The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 04-18-96 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 5 . BOARD MEETING OF April 18, 1996 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR d. DATE April 8, 1996 TYPE OF ACTION INITIATE ANNEXATION D.A. 133 SUBJECT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX TEN SEPARATE AREAS UNDER THE TITLE OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION 133 SUBMlmD BY. H II uennls a Associate Engineer INITIAliNG DEPT./DjV. l:ngmeenng Department/ Infrastructure Division ISSUE: The District has received petitions for annexation for ten parcels, as shown on the attached tabulation and maps. It is appropriate to initiate formal annexation proceedings with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). BACKGROUND: LAFCO has requested that the District submit no more than ten separate areas under anyone proceeding to avoid overloading its schedule. The subject areas are generally located in Alamo, Danville, Lafayette, and Walnut Creek. LAFCO has indicated that it may add adjoining unannexed parcels to the separate areas we submit to eliminate islands or straighten boundary lines. The District will have to hold a public hearing to consider annexation of any parcel added by LAFCO. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of Application for the annexation of properties to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District under District Annexation 133. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. fiJ/I/ fY)( f(fb REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-7/91 DH JSM RAS Page 2 of 5 DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 133 TABULATION OF PARCELS P.A. NO. & OWNER ADDRESS, DATE APPROVED BY BOARD LEAD AREA PARCEL NO. & ACREAGE AND REMARKS AGENCY 1 94-1 Cynthia & Sumner Seibert January 18, 1994 CCCSD Lafayette 3530 Springhill Road Project is exempt from CEOA. (46B6) Lafayette, CA 94549 231-070-003 (0.56 AC) 2 94-9 & 96-1 Thomas F. Loughran September 15, 1994 Contra Walnut Creek 3994 Canyon Way and January 11, 1996 Costa (50C7) Martinez, CA 94553 Negative Declarations by County 138-060-011 (7 AC) Contra Costa County North Gate Woods c/o Prestige Homes 1735 North Broadway Walnut Creek, CA 94596 138-050-005 (1 0.0 AC) 3 93-5 Carlo P. Borlandelli April 1, 1993 CCCSD Alamo 475 Livorna Road Project is exempt from CEOA. (76B7) Alamo, CA 94507 193-010-002 (1.414 AC) 4 93-10 Gil Rose June 3, 1993 CCCSD Alamo 5 Holiday Drive (77E5 & 6) Alamo, CA 94507 198-093-007 (0.50 AC) 5 93-13,93-17 John Barber August 5, 1993 CCCSD & 95-13 181 Sonoma Way Alamo Alamo, CA 94507 (77E6) 198-112-002 (0.5 AC) Samuel W. Grossman September 16, 1993 106 La Sonoma Way Alamo, CA 94507 198-111-002 (0.5 AC) Michael Rojansky September 16, 1993 109 La Sonoma Way Alamo, CA 94507 198-112-011 (0.5 AC) Phillip E. Busby, et ux September 7, 1995 176 La Sonoma Way Alamo, CA 94507 198-111-020 (0.55 AC) Richard K. Landgraf, et ux September 7, 1995 173 La Sonoma Way Alamo, CA 94507 198-112-003 (0.50 AC) INFRA\H:\PP\ANNEX133.DH Page 3 of 5 P.A. NO. & OWNER ADDRESS, DATE APPROVED BY BOARD LEAD AREA PARCEL NO. & ACREAGE AND REMARKS AGENCY 6 93-18 William & Sara Hoskins December 2, 1993 CCCSD Alamo 201 Hemme Avenue Project is exempt from CEOA. (77E6) Alamo, CA 94507 198-140-003 (0.50 AC) 7 93-4 & 95-3 Ernest P. Graham March 18, 1993 CCCSD Danville 125 Railroad Avenue, No. 202 January 17, 1995 (78D5) Danville, CA 94526 Project is exempt from CEOA. 196-042-008 (1 .1 AC) Frank Terzuoli 156 Ridge Road Danville, CA 94526 196-042-007 (1.05 ACl 8 94-10 Black Oak Estates October 6, 1994 Contra Diablo 111 Deerwood Place, No. 200 Environmental Impact Report by Costa (81 C6) San Ramon, CA 94583 Contra Costa County County 203-140-001 (31.6 AC) 9 93-7 Melvin L. Toponce May 6, 1993 CCCSD Danville 578 Corte Cala Project is exempt from CEOA. (98C3l Vacaville, CA 95688 208-033-018 (0.34 ACl 10 93-16 Dorothy M. Thomas August 19, 1993 CCCSD Danville 191 Sonora Avenue Project is exempt from CEOA. (98C3) Danville, CA 94526 208-034-006 (0.33 AC) INFRA\H:\PP\ANNEX133.DH 1 - /- .,. (0'" V Y(O"-f)_. q~'y . ! . I . \ ~.C.C.S.D. AN'IEX 133 > > '\ I'. (~d-' _~_~_ \ . - " -->~.-:-___ '. 'j----r- .>-....c..- ~ i "- ,...J G ( .~ ",( / ( ) '"). ~ ~ "'.-' ~"':::/__ ___-i~ .'( Creek 'J;~ ',~ '. ,/ . -'-.>1 ':::t:. " l__...... ~- { ~, '--'; C.C.C.S.D. A.\jNEX 133 },I ; (" ;'( /\ ' :~ "I', ;, I ,/~--, j ,'/\. ), '\ ~'D \ '0 ::l /;\:~~" ,(, I: "// / ',I /' I \ \ ,(l I, ~ ~~ \,,;: \ ...._" \ ./ l "~J(ee \ - 'D Spr!PfJs' , ,~c;~~\ ., ,'~-7~ \./..r-, ._-___::.:..."" _____ "'-, \. \, / \ /~ "~I' ~/') ~/) \ ' -..<,~ Moses Roc-k Spnng ) "Spring ,- / J\ ~,' /' '. c-.c-Y' '~ v'" , \,' '<::::. ....-. ,. ~! . \\ I . , ~., ., ' \, ."\ . ~ ' \ ., ,~ . S~r;nf1< . ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 BOARD MEETING OF April 18, 1996 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR e. SUBJECT DATE April 15, 1996 SET PUBLIC HEARINGS ON MAY 16, 1996 TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 1996-1997 SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES, AND THE COLLECTION OF SUCH CHARGES AND PRIOR YEAR DELINQUENT CHARGES BY PLACING THEM ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLLS TYPE OF ACTION SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Lesley Kendrick, Engineering Assistant Engineering Dept.llnfrastructure Div. ISSUE: The District Code and State law require holding public hearings for the establishment of the 1996-1997 Sewer Service Charge rates and for placing such charges and prior year delinquent charges on the County tax rolls for collection. BACKGROUND: The 1996-1997 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Budget will be submitted for initial review by the Board of Directors on May 1, 1996. Approval of the 1996-1997 O&M Budget is scheduled for the May 16, 1996, Board meeting. It is required by law to hold public hearings to receive public comment on establishing the Sewer Service Charge rates and collecting such charges and prior year delinquent charges by placing them on the County tax rolls during the Board Meeting at which the O&M Budget is presented for approval. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize a public notice to set public hearings on May 16, 1996, to receive public comment on the establishment of the 1996-1997 Sewer Service Charge rates and the collection of such charges and prior year delinquent charges by placing them on the County tax rolls. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-7191 LK RAB H:\DESIGN\KENDRICK\S c\R~lbffi~~H.PP INITIATING DEPT./DIV. 'v!(3) 10/ JSM IJfjG Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 BOARDMEETING9\pril 18, 1996 NO. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR f. DATEApril 12, 1996 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE ATTENDANCE Of MOLLY I. MULLIN, PERMIT TECHNICIAN, AT THE JUNE 2 - 6, 1996, HTE ANNUAL USERS GROUP CONfERENCE IN KISSIMMEE, fLORIDA, AT A COST Of $1 ADO TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE A TTENDANC AT OUT-Of-STATE CONfERENCE SUBMITTED BY Jay S. McCoy Infrastructure Division Mana er INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Infrastructure Division ISSUE: Specific approval by the Board of Directors is required for travel outside of California or if the expense will exceed $500 if the activity was not included in the fiscal Operations and Maintenance Budget. BACKGROUND: Molly I. Mullin, Permit Technician in the Infrastructure Division, is currently engaged in the input of land use data for the District's land management (LM) module, along with daily use of the Building Permit and Cash Receipts modules. HTE is upgrading the LM module, and the enhanced version is called the LX module. This conference will give Molly the opportunity to evaluate the new HTE LX module and its advantages for the District in upgrades and streamlining of permit counter input activity, along with making database information available to casual users. She also will be receiving training on use of associated software and its coordination with the LX module. Molly will attend demonstrations and receive additional training from staff based in Orlando. Last year, several members of District staff attended the annual HTE Users Conference in Long Beach, California, and found the conference to be very beneficial for daily HTE applications. This year's conference was not included in the 1995-96 budget as the conference information was unavailable until after the budget was approved. There are sufficient funds available in the Infrastructure Division's Technical Training and Conference Budget to cover the cost of this conference. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize attendance of Molly I. Mullin, Permit Technician in the Infrastructure Division, at the June 2 - 6, 1996, HTE Annual Users Group Conference in Kissimmee, florida, at a cost of $1 ADO. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION C~ 1302A-7/91 JSM RAB Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 20 BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 18, 1996 NO. 4. HEARINGS a. SUBJECT CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE PERMANENT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION FACILITY PROJECT, DP 7165 DATE APRIL 1 2, 1996 TYPE OF ACTION PUBLIC HEARING NEG. DEC. AND PROJECT APPROVAL SUBMITTED BY Russell B. Leavitt, Planning Assistant INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department/Planning Division ISSUE: Board approval of appropriate CEQA documentation is required prior to approval of the Permanent Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Facility Project. BACKGROUND: The District is working with the Mt. View Sanitary District to develop this facility at 4737 and 4797 Imhoff Place, adjacent to the District's wastewater treatment plant, to provide central Contra Costa County residents and "small quantity generator" businesses with a safe, cost-effective, reliable, and convenient method for disposing of HHW. The proposed project will be a fixed-site facility, as compared to the periodic collection events currently provided by the mobile collection program. Suitable, reusable materials (such as partially used home and garden care products) will be included in a waste exchange program. Latex paint will be bulked, repackaged, and also included in the waste exchange program. The remaining HHW will be packed in 55-gallon drums or palletized, lined boxes with absorbent material or bulked (e.g., used motor oil and anti-freeze), and stored for shipment to an off-site hazardous waste recycling or treatment/disposal facility. As Lead Agency, the District has conducted an Initial Study of the proposed project to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Staff has concluded that the Initial Study adequately, accurately, and objectively evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate document to address the environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study is included as part of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration which has been distributed separately to the District Board of Directors. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration finds that there is no substantial evidence before the District that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that no mitigation measures are needed other than those measures already incorporated into the project description. These measures are discussed in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON RBL DEB DJC RAB INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ~ J)[q~ JJj& nD 1302A-7/91 SUBJECT CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE PERMANENT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION FACILITY PROJECT, DP 7165 POSITION PAPER 2 20 PAGE OF DATE April 1 2, 1 996 Staff also has concluded that Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 regarding a mitigation monitoring program is applicable for the mitigation measures included in the project to mitigate potentially significant health and safety measures. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program was prepared and circulated for public review with the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. In compliance with the District's CEOA Guidelines, a legal notice was published in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. The legal notice announced the District's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the availability of the document for a 30-day public review period. Additionally, copies of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were mailed to affected public agencies and neighborhood organizations. Two written comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration have been received. The comments and responses to comments are attached and will be added to the Mitigated Negative Declaration as Appendix D. Before the proposed project can be approved, the Board must consider any comments received during the 30-day public review process and the public hearing, then consider approval of the appropriate CEOA documentation (a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended in this case). If the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved, a Notice of Determination will be filed with the County Clerk. Following District Board approval, the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be used by the MVSD Board of Directors and central county cities outside of CCCSD for approval of their participation in the project. Other Responsible Agencies also will use this Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to the issuance of permits. RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Conduct a public hearing on the Negative Declaration (a suggested agenda is attached) . 2. Adopt the attached resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility Project. 1302B-7/91 G:rleavitt\hhwhear.wp RESOLUTION NO. 96- A Resolution Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Proposed Permanent Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Facility Project, DP 7165 WHEREAS, the project upon which this determination is made is described as follows: The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (District) is working with the Mt. View Sanitary District to develop this facility at 4737 and 4797 Imhoff Place, Martinez, adjacent to the District's wastewater treatment plant, to provide central Contra Costa County residents and "small quantity generator" businesses with a safe, cost-effective, reliable, and convenient method for disposing of HHW. The proposed project will be a fixed-site facility, as compared to the periodic collection events currently provided by the mobile collection program. Suitable, reusable materials (such as partially used home and garden care products) will be included in a waste exchange program. Latex paint will be bulked, repackaged, and also included in the waste exchange program. The remaining HHW will be lab packed in secondary containers (such as 55-gallon drums or palletized, lined boxes) or bulked (e.g., used motor oil and anti-freeze), and stored for shipment to an off-site hazardous waste recycling or treatment/disposal facility; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study of the proposed project has been conducted by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District; and WHEREAS, District staff concludes that the Initial Study adequately, accurately, and objectively evaluated the proposed effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, adequate public notice was given to receive comments on the project; and WHEREAS, the District Board of Directors has reviewed the results of the Initial Study, considered comments received, and determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment in general, nor will it individually nor cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code; and WHEREAS, the District Board of Directors finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment of the project's environmental effects; and WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 for mitigation measures included in the project to reduce or eliminate potentially significant health and safety effects. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District does hereby approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility Project. The Secretary of the Board of Directors will be custodian of the document and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the adoption of this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The record of proceedings will be maintained at the District offices, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of Directors this 18th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Members: Members: Members: President of the District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Secretary of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California Kenton L. Aim, District Counsel APPENDIX D COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED PERMANENT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION FACILITY Two letters were received during the 30-day public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Comment letters from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Contra Costa County Community Development Department follow along with letters of response from District staff As required by CEQA, the responses were provided to these agencies at least 10 days prior to the date of approval consideration. D-l STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMEh ....L PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL 400 P STREET. 4TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 806 SACRAMENTO. CA 95812-0806 @-.' .",; ~- (916)324-1816 March 25, 1996 ~~(g~OW~@ MAR 2 7 1996 CCCSO SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT Joyce E. Murphy, Secretary Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California 94553-4392 COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PERMANENT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION FACILITY (PHHWCF) LOCATED AT 4737 AND 4797 IMHOFF PLACE, UNINCORPORATED MARTINEZ, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear Ms Murphy: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) thanks you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. DTSC is responsible for the regulatory management of hazardous wastes and substances as mandated under Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code. The DTSC has reviewed the PHHWCF Initial Study and concurs that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or the public health. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project appears to be appropriate. Because this is an initial study concerning the siting of a PHHWCF and there are no specific details concerning the facility design or structure, the DTSC is unable to determine if there are further measures necessary to ensure safety to the environment or the public health at this time. PHHWCFs operators are authorized to operate by DTSC under a permit by rule. Regulations specific to PHHWCFs are found in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, sections 66270.60, 67450.25, and 67450.30. A PHHWCF operator must notify the DTSC 45 days prior to commencing operation. I have enclosed an information packet which includes the PHHWCF regulations, a PHHWCF notification form and instructions and other pertinent information concerning PHHWCF requirements. The DTSC appreciates Contra Costa County's efforts to provide appropriate, safe and effective means for the public and conditionally exempt small quantity generators to manage their hazardous wastes. 0-2 ..... ~J Printed on Recycled Peper Ms. Joyce Murphy March 25, 1996 Page 2 If you have any questions concerning this letter or specific PHHWCF regulatory requirements please contact me at (916) 324-1816. Sin.oer ely, ~. ..,/ . j)' . I ~~..' ~ Denise Hume State Regulatory Branch Enclosure cc: Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Office of Program Audits and Environmental Analysis CEQA Tracking Center P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 Norm Riley, Chief Resource Recovery Section Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 0-3 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District :1019 Imhoffl'lace.l\Iartinez. CalIforIlld 9-1.'i:1:l-4:3~)2 (:110) 2211-9:11111 · F.\X: (:1111) li'/li-'/211 ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager Chief Engineer April 2, 1996 KENTON L. N..M Counsel for the District (510) 938-1430 Denise Hume State Regulatory Branch Department of Toxic Substances Control 400 P Street, 4th Floor P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 JOYCE E. MURPHY Secretary of the District Dear Ms. Hume: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED PERMANENT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION FACILITY, UNINCORPORATED MARTINEZ (SCH #96022108) Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. Your assessment that the Mitigated Negative Delcaration appears to be appropriate is acknowledged. Through the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program, the District will ensure that the facility design and structure are consistent with the health and safety mitigation measures included in the project description. Also, we appreciate the information package on DTSC's regulatory requirements you included with your comments. The District expects to begin the Permit-By-Rule process in a few months. Thank you again for your cooperation with this project. ~6~ Russell B. Leavitt, AICP Planning Assistant RBLlflj cc: Don Berger, CCCSD 0-4 @ Recycled Paper HOB Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Contra Costa County Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Phone: (510) 335-1224 April 1, 1996 VIA FAX and U.S. Mail Mr. Russell Leavitt, AICP Environmental Coordinator Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Leavitt: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the CCCSD Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Facility. CCCSD has prepared this Mitigated Negative Declaration for CCCSD Board approval and for the use of the MVSD Board of Directors and central county cities for approval of their participation in the project. Additionally, CCCSD prepared the Negative Declaration for the use by other Responsible Agencies prior to the issuance of permits. CCCSD considers the Contra Costa County Community Development Department a Responsible Agency. The information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study has provided me with a conceptual understanding of the proposed project. However, there is not enough specific project information (including proposed design and operational details) which would allow a detailed response or a determination whether this Mitigated Negative Declaration is sufficient for use by the County for the Land Use Permit process. 