HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 07-06-89
.
Cen,(al ~ontra Costa Sanitary LJistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF 10
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
J ul Y 6, 1989
NO.
III.
HEARINGS
1
SUBJECT
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR
REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT, ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.,
AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL
DATE
July 3, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
CONDUCT PUBLIC
HEARINGS
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer
Administrative/Finance and Accounting
ISSUE: Public hearings are to be conducted on July 6, 1989 to consider the
applications for rate increases submitted by the three refuse collection companies
franchised by the District.
BACKGROUND: Applications for increases in refuse collection rates effective July 1,
1989 were submitted by Valley Waste Management, Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service,
Inc., and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal, franchise holders of Zones 2, 4 and 5,
Zones 1 and lA, and Zone 3, respectively.
District analyses of the rate applications of Valley Waste Management and
Orinda-Moraga Di sposal have been submitted to the Board of Di rectors and the
affected cities of Lafayette and Danville, and Orinda and Moraga. Written or public
comments from the city councils were requested for consideration during the publ ic
hearings on July 6, 1989. The analysis of each of these rate applications was also
provided to the refuse collection company.
The analysis of the rate ap~ication submitted by Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal
was provided at the June 22, 1989 Board Meeting in draft form. A number of issues
which required further review have since been resolved. The final analysis, which
is submitted with this Position Paper, reflects the following changes to the draft
document as a result of the further review:
o revenues for the prior fiscal year ended June 30, 1989 increased by
$11,082 after correcting the mobile home revenues.
o a final adjustment to the Vehicle Maintenance, Repairs & License
account increased forecasted operating expenses for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1990 by $1,982.
o the rate-setting adjustments described above reduced the current
period "Percent Increase in Forecasted Revenue Requi red" from 6.62 to
4.89 percent.
During the Board Workshop on June 22, 1989, the Board expressed interest in
obtaining the following information:
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
ro~
INITIA TING DEPT./DIV.
~~
1302A-9/85 WNF
de
PM
SUBJECT
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR
REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT, ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.,
AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE? OF
DATE
10
Julv 3. 1989
o the effect on the current percentage increase in collection rates
required by Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga Disposal
Serv ice, Inc. if the di sposal expenses forecasted to be paid to the
Acme landfill were to be allowed as a cost reimbursement, without the
profit margin provided on other operating expenses.
o the effect on the percentage increase in collection rates required by
Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service if it had included in the current rate
application recovery of the excess between the higher disposal
expenses incurred during the period February 1, 1989 through June 30,
1989 and the forecasted disposal expenses used in last year's
rate-setting process.
The information requested is provided on the following attachments:
Attachment I - Valley Waste Management
This attachment shows the computation of the percentage increase in
revenue requi red if the Acme 1 andfi1l di sposal expenses were allowed
on a cost reimbursement basi s without profit margi n. In comparison
with the percentage increase proposed in the District analysis of
24.20 percent, a lower percentage increase of 21.60 percent would be
requi red on a cost reimbursement basi s; the effect on the monthly
single-can rate would be a reduction from $16.10 to $15.75.
Attachment II - Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc.
This attachment presents the computation of the percentage increase in
revenues required if the Acme landfill disposal expenses were allowed
on a cost reimbursement basis without profit margin. As shown, a
lower percentage increase of 15.76 percent is produced in comparison
with the 17.50 percent increase proposed in the District analysis; the
effect on the monthly single-can rate in the City of Orinda would be a
reduction from $16.40 to $16.15, and a reduction from $14.65 to $14.40
in the Town of Moraga.
Attachment III - Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service Inc.
This attachment shows the computation of the percentage increase in
revenues requi red on two alternative bases in comparison with the
computation proposed in the District analysis. The two alternative
bases are:
A. Allow recovery of the prior year net expense variance of $87,000
in the current rate-setti ng period. The prior year net expense
variance is composed of higher than forecasted disposal expenses
of $128,000, offset by higher than forecasted revenues of $67,000
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPlICATIONS FOR
REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT, ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.,
AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 3 OF 10
DATE
Julv 3. 1989
and a net increase over forecasted expenses in all other expense
accounts of $26,000.
B. Compute the combined effect of allowing the Acme landfill
di sposal expenses on a cost reimbursement basi s without profit
margin as computed on Attachment II, and allowing recovery of the
prior year net expense variance.
As shown, a 20.25 percent increase in revenues would be required under
Alternative A above compared to the 17.50 percent proposed in the
District analysis; under Alternative B above, the percentage increase
required would be 18.53 percent. The resulting representative
collection rates under each alternative are presented.
After conducting the public hearings on July 6, 1989, the Board may wish to continue
consideration of the applications for rate increases to the July 20, 1989 Board
Meeting.
Notices of the public hearings were published in the Contra Costa Times and San
Ramon Valley Times on June 21, 1989, and will be published on July 5, 1989 in the
Contra Costa Times, San Ramon Valley Times, and Contra Costa Sun.
Written comments received to-date from city councils and the public are appended to
this Position Paper.
Staff Proposal s for Consi deration of the Board
The following summarizes the staff proposals in establishing each refuse
collector's rates for the Board's consideration:
Valley Waste Management
o Set the collection rates based on disposal expenses computed at the
current $47/ton disposal fee at Acme landfill. Reset collection rates
if the di sposal fee changes si gni ficantly during the rate-setti ng
period as a result of the Acme landfill ceasing operations, or for any
other reason.
o Direct District staff to require the refuse collector to separately
identify the disposal expense component of the amount billed to
custaners.
o Allow the refuse collector to obtain the net expense charge of
$389,000, primarily representing the effect of the Acme landfill
disposal fee increase in the prior rate-setting period, through a
surcharge in the current rate-setting period.
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FOR
REFUSE COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY VALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT, ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.,
AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL
POSITION PAPER
PAGE ~
DATE
.1111v 3. lqRq
OF 10
o Full-scale implementation of the curbside recycing program during the
next six months in the Valley Waste Management service area is
recommended for approval by the Board. Estab1 ish the Incremental
Expense Per Residential Customer for the curbside recycling program at
95 cents per month, to be added to the collection rate in the month
recycling service is provided to customers.
o Direct that a proposal for an automated curbside collection program be
presented for Board consideration at the August 24, 1989 Board Meeting
for the entire Valley Waste Management service area, except the City
of Lafayette.
Qrinda-MoraQa Disposal Service, Inc.
o Set the collection rates based on disposal expenses computed at the
current $47/ton disposal fee at Acme landfill. Reset collection rates
if the disposal expense changes significantly during the rate-setting
period as a result of the Acme landfill ceasing operations, or for any
other reason.
o Direct District staff to require the refuse collector to separately
identify the disposal expense component of the amount billed to
c ustome rs.
o Establish the Incremental Expense Per Residential and Commercial
Customer for a curbside recycling program at 95 cent per month, to be
added to the collection rate in the month recycling service is
provided to customers. The curbside recycling program was approved at
the April 6, 1989 Board Meeting and is scheduled for implementation in
Septembe r 1989.
P1 eaSqntHil1 Bay Shore Di sposq1
o Direct District staff to require the refuse collector to separately
identify the disposal expense component of the amount billed to
c ustome rs.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearings on July
applications for refuse collection rate increases
Management, Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc.,
Disposal.
