HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-26COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92~08
10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY)
Gentlemen:
February 21, 1974
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICT MO. 7
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1974, 4:30 P.M,
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNT~IN VALLEY~ CALIFORNIA
TELE PH ON ES:
AREA CODE 714
540-2910
962-2411
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meetj_ng held February 13,
1974, the Bciard of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7
will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and
date. ·
The principal purpose of this adjourned meeting is to consider
the enclosed staff report on proposed Annexation No. 39. This
meeting will immediately precede the Districts' .Exe cu ti ve
Committee meeting scheduled for 5:30 p.m.
/
,. I
/ secr(yary
JWS:rb
. '
. ,,,. . ...
REGULAR Jox~r MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 1974 .-
COUNTY SANITATION D ISTRICTS .
of ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA .
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 EL.LIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALI FORN IA 92708
(714) S-40-291 O
(714) 962-241 I
TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DISTRICT NO. 7
RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO .. 39
..
The staff hAs been investigating .the fe~sibility of annexing
approximately 446 acres to the District north of ·the Marine Coros
Air Facility. This property is withirt the City of Tustin and -
currently in the Irvine Ranqh Waier Distric~ (IRWD) Imprpvement
District · No. 2. It is anticipated that the property will ·be de-
veloped as follows:· ·
260 acres industrial
10 acres coinmercial
176 -acres low to medium density
residential
Pursuant to the .instructions of t~e Board to determine -the
capacities available in the sewer system, a . water heig ht recorder ·
was placed in the Br o wning Subtrunk Sewer north of the Navy Way .
Pumping St ation t o record.the present 'discharge from the area
within th e D~str i ct tributar y to Browning Av e nue .·· The sewer is
running a pproximately 60% full . A check of .the sewer connection
·permits issued for this area indicates .approximately 80% of the
· · pr.operties ha ve been issued permits; ·however, it is not known
how many of the pr o p e rtie s are ac t ually .h ooked up becau se the
prope rty o wners were g i v en the · opportunity to secure permits ·
prior to the increas e in connec.tion ·f e e . schedules without being
required t o actua ll y conn e ct to the sewer .. There are approxi-·
mately 3 0 und eve l op e d a cre s north of t he Santa Ana Freeway and
east of Brown i ng , wh ich .i s ou t side the Distric t but has been
Master Pl anne d fo r s e wer servic e throug h the Browning Subttunk.
As pre vi o usly discus se d, 6 mg d c ap acity has been provided in
the Re d Hill 3ewe r system for· the Ma rine Co r ps Air Fac i lit y prope rt y ,
antic ip ating t hat somet i me i n the futur e , t h i s milit a ry ba se will
be deactiva t e d and t he pr o perty d e v e l op ed for industrial p urpo ses .
The st a ff a nd e n g in ee r s h a ve in ve stigated the f ea sibility o f
sewerin g the 446 acres p lu s the a r ea fn the Di s trict n ow served
by the Br owni ng Su btru n k a nd Navy Wa y Pum p ing Stat ion by mea ns
of a g ravi t y sewe r wh ic h wo uld ext end al ong a Flood Cont r o l
... ,. . ~ . . . .
. . , ;~ .,: ·.~... ..
channel which crosses the Marine Corps .Air Facility to Red Hill
and Barranca. Because of the extremely flat grades and the depth
of the District's Red Hill rrunk Sewer, a gravity sewer is not
feasible, both from an engineering and cost standpoint; there-
fore, it appears that if Di~trict No. 7 is to serve the proposed
area, a permanent pumping station ~nd force main should be con-
structed to discharge diTectly into one or · the District's Red
Hill Trunks near the intersection of Red Hill and Moulton Parkway.
Your staff has held discussions with management personnel of
the Irvine Ranch Water District to deter:mine the feasibility
of deta.ching the existing residential area which covers 176 acres.