1 Below I have provided some general comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND/IS) based on the project information provided. The information requested below will help County staff in reviewing this project's Land Use Permit application. When additional project details become available we may have additional questions or comments. Throughout the MND/IS there is reference to the possible use of the existing warehouse building or the development of a new building. This detail is important to facilitate project review and potential impacts associated with the project (for example, what is proposed to be done with asbestos contaminated floor material which exists in the existing warehouse building - page 19 of MND/IS). 2 0-5 l' Mr. Russell Leavitt, AICP April 1, 1996 Page 2 Waste Exchange and "Swap Shed" ideas are introduced several places in the MND/IS, additional information should be provided regarding how this would be run and which protections or safeguards are proposed. Who will be allowed to use the HHW facility? Will users be restricted based on geographical origin (i.e. limited service area)? How will users be informed of project availability and restrictions? Do the anticipated participation rates include the CESQG small businesses? What percentage of users are expected to be residential versus CESQG small businesses? What percentage of traffic will be from residential users, small business users and trucks removing materials from site for treatment, recycling and/or disposal? The MND/IS states that it has not yet been determined whether separate bays or prefabricated containers will be used. When will this be determined, what are the potential impacts of using bays versus containers? How will material delivered to the facility be screened for eligibility? How will facility staff determine if the material is eligible or excluded (especially if mislabled or not labeled at all)? MND/IS indicates on page 17 that a geotechnical analysis will be done. This study would provide crucial information that could help answer questions regarding risk associated with seismic activity. What protections aside from designing building to U.B.C. standards are considered a part of the project needed to protect public health and safety? How will hazardous materials be contained in seismic event? What about risk to site users and employees (aside from risk associated with structural damage)? Aside from signage and outreach information developed for the facility what measures are proposed to restrict the public users of facility from using Blum Road? It has been the experience of certain facilities that it is difficult to restrict self-haul traffic. Would this traffic restriction on Blum Road be enforceable or just advisory? Is the existing warehouse building 45 feet? What would the maximum height of the new building be? It is difficult to get a sense of the facility site layout or traffic circulation from the information provided in the MND/IS. A site map, circulation map and landscaping plan (including traffic stacking areas, traffic controls and proposed landscaping) would provide needed information upon which to base more specific comments. 0-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mr. Russell Leavitt, AICP April 1, 1996 Page 3 How much pavement would be added and removed? How much landscaping is proposed? How will water be contained/managed in process areas (where contamination could occur)? What testing procedures and protocols would be used to minimize potentially significant impact to water quality? Will some site runoff still go to Grayson Creek? What amount of storm water will the site drainage controls be able to handle? What if storm water in excess of that occurs on site? Will any reclaimed water be used by this project (i.e. dust suppression) or will it only be potable water from current water supplier? What amount of water is expected to be needed for this project? MND/IS on page 27 & 28 indicates that spill control and cleanup measures are included in project description. I only found reference to an Emergency Response Plan which will be developed rather than specific measures to control or cleanup spills. MND/IS on page 28 refers to biological studies which had been performed, but no additional information is provided about the study area, timeframe or authors. Information regarding these studies would be helpful. MND/IS on page 29 discusses noise. What is the loudest equipment proposed as a part of the project (dbA)? What noise would it generate on-site and from nearest sensitive receptor? Would this expose workers to high noise levels? Would hearing protection be required? What would the noise level be from project as compared to existing noise at the site? What are the proposed project's hours of operation? Will there be any direct line of sight of the project from residential uses or mobile homes, what about project lights during night hours? Without information regarding load checking and screening measures it is difficult to ascertain risk of explosion or fire. What about handling procedures for ineligible/excluded hazardous wastes which may occasionally end up at this facility (including explosives)? Will additional traffic hazards be created by project by vehicles traveling to site with hazardous materials (Le. traffic accident)? Unclear how this would be minimized on site without a site circulation plan (as noted above). Where will materials be transported for recycling, treatment and/or disposal? 0-7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mr. Russell Leavitt, AICP April 1, 1996 Page 4 MND/IS states on page 39 that the asbestos contamination would be remediated. What 25 remediation is proposed? Has an asbestos abatement plan been completed? Again thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project's MND/IS. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at (510) 335-1224. cc: Harvey E. Bragdon, County CDD Charles A. Zahn, County CDD DOl DDIO:CCCSDHHW.LTR 0-8 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place, Martmez, CalifornIa 9!135:l-4:l92 (SIO) 22K-9500 · FAX: (510) 676-7211 April 8, 1996 ROGER J, DOLAN General Manager Chief Engineer KENTON L, ALM Counsel (or the District (510) 938-1430 Ms. Deidra Dingman Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street North Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553-0095 JOYCE E, MURPHY Secretary o( the District Dear Ms. Dingman: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED PERMANENT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION FACILITY, UNINCORPORATED MARTINEZ (SCH #96022108) Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. The following responses are keyed to numbered comments in your April 1, 1 996, letter. 1. The District is aware that the County will need more specific details of the proposed site design, building design, and operational policies to process the project's land use permit. The project site plan and operations plan to be submitted to the County with the land use permit application are not yet complete, but will be consistent with the project description contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and elaborated upon in this letter. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is intended to be adequate for use by the County in processing the land use permit required for the project. The general mitigation measures included in the project description will be refined into specific site design, building design, and operational policies as part of the finalization of the project site plan and operations plan. The measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration necessary to mitigate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts are achievable. They can be relied upon to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level because: 1) they are based upon successful and effective facility designs and operating procedures that have been in use at permanent household hazardous waste collection facilities throughout the state over the past decade; and 2) they meet the requirements of other regulatory or permitting agencies, such as the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the County Health Services Department, and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection D~9 @ Recycled Paper HOB Ms. Deidra Dingman Page 2 April 8, 1996 District, in addition to the County Community Development Department. Implementation of mitigation measures in compliance with these requirements will be verified through annual state inspections, building and fire permits which will be issued prior to construction, and implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. The project site plan and operations plan to be submitted to the County with the land use permit application will identify whether the existing warehouse building will be reused or a new building will be constructed. The Mitigated Negative Declaration addresses either scenario. With regard to the asbestos flooring issue, further review of the 1991 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 4737 Imhoff Drive indicates that the asbestos contaminated flooring is located in Bay 1 of the large office/warehouse building located off the project site, to the south. Since no asbestos was identified in the project site's existing warehouse building, no asbestos removal will be required for the proposed project. 3. The purpose of the reuse/waste exchange area is to make available to the public useful household products (such as automotive products, paint, and cleansers) that have been discarded. This service is offered at many permanent household hazardous waste collection facilities (PHHWCFs) and has several tangible benefits, including: using up hazardous household products for their intended purpose; reducing the quantity of these wastes directed to landfills; reducing the disposal costs of the HHW collection facility; and providing the residents and businesses that financially support the facility with a source of useful products at no cost. Facility staff will place in a waste exchange area low-hazard products that are not contaminated, are in original containers with labels intact, and are still available over- the-counter. The waste exchange area will be located inside the facility (but separated from the waste processing and storage areas) and open during facility operating hours. The products will be organized on shelves much like at a hardware or grocery store. Staff members will be available to direct customers to specific products, monitor activities, and administer recordkeeping procedures for the release of products to the public. All persons accepting reuse products will be required to read and sign a waiver of liability. Public education materials will be provided to ensure proper disposal of any unused reuse material. Banned hazardous products will not be offered for reuse. 0-10 Ms. Deidra Dingman Page 3 April 8, 1996 4. The proposed facility is expected to be available to central county residents and conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESOGs) within the service areas of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Mt. View Sanitary District, as well as the Cities of Concord and Clayton. Users will be required to present proof that they reside in one of these areas (such as a driver's license). Residents outside of the facility's service area will be referred to an alternate HHW collection program available for their use, and/or to the appropriate public agency in their community for further information. Eligible users will be informed of the facility's availability and use restrictions through targeted advertising, direct mailings, and other common public information programs. 