrawal in January or February, 1969. Board ordered Master Plan Report done in May, 1969 and this was the basis for which bond election was held. The plan for the sizing of the sewer that was eventually built in Red Hill to relieve the overloaded sewer did not include anything but what we have in the boundary area. This proposed area has 1. 3 MGD. Question is whether this can be taken care of without depriving some other areas . Also there .is a residential area in the center of this industrial complex that would have to annex. Would have to joins under 70th SMD and they have a rather high tax rate. Is a possibili .y of gravity sewei2 but don't know, yet . Problem is at what point d._ we say, no, we can' t take anymore . Mr. Smith asked if this could affect other areas that voted on the bond election and cut their service? What is staff' s recommendation? FAH stated that they need to study this more in depth and see what can be done. On the plus side, this area would carry high assessed valuation and on ad valorem taxes, this would pull in a substantial amount and they would pay any surcharges . Smith then asked if FAH thought that the staff and Boyle could have any kind of a report to help the Board by the next meeting. Saltarelli asked if there was any chance that this could be connected with relief trunk and FAH answered, possibly. Nisson asked if the finger of residential area was proposed to be annexed also . Mr . Harper said they would have to work out the details on this; would like them to be . Nisson said they should also make sure that our present annexation charges would pay for services that would be provided . Is was then asked if IRWD could not take the industrial waste and was answered, that was right . r Mr. Harper further reported that capacity in our two lines is about 27 MGD to serve whole upper portion of District 7 . Would ha anti-i.ng 1 .3 MrD ^ontrir„+; on or, this ?nnexntn:-n u--'•,• figure.f 1. 6 MGD capacity to be provided for Marine Corp Air Station. Talked to Boyle and their cost would be about $3, 000 to do this study. Question asked if Boyle could come up with recommendation by February 13th meeting? Conrad said that would be a very short time. Problem involved is with Master Plan. If there are areas within District not contributing as much as planned for , then they have surplus . One of the areas to look at is along Browning Avenue . Have to compare with Master Plan and in order to do that have to meter the flows for a week, make a house count and count connections and that takes about two weeks, and one procedure follows another. Said a written report within three weeks would really crowd it . He was then asked if he went ahead with the study, could he get a good indication. Conrad answered that it depends on the help he could get from the staff. Would have to place u meter on the Browning Trunk the next day or Friday . Could then have a good indication of probability or feasibility and some direction anyway . Porter indicated that he was concerned in another area with regard to Clifton Miller and all those who worked on the bond issue. Irvine Industrial Complex wanted out and we let them out . Said these people bonded themselves and now IIC wants back in again. How much should IIC have participated in that bond issue for four years . Smith agreed that they had to be concerned about bond issue . Saltarelli asked what the legal ramifications were of refusing service. If IRWD will never have capability of handing industrial waste, then this is something that has to be taken into consideration for any future development . Nisson stated that he couldn't comment with any certainty regarding whether IRWD can refuse service within its own territory. Is a possibility they could legally do it . . Have discussed this at attorneys conferences and they take the attitude that whenever you are in a District, you are entitled to service but there are differences of opinion on this . Nisson further advised that IIC would pick up District ' s bonded indebtedness when they came in. Didn't know how much IRWD bonded indebtedness they would carry with them. Saltarelli questioned that this effluent eventually had to get into Red Hill Trunk and was answered, yes . Question was asked regarding Irvine Complex plans for north of Santa Ana Freeway--any industrial there? Answered no . Mike Babbitt of IIC then gave a little history on this area. Said about a year ago Complex realized they were running out o property much sooner than anticipated . Thought 270 acres of this area would be good for industrial; 10 acres of which is a small commercial site. Tried to get it through the City of Tustin. 