6, 1989 to consi der the
submitted by Valley Waste
and Pl easant Hi 11 Bay Shore
13028- 9/85
V AlLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT
AlTERNATE RATE ADJUSTMENT ANAlYSIS
DISPOSAl EXPENSES BASED ON S47/TON
(000 Omftted, Unless Otherwfse Noted)
Pass-Through
Acne Landff1l
Dfsposal Expense
Wfthout Profft
MarQfn
Forecasted Unadjusted Revenues for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1990
S 8,700
Forecasted Operating Expenses for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1990
Deduct: Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
10,078
<A><3,564>
Forecasted Operating Expenses Adjusted for Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
6,514
Forecasted Revenue Required to Produce 94 Percent Operating Ratio
Add: Forecasted Franchise Fee
Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
6,930
85
<A> 3,564
Forecasted Revenues Adjusted for Forecasted Franchise Fee and
Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
10,579
Increase in Forecasted Revenues Required
1,879
Percent Increase in Forecasted Revenues Required
21.601
Attachment I
Per
District
Analysis
8,700
10,078
10,721
85
10,806
2,106
24.20%
Current
Effect of Alternate Rate Adjustment on Rates
Representatfve Collectfon Rates:
Residential - Single Can $ 12.95 $15.75 $16.10
Commercial - Single Can $ 14.75 S17.95 $18.30
20-Yard Drop Box $192.95 S234.65 $239. 65
SSS/Rate Setting 1988-89/VWM Alt Rate
ORItI>A-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
ALTERNATE RATE ADJUSlMENT ANAL. YSIS
DISPOSAL EXPENSES BASED ON S47/TON
(000 Omitted, Unless Otherwise Noted)
Pass-Through
Acme Landff1l
Disposal Expense
Without Profit
Mar~in
Forecasted Unadjusted Revenues for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1990
S 3,502
Forecasted Operating Expenses for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1990
Deduct: Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
3,835
<A> <946>
Forecasted Operating Expenses Adjusted for Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
2,889
Forecasted Revenue Required to Produce 94 Percent Operating Ratio
Add: Forecasted Franchise Fee
Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
3,073
35
<A> 946
Forecasted Revenues Adjusted for Forecasted Franchise Fee and
Acme Landfill Disposal Expense
4,054
Increase in Forecasted Revenues Required
552
15.761
Percent Increase in Forecasted Revenues Required
Attachment II
Per
District
Analysis
3,502
3,835
4,080
35
4, 115
613
17 .50%
Current
Effect of Alternate Rate Adjustment on Rates
Representative Collection Rates:
Residential - Single Can (Orinda) $ 13 . 95 $16.15 $16.40
Residential - Single Can (Moraga) $ 12.45 S14.40 $14.65
Commercial - Single Can $ 15.00 S17.35 $17 . 65
20-Yard Drop Box $203 . 60 S235.70 $239.25
SSS/Rate Setting 1988-89/0-M Alt Rate
~J N LI) OLl) Lt'l 11 ~I 0 Lt'l LI) LI)
- 'r 0 C'I"l co C'I"l .-l .q- \0 \0 N
.~ u. LI) co 0 ..-l . . . .
~~ .. .. .. .. \0 .q- t- 0\
C'I"l C'I"l .q- .q- .-l ..-l .-l C'I"l
CltU t.I"t t.I"t t.I"t N
I-i c: t.I"t
I-i t-< t.I"t
H CD
Q) a..
~ III
c: C c
~ CD....
.c Q) ~ ~ ~~ CI):
v (jLLJIUQ)Z U
tU :E> c:
~ <.... Ot-IU
~ lU+JglU_ ^ ~] ~
< .clll_ Q)t- N LtHO I' \0 \OLt'I"\O r-l Lt'I ~ 0 ~
C) 0 It- 0:: >- IG" 0 C'I"l.CO ,... \OC'I"l .. ~ Lt'I co
::J Q. 0 >' Lt'I ~~ C7\ r-l C7\ . . . .
Ol/)'-~'- .. .. .. .. \0 ;:!; I' r-l
'-_a.. 0 Q) C'I"l C'I"l N C'I"l .. r-l r-l ~
.cQ ........1/) ..... ..... .....
I- ~....t-c ^ ^ .....
1....::J<a..Q) ... ~ ~
III .... 0
I/)-.c~lt-X
IUIt-~COW
a..~_1U
:;-
-I
~t-
Q) IU Q)
> Q) I/) ~I ,
0>- C Q) N Lt'I ,... N NLt'I" r-l Lt'I Lt'I ~ ~
~ '- Q) U 0 C'I"l co N I'C'I"l r-l ,... 0\
Q. C. Lt'I co 0\ I""l N . . . .
O::OXIU .. .. .. .. .. 0 \0 ;:!; co .
-UJ_ C'I"l C'I"l C'I"l oo:t .. N I""l r-l ~
.'- '- ..... ..... .....
. .... oa..~Rf
(,,)CI)~ ~ .... Q) > .....
ZI-l Q) ....It-Z
I-l(l)~ ~ co
>-,
.. ...J I' Z CD
~<~ III
Q) 0 c:
I-i~ I/) 0\ 0 CD
ffi!z~ - C7\ 0\ a. +J
~ ..-l 0\ X C 1/)1 LI) LI) 0 0
..-l lLJ Q) Q) 0\ .q- 0 \0
CI)~ffi Q) .. '-+J . . . .
.c 0 .. r- 0 '-ll:f C'I"l N LI) C'I"l
...J CI) g C'I"l 0 tU .,.... ::J 0::' ..-l ..-l .-l 0
<(1)< C'I"l III ~ (,,) N
(I)::;)CC CD 0 tU t.I"t t.I"t t.I"t t.I"t
~~CI) III c: CD a. 0:: "0
I/) ::J c: III c:
CI) LLJ Q) ....., ::J .... 0> tU
I-l CI) .... ....., Cl c:
i~~ C 0> .... CD
::::l c: 0> r- ~ CD
..... c: r- tU LL..
.. '0 .,.... ..... t-
~ c: "0 CD I+- CD CD
~~ ! W c: V '0 a. III
lLJ c: c: 0 .,.... tU Itl
t- Itl Itl .c '0 0>
<~~ - tU t- .,.... -l ~ V c: tU
S CD tU t- c: C "0 .,.... t-
~~CI) >- CD tU CD Q) tU CD t- o
>- > 0 V t- t- "0 ~
1-l~1-l C r- t- LL.. .,.... 1/)...... ......
~ Q 0 tU r- CD < CD ::J
0 V tU CD III a.. CD '0 f::T c:
...... III V III c: t- V CD CD Itl c:
.,.... III c: CD 0 .q- tU ~ 0:: '-' tU
LL.. .,.... CDa. I+- 0\ c: CD III '0 '-'
LL.. a. X .,.... III tU CD III CD
CD XlLJ "0 CD t- c: V t- CD r- CD
.c CDW CD V tU CD CD .,.... ::J 0> r-
~ .c ~ ~ ::J >a. t- ::J c: c: 0> t-
~r-CD III '0 X 0 0- CD .,.... c: X tU
t- tUz ::J 0 CDCDlLJ LL.. CD CD > (I) ..... 0 >
0 t- III ......, t- CD CD III 0:: CD c.n CD
I+- o 0 t- '0 a..LL..LL..r- t- c: 0:: ~
I+- a. Itl < Itl 0 CD III a. r-
III III CD o CD CD III I+- a. CD "0 r- 0 <
CD 111.....>- III ~1Il1ll0 X ::J CD tU r- t-
::J CDCl CD "r- .,- C. '0 W c: ~ .,.... tU Cl ~
c: III t- III "O.c.clll CD CD III ~ ..... I
CD C:r-O c: CD V v.,.... ~r- > tU c: V '0 0
> Q) r- -r- CD t-c:c:Cl III tU CD V CD t- t- "-
CD 0.-,... L- a. .....tUtU ::J III 0:: CD '0 ~ tU 0\
0:: XI+-a.. x ::Jt-t-r- ......, 0 t- .,.... >- co
w'O UJ o-LL.. LL.. r- '0 a. '0 0 III E I I
'0 C:I+- CD .,.... <Ill CD LL.. CD 0 0 co
CD 0>1tl0 0> o::"Ot-I+- .,.... ~ 0:: '-' N co
~ C:-l c: CDItl"O IIlCl III c: 0\
III ..... ~ .,.... CD ~ CD c: CD tU .,.... ..-l
::J ~CD ~ ::J III >- Itl ::J r- V
......, tU E 0> tU c: tU -l C:r- 0> CD 0>
'0 t- V > t- CD V t- CD.,.... t- III c:
tU 0>< 0 0> >0>00> >1+- 0 tU .,....