We were advised that the Irvine Ran6h Water· District has sold a
substantial number of bonds for the construction of a trunk sewer
and pumping station to serve this area and currently these properties
are paying $0.53 per $100 assessed valuation on land only to pay off
the bonds. In addition, each dwelling .unit ~s c~arged $3.00 pe~
month. It was suggested by IRWD that.since the residential area
is within the City of Tustin, that to avoid confusion concerning
who maintains the local collection system, the IRWD enter .. into 'an
agreement ~ith Dist~ict N6. 7.which would provide that the local
collector system be maintained by "District No. 7 personnel on a.
cost plus 15 % basis. (NOTE: District No. 7 m~intains the local
collection system within the City of · Tustin through contractual
arrangeme nts with the 7th Sewe~ Maintenance District which is ·
governed by the County.Board of Supervisors). . ·_
In view of the foregoing facts, the staff recommends that
the proposed annexation be authorized subject to the proponent
accepting one of the following alternative~:
Alternate No. 1 (446 Acre Annexation)
(a) That the proponents.pay the· tiistri6t's established
annexation fee of $428 per acre for the entire 446 acres,
including the 176 acres of resid~ntial area presently
being served ~y the IRWI>, and~
(b) Detach the 446 a~res ·from the · IRWD~· Improvement
District No. 2, and seek relief of IRWD sewer bond
obligations. That proponent construct a permanent
pumping station and force main to discharge the flow
from the entire acreage into District No . 7's Red Hill
Trunk system in accordanc e with our District's require-
ments and intercept the present flows going to the IRWD
from the developed residential area, and;
(c) Annex the 446 acres to the 70th Sewer Maintenance
District.
-2-
Alternate No. 2 (270 Acre Annexation)
(a) Annex the undeveloped 270 acres, which are
zoned industrial and commercial, to District No. 7
and pay the Di strict 's established annexation fee
of $428 per acre for the 270 acres" and,
(b) Detach the 270 acres from the Irvine Ranch
Water District, Improvement District No. 2, and,
·(c) That the proponents construct · a permanent
pumping station and force main in accordance with
District No. 7's requirements to .serve the needs
of the undevelo ped 270 acres of property for dis-
charge directly into the Red Hill Sewer·syst~m, and,
(d) Annex the 270 acres to the 70th Sewer Main-
tenance District to pay for the operation and
maintenance ·of the collector facilities and :pumping
statiori and forc&main, and,
(e) · District No. 7 e nter into a contractual arrange-
ment with the IRWD . to operate and maintain the local
sewer collector system within the 17 6 acre resid e ntial
area so that service is being provided by the ~ame
entity within the City of Tustin.
Fred A. Harper
General ~anager
•
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:
Industrial ~ Complex
~, :-~~'
In 1 h" r-.•':.--,.'f · --S '.'-~'1!'Y Cou~n:.·:: ::::. 1·:1~· : -n c . _ ·::t
No--1
" . .. .
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 necessitat~ detachment in conjunction with the·annexation
proceedings.
The fol lowing is a 1 ist of. the land uses with related net acreage and average
flow for each use:
2.
3.
Industrial -260 Acres @ 3880 G.P.D./acre
Commercial -10 acres@ 3230 G.P.D../acre
Low·to medium density residential -
176 acres @ 1990 G.P.D./acre
TOTAL FLOW
=
=
-
1,008,800 G.P.D.
32,300 G.P.D.
350,240 G.P.D.
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, •
~~/.,~
MllHAEL J. (ABBITT
Manager of Engineering
cc R. ·Stoyer, I RWD
Williamson & Schmid 2122 Campus Or111e I Box 4404 •Irvine. California 92664 • (714) 833-1010
. . . "'
Br an Ave
San Juan t
Mitchell Ave
atnut Ave
Santa Ana
Marine Corp Air Station
• : lIIIIlIIllJ .:z:-~ 7.e14.'-
• Ci;HHGA!.Ct4C-.
• ~1 e.EJ'l~r--
~----..,,.........-.-.~-~·-~ ... -.. _,._._ ---·------··"
I
:
I
LOCATION MAP
IRVINE
.,
> c
~00
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
5
Owen Menard & Associates
tJ\J~J!J. 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:
~i L ... :-,
I :i • h,.. ra ~ . ,... ..... ,-~ . ' ·: '=· --: ,. -c '"3 ry · cou·n:-~ .-;.!-:-:1·~· :.:"'.n ~ ~ ~~·::t
No 1
, ....
-" . ·-.
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:
Industrial -260 Acres @ 3880 G.P.D./acre
2. Commercial 10 acres @ 3230 G.P.D./acre
3. -Low to medium density res.idential
176 acres @ 1990 G.P.D./acre
TOTAL FLOW
=
=
-
1,008,800 G.P.D.
32,300 G.P.D.
350,240 G.P.O.
1,391,340 G.P.D.
It ts vitally important to the Complex to have the subject area in Sanitation
District #7 in that the existing sewedng agency, IRWD, is unable to take
industrial waste.
Maps indicating the location of the project is attached for your reference.