176 acres are residential. Said last Monday got final approval from City of Tustin for zoning. Now have sewer problem. Originally this area was planned as residential and was to go into IRWD. Shortly after that IRWD put in their existing trunk sewer. There is bonded indebtedness and the Complex would be subject to certain fees and certain assessments to take care of that bonded indebtedness . That line would not be used to its fullest capacity as originally planned by IRWD. One side primarily for land use. Out of 268 acres about 245 acres is property and other is office space. Land absorption rate, either leased or sold, is between now and 1977 . Actual use, buildings occupied and maximum effluent coming from that area, is 1980-82 . 500 square feet will be 50% industrial manufacturing and 50% industrial distribution (warehousing) 7, 600 employees on 260 acres of industrial, office and commercial. Assessed valuation in 1981 estimated at around $20 million for industrial, office and commercial. -2- Said if you include residential based on IIC residential figures, by 1976 will be completely developed. Estimated AV of $7 . 1 million. T.,�al5 out to be a.buut $27 willion .Hv revenue o Listrict coula be figured from that point . Referred to flog rates indicated in their letter . Said they are taking out half the flow rate but District . gaining the AV. Babbitt didn' t have any idea regarding whether the residential area would annex. Smith then stated that he would agree with staff' s recoru:endations that the residential area should be included with the annexation. Further stated that another question we want to know is whether it is going to affect other areas that have more or less been promised that they could join the District . Porter then asked if the Irvine Complex wasn' t picking up the tab for this study by Boyle . Mike Babbitt answered that they would be willing to pay the cost of study . Mr. Harper suggested that if the Board asked him to pay the cost of the study, he would receive credit for cost if area was annexed . Smith said that could be decided later. Rogers asked if this was lease land or fee land and if Board would be dealing with home owners or IIC? Saltarelli answered that it would be residential homeowners which compounds the problem. Saltarelli then commented that there is certainly a way to make up the capacity by controlling MCAS plan. Future developments of MCAS would have to be high industrial. Originally planned as industrial . FAH said no commitment has been made regarding capacity on MCAS. Smith then asked if it was the feeling of the Board to continue this i or ask staff for brief report. Saltarelli stated that there were some . serious concerns here . Need a study done no matter who is going to pay for it. Is significant to City of Tustin, IIC and people to find out what the ramifications are . Smith said .that problem of residential area should be put in study . Patterson also asked if study would include any consec,uences of IRWD as a result of deannexation. Smith answered, yes, shc.uld be included in study also . Saltarelli then moved that the staff be directed to work with Irvine Industrial Complex in obtaining a study of the engineering problems confronted by this development and that the Irvine Complex be requested to pay for it with subsequent credit from the District if it does i annex, and further direct that the staff discuss the matter of the bonded indebtedness with IRWD to determine if there are any legal j ramifications , if there are any, and includes residential area and i possibility of their annexation. Motion seconded and carried . Porter asked if this would also include financial impact, what connection fees would