e: a. U a. 0> '-.,.... 0 0>"0 LL.. 0> ~
:::> 0 0> 0 lYO'- lYe: '- ~
..0:: LL..a..< Itl c: V CD
'0 'O~ '0 '0 "0 -l .,.... c: c.n
CD CD V 0> CD CD H
~ -f-)::ln ~ ~ .. ~CD CD CD
III 111'0'0 III 111"0 III E III ~ ~
Itl tUCD'O Itl 1tl"O Itl V Itl c: Itl
V VCl< v v< v< CD CD 0::
CD CD CD CD CD t- V "-
t- t- t- t- t- o t- U)
0 0 0 0 0 c: CD U)
LL.. LL.. LL.. LL.. LL.. H a.. en
CITY COUNCIL
JRi~c~aYfEfl)
JUN 30 1989
Avon M. Wilson, Mayor
Richard F. Holmes, Vice Mayor
Ernest W. Parti
Donald L. Tatzin
Gayle B. Uilkema
eceaD. ... .
~"'~RF.TM\Y Of TH1c= t'I't"t:'ll''''''
LAFAYETTE
Sn-rI.t:D IIH8=I:\VOKPOR.ATt:D.988
June 27, 1989
Ms. Susan Rainey, President
Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 9~5J
Dear M~~I
The Lafayette City Council met on June 26, 1989 to discuss the
rate increase request from Valley Waste Management, Inc. After review of
the Price Waterhouse study and recommendation and input from Central
Sanitary District staff, the City Council adopted the following position:
1. The City of Lafayette does not favor the pass through of
unrealized profit.
2. The City will support the
(less other operational savings) to be
amortization schedule.
increased cost
recouped on a
of landfill
three-year
3. The City believes that the operating ratio should be 97%
rather than 94%.
4. The City
Management may reapply
known. Support of an
presented at that time.
concurs with Price Waterhouse that Valley Waste
for a rate adjustment when transfer costs are
increase will be determined by facts and data
5. The Council supports the recommendation
surcharge to subsidize recycling and urges that the program
as soon as possible.
of a $.95
be commenced
Thank you for glvlng us the opportunity to comment, and we
appreciate the analysis and backup that was provided for our review.
AMW:sj
cc: City Councilmembers
251 LAFAYETTE CIRCLE, LAFAYETTE, CA 94549
TELEPHONE: (415) 284-1968
26 orindo way . orinda . callfornio 94563 . 415' 254.3900
June 30, 1989
W~rg~DWf!1OJ
JUN 3 0 1989
Paul Morsen, Deputy General Manager
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553-4392
cccso
e-""",M','.q, Of T,..tr "I~."'"
Dear Mr. Moreen:
The Orinda City council has received and reviewed the Orinda-
Moraga Disposal Service, Inc. rate application and the District's
analysis of the application which is scheduled for hearing by
your Board on JUly 6, 1989. It is understood that the
application requests an across-the-board refuse collection rate
increase of 18.22%, mainly contingent upon increases in disposal
fees to be effective on JUly 1, 1989. The City Council has
unanimously voted to indicate to the Board its belief that a rate
increase granted for July 1, 1989 should be subject to later
confirmation of the results of the County's review of the fees to
be charged at the transfer station. The review, which is
scheduled for completion in August or September, should contain
information justifying the rate increase.
With regard to the curbside recycling program scheduled to
commence in September, 1989, the City Council is of the opinion
that successful recycling efforts have been predicated on makinq
recycling economically attractive to the participants. One such
method might be to reduce the cost of collection of non-
recyclables to participants in the reoycling program. The
Council asked that the District continuously review ana pursue
methods to provide incentives for recyoling.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the rate
increase proposal.
Sincerely,
/7 / /
{;~~:'I'".'><'/1_.... _ ...': . ~'1.. :.' ..1. '.:~" ..~,. '~../
Tom Sinclair
City Manager
^'-'
TS:nh
cc: George Navone
c0d c.!..l
!::iaN I ClO .:10 ,),,1 I :>
'!"c:ll 68, 0~ Nnr
RECEIVED
JUl 5 1989
_ CCCSD
.~01THF"'~"""'.
July 5, 1989
Honorable Susan Rainey, President
and Members of the Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Members of the Board:
On behalf of the Danville Town Council, thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the rate proposals and service issues
that you will consider at your July 6th hearing.
The following summarizes our concerns:
Recycling
1. We appreciate the thorough work of Central San staff in
moni toring pilot program results and costs. We appreciate the
cooperation with our staff and elected officials in pilot
program implementation and especially note the excellent work
of Harriette Heibel on this project.
2. We realize that curbside recycling will not be self-supporting
because the value of the materials collected cannot support
the cost of providing this service. We believe the
recommended rate of 95 cents per household per month is in
line with the cost of. such programs in this County and
throughout the State.
3. We believe that curbside recycling will not negatively impact
non-profit groups that rely upon recycling, but we ask that
this be monitored and that should any negative impact occur,
that it be mitigated to the extent possible.
4. We are pleased with the extraordinarily high level of
participation by Danville residents in the pilot program, and
we believe this was due in part to the involvement by Central
San staff and our own Danville staff. We urge you to continue
to allocate staff resources to this effort, and we pledge to
do the same.
510 La Gonda Way · Danville, California 94526
(415) 820-6337
Automated Curbside pick-up
1. We believe that ratepayers, faced with extraordinarily high
increases, deserve the opportunity to consider a change to
curbside automated pick-up service for a reduction in cost.
2. We are disappointed that Valley Waste Management has not yet
supplied information that would detail program costs and
savings.
3. We urge Valley Waste Management to cooperate in every way to
offer the efficiencies of automated pick up to ratepayers.
4. We believe that once program cost information is available,
ratepayers deserve an opportunity to make an informed decision
concerning automated curbside pick-up. The Town requests that
we be given the opportunity to hold local hearings concerning
this "level of service" question (approximately 6 weeks)
5. We believe the Board's plan to continue with the process of
setting rates as scheduled, with automated service to be
considered separately, is a sound one. Insti tution of
automated service should not be tied to other unrelated
issues.
Refuse Rates
1. We would like to see recyclers receive a benefit for their
efforts and, therefore, favor a rate that is more heavily
weighted for the second can. We recognize the need to avoid
further complications in the current rate-setting scenario
and, therefore, suggest that the "unrealized profit" surcharge
of 65 cents a can be added to the second can rate and be used
to weight rates to favor recyclers and others who produce only
one can of refuse. Such a weighted rate would also favor
seniors or other citizens on fixed incomes.
2. We agree that rate decisions should be re-examined if Acme
fees change significantly.
3. As a means of informing the public, we favor adding to all
refuse billings a line item showing the portion of the billing
attributable to landfill fees.
Honorable Susan Rainey
July 5, 1989
Page 3
4. We thank Central San staff, especially Danville resident Walt
Funasaki, for their careful analysis of these complex rate
questions.
Again, we thank you for the opportunity to comments on these
issues.
Sincerely yours,
b:le~~
Mayor
.
Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary LJlstrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE
OF 4
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
July 6, 1989
NO.
IV.
BIDS AND AWARDS
1
SUBJECT DATE
July 3, 1989
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MONTEREY MECHANICAL COMPANY TYPE OF ACTION
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORINDA CROSSROADS PUMP STATION
ODOR CONTROL PROJECT, DP 4531 AUTHORIZE AWARD
SUBMITTED BY
Jade A. Sullivan
Assistant En ineer
Department
Division
ISSUE: On June 29, 1989, sealed proposals were received and opened for the
construction of District Project No. 4531, Orinda Crossroads Pump Station Odor
Control. The Board of Directors must authorize award of the contract or reject
bids within 60 days of the opening of the bids.
