The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 01-11-96 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 BOARD MEETING OF January 11, 1 996 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR bb. SUBJECT DATE January 3, 1996 QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENT TO ALBERT D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JOB 4891, PARCELS 2 AND 3, PLEASANT HILL AREA TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE QUITCLAIM OF SEWER EASEMENT SUBMJITED BY H lJennis all Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Infrastructure Division ISSUE: The owner of the former Payless Drug Store site in Pleasant Hill has requested the District quitclaim two District easements within its property. BACKGROUND: The subject easements were granted at no cost to this District in 1992. They were created to provide future service to the site. The property owner's plan for development of the site has been abandoned, and they have decided to sell the property. The sewer pipelines proposed for installation in these easements were never built. The buyer's plans for the site will not require the subject easements; and, therefore, they may be quitclaimed. Our quitclaim processing fee has been paid. Staff has determined that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQAl under District CEQA Guidelines Section 18.6 since it involves a minor alteration in land use limitations. The Board of Directors' approval of this project will constitute a finding of agreement with this determination unless otherwise indicated. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitclaim Deed to Albert D. Seeno Construction Company, Job No. 4891, authorize the President of the District Board of Directors and the Secretary of the District to execute said Quitclaim Deed, and authorize the Quitclaim Deed to be recorded. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION JSM RAB 1302A-7/91 J}I( DH fll1 INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. I ~// _r- -----~__J r--~~~/ \,: / " / ',,-~--, - - -------~,---_-.-...-/ I " I II I I I I I I " I "" GREGORY ''P LANE +- FREEWAY OFF RAMP l . C ~ m u a:: r<) r<) - - - - -=-----.:.-. - \ - - - - -7'=-=\' \ \ \ QUITCLAIM PARCEL 2 \\' \\' '\' , \ \ \ . \ \ )' I I I I /,1 ALBERT D, SEENO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY /. / ( FORMER PAYLESS SITE) AI/ I I I I ~/:I I I I I , , I 2099 ~ ~ . en -- 0 (J 2/()/ 2/95 u a:: r<) r") <( a: .... 2130 Z 2200 2233 0 U u a:: r<) r<) 2207 u > lD '::" - :J \ QUITCLAIM PARCEL 3 / ~ / <0 / / ~ / / ~ / / I/tfj / / ~ / / ~I// /jL f ~/ / / I 11/ 1/) u r<) r<) MONUMENT BLVD. QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENTS JOB 4891 PARCELS 2 AND 3 PLEASANT HILL AREA 2523-9/88 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 BOARD MEETING OF January 11, 1996 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR cc. DATE January 5, 1996 SUBJECT AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 96-1 (WALNUT CREEK) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DIST,RICT TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT ANNEXATION FOR PROCESSING SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Infrastructure Division PARCEL AREA OWNER/ADDRESS REMARKS LEAD NO. PARCEL NO. & ACREAGE AGENCY 96-1 Walnut North Gate Woods Proposed subdivision Contra Creek c/o Prestige Homes 7143, containing nine Costa (50C7) 1735 North Broadway single family lots. County Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Negative Declaration by 138-050-005 (10.0 Ac.) Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 96-1 (Walnut Creek) to be included in a future formal annexation. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. ~~ j/;P1 JSM bye r. RAB 1302A-7/91 DH \ \ \ I I I "'''';FJ5;;.:::/ \ \ DRIVE ~ 9 10 13 12 11 RANCHO ESTATES SUB. ANNEX PROPOSED ANNEXATION P.A. 96-1 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF8 BOARD MEETING OF January 1 1, 1996 NO. 6. SOLID WASTE a. DATE January 9, 1996 lYPE OF ACTION SUBJECT CONSIDERATION OF BOARD ACTION 'ON ALLEGED BREACHES OF ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND CURE OR FAILURE TO CURE SAME CONSIDER POTENTIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Kenton L. Aim, District Counsel Adminis r ISSUE: The General Manager-Chief Engineer has determined that Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. (OMDS) is in breach of its solid waste franchise. If the General Manager-Chief Engineer determines that a material breach has occurred, such determination is automatically appealed to the Board for final action. BACKGROUND: The General Manager-Chief Engineer is responsible under the current solid waste franchise agreements to make determinations as to breaches thereof. General Manager-Chief Engineer has recently provided final notice to OMDS that two sets of circumstances independently give rise to a breach of the contract. Failure of OMDS to cure either breach may lead to a determination that a "material" breach has occurred. A