5. The anticipated participation rates do not include the CESOGs. Small business wastes generally will be accepted one day a week, by appointment, when the facility is not open to residential users. The current estimate is that five to ten CESOGs per week will use the facility This estimate is based on limited data available on CESOG business in central Contra Costa County and the experience of CESOG programs at other PHHWCFs. On any given day, almost all of the project traffic will be either from residential or CESOG customers. As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (po 35), a few occasional vehicle trips per month would be generated by trucks delivering supplies or picking up waste to be transported to off-site recycling or treatment/disposal facilities. Visitors would contribute a minor percentage of daily trips. The employees will be existing CCCSD staff currently working across the street from the project site, so no additional trips will be generated by them. 6. The project site plan to be submitted to the County with the land use permit application will identify whether separate bays or prefabricated containers will be used. There is no difference in environmental impact between the two options. Both types of storage meet hazardous material storage, fire and building code requirements, will provide containment areas for spills, and will effectively separate incompatible categories of household hazardous wastes (such as acids and bases). The choice depends on the design and cost implications of constructing the bays versus purchasing the prefabricated storage containers from an outside supplier. 7. Potential facility users will be informed in advance of the materials accepted at the facility. The waste eligibility and screening procedures to be used will be similar to those currently used in the HHW mobile collection programs now being operated in the county and at other PHHWCFs statewide. The general procedure for handling unknown materials is as follows: 0-11 Ms. Deidra Dingman Page 4 April 8, 1996 The facility worker unloading the material will scan the" load for any material that is not in its original container (e.g., glass jars, coffee cans, milk jugs) and/or not properly labeled. The worker will ask the participant if they know the contents of the containers and will relay that information to the Lead Technician. The worker will observe characteristics such as color and physical state (Le., liquid, solid, gaseous, semi-solid, etc.) and any other indications of the material. Once the initial observations are made on the material, it will then be accepted and taken to the HazCat Testing Area in the facility's laboratory. The Lead Technician will determine the DOT and/or EPA Hazard classification of the unidentified substance based on a standardized series of tests of the material's physical and chemical properties. These procedures will be. refined during the development of the State-required operations plan which will be submitted to the County with the land use permit application. This plan also will contain contingency measures for managing exc.luded hazardous wastes that may inadvertently be accepted at the facility. 8. Appropriate geotechnical study results will be submitted to the County during the building and grading permit approval process. As stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (p. 22), the project site is located 3200 feet west of the Concord fault, a sufficient distance to meet the State siting requirement for a hazardous waste facility (greater than 200 feet away). The project also will be de~igned to meet current building code seismic design standards (pp. 16 - 17). 9. The operations plan to be submitted to the County with the land use permit application will identify a myriad of specific details regarding health and safety precautions for employees and facility users. The plan will address safety procedures for each stage of the facility's operations -- user vehicle unloading; waste screening, bulking, packing, storage; and transport vehicle loading. Examples of specific health and safety precautions will include required materials handling and emergency response training for facility staff; security patrol surveillance after hours; security fencing around the facility during non-operating hours; compliance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations and management practices; and the exclusion of unaccompanied non-workers from the portion of the building where waste is processed (tested, bulked, and/or packed). Employees will be provided personal protective equipment (such as eye shields, coveralls or lab coats, and gloves). Users 0-12 Ms. Deidra Dingman Page 5 April 8, 1996 will be advised in advance how to safely transport legal quantities of HHW and will be directed to remain in their vehicle during unloading. To prevent spillage during handling or a seismic event, collected wastes will be transported into and around the building in a secondary outer container (tub, bin, bucket) placed on a rolling cart. Also, drums and palletized cartons packed with collected waste containers and absorbent material will not be stacked, will be segregated from incomp_atible wastes, and stored in bays or prefabricated containers which will have their own spill containment systems. 10. The District realizes it cannot prohibit the public from traveling on a publicly-owned thoroughfare. As a good neighbor, however, the District will direct project traffic away from Blum Road as much as possible and will enforce contract restrictions on travel routes for waste hauling contractors. As stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (p. 36), project traffic impacts will be insignificant regardless of this measure because of the basic operating characteristics of the facility -- the relatively low volume 9f daily trips (due to a regular and continuous operating schedule), the anticipated distribution of trips throughout the operating day, and the limitation of receiving wastes only in off-peak traffic hours. 11. The existing warehouse building is not 45 feet tall. As stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (p. 36), the top of the existing warehouse building is at elevation 45 feet msl (mean sea level). With a ground-level elevation of about 22 feet msl, the existing warehouse building is about 23 feet tall. A new building would be about the same height, although the airport's structural height limit would allow for a much taller building (up to a maximum height of 151 feet tall or 173 feet msl). 12. The project site plan to be submitted to the County with the land use permit application will identify the building location, traffic circulation pattern, and extent of pavement and landscaping. The proposed site plan will be consistent with the general project description details and the related impact conclusions presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 13. See the response to Comment 12, above. 14. All waste handling, processing, and storage areas will be sheltered, enclosed, and/or located within a secondary containment area. With these design features, the facility's runoff would include so few HHW contaminants that it is expected to be exempt from NPDES stormwater permit requirements. As stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (p. 26), stormwater falling on the site will be exposed only to the usual urban pollutants associated with motor vehicle operations (oil, grease, etc.). This stormwater will be allowed to flow into the site's storm drainage system which will 0-13 Ms. Deidra Dingman Page 6 April 8, 1996 be connected to the area storm drainage system and, eventually, Grayson Creek. No testing of this stormwater will be necessary. 1 5. The site drainage system will be designed to meet or exceed the local design capacity criteria. The plans for this system will be submitted to the County during the building permit approval process. If stormwater in excess of design capacity occurs on site, ponding will occur around the site drain and, eventually, the stormwater will sheetflow toward the street. The site will be designed so that it drains away from the building. Under such extreme storm conditions, it is not likely the facility would be receiving waste, so the exterior, sheltered, waste unloading area would not produce a contamination risk. If stormwater flows were to enter the building somehow, collected wastes will not be exposed to storm water flows since the wastes will be packed in drums or palletized cartons and stored in bays or prefabricated containers with containment areas. Furthermore, water entering the building will be contained within the building for clean up (see the response to Comment 17, below). This situation is very unlikely to occur since the project site is outside of the 100 year floodplain. 1 6. Recycled water from the CCCSD wastewater treatment plant will be used for dust suppression, if needed, and landscape irrigation. The project's potable water needs would be minor due to the low on-site population at anyone time. Uses would be limited to domestic purposes (restrooms, lunch room sink), emergency facilities (eye wash station and decontamination shower), and fire suppression. 17. In addition to the precautions noted in the response to Comment 9, above, if a spill occurs in a waste handling area, it will fall on a table or floor surface with a impermeable coating and a perimeter berm for easy containment and cleanup. If a spill occurs in a waste storage area, it will fall in a containment area or sump and be cleaned up. In the event of a spill which has the potential to flow or be washed into the exterior drainage system, a valve controlling the drain would be closed and the contaminated material would be prevented from leaving the site. The spill would be cleaned up prior to reopening the site drainage system. The details of these operational procedures will be included in the operations plan to be submitted to the County with the land use permit application. 18. The biological characteristics of the project area were studied as part of the 1 992 Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority A8 939 Program EIR (pp. 111-37 to 111-42 of the Draft EIR).. The studies were conducted by biologists from the environmental consulting firm of LSA Associates, Inc. 0-14 Ms. Deidra Dingman Page 7 April 8, 1996 19. The operation of the facility will not involve the use of loud equipment, so workers, visitors, and off-site sensitive receptors will not require hearing protection. As stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (p. 29), motor vehicles operating on-site will be the primary source of noise. The noisiest vehicles would be diesel trucks delivering supplies or hauling away waste to be recycled, treated or disposed. Diesel trucks generate about 85 dBA at 50 feet (1992 AB 939 Program EIR). At the nearest sensitive receptor on Blum Road, about 1,200 feet away, the noise level would be under 60 dBA. This noise level would be imperceptible to the nearest sensitive receptor due to the more prominent ambient noise from vehicles on Blum Road and the elevated section of Interstate 680 which crosses over Blum Road near Imhoff Drive. The future noise level will be comparable to the limited noise generated at the site from existing activities. 