BACKGROUND: A predesign and planning study was prepared to determine how to
minimize odors from the Orinda Crossroads Pump Station. Any odors from the pump
station have the potential of being detected by the nearby businesses and BART
commuters. This project is designed to make two major improvements to the
existing Orinda Crossroads Pump Station. First, the foul air and office and work
space airstreams will be separated to eliminate any chance of mixing the two
airstreams. Second, the foul air from the wet well will be directed through
activated carbon and chemically treated media to minimize any odors. The filtered
air will then be discharged to the atmosphere. The Orinda Crossroads Pump Station
Odor Control Project is included in the 1989-90 Capital Improvement Budget
beginning on pg. CS-125.
As part of a property right exchange, an adjacent developer (Clark Wallace, Orinda
Theatre Square) has entered into an agreement with the District to contribute
$40,000 to the construction budget. The District is designing and building an
odor control system so that it will be completed prior to occupancy of the Orinda
Theatre Square development.
Plans and specifications for the project were completed and the project was
advertised on June 8, 1989. Five bids ranging from $124,000 to $175,900 were
received on June 29, 1989. A bid tabulation is shown in Attachment 1. The
Engineering Department conducted a technical and commercial evaluation of the bids
and concluded that the lowest responsible bidder is Monterey Mechanical Company of
Oakland, CA. The Engineer's Estimate for construction is $105,000. The budget to
complete this project is $122,280 (Attachment II).
District staff will administer the contract and provide inspection services. Shop
drawing review and office engineering services will be provided by Dodson & Young.
This project has been evaluated by staff and determined to be exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines,
Section 18.2, since it involves a minor alteration of the existing Orinda
~
J Mt:~
to I RAB
~\'2"
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9/85
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MONTEREY MECHANICAL COMPANY
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORINDA CROSSROADS PUMP STATION
ODOR CONTROL PROJECT, DP 4531
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 2 OF 4
DATE
July 3, 1989
Crossroads Pump Station to reduce odors and that no expansion to the capacity of
the pump station is occurring.
A Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk on October 7, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of the contract for the amount of $124,000 for
construction of the Orinda Crossroads Pump Station Odor Control Project, District
Project No. 4531, to Monterey Mechanical Company, as the lowest responsible
bidder.
13028-9/85
_ ATTACHMENT I _
Cen'~ al ~ontra Costa Sa.. ~it .ry District
8UMMAAY OF BICB
PROJECT NO.
4531
- Ori nda Crossroads PS Odor Control DATE 6/29/89
ENGR. EST. $ 105,000
LOCATION
0:
~
BICCRA (Name, telephone & address)
BIC PAle.
---
Monterey Mechanical ( ) $
1 124.000
-
Albay Construction ( ) $
2 138,800
Dalzell Corporation ( ) $
3 137,900
Pacific Mpchanical Corporation ( ) $
4 149,000
TICO Construction ( ) $
5 175,900
( ) $
( ) $
.....-
( ) $
.....-
( ) $
I--
( ) $
I--
( ) $
-
( ) $
-
PREPARED BY
DATE
SHEET NO.
OF
2503-51/84
ATTACHMENT II
Orinda Crossroads Pump Station
Odor Control Project
DP 4531
Post-Bid Construction Estimate
% Constr.
Contract
Item
Description
Amount
1.
Construction Contract
$124,000
2.
Estimated Construction
Contingencies @ 12%
14,880
3.
Subtotal
138,880
100%
4. Estimated Construction
Services to Project
Completion
Inspection
Engineering during
Construction
Contract Administration
Engineering Service
(Dodson & Young)
As-Built Drawings
Legal
9,000
7,000
3,200
3,500
400
300
23,400 17%
162,280
5. Subtotal
6. Total Estimated Construction
Cost
7. Prebid Expenditures
Predesign Study (Planning Div.)
Design (CCCSD)
Design by Consultant
19,000
11,100
38,000
8.
Subtotal
66,100
47%
9.
Estimated Total Project Cost
228,380
10.
Less Clark Wallace Contribution
-40,000
11.
Less Funds Previously Authorized
-66,100
12.
Total Estimated Additional
Allocation of Funds Required
to Complete the Project
$122.280
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE OF 3
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
NO.
SUBJECT
IV.
DATE
BIDS AND AWARDS
REJECT ALL BIDS SUBMITTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT
PROJECT 4120, STORM DAMAGE REPAIR - SOUTH TRAIL CREEK
CROSSING
TYPE OF ACTION
REJECT BIOi
INFORMATION
Department
Division
SUBMITTED BY
Ba T. Than
ISSUE: On June 8, 1989, sealed bids were received and opened for the construction
of District Project 4120, Storm Damage Repair - South Trail Creek Crossing. The
Board of Directors must authorize award of a contract or reject all bids within 60
days of the opening of sealed bids.
BACKGROUND: The original creek crossing at South Trail, Orinda, was constructed in
1949 (see attached map). It consisted of a 100 foot span of 6-inch mortar-lined
steel pipe, secured by two trestle bent supports. During the winter of 1983, high
storm" flows caused the creek bank to erode resulting in a shallow slide which
undermined one of the trestle bent supports. This, in turn, caused the pipeline
to deflect and become permanently deformed. Immediate action was taken to remove
one trestle bent and to prevent further slope erosion around the remaining support.
The South Trail Creek Crossing storm damage repair is included in the fiscal year
1988/1989 Capital Improvement Budget beginning on page CS-79.
Plans and specifications for the project were completed by District staff and the
project was advertised on May 22 and May 29, 1989. Plans and specifications were
issued to a total of 27 prospective contractors and sub-contractors for this
project. Only one bid was received at the bid opening on June 8, 1989. The sole
bidder, Mountain Cascade, Inc., submitted a bid of $169,000. The engineer's
estimate is $60,000.
The Engineering Department staff conducted a technical and commercial evaluation
of the bid and reviewed the engineer's estimate. Staff recommends that the Board
reject the bid because of the high cost. Staff believes that the reasons for
receiving only one bid and the high cost of the single bid are (1) an unfavorable
bidding climate (i.e., contractors are busy), (2) the small size of the project,
and (3) the limited access to the job site for equipment and materials.
The existing South Trail Creek Crossing is not in imminent danger of failure.
Staff proposes to review the options for repairing the crossing and revise the
plans as necessary. To receive more favorable bids, this project may be merged
with one or more other projects to create a larger construction contract and could
be bid at a more favorable time. Staff will investigate the most appropriate
course of action for proceeding with the project.
1302A-9/85
BTT
cws
~1 L I Ie
.fO ./ RAB
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
'6TT
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
~w~ ~
DRH
SUBJECT
REJECT ALL BIDS SUBMITTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT
PROJECT 4120, STORM DAMAGE REPAIR - SOUTH TRAIL CREEK
CROSSING
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
3
OF
June 30, 1989
RECOMMENDATION: Reject all bids received for construction of the District Project
No. 4120, Storm Damage Repair - South Trail Creek Crossing.
13028-9/85
~~
..
"_o...EL EL '76'
r ROUND TOP
VICINITY MAP
NTS
E
1?
1?
SYSTEM MAP
NTS
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
..
SOUTH TRAIL PROJECT LOCATION
2523-9 '88
.
Cen"al Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
J ul 6
1989
NO.
v.