letter from Mr. Dolan to Mr. Lomow, dated December 22, 1995, setting forth the specifics of the current breach and cure circumstances is attached at Exhibit A. A determination by the Board that a material breach has occurred would allow the Board to direct that the agreement be terminated or direct other appropriate action. Staff is not recommending termination of the agreement at this time. Staff seeks to make clear that the issues before the Board deal only with OMDS' financial obligations and do not effect OMDS' continuing contractual obligation to provide appropriate service for the remaining term of the franchise. Due to the fact that the current franchise agreement with OMDS will terminate by its terms at the end of February 1996, staff has concluded that certain contractual issues must be addressed in the immediate future. Staff's overall objective is, of course, to ensure quality service throughout the remainder of the franchise period, while minimizing any adverse economic impact on the rate payers or OMDS creditors. Due to the franchise termination date and the Board meeting schedule, this matter has been put before the Board on an essentially conditional basis. At the time of preparation of the Position Paper, staff has not had an adequate opportunity to evaluate whether appropriate efforts to cure have been undertaken by OMDS consistent with the December 22, 1995 letter from Roger Dolan. Staff will provide an update of the circumstances concerning these contractual matters at the Board meeting. Direction from the Board with regard to further action may be requested, depending on the status of the pending issues. RECOMMENDATIONS: Consider whether the alleged breaches of the OMDS franchise agreement have been cured, and direct further action with regard to OMDS franchise agreement as may be ~ppropriate . REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATIN(m 1302A-7/91 KLA OGER J. DOlAN ADSISI Admin/PosP/OMDSBrea. pp Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, California 94553-4392 (510) 228-9500 · FAX: (510) 676-721] December 22, 1995 ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager Chief Engineer KENTONL.ALM Counsel for the District (510) 938-1430 CERTIFIED MAIL: P 621 915 306 JOYCE E. MURPHY Secretary of the District Mr. Doug Lomow Orinda Moraga Dispose-All 1029 Blackwood Lane Lafayette, CA 94549 RE: Delinquent Franchise Fees Dear Mr. Lomow: ISSUE ONE On September 22, 1995, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) notified Orinda Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., (OMDS), by written correspondence sent by certified mail, of OMDS' default and breach under the terms of the Agreement for Collection, Removal and Disposal of Garbage, Zone 1 and 1 A (the" Agreement"). In said written notification, CCCSD demanded that all delinquent franchise fees and legal impound fees be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of said notification. Said notification further demanded that the monthly franchise fees and legal impound fees to become due through the remaining term of the Agreement be paid on a monthly basis. A copy of said September 22, 1995 written notification is enclosed for your reference. Despite such demand having been made, OM OS has failed and refused to pay any of said past due franchise and legal impound fees, nor any of the monthly fees which became due thereafter. I have determined that the failure of OMDS to pay the fees described herein, and in the September 22, 1995 correspondence, to be a default of OMDS' obligations under the Agreement, and to be a material breach of the Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, my determination in this regard shall automatically be appealed to the Board of Directors of the CCCSD (the "Board"). Please be advised that this appeal will be considered by the Board at its meeting scheduled for January 11, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. Should OMDS pay to CCCSD all of the fees described in this correspondence, and the September 22, 1995 written notification, on or before January 8, 1996, the Board will be notified and be requested to consider that payment in ruling on the appeal. c:\ WPDOCS\RJD\LOMOW.L TR * Recycled Paper HOB ISSUE TWO CCCSD has been seeking to perform an examination of the records pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Agreement since August of this year. Most recently, an examination was scheduled to be performed on or about December 8, 1995 by the agreed upon independent CPA firm of Hemming Morse. To date, no examination has occurred. I conclude that the failure of OM OS to provide the records in a timely manner to allow for an examination as provided for in the Agreement also constitutes a breach of the Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the document which was signed on December 20, 1995 (Agreement Regarding Examination of Orinda Moraga Disposal Service, Incorporated's Books and Records), you have committed to the performance of an examination