20. Proposed hours of operation at this time are Wednesday through Sunday, 8 AM to 5 PM. Waste collection would occur Thursday through Sunday, 9 AM to 4 PM for residents and Wednesdays, 9 AM to 4 PM, by appointment, for businesses. Non- collection hours will be used by staff for facility set up and clean up. 21. The project site is not visible from the mobile home parks on the south side of State Route 4. Portions of the project site may be partially visible (at a distance) from a few residences on Blum Road, just north of Imhoff Drive. As stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (p. 40), the additional landscaping proposed and planned for the project site in the future would help to screen views of the parking and storage areas, as well as improve the general visual character of the project site. Nighttime security lighting on site will be of low-profile design since no operations will be occurring at that time. The impacts on the nearest Blum Road residents will be insignificant due to distance and the presence of similar lighting around the site (street lights and lights on the adjacent buildings and at the CCCSD wastewater treatment plant (p. 30). 22. Regarding load checking and screening, see the response to Comment 7. Inappropriate wastes are sometimes brought to permanent HHW facilities and mobile collection events. As stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (p. 15), inappropriate wastes brought to the proposed facility for disposal generally would be rejected. If inappropriate waste is inadvertently accepted (due to mislabeling) or determined to be unsafe for further transport in a civilian vehicle after arrival at the facility (such as explosives), the waste would be promptly and appropriately disposed rather than stored long-term on-site. For example, if an explosive or extremely unstable material was collected at the site, the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department would be notified immediately. The Sheriff's Department will arange for the material to be transported and detonated or neutralized in a controlled environment. Similarly, other inappropriate wastes will be promptly 0-15 Ms. Deidra Dingman Page 8 April 8, 1996 removed by contractors certified to handle and transport such wastes. Procedures for dealing with inappropriate waste will be included in the operations plan to be submitted to the County with the land use permit application. 23. There is no evidence that the transporting of HHW to the site by residents or CESQGs will cause an increase in traffic accidents. While an individual accident may be complicated by the presence of HHW in a vehicle, residents and businesses already transport such materials in their vehicles when traveling from the store where the original materials were purchased or to/from job sites. Furthermore, non-commercial vehicles are allowed to transport to an HHW facility up to 15 gallons or 125 pounds of HHW per trip. Users will be advised in advance how to safely transport legal quantities of HHW. A site circulation plan will be included in the project site plan to be submitted to the County with the land use permit application. 24. Materials may be transported to any of several facilities for recycling, treatment, and/or disposal. For example, many types of waste may be sent to the Appropriate Technologies, Inc. (APTEC) RCRA/CAL-EPA Part B Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF), Chula Vista! CA. Waste oil and antifreeze may go to Evergreen Oil, Newark, CA. Materials which could not be recycled, reclaimed, fuel blended for thermal energy resource recovery, neutralized, or incinerated (out of state), probably would be landfilled at a Class I facility, such as the Chemical Waste Management landfill in Kettleman City, CA. A more detailed list of potential locations will be included in the operations plan to be submitted to the County with the land use permit application. 25. Regarding asbestos removal, see the response to Comment 2, above. Thank you again for your cooperation with this project. We look forward to working with you on the project's land use permit. If you have any further questions, please call me at (510) 229-7255. Sincerely, ?~g. ~ Russell B. Leavitt, AICP Planning Assistant RBLI c: Don Berger, CCCSD Tom Cooper, EMCON 0-16 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 13 BOARD MEETING OF April 18, 1996 NO. 4. HEARINGS b. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CURRENT SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1996 DATE April 8, 1996 TYPE OF ACTION CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE SUBJECT INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department! Infrastructure Division ISSUE: A public hearing is required to obtain public comments on proposed changes to the District Schedule of Rates and Charges to be effective July 1, 1996. BACKGROUND: Chapter 6.30 of the District Code describes fees assessed for services provided to contractors, developers and other users of the District's wastewater collection and treatment system. The fees are intended to reimburse the District for labor and operating expenses incurred in providing the services. The fees are reviewed annually, and revisions are made 1) to reflect District annual wage adjustments, 2) as a result of in-depth analysis, or 3) based on a combination of both wage adjustment and in-depth analysis. The results of this year's review are summarized in Attachment I, showing current rates, proposed rates, and percentage of change. The majority of the fee changes are due to the annual wage increase. Fees in the schedule of rates and charges are proposed to be increased between 0 and 2.5 percent. The 1996 wage adjustment for District employees contained in the Memoranda of Understanding is 2.5 percent. Staff also requests standardization of fees in the Development and Plan Review and the Construction Inspection categories to create fee amounts which are more easily quoted to the public. Staff proposes maintaining fees in these two areas which, if possible, are multiples of 5 (e.g. $10, $40, $75). To accomplish this, some fee amounts were rounded up or down to the nearest dollar amount ending in 5 or 0 while maintaining a 2.5 percent or less increase. There are three fees which are being given special consideration. Staff proposes to combine the existing Permit Fee and Building Plan Review Fee (Section A-4) with a net reduction in the proposed rate and to increase the Main Line Inspection Fee (Section B-1) by 8 percent. An explanation of these changes is contained in Attachment II. The proposed revised schedule of rates and charges was distributed to members of the Building Industry Association of Northern California, the Engineering and Utilities Contractors Association, and the Association of General Contractors to provide an opportunity to communicate questions and comments to District staff prior to the public hearing. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION LK 0/ m INITIA~IV. 1302A-7/91 JSM RAB CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CURRENT SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1996 SUBJECT PAGE 2 DATE OF 13 April 8, 1996 Attachment III presents a comparison of the District's proposed schedule of rates and charges to similar fees of neighboring sanitary districts. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing on the proposed schedule of rates and charges, approve the proposed schedule of rates and charges, and adopt an ordinance to implement the new schedule effective July 1, 1996. 1302B-7/91 ATTACHMENT I Page 3 of 13 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT RATES AND CHARGES CATEGORY CURRENT PROPOSED % RATE RATE CHANGE (A) DEVELOPMENT & PLAN REVIEW (A-1 ) Development Review and 3.5% of est. 3.5% of 0 2 Preliminary + 1 Final Plan Reviews cost est. cost Basis for Determining Estimated $41/ft. $41/ft. Construction Costs Minimum Fee $600 min $600 min (A-2) 3rd & Additional Preliminary Reviews $49 each $50 each 2.0 (A-3) 2nd & Additional Final Reviews $72 each $73 each 1.4 (A-4) Permit Writing $2 $0 0.0 Building Plan Review $10 $0 Permit/Plan Review $10 -20.0 (B) CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION (B-1 ) Mainline Inspection See Table A-1 See Table A-1 8.0 (B-2) Lateral, House Connection, Side Sewer $78 each $80 each 2.5 Repair > 10ft, Alteration, Manhole Alteration, Sewage Pump, Grease Interceptor, Lateral Abandonment, and Sewer Tap Inspection (B-3) Side Sewer Repair Inspection < 10ft $1 2 each $12 each 0.0 (8-4) Overtime Inspection $64/hr $65/hr 1.6 Weekend/Holiday (4-hr min) $256 $260 (8-5) Overtime Inspection Credit See Table A-2 See Table A-2 0.0 (B-6) Manhole or Rodding Inlet Inspection $415 each $425 each 2.5 H:\PP\RA TECHG2.LK ATTACHMENT I Page 4 of 13 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT RATES AND CHARGES (C) COLLECTION SYSTEM (C-1) Initial TV Inspection: Overtime $148/hr $1 51/hr 2.0 Weekend/Holiday (4-hr min) $592 $604 (C-2) Overtime Credit $0.27/ft $0.27/ft 0.0 (C-3) TV Rerun $200 + $200 + 0.0 $105/hr $107/hr 1.9 Weekend/Holiday (2.5-hr min) $462.50 $467.50 (C-4) TV Overtime Rerun $200 + $200 + 0.0 $148/hr $1 51/hr 2.0 Weekend/Holiday (4-hr min) $792 $804 (C-5) Multiple TV Inspection Actual Actual Expense Expense (C-6) Sewer Tap Actual Actual Expense Expense (C-7) Dye Test $90 each $92 each 2.2 (C-8) Collection System Repair Actual Actual Expense Expense (C-9) TV Inspection: Noncancellation $210 each $ 21 0 each 0.0 (C-10) Lateral Abandonment Actual Actual Expense Expense (D) RIGHT OF WAY (0-1 ) Segregation of LID Assessment $49/parcel $50/parcel 2.0 (0-2) Process Quitclaim Deeds $44/hr $45/hr 2.3 (3-hr minI $132 $135 (0-3) Process Real Property Agreement Actual Actual Expense Expense (E) MISCELLANEOUS (E-1 ) Engineering - Private Sewer Projects Actual Actual Expense Expense (E-2) Soil Evaluation - Private Sewer Projects Actual Actual Expense Expense (E-3) Surveying $155/hr $158/hr 1.9 H :\PP\RA TECHG 2.LK ATTACHMENT I Page 5 of 13 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT RATES AND CHARGES (F) INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEES (F-1 ) Class I & II Fees Base permit Base permit 2.5 fee of $2,356 fee of $2,415 plus plus laboratory laboratory costs of costs of District District analysis. analysis. Additional Additional charges to be charges to be billed billed separately if separately if extra-ordinary extra-ordinary staff time is staff time is incurred above incurred that included above that in the base included in the permit fee. base permit fee. (F-2) New Industry Permit Fee Actual Actual Expense Expense (F-3) Special Discharge Permit Fee - No On-site Inspection $49 each $50 each 2.0 - On-site Inspection $273 each $279 each 2.2 (F-4) Class III Fee $261 each $267 each 2.3 (G) SEPT AGE DISPOSAL (G-1 ) Annual Permit Fee $1,225 each $1,253 each 2.3 (G-2) Residential SepticfToilet Waste < 2000 gallons $14.00+ $14.1 5 + 1.1 $0.098/gal $0.099/9al > 2000 gallons $44.50 + $45.00 + 1.1 $0.098/gal $0.099/gal (G-3) Restaurant Grease Waste < 2000 gallons $14.00 + $14.15 + 1.1 $0.012/gal $0.012/9al > 2000 gallons $44.50 + $45.00 + 1.1 $0.012/9al $0.012/gal H :\PP\RA TECHG 2.LK Page 6 of 13 ATTACHMENT I CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT RATES AND CHARGES TABLE A-' MAINLINE INSPECTION Length (Ft) Current Rate Proposed Rate o - 1 00 $370 + $3.60/ft $400 + $3.90/ft 101 - 200 $435 + $2.95/ft $470 + $3.20/ft 201 - 300 $535 + $2.45/ft $580 + $2.65/ft 301 - 400 $670 + $2.00/ft $730 + $2.15/ft 401 - 500 $790 + $1. 