Loading...
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-