CONSENT CALENDAR 11
SUBJECT
QUITClAIM SEWER EASEMENT, JOB NO. 4541, SUBDIVISION 7176,
ROSSMOOR AREA
DATE
June 30, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
APPROVE QUITClAIM
OF EASEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
Denn1 sHall
Associate En 1neer
INITlA TING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: U.D.C. - Universal Development L.P., owner-developers of Subdivision 7176,
has requested the District to quitclaim a sewer easement which lies within Lot 1
of Subdivision 7176, and within an adjoining parcel of land owned by U.D.C.
BACKGROUND: The subject easement was granted at no cost to this District in 1988.
During the District's plan review process, the alignment of the sewer was
subsequently adjusted to more efficiently serve the subdivision. A new easement
has been granted for the revised sewer alignment. The subject easement is no
longer needed and may now be qu1tcl aimed. The property owner has pa1 dour
quitclaim processing fee. When the sewers in the replacement easement are
installed and accepted by the District, the temporary pump station which is now
serving this subdivision will be abandoned and removed.
This project has been evaluated by staff and determined to be exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEnA Guidelines Section
18.6, since it involves a minor alteration in land use limitations.
R.ECOr+1ENDATION: Approve Quitclaim Deed to U.D.C. - Universal Development L.P.,
Job 4541, authorize the President of the District Board of Directors and the
Secretary of the 01 strict to execute sa1 d Quitcl aim Deed, and authorize the
Quitclaim Deed to be recorded.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
!^
1302A-9/85
DH
tL
f=C\2-
INITIATING DEPTlDIV.
R./CHIEF ENG.
@L/
~
.0
/
I
I
I
,.,...
RA\N ROAO
GOlOEN
QUITCLAIM EASEMENT
JOB 4541 PARCEL 1
ROSSMOOR AREA
.
Cen\(al Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 13
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Jul 6
NO.
1989
v.
CONSENT CALENDAR 12
SUBJECT
DATE
ORDER COMPLETION OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION 110-A
June 26, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
COMPLETE ANNEXATION
OF DA llD-A
SUBMITTED BY
Denni sHall
Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPT./DIV
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: A resolution by the District's Board of Director's must be adopted to
finalize District Annexation lID-A.
BACKGROUND: The District previously made appl ication to the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the annexation of ten parcels of land designated
as District Annexation 110. LAFCO has considered this request and has recommended
that Parcel s 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10, as shown on the attachments, be processed as
submitted. LAFCO has desi gnated these parcel s to be Di strict Annexati on No.
llO-A. No public hearing is requi red and the annexation of these parcel s can be
completed.
A Negative Declaration addressing the proposed annexations was prepared by LAFCO
pursuant to GEOA and was used by LAFCO in making its determinations and approving
this annexation. In accordance with District CEOA Guidelines Section 7.17(f), the
Board must review and consider the environmental effects of the project as shown
in the Negative Declaration which is attached as Exhibit A before approving the
annexation. District staff has reviewed said Negative Declaration and concurs
with its findings.
RECOMM~NDATION: Adopt a resolution concurring with and adopting the Negative
Decl arati on of LAFCO, certifying that the Board has reviewed and consi dered the
Negative Declaration, ordering the fil ing of a Notice of Determination as a
Responsible Agency stating that the District considered the Negative Declaration
as prepared by LAFCO as required, and ordering the completion of District
Annexation No. lID-A.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
~
flI)j
--:::r A,1t ~L
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
1302A-9/85
DH
JSM
f'n'/RAB
1:,,,,,.
.......
~.~\\\~.
*
FIKOVSKY
(1466$ (I./(. 1ge)
?-A. .e -I"
~ = PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
~
EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
:;:;:~:~::::::::{:~ :=
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
SIGNED PETITION
*
.--
.e" '/
~O/j;
DISTRICT ANNEXATION 110
PARCEL 1
D.A. 110-A
/P08.
:!
~
'I)
!II
~
~
.
III
~
o
F. J. HILL if
/3/07 P-le. /Sf
~A.87:-1!>
2.32 Ac.
SHAN6R./ --i.I.-
~ = PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
~
EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
* SIGNED PETITION
';';t..:.;
.,-~
(to
DISTRICT ANNEXATION 110
PARCELS 2 & 3
D.A. 110-A
~
'\!Y
PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
PROPOSED ANNEXA TION
SIGNED PETITION
MIL =
*
15
DISTRICT ANNEXATION 110
PARCEL 5
D.A. 110-A
OANV/LLE
(3/
GAROEN5
M 26)
~
~
~
~ e
~
~
~
~
~
42
41
89
90
~l
~
@
it"
67
~I ~
it" ~ ~
68 \\I()
I/)
t!'lJ
116
581035'E 238 ..
WIi.i.DH
I
I
DR.
~l;-l
~~
i~~~0i101&f
a
~
~=
PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
*
EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
PROPOSED ANNEXA liON
SIGNED PETITION
2=i!:=
DISTRICT ANNEXATION 110
I
PARCEL 10
D.A. 110-A
EXHIBIT A
~
o a mill
APR 2 G 1989
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO)
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
M.~.~~et!t
SIGNIF~~A COSTA COUNTY
Otputy
O. FlJ\ Ct'''tn~
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
Person (Applicant): Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Project Title: District Annexation No. 110 to Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District (LAFC 89-10)
Project Location: Orinda, Alamo, Danville
Responsible Agency Contact Person:
,Dewey E. Mansfi~ld, Executive Officer.
Contra Costa. County
8th Floor, McBrien Administration Bldg.
Martinez, CA 94553 (415) 646-4090
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRI~ON (Nature,. Purpose, Beneficiaries, Reasons
Environmentally Insignificant):
This is for the annexation of approximately twelve acres of land to the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. It consists of 10 separate
groupings of land located within the Orinda, Lafayette, Alamo, and
Danville areas of the County. The Executive Officer may recommend the
addition of adjacent properties to provide for more logical district
boundaries.
These areas are all planned and zoned' for growth'andwil~ allow for
infill development. .There are no known adv~rse environmental impacts
of this project as originallY proposed or as modified to add additional
.parcels as r~commeded l:>ythe LAFCO..~ecutive .Officer., Mo~tpf tne home
. ..,cons.tmction 'itsel.f. would be ,catego~i"ca.llY exerript~'Under~ CEQA~ . .Several'.
lots are annexing to resolve xailing septic tanks.
It . is,. ,determined fro~. ..in:i;tial study by Jim cutler. ,t~at this.: project, ...
does not have a significant effect on the environment.
( X) Justification for negative declaration is attached.
The Initial Study is available at the above-noted~ff~~~ J'.'~
Date Posted: APR 2 6 1989 Signed by: ~ c--/ //1 a-u/V-f.
LAFCO utive Officer /
Date of Final Appeal: May 10, 1989
Original: County Clerk
cc: LAFCO File
LOCAL At,;ENCY FORMATION COMMISSION \.LAFCO)
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
File Name: LAFC 89-10
Prepared By: JIM CUTLER
Date: 3-27-89
A. RECOMMENDATION:
( )Categorical Exemption (X)Negative Declaration ( )Environmental Impact
Report Required
.The project (May) (Will Not) Have A Significant Effect On The
Environment.
These areas are 'all planned and zoned for growth and will allow for
infill development. There are no known adverse environmental impacts
of this project as originally proposed or as modified to add additional
parcels as recommeded by the LAFCO Executive Officer. Most of the home
construction itself would be categorically exempt under CEQA. Several
lots are annexing to resolve failing septic tanks.
B. PROJECT INFORMATION: .
1. Project Location and Description:
This is for the annexation of approximately twelve acres of
land to the Central Contra Costa sanitary District. It
consists. of 10 separate groupings of land located within the
Orinda, Lafayette,' Alamo, and Danville areas of the Cqunty..
The E~ecutive Offic~r may recommend the additon of adjacent
pr~pert;i~s .to provide for more logical district boundaries'.
"'. ....
,r. ,... ",
. 2. Site Descripti.on:
The . sites ate 'ali: planned or developed as'. single: f~iIY' 'h~mes ,
except for parcel 6, which is to be used for office type use.