701ft $850 + $1.85/ft 501 - 600 $890 + $1.50/ft $975 + $1.60/ft 601 - $980 + $1.35/ft $1,065 + $1 .45/ft TABLE A-2 OVERTIME MAINLINE INSPECTION CREDIT Total Project Overtime Hours Overtime Credit (Hrs)* <4 1 > 4 but < 8 2 > 8 but < 1 6 4 > 16 but < 32 6 >32 8 * To compensate the contractor for the straight-time portion of inspection time included in the Mainline Inspection Fee. H:\PP\RATECHG2.LK Page 7 of 13 ATTACHMENT II A-4 PERMIT FEE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEE a) Description The Permit Fee has been in effect for a number of years as a charge to cover the cost of preprinted permits, prior to the implementation of computerization at the Permit Counter, and to cover staff costs for issuing permits. The original fee amount of $2 has never been increased since creation of this category. The Building Plan Review Fee is intended to reimburse the District for the cost of reviewing plans submitted by the public for the purpose of obtaining building permits. b) Discussion In an effort to streamline and simplify the number of fees collected, it is proposed that the Building Plan Review Fee ($10 for 1995 - 96) be combined with the Permit Fee. Based on last year's building plan review revenues and the number of permits issued, the new Permit/Plan Review Fee can be established at $10 to compensate for the District costs of performing this service. Projects subject to the new Permit/Plan Review Fee would have paid the existing Building Plan Review Fee, as well as the existing Permit Fee, although at different times in the sewer permitting process. Combining the fees allows for collecting these charges at the time other District connection fees are being paid, improving service at the Permit Counter, and streamlining the District's permitting process for the public. In addition the total amount charged for these services would be reduced from $12 to $10 per permit issued. c) Recommendation Approve adoption of the Permit/Plan Review fee of $10 for each permit issued. B-1 MAIN LINE INSPECTION a) Description This fee is intended to reimburse the District for the expense of conducting field inspections of developers' sewer installation projects. The fee also covers the initial television inspection of the installed system. b) Discussion The existing Main Line Inspection Fee is proposed to be increased by 8 percent. This increase includes the cost-of-Iiving increase of 2.5 percent and a 5.5 percent increase to cover developer project document as-builts, which is work not presently covered by this fee. The costs for the project document work will be phased in over a two-year period to lessen the initial impact of the fee increase. The proposed 8 percent increase is the first part of the total increase. c) Recommendation Increase Main Line Inspection Fees for developer projects, as shown in Table A-1 . DH:pk H:\PP\RATECHG2.LK u; ;: .- 0)0 .- >- > .... .1II i "E 1II C/) "0 .;:: U; is ~ .lll .E 1II C/) ~ o U 1II .... - c o U C/) w C> et: e( I U o z e( C/) W l- e( et: LL o W .-J ::> o w I U C/) w > t= e( et: e( a.. :E o U c o E... 1II .!!! et:0 c 00 1II 0) C/) .2 C. c: = 0) .LIC/) ::J o ~ c cD U I (0 ~ 0> 0 ~c6c/) -cooU cDO)U -cmU ~ et: -; E I'- 0) EO>Ol 0> .... o ~ 1II o .r. cD U et: ~ .lll .E 1II C/) C o .c ::> o :a .!l! o ~ 0) o ~ o Ol S 1II U ATTACH~1ENT II I ~ Gi 8 ;: c cD 0 C/)'fl~ 'I- ~ ._ o -Iii E ~co III o III NU~ ... .E ~~M - 00 . 0>01'- (Oa.~ o cD I'- ~-c~ m > o ~ ~ ~- + :g 0- 00 NIll -I'- "<t _ ~~ o III N ~ -c w ~ (U c E .- +:l E 000 cDo _ (0 o~ cfe::: III 00 .0 M 0 ~ w :> w et: Z e( .-J a.. o z e( I- Z w :E a. o .-J W > W o ;: w .> cD Net: -C c C 1II 1IIa:: ;:- W .- cDLL et:~ c+ cD ~ E - cD ~ o a.. ~ ~ $ ~ cD .!! iii +:l :!; - o ~ o M c .f Z,0l ~ -~ 0:: .r. ::J _ 00 <u 5 -co.... cD_:g ~Oc ~ s.m U ~ ~ ;: w ~ .~ ~et: w_ 0'0 Ill-C ~e( .r. o <u w o III ~ C <u a:: ~ <u c :~ CD Q: - c cD ::J tT cD 00 .LI ::J C/) ;: oil .!!! "E ~ Met: N $ w .!! iii ., :!; - o ~ o M Z,0l .... c ~E .r. ::J _ 00 <u 5 -co.... Gl_:g ~oc ~ s.m u~~ .r. o <u w M I'- ~ C <u a:: <u c u: - c cD ::J tT cD 00 .LI ::J 00 C/) ;: oil cD -c .S; c cD Net: M <i: c o '13 ~ c o o - o ~.1!3 If.! ~ N 0 cD :; -~ ~ .f; Gi E a. 00 Ill~ N"<t .00 N~ ~~ ~~ .... Gl ~ i) ~;t::....- "0 ~ J2 .!! 'Ci) E;l-..... e W+WcD et:o.!!E OMoE Ill"<tlllo ~~NO .r. o cD et: c ~8~ ;t! a- ~ :g ~- ~O> + ~ 0.... III 0) (0 > ~ 0 c ;t! .f iDo 000 . M o~ ~~ ~ <i:- - 0) c - 0) ~ E I-.r. o :g,g! C/)e( z o t= U w a.. C/) z c o ti 0) a. fIl c 0) ~ .!: o w ::c o en w > i= e( 0::: e( Q.. ::2 o o . CO ~ 0> 0 ~ellen "OUlO Q).sO "01110 i 0::: -; E ..... Q) Em El 0..... III U .z= Q) 0 0::: ~ s .c III en I:: o "c ::> o '<t ~ "Iii := .- Q)o 5~ ....~ ::2 I:: III en ... ::s o .z= - ..... IX) ('t) CO ~ I:: o E"Iii III .- 0:::0 I:: ID III B en ._ r:. ~ := Q) .0 en ::s o ell !! :& -m5Q) _.z=UI III ~l5~ ~ ~ Cl o 1i III is S Cii o .z= U III Q) 10 N ~ ...~ .E Q) "0.0' Q) ... ... 0- .z= .- u ::s Q) IV tT I:: Q)Q):= ... I:: 0-.- IX) 0 III ~zE ~ o Cl .s III o I:: 2c:O- Q)l!E~ :2!!crlii ene( := C-..... & Q) oQ)lIIen 'fl.!:="O Q)0Q)1:: I::.....enlll c.....c~ o Q) 0 0 O>.,'Q. o III Q) :& .!:: .s e 5 [<(.s UI J: ~ Q) E .~ ti...-o:g'fl ... Gl ..c: III Gl .s:= I:: Q)O- ~~~c9~ N e .z= u III Q) o CO ~ .z= U III Q) 10 N ~ .z= u III Q) N ..... ~ ~ I:: ~n~ o ..c:o -co ION CO~ ~~ ... Q) "0 I:: ::s C- O 'fl Gl 0- UI I:: ..: -E :!. UI >. I:: III 0"0 'fl"S ~J: ~ell - UI Q)"O E I:: 'E~ Q) Q) O~ ... .iij 0- Q) 0::: ... Q) ~ Gl- en Gl Q).! :20 en..... M I IX> ~ I ~ ~ c "E 10 N N ~ ... ::s o .z= in ..... ~ ... ::s o -E CO ..0 0> ~ ..: .z= 2> SIX) o + -Eo ON IX) ("I) ~~ - >.1:: .0 Q) Gl E E Gl .,~ E l! ::s ... "- III E ... l! .g Q..o- ~ c .e Q) I:: o Z "0 .s III E 1ii I:: Q) .- ..... "0 0 ~cfi! ::s~.I!l o~th Eco8 .z= U III -! 10 ..... ..... ~ Q) I:: o Z UI .... Q) Q) I:: "5> I:: W ......s o III cfi! E ~1ii ..... Q) <';I e(- Q)c - Q) .0 E 1II.z= I- u :C~ ene( .z= u III Q) 10 N '<t ~ - 15 ~ o I:: o 'fl Q) 0- lD I:: Q) E 'E Q) > o I:: o 'fl Q) 0- UI E - Q) E Cl I:: 15 "0 o 0::: ... o Gl -0 ..c: I:: III ::2 U? ~ ~ re Page 9 of 13 E ("I) ..... ..... ~ I:: .e N ("I) IX> ~ ~ 10 0> c:i ~ ... o o 10 ..... ~ ..... o lii~ -10 IIIN Q) . ........ (!)~ E 10 IX) . c:i~ ~o + g ~ ~ ~o ~ I:: ..: .e .z= -'<t .....0 lOCO .....~ ~~ ::2 w I- en >- en z o i= o W ...J ...J o o UI >. I:: III o :2 'fl -0 Q) J: 0- lD ell ..!: tD - >Gl"OC: E I:: .- ~'E~E Jl!Q)Q).E .- > ~- EO:>:!. ~ ..... I ~ ~ ~ E ("I) ..... ..... ~ Q) I:: o Z Q) I:: o Z E ..... N c:i ~ ..: -E-=- ..... .5 ~ E ~o +~ 0..... OCO N'<t ~~ - 15 ~ o Q) E 'E ~ o I:: I:: .e :l ... . Gl ... o:::..c: >~ I-~ N ~ M I ~ uj ~ -- GlO 5~ ....~ ~ e: m C/) U -;:: U; is ~ j!! -1: m C/) ~ o U ~ - e: o U ~ e: Gl U C/) w C) 0:: <( :I: U o z <( C/) W I- <( 0:: LL o W --' ::) o W :I: U C/) W > ~ 0:: <( a.. ~ o U c: o Euj m -- 0::0 e: Ul m ~ C/) __ c. ~ = Gl .oC/) :J o cD ~ m 0 ~o/Sc/) "tlUlU GlSU "tlmU i 0:: -; E I'- Gl Em C) m .... 8..-1 Gl U 0:: ~ j!! -1: m C/) e: o 01: !:: ::) M """: ;; o ::0 m is S Qi o u; Ul 0 ,.,0 m Ul a.:J ...."'i5.. -flGl_ ~ E 0 -:e.e e: Gl .... o > Gl Uoa. I a. j!! Ul ~ m E ~ .g Gl e:.!! 8 g Ul ~ m E .... Gl -fl~ ~ e: ~~ 8j!! Ul ~ m E alOe: UN,,8 ~fhO _,Gl 5a.l} U j!! o~ iii :J U m e: o 3l "tl e: Gl Gl Ul a. m >< lD Gl m :J U m e: o 3l "tl e: Gl Gl Ul a. m >< lD Gl .r:. o m Gl o M N fh m :J U m c: o Gl "tl ~ 3l Gl m a. lD ~ Gl e> m .r:. o o z Gl e> m .r:. o o Z ...: oE ..- 10 "" ..- e: fh 0- + E 0"'" 00 NlIO ~~ iii :J U m e: o :Jl "tl e: 3l Gl m a. lD ~ u; S o z Gl e: o Z .r:. o m Gl N m ~ iii ~ m e: o Gl "tl Ul 3l i m a. lD~ o o ..- ~ 10 Gl ~.!! a ~ 5 Uo:p ~"tl0 _e:Gl e:ma. O.oUl U m o~ o N ~ iii ~ m e: o III "tl e: :Jl Gl m a. lD ~ Gl e> e: m 0 .r:. :P ~ Jl! :J .... ] C/) Oiii Ul e: a. c: Gl m - ,., 0 0:: 0 e: e: m 15 . Gl 2;g E e: E ~ Gl 0 Gl 0 a. ~ Z c: 0 O:::I: Ul 0 C) .f: ,., e: "tl .2l Glo/S C/) 0 e: E Ul"" > a. 13 m m .a U :e -g .~ I- m U; e: Gl <( I- 0 ~ Gl E Gl Gl 15 a. "'i5.. .... I- Ul ~ 0"><: 0 Gl ~ .f: Gl .... :P ~ Gl .2l >~oE :; Gl ,., 0 > m I- :!. ~ C/) 0 U I- --' ~ 10 ~ r::- '9 m- 6" ..- , ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 10 of 13 "Iii :l= "- CDO "- ~ >:S - "- ~C aI cn "0 ~ o ~ .s "C aI cn -m o o l! - c o o 1'! 1:: ell o cn w C> 0:: <( I o o z <( cn W I- <( 0:: u. o W ...J :J o W I o cn W > i= <( 0:: <( 0.. ~ o o c o E"Iii aI "- 0::0 c 0 aI ~ cn "_ '=. ~ = CD .gcn o I <0 ~ 0> 0 ~c/Scn "'000 GlSO "'OtVO ~ 0:: ';; E ...... Gl EO>Cl 0> .... 8....~ Gl 0 0:: ~ .s Oc tV cn C o "C :J o 1i III o S Q) o ~ o Cl S tV o ;>.: ~ u.. o I l- I C> 0:: B o CD o "'0 .... Cl CD C g- "$ Q) ~ iD e Oa. ~ tV a. - o I() ~ - c CD E III $ o <( o :::i - o c o :p tV Cl ~ Cl Gl cn ~ .... I e. ..c o aI ell o I() ~ $ c CD a. >< w (U :J "0 <( o :::i o Z >-"'0 GlCD.!! lii~:s ~=CD CD tV,!; :;S....g- E"'OCD- -~~~ tV.... CD Cl.! "'0 "'0 ~~;s $ c CD a. >< w (U ~ <( CD o c CD a. >< w (U :J ~ ~ C " "E .EI() I()M :~ $ c CD a. >< w (U :J "0 <( o -C ell CD o E "ii ~ "5 o - o Cl c "w o CD o e 0.. ~ CD a. e _0.. 0_ CltV C Gl "w 0:: XlS o Cl e c o..+> tV -C- C CD tV 0:: c.1!.l o c :p CD !! E III CD a.Gl CD .... .... Cl 0..<( ~ e. M I o ~ 0_ tt:: 0;.s ~ CD 0 0- c ..c 0- >- .... Cl.c CDC-C a. CD CD ..2.s:l= CD tV CD > >"- CD "- > O....CD a..... >- C o :l= CD oS; ~ C tV a: (U ~ tV C 0 o $ -C C $ CD tV a. ID ~ cn :J o W Z ~ ...J W o cn ~ ; :l= CD cn S tV > 0;:: 0.. .... .e Cl c ";:: ~~ "S CD ~.e Wo.. ~ .... I ~ @ CD > o .c tV o tV CD E tV ~ .1!.l c .s :i o c o o .~ I (U ~ tV C 0 o CD -C ~ l8 Gl aI a. ID ~ ~ CD cn .s tV > 0;:: 0.. .... .e c o :p aI :J (U ~~ J!l..9!. "- 0 o .... cno.. N ~ Page 11 of 13 .1!.l c .s :i o c 8 ~ I .E IX) I() .... ~ Cl C os;.. Gl ~ :J cn M ~ u; ::: '- CDO .- t=' >:J!l - -- ~ C III f/) 13 ~ (5 t=' J!l 'c III f/) f/) W (!) 0:: e( J: o o z e( f/) W l- e( 0:: u. o W ...J ::J o W J: o f/) w > i= e( 0:: e( a.. ~ o o I CD ~ 0> 0 ~ol:lf/) ""0(/10 CDSO ""OlIIO :;; 0:: ';; E ...... CD E::R~ 0.... III U .s:;; CD 0 0:: 1ll o o ~ - C o o ~ C CD o ~ J!l 'c III f/) C o 'c ::J o ~ -g.2i ~ (/I as .... lII::: o ..os ::=-(/I::l(/l (/1.2 CD III (/I e..u. ::: lII~ - <3=~~= ---(/10001 o (/I III III C ~.!!!g.C~ ~~OO(/l G) > o ..0 III (/I as CD E III ~ Iii ~ as C o 3l ""0 C CD CD (/Ie.. III >< m CD CD ~ III .s:;; U o Z CD "0 .s:;; C III E iO N ~ 3l III ..0 Iii 'i:: 1ii j ""0 .= o Z C o EU; III .- 0::0 C (/I III B f/) .- c. ~ =CD ..of/) j o Ol .= ~~ 1i ai". ~ ~M C U C I ~ o C~ CCX)~~ ""OCDlII"<tlllC'l.s:;;- CD j j CD .- C') - ~ (/Iuc.,...;E"<tc:g lIICDC......CD.....g> m~e(~f/)~..::> ~ CD C o ~ ~ B ~ .... CD j C 0 CD .s:;; 01 .... .... CD g 1.0 Q. ._ N...... 5;;;: ~ CD C o ~ o :c III (5 S iii o .... .a '- III (/I g (/I ~ CD .- CD .- ~.- ~iiil.Oiii ....jNj ~"'O~"'O ~.=~.= 00> 1.0...... N ~~ ...... CD N ~ ~ \t- S>. "'0 o '0 CDjilt: ~ CD J!} iii Ol III J!l j .! (/1'0 i i (/I -g "0 - (/I 8 ~ -5 lit- t=' t:.= - 'E.2 ~-(/I~i31ii:g G> e.. t=' III ~ ""0 ::c .= = ..- e.. 1.0 .s +.' 0 .!? .... (/I CD III U +> _ 0 ._ CD (/I 3l~o:E::c:OlllCD~ll III N ..0 .!11 ""0 CD ~ E ..0 m~.!!!oe(..o CD+> 1Il.= CD CD CD U. CD - u. 'E CD - .... CD .~ C CD a.. u. ~:fi f/) - c CD W = 'E w $ CDCD:fi CD .... Ole.. u. t=' u. CD 0 III a.. i ~ CD - 01 != <3 i .s:;; -- Q. 'E s ~ ~ ~.~ .... ""0 CD III 0:: c (5 f{ls a.. 0 w III j ""0 c ._ - a.. - .E Iii 0 1/1 = ..J :g ._ I Ul ~ ::: U 0 c (/I III CD 8.z 0 as 0:: <3 z f/) I I <3 l- f/) ::::> ~ N M ~ 0 .... I I I I ~ !:!::.. !:!::.. !:!::.. !:!::.. ~ Page 12 of 13 t) ~ is ~ .1!1 "2: III en ~ o o ~ - c: o o Iii ~ - c: CD o Page 13 of 13 en w C) 0:: <( J: o o z <( en w I- <( 0:: u. o W ...J ::::> o w J: o en w > i= <( 0:: <( a.. ::iE o o CD Cl CD .1!1 III ~ III c.. E .1!1 CD III Cl 02: ] ] III en .1!1 .1!1 c: - - 0 0_ 0 "2: c: c: c: ::::> III III III CDQ.. CD 0_ 0 0111 0 "Iii - c: ~ 0- CD III ] CDO ~- 5~ .1!1~ .1!1 ...:!1! _ III - 0 CD 0 ::iE c: c: Cl c: CD III 1II.1!1 III III en III CDc.. CD E 8$ 0 I 0 Cl I c: 0 E"Iii c III 0- CD III ] 0::0 ~- c: III .1!1~ .1!1 III CD _ III - en 02 0 CD 0 l:. ~ c: Cl c: CD = CD 1II.1!1 III III .Den CD c.. CD III :J 8$ 0 E 0 I 0 Cl Iii 0 .!2> 1'i !Xl ] III 0 is ci .1!1 I ~ - .1!1 + 0 4) 0 c: $ 0 0 OJ III ......