Very truly yours,
~~/.,~
MllHAEL J. (ABBITT
Manager of Engineering
cc R. Stoyer, IRWD
Williamson & Schmid
I
2122 Campus Drive /Box 4404 •Irvine. California 92664 • (714) 833-1010
Br an Ave
•
San Juan t
S~nta A11a Fw
Mitchell Ave
alnut Av!
Santa Ana
Marine Corp Air Station
•
. UilIIl1IlJ ~./)IJ7~1"1.'-
• LJ,HH£~Cl4'-
• ~R;EJ1~r,_
I
(
"'-·.. I I
I .
00 l
LOCATION .. MAP
. .. /~·
IRVINE f---L._r--1100
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
5
.Owen Menard & Associates
! Irvine I 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:
~i~'::-1
In •h"' Of'i~ .... !'f ·:..,~-s-,cr-:~:3ry
I coU'nty 's'.:!-n,-t':Jtion G.s·.r:ct
No. 7
: ( -1
"J \.) . ~ l -~·
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:
2.
3.
Industrial -260 Acres @ 38~0 G.P.D./acre
Commercial -10 acres @ 3230 G.P.D./acre
Low to medium density residential -
176 acres @ 1990 G.P.D./acre
TOTAL FLOW
=
=
-
1 ,008,800 G.P.D.
32,300 G.P.D.
350,240 G.P.D.
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 i_ndicating the location of the project is attached for your reference.
Very truly yours, •
~~/./"~
Ml lHAEL J. rABB I TT
Manager of Engineering
cc R. Stoyer, IRWD
Williamson & Schmid 2122 Campus Drive /Box 4404 ·Irvine. California 92664 • (714) 833-1010
Br an Ave
·San Juan t
Mitchell Ave
alnut Ave
Santa Ana
Marine Corp Air Station
• : mm bDU.!7~1"'.'-
• LJ>t¥H£~Cl4C...
• ~ ,f,EJIA!'?'-
I
(
LOCATION .MAP
IRVINE
..
> c:
~00
5
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
.Owen Mena rd & Associates
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, California
~ .
DISTRICT No.
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 25; 1974 4:30 P.M.
(1) Roll Call
(2) Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary
Post Office Box 8127
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Teiephones:
Area Code 71 4
540-2910
962-2411
AGENDA
(3) Consideration of request .of Irvine Industrial Complex
for annexati o n of approximately 446 acres of territory
to the District in the area generally bounded by the
Santa Ana Freeway, Jamboree Road, Santa Fe Railroad and
Myford Road:
( P-)
(b)
(c)
Staff report · re said, request for annexation .. , ~ .
Discttission jf e prop?;ped annexq...t ~on "tv~ 1 ~ J:-._ ~/f ~~N~ }-;i ~f ~.~ .. e,~ ~ v-..~ U ~(p
Consideratio k o ~ Resolution No. 74-38-7, authorizing '~
'·--
initiation of proceedings to annex approximately . ~~
?-7 0 acres of territ o ry to the District in the area ~
generally bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway, Jamboree ·
Road, Santa Fe Railroad and Myford Road and establishing .
conditions therefor (Proposed Annexation No. 39 -
Irvine Industrial Annexation to County Sanitation
District No. 7) ·
(4) Other business and communicat ions
(5) Co n siderat i o n o f mo tio n to adj o urn '-/;~/
. MEETING DATE Feb . 26 , 197 4 TIME 4 :30 p.m. DISTRICTS 7 -------
DISTRICT 1
·(GARTl-IE) ••••• PATTERSON •••• ------
(CLARK ) •••• BATTIN ••••••• -----
. RIMA •• · ••••••• ----
(WELSH ••••••• SALTARELLI ••• ------
D JSTR JCT 2
LIVENS) •••• NEVIL •••••••• ----· --
EWl NG) •••••• CHAPUT ••••••• ------
) •••• CLARK •••••••• ------
LANGER) ••••• FINNELL •••••• -----·-
FOX) •••••••• KOvlALS KI ••••• ------
PATTE[<SON) •• GARTHE ••••••• ----__
SCOTT) •••••• JUST ••••••••• --__ --
. PERRY •••.••••• _. ____ _
(REINY(\RDT) •• ROOT ••••••••• _____ _
(PEREZ) •••••• SMITH •••••••• _____ _
(DUTTON) ••••• STEPHENSON ••• _____ _
(DUNNE) •••••• WINN ••••••••• _____ _
DISTRICT 3
~KOWALSKI) ••• FOX •••• · •••••• ____ · __
CLARK ) •••• BATTIN ••••••• _____ _
SALES) •••••• BLACKMAN ••••• _. ____ _
HINES) •••••• DAVIS •••••••• _____ _
EDWARDS •••••• ~PATTERSON) •• GARTHE ••••••• === === ·
MATNEY) ••••• GREEN •••••••• ____ · __
BROWN) •••••• HYDE ••••••••• _____ _
MARSH OTT •.•••• ____ . __ _
PEP.RY •••••••• (F 0 ~NKI EWI CH) ROBERTS •••••• ------· . St.-NHARDT) •• ROOT ••••••••• === ~ ===
DUTTON) ••••• STEPHENSON · ••• __ . -~ __ ~HOLLI NP EN) •• SCOTT ••••••••
ROBERT~) •••• STEVENS •• · •••• _____ _
BYRNE J ••••• VANDERWAAL ••• _· ____ _
DISTRICT 5
(CROUt.J •••••• MC INNIS ••••• ------.
(BAKER) •. ~.• ••• CLARK •••••• ------.
KYMLA •••••••• ------
DISTRICT 6
PORTER ••••••• ------
(CLARK ) •••• BATTIN ••••••• ----· --·
(MC INNIS) ••• STORE •••••••• ------
DJ STRICT 7
. ./
(PEREZ)······ SMITH········ ------
( ) •• .. CLAR K .. •••••.•· ~ ----
(GARTHE) • • • • ·"?~· · • · ------
PORTER ••••••• _./_ ----
~BURTON) •••.• Q.U I GL.EY. • • • • . ~ -----
\0C IN N rs) ... ROGE RS ••.•••• -r ----
(\· SH) •••••• SALTARELLI .•• ------
D l STR l CT 11
(MATNE Y) ••••• DLJKE·········------
(CLARI <.. ) ••• ·BAKER········ ------
-(MATNEY).·.·· GIBBS········ ------
D JSTRI CT 8
MITCHELL····· -------( ) ...... CLA RI< ...... _____ _
HOLM ··· • · • • • • --· -------·
2/13/74
JOINT BOARDS
!LANGE R) •••••• FI ~N ELL ...... ____ · .
CLAR K ) .•••• BA!-,E R ••••••• __ _
CLAR K ) ••••• BATTIN...... .
SALES) ••••••• BLACKMAN •••• ~ ==
!EWING) ••••••• CHAPUT.:::::----
) ••••• CLARK ••••••• ----.
HINES) ••••••• DAVIS ••••••• -----
MATNEY) •••••• DUKE •••••••• -----
. EDWARDS ••••• ----
KOWALSKI) •••• FOX ••••••••• ----
PATTERSON) ••• GARTHE .••••• --~
MATNEY) ••.••• GIBBS ••••••• ----
MATNEY) •••••• GREEN ••••••• ---
BROWN) ••••••• HYDE •••••••• ---
SCOTT) ••••••• JUST •••• · •••• --:---
FOX) ••••••••• KOWALSKI •••• ----
MC INNIS) •••• KYMLA ••••••• ----
. MARSHOTT •••• ----.-
~CROUL) ••••••• MC INNIS •••• ----
STEVENS) ••• ; • NEVIL •••••• ·=== ==
GARTHE) •••••• PATTE~SON •••
PERRY •••••• ·=== ==
PORTER ••••••
(BURTON) ••••• :QUIGLEY ••••• ----
RIMA •••••••• ----
~FRANKi EWI CHL ROBERTS · ••••• __._·==
MC INNIS)~ ••• ROGERS ••••••
REINHARDT; •• ,ROOT .••••••• ~ --
SALTAREL!...I •• ----
HOLLINDEN) ••• SCOTT .•••••• ----
PEREZ) 1 •••• ._.SMITH. • • • • • • · ==
DUTTON; j ..... S!EPHENSON •• ___ _
ROBERTS j ..... S fEVE NS ••.•• ___ _
~C INN~S •••• STORE.; ...... __ -.--
YRNE •.••••• VAND ERWAAL ••
DUNNE).· •••••• WINN •••••• · •• ~~
OTHERS
HARPER
SYLVESTER
LEWIS
DU NN
CLAR KE
TAYL OR
BRO ~IN
NISSON
BLISS
BOETT NER
CARLSO N
FINSTER
GALL OWAY
HO HENER
HO\~ARD
HU NT
KEITH
KENNEY
LYNCH
MADD OX
MARTIN SON
PIERSALL
STEVENS .....d1
~\?a.,~e,,r
-r-
--·
..
DISTRICT 7
2/26/74 ADJOURNED MTG.
(3a) Mr. Harper pointed out proposed area on map. Said IRWD has built
a line and sold bonds and are concerned about credibility of
~elling more bonds if this area is withdrawn from their district
and made part of District 7. Referred to staff report and said
report shows two alternatives: (1) annex 446 acres and divert flow
to Red Hill Trunk or (2) leave 446 acres alone and let water go to
IRWD and our · agency would only take commercial and industrial. In
either case would expect proponent to pump directing to Red Hill
Trunk. Would suggest that Alternate 2 be selected. Would reduce
size of annexation by 270 acres. One thing we could do is contract
with IRWD. The District and Joint Boards have contract with Board
of Supervisors to maintain these sewers. Recommend annexing to
70th Sewer Maintenance District.
Smith ment ioned that had previously talked about .northern area
and said sewer was 60% full. Mr. Harper stated that ther~ were
about 30 acres that were not in District that could be annexed
and served by Browning T+unk. Fairly new area. 80% of permits
have been issued but can't actually tell how many are hooked up.
Porter then asked why staff felt we sho~ld not annex the 176 acres.
FAH repl ied part o f it is out of courtesy to IRWD and we would avoid
taki ng that water into our system. Does make a chopped-up situation.
Porter stated that they wanted out and they got out and we left them
out. They developed this and now don't want bad water. Said he
didn't like this. Doesn't admire IRWD for doing it in that particular
way.
Smith asked if in the original study this wai industrial and was _
answered, yes. Asked what · the main problems would be in not allowing·
anne xation of that finger. Said he was not against annexation as
.-long as staff felt we could handle it. FAH replied that we would
probably have to have similar proceedings as· in District 3 for recent
annexation. Land owners are already obligated to some bonds.
Saltarelli stated that this w0uld be a reasonable trade-off as far
as capac ity and cost benefit :.'or the District. Marine Corps Air
Stat ion is not going ·to _d~vel op for 15 years . Do have capacity here.
Woul d favor recommendation o:l' staff that Alternate 2 be accepted.
Smith asked if there would be some annexation of area north of freeway.
Saltarelli said they tried to annex but LAFC turned them down. Is in
agricultural reserve and can't be developed for 10 years.
Nisson stated that the matter of an island in annexation wasn't as
significant to Sanitation District as it would be to a city because
they p~ye more conflicting jurisdiction.
Smith indicated' that they are trying to cut out all of these little
special districts and pockets though.
Porter then stated that he would go along with Saltarelli but wanted
to vent his thinking on this thing. Is a wrong thing to let this
occ ur this way. Asked if in the foreseeable future did we see another
of this type occuring? Mr. Harper quest ione d Mike Babbitt of IIC
regarding this. Said that area just below Air Facility was taken
out by IC. Culver to the north. Asked if there is any chance that
that is going to be the next area that Irvine peop le will want to
do something . ·1n.'. the industrial? · ·
Mike Babbitt answered no, they didn't anticipate doing any industrial
there. Don't have any east of channel. That is where the split is. Flow
would have to go southea st from that point. Even if we would develop
•.
.,
industrial, which we don't anticipate, isn't any way that we could
feasibly do it in Sanitation District. Would have to be IRWD.
Similar to what we are doing a-c El •ror0 project. Said that .based
on District's alternatives, they were in favor of Alternate 2.
Their original intention was to have the industrial and commercial
area only annexed and would like to see it that way if possible.
Saltarelli then moved that Alternate 2, as recommended by staff be .
adopted. Porter seconded motion.
Porter questioned that this includes all of the conditions mentioned
and FAH replied that it includes a, b, c, d, & e listed in recommen-
dation.
Porter also asked that it be made a matter of record that IIC felt
that this is the iast request for annexation of commercial property
in this general area.
Voted on motion and carried.
Saltarelli amended motion to read as listed on agenda, adopting
Resolution re 270 acres.
V I '
-2-·
"
COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT NO. 7
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
February 26, 1974 -4:30 p.m.
10a44.Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held February 13,
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 Distric~ 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:
DIRECTORS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT·:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Don Smith (Chairman), John
Garthe, Ellis.Porter, E. Ray
Quigley, Howard Rogers, and
Donald Saltarelli
Ralph Clark
Fred A. Harper, General Manager,
J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary,
and Rita Brown
C. Arthur Nissan,· General Counsel,
Conrad Hohener, and Mike·Babbitt
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Authorizing initiation of
p~oceedings re proposed
Annexation No. 39 -Irvine
Industrial Annexation
· The General Manager reviewed the
staff report on the request of
Irvine· Industrial Complex for
annexation of approximately 446
acres of territory to the District
north of the Marine Corps Air Facility. The property is within
the City of Tustin and currently in the Irvine Ranch Water
District (IRWD) Imprqvement District No. 2, and is anticipated
to be developed as follows:
260 acres -Industrial
10 acres -Commercial
176 acres -Low to medium density
From a recent inspection, present discharge from the area within
the District tributary to Browning Avenue revealed that the
Browning Subtrunk Sewer north of the Navy Way Pump Station is
running approximately 60% full. A check of the sewer connection
permits issued for this area indicates approximately 80% of the
properties have been issued permits. However, it is not known
how many of the properties are actually connected. There are
approximately 30 undeveloped acres north of the Santa Ana
Freeway and east of Browning which is outside the District but
#7
2/26/74
have b-een master planned for sewer se·rvice through the Browning
Subtrunk. As previously reported to the Boards, a capacity of
6 MGD has been provided in the District's Red Hill Sewer system
for the Marine Corps Air Facility property, anticipating that
sometime in the future this military base will be deactivated
and the property developed for industrial purposes.
The staff and engineers have investigated the feasibility of
sewering the 446 acres plus the area in the District now served
by. the Browning Subtrunk and Navy Way Pump Station. There
appear to be two viab~e alternatives (Alternate No. 1 -annexation
of 446 acres; and Alternate No. 2 -annexation of 270 acres),
both of which would require construction of a pump station and
force main by the proponents of the annexation to enable direct
discharge to one of the District's Red Hill trunks near the
intersection of Red Hi+l and Moulton Parkway. It is the staff's
recommendation that Alternate No. 2 be considered by the Board
as follows:
ALTERNATE NO. 2 (270-Acre Annexation)
(a) Annex the undeveloped 270 acres, which are
zoned industrial and commercial, to District No. 7
and pay the District's established annexation fee
of $428 per acre for the 270 acres, and,
(b) Detach the 270 acres from the Irvine Ranch
Wat~r District, Improve.ment District No .. 2, and, .
(c) That the proponents construct a permanent
-pumping station and force main in accordance with
District No. 7's requirements to serve the needs
of the undeveloped 270 acres of property for dis-
charge -directly into the Red Hill Sewer sys~em, and,
( d) · Annex the 270 acres to the· 70th Sewer Maintenance
District to pay for the operation and maintenance
of the collector facilities and pumping station and
force main, and,
(e) District No. 7 enter into a contractual arrange-
ment with the IRWD to operate and rnaint~in the local
sewer collector system within the 176-acre residential
area so that service is being provided by the same
entity within the· City of Tustin.
Mr. Harper advised the Board that the Irvine Ranch Water
District and the Irvine Industrial Complex have also indicated
their preference for Alternate No. 2.
The Board then entered into a lengthy discussiqn concerning
the capacities provided to serve territory in the general area
and the propriety of annexing the area which had formerly been
withdrawn from the District.· Followiqg the discussion, it was
moved, seconded, and duly carried:
That the Board of Directors c.oncurs with the recommendation
of the staff that 270 acres of the territory be annexed as ~
set forth in Alternate No. 2 of the staff's report on the
·proposed annexation, subject to the conditions as outlined
in said recomr.1endation; and,
-2-
#7
2/26/74
FURTHER MOVED: That it be made a matter of record that the
Irvine Industrial Complex has indicated· that it does not antictpate
a need to request any further industrial/commercial property
annexations in this general area; and,
FURTHER MOVED: That the Board of Directors adopt Resolution
No. 74-38-7, authorizing initiatio·n of proceedings to annex
approximately 270 acres of territory to the District in the
area generally bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway, Jamboree Road,
Santa Fe Railroad and Myford Road and establishing conditions
therefor (Proposed Ann.exation No. 39 -Irvine Industrial
Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7). Certified
copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes.
Adjournment Moved, seconded, and duly carried:
That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation
Pistrict No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the
meeting so adjourned at 4:51 p.m., February 26, 1974.
ATTEST:
Secretary, Board of Directors of
County Sanitation District No. 7
Chairman
Board of Directors of
County Sanitation District No. · 7
-3-