generate and effect on whole District? FAH answered, yes . I i (4a) Annexation of Tract 8149 FAH gave a brief report on background of this annexation request . Said developer had paid what he thought were his total fees to the City and now finds that we want connection fees on 19 homes . Smith advised that the letters should be received and filed first . Items 4 (a) & (b) were then moved & seconded . Patterson then asked if there were any legal problems in waiving the fees . Nisson answered that since this is an annexation, might have 11 -3- authority to do it as a condition of annexation. He added that we are having a problem with Districts 2 and 3 with their connection hav e had a l.A of uiahappy T;euple regarding connection fee ordinance and waiving fees . Have told them would have to amend ordinance. Said we do have authority because it is an annexation . but might make it tougher on Districts 2 and 3 for connection fees . Hard to explain to public difference between waiving fees . ,� Ray Lewis pointed out proposed area on map . Clark moved to approve request of City of Orange to waive connection fees . Porter seconded motion. Patterson then questioned whether the 19 lots would pay something to City of Orange that they would not have to pay to District . Was answered, no . Smith tried to clarify the motion and stated that he didn' t believe the City of Orange should have to pay for these people and they would be the ones to pay because couldn' t hold builder responsible Rogers also asked if rest of area would have to pay and was answered that any future houses sold would have to pay fees . Motion carried. MEETING DATE Jan. 23, 1974 TIME 4 : 30 P.m_ DISTRICTS 7 DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS �GARTHE) . . . . • PATTERSON . . . • �LANGER) . . . . . . FINNELL. . . . . CASPERS) . . . .BATTIN . . . . . . . . . .CASPERS) . .BAKER . . . . . . KiMA. . . . CASPE S) . . . . .BATTIN . . . . (WELSH . . . . . . .SALTARELLI — _ _ �SALES) . . . . . . .BLACKMAN . . . CASPERS . DISTRICT EWING) . . . . . . .CHAPUT. . . • , �CASPE S) . . . . .CLARK. . . . . . . �o..iNC . . . .CHAPUT. . . . . . . _ SHINES . . . . . .DAVIS . . . . . . _ SCASPERS) . . . . CLAP.! ... . . . . . . . —___ .. _ �iIATNE7') . . . . . .DUKE . . . . . . . LANy-ER) . . . . . FINi`.cLL. . . . . . _� EDWARDS . FOX) . . . . KOt�lP,LS K I . . . . . _ ___ _ (KOWALS K I ) . . . FOX. . . . . . . . PATTE SON) . .GARTHE . . . . . . . PATTERSO�!) . . .r,ARTHE . . . . . . SCOTT�. . . . . .JUST. . . . . . . . . f•1ATNEY} . . . . . . MATNEY) . . . . . .GREEN PERRY . . . . . . . . BROWN) . . . . . . .HYDE . . . . . . . . SREINHPRDT) . , ROOT. . . . . . . . . SCOTT) . . . . . . .IPEREZ) . . . . . .SMITH. . . . JUST. . . . . . . . . . FOX) . . . . . KOWALSKI . . . .(DUTTONN) . . . . .STEPHENSv IMC INNIS) . .KYMLA. . . . . .(DUNNE . . . . . .WINN . . . . . . . . . MARSHOTT. . . . DISTRICT 3 CROUL) . . . . . . .MC INNIS . . . . STEVEN�S) . . . . .NEVIL. . . . . . . SKOWALSK ) . . . FOX. . . . . . . . . . GARTHEI . . . . . .PATTERSON . . . ICASPE S) . . . .BATTIN . . . . . . . _ - PERRY . . . . . . SALES . . . . . .BLACKMAN . . . . . PORTER . . . . . . NINES . . . . . .DAVIS . . . . . . . . (BURTON) . . . . . .QUIGLEY . . . . . EDWARDS . . . . . . RIMA. . . . . . . . (PATTERSON) . .GARTHE . . . . . . . FRANKIEW CH) .ROBERTS . . . . . (MATNEY) . . . . . GREEN . . . . . . . . MC INNIS� .ROGERS . . . . . (BROI^IN) . . . . . .HYDE . . . . . . . . . REINHARDT) • . .ROOT. . . . . . . . MARSHOTT. . . . . SALTARELLI • . PERRY . . . . . . . . HOLLINDEN) . . .SCOTT. . . . . . . (FRANKIEWICH) ROBERTS . . . . . . PEREZ) . . . .SMITH . ... . . . NHARDT� . -ROOT. . . . . . . . . DUTTON) ­ STEPHENSON • , kffLLIN EN . .SCOTT. . . . . . . . ROBERTS) • STEVENS . . . . . (DUTTON) . . . . .STEPHENSON. . . MC INNIS) . , • .STORE . . . • . • . �IBYRNE) . . . . . .VANDERWAAL. . . DUNNE • • • • . . •WINN . . . . . . . . DISTRICT 5 CCROUQ . . . . . .MC INNIS . . . . . KER) . . . . . .CASPERS . . . . . . KYMLA. . . . . . . . OTHERS DISTRICT 6 HARPER PORTER . . . . . . . SYLVESTER �MC. CASPERS) . . . .BATTIN . . . . . . . LEWIS INNIS) . . .STORE. . . . . . . . DUNN CLARKE DISTRICT 7 TAYLOR J� �� (PEREZ) • • • • • •SMITH • • ° • • • • • BROWN CASPER ) • • • • CLARK. . . . . . . . . NISSON .GARTHE • • • • •PATTERSCN • • • • BLISS PORTER. BOETTNER (BURTON) . . • . .QU I GL.EY . , ,. : . . ��' �� CARLSON MC IN� IS) . . . ROGERS . . . . . . . --� _� FINSTER SHJ . . . . . .SALTARELL! GALLOWAY D MTRICT 11 HOHENER _ HOWARD (MATNEY) . • .DUKE • • • • . • • • _. HUNT SSCASPER ) • • • •BAKER. . . . . . • • _ KEITH IMATNEY . . . . .GIBBS . . . . — KENNEY LYNCH DISTRICT 8 MADDOX MARTINSON MITCHELL. . . . . PIERSALL (CLARK) • • • • • •CASPERS • • • • • • STEVENS HOLM= • • • • • • • ___.