- ""': CD III ...... ...... 0 E ~ ~ 0 Cl I <0 Iii Iii Iii Iii OJ 0- ~c/len .!2> .!2> .!2> .!2> "CillO OJ OJ N N OJ OJ ...... (; CDJ!lO 0 0 0 "CillO ci ci ci ci :ii 0:: ';; ~ ~ ~ ~ E...... CD + + + + Em ~ ('I) 10 0 10 0 0...... III 10 ...... 0 ...... 0 o .r:. "!. ..,. .0 ~ .0 CD 0 ...... ...... ..,. ...... ..,. 0:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ 00 I- CD 1'i ~ 0 ~ a.. "C ~ c: III CD 0 ~ ~ $~ ~ ~ CD +> 0 0 III 0 0 u. c.. :J :J CD :J :J 0 .:.i - CD :t; :t; '-~ ~ Cl <( oE en C)-: 't; J!l en ~ Iii Iii Iii C III Iii III 0 CD Ol Ol Ol Cl 0 a.. +> ~o a.. c: 0 0 0 en Iii CD J!l8 0 :JO 0 0 :J :E 0 .1!It:!. 0 c: 1II111N' N' IIIN N' W c: CD~ CD C) <( 0:: v ^ 0:: v ^ <( I- ~ N c;:;- a.. ...... w I I I en ~ ~ ~ 6" Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 6 BOARD MEETING OF April 18, 1996 NO. 6. BIDS AND AWARDS a. SUBJECT DATE AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE MALTBY AND FAIRVIEW PUMPING STATIONS ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (DP 5060) TO COOPER CRANE AND RIGGING, INC. TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AWARD SUBMITTED BY Ba T. Than Associate En ineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department! Plant En ineerin Division ISSUE: On April 3, 1996, sealed proposals were received and opened for construction of the Maltby and Fairview Pumping Stations Electrical Improvements Project, District Project No. 5060. The Board of Directors must authorize award of the contract or reject bids within 50 days of the bid opening. BACKGROUND: The Maltby Pumping Station was constructed in 1969 as part ofthe Martinez sewage conveyance system, which consists of three pumping stations (PS). The Martinez PS is currently undergoing major modifications including installation of a standby diesel generator. A standby diesel generator was installed at the Fairview PS in 1992. A portable generator is the only available backup power for Maltby PS. Electrical service to Maltby PS is currently provided from a local Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) feeder and is subject to PG&E power failures. This project will provide permanent electrical backup power for the Maltby PS and improve electrical systems such as additions of voltage meters and transient voltage surge protections, installation of bypass contact, etc., at both Maltby and Fairview PS. The project location is shown in Attachment 1. Plans and specifications for the project were prepared by Norberg Engineering, Inc. The project was advertised on March 13 and March 20, 1996. A total of five (5) bids ranging from $206,100 to $259,923 were received and publicly opened on April 3, 1996. A summary of these bids is shown in Attachment 2. The Plant Engineering Division conducted a technical and commercial evaluation of these bids and has determined that Cooper Crane and Rigging, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder with a bid amount of $206,100. RE~EWEDANDRECOMMENDEDFORBOARDAcnON 1302A-7/91 BTT WEB RAB INITIATING DEPT./DIV. e,TT W!.B f1fij SUBJECT AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE MALTBY AND FAIRVIEW PUMPING STATIONS ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (DP 5060) TO COOPER CRANE AND RIGGING, INC. POSITION PAPER PAGE DATE 2 OF 6 Aoril 15 1996 The Engineer's Estimate for construction which included an allowance of fifteen percent for continency was $300,000. Two possible reasons for the cost difference between the Engineer's Estimate and the lowest bid are a favorable bidding climate and the difference in the type of proposed generator. This project specified two types of name-brand generators and it also allowed the bidders to substitute an "equal" generator. The Engineer's estimate was based on the cost of a name-brand generator. Cooper Crane and Rigging, Inc. proposed a substitution for the name-brand generator at a lower price. This generator substitution will be further evaluated in the construction phase to ensure that it will meet the requirements outlined in the general conditions and technical specifications. District staff will administer the management functions for the construction contract. Field inspection and construction support services will be provided by NPG Engineering, Inc. (NPG) and Norberg Engineering, Inc. (Norberg), respectively. An field inspection services contract in the amount of $22,000 has been negotiated with NPG. Norberg will provide construction support services for this project, which will include shop drawings review, preparation of as-built drawings, and compliance inspections. Staff has negotiated a construction support services agreement with Norberg in the amount of $20,000. The additional allocation of funds required to complete this project, as shown in Attachment 3, is $338,000. This project is included in the Fiscal Year 1995-96 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) on pages CS-89 through CS-90. The current balance of the Sewer Construction Fund, minus unspent allocations, plus projected dependable revenue, will be adequate to fund this project. A funding summary is presented in Attachment 4. Staff has concluded that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines Section 18.2, since it involves minor alterations to existing sewage facilities with no increases in capacity. Approval of this project from the Board of Directors will constitute an independent finding that this project is exempt from CEQA. RECOMMENDA liON: Authorize award of a construction contract in the amount of $206,100 for construction of the Maltby and Fairview Pumping Stations Electrical Improvements Project, DP 5060, to Cooper Crane and Rigging, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder. 1302B-7/91 SHEET 3 of 6 SUISUN BAY J I o 3125 ~....., FEET ~ <( PROJECT SITE MALTBY PUMPING STATION -' -' '" :z: Vl PACHECO MARTINEZ e ~ o o <0 o .,., ,. o <0 o Ii) ~ Q. ~ Central Contra Costa ~ Sanitary District Ci> o <0 '" ~ ci: 9;, "" o PLEASANT HILL MALTBY AND FAIRVIEW PUMPING STATIONS ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DISTRICT PROJECT 5060 PROJECT LOCATION ATTACHMENT 1 . SH~ET 4 of 6 Central Contra Costa Sanitary Dlstnct SUMMARY OF BIDS PROJECT NO. 5060 - Maltby and Fairview Pum'pin~ Stations Electrical Improvements PrQject DATE 4/3/96 LOCATION Martinez.. California ENGINEER EST. $ 300,000 No BIDDER BID PRICE (Name, telephone & address) 1 Cooper Crane and Rigging, Inc. $ 206,100 PO Box 2540 Novato, CA 94948-2540 (415) 892-2778 2 Clyde G. Steagall, Inc. $ 221,250 6030 King Road PO Box 350 Loomis, CA 95650 (916) 652-1700 3 DCI Construction, Inc. $ 234,000 PO Box 5547 Concord, CA 94524-0547 (510) 370-9808 4 Pete Fuller Construction $ 237,160 PO Box 1090 Vacaville, CA 95696-1090 (707) 437-0991 5 Kawaeh Construction Co. $ 259,923 PO Box 7780 Fresno, CA 93747 (209) 252-9492 BIDS OPENED BY Is! Joyce E. Mw:phy DATE 4/3/96 SHEET NO. ..L OF ..L. SHEET 5 OF 6 ATTACHMENT 3 MALTBY AND FAIRVIEW PUMPING STATIONS ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS DISTRICT PROJECT 5060 POST -BID/PRECONSTRUCTION. ESTIMATE PERCENT OF ESTIMATED NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 1 . CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT $ 206,1 00 Contingency at 20 percent 41,900 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $ 248,000 100.00 2. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT District Forces Construction Management 14,000 Surveying 1,500 Material Testing 1,000 Legal 500 Record Drawings 2,000 Permits 500 Consultants Inspection Services 22,000 (NPG Engineering Inc.) Construction Support Services 20,000 (Norberg Engineering, Inc.) Miscellaneous Plant Engineering Division 2,500 Plant Operations Department 4,000 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT TOTAL $ 68,000 27.42 3. ST ART-UP/TRAINING O&M Manual and Training 4,000 Plant Engineering Division 1,000 Plant Operations Department 2,000 START -UP/TRAINING TOTAL $ 7,000 2.82 4. PREBID EXPENDITURES Planning/Design 50,000 Equipment Modification 1 0,000 PREBID EXPENDITURES TOTAL $ 60,000 24.19 5. TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 383,000 1 54.43 6. Funds Allocated to Date 45,000 7. Allocation Required to $ 338,000 Complete Project ATTACHMENT 4 PROJECT FUNDING SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD 04/09/96 THROUGH 05/08/96 SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCE AS OF 3/31/96** MINUS UNSPENT PRIOR ALLOCATIONS PLUS DEPENDABLE CURRENT YEAR REVENUE (3/96 THROUGH 6196) PLUS DEPENDABLE FUTURE REVENUE (7/96 THROUGH 11/96) $43,400,000 > $338,000 SHEET 6 of 6 $51 ,400,000 (20,500,000) 5,900,000 6,600,000 $43,400,000 (ALLOCATION REQUIRED) ** Balance includes the unspent proceeds of the 1994 Revenue Install- ment Certificates (COPs). Outstanding debt as of 6/30/96 is projected at $25,489,000. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 4 BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 18, 1996 NO. 8. ENGINEERING a. SUBJECT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (S.O.I.) AND FORMALLY ANNEX 93.44 ACRES OF LAND ADJOINING THE DISTRICT'S EXISTING S.O.1. AND BOUNDARY IN THE LAWRENCE ROAD AREA OF DANVILLE UNDER DISTRICT ANNEXATION 134 DATE A ril 1 2 1 996 TYPE OF ACTION INITIATE ANNEXATION D.A. 134 WITH LAFCO SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.IDIV. Russell B. Leavitt, Planning Assistant Engineering Department/Planning Division ISSUE: Owners of 19 separate properties have petitioned the District to annex the subject properties. BACKGROUND: The subject properties are located along Lawrence Road, south of Camino Tassajara, in the Town of Danville (see Figures 1 & 2). Development of the subject properties was addressed in the Town of Danville's Lawrence/Leema Road Specific Plan and Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration assumed that the District would serve the subject property since District sewer facilities are nearby. These properties will require sewer service from a new pumping station to be located along Lawrence Road at the southern extent of the annexation area. This pumping station also would serve previously annexed properties (D.A. 132) where 12 homes are planned and any subsequently annexed parcels within the first phase of the Lawrence/Leema Road Specific Plan area. Staff has communicated our requirements for new District owned and operated pumping stations to the developers and the Town of Danville. These requirements include: 1) the developer shall design and construct all sewer facilities, including the pumping station; and 2) the developer/property owners tributary to the pumping station shall pay all costs for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the pumping station/force main facilities. The Town of Danville is requiring Pinn Brothers Construction, Inc., a major residential developer in the Lawrence/Leema Road area, to fund the up-front construction costs of extending sewer facilities (including force mains and pumping stations) and other utilities throughout the entire Specific Plan area. This area is already within the boundaries of the Town of Danville and EBMUD. The Town also has established a 15-year benefit district (administered by the Town and paid off by other property owners as they connect) to reimburse the first developer. Staff has concluded that the best way to recover the O&M costs of the pumping station/force main from future annexation area customers would be through District imposition of an annual pumping station charge. A similar charge was implemented last year for customers of the West Branch Pumping Station. REWEWEDAND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD AcnON RBL DJC RAB INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. 