These include many individual parcels which require services.
3. Character of Surrounding Areas:
The areas are all developed for single family residential uses
at suburban intensities.
-2-
C.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Does the project conform to City or County
General Plan proposals including the various
adopted Elements?
Single family residential
Yes No Maybe N/A
x
---
General Plan Designation; source: Orinda, Lafayette, Danville,
and County General Plans
2. Does the project conform to existing (or
proposed) zoning classification?
Classification:
R-15, R-20, R-40
3. Does it appear that any feature of the
project, including aesthetics, will
generate significant public concern?
Nature of Concern:
4. will the project require approval or permits
by agencies other than LAFCO?
x
---
x
---
x
---
Other Agency? Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
*S=Significant N=Negligible C=Cumulative No=None U=Unknown N/A=Not
Applicable
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (include mitigation measures
for significant effects where possible)
1. Earth Will the proposal. result in or be
. subject to:
a) Erection of st~ucture~ within.an Alquist-.
. ~ri<>.lQ ~ct:Speci,a:J.. S~~ciie~ ..zop.~.?. . .
b) Grading (consider amount and aesthetics)?
dope.fo~.develqpment,appli9a~ip~ .
c) Slides, liquefaction or other hazards on
or immediately adjoining the site?
d) Adverse soil or topographic characteristics
(consider soils type, slope, septic tank
limitations, etc.)?
e) Wind or water erosion of soils, on site or
off?
f) Prime agricultural lands?
Discussion:
*S N. C No U N/A
.. :.. X
"""-' - ..-- -
X
----
- ---
X
----
--_-!
--_-!
___l_-
-3-
2. Air Will the project result in deterioration
of existing air quality, including creation
of objectionable odors?
Discussion:
3. Water Will the project result in:
a) Erection of structures within a designated
flood hazard (prone) area?
b) Reduction of surface or ground water quality
or quantity? .
c) Alteration of drainage patterns or runoff?
d) Disruption of streams or water bodies?
Discussion: .
4. Plant/Animal Life Will the project result in:
a) Changes in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of plants or animals?
b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants or animals?
c) Introduction of new species of plants or
animals into an area, or inhibition of the
normal replenishment, migration or movement
of existing species?
d) Reduction in aqreage of any agricultural crop
o~ existing' fish or wildlife' habitat?
Discu'ssion:
5'.
Noise.Will the project result in:
.a) Structures within the 60dBA noise contour per
the. . General. ptan Noise..Eleme.nt? ":'
b) Increases from existing noise levels?
Discussion:
6. Natural Resources Will the project affect the
potential use, extraction, conservation or
depletion of a natural resource?
Discussion:
s !! ~ No !I N/A
___X
___x
___x
X
- - --
X
- - --
x
- - --
___x
___x
x
- - --
_'_'~X"
X
- - --
X
-4-
7. Energy Will the project result in demands upon
existing sources of energy, or require the
development of new energy sources?
S N C No U N/A
___X
Discussion:
8.
Utilities Will the project result in the need for
new systems or alterations to the following
utilities (including sphere of influence or district
boundary change): electricity, natural gas,
communications facilities, water, sewers, storm
drainage, solid waste disposal?
X
- --
Discussion: provision of sewer service to planned
development areas
9. Public Services Will the project result in the
need for:
a) New or altered services in the following areas:
fire protection, police protection, schools,
parks or other recreational facilities, roads,
flood control or other public works facilities,
public transit or other governmental services?
X
b) Alteration of sphere of influence boundaries?
x
- - --
c) Alteration of service district boundaries?
x
- --
Discussion: Eliminate islands of non district lands
'10. Transportation/Circulation (Consider the
Circulation~lement)Will the proje~t re~ult in:
a) Generation of:, ad.di"tionaIP~~hicui"ar' movement with
initiation or intensification of circulation
"problems (consider road design,' project "access,
congestion, 'hazards to vehicles, pedestrians)? "
x
- --
b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demands for new parking?
__x
c) Impact on existing waterborne, rail, air or
public transportation systems?
___x
Discussion:
-5-
11. Growth Inducement Will the project:
a) Alter the location, distribution, density
or growth rate of the human population of
an area?
S N f. No U N/A
x
b)
Affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing?
x
c)
Establish a precedent for additional requests
for similar uses?
x
d) Impacts or include agricultural preserve
lands?
x
e)
Impact on agricultural production?
x __
Discussion: Allows for a few homes to be constructed
12. Aesthetics Will the project obstruct any public
scenic vista or view, create an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view, or produce
new light or glare?
__x
Discussion:
13. Recreation Will the project affect the quality
or quantity of recreational opportunities?
__x__
14. Archeological/Historical Are there known
archeological, historical or other resources on
the site or in the general vicinity? (Historical
Resources Inventory and archeological' site 'maps). _ _ _ X _ _
Discussion:
.15'. Ha,zar,d: will the pro;ject'result: in' a'r.i'sk' of ,exp'ro'si6.rt;
release of hazardous 'substances or other dangers to '
public health or safety? _ _ _ X
Discussion:
-6-
16. Other (Consider impact on open space or
sprawl) Will the project result in other
significant effects on the environment?
Discussion:
17. Mandatory Findings of Siqnificance
(A "significant" check on any of the following
questions requires preparation of an EIR)
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, or curtail the
diversity in the environment?
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
d) Does the project have environmental
impacts which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Discussion:
~ N C No U N/A
X
------
X
X
X
- - --
__X_
Local Agency Formation.. Commiss.ion
pf Contra Costa County
McBrien Administration Bu~lding, 8th .FloQr
651 Pine.Street .
Martinez, California 94553
(415) 646-4090
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON PROJECT UNDER
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Lead Agency
Local Agency Formation Commission
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
Martinez, CA 94553
Phone: (415) 372-4090
~ 0 !!, moo
MAY 15 1989
Dewey E. Mansfield
Executive Officer
CO~TRA COSTA COUNTY
B """ /2 /\ ................-
y - Depl.rty
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 110 TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY
DISTRICT (LAFC 89-10), this proposal would annex + or - 12
acres in ten separate parcels adjacent to existing CCCSD
boundaries in the vicinities of the communities of Alamo,
Danville, Lafayette and Orinda. Property submitted for
annexation is identified by Assessor Parcel Nos. (APN)
167-160-020; 167-170-005; 187-130-006, 012; 192-041-005;
198-120-017, 018, 019; 208-043-015; 208-072-003;
208-073-004; 216-172-020, 021; 265-100-005; and
265-140-005. .
The Commission amended the boundaries of affected
territory to include additional properties identified by APN
187-130-002, 003, 004, 005, 007; 198-074-004; 208-042-016,
017; 208-044-008, 010, 011, 013; 208-072-007, 008; and
208-073-005. Also to be included is a + or - 2,100 foot
segment of the abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad
. right-of-way between Se~ena Avenue and Hemme Avenue in the
. Alamo area. .
.Applicant: . CCQSD
Decision on Project:
..]LApp roved. Denied. Withdrawn
Environmental Impact Report:
Will X Will not
have significant effect
___Prepared ~Not required
Decision on Environmental Impact:
LAFCO Negative Declaration
y E. ~~d~
cutive Officer
,
Date:
cc: File
.
Cen\(al Contra Costa Sanitcary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SUBJECT
POSITION PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
J ul
PAGE 1 OF 3
6, 1989
NO.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR 13
DATE
June 26, 1989
AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 89-20 (ALAMO) AND P.A. 89-21
(WALNUT CREEK) TO BE INClUDED IN A FUTURE ANNEXATION
TO THE DISTRICT
SUB~~1WiS; Hall
Associate Engineer
P a rce 1
No.
,
I Area
Alamo
(77D3)
89-20
89-21
Wal nut
I Creek
, <76Cl)
,
I
,
I
I
Owner, Address
Parcel No. & Acreaae
Virginia L. Neider
1574 Alamo Way
Alamo CA 94507
191-080-011 (0.23 AC)
Bertram & Gail Mudgett
147 Pebble Place
San Ramon CA 94583
138-130-002 (3.3 AC)
138-190-001 <3.3 AC)
138-190-002 ("1.9 AC)
138-190-003 (2.95 AC)
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT ANNEXATION FOR
PROCESSING
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
,
,
, Exi sti ng house with a
I fail ing septic system.
District to prepare
I "Notice of Exemption"
I
I
Remarks
Lead
Aaencv
CCCSD
Owner intends to build
I two new homes on property. I
'District to prepare ,
, "Noti ce of Exempti on"
I
,
I
I
CCCSD
.R.ECX>M\1ENDATION: Authorize P. A. 89-20 and 89-21 to be incl uded in a future formal
annexation.
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
12(
, 302A-9/85
DH
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
/111
JSM
~IL
fV RAB
~\'oo"
.. ~\) '..'0"", ~
. ;:,,,,,,,.,
. -~.I\ \~
::.1....-, L
33.12AC
':~~C-)
< 5 CI~~~~O:~ST.
BREAR
352 AC
HAVERFIELD
4 38 AC
AC
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
P.A. 89-20
J 0 ME 5
20.0QAC
~ · 30 AC L ';T ~~ ~_~W~f~ ~,~9'
_ZJ111 s:
Z I "-'-
j "l112~ ~~ CTIri-...w~<>::;...~.i.....: 6-Z363...~.... '" ."sEJitJe
. fb ?N:r,~ ';;' ,,:::.::'~~~~. ~ '" > ~ ",{"h,,",~ Ji!!
~ . .~'" .. T -r--::.. t!i- l7'g \13 14ltll ...:::.~ b~" <"~. IT...:
, ~~tt:fi:j ~~ 42,/ ." , ~ if 4 4 A \'I~ ~ ~ \ , '.%11. r iN"] l
\0 ,/ ~~%! RTtI w,. ~ ~ 40 '!A tIT ] b~ AJ1~,.. 482 ..0-
~ ~ <Ef" 37\CT\~I-IM"r:-."..,,:~ / ,;: ~rpj'/~IM)/O {~_~ ~ f I;'" -~77
~ 2.11 <<' s'....;;r\' ~ rJ L..f'LG- ..;" ~ . 'I}YA t1 'Iv," "
1?- ~~~\ e~: d::C... ~ 1'" .. HILL
~ % CTIO\II ~\_32\3C3T~~;? Fjtij '::... ri;, 1 _ jWg 8.. ...
.501 I" ...1, ~ ~ h ~fl."::/',~I,) ~ ~ :If
M"'~ 60 ~ ~ , 'A3I /I ,~~~ ~ 7/g0). <l ~()') AC.
-!:K. ~O..8~'1-'Zt,;fu.~O, 2e ueF ;z 'Y I,rr.: :
=<>&\.. - :>t~ ~( ..:~!.1. 23 8. Z " ~E.1 ~ U3 ,AC
~!l4 !l7'" g~ ;:Ji'l"~'f QUFll, . ':i.~ 51 ~
'S'u '-'till .cD ~ CT'1Y,,:I'!.8';4 10_
. 9 e :'. .
" Jb ..~.... Vc~L/j
) -I.J 16!1'" 50 ~''i- rj 2,;oAC
S TQNE. AVE" I' ~ " '49 I joJ
~ .~.... ;::'<I'.
~ 14 e8")lj ..... '" I
CD '7" Cl
~ <::J::
k!.o!,j LL!:- u 0
I C J't~ .. 0::; . OC
~ II ~~ :-0 g~t:tT -~ 6 C
~ r - ~ a::::Lr~EL RO D
L~ ~ "~. opdliARO ESTAT S . .........../itJii!ii:......... ~ ~
'i 0" ~ ~ ~12 OR I . ':cti,~o l~::;!.!.!.!.!.!. I 1
I-----' ~ ': U,: ... ':: ::::::;::::::
-~l.i~I~~.~.:::;t.Q!*_L'i; '~@
~~~ ~~ftL~~"~ .~.~~llt:i;'
.'~-'.!!~I' ~1 :;: 42 41~ 32 c:: ~ 7( ; ~f ~7Jjjj~' ..,.........................
, ~ ::-- ~o:;; ~~ ~ ~ ~io\<D ~~/1;d
.. .J ""." ~~ ~o ;+r:;J. ~ K.'j!n.~~ 8"' t}\,-- ~A.....
if ..:.':.,...,....::......,.:........:&.:.......:..).;;.c.,:. ~~...','.e.'.A..'.~.'.:..:: ",~...., ~"~ ~ tL . '. tL.--. ::::::::::::;; ",G..... I
;~ Zi <i]K ",-;:,t.. ~t22?":" ~~~'T1M ':.,:. t.<, . Cpr:,:,:: :.: :::.: fttiii: ",..
:.:.:;'S. ~ '.. . ..... 'f '" t ,. ~7'-<',;.,.,.:~...:~'/~airu ~+ (
~ ,J \Y-
\~.1 ....
;.:..::::.";'
..;..;.....
..............
;:;:::;:::;:;::
;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:
;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;
...............
;.;.;.;.;.;.;,;
.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.
.:::;:::;:;:::;
~t~~ItltI~
...............
..::::::::;:;:;:::
3,10 AC.
317
NORTH GATE RD
\
DIAIIl..O UlllFlEO
SCHOOL DIST.
SS.li7AC
In
~
WC AOAWS
21. :HAC
~:~:~._J~ ~&S}f ~.. >.
-, ~:::::':':,:'::r\! ...:;mr: ',:,,,). .....
-:1 ~,.i~;t~i:~~~.".:."""
93_ ~ \.---5~::.:::.. .!!fJt!!!p:.
lL ::::::::::::.
WC AOAWS
20.11 AC
GLEISS
,. .. AC
~
('.,~
.,.
I
I
I
I
E.P.MAOIGAH a
I
'.24AC ,
I
I
I
.ER
SCUO(
,AC
II. .1
~
I
':Y(~!!ff,f.;:
......N;JJW~!!!i':.. ~
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
/'1
\ ,
,,-
..C;jfflH~j!:j;:~~":,,
...........~..
"'imHj,,~':',:.
...... ."
..... .-..
.... ..
-- ~'.'f :~BJ/!;#~<::,\:::~::'
P.A. 89-21
-
HUMPHRIES
--
10.007 AC
- 1 I
2.83 AC.
HI<
\\ .21
~~
l
11
!I.20 AC
~
~
~
\'1-
G'
J~
%
2.98 AC.
11
/L
%.3"AC "\
81 TI<ER
10.00AC
\
\
I
Ir-
~
-ll.A4..C _
J
_ ________HJ?U_
10.(
>\
81
10
Ie
SOARI
8.41 ,
\1.0Ut \' ~
SON IHe.
'.50AC
/~
'?""- - !I. O.
\,
'.40AC
.
Central Contra Costa Sanit&fY District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
J ul 6, 1989
NO.
SUBJECT
ESTABLISH AUGUST 3, 1989, AT 3:00 P.M. AS THE DATE
AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON ANNEXATION 110 AS
AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO)
DATE
June 26, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
SET PUBLIC HEARING
SUBMITTED BY
Dennis Hall
Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: LAFCO has added properties to several of the parcels which are a part of
the above-referenced District annexation. A public hearing must be held before
this District can order the annexation of these amended parcels.
BACKGROUND: The above-referenced annexation was sent to LAFCO as required for the
formal annexati on process. LAFCO has amended the boundaries of several of the
parcels as submitted by the District. The amended parcels are designated as D.A.
110, Parcels B, C, D, and E. As required by law, staff will notify all affected
property owners 15 days prior to the public hearing.
RECO t+1ENPATION :
annexation of
Set a public hearing date on August 3, 1989, at 3:00 p.m. for the
the above-referenced territories as amended by LAFCO.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
alQtY
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
1302A-9/85 DH
.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
J ul 6
1989
NO.
VI.
ENGINEERING
1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT
DATE
ESTABLISH A POLICY FOR QUITCLAIMING OF EASEMENTS
June 30, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
ESTABLISH POLICY
SUBMITTED BY
Jay S. McCoy
Construction Division Manager
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
I,SSUE: At the June 1, 1989, meeting of the Board of Directors, the Board
requested staff to prepare a policy for quitclaiming of easements.
BACKGROUND: The current policy for quitclaiming easements has evolved over many
years. The practice is to receive requests for quitclaiming easements, collect a
processing fee (currently the fee is based on actual cost with an $87 minimum),
verify that the existing easement and sewer (if present) can be eliminated, and
process the quitclaim to the Board for action. In some cases, existing sewers
must be relocated at the expense of others to eliminate the need for the existing
easement.
At the June 1 Board meeting, the value of easements which are proposed for
quitclaiming was discussed. The following policy has been developed in accordance
with that discussion.
It is the pol icy of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District for the Board to
consider quitclaiming rights, title, and interest which the District may
have in existing sanitary sewer easements upon receipt of a quitclaim request
in accordance with the following. Requesters must pay a quitclaim processing
fee (which may be set and adj usted by the Board from time to time) and must
reimburse the District for the value of the existing easement. If the
existing easement was dedicated to the District at no cost, the District will
not attempt to collect the value of the easement when quitclaimed, except as
specifically directed by the Board.
If the Di stri ct purchased the easement, the current val ue of the easement
will be established, and the District must be reimbursed for that value. In
establishing the current value of the easement, the Board may consider:
o The value of the proposed easement
o The value of severance as it pertains to the existing easement
o The value of the existing pipe
o The value of the new pipe
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
p-e;YL--
J. DOLAN
SUBJECT
POSITION PAPER
ESTABLISH A POLICY FOR QUITCLAIMING OF EASEMENT
PAGE 2
DATE
OF
2
June 30, 1989
Staff will follow the practice noted above and incorporate the recommended policy
so that the value of existing easements will be collected for those instances when
the District has purchased the easements. This pol icy will be added to the
Engineering Department's Policy Manual.
HECOMMEND,ATION:
Establish a policy for quitclaiming of easements.
......--....---.
13028-9/85
"-~------------_'__'_"_~___"_'_'~_~_'_____~''''_'A_.___._._____.___..._._______.__,.______.__~_"
.
Cen ,(al Contra Costa Sanitc.ry District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 3
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
J ul 6, 1989
NO.
VI.
DATE
ENGINEERING 2
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXEOJTE
AN AGREEr-ENT WITH THE TOWN OF DANVILLE FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF TRUNK SEWER FACILITIES THROUGH THE
TASSAJ ARA RANQ-I ASSESSM:NT DISTRICT 1988-1
June 30 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
AUTHORIZE
AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
Jay S. McCoy
Construction Division Mana er
INITIATING DEPT/DIV.
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: Board approval is requi red to execute an agreement with the Town of
Danville for the installation of sanitary sewer facilities in Camino Tassajara as
a part of Danville's Tassajara Ranch Assessment District (TRAD) 1988-1.
~ACKGROUND: Tassajara Ranch is a combination of ten developments south of Camino
Tassajara near Crow Canyon Road. The developers of Tassajara Ranch were required
to construct approximately 3,000 feet of 30-inch trunk sewer in Camino Tassajara
as a condition of connecting new buildings to the existing sewer system.
Attachment 1 shows the general location of the developments and the 30-inch sewer.
The developers of Tassajara Ranch formed TRAD 1988-1 to finance the installation
of street, sewer, and other improvements incl uding the 30-inch trunk sewer.
Danville is administering TRAD 1988-1. An agreement is necessary between the Town
of Danville and the District to establish responsibilities with respect to
constructing the proposed 30-inch trunk sewer. District staff has negotiated an
agreement with Town of Danville staff which provides for the District to pay for
the installation of the 30-inch sewer in Camino Tassajara within the context of
TRAD 1988-1. This approach is in keeping with the recent installation of other
trunk sewer segments in Camino Tassajara where the District has paid the costs of
the sewers. The purpose for installation of sewers in conjunction with the current
road construction along Camino Tassajara is to eliminate the need to excavate for
future sewer installation in these newly constructed portions of Camino Tassajara
within the next ten years.
The proposed agreement calls for the District to pay to the Town of Danville the
actual cost of the sewer work ($725,000) and for the town to di stri bute thi s
amount to the assessment district where it will be credited against the
assessments. The agreement also includes standard indemnification paragraphs,
procedures for acceptance of work, responsibilities for maintenance of constructed
facilities, and provisions for expiration of the agreement. The $725,000 includes
the cost of design, construction, and assessment district administration by the
Town of Danville. The 30-inch sewer installation project is incl uded in the
1989-90 Capital Improvement Budget and is described beginning on page CS-24.
G
~
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF DANVILLE FOR THE INSTALLATION
OF TRUNK SEWER FACILITIES THROUGH THE TASSAJARA RANCH
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1988-1
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
3
June 30. 1989
This project has been eval uated by staff and determined to be exempt from the
California Environmental Qual ity Act (CEQA) under CEQA Statute Section 21080.21,
since it involves construction of a pipeline less than one mile in length in a
public right-of-way. A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Clerk.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engi neer to execute an
agreement with the Town of Danville for the installation of trunk sewer facilities
through Assessment District 1988-1.
1..-..______..
13028- 9/85
ATTACHMENT 1
30~
CENTER
.
Cen,(al Contra Costa Sanit~ry District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
July 6, 1989
NO.
LEGAL/LITIGATION
1
SUBJECT
DATE
June 30, 1989
RETURN WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION A CLAIM SUBMITTED
BY J. LEWIS & SON, INC.
TYPE OF ACTION
RETURN CLAIM
SU3~~kE~~Y Campbell
Administrative Operations Manager
INITIATING DEPT/DIV.
Administrative/Risk Management
ISSUE: Claims against public agencies in California must be presented within one
year of the loss occurrence for damages which do not involve personal injury or
property. This claim is for additional expenses allegedly incurred by a
subcontractor who worked on a District project in 1987-88.
BACKGROUND: J. Lewis & Son, Inc., was a subcontractor retained in 1987 by Western
Util ity Contractors, Inc. CWestcon), the general contractor for the San Ramon
Valley Phase "A" Project, to bore 385 feet of tunnel under the San Ramon Valley
Boul evard for the District's San Ramon Vall ey trunk sewer 1 ine. The project has
been completed and accepted by the District; however, there have been a few resid-
ual disputes connected with alleged extra work and additional payment amounts. J.
Lewis has now forwarded a claim for $389,283.97 through Westcon which was received
by the District Secretary on June 6, 1989. The cl aim is not specific as to the
date of loss and only refers to a general time period of "on or about 10/87 through
5/88 (ongoing)." Mr. Lewis has been advised of the deficiency regarding the date
of claim and responded with legal arguments, but he failed to clarify the nature of
the claim in terms of the one-year period.
The District has 45 days after claim presentation to determine whether or not a
claim is timely and to notify the claimant if it is not. The staff recommends that
the claim be returned to J. Lewis & Son, Inc., as being not timely filed because the
claim does not establish a loss within a year of the date of the claim.
RECOMMENDATION: Return without further action a claim submitted by J. Lewis & Son,
Inc., because it has not been timely filed.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
JEC
r PM
KA
I ITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
(L