____ 12/12/73 MEETING DATE: Jan. 23, 1974 TIME 4 : 30 P .m. DISTRICTS 7 DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS -�GARTHE) . . . . . PATTERSON . . . . LANGER) . . . . . . FINNELL. . . . . CASPERS) . . . .BATTIN . . . . . . . CASPERS� . . . . .BAKER. . . . . . . RIMA. . . . . . . . . CASPE S i . . . .BATTIN . . . . . . (WELSH . . . . . . .SALTARELLI . . . SALE . . . . . . .BLACKMAN . . . . DISTRICT ?_ CASPERS . . . . . �EWING) . . . . . .CHAPUT . . . . . (F—' VE S) . . . .NEVIL. . . . . . . . CASPE S) . . . . .CLARK. . . . . . (� kTNEY) NES� . . . . . . .DAVIS . . . . . . L-,+nIJGJ . . . . . .CHAPUT. . . . . . . . . . . . .DUKE . . . . . . . CASPERS) . . . . CLARK. . . . . . . . LANGER) . . . . . FINNELL. . . . . . KGI�JALSKI ) FOX:EDblARDS . . . . . FOX) . . . . . . . KOWALSKI . . . . . . . . PATTE SON) . . GARTHE . . . . . . . PATTERSON) . . .GARTHE . . . . . . ISCOTT�. . . . . .JUST. . . . . . . . . MATNEY) . . . . . .GIBBS . . . . . . MATNEY) . . . . . .GREEN . . . . . . . PERRY. . . . . . . .kREINHARDT) . .ROOT. . ' . BR0JJ� . . . . . .HYDE . . . . . . . . PEREZ) . . . . .SMITH. . SCOTT . . . . . . .JUST. — (DUTTONN) . . . . .STEPHENSON . . . FOX) . . . . . . . . . KOWALSK I". ". . . (DUNNE . . . . . .WINN . . . . . . . . . IMC INNIS) . . . . KYMLA. . . . . . . MARSHOTT. . . . DISTRICT 3 CROUL) . . . . . . .MC INNIS . . . STEVENS) . . . . .NEVIL. . . . . . . KOWALSK ) . . . FOX. . . . . . . GARTHE) . . . . . .PATTERSON . . CASPE S) . . . .BATTIN . . . . . . . _ - PERRY . . . . . . SALES . . . . . .B LACKMAN . . . . . PORTER . . . . . .(HINES . . . . . .DAVIS . . . . . . . (BURTON) . . . . . .QUIGLEY . . . . EDWARDS . . . . . . RIMA . . . . . . . . (PATTERSON) . .GARTHE . . . . . . . FRANKIEW I CH) .ROBERTS . . . . . (MATNEY) . . . . . GREEN . . . . . . . . _ MC INNIS) , ROGERS , , , , , CB ROWN) . . . . . .HYDE. . . . . . . . . _ RE I NHARDT5 • , , ROOT , , MARSHOTT. . . . . _ SALTARELLI. , PERRY . . . . . . . . SSHOLLINDEN) , . ,SCOTT. . . . . . . . / IFP,ANKIEWICH) ROBERTS . .. . . . . IPEP.EZ) . . . . .SMITH . . . . . . . SF - NHARDT� . .ROOT. . . . . . . . . DUTTOI'-J , „STEPHENSON „ l/H"*[.LINj EN . .SCOTT. . . . . . . . ROBERTS) . . . , ,STEVEN" . . . . (DUTTON . . . .STEPHENSON-. : . _ _ MC INNIS) •„ • ,STORE , , , , , , , ROBERTS) . . . .STEVENS . . . . . . BYRNE) . . . . . VANDERWAAL„ BYRNE) . . . . . .VANDEP.WAAL. . . DUNNE) . . . . . : -WINN . . . . . . , , DISTRICT 5 CROUL . . . . . .MC INNIS • • . . . FAKER . . . . . . CASPERS . . . . . . KYMLA. . . . . . . . — OTHERS DISTRICT 6 HARPER ✓ PORTER . . . . . . . SYLVESTER ✓ (CASPERS) . . .BATTIN . . . . . . . Tee.,:E, 4: ztl. LEWIS (MC I NEB!I S) . . .STORE. . . . • . . . DUNN ^ CLARKE DISTRICT 7 TAYLOR (PEREZ) . . . . . .SMITH • • � BROWN (CASPERS) • • • • CLARK• • • vt NISSON ✓ (GARTHE) • • • • • PATTERSON • , . v BLISS PORTER. . . . . . • --- BOETTNIER (BURTON) . . . . .QUIGLEY . . . . . . CARLSON �MC I ig( I S) . . . ROGERS . . . . . . . — - F I NSTER _W�I_SH) . . . . . .SALTARELLI . . • GALLOWAY _ D1'S`f2ICT 11 HOHENER ✓ HOWARD (MATNEY) . . . . .DUKE . . . . . . . . . HUNT CASPER ) • • •BAKER. . . . . . . . KEITH �IAATNEY� . . . . .GIBBS . . . . . . . . _----- KENNEY LYNCH DISTRICT S MADDOX MARTINSON MITCHELL• • • • • PIERSALL (CLARK) . . . . . .CASPERS . . . . . . _-- STEVENS HOLM. . . . . . . . . 12/12/73 _- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING January 23, 1974 - 4: 30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley , California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held January 9 , 1974, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No . 7 of Orange County, California, met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date, in the District offices . The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4: 30 p .m. The roll was called, and the Secretary reported a quorum present . DIRECTORS PRESENT: Don Smith (Chairman) , Ralph Clark, Jerry Patterson, Ellis Porter, Howard Rogers ; and Donald Saltarelli DIRECTORS ABSENT: E . Ray Quigley STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J . Wayne Sylvester, Secretary , Ray Lewis , and Rita Brown OTHERS PRESENT: C. Arthur Nisson, General Counsel, Conrad Hohener, Mike Babbitt , V. P. Baker, Bill Hirstei'n, Harry C. Johnson; E. T. McFadden, and A. J . West 'Establishing connection fee Following a report by the General for Orange YMCA Manager on the request received from the Orange Young Men' s Christian Association (YMCA) for relief or substantial reduction of District ' s connection fees for their facility located on a 4.9 acre site , much of which is undevelopa.ble because it is in the flood plain of' Santiago Creek, adjacent to the City of Orange Park at Yorba and Chapman, it was moved, seconded, and duly carried: That connection fees for the Orange YMCA be assessed only on the improved area ir_cluding the parking lot of the property , provided, however, that in the event the balance of said property is further developed in the future, connection fees would then be due for that additional portion of the property so improved, at the fee schedule in effect at the time of such improvement . Receive and file reaue:;t re Moved, seconded, and duly carried: Fr'opo6ed Anile:.ati c n o _-9 That the letter from Irvine Industrial Complex dated January 17, 1974 , requesting annexation of approx- imately 446 acrt_ s of territory to the District in the area ;ernera.l?y bounded by the :3anta Ana Freeway , Jar,:boree Road, Santa Fe Railroau, and Myford Rol.d, be r•eccived and ordered filed (Proposed Annexa- tion No. 39 - Irvine Indu:;trial Annexation) . #7 1/23/74 Directing; further study re Following a review by the General Irvine Industrial C'c;:plex Manager of the proposed annexation request for annexation and the sewer capacities provided for in the District ' s master plan of trund, sewers , the Chair recognized Mr. Nichael Eabbitt representing the Irvine Industrial Complex. Mr. Babbitt reviewed for the Board the development plans for the area proposed to be annexed to the District , which is presently in the Irvine ranch Water District . The Directors then entered into a Lengthy discussion of the proposed annexation during which Board members expressed their concern over the capacities available to serve the territory . It was the consensus- of the Directors that further engineering studies should be conducted to determine the feasibility of annexing the area to District No. 7. Following the discussion, it was then moved, seconded, and duly. carried: That the staff be directed to meet with the Irvine Industrial Complex and the Irvine Ranch Water District to discuss the engineering, legal, and financial feasibility of annexing the territory to the- District; and, FURTHER MOVED: That Boyle Engineering Corporation be engaged to assist in conducting the feasibility study , on a per diem fee basis for a total amount not to exceed $3,000 , provided, however, that the Irvine Industrial Complex agrees to reimburse the District for said fee; and, FURTHER MOVED: That in the event annexation of the territory to the District is successful, the Irvine Industrial Complex receive credit against the annexation acreage charges in the amount of said engineering fee . Receive and file letter Moved, seconded, and duly carried: from City of Orange re annexation of territory to That the letter from the City of District No. 7 (Proposed Orange dated December 19, .1973, Annexation No . 3 requesting deannexation of approximately 11. 134 acres of territory in the vicinity of Wendes Road between Santiago Creek and a line northerly of Santiago Canyon Road from District No . 2 , and requesting annexation of said territory to District No.' 7 be received and ordered filed -(Proposed Annexation No. 38 - Tract No. 8149) . Receive and file letter Moved, seconded, and duly carried: from City of Cran6e requesting waiver of That the letter from the City of Orange connection fees re dated January 23, 1974, requesting Annexat*_on 1;0. _� waiver of connection fees regarding, deannexation of approximately 11 . 134 acres of territory from: District r:o . .2 and annexation of same to District No . 7 (Proposed Annexation, r. o. 38) , be received and ordered filed. Approving waiver of connection Following a report by the staff and fees re r'_nn.-_::aticn No. 3t• General Counsel in connection the reque:.t of the City of Orange for c•;alver of connection fees regarding Proposed Annexation No . 38 - Tract No. 8149 be waived, it was moved, seconded, and duly carried : That the request of tie City of Orange to waive connection fees for presently-developed property contained in rropooled Anne::-.t:;.on No. 38 - Tract T,o 8149 to County Uanita.tion District No. 7 be approved. -2- #7 1/23/74 Receive and file District Moved, seconded, and duly carried: Engineer' s report re feasibility of Los Alisos That the report dated January 17, 1974 , Water District ' s partici- submitted by Boyle Engineering Corpora- pation in District 's tion, District ' s Engineer, regarding sewerage system feasibility of Los Alisos plater District ' s participation in Sanitation_ District ' s facilities for conveyance , treatment -and disposal of Water District 's sewage be received and ordered filed. Receive and file Joint Moved, seconded, and duly carried: Districts ' Treatment Plant Engineers ' report re That the report dated January 15, 1974 , feasibility of Los Alisos- submitted by John Carollo Engineers , Water District ' s partici- Joint Districts ' Treatment Plant pation in .District ' s sewerage Engineers , regarding feasibility of Los systerr. Alisos Water District 's participation in Sanitation District 's facilities for conveyance, treatment and disposal of Water District 's sewage be received and ordered filed. Denying request of Los Alisos Following a report by the General Water District re partici- Manager .regarding the request of the pation in Sanitation Los Alisos Water District regarding District' s sewerage facilities feasibility of participating in County Sanitation District ' s facilities for conveyance, treatment, and disposal of the Water District ' s sewage, the Chair recognized Mr. Tom McFadden, General Manager of the Los Alisos Water District , who elaborated on his District' s request to the Board. The Board then entered into a discussion concerning the Water .�r District ' s request , during which the Directors -expressed their concern over the selling of off-peak capacity, which may be required to serve the present District ' s future needs , to an area now outside the Sanitation District ' s existing boundaries . Following the discussion, it was moved, seconded, and duly carried: That the request of the Los Alisos Water District for participation in the Sanitation District ' s sewerage system be respectfully denied. Adjournment Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of .Directors of County Sanitation District PI . 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 5 : 45 p .m. , January 23, 1974 . Chairman Board of Directors of ATTEST : County Sari.ta.tion District No . 7 Secretary, Board of D_recterI c.f' County Sanitation District Nc . 7 -3- TELEPHONE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS $ r .`� AREA CODE 714 540-2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 411 P. O. BOX B127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 1OB44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) January 3, 1974 TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,. AND 11 Gentlemen: The next regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos . 1, 2, 31 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, will be held.: WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 9, 1974 AT 7 :30 P.M. 1.0844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Secretary U Tentative adjournments prior to next regular meeting: District No . 7 - 4 : 30 p .m. , January 23, 1974 Executive Committee - 5 : 30 p .m. , January 29, 1974