to be commenced on January 8, 1996. To the extent that you fully comply with the terms of that document, OMDS may cure this breach. If OMDS does not fully comply with the terms of the December 20, 1995 document, I will be forced to conclude that this second default on the part of OM OS also constitutes a material breach. In the event I determine this breach has not been cured, this matter will likewise be calendared on the Board's agenda for January 11, 1996 for the automatic appeal proceedings. If you wish to appear before the Board at its January 11, 1996 meeting, you andlor your representative will be provided reasonable time to address this issue. We would appreciate it if you would notify Joyce Murphy, the Secretary of the District, of your intentions with regard to making a presentation. ~eIY: ~/~ ROge~~ C General Manager/Chief Engineer RJD:bl Enclosure cc: Board of Directors K.Alm P. Morsen D. Ratcliff R. Adams, Lafayette R. Hubbard, Moraga W. Lindsay, Orinda K. Norris (via FAX #510-222-5992) C:\WPDOCS\RJD\LOMOW.L TR Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, California 94553-4392 (510) 228-9500 · FAX: (510) 676-7211 December 22, 1 995 ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager Chief Engineer KE^70N L. ALM Counsel for the District (510)938-1430 CERTIFIED MAil: P 621 91 5 306 JOYCE E. MURPHY Secretary of the District Mr. Doug lomow Orinda Moraga Dispose-All 1029 Blackwood lane lafayette, CA 94549 RE: Delinquent Franchise Fees Dear Mr. lomow: ISSUE ONE On September 22, 1995, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) notified Orinda Moraga Disposal Service, Inc., (OMDS), by written correspondence sent by certified mail, of OMDS' default and breach under the terms of the Agreement for Collection, Removal and Disposal of Garbage, Zone 1 and 1 A (the" Agreement"). In said written notification, CCCSD demanded that all delinquent franchise fees and legal impound fees be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of said notification. Said notification further demanded that the monthly franchise fees and legal impound fees to become due through the remaining term of the Agreement be paid on a monthly basis. A copy of said September 22, 1995 written notification is enclosed for your reference. Despite such demand having been made, OMDS has failed and refused to pay any of said past due franchise and legal impound fees, nor any of the monthly fees which became due thereafter. I have determined that the failure of OMDS to pay the fees described herein, and in the September 22, 1995 correspondence, to be a default of OMDS' obligations under the Agreement, and to be a material breach of the Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, my determination in this regard shall automatically be appealed to the Board of Directors of the CCCSD (the "Board"). Please be advised that this appeal will be considered by the Board at its meeting scheduled for January 11, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. Should OMDS pay to CCCSD all of the fees described in this correspondence, and the September 22, 1995 written notification, on or before January 8, 1996, the Board will be notified and be requested to consider that payment in ruling on the appeal. C:\WPDOCS\RJD\LOMOW.L TR * Recycled Paper HOB ',- " . r. " Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 50l9IffihoffPlace;+1artinez:Califomia~4553-4392' --'{51O) 228-9500 .. FAX: (510)'676-7211 " ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager Chief Engineer KENTON L. ALM Counsel for the District (510) 938-1430 JOYCE E. MURPHY Secretarv of the District September 22, 1995 CERTIFIED MAIL: P 385 323 031 Mr. Doug Lomow Orinda Moraga Dispose-All 1029 Blackwood Lane Lafayette, CA 94549 Dear Mr. Lomow: Over the past several years, Orinda Moraga Dispose-All has had difficulty paying its franchise fee to the District in one lump sum within 30 days of receipt of invoice per Section 19 of the Franchise Agreement. You requested a monthly payment plan, and we have accommodated that request. You have consistently indicated a willingness to make payments but have indicated that you have had cash flow problems. However, as of today, we have not received any monthly payments on the franchise fee, nor the legal impound fees since the December 1994 and November 1994 payment, respectively. Furthermore, delinquent payments from 1993 are still outstanding as well. You announced at the Orinda City Council meeting on September 5, 1995, and again in your "Guest Columnist" article in the September 20, 1995 Contra Costa Sun that you had paid all that you believe you owe in franchise fees to the District. This was very surprising since you are significantly delinquent on your monthly payments. Your statements seem to indicate that you will not be paying the District agreed upon contractual fees which were included in your rate base. The District is now requesting full payment of all delinquent franchise fees and legal impound fees in the amount of $352,755.63 (which includes prior year unpaid amounts) within 30 days of receipt of this letter. The remaining balance of $194,615.44 is due starting in October on a monthly basis by the .15th of each month. A detailed breakdown of delinquent amounts owed is , attached. @ Recycled Paper HOB .' Mr. Doug Lomow Page 2 September 22, 1995 Since this letter is referring to amounts owed to the District, I will use this opportunity to remind you of my letter, dated July 28, 1995, which requests that the $2.12 per ton household hazardous waste fee which was previously collected at the West Contra Costa Landfill be remitted to the District on a monthly basis beginning August 15, 1995. (See attached letter.) To date, we have not received the payments due for the months of July and August. Your prompt payment is expected within 30 days. S\I. .. rely,/ &:.7 .;~ ~ f>aul Morsen Deputy General Manager PM:dp Attachment cc: Board of Directors K.Alm R. Dolan D. Ratcliff R. Adams, Lafayette R. Hubbard, Moraga W. Lindsay, Orinda ADS/Ratcliff 2A/FrancFee.Ltr ., , \, ~I " co M ~ " 0 CO ~ 0 .... U) U) .... " U) .... " M " CO M . N .... .... ~ " ~ .... U) en ~ 0 M M .... U) 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 <( Z I ~ ~ 0 <( Q. tJ) ~ OW...I ~CJ<t tJ)-C) _OW C~...I -0 <(>Z C)a:<t <(<tel) a::iw O:iW ~LL ~eI)~ <( i: C CJ Z ~ - a: a: LL o Q,) U c: ~ CO CD a> :J o ~ U) CO Q. "0 c: Q,) ...I a> Q,) LL a> U) :E u c: CO ~ LL U) ~ CO a> > ~ o .;: Q. N M M o a> u c: CO CO CD M en en .... ~ a> .0 E a> u a> o U) " ex> " N o a> Cl ~ CO .c U Q,) ~ CO ...I M en en .... ... Q. <( o o o o U) . U) o a> :c CO > CO Q. ~ en en .... ... a> .0 E a> > o Z U) N U) U) CO .. U) .... o a> :c CO > CO Q. M en en .... ... a> .0 E a> u a> o I i .... o a> :c CO > CO Q. ~ en en .... ~ a> .0 E a> u a> o U) U) " " M " M CO ~ M ~ 0 .... M o 0 a> :c CO > CO Q. ~ en en .... ~ CO a> > ~ Q,) .0 E a> u Q,) o , , -. CO M ex> CO ex> .... CO . .... en o U) en en .... Cl :J <( I U) en en .... c: CO -, N en CO " o M N o U) en CO M .... . .... CO N o Lt) en en .... a> :J C Cl :J <( ab en en ctl .... o .... .0 :I en .... c: CO - . "Oc: c: a> WE .c a> Cl :I ~ ~e<( c:.c CO .... a> - U) CO Cl'- tDc:.c .....c u c:.- c: a> CO CO t:EU: :I Q,) u!!:o ex> o M N ~ ~ .... o CO en en .... c: CO -, I Lt) en en .... .... Q. Q,) r.n N M M o o N ~ .... o U) " . " CO M Lt) o ~ o .c Cla> :J U) 0.- ~.c .cu ....c:.... Q,) ~ c: :I LL a> c_E COO~ ...."0 ... Oc:Cl ....W<t: M GI Cll tll E: .. := ... E Q. ~ o E o o::! CD CO) - := U ... tll EE en c < ORINDA MORAGA DISPOSE-ALL DETAILED PAYMENT HISTORY .. FRANCHISE FEES .. Payable Payment Amount Amount Net Owed Prior Years: April 1993 Late Charge $2,123.47 $1,844.72 $278.75 Jan. 1993 thru Nov. 1993 $172,207.75 $172,207.75 0 Dec. 1993 $15,655.25 0 $15,655.25 Jan. 1994 thru Nov. 1994 $158,771.25 $158.771.25 0 Dec. 1994 $14.433.75 Q $14.433.75 Prior Years Subtotal $363,191.47 $332,823.72 $30,367.75 Current Year: (13 Payments) Jan. 1995 (Due Feb. 15) $28,846.15 0 $28,846.15 Feb. 1995 (Due Mar. 15) $28,846.15 0 $28,846.15 Mar. 1995 (Due Apr. 15) $28,846.15 0 $28,846.15 Apr. 1995 (Due May 15) $28,846.15 0 $28,846.15 May 1995 (Due Jun. 15) $28,846.15 0 $28,846.15 Jun. 1995 (Due Jul. 15) $28,846.15 0 $28,846.15 Jul. 1995 (Due Aug. 15) $28,846.15 0 $28,846.15 Aug. 1995 (Due Sept. 15) $28.846.15 Q $28.846.15 Current Year Subtotal $230,769.20 0 $230,769.20 Total Past Due $261.136.95 Remaining Due Thru End of Franchise Agreement: Sept. 1995 (Due Oct. 15) $28,846.15 0 $28,846.15 Oct. 1995 (Due Nov. 15) $28,846.15 0 $28,846.15 Nov. 1995 (Due Dec. 15) $28,846.15 0 $28,846.15 Dec. 1995 (Due Jan. 15) $28,846.15 0 $28,846.15 Jan. 1996 (Due Feb. 15) $28.846.20 Q $28.846.20 Remaining Subtotal Due $144,230.80 $144,230.80 Total Due Thru End of ~405,367.75 Franchis6 Agi66iii6iit ADS/Ratacliff 2A/PmtHilt.cht ORINDA MORAGA DISPOSE-ALL DETAILED PAYMENT HISTORY .' LEGAL IMPOUND ..- Payable Payment Amount Amount Net Owed Prior Years: Jan. 1993 - Dec. 1993 $130,000 $129,996.69 $3.32 Jan. 1994 - Oct. 1994 $55,000 $55,000 0 Nov. 1994 $5,500 0 $5,500 Dec. 1994 $5.500 Q $5.500 Prior Years Subtotal $196,000 $184,996.68 $11,003.32 Current Year: (13 Payments) Jan. 1995 (Due Feb. 15) $10,076.92 0 $10,076.92 Feb. 1995 (Due Mar. 15) $10,076.92 0 $10,076.92 Mar. 1995 (Due Apr. 15) $10,076.92 0 $10,076.92 Apr. 1995 (Due May 15) $10,076.92 0 $10,076.92 May 1995 (Due Jun. 15) $10,076.92 0 $10,076.92 Jun. 1995 (Due Jul. 15) $10,076.92 0 $10,076.92 Jul. 1995 (Due Aug. 15) $10,076.92 0 $10,076.92 Aug. 1995 (Due Sept. 15) $10.076.92 Q $10.076.92 Current Year Subtotal $80,615.36 $80,615.36 Total Past Due $91.618.68 Remaining Due Thru End of Franchise Agreement: Sept. 1995 $10,076.92 0 $10,076.92 Oct. 1995 $10,076.92 0 $10,076.92 Nov. 1995 $10,076.92 0 $10,076.92 Dec. 1995 $10,076.92 0 $10,076.92 Jan. 1996 $10.076.96 Q $1 0.076.96 Remaining Subtotal Due $50,384.64 0 $50,384.64 Total Due Thru End of Franchise $142.003.32 Agreement ADS/R8t8cliff 2A/lmpound .cht Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 10 BOARD MEETING OF Januar 11, 1996 NO. 7. ENGINEERING a. DATE SUBJECT CONSIDER DEVELOPER REQUEST TO PROVIDE SEWER SERVICE TO A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON KINROSS DRIVE IN WALNUT CREEK TYPE OF ACTION CONSIDER REQUEST SUBMITTED BY Jay McCoy Infrastructure Division Mana er INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Deptartmentl Infrastructure Division ISSUE: A developer, Mr. Peter Hellmann, requests the approval of a temporary pumping station to serve a proposed residential development in Walnut Creek. The Board of Directors must consider any new District pumping stations. BACKGROUND: Mr. Peter Hellmann is in the process of acquiring a residential property in Walnut Creek located at the north end of Kinross Drive (see attached map). Mr. Hellmann is proposing to build 20 to 25 single family homes on this property. Before Mr. Hellmann purchases this property from the current owner, he wishes a determination on the means of providing sewer service. The normal means of providing sewer service to this property is to extend a gravity sewer pipeline west from the property to an existing gravity sewer in Seven Hills Ranch Road. The alignment of this gravity sewer extension would be located across property which is owned by Mr. Sheridan Hale. An easement would have to be obtained for this alignment. Mr. Hellmann has stated that Mr. Hale is unwilling to grant such an easement. Public agencies have the authority to condemn private property to obtain easements. However, the Board of Directors would have to take action to authorize condemnation by the District. In the past, the District Board has been unwilling to condemn easements for developer benefit in similar situations. Mr. Hellmann has also stated that he has contacted the City of Walnut Creek and has been informed that the City would not be willing to consider a condemnation action. District staff has had initial discussions with the City of Walnut Creek regarding condemnation. It appears that the City may have the authority and may be obligated under certain circumstances to condemn easements for storm drains, sanitary sewers, or other utilities. Also, the City is the land-use planning authority for the proposed development, and any action by the Board at this time may be construed as being planning in nature, which would be contrary to Board policy. For these reasons, any action by the Board may be premature. After being informed of the District's past practice regarding condemnation, Mr. Hellmann approached District staff requesting approval of a sewage pumping station. Staff responded by discouraging the installation of a pumping station for reasons cited in the attached letter dated December 6, 1995, from Jay McCoy, Infrastructure Division Manager. Mr. Hellmann has RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON J}fC JSM RAB CONSIDER DEVELOPER REQUEST TO PROVIDE SEWER SERVICE TO A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON KINROSS DRIVE IN WALNUT CREEK SUBJECT PAGE DATE 2 OF 10 January 5, 1996 responded by requesting the opportunity to appear before the Board. In his attached letter dated December 21, 1995, Mr. Hellmann requests the Board to conceptually approve a temporary pumping station "while expressing its preference for a gravity system." As previously mentioned, Board policy is to provide sewer service after planning agencies make decisions on developments. Any specific decision by the Board at this time may circumvent the planning process which is the responsibility of the City of Walnut Creek. The appropriate action to take is to postpone consideration of this matter until the City of Walnut Creek has indicated its intent to approve the development. If the Board considers this matter in the future, it is anticipated that the Board will have three courses of action: · Take the necessary steps to authorize condemnation of an easement for gravity service. A joint action with the City of Walnut Creek may be appropriate. · Approve the concept of a pumping station. · Deny the pumping station request fMr. Hellmann would have to acquire the necessary easement). The following information is provided to bring these three courses of action into perspective. Condemnation-Gravitv Sewer Gravity sewers are preferred by the District because they are reliable, economical, cost- effective, require no energy, and require comparatively little maintenance. In cases such as this one, the citizens of the District would modestly benefit and the future subdivision homeowners would substantially benefit from gravity service (compared to pump station service.) However, Mr. Hellmann has indicated that Mr. Hale objects to the granting of an easement and to the development as a whole. Consequently, condemnation would likely be required. Staff believes the Board has the power to condemn. In its considerations of condemnation, the Board may also want to weigh the merits of Mr. Hale's property rights against Mr. Hellmann's development rights. The City of Walnut Creek may have the authority to condemn for sanitary sewer purposes. Under certain circumstances, the City may be obligated to condemn easements as a condition of approving developments. In one previous development, the City of Walnut Creek and the Sanitary District cooperated in condemnation actions to secure rights for a developer. There is a possibility that one easement for storm drain and sanitary sewer pipelines may be appropriate for the proposed development. The staffs of the City and the District might pursue condemnation of a joint-use easement in that case. 1302B-7/91 CONSIDER DEVELOPER REQUEST TO PROVIDE SEWER SERVICE TO A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON KINROSS DRIVE IN WALNUT CREEK SUBJECT PAGE DATE 3 OF 10 January 5, 1996 The future gravity sewer would have three cost components: condemnation, easement value, and installation. The cost of these three items are estimated (roughly) as follows: . Condemnation Easements Installation Total $ 50,000 $ 35,000 $ 70.000 $155,000 . . Pumoina Station Pumping stations have high initial costs, continuing operations and maintenance costs (O&M), consume energy, and have a greater possibility for overflows then gravity sewers. In the case of larger developments (over 60 homes) these factors are mitigated by economy of scale. In these cases, the developer pays for the pumping station, builds it, and turns it over to the District for operation and maintenance. In the case of smaller developments (less than 10 homes) individually owned pumping stations frequently are a practical alternative. The development proposed by Mr. Hellmann is marginal because it is too large for individual pumping stations and the costs of a District pumping station are comparatively large. Mr. Hellmann is requesting conceptual approval of a temporary pumping station. The pumping station mayor may not be temporary. Regardless, the pumping station will be designed and built as if it were permanent. The estimated costs of a District owned and operated pumping station are as follows: . Initial O&M Cost (40 years) $220,000 $137 .000 (present worth at $315/yr/home) . Total Present Worth $357,000 Deny Reauest The District's general past practice regarding sewer service has been to provide service to developments within our service area that have been approved by the appropriate land use planning agency. Exceptions to this practice have been that the Board has reserved judgement on development proposals that require pumping stations and the Board has typically been unwilling to condemn easements for the benefit of small subdivision developers. In this case, staff believes the Board has the discretion to deny Mr. Hellmann's request which means that sewer service would not be available unless he provides the easements necessary for gravity service. RECOMMENDATION: Postpone consideration of this matter until the City of Walnut Creek has indicated its intent to approve the proposed development. 1302B-7/91 ~..l't ..C " II ,/ ~-. -- " 1<(" -GR-AV1TY HALE SITE ...., PM 8 2 8 33 ..~~.q(~ ".d ... " -- I Central Contra Costa Sanitary DIstrict ~ KINROSS SEWERING ALTERNATIVES 2523-9/88 '~.' .,." Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 50I9 Imhoff Place. f\lartllll:'z. Ctllfornlil 9'IS:\:\-.'I:\92 . (5IO) 22il-951)O · F:\X: (510) (j7b-7211 FAX: (510) 672-4847 ROGER J. DOl.4N General Manager Chief Engineer KE/l.TONL.ALM UJ:.!:uel {or the District (5101938-1430 December 6, 1995 JOYCE E. MURPHY Secretary of the District Mr. Peter N. Hellmann Marquee Homes, Inc. 156 Joscolo View Clayton, CA 94517 Dear Mr. Hellmann: SEWER SERVICE FOR PROPOSED 22 LOT SUBDIVISION NEAR KINROSS AND MARCHBANKS IN WALNUT CREEK At your request, District staff has been compiling information regarding alternatives for providing sewer service to property west of the intersection of Kinross Drive and Marchbanks Drive in Walnut Creek. This property is the northern portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 144-081-006 on which a residential subdivision of 22 lots is being proposed. Our investigation has revealed that there are significant problems with the provision of sewer service to this parcel. The normal means of. providing sewer service to this property in keeping with District- preferred practice is to extend a gravity sewer pipeline west from the property to an existing gravity sewer in Seven Hills Ranch Road. The alignment of this gravity sewer extension is located across property owned by a private individual. You would need to acquire an easement from this private individual to install the sewer extension. You have stated that the private individual is unwilling to grant such an easement. Public. agencies have the authority to condemn private property to obtain easements. However, District staff has no authority to pursue such a course. In the past, the District's Board of Directors has been unwilling to condemn easements for deyeloper benefit in similar situations. Also, you have indicated that neither the City of Walnut Creek nor Contra Costa County would be willing to consent to a condemnation action. These considerations' have led you to inquire concerning the District's position on allowing pumping service for the proposed development. You have requested that the District consjder a pumping station which would be owned and operated by the District, collect sewage from the 22 lots, and pump the sewage to H:\JA Y\HELLMANN.L TR @ Recycled Pape, HOB -. , ,-* Peter N. Hellman .' Page 2 December 6, 1995 the intersection of Kinross Drive and Marchbanks Drive. District policy strongly discourages the approval of new pumping stations. This is especially true in this instance where the normal and obvious means of providing sewer service is a gravity system. It is estimated that the cost 0'( the initial installation of a pumping station would add approximately $10,000 to the cost of developing each lot based on a total estimated cost of $220,000 for the pumping station. You, as developer of the property, would pay the $220,000 when the improvements were installed and, it is assumed, you could recoup your costs as sales occur. You should consider whether or not the housing market in this area can bear this level of additional cost. If, under this scenario, a pumping station were built, the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs would be borne by the users of the station, the future property owners. The estimated O&M costs per property per year is a little over $300. Pumping stations that serve only a few households are very expensive. By way of comparison, the District's annual sewer service charge (which would be in addition to the pumping station charge) is only $188 per residence. The concept of a pumping station is technically feasible, but a major concern exists regarding the rates which would have to be charged for O&M costs. Persons who might purchase homes in your subdivision may take strong exception to paying more than two and one-half times as much for service as their neighbors pay. Staff is very pessimistic toWard a pumping station because of the concern over rates, because of District policy regarding pumping stations, and because of the proximity of existing gravity service which has been the District's strongly preferred alternative. Unfortunately, the development of Parcel 144-081-006 may not be practical in light of, your inability to provide a gravity sewer easement. Should this situation change, please contact me at (51 0) 22~-7360. Should you wish to attempt to persuade the District's Board of Directors to utilize its power of condemnation for your benefit, please contact the Secretary of the District, Joyce Murphy, at (510) 229-7303. Sincerely, hllh4 Jay S. McCoy Infrastructure Division Manager JSM:pk H:\JA Y\HELLMANN.L TR Peter N. Hellmann 156 Josoolo View Clayton, CA 94517 Telephone: (510) 672-1302 F ocsimi1e: (510) 672-4847 December 21, 1995 Ms. Joyce E. Murphy, Secretary ofthe District Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 ImhoWPlace Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Gravity vs. temporary lift station sewer service for: 3.577]:. acres, Kinross Drive, Walnut Creek AUP~: 144-081-006 Dear Ms. Murphy: The above-referenced property is surrounded on three sides by existing residential development and is designated "Medium Density Multi-Family Residential" in the Walnut Creek General Plan. I hope to build from 20 to 25 single-family homes on this parcel. Over the last two months, we have been working with District staff to develop a method to provide sewer service for this project. As a result of these discussions, Mr. Jay McCoy wrote a letter to me dated December 6, 1995, which summarizes staffs conclusion that this property is undevelopable because it cannot be served by sewer at this time. In my opinion, staffs position is unfair and unreasonable. For your reference, a copy of that letter and an illustrative map are enclosed. This parcel can be served in a manner which is feasible and which will meet the needs and objectives of the District. I respectfully request the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Board of Directors at their meeting scheduled for January 11th, and will request that the Board direct staff to work with me to design a system that will satisfactorily provide sanitary service to my property. This property can be served right now by a temporary lift station similar to any of the other 22 lift stations presently operated by the District. However, Mr. McCoy states in his letter that the District is unwilling to consider a lift station because: i) "the normal and obvious means of providing sewer service is a gravity system"; ii) the capital cost of installing a lift station would render my project unfeasible; and, ill) the costs of operating and maintaining the lift station would overly burden my future homeowners. Ms. Joyce Murphy December 21, 1995 Page Two of Four In order to counter these points, it is important for the Board to consider the following: 1. A 2ravitv system is NOT available. It is our understanding that the District will consider lift stations only in those instances where a gravity system is physically unavailable. In my case, there may as well be a mountain between my property and the nearest downstream manhole. The adjacent downstream property owner will oppose the development of my parcel and is unwilling to discuss my purchase of the necessary easements, regardless of price. Unless the District uses its power to condemn these easements, then a gravity system is not available. The key questions are: If a lift station is possible, and if the District is unwilling to exercise its right of eminent domain, then how is it fair to let this downstream property owner hold this valuable property hostage indefinitely? How can the District take the position that a gravity system is available if it chooses not to exercise the power that it alone possesses? 2. The cost of a lift station will not render mv oroiect unfeasible. Since I propose to bear all of the costs associated with a temporary lift station, the feasibility of the project is clearly my problem. In fact, I am absolutely convinced that the project is feasible if we are able to develop a reasonable method to serve it with a lift station. 3. The ooeratin2 and maintenance costs will not burden mv homeowners. By the District staffs own estimate, the operating and maintenance costs would be approximately $25 per unit per month. As I am sure you are aware, HOA dues which are far higher than $100 per month are very common in many new home communities. Also, Mello Roos and other assessment districts carry monthly charges which are multiples of this estimated cost. In my opinion, this fee would not burden my homeowners at all. And again, assuming that these costs are fully disclosed to prospective owners through grant deed and other recorded disclosures, isn't this really a marketing issue, and therefore my concern? This project is extremely important to me and I am willing to work hard to make this a "win" situation for the District also. Here are a few suggestions that may address the District's concerns: . I will continue to work for a 2ravitv system. I want a gravity s5'stem just as badly as staff does. A gravity system will cost a lot less than a lift station. . Ms. Joyce Murphy December 21, 1995 Page Three of Four Unfortunately, I won't have any leverage with the downstream property owner to negotiate for the necessary easements until my project is approved. And, I can't get my project approved unless I can show how it will be served by sanitary sewer. After my project is approved, however, my negotiating position with the downstream property owner will be much stronger. Indeed, my proposed gravity line would serve roughly half of his property and would be installed at no cost to him. Therefore, ifhe's faced with having the project built one way or the other, then at that point, I think he will be far more inclined to let me pay him for an easement and build over $30,000 in improvements that will benefit his property. . I will construct the lift station as a "temporary" facilitv. Even if I'm ultimately unable to acquire the downstream easements, then the sanitary system in my project will be designed with a stub that could be connected to a new gravity line in Seven Hills Ranch Road at any time in the future. When the line in Seven Hills Ranch Road is subsequently extended, the lift station could be removed and my project would be served by a gravity system thereafter. . Mv proiect would bear ALL ofthe lift station's construction. installation. and maintenance costs. Even if the District's costs are higher because its maintenance personnel are spread thin geographically, my project would bear all of those costs as well. . District staff would review and approve all buver disclosures. I would propose to include a disclosure in the grant deed plus record a document which would appear as a separate exception on every future title insurance report and policy, in addition to the typical point-of-sale disclosures. In summary, my property is an in-fill parcel that already has the necessary General Plan designation and is well suited for current development. A gravity sanitary system is presently not available. A lift station is feasible and would not burden my future homeowners. And, this letter hopefully demonstrates my willingness and ability to mitigate all of the District's concerns. I respectfully request that the Board of Directors direct staff to conceptually approve serving my project with a temporary lift station while expressing its preference for a gravity system. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration and approval of this request. . Ms. Joyce Murphy December 21, 1995 Page Four of Four Sincerely, Peter N. Hellmann cc: The Honorable Members of the Board of Directors: Mario M. Menesini, President Barbara D. Hockett Parke L. Boneysteele William C. Dalton Susan McNulty Rainey Roger Dolan, General Manager, Chief Engineer Jay S. McCoy, Infrastructure Division Manager