12M- })1& fj[3 1302A-7/91 SUBJECT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (S.O.I.) AND FORMALLY ANNEX 93.44 ACRES OF LAND ADJOINING THE DISTRICT'S EXISTING S.O.I. AND BOUNDARY IN THE LAWRENCE ROAD AREA OF DANVILLE UNDER DISTRICT ANNEXATION 134 POSITION PAPER 2 4 PAGE OF DATE April 1 2, 1 996 A second pumping station at the south end of Lawrence Road may be needed sometime in the future to serve the second phase of the Lawrence/Leema Road Specific Plan area as well a~ proposed "upstream" development projects outside of the Specific Plan area. It also may be possible to eliminate the pumping stations in the future by extending gravity service from this arec to the adjacent Dougherty Valley. LAFCO has indicated that it may add adjoining unannexed parcels to this annexation to eliminate islands or straighten boundary lines. The District will have to hold a public hearing to consider annexation of any parcel added by LAFCO. District staff has reviewed the Town of Danville's Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan anc verified that the impacts of annexation to the District and the proposed mitigation measures were addressed. The Board will receive a copy of the Negative Declaration for final consideration of thi~ annexation following LAFCO's approval. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution of application to LAFCO for the annexation of the subject properties and request that LAFCO revise the District's current S.O.1. to include the subjec properties. 1302B-7/91 -~ '" 1 I I ~L I Ji I , /JJ ' '/ I IL___I @ r -. -. 1 " " " " ".-' , " ". LEGEND ~ N , CD D.A. 134, AREA <]) LAWRENCE RD. PHASE 2 @ WEST BRANCH @ DOUGHERTY VALLEY @ TASSAJARA VALLEY ----- CITY BOUNDARY DISTRICT BOUNDARY -'-'-'- COUNTY BOUNDARY e, "0 '" "0 c: .CJ U> '6 -;;; Q. o E u ~ --- .l:: o , 2 DISClAIMER: This map shows generalized boundaries drown occording to Informoflon provided 10 CCCSD prior to the pubUc:otion dote. Discrepancies .hould be feloIved wtth the appropriate agency and ..,,1 to CCCSO to be indueled in the next edition of this map. MILES Central Contra Costa Sanitary District FIGURE 1 <c U) ~ <0 en \!l 0:: s:: SO! LOCAL SETTING OF D.A. 134 Ii ___ ~Clmin~Tassaja!~_ _~-'L_m '~f-r- -- J Li~- ( -,0- IDA~~ . . ~ __._n_J 1321\-. \~ / / /:< II- _____.- ~ _ / 1 ,\ PROPOSED D.A. 134 11 L >- a: <1: C z ::::> o a:3 t- O - a: t- en - c \_~ Possible Pumping Station Site (Lawrence Road Phase 1) ~ N .~ - - o 300' 600' t200' Possible Pumping Station Site (Lawrence Road Phase 2 & TVPOA) Central Contra Costa Sanitary District WASTEWATER FLOW IN THE LAWRENCE ROAD AREA FIGURE 2 ~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 6 BOARD MEETING OF April 18, 1996 NO. 12. BUDGET AND FINANCE b. SUBJECT REVIEW THE FINANCIAL STATUS AND BUDGET OF THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND AND APPROVE OMITTING AN O&M BUDGET CONTRIBUTION FOR FY 1 996-1 997 DATE April 8, 1996 TYPE OF ACTION REVIEW SELF-INSURANCE FUND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-1997 SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Bonnie Allen, Risk Manager Administrative/Risk Management & Safety ISSUE: The Self-Insurance Fund (SIF) is to be reviewed each year by the Board of Directors with the staff presenting funding recommendations for the upcoming fiscal year. BACKGROUND: The District has self-insured most of its liability and some of its property risks since July 1, 1986, when the Board approved the establishment of a Self-Insurance Fund. The SIF has effectively funded District losses over its ten year history and it remains financially sound. In 1994 two major changes occurred that caused staff to review the Risk Management Program and assess how District risks are financed. To assure compliance with a new Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 10, the District obtained an actuarial review of its self-insured general liability and automobile liability with projected losses for these risks at varying funding levels. Based on the actuarial estimate, $673,485 was designated as GASB 10 Actuarial Reserve for liability of these risks. Though the total $673,485 reserve was booked as a liability of $449,037 in the 1993-1994 budget and $224,448 in the 1994-1995 budget, the $673,485 reserve remains available in the total Self- Insurance Fund. Also, the District engaged a risk management and insurance consultant who reviewed our insured and self-insured risk funding program. Recommendations of the study were implemented including the purchase of a $10,000,000 excess liability policy for losses above a self-insured retention of $500,000 and the restructuring of the Self-Insurance Fund into three sub-funds (Exhibit II, III, and IV attached). Exhibit I presents a recent financial history and projection of the SIF and shows that the total reserves are projected at $5,423,870 for June 30, 1996. This favorable total is $267,227 more than the total Fund reserves of $5,156,643 at the start of the 1995-1996 budget year. The 1996-1997 SIF budget provides for total revenues of $1,058,400 and total expenses of $782,500. A favorable result of $275,900 in revenue over expenses is expected, bringing the projected total SIF to $5,699,770 on June 30, 1997. Recovery of approximately $450,000 from prior insurance coverages is budgeted during the 1996-1997 Fiscal Year. Additionally, $319,200 will be recovered from the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority in 1996-1997 Fiscal Year as reimbursement of solid waste associated legal expenses. Due to the expected recovery of funds from prior insurance coverages and from reimbursement of applicable legal expenses by the Authority, no contribution from O&M Funds is needed for the 1996-1997 Fiscal Year to maintain the SIF at a prudent reserve. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION GEN SA RM&S/C:\wpwin\sif\sif96.pp2 SUBJECT REVIEW THE FINANCIAL STATUS AND BUDGET OF THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND AND APPROVE OMITTING AN O&M BUDGET CONTRIBUTION FOR FY 1996-1997 PAGE 2 OF 6 DATE April 8, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: Review the financial history and projection for the Self-Insurance Fund, including the three sub-funds, and approve omitting an O&M budget contribution for FY 1996- 1997. Exhibit I CENTRAL CONTRA COST A SANITARY DISTRICT SELF-INSURANCE FUND (SIF) July 1, 1992, Ending June 30, 1997 Actual Actual Actual Projected Budget 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 Revenues SIF Allocation from O&M Fund $ 0 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 150,000 $ 0 Subrogation Recovery 6,015 94,201 171,787 460,441 450,000 Franchise Fee 0 0 100,323 113,250 0 Reimbursement (CCCSWA) 0 0 0 106,400 319,200 Interest Income 321 .360 290.364 268.219 272.700 289.200 Total Revenues 327 .375 464.565 620.329 1.102.791 1.058,400 Expenses Claims Adjusting 2,400 2,400 2,400 0 2,500 Insurance Consulting 0 0 7,296 0 5,000 Loss Payments 73,150 121,721 18,455 101,660 115,000 Legal Services 497,571 817,121 460,830 399,783 345,000 Insurance Premiums 66,446 66,840 75,790 265,000 280,000 Technical Services 4.383 8.364 1.125 69.121 35.000 Total Expenses 643.950 1.016.446 565.896 835.564111 782.500 Revenue Over Expenses <316.575 > <551.881 > 54.433 267 .227 275.900 Reserves Beginning of Year 5,970,666 5,654,091 5,102,210 5,156,643 5,423,870 Revenues Over Expenses <316.575 > <551.881 > 54.433 267 .227 275.900 End of Year 5.654.091 5.102.210 5.156.643 5.423.870 5.699.770 Actuarial Reserves - GASB 1 0 0 4,653,173 449.037 $5.102.210 4,483,158 673.485 $5.156.643 4,750,385 673.485 $5.423.870 5,026,285 673.485 $5.699.770 Uncommitted Reserves 5,654,091 Total Reserves $5.654.091 Footnote (1): Total Expenses Budgeted for 1995-1996 is $920,800 RM&S/C:\ WPWIN\SIF\SIFBGT2. CHT - - ..... :is :2 0 LO LO 'l'""" 0') LO >< 0 00 00 0') 0 00 W 0 ~ ~ LO ~ ~ .. .. .. 0 C") C") C") CO C") 0 r--. r--. C") CO r--. LO CO 'l'""" 'l'""" C") CO <h- .. <h- <h- <h- 'l'""" <h- (/) ~>- (/)1- N a:::i ~ OaJ C") 0 W<( LO (/)- <(...I 0') aJW 'l'""" CO I ...I <h- cO') >-- Z~ ...IaJ ...10 :::>1 <(~ u.LO wO') 0:0 (.)~ <(I- ::J::J Z- 1-<( <co Uo 0 'l'""" ~ 0 LO ~ a:3 ~ CO r--. :::> () <(z 00 'l'""" r--. CJ)<( 0<( .. .. .. Z"'C 'l'""" C") ~ 00 1>- 'l'""" 0') ~ 'i"Q) aJl- <h- <h- u...... (/)- ...I () <(= w.~ CJ)e (.9aJ L- <( a.. .. ::i <...I c<( CJ) CJ) CJ) CJ) Zo: 0 Q) Q) Q) Q) :::>w :J CJ) :J > 0r- e e e L- u.z Q) Q) Q) Q) 'w al > Co > U CJ) ~(.9 CJ) Q) Q) x Q) 0: < a: w 0: "'C CJ) C!) e co co L- :J co Q) LL. ..... ..... ..... > e CJ) e e 1 (1) (I) l- I- e .0 I- > (1) :J ... > CJ) (/) (1) ... Q) (I) (1) CJ) e (1) CJ) e ..... a: (1) >- co Q) L- a: L- a. Q) ..... I ~ () Q) - en > (I) e >< en "t- co (1) ~ e Q) (1) Q) co~ w (1) CJ) 'i: :;, L- CJ) CJ) e co s::: o<S () Q) s::: CJ) C) () > co Q) ..... (1) e Q) Q) ... L- :;, (1) 0 0: e ...II- (1) I- ..... > ...I (I) (1) (,) (1) >< (1) al < a: w a: - - - ..... :c 0 0 .- 00 00 .s:: 0 0 >< '("- '("- w 0 LO LO 0 .. .. 0 0) 0) 0 LO 00 00 LO ~ ~ ~ ~ .. 0(/} 0(/} C\I C\I 0(/} 0(/} (/J ~ 00 a: 00 O~ 0 C\I wOO LO ('I) 00 a: LO 0 <(z C\I ('I) qJO 0) 0 CO >-- I""-- ('I) ..JI- 0(/} 0(/} C~ ..J::> <(..J Z'("- - ..J ~. a:0 LLLO <(c.. 0) ::>0 WO) U'("- I-Z z- ~<( <C co 0 000 I 0 00 ~ a:.a '0 OLOO 0 0 C\I Zw ~(.) 01- COC\l~ LO 0 LO CJ)<( .. .. .. .. .. Z<( CO ('I) CO I""-- CO en z"'C O..J ~'("-O 00 ""i Q) '("-W 0(/} ~'("- '("- C\I LL..... 0(/} ...J (.) .a: W.~ OJ CJ)o (/JI- ~ <(Z c.. C.9W ~ "">- en en en en mo - Q) Q) Q) Q) C..J <( ::J en en > zc.. c:: c:: c:: ~ ~~ S Q) Q) Q) Q) > a. a. en LLW (/J Q) X X Q) I U a: m a: W W ~ U ~ U co U co CO Q) CJ) ..... ..... ..... > "'C 0 en 0 0 Q) ..... l- I- 0 c:: I- > c:: ::J II. Q) Q) en u.. Q) Q) E Q) en u.. ::J 0 Q) >- Q) Q) c:: ..... a: en CO Q) ~ ~ en ~ > Q) .- ::J ..... I ~ (.) Q) en > ..c:: ..0 en c:: Q) en - Q) ~ o (.) E Q) Q) Q) CO ..c:: a: Q) en ::::J ~ CI) en c:: r::: ~ (.) c:: Q) r::: en C> (.) > CO Q) ~ Q) ..... Q) Q) II. Q) c:: Q) 0 Q) ~ > 0 a:u.. a: ..J ..JI- CI) I- Q) Q) >< Q) m a: w a: > .... :c :2 >< w co m em z~ :)1 u..~ wm (J~ z- <cCO a:.a :)0 (/)<( z"C -Q) I.... u.. (.) ..J Q) w.-. (/)0 .... a.. o z <( en ~ ::) ~ w 0: a.. w U Z <( 0: ::) C/) z ~ <( 0: <.9 en 00: O:w a..:c 1-1- ZO wI- ~en Wz <.9- <(<( Z<.9 <(<( ~en ~I- C/)::) 0:C/) u)~ ~..J C/)_ -C/) o:~ 0- ~<( I..J fflu <(<.9 <.9z Zl- 0<( z- I- ..z (J- ell. zO :)C/) u..1- cO en :)0 (/)u 00 LO ~ .. ('I) ('I) LO .. ~ 0- o Q) > ... Q) o Q) a: Q) al ~o~ 0- >- .... .... o Q) 0 Q) '-=::: > Q) ::s ..:::: 0 .... C _">C (.) Q) <>u Q) .... ~ 0 0: c Q) a: o o 00 00 -=:t C'\I - o Q) ~ c Q) > Q) 0: co .... o I- Q) (.) c >- co .~ :J ..0 en co C :..:J 01" ~ o (.) c X Q)w >< W 00001 0000 OOOLO .. .. .. LOOLOJ"'o. J"'o.mco ~ - >- co .... (.) ~ _ C a.co.c o C) (.) .... Q) Q) a......J1- o o LO J"'o. ('I) ('I) - en Q) en C Q) a. x w co .... o I- - o o J"'o. .. 00 00 0- en Q) ~ C Q) > Q) 0: .... Q) > o en Q) en C Q) a. x w moo O~ -=:tLO .. com co 00 ('I)-=:t 0- 0- en Q) > .... <( co Q) en "c"c Q) ceO: ~ :::I Ll. Ll. co 1 I .... ..0..0 0 ~ ~ I- C/)C/) E E o 0 .... .... - - .... .... Q) Q) en-- Q) en en > c c ... co co Q) .... .... 01-1- Q) a: