The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-11-17 (1, 6 and 7)COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. SOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) November 12, 1982 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS. lJ 6 & 7 WEDNESDAY) NOVEMBER 17J 1982 -8:00 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY) CALIFORNIA Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of November 10, 1982, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 6 and 7 will meet in an adjourned meeting at the above hour and date. The meeting will be a study session regarding the updated and consolidated Master Plans of Trunk Sewers for the Districts. A Preliminary Draft of the plan prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation was mailed to Directors with the November Board Meeting agenda material. ~~ Assistant Board Secretary TELEPHONES: AREA COOE 714 540-2910 962-2411 II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DISTRICT Nos iJ 6 g 1 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING Post Office Box 8 127 l 0844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Te lephones: Area Code 71 4 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA WEDNESDAY) NOVEMBER 17) 1982 -8:00 P.M. (/Roll call "'{j ~(~Consideration of motion appointing Rita Brown Secretary pro tern Report of Engineer re updated and consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for the Districts (4) Discussion (~Consideration of motion to refer the draft updated and consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 1, northern half of 6 and 7 fv\l~ 'to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts and to the Fiscal Policy Committee for study and recommendation ,.(-6-)--Gthe r-business and communications, if any <0 onsideration of motion to adjourn er ·. 29 MEc TJNG DAE __ N_o _v _._17_, _1_9_8_2 __ T I ME 8 :0 0 p .m . DI STR I CTs _l...;_,_6 _&_7 _____ _ DISTR~~-: JOIN T BOAR D~ (CRAN d , t ,, •• ,, HANSON ••• ,,, V __ (BRICKENJ ,,, ,, ,LUXEMBOURG EP=zi;-__ (EDGA~J.,,,.,,, SAL TAREL L J , .~ (RIL ~'r),,,,,,, .STANTON ,,,,, V= DIST RICT 2 (MC ROBERT S ), •• WEDAA ,.,,,,, (OV ERHOLT ),,,, ,ROTH ,,,,,,,.-- (NIELSEN),.'.'. BROWN •••• 1 1 .-- (KUZNI K) I I'. I I I HO LT. I. I I I '.-- (OD L UM), (,I I I •• KAWANAM I. II·= BRIC KENJ , •• I, ,LUXEMBOURGER HICKS )t''''', ,NEL SO N.,,,,·= WIEDERJ. I I •••• NESTANDE . I '' CULVER),,,,,, ,PE RRY ,,,,,,,-- BE y ER ) I • ( I •••• SM I T H ••••• I • -- ( HOLMB ERG J ••• I. WEDEL ••••••• -- (CATLl N),,, •• , .WINTERS .,,··= DISTRICT 3 (EDWARDS ) ••• (I .FINLAYSON, I ·-- (VAND ER STAAY J, .LASZLO. II'' I (NJ ELSEN ) I I I I. I ADLER . I I •• I·= (PERRY )(''' I I I .CULVER .'''' I (SEIDELJ , I.,,, .FRE SE .,,,,,.-- !JARRELL), I I I. I GRIFF IN •• I I·= BRICKEN), I I ••• L UXEMBOURGER FINLE Y),'' I I •• MANDJC, 11 1 1 .-- ROW AN ),, I I I'' .MULLEN . II I I.-- (HICKS). I (I I I I I NELSON . I I I I·= (MARSHOTTJ, I II .RELL •• I II I I I (WEDE L ),, t ' ',,,ROGE T,,,,,,,= <ov ERH OLTJ ,,,, ,ROTH.,,.,,,, ~ ZOMM I c K) ( • I I • I s YL v I A I I I I I I= NESTAN()EJ,, II .WIEDER. I I I I I CATLIN ),,. 11 •• WINTERS ••••• = DISTRICT 5 (MAURER),,, I I •• HEATHER •• II I (S TRAU SS),. I ••• cox •• I I. I I •• -- (STAN TON),,,,, ,RILEY ,,,,,,,::=::::::::: DISTRICT 5 ~CRANK)'t''''''HUTCHISON .,,~ __ HEATHERJ . I,, I .PLUMMER •• I I.~ RILEY), I II ,,, .S TANTON •• ''·~= DISTRICT 7 (SALTARELLI), I I EDGAR. I. I I.·~- (BEYERL (I I I. I I SM I TH . I. I 11 .=:lZ'_ (HEATH ER J , I I I I I HART •• I. I ••• :::_z- (BRICK EN ). I I . I .LUXEMBOURGER_Q_, -- (WI EDER ),,,,, ,,NESTANDE,,,,~ -- (AGRAN),,,,,,, ,VARDOU LIS,, .~ -- (GR EEN ), •• I I. I I WAHNER •• I I. ·....i.L = DISTRICT 11 (MAC ALLI s TE R). BA ILE y I • I • I • (NEST ANDEL I. (I WI EDER •• I I I.-- (MAC ALLISTERJ ,PATTINSON ,,,= 11 / 17 /82 (NJ EL SEN, •• '' I' ADLE F..'''''' (MAC ALLJSTER ),BAILE Y.,,,, .-- (N J ELS EN) ••••• , BRowr,, •••••• -- (s TRAuss). ••••• co x •••• ,.,,.-- ( p E i( RY ) I I • I • I I I c UL v ER I I • I I I = (SHARP ) I (I I I. I. EDG AR . I I. I. I (EDWAR DSJ •• I ••• FI NLA YSO N.··= (SEID EL )(''' ••• FRE S E •• '.'. I (JARREl,.LJ . I . I I I GRIFF I N. I I I.-- (CRA NK),(' I I I I .HANSON ••• I •• -- (HEA THE RJ ,. I ••• HART I I I I. I I.-- (MA URE R) I •• I •• I HEA THER . I I •• -- (KUZNIK),,,,,,, HOL T •••••••• -- (CRANK). 11 I I •• I HUTCH I SON ••• -- (ODLUM), II I .(' .KA WANAMJ, I •• -- (VAND ERSTAA Y J. I LASZLO . I . I I.-- (BR IC KEN ). I I 11 .LUXEMBOURGER-- (F JNLE Y),,,. I •• MANDIC . 11. I.-- ~ROWAN). I I I. I •• MULLEN . I I I I .-- HIC KS ) (I I I I I I I NELSON. I I I I·= ( WI EDERJ I I I I. (. NESTANDE . I., __ MAC ALl,.ISTE R J,PATTINSON ,,, ( c UL v ER ) ( I I I •• I p ERR y I • I I • I I= ( HEATH ER J ( •••• I PL UM MER I • I I I (MARSHOTTJ , I'' .RELL ••• I I I •• -- (STANTON),, ,,,,R ILE Y,,,,,,,= (WEDEL). I (I I •• I ROGET . I I I I •• (OVERHOLT J. I •• I ROTH . I I I •• I·= (EDGAR), II I'' •• SALTARELLI •• (BEYER). I. 11. I .SMITH ••••••• -- (R ILE Y), t '' ''',STAN TON ,••••= (ZOMM IC KJ, I .'' .SYLVIA •••• ,, (AGRAN), ,,, , ,, ,VARDOULJS,,,-- (GREEN ), 11 I (I I .WA HN ER ••• I.·= (MC ROBERTSJ ,, ,WEDAA ,,,,,,, (ROG ET ),'(' I I •• WEDEL •••• I •• -- (NEST AN ()EJ ,, ,, ,WJE DER .,,,, ,-- (CATL I N),,, I'' .WINTERS ••• ··= STAF F: OTHERS: HARPER ,,,,,, SYL VESTER. I. LEWIS ....... CLARKE ,,,,,, DAWES,,,,,,, ANDE RSON . I I I BUTLER •• I I. I BROWN,,,,,,, BAKER ••• I I • I ATKINSON ,,,, YOUNG •• I I I. I WOODRUFF •• I I HOH ENER •• I. I HOWARD •• I ••• HUNT I I I •• I I I KEIT H ...... , KNOPF ,,,,,,, LE BLANC I •• I LINDSTROM. I. LYNCH ....... MART IN SON,,, PEARCE . I I I •• MEETING DATE Nov. 17, 1982 TIME 8:00 p.m. DISTRICTS 1, 6 & 7 ~~~~~~~~~~- DISTRICT 1 (CRANK)' l ' I I' I I HANSON .' I I I,__:::__ ----(BRICK~NJ ,,,,, ,LUXEMBOURGER__k_ (EDGAR J I I I I I I I I SA L TARELLI. I ./ ---- (R ILEY), 1111,, ,STA NTON , I 11 ,_L_ = = DISTRI CT 2 (MC ROBERTS),,,WEDAA ,,,,,,, (OV ERHOLT),,,,,ROTH,,,,,,,,------ (NI ELSEN) I I I I I I BROWN ••••• I.------ (KUZNIK),,,,,,. HO L T •••••••• ------ (OD L UM), l ' I. I ' .KAWANAMI . I.·==== !BRICK ENJ , ''I ' .LUXEMBOURGER HICKS)l , I I'. I .NELSON ••• I I ·=== WIEDERJ ,,,,,, .NESTA NDE ,,, , _____ _ CULVER), I''' I .PE RRY •••• ' I I (BE YER),. l . ''I .SMITH •• '.''·===== (HO LMBERG J , I I I .WED EL •• ' I . I . (CA TLIN),. I'' •• WINT ERS •• I ··==== DISTRICT 3 (ED WA RDS) I . I' I .FI NLA YSON . I. (VA NDERST AAY), .L ASZLO,,,,,,------ (NIELSEN),,,,,, ADL ER,,,,,,,------ (PERRY)l '' •• I I .CULVER ••• ' I·==== (S EI DEL J ,,,' I ' .FRE SE. I I •• I. !J ARRELL) II II II GRI FF I N11 II·= = = BRICKEN ), I'. I .L UXEMBOURG ER FINLE Y), 11 •• I .MANDIC.,, ••• ------ ROWA N),,' •• I . ,MUL LEN .''. I.------ (HICKS). I l '. I I I NELSON . I •••• ------ (MARSHOTT J ,,,,, RELL •••••••• ------ (WEDEL ),' l ' I. I. ROGET . I ••••• ------ (OV ERHOLT J . I •• I RO TH ••••• I •• ------ ( ZOMMICK) I I I. I. SYLV I A •••••• ------ (NE STANO EL I. I .WIEDER •• I I •• ------ (CATL I N) •• I •• I .WINTERS. I •• ·==== DI STRICT 5 (MAUR ER ) I I I I I I I HEATHER . I I. I (S TRA USS), I.,, ,cox •••• I 11 •• ------ (S TANTON ). I ' •• I RIL EY •• I I •• ·=== DISTRICT 6 (CRA NK). l''. I •• HU TCHI SO N •• I v (H E ATH~RJ ,. I I I .PL UMMER . I' •• ../ = == (RILEY),,,,,,,,STANTON,,,,,~ ___ _ DI STR !CT 7 (SA L TAR ELLI). I. EDG AR •• '.'',__::!._ ---- ( BE y ER ) I l I I ' ••• SM I TH •• I I ••• __-!__ ---- (H EATHER J , I I I I .HA RT •••• I I •• ~ (BRICK EN ), I I ••• LUXEMBOURGER -~----- (WicD €RL •••••• NESTANDE ••• ,--z::;----- (AGRA NL ••••••• vA RDouu s ••• ,/ == (GR EE N) •• I I I ••• WAHNER •• I I •• ~ ---- DISTRICT 11 (MAC ALLISTERLBAILE Y,,,,,, (N ESTANDE).,, l ,'t/I EDER .,,,, ,------ (MAC ALLISTERJ ,PATTINS ON,,,= = = 11 /17 /82 JO INT BOARDS (N I EL s EN ). I • I I I AOL ER. I • I I I I (MAC ALLISTER ),BAIL EY,,,,,,---- (NI ELSE N), I I I I I BROWN, I. I I I.---- (S TRAUSS ), 1 1 I' .cox . 1 1 I. I I I.---- (PERR Y). I . I I I I .CULV ER ••• I •• ---- (SH ARP ),,,,,,,, EDGAR ••••••• ---- (EDWA RDS), I I I •• FINLAYSON ••• ---- (SEID EL ),,,,,, ,FRESE ••••••• ---- (JARRELL),,,,,,GR I FFIN ,,,,,---- (CRANK). I I. I I •• HAN SON •••••• ---- (H EATH ER).' I •• I HART .'' ••••• ---- (MAURER ),'' I I I I HEATH ER.'.'.---- (KU ZNIK ),,,,,,, HOLT •••••••• ---- (CRANK ) •• I •• '. I HUTCHISON ••• ---- (OD L UM), 1 1. I 11 I KAWANAMI I' I.---- (VA NDERSTAA Y ), .LASZLO .' 111 .---- (BRICK EN),. I I I ,LUX EMBO URG ER---- (F INLEY ),,,',, ,MAND I C. 11 ••• ---- ~ROWAN),'' ••• I .MULLEN •• I ••• ---- HIC KS)l' ''''''NELSON •••••• === WIEDERJ,,,. I l 'NESTANDE •••• (MAC AL LISTERJ ,PATTINSON .11---- (CUL VER)l '',,, ,PERRY ,,,,,,,---- ( HEATHER J l ' •• ' I PL UMMER ••••• ---- (MARSHOTT). '.I. RELL .'.' I ••• ---- (S TANTON ),,',, ,RILEY .' I ••• ·== (WE DEL ). 'l ' •••• ROG ET •••••• I (OV ERHOLT ) I' I I . RO TH •• I' •••• ---- (EDGAR ) •••••••• SALTARELLI •• ---- (B EYER),,,,,,,,SMITH ,,,,,,,---- (R ILE Y),l''''''STANTON ,,,,,= = (ZOMMICKJ , ••••• SYLVIA •••• I I (AGRAN), 111. I •• VARDOUL!S ••• ---- (G REEN ),,,, l ' ''WAHN ER •••••• ---- (MC ROBERTS J . I. WEDA A ••••• I.---- (ROG ET ),, l ' ''''WEDEL ••••••• == (NESTANOE J , I ••• WIEDER •••••• (C ATLIN ),, I I ••• WINTE RS •••• ·== STAFF : OTHERS : v HARPER •• I •• I SYLVESTER ,,, v = L EWIS ,,,,,,, ___ _ CLARKE ,,,,,.~ __ DAWES .' I ••• ,_L._ -- ANDERS ON I •• ·---- BUTLER •••••• BROWN ••••• I .-vr-= BAKER •••• I .·---- ATKINSON . I.·---- YOUNG •• I •• I·---- WOODRUFF . I I • HOH E N E~ •• I It v" == HOWARD .' I I I·----HUNT ,,,,,,,, ___ _ KE ITH . I I. I .·---- KNOPF •• I •• I ·---- LE BLANC . II·---- LINDSTROM . I I L YNC!-1 11 II II.---- MARTINSON ., ,-:;r-= PEARCE . I I I I ·---- ?::..~ •.,c #3 -Report of Engineer DISTRICTS 1, 6 & 7 MTG. NOTES 11/17/82 -8:00 P.M. Chairman Holt recognized Conrad Hohener from Boyle Engineering. Conrad then introduced his assistant, Phil Stone. They distributed copies of a summary report re the Preliminary Draft Consolidated Master Plan and an addendum to said consolidated plan re investigating the impact of serving the Irvine Ranch Water District. He indicated they were there to review the updated Master Plan of Districts 1, northerly half of 6, and District 7. Original draft was previously mailed to Directors. Summary report highlights the original report and the addendum re IRWD. Conrad then referred to map on screen and the summary report. Last Master Plan report for District 1 was in 1969, for District 6 -1973 and for District 7 -1969. Said that in 1975 Districts published land use map which depicts land uses for all of the Districts. First step in preparing updated Master Plans was to review land uses. Contacted seven different agencies that have jurisdictional rights over study area as far as land uses. Update based on current and future planning. District 1, very minor changes; District 6, very minor changes; and District 7, were some changes in the hillside development areas in the north end of the District and Irvine Industrial complex in the west. Were some zoning changes that were different in 1969 Master Plan. Also review flow criteria -no changes anticipated here. From flow criteria and land use, constructed a computer model. Entire trunk system has been computerized. In the future can use computer model if land use has changed from Master Plan criteria and we want to know the effect of the proposed change on the trunk to the treatment plant. Can find that in a couple minutes. Eliminates days of had work. Certain deficiencies were flagged on computer. Went into the field and made actual flow measurements. Found some places weren't really deficient. Referred to Table 4 and reviewed deficiencies and recommended trunk sewer facilities in each District. All based on land uses and flow criteria. District 7 has a number of subtrunks within District which are not displayed on map. Then referred to Table 6, Estimated Construction Costs and Proposed Schedule for Recommended Facilities. I Edgar questioned whether the elimination of pumping stations wasn't one of our goals. Asked if these pumping stations had the potential of being eliminated? Conrad I replied that these could not be eliminated but in District ~ currently have 15 pumping stations and can perhaps eliminate 11 of them. 1 Edgar then mentioned that at the time of the budget sessions, it was discussed that some of the bond money borrowed in 1970 could perhaps be sent back. Asked how that related to these facilities that haven't been built? Conrad said he presumed money did go toward 1969 facilities. Wayne added that Directors voted to close out bond fund. Are some bond still unsold. We could use these bond funds to do this construction. Average interest rate below 7%. Conrad then referred to next graph, Proposed Project Schedule. Vardoulis questioned whether it is typical for these lines that cost $2 million and up. Conrad explained that Districts that use clay pipe up to 42", have a life of 50 years. With concrete pipe it is well worth it. Should last 100 years. Have a history with concrete pipe with vinyl plastic lining of 35 years and could project out to 100 years. 10% more with concrete pipe but is well worth it. Have sulfides in sewers in Southern California which change into sulferic acid which eats into concrete. That is the reason for vinyl liner or clay pipe. -1- Said they took into consideration the whole Master Plan area. 44,000 acres with the three Districts combined. That is the ultimate area according to 1969 Master Plan of District 7. Total build-out. Includes areas that aren't annexed to District and those in the city of Orange's sphere of influence that would logically annex to District 7. Also includes rezoning of Irvine Industrial Complex area. Conrad then referred to Addendum report re serving IRWD. Read part of Summary, p.I-1. Planning area of 70,000 acres. Is a fixed limit of sewage we are considering, an ultimate flow of 40 mgd. Are properties within IRWD north of reservoir, 1.35 million gallons, we have routed into Tustin-Orange Trunk because land north of the reservoir slopes to the north not to the south. Said IRWD furnished flow buildup curve (Figure 5). Peak winter flow is 58 mgd but request is based on average flow. Currently Sunflower Trunk owned by Districts 1 & 7 is flowing at 20 mgd average and has capacity of 70 mgd average. Mr. Hohener reported that they investigated six different alternatives and narrowed it down to three. First alternative on Figure 2. Were looking at benefit cost ratio. Benefit to IRWD and alternatives to derive this benefit. Said they were investigating transportation of sewage from IRWD to Plant No. 1 only. Alternative I -Reviewed alternative and new construction needed. Least involvement with Sanitation Districts. Alternative II -Introduced concept of Peters Canyon Trunk where IRWD will generate flows of 7 mgd and District 7, 3 mgd. 11 pumping stations will be eliminated. Alternative III -More involved scheme. IRWD pumps into Irvine Relief Trunk and through Irvine Lift Station and into Sunflower Interceptor. Could take flows for 25 years and discharge into Sunflower Interceptor. Can postpone building of remaining portion of force main for 15 to 20 years. Have to continue to measure as we go along. Said Alternative III provides a plan which is more reliable because can always connect with Sunflower Trunk in an emergency and has more flexibility and more staging opportunities. Reviewed costs on Table 2, Table 4, and Table 6. Re Alternative II, capital cost for District 6 would decrease because are sharing cost with IRWD to treatment plant. Financially, it is to everyone's advantage to build trunks big and share. Said within the bounds of accuracy, these three alternatives, on an economic comparison basis, are equal. Are within 10% of one another. Reviewed Table 9, Economic Comparison Summary of Present Worth Costs. Savings of $3 million to District 6; savings of $570,000 to District 7; and costs to IRWD about equal. Used 1982 dollars with 50 year project life with 4% discount rate. Smith asked him to explain the second column? Conrad said we won't receive any money but will save money because instead of building lines by themselves for their own uses, the Districts will join with IRWD and save money by sharing. IRWD average flow is 46 mgd. The larger the pipe, the better it is to have a joint venture. Hanson asked, what is the advantage of Alternative I or III as far as Irvine is concerned? Answered, we feel these are all pretty equal. -2- Vardoulis commented re Alternatives II & III, re Peters Canyon Trunk, has potential of eliminating 11 pumping stations. Didn't see reduction in operation and maintenance costs. Conrad said that wasn't included in this study but would be considerable savings. Added no costs included in this study for buying into sewers with excess capacity. That is being done by staff. Question asked if engineer was considering existing Districts or consolidated Districts? Assumed Districts would be structured as they are now. Referred to Table 13, Estimated Costs of Recommended New Facilities in 1982 Dollars. Said do not confuse this with economic study. Conrad indicated that they thought Alternative III is the best way to get from IRWD to Plant 1. Plummer asked if he was talking about a new Sanitation Districts when he talked about IRWD? Conrad answered that that was a vehicle being discussed by staff which is the formation of District 14 and then buying into Districts. Consolidation is another policy decision that will come along when discussing this. Are talking about two different things. If IRWD request doesn't come to pass, Districts 6 and 7 will have to spend $ and $ If IRWD does come to pass, can share facilities with them and reduce dramatically capital costs and operation and energy costs for District 7. Vardoulis explaied further that the study that Boyle did is just on the Master Plan of facilities. While they were doing this study, IRWD funded a study re joining the Sanitation Districts. Boyle was told to look at both. Another study is being done re treatment facilities and will be presented to the Joint Board later. Plummer then questioned how our waiver request would be affected which is based on capacity. FAH explained that JCE is looking at a possible extension of the existing outfall. Would go out to at least a 120-ft. depth. The request of 40 mgd is for the 50-year study and refers to the year 2028 . Their current flow is 8 mgd. Ultimate total would be 40 mgd plus 1.35 for upper Peters Canyon area. Conrad compared treatment cost of our agency vs. that of small agency like IRWD •• Something like $130/mgd.±_ vs $850/mgd.±_ IRWD wil continue to use water needed for their agriculatural program and send sludges through pipe to Sanitation Districts. It was then moved, seconded and duly carried: That the draft updated and consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 1, northern half of 6 and 7 be, and is hereby, referred to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts and to the Fiscal Policy Committee for study and recommendation. #6 -Other business It was suggested that the Special Reorganization Committee and FPC meet at 5:00 p.m., December 8th, immediately preceding the regular Joint Board Meeting, and that a light dinner be served. -3- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOS. 1, 6 AND 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING November 17, 1982 -8:00 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of November 10, 1982, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation District Nos. l; 6 and 7 of Orange County, California met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date in the Districts' administrative offices. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary pro tem reported a quorum present. District 1 DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: District 6 DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: District 7 DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Hanson, Chairman, Don Saltarelli, Roger Stanton Robert Luxembourger Elvin Hutchison, Chairman, Ruthelyn Plummer, Roger Stanton None Richard Edgar, Chairman, Evelyn Hart, Don Smith, Bill Vardoulis, James Wahner Robert Luxembourger, Bruce Nestande Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Assistant General Manager, Bill Clarke, Tom Dawes, Rita Brown, Conrad Hohener, Don Martinson, Phil Stone, Mike Swan, Steve Malone * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Appointing Rita Brown Secretary pro tem Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Rita Brown be appointed Secretary pro tem in the absence of the Secretary. -1- Districts 1, 6 & 7 11/17/82 Report of Engineer re Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers The Chairman recognized Conrad Hohener of . Boyle Engineering Corporation who reviewed \.,.) the draft of the Consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 1, northern half of 6, and 7. Mr. Hohener swmnarized the history of the respective Districts' sewer system expansion to keep pace with the rapid development in metropolitan Orange County. The Consolidated Master Plan investigates the possibie joint usage of the combined systems to maximize use of the existing facilities in providing an efficient system of trunk sewer facilities, without regard to District boundaries. The current land-use planning objectives, which serve as the basis for projecting sewage flows, were reviewed with the various planning agencies having jurisdiction in the master plan service area. Major variances with the Joint Districts Ultimate Land-Use Plan prepared in 1975 were noted. A hydraulic analysis of the combined trunk and subtrunk sewer system was accomplished by developing a computer model of the combined pipeline network to project sewage flows to compare them to the pipeline capacities, and then to flag deficiencies. The model also was used in developing an efficient mode of operation by identifying the recommended flow routing at the key diversion points throughout the pipeline system. The computer model allows the plan to be updated as conditions change. Very few deficiencies are projected within the combined system. Relief of the majority of the deficiencies will be provided by the following three major recommended facilities: 1. Fairview-Gisler Relief Trunk in District No. 6 relieving the existing Fairview Trunk and Air Ba·se Trunk Outfall Sewer No. 2 to Treatment Plant No. 1. 2. Airport Relief Trunk in District No. 7 serving the rapidly expanding Irvine Industrial Complex-West south of the San Diego Freeway. 3. South Irvine Lift Station and Relief Subtrunk in District No. 7 pumping flow from the existing Gisler-Red Hill Trunk to the gravity Sunflower Interceptor at a lower lift than the existing College Avenue Pumping Station. Three other relief subtrunks, completion of a short stretch of the Tustin-Orange Trunk Sewer, and some modifications to four pumping stations in District No. 7 make up the remainder of the recommended trunk sewer facilities. No new facilities are projected for District No. 1. Based upon current construction costs, total estimated construction cost of the facilities serving District No. 6 is $5,628,000 and $6,514,000 for those serving District No. 7. The engineer pointed out that each facility had been prioritized to meet the projected flow buildup requirements using available planning information, flow recording data, and engineering judgment. To keep pace with the ever changing planning and development processes within the service area, he also reconunended that flowmetering be implemented on a continuing basis to provide the combined -2- ........ ' "' Districts 1, 6, & 7 11/17/82 Districts with current data from which to establish an implementation schedule for the facilities reflecting the actual needs of the District as they occur. Mr. Hohener also reviewed the addendum to the draft master plan authorized by the Boards at the request of the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). The addendum focuses on the alternative means of conveying IRWD's wastewater to Reclamation Plant No. 1 as one element of their investigation into the feasibility of forming a new sanitation district and buying capacity in the.Joint Sanitation Districts (CSDOC) facilities to serve the territory within the IRWD. Three alternatives ranging from minimal involvement with the CSDOC's system to multiple capacity sharing opportunities have been developed. Total ultimate flow from the IRWD planning is 41.35 million gallons per day (mgd). In each alternative, 1.35 mgd from the Upper Peters Canyon area has been routed through District No. 7's Sunflower/Tustin-Orange Trunk system. Alternative I conveys all of the remaining 40.0-mgd IRWO-generated flow to the CSDOC's Treatment Plant No. 1 by a new trunk system from the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP). The second alternative investigates service of the lower undeveloped Peters Canyon area by a new trunk with a capacity allotment of 7.0 mgd for the IRWD planning area connecting to the Sunflower-Red Hill Interceptor at McGaw Avenue with the remaining 33.0 mgd being transported by a new trunk from the MWRP. The third alternative routes the IRWD flows as in Alternative II but considers several capacity sharing opportunities with Districts Nos. 6 and 7. In all cases it was most economical to route flow from the Upper Peters Canyon area to the Tustin-Orange Trunk and to share capacity in a connnon trunk with District No. 6 from Fairview Avenue to Treatment Plant No. 1. The life cycle costs for all three alternatives were equivalent within the accuracy of the estimates. All alternatives also were tested for intangible advantages, such as flexibility of operation during normal operation and emergency situations, reliability over the long term, and opportunities for staging the facilities to meet the flow buildup requirements of both IRWD and CSDOC. As a result, Alternative III is recommended for conveyance of the IRWO-generated wastewater flows to the CSDOC's Treatment Plant No. 1. Construction of the Peters Canyon Trunk would also eliminate the need for several existing pump stations. The estimated total construction cost in 1982 dollars for the required new facilities is $21,300,000 for IRWD. The net impact to the combined districts' master plan is a reduction of $3,010,000 for District No. 6 and $230,000 for District No. 7. Refer updated and consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 1, northern half of 6 and 7 to the Special Committee and Fiscal Policy Conunittee for study and recommendation Following a lengthy discussion by the Boards, it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That the draft updated and consolidated Master Plan of Trunk Sewers for Districts 1, northern half of 6 and 7, be, and is hereby, referred to the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the Sanitation Districts and to the Fiscal Policy Committee for study and recommendation. > -3- Districts 1, 6 & 7 11/17/82 District 1 Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:29 p.m., November 17, 1982. District 6 Moved, second~d and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:29 p.m., November 17, 1982. District 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:29 p.m., November 17, 1982. Secretary pro tem of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District Nos. 1, 6 & 7 of Orange County, California -4-