HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 08-03-89
.
Centra~ ~ontra Costa Sanitary Astrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 7
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
August 3, 1989
NO.
III.
HEARINGS
1
SUBJECT
HOlD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON UNINHABITED DISTRICT
ANNEXATIONS 110-B, 110-C, 110-D, AND 110-E, AS
AMENDED BY THE LOCAL JlGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
(LAFCO) AND CONSIDER THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY LAFCO
DATE
July 26, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
HOLD HEARINGS
D.A. 110-B, 110-C,
110-D and 110-E
SUBMITD~~~l sHall
Associate Engineer
INITIALING DEPT./DIV.
tngineering Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: LAFCO has amended the boundaries of several of the parcel s incl uded
within District Annexation 110. The District must hold a public hearing and
consi der testimony by affected property owners before acti ng on the proposed
amended annexation.
BACKGROUND: The above- referenced annexati on was sent to LAFCO as requi red for
the formal annexation process. Part of the annexation, consisting of five.
parcels, was not changed. These five unamended parcels were submitted for Board
action on the consent calendar on July 6, 1989, as District Annexation 110-A. No
publ ic heari ng was requi red for these parcel s because they had 100 percent
landowner consent.
Of the five remaining parcels, two were combined by LAFCO into one parcel which
resulted in the decrease of the remaining parcels from five to four. LAFCO
amended the boundaries of these four parcels during its approval process. These
amendments were made to improve the continuity of the resulting District
boundary. The amended annexations are designated D.A. 110-B through E and are
considered to be four separate annexations. The four amended annexations, which
are uninhabited, are shown on the attached maps.
CEQA REQUIREMENTS
A Negative Declaration addressing the proposed annexations was prepared by LAFCO
pursuant to CEQA and was used by LAFCO in making its determinations and approving
this annexation. In accordance with District CEM 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.
1302A-9/85
DH
JSM
RAB
ENG.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
Gry'
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
SUBJECT
HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON UNINHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATIONS
110-B, 110-C, 110-0, AND 110-E, AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL
AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) AND CONSIDER THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY LAFCO
POSITION PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2 OF
7
July 26, 1989
ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS
District Annexation 110 as submitted to LAFCO was a single annexation. The
action by LAFCO separated District Annexation 110 into the subject four
uni nhabited annexati ons, which requi re a publ ic heari ng. Normal 1 y a separate
public hearing would be held for each of these four subject annexations. If no
members of the public appear, these annexations can be considered in one public
heari ng.
If a member of the publ ic wi shes to testify on a parti cul ar annexati on, a
separate public hearing shall be held on the annexation. The remaining
annexations will then be the subject of the second publ ic hearing.
Legal notice was published, and the affected property owners were notified of the
publ ic heari ngs as requi red by 1 aw. The amended annexati ons are uni nhabited
(fewer than 12 registered voters). Factors to be considered by the Board in
deci di ng to approve or di sapprove the proposed annexati ons are set forth as
Exhibit B*.
Following its review, the Board, not more than thirty (30) days after the
conclusion of the public hearing, shall adopt a resolution reflecting the
appropriate action taken:
1. Certify that the Board has reviewed and considered and concurs with the
adoption of the Negative Declaration of LAFCO.
2. Order the annexation if no written majority protest exists.
3. Disapprove the proposed annexations based upon any of the factors set forth
in Exhibit B*.
4. Terminate the annexation if the Board finds that written protests have been
filed and not withdrawn prior to the conclusion of the hearing representing
1 andowners owni ng 50 percent or more of the assessed val ue of the 1 and
within the territory proposed to be annexed.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing on all of the annexations or individual hearings on
D. A. 110-B, C, D, and E, as appropri ate, receive any testimony, and close
the public hearing(s).
--------...
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON UNINHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATIONS
110-B, 110-C, 110-0, AND 110-E, AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL
AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) AND CONSIDER THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY LAFCO
POSITION PAPER
PAGE
DATE
3
OF
7
July 25, 1989
2. Adopt a Resol ution certifying that the Board has reviewed the Negative
Declaration, ordering the filing of a Notice of Determination as a
responsi bl e agency stati ng that the Board consi dered the Negative
Declaration, and concurring with the adoption of the Negative Declaration of
LAFCO and taking one of the following actions:
o Order the annexation if no majority protest exists, or
o Di sapprove one or more of the proposed annexati ons that the Board
determines that the annexation is not warranted, or
o Disapprove annexati on if written protests have been fil ed and not
withdrawn prior to the conclusion of the public hearing representing
landowners owning 50 percent or more of the assessed valuation of the
land within the territory to be annexed.
*NOTE: Exhibits mentioned in this Position Paper are included in a separately
bound document.
.....------. 13028-9/85
EXHIBIT A
~
u~mlID
APR 2 G 1989
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO)
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
II. CRAIIIaI' r. ~~ et.~
SIGNIF~~ACOSTACOUNTY
0epulJ
O. Fl.t. C:"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 DESCRIPT70N (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 ~y the LAFCO.-Executive .Officer.. ~ost of .the h_ome
'. cons.truction -itsel'f- would be -categoric-ally exempt"\.mder CEQA~ S~veral
-"rots are annexing to resolve .failing septic tanks.
It . is,. .determined fr~ -.irU;tial study by Jim CUtle-r. _t~at this..p.roject-...
does not have a significant effect on the environment.
( X) Justification for negative declaration is attached.
The
Date of Final Appeal: May 10, 1989
Original: County Clerk
cc: LAFCO File
LOCAL AuENCY 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
~e 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 ~ecutive Offic~r may recommend the additon of adjacent
pr~pert;i~s .to provide for more logical district boundaries'.
~.. .
". ....
" .
.'" ,"..
2. Site Description:
The sites at~'a.li:planned or' developed as".single: f~:ilY" homes,
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.
"._________._ ...~_.,_..____,.___.~__~____.__._____.__.___..____..__..._.____'__'m'.._'_._______.__._,__~_~______..._.,'._~..___.._.,_,_...._."...._...___________._.._._."''"~''_m.....___._...._......,._ -___.._,._________
-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?
x
---
Classification:
R-15, R-20, R-40
3. Does it appear that any feature of the
project, including aesthetics, will
generate significant public concern?
_ ..1L _
Nature of Concern:
4. Will the project require approval or permits
by agencies other than LAFCO? ..1L _ _
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)
*S N. C ~ U N/A
1. Earth Will the proposal result in or be
. subject to:
a} Erection of st~ucture~ within.an Alquist-
. P.riolQ ~ct..;Spec.i,a~. S~l1die.~ ..Z~~.?. . ..' .
. .... X
---. - ....-- -
b) Grading (consider amount and aesthetics)? _ _ _ --! __
dope . fo~.. d~vel~p'ment., applic;:a~i9~ .
c) Slides, liquefaction or other hazards on
or immediately adjoining the site?
X
----
d) Adverse soil or topographic characteristics
(consider soils type, slope, septic tank
limitations, etc.)?
X
----
e) Wind or water erosion of soils, on site or
off?
f) Prime agricultural lands?
---~
X
------
Discussion:
-----' ._._--_.._----_.__..~._._-_.~-_._-_.._-_._._~"--~..~.--_...._~~_..,_...,..._-_._----,-~_.. - ._-_.._--,._._-~.~-----""---~...._~-------~._--_._-----'..------"._._~_.__.~---_.,----_._'---_._---_.-.~.
-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
or existing' fish or wildlife' habitat?
Discu'ssion:
5'.
. .. ..
Noise.Will the project result in:
.a) Structures within the 60dBA noise contour per
the. .Genera~ Plan 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 N C No g N/A
___x
___x
___x
___x
___x
___x
x
- - --
___x
___x
. ".0." .
_._.~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 Element) Will the proje~t. re~ult in:
a) Gener~tion of:. ad.ditionalv~hicul.ar' movement with'
initiation or intensification of circulation
. prob1ems (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:
_ .w...._ "______.__._.u...,_..__~_.___"._."____.___._.~~_..,___,.'"..__n_._..._.".___,._______.__._._._____.__.__.___.__-_.....-- .------.--..,--..----
-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 C 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'. Hazard: wil~the pro:ject'restilt' ill" a'r.isk' of 'exp'ros16.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?
~ N C No U N/A
___X__
Discussion:
17. Mandatorv Findings of Significance
(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? _ _ X _ _
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? _ _ _ X _ _
d) Does the project have environmental
impacts which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? _ _ _ X _ _
Discussion:
Local Agency Formation.. Commiss.ion
qf Contra Costa County
McBrien Administ~ationBu~ldlng, SthFloQr
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
(415) 646-4090
.
Centra~ ':ontra Costa Sanitar) Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
August 3, 1989
NO.
IV.
CONSENT CALENDAR 6
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A CONSENT TO DEDICATION TO
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (JOO 4663 - PARCEL 1) SUB 7097,
WALNUT CREEK AREA
DATE
J ul Y 25, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
APPROV E CONSENT
TO DEDICATION
SUBMIi5Effih~YS Hall
Associate Engineer
INITIA.TING DEPT.ll;lIV. D rtm t/
~nglneerlng epa en
Construction Division
ISSUE: The county requires a "Consent to Dedication" whenever an area dedicated
for public road purposes encroaches upon an existing easement.
BACKGROUND: A portion of Subdivision 7097 is being dedicated to the county for
publ ic road purposes. The dedicated area is the extension of an existing road
known as Doris Avenue. An existing public sewer easement is located within the
dedicated area. Since the easement precedes the dedication of the public road, a
consent to dedication is needed. A standard consent document will be used in
which the District retains prior rights.
Th i s proj ect has been eval uated by staff and determi ned to be exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines
Section 18.6, since it involves a minor alteration in land use limitations.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Consent to Dedi cati on to Contra Costa County,
Subdivision 7097, Job No. 4663, authorize the President of the District Board of
Directors and the Secretary of the District to execute said document and authorize
its recording by Contra Costa County.
1302A-9/85
DH
JSM
RAB
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
~(
/11
/?:Jfl
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
552."/3'/4. E.
~6's"~
......!!~J.
......:!!' t:(>
,')
5/3,8Z'TOTAL "
A"/""19'43.~
L"/7,IO'
AREA OF CONSENT
r=
en
"'-
-CII)
N
~cs\
s::!
8
~
2
7
20,608 SF
IJ fi)"OO'CXJ
5
CONSENT TO DEDICATION
Job 4663 - Parcel 1
Walnut Creek Area
.
Centra~ ':ontra Costa Sanitary .Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1
OF
2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
Au ust 3, 1989
NO.
IV.
CONSENT CALENDAR 7
SUBJECT
APPROVE AGREEMENT RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY WITH
JEFFREY W. BAUS, ET UX, JOB 2222, ORINDA AREA
DATE
Jul 25, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
APPROV E REAL
PROPERTY AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY
Denni sHall
Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: The property owners, Jeffrey W. Baus, at ux, have buil t a wooden deck
partially within a District sewer easement. They have requested permission to
maintain the deck in its present location.
BACKGROUND: The property owners have cooperated with staff in its investigation
of this situation and have paid all District costs involved. Staff has determined
that the exi sti ng improvements wil 1 not interfere with the present use of our
sewer; however, if the need shoul d ari se, the agreement requi res the property
owners to remove the improvements at the owners' expense within 30 days of notice.
Thi s project has been eval uated by staff and determi ned to be exempt fran the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines Section
18.6, since it involves a minor alteration in land use limitations.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Agreement Relating to Real Property with Jeffrey W.
Baus, et ux, Job 2222, authorize the President of the Board of Directors and the
Secretary of the District to execute said agreement, and authorize the agreement
to be recorded.
JSM
RAB
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9/85
~~
DH
'If
c1AL-
~I' JL
JL
JW
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
~,
10. SEWER EASEMENT ~,
/
.-
./
DECK ENCROACHMENT
"~. .
. .~~.
.~.
8/~.C. 5eWcR ,PIPE
,
~.
'.
~
,
~...
,
~
"
'.
""
"
'."... .
""
>
1
1
.j
. ~ ~ . 1 I
j; 1;'1 I.
: ; : j I
.C..;:;/:.; /11
, . ~J
f'
1&
li~
1/
/1
~ .' ~
REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT
Job 2222 - Parcel 1
Orinda Area
.
Centra~ ~ontra Costa Sanitary Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
August 3, 1989
NO.
IV.
CONSENT CALENDAR 8
QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENT TO KENNETH M. CAMENSON AND
VENITTA WILLIAMS, JOB 1564 - PARCEL 1, ORINDA AREA
DATE
July 28, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
SUBJECT
APPROVE QUITCLAIM
OF EASEMENT
SUBMB~'Wn'~ Hall
Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPTlDIV D tm t/
tnglneerlng epar en
Construction Division
ISSUE: The property owners, K. Camenson and V. Williams, at 52 Brookwood Road,
Orinda, have requested the District to quitclaim the subject easement.
BACKGROUND: The property owners plan to install a deck at the rear of their home
and came to the District offices to discuss bullding over the existing rodding
i nl et. The exi sti ng sanitary sewer and sanitary sewer easement were surveyed
by the District and the sewer was found to be outside of the easement. Staff has
compared the costs to relocate the sewer with the increased maintenance costs if a
deck were bull t over the sewer. The rel ocati on costs are far greater than the
future increased maintenance costs.
The property owners have agreed to grant a new easement which encompasses the
exi sti ng sewer in exchange for the ri ght to construct a wooden deck, steps (or
stairway) and a retaining wall within the new easement. They have also requested
that the existing rodding-inlet be moved closer to their south property line to be
clear of their proposed deck.
Staff has worked with the property owners and has determi ned that quitcl aimi ng
the subject easement and accepting the new easement, with the above conditions, is
in the best interest of the District.
This project has been eval uated by staff and determined to be exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines Section
18.6, since it involves a minor alteration in land use limitations.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitcl aim Deed to Kenneth M. Camenson and Venitta
Williams, Job 1564, authorize the President of the District Board of Directors and
the Secretary of the District to execute said Quitclaim Deed, and authorize the
Quitclaim Deed to be recorded.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9/85
DH
JSM
RAB
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
~
fW
,8/(OOKWOOO
ROAD
6" V.C. SEWER PIPE
~
~I
Lor /6 ~I
" " "
8/oc.~ 14 :>
<:)
REPLACEMENTEASEMENT~
I ROODING INLET
QUITCLAIM
51 SEWER EASEMENT
,
()
~ W
"- a:tn
::::)1-
I-z
::::)W
~ 1&.:1
I&.W
0 0>
.... cO
0 wa:
"- a:~
~ cl
SITE
QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENT
Job 1564 - Parcel 1
Orinda Area
.
Centrt. Contra Costa Sanitar~ .Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
NO.
IV.
CONSENT CALENDAR 9
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT
DATE
ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR THE INSTALLATION
OF THE PUMPING STATIONS TELEMETRY PROJECT,
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 10037, AND AUTHORIZE THE
FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
J u 24 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
ACCEPT CONTRACT WOR
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Plant 0 erations De artment
ISSUE: Construction has been completed for the Pumping Stations Telemetry
Project, District Project No. 10037, and the work is now ready for acceptance.
BACKGROUND: The Pumping Stations Telemetry Project connects 14 of the
District's pumping stations with the treatment plant's mainframe computer. The
system enables the operator at the treatment plant to monitor up to 24
individual alarm points at each of the remote pumping station sites. This
telemetry system replaces an existing direct current (DC) system, which in the
past only provided "Pump Station Normal" or "Pump Station Failure."
On November 17, 1988, the Board of Directors authorized the award of the Pumping
Stations Telemetry Project contract to Pipeline Systems Inc. of Walnut Creek for
$72,128. The Noti ce to Proceed was issued on November 30, 1988, and the
contract completion date was April 17, 1989. One change order in the amount of
$2,880 was issued to provide additional local indication of alarms at each of
the remote si tes. A 27-day extensi on of time was issued as a resu1 t of del ays
caused by Pacific Bell telephone line installation problems and the additional
time required to revise software required to implement the change order. All
contract work has been completed, and it is appropriate to accept the work at
this time.
A detailed accounting of the project costs will be provided to the Board at the
time of project close-out.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for the install ati on of the Pumpi ng
Stations Telemetry Project, District Project No. 10037, and authorize the filing
of Notice of Completion.
1302/1..9/85
DJR
q6-6
JLB
1Jp)CT.lDIV'
.
Centra. ~ontra Costa Sanitar) Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 6
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
August 3, 1989
NO.
V. SOLID WASTE
1
SUBJECT
SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 24, 1989 TO CONSIDER THE
REQUEST OF PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL FOR A
RESETTING OF ITS REFUSE COLLECTION RATES BASED ON A
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN DISPOSAL FEE EFFECTIVE
AUGUST 1, 1989
DATE
July 31, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
SET PUBLIC HEARING
DATE
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV
Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer
Administrative/Finance and Accounting
ISSUE: On July 27, 1989, Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal submitted a request for a
reconsideration of refuse collection rates based on a significant increase in
disposal fee announced by the Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (GBF landfill'
effective August 1, 1989.
BACKGROUND: A public hearing was held on July 6, 1989 to receive public comment on
the refuse collection rate application submitted by Pleasant Hill Bay Shore
Disposal. New refuse collection rates were set effective July 1, 1989, upon
completion of the public hearing and consideration of the rate application and staff
analysis thereon, at the July 20, 1989 Board Meeting. The Board of Directors set
the refuse collection rates based on reimbursement of disposal expenses at cost, and
the use of a 93 percent operating ratio. In view of the high degree of uncertainty
regarding disposal fees, particularly at the Acme temporary transfer station, the
Board set the collection rates effective July 1, 1989, with the proviso that refuse
collection rates may be reconsidered, if disposal fees changed significantly during
the July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990 period.
Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal received notification shortly after the July 20,
1989 Board Meeting by a letter dated July 19, 1989 from the GBF landfill that the
disposal fee would be increased from $30 per ton to $38 per ton effective August 1,
1989. A request for a reconsideration of the collection rates set only a week ago
as of July 1, 1989 has been received by a letter dated July 27, 1989 from Mr. Ken D.
Little, representing the refuse collector. The letters from the GBF landfill and
Mr. Little are attached to this Position Paper as Attachment I and II, respectively.
The increase to $38 per ton is the latest in a series of successive increases during
the last twenty months at the GBF landfill:
Date of Increase
Resultant
Disposal Fee/Ton
Percent Increase
August 1, 1989
March 15, 1989
November 1, 1988
January 1, 1988
1987 & Prior
$38
$30
$25
$22.50
$10
26.7
20.0
11.1
125.0
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
~~.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9/85 W F
SUBJECT
SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 24, 1989 TO CONSIDER THE
REQUEST OF PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL FOR A
RESETTING OF ITS REFUSE COLLECTION RATES BASED ON A
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN DISPOSAL FEE EFFECTIVE
AUGUST 1, 1989
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
2
OF
6
ruTTy 31, 1989
A public hearing will be required to reconsider the rates set as of July 1, 1989 and
to adjust such rates effective August 1, 1989, based on a significant change in
disposal expenses. A staff analysis of the effect of the disposal expense increase
and the percent increase in revenues required effective August 1, 1989 in a
comparative format with the analysis for the July 1, 1989 rate-setting is presented
on Attachment III.
RECOMMENDATION: Schedule a public hearing to be held on August 24, 1989 to
reconsider the refuse collection rates established as of July 1, 1989 for Pleasant
Hill Bay Shore Disposal, based on a significant increase in disposal expense
effective August 1, 1989.
13028-9/85
ATTACHMENT I
LITTLE & SAPUTO
.A TTORNEYS.A T LA W
PETER T. SAPUTO
GISCLLE A. JURKANIN
KCN O. LlTTLC
49 QUAIL COURT, SUITE 311
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(415) 944-5000
FACSIMILE
(415) 944-1112
July 27, 1989
VIA FACSIMILE
AND REGULAR MAIL
Susan McNulty Rainey, President
Board of Directors
Contra Costa Central Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Rate Review Caused By Increase In Tipping Fees
Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal
Dear President Rainey:
On behalf of Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal ("PHBD"), we
regret to inform you that the midyear review has come sooner than
any of us would have liked. That is to say, GBF Landfill has just
increased its disposal rates. The increase in rates arrived
without any warning and apparently was received just after the
adoption of the new rates by the Board.
The tipping fee at the GBF Landfill which was $22.50 in July,
1988 and was subsequently raised in November, 1988 to $25, and
again in March, 1989 to $30, is now to be raised effective August
1, 1989, to $38 per ton. This represents a 26.6% increase in
tipping fees since the approval of the new rates. It represents
an increase in tipping fees of 69% in one year. A copy of the
letter notifying PHBD of the increase is enclosed. Based on the
foregoing circumstances, PHBD has no alternative but to seek to
have the rates for collection and disposal adjusted to reflect the
new cost. PHBD hereby applies for changes in rates based upon
these circumstances.
In its application, PHBD showed total tipping fees forecasted
to be $142,428. Set forth below is a recalculation of forecasted
tipping fees:
Old Dump Fee Per Ton
New Dump Fee Per Ton
Percentage Increase
$30
$38
26.6%
Total Dump Fees In Application
Percentage Increase
New Forecasted Dump Fees
($142,428 x 1.266%)
$142,428
26.6%
$180,313
Susan McNulty Rainey, President
Board of Directors
Contra Costa Central Sanitary District
July 27, 1989
Page 2
The increase in rate required should be calculated using the
new forecasted dump fees of $180,313. Presumably this will simply
be a pel:"centage increase applied uniformly across all rates in
accol:"dance with the Board's latest announcement of policy.
Please schedule this item on the next available Board agenda
which we believe to be August 3. Please notify this firm and/or
PHBD when it might expect this item to be heard.
Thank you again for your cooperation and kind consideration
in this matter.
Very truly yours,
LITTLE & SAPUTO
~'..
j1@L'"
KDL/mk
encl<>sul:"e
cc: Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal
Walter Funasaki (w/enc.)
-' ..
. , t' ~.
ATTACHMENT Il .
Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill
P.O -BOX 5391
roO'JCORO. CAlIFORt.r.A 9'520
r4151682-9073
July 19, 1989
Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal
P. O. Box 23164
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
ATTN: Boyd Olney, Jr.
RE Disposal Fees
Oeac Boyd,
Due to a significant increase in our operational costs
in the past few months, we find it necessary to increase dumping
fees to ~38.00 per ton effective August 1, 1989.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
./>~~
~~..
'Silvio Garaventa, Sr.
President
SGS:br
cc: Band B Dump
Concord Disposal Service
Pittsburg Disposal Service
Delta Debris Box Service
Oakley sanitation Service
BLentwood Disposal Service
Attachment III
Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal
Analysis of Effect of 26.67 Percent Increase
In Disposal Expense Effective August 1, 1989
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 Rate-Setting Period
July 1, 1989
Rate-SettinQ
Forecasted Operating Expenses $550,272
Less: Disposal Expenses <142,428>
Net Operating Expenses 407,844 407,844 373,871
Forecasted Revenues Required -
93% Operating Ratio 438,542 438,542 402,012
Add: Franchise Fee 2,200 2,200 2,017
Disposal Expenses 142,428 177.1248 165,379
Forecasted Revenues Required 583,170 617,990 569,408
Forecasted Revenues Without
Increase 560,215 560,215 534,588
Increase In Forecasted
Revenues Required $ 22,955 57,775 34,820
Percent Increase In Revenues
Required 4. 10% 10 . 31% 6.51%
Effect On Representative Collection Rates:
Current
Residential Single-Can $ 12.80 $ 13.30 $ 14.15
Mobile Home Single-Can $ 9.50 $ 9.90 $ 10.50
20 Yard Drop Box $220.00 $229.00 $243.90
.
Centra~ "';ontra Costa SanitarY..Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF ,38
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
August 3, 1989
NO.
VI.
LEGAL LITIGATION
1
SUBJECT
RECEIVE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE CLAIM
DATE
July 26, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
RECEIVE LATE CLAIM
APPLICATION AND
ACT UPON IT
~1~TTC~rRpbell
Administrative Operations Manager
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Administrative/Risk Management
ISSUE: The Board of Directors at the July 6, 1989 meeting returned without further
action, a claim submitted by J. Lewis & Son, Inc., because it had not been timely
filed. A claimant may subsequently apply to the public entity for leave to present
such claim.
BACKGROUND: Mr. Jack Lewis of J. Lewis & Son, one of the subcontractors on the San
Ramon Valley Phase A project, of which Western Utility Contractors, Inc. (Westcon)
was the general contractor, has submitted a Petition for Leave to File Late Claim.
Mr. Lewis has requested an opportunity to make this presentation to the Board in
person and he plans to appear at the August 3 Board meeting to do so. In advance of
his presentation, he has sent the attached material and requested that it be given
to the Board Members prior to the meeting.
Because of the litigation which has been filed relative to this matter, the Board
may wish to meet with District Counsel in closed session prior to taking action.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the Petition for Leave to File Late Claim, hear Mr. Jack
Lewis' presentation, and determine whether to accept or reject this application.
TI(LV.
JEC
PM
KA
j..J
RfECIEOVID
JUL 28 '989
cccso t_
~'"~RF.TAftY OF THF n~
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE CLAIM
DATE:
FROM:
JULY 24, 1989
J. LEWIS & SON, INC. - CLAIMANT; LEGAL DEPT.
9602 Featherhill Drive
Villa Park, CA 92667-2616
TO:
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn.: JOYCE E. McMILLAN, Secretary
JACK E. CAMPBELL, Risk Operations Mgr.
The following request for Leave To File Late Claim is being
undertaken as a formality only, and as continuing evidence of
sub-contractor's (i.e., J. LEWIS & SON., INC.) good faith
posture towards resolution of a dispute involving funds due
sub-contractor for past performance under Project 4224A; and
is furthermore being made under protest in that the facts
shall disclose the reality of sub-contractor's original
Claim's. timeliness as heretofore submitted.
The referenced Claim has been brought under the pertinent/
proper governing Contract Section, to wit:
"GC-11
DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS
The Contractor shall promptly, and before such conditions are
disturbed, notify the Engineer in writing of: ill subsurface
or latent physical conditions at the site differing
materially from those shown in the Contract Documents, or (2)
any other unforeseen physical conditions at the site, of an
unusual nature, differing materially from those ordinarily
encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of
the character provided for in the Contract. The Engineer
will, as promptly as practicable, investigate the conditions,
consider the findings, and make ~ determination. If it is
determined that such conditions do materially so differ and
cause an increase or decrease in the Contractor's cost of, or
the time required for, performance of any part of any work
under the Contract, whether or not changed as a result of
such conditions, an equitable adjustment will be made and the
Contract modified in writing accordingly. No claim of the
Contractor under this article will be allowed unless the
Contractor has given the required notice." (Emphasis added.)
This section is legally controlling by the power vested in it
via Government Code Section 930.2, which states:
"The governing body of .9. local public entity may include in
any written agreement to which the entity, its governing
body, or any board or employee thereof in an official
capacity is .9. party, provisions governing the presentation,
by or on behalf of any party thereto, of any or all claims
arising out of or related to the agreement and the
consideration and payment of such claims. The written
agreement may incorporate by reference claim provisions set
forth in a specifically identified ordinance or resolution
theretofore adopted by the governing body." (Emphasis
added. )
Through careful scrutiny and analysis, the correct
application of Section 930.2 as the vesting authority for
Contract Section GC-ll was implemented; and the Claim's
procedure as delineated therein was followed accordingly.
First, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (hereafter,
"CCCSD"), a public entity, was responsible for the drafting
of the subject Contract, presumably under the auspices of its
"governing board"; since it is a County organization with
regular board meetings, etc. Second, CCCSD's name appears on
the subject Contract, a fortiori making it "a party." Then
one may look to the Contract provision, GC-ll. itself, which
states that: "No claim of the Contractor under this article
[i.e.. "Differing Site Conditions") will be allowed unless
the Contractor has given the required notice." (Emphasis
added.) Reviewing Section 930.2, again [upon qualifying
CCCSD as the "public entity" in question), ". . public
entity may include in any written agreement to which the
entity. . is .9. party, provisions governing the
presentation, gy or on behalf of any party thereto [i.e., ~
LEWIS ~ SON, INC.; hereafter, "JLS", may be designated as the
"any party thereto at this point], of any or all claims
arising out of or related to the agreement and the
consideration of such claims. ." (Emphasis added.) This
latter portion unequivocally directs us back to GC-ll: The
"Differing Site Conditions" upon which JLS bases his Claim.
The next review, then, becomes critical: Did Contract
Section GC-ll provide "provisions governing the presentation.
by or on behalf of any party thereto, of any or all claims
arising out of or related to the agreement and the
consideration and payment of such claims. "? If so, then
it falls under Government Code Section 930.2, accordingly and
thereby supersedes any other Government Code sections
applying to the presentation of claims; and per Section
930.4: ~ claims procedure established gy agreement made
pursuant to Section 930.2 exclusively governs the claims to
which it relates. "(Emphasis added.)
-2-
One must now look to Contract Section GC-ll and address each
portion thereof.
A) "The Contractor shall promptly, and before such conditions
are disturbed, notify the Engineer in writing of: (1)
subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site
differing materially from those shown in the Contract
Documents, or (2) any other unforeseen physical conditions
at the site, of an unusual nature, differing materially
from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized
as inherent in work of the character provided for in the
Contract. "(Emphasis added.)
Please see copy of letter dated Dec. 22, 1987 (attached as
Ex. A) which constitutes the subcontractor's initial
notification of "Differing Site Conditions" pursuant to GC-
11. Then please refer to Mr. Henry Thom's (an agent of
CCCSD) "Rediform" letter, dated 12/22/87 (attached as Ex. B-
1) to Milt Smith of Westcon (the prime Contractor),
repudiating same to the extent that subcontractor's
notification was without "substantiation" Qy Westcon and that
data/evidence documenting said "Differing Site Conditions"
was ~ condition precedent to investigation/resolution of
same. Also attached, as Ex. B-2, is Mr. Thom's
"confirmation" of his "speed memo", dated 1/4/88, refusing to
acknowledge sub-contractor's "notice" re differing site
conditions since it needed to be directed through the prime
contractor as well as substantiated via Westcon's "follow-
up." Furthermore, at No. 2 of said letter, Mr. Thom makes
specific reference to the effect that: "Contract Section GC-
11 stipulated the requirements on notifying the owner on
possible differing site conditions. Ii Westcon intends to
follow-up and submit ~ notice. . The ~ of
substantiation required are specified under items 1 and ~ of
GC-ll. "(Emphasis added.) It should be noted that
CCCSD's agent, Mr. Thom, has at this point only further
confirmed JLS' contention that Section GC-ll of the Contract
is controlling; as corroborated by not only the agent of the
Contract's drafting party, but as authorized in Government
Code Section 930.2 and as exclusively governing pursuant to
Section 930.4, supra. Then please see Ex. C, which is
essentially Ex. A (subcontractor's notice), verbatim, with
the exception that it was re-submitted Qy JLS on 1/7/88 in
further good faith attempts at compliance under GC-ll, as
dictated by contract law and as mandated by Mr. Henry Thom.
And said "re-submittal" was accompanied Qy the letter dated
1/5/88 from Westcon to CCCSD (attached as Ex. D), "notifying.
. of. . subcontractor's letter. . and of.
subcontractor's intent to seek compensation for work which he
deems to be extra to the contract Qy virtue of ~ differing
site condition." (Emphasis added.)
-3-
Please reference Ex. E, "Telephone Conversation Notes"
dated 2/3/88 from Mr. Thorn indicating that, "Lewis' request
of jacking without further lowering of the groundwater may be
feasible"; then see Ex. F, letter from Woodward-Clyde &
Assoc. (hereafter, "WCC") to Mr. Thorn, dated 1/19/88, at p.
2, last sentence of last para., wherein WCC stated: " . We
note that JLS' dewatering submittals prepared in September
and October, 1987, are consistent with those requirements."
Then return to Ex. E, at the last para.,"f.", where Mr. Thorn
states: "Westcon & Subcontractor will not file claims
(whether legitimate or otherwise) on delays and/or dewatering
problems to date." Thus, it appears that even on 2/3/88, sub-
contractor's Claim was not only acknowledged by CCCSD's
agent, but subcontractor was, in effect, ordered to refrain
from filing claims, "legitimate or otherwise."
One should then refer to Ex. G, copy of Mr. Thorn's letter to
Westcon, dated 1/6/88, indicating a posture of understanding
by CCCSD regarding the delay in the jacking, etc. However,
said letter was explicit in its caveat that: Since they'd
bargained their rights to $500/day liquidated damages over to
Danville Home Improvement Center (hereafter, "DHIC") in order
to negotiate a right of entry for the construction, CCCSD's
"hands were tied" in effect; and their posture of
understanding had no favorable legal significance/effect with
respect to JLS. Furthermore, they could "take no action"
which would "adversely affect the rights of the Danville Home
Improvement Center to collect such liquidated damages unless
a written agreement with Danville Home Improvement Center
providing for an extension" was "executed." This was
followed by JLS' letter, dated 1/18/88 (attached as Ex. H)
requesting that CCCSD "make available. . the complete file
of WCC & James Montgomery pertaining to the tunnel beneath
San Ramon Valley Blvd. & the Danville Home Improvement
Center," with detailed substantiation for this request. Mr.
Henry Thorn's response of 2/9/88 (attached as Ex. I) was:
"Since the design of the dewatering system is your
responsibility, and since your recent activities have
developed the required information for your design, we do not
intend to further pursue this issue at this time." (Emphasis
added.) In other words, CCCSD espoused a very basic policy:
It's your problem, you seem to be dealing with it adequately;
therefore, it does not concern us. One should again review
Section GC-11, in pertinent part: "The Engineer will, as
promptly as practicable, investigate the conditions, consider
the findings, and make a determination." Could one, then,
reasonably interpret: (1) Mr. Thorn's actions of conferring
with WCC and then making a few concessions that JLS' request
"may be feasible"; (2) refusing to provide investigative
information to JLS; (3) directing JLS to refrain from filing
any claims, and; (4) not pursuing "this issue at this time",
-4-
-----_......_----_._-------_._--------------~_.,_._-_..._'-------,----------"'-------_._-_....._.~-_.._.,_._-----
as good faith compliance with the above-cited portion of GC-
11?
The Feb. 8, 1988 Minutes (attached as Ex. J) indicate further
mention of the soils condition at Nos. 5 and 6 in particular,
but do not provide an update on CCCSD's posture on "differing
site conditions". Only at No.7, Mr. Thom seems to require
"confirmation of Mr. Lewis' reasons." JLS' letter dated
2/16/88 (attached as Ex. K), summarized said Minutes and
provided a detailed update on the construction situation.
It is significant to note at p. 3, JLS makes reference to a
proposed method of accomplishing work, ". . rather than to
completely exhaust. . physically those individuals.
with different soils conditions. "(Emphasis added.)
Finally, one should review JLS' letter, dated 3/15/88
(attached as Ex. L), indicating that: "From the start of
the tunneling to present, we have experienced vastly
different ground conditions along with wood piling, all of
which have had ~ negative impact on the tunneling. The value
of this negative impact cannot be ascertained at this time
and will be forwarded to Westcon and the District at such
time as can be determined, probably at the end of the
tunneling." (Emphasis added.)
"WHERE THE REQUISITE INFORMATION FOR A CLAIM
AGAINST A COUNTY IS GIVEN, IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL
THAT THE CLAIM BE GIVEN WITH THE INTENT TO
COMPLY WITH THE CLAIMS STATUTE. II Myers ~ Orange
County (1970) 6 C.A.3d 626, 86 Cal.Rptr. 198
Since the subcontractor was bound by Contract, and
specifically by Section GC-11, in his presentation of Claims,
(of which according to the facts, he in good faith complied);
the formal claims procedure and statute of limitations which
CCCSD now seeks to utilize in rejecting said Claim has been
erroneously applied. The facts show the step by step Claims
procedure that the subcontractor followed in accordance with
GC-ll. The Claim submitted on or about May ~ 1988 was only
the culmination of subcontractor's efforts to seek
compensation for additional costs under differing site
conditions, and not the inception of said Claim. That CCCSD
had the opportunity to investigate, and that they responded
to JLS's Claim in some manner/form (incompletely albeit) as
presented pursuant to GC-11, is in fact, amply documented.
Please reference Ex. M, copy of Mr. Thom's letter dated
3/17/88, which unequivocally says, ". . we have noticed no
unanticipated soil conditions that may have contributed to
the delay of your jacking work." Could this, then, be
construed as the Engineer's "determination" pursuant to GC-
11? Then reference Mr. Thom's April 4, 1988 letter No. 90,
-5-
attached as Ex. N, wherein he declines to participate "in
making comments and remarks on soil conditions" during JLS'
video of the tunnel face; claims it's not relevant, and
stating," . the District is reviewing your request for
soils sampling within the next two days and will include the
video taping request in our overall evaluation."
Furthermore, please review the Revised Minutes of the 3/31/88
Progress Meeting (attached as Ex. 0) corroborating CCCSD's
continued posture of refusing to acknowledge differing site
conditions, and the Minutes dated April 4, 1988 (attached as
Ex. P) of similar contents; with claims that GC-12 (i.e.,
Charges And Extra Work) should now be applicable to JLS's
Claim. This seems a contradiction of Mr. Thom's posture and
his previous ratification of proceeding exclusively under GC-
11.
In a final analysis, GC-11 states that: ~ it is determined
that such conditions do materially differ. .an equitable
adjustment will be made and the Contract modified in writing,
accordingly. No claim of the Contractor under this article
will be allowed unless the Contractor has given the required
notice." Government Code Section 930.4 specifically
addresses," .the consideration and payment of such
claims. ," as being a required element for its application;
said element being satisfied by Contract Section GC-11.
As per the facts, subcontractor has received various and
contradictory information from CCCSD. First, he was told to
substantiate his Claim pursuant to GC-l1, then not to file
any claims; CCCSD refused to acknowledge his Claim, then
CCCSD conceded receipt of his Claim arbitrarily under
Contract Section GC-12!
When JLS attempted to formalize his Claim with substantiating
accounting information that was not available until the job's
conclusion on or about May n.... 1988, his Claim was "rejected"
based on alleged "untimely filing." However, given the
facts/circumstances existing throughout the construction
process and subcontractor's observation/compliance with
Claim's Procedure pursuant to Contract Section GC-11,
prevailing contract law dictates that the time for
performance had to expire prior to the presentation of any
formal claim. The facts further support that inasmuch as was
possible and in good faith, subcontractor adhered to the
procedures outlined in Section GC-11. The position that
remains strongly unfounded is that held by CCCSD in its
continued refusal to recognize the facts; or that of its
volitional ignorance of same.
-6-
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed this 24th day of July, 1989, in Villa Park,
California.
-7-
," ~~r~1
-t:>~ ~/ff/"7.
1/;:., I
" '-I(ul. "1, /'Ifl3
i'l!
I
~~Mr. Milt Smith
Westcon
~:lS31 St. Alphonsis Way
;!;A1amo, CA 94507
~.
l~.;
accordance with requirement set forth in General Condition Section G.C. 11,
"""please notify the owner C.C.C. S.D. that the soil conditions differ materially
,;with that represented in the contract documents including the Woodward Clyde
Soil Report. We intend to begin the extra work called for by the soil and water
behavior immediately since the owner was already notified verbally of this
;. condition on December /2-) 1987.
()'"'-j' =11
contact me if you have any comments.
LEWIS AND SON, INC.
'-
President
'-' -- '
Exhibit
A
/
-,,'-
, 1';"
/ J .J.-
.:~1/c.(_Yc.....)t
,
SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 INTACT..
PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WlTrl L ~rl ~
rr'
:..~
Exhibit
"-/"',r-', ,.;~'::JS,:-;~_\'~,
TEL:C01J..Lffl, ';.~~
FOR. ~.
PAGE: .3 OF ' PAGES
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
, '.
,. .';' ';',
January 4, 1988
110GI:III' DOLAN
,G~ftt,,, MOllelt,
ChI'/En,'n..r
. JAMI:$ L HAZAIlO
COUlutl/or (ltt Dblnc,
(415) ",. '4JO
JOYCI: 1:. MCM,LUoN
SteT".'" 01 ,It, D/llrle'
western utility Contractors, Inc.
1531 St. Alphonsus Way
Alamo, CA 94507
Letter No. 54
Attention: Milt Smith, Project Manager
Gentlemen :
SAN P>>ON VALLEY TRUNK SEWER CD.P. 4224A)
LET1'ER FROM J. LEWIS 'IO WES'Ia:N DATED 12/22/87
Further to my "speed memo" to you dated 12/23/87 in response to the
referenced letter fran J. Lewis and Son, Inc., please note the following:
1. Contract Section GC-7 stipulated the delivery of notice to
the Owner. by the Contractor. The referenced letter was
between your subcontractor and. Westcon and, therefore, will
not be accepted as an official notification ~ the Contractor
(Westcon) to the Owner.' .
2. Contract Section GC-ll stipulated the requirements m notifying
the Owner on possible differing site conditions. If Westcon
intends to follOW-up and suJ:mit such a notice, please ensure
to include the evidence and data required to substantiate
your notice. The type of substantiation required are specified
under i terns 1 and 2 of GC-ll, and mentioo.ed in my "speed memo".
~lYif~~~L
~ IenJ B~ an
Resident ngineer
HBT: j b
cc: M. Daley (Westcon-Utah)
File 4224A - 2.3 & 4224A - 2.6
Exhibit
B-2
._~
_PO''''''':, .ri..
S:?."}h.:.:"Milt Smith
<,;,;,:Westcon
;~'::]531 St. Alphonsis Way
J/Alamo. CA 94507
.1", .
.~.:. '~'.~:~-',
,'/;\~/~ >..:
':In accordance with requirement set forth in General Condition Section G.C. il,
:;",~lease notify the owner C.C.C.S.D. that the soil conditio~s differ ~ateria11y
;".;'witb,that represented in the contract documents including. the Woodward Clyde
,:~oi::?teport. We intend to begin the extra work call~d. for by the soil and water
,behayior immediately since the owner was already notified verbally of this
;, con~ition on December /1-) 1987.
(')(11' = /I
contact me if you have any comments.
SON, INC.
'-
Lewis
"
.........-_.
Exhibit
c
. ---.... .,
.. ..-........ .
. -.. ...... .'_..
~westcon
January 5, 1988
LTO 706-058
Mr. Henry Thorn
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
3240 Stone Valley Road West, Suite 250
Alamo, California 94507
... ...... .,
" ......1...- .
.~... ;....:.~.. '.:.,.. ".~.
'.. M.., .'. '._,'" "_ .~.
-~!il
",:,-~...., _. ...... ...........
...- . .......... .....
....-,."'"'... ......,..
.. F.......: :-~...;: . .:....... ..~ .'.
Re: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District P~oject n 4224A
San Ramon Valley Trunk Sewer Improvement Project
Contract - Schedule A
Dear Henry:
.' .
...... .
...... .......... ......
We have enclosed, for your referenc.:, a letter from J. Lewis . ...~:..~:;:~~:.:,..::',-'::~i.~:'~'"
and Sons, Inc., our sub-contractor on the abo\Te referenced project.... ::~~.:\.::>..:,::.~::...:.:
which was hand-carried to our jobsite office late Wednesday afternoon, ".' '::."7.;.:.~~~:.:;.~::t.:;~.;.
. . . .....I..l~. "1"1:1',..- . : .... or.. ~."'"
December 23,'1987. As Mr. Lewis was aware, our Project Manage~ and' .. ..::;:..~~..:-::-:::.';;,;?::::"'"
Project Engineer were not at the jobsite office on the 23rd, having. . -':~j;;~1f;~~~;~
left for the holiday to return on Monday rnbrning, January 4, 1988.' ;.:~r:~~~';-:'_:.'.;".~~,'
. .. .00:'-" ~;:'''_':: ...:......;~~.'.....
>. .....
We thus are notifying you of our sub-contractor's letter on the
2nd working day following its delivery to our field office, and of our.
sub-contractorts intent to seek compensation for work whicb he deems to
bi extra to the contract by virtue of a differing site condition.-
. .-. . ..~ ..... -.
: :..... -.......:"" '. - :....~ '.:.
.... :. ..... '.~:' -
- -.i...
'. ".
.......:.. '. !.
. ..-....-
.., .... ..... . ..
..
....... .... . .
.' :>:.:./1::>::': ~~.::::T
....--...'.: : '.-.
.. . ..~~:....r<' '." . . :.'
\f~~~~~
..... .,.-..-.......-.,~~::-.
.. '.- ..'.~...:~....~:<":'".7..~::""~-=.
~l~~'I~~~
.~~:/;~.;~;::~:}:}.~~t
.--....... ....-.~;. .~....-... ~.~
. : .:~:[;~~~:~t:
--r!!l(j~.......~.-
. .:.....~;l il' '!':'t.>.:'~. ~/,
...:I~:."~.'... '\~~'E~
. --'~t~l
.Western Utility Contractors, Inc., 1531 51. .A:lphonsus Way, Alamo. CA 94SQS,:(415) 838.710~:~~ .:..:~~~~~.~{
_.. ,. .... .... "'~"".Ji'#.=r......~_...,~,..
;.:. .. .. :.~!:~:.e,""~'~~~~~'~'
'" ;'?:~?2~'E: ~~ ;:"lO
Westcon has requested supporting documentation from its sub-
contractor.
"
Sincerely,
7J!v6k 1/IxL-
Hilton H. Smith
.Proj ec t Manager
MHS/ra
Exhibit
D
..........'t:.,_;~~lIIIil..'.I:,"'t
- - - /-l, ;;;;J1........,-"" ,---"'--~
TELEPHONE
C\"'J.~VERSATION NOTES
Exhibit
100;1/81
E
--
- J
/'l / I - -.
500 12th Street
SUite 100
Oakland. CA 94607-4014
(415) 893-3600
Woodwc. !~ ';J1.~de Consultants
January 19. 1988
Project No. 16804C
I
, I
;
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553
Attention; Mr. Henry Thorn
Subject: . San Ramon Valley Trunk Sewer
Tunnel Dewatering
~,..
Dear Henry:
In a letter dated January 7, 1988, WESTCON's subcontractor, J. Lewis 'Son,
Inc. (JLS), has questioned the \ntent of Specification Section 02310-
l.02-A, Item 1. In response tp JLS's inquiry, you have requested that
Woodward-Clyde Consultants ~tC). provide a technical expla~ation of this
section of the speci fications~<'a'nd ,this letter isin response to that'
request.
Section 02310 of the specifications addresses Tunnel Dewatering.
.Paragraph 1.02-A lists basic design criteria for the dewatering system,
which the contractor is responsible for designing. Item 1 of Sec-
tion 1.02-A was modified by Addendum No.1. dated April 20,1987, to read
as fol1ows;
1. Lower the groundwater level in the ground surrounding the tunnel
excavation from above the tunnel to a depth of ten (10) feet below
the tunnel. Within this zone, the groundwater level shall be main-
tained at a minimum of 2 feet below the excavated 'tunnel invert and
portal excavation.
.,
Mdc9~61llng En~l1nee's Geologists
and EnVironmental S::lenllStS
Offices In Other PnnCloal CllIes
IICA
,..
Exhibit
F
,~._..- ---" - ~~--- ~_.. ~
/;
.q..
...
/.
~ ,
"
"
/,
r
Central Contr,u Sanitary District
January 19. 19B::.
Page 2
')(1ward.Cfyde (;OI1SUrtam5
t'"
The intent of the first sentence in this paragraph is to define the zone
surrounding the tunnel excavation within which groundwater levels and
hydrostatic pressures are to be controlled. i.e. ....ground surrounding the
tunnel excavation from above the tunnel to a depth of ten (10) feet below
the tunnel." The second sentence defines the degree to which groundwater
levels and hydrostatic pressures are to be controlled within the specified
zone. i.e.. "...the groundwater level shall be maintained a minimum Of
2 feet below the excavated tunnel invert...". It is important that the
~wo sentences in this paragraph be read toge~her. To take one sentence out
of context does not give an accurate description of the dewatering req4ire-
ments. Furthermore. the entire Section 02310 should be read as a whole to
further understand the intent of the dewateting requirements. as discussed
further below.
f:
~;
r,fl.
l'
,
I
~
I
~ '
r
,
r,
I~
t" ,
~
r
~"..".
;>
,.>.;
,":.
L
~'"
L
I
I
I
I
I
!
The main purpose of the tunnel dewatering system is to lower groundwater
levels below the tunnel invert in soils that might otherwise become
unstable due to uncontrolled seepage. This purpose is expressed in
Paragraph 1.01-B:
8. Dewatering includes lowering the groundwater table and intersecting
seepage which would otherwise emerge from the tunnel excavation;
preventing loss of material from beneath the bottom of the tunnel
excavation; improving the excavating and h~uling characteristics of
sandy soil; and preventing rupture or heaving of the bottom of the
tunnel excavation.
The reason for extend i ng the zone of dewatering to a depth of 10 feet below
the tunnel excavation is to lower hydrostatic pressures in potentially
unstable soils which may be present below the tunnel excavation. If the
hydrostatic pressures in these soils are not relieved to an acceptable
degree. then stability problems in the bottom of the tunnel excavation
could result such as heave of the inv~rt and possible rupture or invert
blow.
The purpose of the modification of Section 02310, Paragraph 1.02-A in
Addendum No.1 was to clarify language; the intent of the specification has
not changed.
In summary'. the Contractor is required to reduce groundwater levels and
hydrostatic pressures to a level of two feet below the invert of the tunnel
~xcavation. He must effect the degree of dewatering within potentially
unstable soils that may exist down to 10 feet below the invert of the
tunnel excavation. iWe note that JLS's dewatering submittais prepared in
September and October. 1987, are consistent with these requirements.
MI021
Jt
}
~.
f
~.
i.
I
.
,~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~,
k-
~!s;'
-
Central ContI
January 19, 1988
Page 3
Sanitary District
~N3rd.CIyde Consultants
If you should have any questions regarding our comments, please do not
hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
~OOOWARO-eLYOE CONSULTANTS
'I
'I
i
4k-Lf ~
Stephen J. Klein, P.E.
Project Engineer
~4 ~/r
~ndal1 J. ~Essll (E.
Senior Project Engineer
cc: Mr. John Bergen, JMM
Mr. H. Berger, wee
Mr. J. Bischoff. wee
.~_?
:,;,
'~
M1021
_...
~~~~~d~[Q)
, .........
~AN ~ 1988
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place. Martinez. CA 94553-4392 (415)689-3890
<l
~.
TElECO~;D: / (;J.!.f'
FOR: I ./;'; ~
PAGE: / OF {) -' PAGES
"llOGUJ.~
Gono<., M~'
Chi., Eng;~
'JAMES L ~o
Cpunwl "" ..... Olurl<1
1415/938-1430
JO'lCE E. McMIllAN
s.o'lllIy 01..... Olsttlcl
J~nuary 6, 1988
Westcon
1531 st. Alphonsus Way
Alamo, California 94507
Attention: Mr. Milt Smith, Project Manager
Letter No. 55
Reference:
San Ramon Valley Trunk Sewer (DP 4224A)
Gentlemen:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter no. 055, dated
December 15, 1987 on the delay of the jacking work and your
proposal on correcting the situation.
As discussed in the meeting of December 16, 1987, with Mr.
Stanley, Mr. Daley, and yoursel f , the District feels it is
essential that appropriate action be taken by Westcon to
correct the ongo~ng problems with the jacking operation,
including the problem of deficient .dewatering at the jacking
site, incomplete submittals on the jacking work, and overall
delay in completion of the work. 'I
District understands that .you have faced certain difficulties
with your subcontractor and we appreciate your efforts to
work with the District to resolve these problems. The Dis-
trict is encouraged by your comments and your commitment to
decisive action. Accordingly we will be expecting positive
results in the very near future.
As you are aware, the District is in a very difficult posi-
tion with regard to the time l.imi ts for construction in or
about the location of the Danville Home Improvement Center.
In order to negotiate a right of entry for the construction
activi ty, the District unequivocally (!.ssigned .i ts rights to'
the $500 a day liquidated damages provisions regarding con-
struction within said location. The owners of Danville Home
Improvement Center currently have such rights as would be
available to the District at law with regard to collection of
said liquidated damages. Accordingly the District can take
no action which will adversely affect the rights of the
Danville Home Improvement Center to collect sucn liquidated
damages unless a written agreement with Danville Home Improve-
ment Center providing for an extension is executed. Accord-
ingly, it is our intent to resolve the issue of a delayed
Exhibit
G
ioo-
-- ----
.-----
To: Milt smith, Project Manager
Re: San Ramon Valley Trunk Sewer
January 6, 1988
Page 2
(DP 4224A)
.. '~
.~~~~c~~ ,. ~
PAGE: OJ..... OF ~.:L PAGES
i
construction within the Danville Home Improvement Center
property in a manner which is least disruptive to that busi-
ness.
In view of your comments that action to resolve the problems
with the jacking operation is imminent, District will post-
pone discussion on the imposition of liquidated damages for
the immediate future. Hopefully, this will al~ow all parties
to resolve this matter amicably. The District, however,
reserves the right to impose liquidated damages as would be
provided for in Change Ord~rs no.s 1 and 2 and section SC-2l
of the contract. The action taken here in postponing the
issue of imposition of liquidated damages based on the delay
in completion of the construction work within the Danville
Home Improvement Center location shall not constitute a waiv-
er of any right held by the District or Danville Home Improve-
ment Center to collect said liquidated damages. Moreover,
the contents of this letter should not be considered a tacit
agreement to an extension ,or .waiver of any other rights held
by the District or Danville Home Improvement Center with
regard to the construction: contract.
SinCe~~lY' f" '::=---~7/'.,
,', l<."-' 'ft-t/l.
:::~~.~~O~ng~n~.r t/ ^'(
HT:car
cc: Mr. Dalton DeFoe (DH!C)
I
~;
,'I .
'.$~','
I
~.
...1.
~---- ......------.---.
-.-.--- -- ..----
-
1:
..
c;,
....
~
:::::.:::-.-.Y
January 18, 1988
Mr. Milt Smith
Westcon
1531 st. Alphonsis Way
Alamo; CA 94507
Dear Mr. Smith:
We request that C.C.C.S.D. acquire and ~ediately make available
to us the complete files of Woodward-Clyde and James Montgomery,
pertaining to the tunnel beneath San Ramon Valley Blvd. and the
Danville Home Improvement Center. This is not a witch hunt and
we are not asking for purely subjective notes and commu~;cations
that are of a private nature to the individuals involved. In
general, this would include all soils-information, tunnel design
data and dewatering data. Specifically it would includ~ all
field notes, lab analysis, notes and minutes of all meetings with
lists of the attendees, formulas and calculations supporting
conclusions, assumptions, etc.
We enclose a check payable to C.C.C.S.D. for $300.00 for copying
expense.
The'following facts necessitate our immediate review of the
requested information.
1. The surface subsidence has e;xceeded 1" simply due to
dewatering. Up to this amount occured during the first 2 weeks
and essentially does not include the time related settlement of
1/4" predicted by Woodward Clyde.
2. This settlement has obviously lowered the existing
utilities including the 1,100 p.s.i. high pressure petroleum
line, a 66" diameter water line, a 30" diameter sewer line and a
10" diameter water line. Tunneling settlement, referencing the
Woodward-Clyde report, would result in settlement 2 to 3 times
greater than from dewa,tering.
;;
3. To put the foregoing data in perspective we point out
the high concern that the owner has for safety at this location
by referencing a speed memo of December 10, 1987 to Milt Smith of
Westcon from Henry Thorn, resident engineer on project for the
owner (a copy attached). The far greater significance of
reaching the maximum amount of settlement before tunneling
begins, plus the following points which suggest arithmetical
errors, inappropriate information, omissions of adverse
information and blatant erroneous conclus'ions should cause Mr.
Thorn to provide for our analytical review and comment on "all"
tl~ data contributing to the report. Further, a true interest in
safety should immediately overide any desire to conceal
info~mation that the public has already paid for. Should further
flaws be discovered at thi~tunneling begins, and
H
._-~--~....----~~-~.
..', "-' .~."'. ..... -.
Page Two
Westcon
can be effectively resolved, the public's interest as relates to
safety is best served.
" .
4. The owner, designer - soils eng~neer have further
established their concern for settlement !in specification Section
02300 3.03 B (copy attached) where a value of one half inch is
deemed to be sufficiently important to require precautionary
measures and performance of remedial work to prevent further
damage.
5. The soil consultant's technical raw data, when
"correctly" used in his prescribed formula produce answers up to
twenty times different from that represented. See report.
6. The soil consultant has stated to this contractor that
he visited the job site at a time, when the East Bay M.Q.D. 66"
water line was being installed adjacent to where our tunnel will
. pass beneath it. He indicated that large quantities of water
were flowing into th trench such that (3) water pumps were barely
keeping up. He added that he felt the source of this water was
the confined sand aquifer which lays essentially below our
tunnel. There is no n~ntion of this event in the report nor
evidence that any work was done to quantify the amount of inflow
or determine its source. .
7. We've been further informed as to the source of the
statement in report Section 6.4 Groundwater Control for Tunnel
Construction pg. 39 (see enclosure) dealing with deep well
spacing. Instead of Woodward-Clyde using their own incomplete
and erroneous data to determine this spacing, an unidentified
dewatering contractor is said to have provided this information.
What the dewatering contractor based his assumption on; why this
analysis wasn't done by or at least checked by Woodward-Clyde;
(or the representation qualified in the report as originating
from someone other than the report's drafter) and what criteria
were used to make such an assumption are three questions which
remain unanswered at .this time.
"
8. Our letter of January 7, 1988 asks about a specific
requirement in the specification and Addendum II; pr.oviding for
dewatering the tunnel environment to 10"below the tunnel. Since
this requirement must be compatible with representations made
elsewhere in the contract documents, including the Soil Report by
Woodward-Clyde, reliance on their technical observations is
appropriate. As a practical matter this does not and cannot
work; which adds to the list of inaccurate conclusions derived
from the soil report.
9. The accompanying independent report infers that deep
well spacing of 20-45 ft. maximum is required to get water down
below the tunnel. This may not provide for 2' below tunnel and
.i::;i~~}\,';.,:,:.fj~\'
--
P age Three
Westcon
v(,,-:,
absolutely in no way approaches 10' below tunnel dewatering. Due
to geol~9Y and surface constraints, cost leffectiveness of
additional dewatering should be evaluate9 after reviewing all
relevant data, especially that used by W~dward-Clyde in the
prepaTation of the soil report. Of part~cualr interest is the
method(s) used by Woodward-Clyde in dete~mining well spacing
since we've not found one using the data igiven us.
I
10. A major benefit in reviewing tije soil report and the
tunnel design files of Woodward-Clyde and James Montgomery
assures the reviewer that a pertinent and "currently helpful
detail" wasn't lost in the transfer of information. We're
informed' that Woodward-Clyde essentially Idid the soil report and
the tunnel design, and feel there may be ,: an increased likelihood
. of an oversight since the normal independent analysis by the
designer wasn't done. .
I remind you that almost all your correspondence is closed with a
statement assuring your cooperation .in moving the job along.
Your early compliance with this request would do just that.
,
Lewis
"
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
, SO'9Imho!! Place, Martlnez, Ctlllfomla 94553 (415) 689.3890
February 9, 1988
ltOGD J. DOlAN
Gftt_f 1040""1<<
Cltlfl/h6I".,.
JAIIIa L. HAZAItD
Cou....,/o' lite DI.1IkI
(4 I., ,oW. I 4"0
JOYa 2. AkNlUAN
!I<<reIo'Y"oJ lite Dlnr/c,
Westcon Utility Contractors, Inc.
1531 St. Alphonsus Way
'Alamo~ CA 94507
Letter No. 67
Milt Smith, Project Manager
'SAN 'RAMON VALLEY TRUNK SEWER - (D.P. 4224A)
FILES ON GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Prior to our meeting on 2/3/88 you had requested a complete design file on the
geotechnical report. We have discussed your request 'with our consultants and
we 'were informed that all data has been included in the report and no other use-
ful information is available in such files.
S~nce the design of the dewatering system is your responsibility, and since your
recent activities have developed the required information for your design, we do
not intend to further pursue this issue at this time~ If there are further ques-
tions, please contact me.
Very truly yo~rs.~~
, -#7~
. .
Henry Thom
.'~esident Eng eer
if
HT: sm
M: Daley (Utah)
File A-2.2 & A-2.6
~
Exhibit
~ntra1. Contra Costa Sanitary District
~.; \;
Pebruary 8, 1988
Distribution List
Henry Than iff
San Ramal Valley Trunk Sewer CD.P. 4224A)
!~:. Minutes Of . Meeting Beld On February 3, 1988
Dewatering Problem
Attendees:
ax:so :
R. Klimczak
M. IANery
B. '!ban
J. Lewis
D. Dyckman
R. Miles
R. Essex
S. Klein
M. Daley
B. Sitbett
M. Snith..
...
f.
~;l;'" .
JLS:
(WFJ, . I11c.)
JMM:
~:
~!: t<.:;~..
,,;.::,..;
Westcon:
'.... ...
.J a(~~~.: .
,~;;...i'_;:'.;..
l~'n1is 'meeting was requested by westcon to review the overall jacking
.status with their subca1tractor. Reference, District letter No. 62.
'"','":.7.
2:OY /Piezaneter P-7B at San Ramal Valley Blvd is being changed into'.a
dewatering well this morning. As discussed with Westcoo'in the meeting
CI1'"January 28, 1988, both piezaneter P-7A and P-7B are being turned into
. wells. to increase pmlping. '!he resulted need of new piezaneters at the
area for ~itoring was discussed. '
3. ~ problem of dewatering the area west of the Danville Bane
Improvement Center building was discussed. The'level in that area has
not changed much in the",iast weeks. The accuracy of the recent readings
obtained fran the abandoned well W-3 \s being guestiCJ1ed. Since the
. well' has been idled, the readings are not reliable until the ~has
.~ pmrped down at least alee. Mr . Lewis said that P-l and P-2 in the
bni1ding were checked two weeks ago and acknowledged that all
piezaneters should be checked every week.
. '
I' ....4. Mr. Lewis said that he did not notiee any indicatiCJ10f thick sand
!.: . fomatim dtring the drilling of P-l and P-2 at the Danville Bane
!;i...Improvement Center building and suggested the possibility that the
it(~:.~~~<. .. . '
j~~;'. .':.,~ '", -.
.j~;~.~:' -.,-
Exhibit
J
Meeting Held 2/3/88
Dewatering Problem
Page 2
groundwater in that area may have reached the maximum drawdown. It was
agreed by the participants in the meeting that the sand layer in that
area should be located for further evaluatioo.
5., Mr. Lewis expressed his general opinioo en the gramdwater flow
ccmditien of the area, the pressure en the clay layers and the impact to
the hydrostatic conditicn, the rate of flow through the sand layers,
ground settlement and the possible relatiooship with bydros~tic head,.
etc.
6. Mr. Lewis proposed to start jacking the pipe through San ..Ramc:o'
vaney Blvd ccncurrent with the engoing dewatering activity 'at':tbi area
of the Danville Bane Improvement Center building and without waiting for
'the level iri that area to be further lowered. He said that the proposal
is based en his data which indicates the water flow in the building ar~
is very low and the ability of water to move through thee sand)in that <.
area is also low. (Mr. Lewis believes that the groundwater in that area
'can not be further lowered due to the soils conditien and does not see
the benefit of additicnal wells~~ He believes that the hydrostatic
pressure in that area is alreadY relieved and the risk involved in
jacking without attempting to further lower the groundwater should be
minimal. Be also expressed his opinion that it is virtually impossible
to eliminate all risk if that is the intention.
, . B. ~an maintained that the risk of the proposal awears to be .
excessive at this time and requested confi rmatioo , of Mr. Lewis' reasons
presented above. In order for the proposal to be prq>erly evaluated,
the Contractor mst address (at least) the following:
,- safety concerns (workers, plblic, utilities, etc.),
possibility of pipe "frozen" in place after possible st~ge,
possibili ty of loss of ground at the shield,
detail contingency plans,
justifiable reasons and confinnatioo.
"
8.; Woodward-clyde indicated that the proposal made by Westcon in the
meeting en January 28, 1988 of drilling another hole west of the
bIilding still appears to be necessary. Also, the level at P-7A in san
Ramal Valley Blvd needs to be confirmed.
'~
.-.'-""',"-'-"",,- --,,-~----,",_...-..~----- """-';.:,.;;-~>
Meeting Held 2/3/88
Dewatering Problem
Page 3
9. '!be Contractor agreed to drill a hole (this Friday) west of the
building to allow for the necessary evaluatial; .and will turn it into a
'1:
well if deemed required. The Contractor also ag,:eed to mcnitor the
levels of the three wells in San Raman Valley Blvd (this Friday) to
cbtai.n the required informaticn. W:x>dward-Clyde will provide an
engineer to malitor the above activities.
10. Mr. Lewis also prOfX)sed to raise the jacking portial of the
pipeline by 9-inches to circumvent the above problems. Further, the
bottan of the jacking pit is too high to allowfpr a CCl'1Crete pad for
the jacking machine. B. '!han said that this proposalwa$>reviewea
before and rejected by the Consultants due to technida1'Cens.1deratiau;,
and will again reviE!'tti it immediately per Mr. Lewis' request.
ll. 'Ihe status of the various technical subnittals al jacking related
: items was discussed. The status list given to Westcon during the
meeting al January 28, 1988 will not be further. discussed. In sunmary,
the District is still waiting for the re-sutmi ttals on thrust block
\ calculatial and al Bentonite Lubrication. ~ere 'are three sul:mi.ttals
that require further re-suhni ttals as of now.
12. '!be status of the jacking equipnent ane? jacking pit was discussed.
Mr. Lewis said that the equipnent is ready to be' :placed into the pit,
the thrust block is poured, the pipings are all connected, the gauges
are checked and cperable, the standby ventilatial. equipnent and the
backup ~r supply for the wells are available. ;
13. ~ meeting then CCllcluded with the reiteratioo of the agreed
actial per items 9, 10 and 11 above. '
B'l':jb
Distributial: All AttendE!es
K. AIm
R. Baker
J. Bergen (JMM)
R. Collins
C. Swanson
cc: File 4224A - 6.8 and 2.6
._..~.L'...
February 16, 1988
Mr. Milt Smith
Westcon
1531 st. Alphonis Way
Alamo, CA 94507
i'l
,;1
Re: Tunnel Dewatering
.... ..
.."....t..1
Dear Mr. Smi th :
~""~ I
On 'February 8, 1988 a meeting was held with yourselves, and .
, representatives from. CCCSD ~ Mo~tgomery Engineers"a1l;dW~d~,ard-
'Clyde Associates, whJ.ch prJ.marJ.ly addressed the'refe~~ncedtop~c.
Aconcensus of the status quo of dewatering efforts to date
". suggests that a general lowering of the water table' and
concurrent reduction in hydrostatic condition in the pr:J.mary
~nfined aquifer has taken place. '
. ~.' Ct"" ..~~. .
Piezometer readings and a general settlement' of the dewatered
area attest to this phenomena. '
'i,,;.,~;"',Whereas the dewatering effort to date has not resulted in
'r:,:;~:establishing the static water level at" some ideal dimensiqn below
V.t1ie't'unnel invert, it may nonetheless be compatible with the
t:.L"ttinneling method chosen, namely pipej acking.
~; :~~,' '.' ,
':n~;~,.T~. positive factors of the pipej ackirig interface wi th this
'.:'i:',current soil condition are the smallest cross sectional opening
";,i:;. possible at the tunnel "heading" and the elimination of any
,5t;~:'cUmmulative effect of minor groundwater inflows throughou~ the
~.. excavated tunnel in that the rubber gasketed pipe is water tight
: for its entire length.
~~E : ~ .*,
A~~urther benefi t of this process is the'i"rigid" behavior of this
sol-l' support system, versus an "elastic".:behaviour of a steel
supported tunnel, which is nega ti vely amt!lified in a wet
condi,tion. The discussion, therefore, at this meeting addressed
the'.'binneling going ~drward under the pr~sent conditions as being
~he.most'cost effective for all concerned. Since the presence of
~.~ter,an;/the soil at a higher elevation than the tunnel invert is
more detrimental than that below the tunnel, two tests were .
~rdere'd to determine the likelihood of :tl)is occurring. One test
wa:s'~the drilling of a piezometer at station 303 + 80 with
continous sampling to determine the existence of any thin 'sand "
layers' 'above the diminished primary aquifer in this predominately
~~~y~section of the tunnel. The presence of these thin sand
',strata could provide an artificially high reading in a
piezometer, in that it would not readily lend itself to "drying
up~', but at the same time may not represent a significant volume
of water to be consequential to pipej acking. The other test was
Exhibit
K
Mr. Milt Smith
Page Two
to reinforce the assumption of the absence of a hydrostatic
condition under San Ramon Valley Blvd. Even though there
presently are not any remaining piezomet~rs in this zone, the
high density of dewatering wells strongly suggest the removal of
any hydrostatic condition. 'I
at.,y.: ,',
This test included shutting off the pump in well No. 7A ano
measuring the elapsed time for the well to rebound to its near
static water condition. '
The following steps shall be carried out during the pipejacking
to, further reduce any risk of detrimental water intrusion' into
the ,shield at the front of the j ackpipe. i .' , , , '
f~-g:n:r _.' ;'. , :.-':.:-" i - ;,..
!;:,;:}i';~, "1. 1 1 /2" probe holes will be drilled at top of' tunriel prism
, and to ten feet ahead of shield using a continous flight:' auger
powered by a 3/4" electric drill. This probing ahead process
will.take place at sewer and water cross~ngs as well as at
'locations where the presence of a homogenous clay tunnel crown is
, suspect. The tunnel invert shall also be probed to detect any
,:,-;, , potential hydrostatic condition. .
i:f~,,:':', thi. '"
:<ji':,d~L.2. Should a high water table condition be encountered, the
'~~" shield shall be bulkheaded and 1" perfurated drains installed
20"+/- in front of shield to effect required dewater,ing before
continuing.
3.'A schedule is proposed that w~uld most conservatively
aqdressthe most sensitive portions of the tunnel, namely, the
tunneling near and under the existing sewer and 66" water line.
, These events occur only 26 feet and 64 ~~et from the jacking
shaft and there is agreement that suffic~ent jacking force is
available to negate any concern for frictional resistance build
up dUE! to pauses in the jacking process." The work should proceed
.on,:a' :ten hour a day single shift basis until the heading is
advanced beyond the 66" water line. This provides for the
highest concentration of expereince and,talent during the
matching of the tunnel shield functions to the existing ground
'conditions. Also, at' the same time this high experience ratio is
available to most conservatively and effectively accomplish the
tunneling beneath the utilities.
i
i
4. During this single shift operation the tunnel shield
shall be completely bulkheaded each evening and filter cloth
'placed, in the lower confines of the shield to assure against any
movement of fine soil particles into the tunnel in the unlikely
'j;j' .,<event of sufficient volume and velocity ,of water to cause same.
~U" '
:. 5. During the non-work hours a check of the tunnel bulkhead
and pumping rate from tunnel shield shall be made every 2 hours
_..._.____,_,____,___~~.,__..~.._ ._~_~.._.._____L.____..__.m.,~ .....~.~~~',,~hii~;'~~... ~
Mr. Milt Smith
)~:;g:':::;:nsible individual who shall make any necessary minor
,1 adjustments to maintain its integrity. He shall remain on site
'between checks of bulkhead.
~;;:. ;.
;\ < "" :'
. "".' '6 . The
stop .points.
1 .
2.
3.
4.
single shift tunneling shall, adhere to the following
:
;1';';/~'~'~~- ."
.. 'f':I!ii;:i.7l.;J?nce tunneling reaches sta. 306 + 40, any, ~in~l ..j.....
E.'.tm;e~t$ to equipment and procedures shall ~~ ,~~.~.." ~W,h.~n "
.. ~.el.ing",continues, it shall be on a 24 hour per. day basis until
ompleted'. .
.;'.~::.'i_:.r;~~~~:r;.. ':
fiil';t!;'..~~. . When tunnel reaches its final location, the bulkhead
r't.:.:?\shall be securely installed once again and continous pumping at
shield will be implemented until its subsequent removal.
307 + 1 0
306 + 92
306 + 70
306 + 40
'i.':)io~ you will agree with me that it isfa~ better to accomplish
'this early work on a single shift basis under a controlled,
d.~liberate approach rather than to completely exhaust mentally
an~physically those individuals respons~ble for implementing a
~lQse,tolerance piece of work with different soil conditions, new
eqUip!:rient and largely new people under existing utilI ties.
......... .,...:........., ..'
," ~.:a.) . The Contractor
~y~~nsequences of pipe
-'.~... . "..
p*}~ ,'r
d~;"P. .)The Contractor
$?~t.;.lts.desired change in
e'Or
is to assume .total responsibility for
failure due ~o jacking stresses.
is to assume all liabili,ty arising out
pipe (tunnel) invert grade.
c~) The contractor assures the owner that it shall
pros.~~ut~ and complete the tunnel as required by the project
sp'ecitications even though the ground water elevation is higher
than 2' below invert.
, .:" ~ .'
~h~nk you for your suggestions thus far a;nd further cooperation.
; ..'
"
L
,,~:.
;.,.
'~<t:; ,. h .-
I
\./"
, '
I
March 15, 1988
.Milt Smith
Westcon
From the start of tunneling to present, we have exper~enced
vastly d.ifferent ground conditions along with wood pi.lings, all
of which have had a negative impact on the tunneling.
The value of this negative impact cannot be ascertained at
this time and will be forwarded to Westcon and the district at
such time as can be determined, probably at the end of the
tunneling.
Sincerely,
Jack Lewis
.J .4.;, S . i S. ,I / /,.('.
"
Exhibit
L
-.', .......
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
March 17, 1988
JfA~ [1J 1985.
I
. "~,, I. DOLAN
~"~'O' Mo"o,~,
c"'~1 Eft,I"H'
lAMES L HAZARD
COU"", I." '''~ OI11rlcl
(4") 'J../UO
JOKI! Eo Me M/LJ..'oN
S<<nlo" o/l"~ 0111,/"
western utility Contractors, Inc.
1531 st Alphonsus Way
Alamo, CA 94507
Attention: Milt Smith, Project Manager
Letter No. 72 .
Gentlemen:
SAN RAMJN VALLEY 'lRUNK SEWER (D.P. 4224A)
DIFFERINi SITE cnIDITIONS
This is in response to your letter #078 which enclosed a letter.fram Mr.
Lewis on the referenced subject.
we are surprised at Mr. Lewis t statement that l;1e has been experiencing
"vastly different ground conditions" since th~ start of the tunneling.
Q]r inspectioos and records have been indicating similar or better soil
cooditions than that shCMn on Woodward-C1.yde's: nee's) geotechnical
report. And as a reminder, the wee report is. hot a part of the COntract
Document and it is specifically indicated in t:EeCOntract that there is
no warranty as to the accuracy, sufficiency, or contents of the ~
. report. Please refer to our letter #60 for our previous discussion 00
this subject.
As to claims on differing site conditions, please refer to GC-ll and our
letter #54. You are contractually required to prarptly notify the
District in writing and to submit evidence and data to substantiate your
notice 00 such a claim. Mr. Lewis' letter dated March 15, 1988 contains
no;evidence or substantiation and is, therefore, nqt acceptable as a
proper notification. )
As to the presence of the wood pH ings, we have acki'lowi~ed in our
letter #71 dated March 15, 1988 on the presence of the\four pilings and
also confirmed our pr6Wious verbal authorization to remove such pilings
in accordance with GC-l2, entitled Changes And Extra wOrk. You are
again requested to carq;>ly with the Contract requirement and our previous
request on submitting the detailed records an time and material within
five (5) calendar days following the receipt of the letter.
\
In closing, we must note that you are more than three (3) months behind
schedule on the jacking p:>rtion of your ccntr~ct. And as of this date,
with the exception of the referenced pilings, we have noticed no
unanticipated soil conditions that may have contributed to the delay of
your jacking work.
cc:
i
M. Daley (westcon-Utah)
File 4224A -2.6
HBT:jb
Very truly yours,
Henry B. 'l11an
Project Manager
Exhibit
M
____ a;., r
""~
Central Contra Costa Sanitary DI$trlc~
'" ""f".':~'llI<JJ'I,j
April 4, 1988
'WJ~~~~\W~IDJ
B-D_R
6l\L ~ :ISBa.
. IlOGU/, DOl.Vi
Gc"~'. "'tllI.'~'
CltJwl &Il6/nKr
JANU L. HAZAllD
COY"H/Jor '"w ~'U;C1
" (.II} ,U. IfJO
JOYCE L MCM/LlAN
5<<rwto'Y oj '"w ~"rlcl
western utility Contractors, Inc.
1531 St. Alphonsus Way
Alamo, CA 94507
Attention: Milt Smith, Project Manager
Letter No.' 90 '
Gentlemen :
SAN mm ~F:i 'mONK SEWER <D.P. 4224A)
'llJNNEL VIDOO RE<XIIDI~
'Ibis is to acknowledge receipt of your letter.t094 which attached a note
fran Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis is requesting our participatioo in making
carments and remarks on soil conditions wring his video recording of
the tunnel face scheduled for April 5, 1~88 or April 6, 1988.
I
I
we have discussed this with our Consultants and have been informed that
the video taping can not identify the actual soil conditions and,
technically, does not have any relevant bearing to the issue of
differing soil conditions as being all edged by Mr. Lewis. '1herefore, we
decline to participate at this time. However, the D~strict is reviewing
your request for soils sampling and testing within the next two days and
will inclu~~ the video taping request in our O'/erall evaluation.
.....
~
Henry B. '!han
Project Manager
HBT: jb
"
CC: M. Daley CWestcon-Utah)
File 4224A 2.2 and 2.6
~~~'"
--
N
Ilfr' 0,
r (CI'. :"'\.
./ V ':-'
. '''; \.J
/',1:':,
Progress Meeting
March 31, 1988
REVISED
In Attendance:
Jack Lewis, J. Lewis & Son, Inc.
Milt Smith, Westcon
Bruce Sibbett, Westcon
Henry Thom, CCCSD
Mark Lowery, CCCSD
Bob Collins, CCCSD
Steve Klein, Woodward & Clyde .
Jackie Zayac, CCCSD
John Bergen, James M. Montgomery
Randy Essex, Woodward & Clyde
Ron Klimezak, CCCSD
Heinz Berger, Woodward & Clyde
Jack lewis:, Suggests that the District' srepresentative:.~n site
from Woodward & Clyde could collect soil samples at tunrtel face and note
water in-flow and su~h.
Woodward &,Clyde man has been using pocket pentitromitor to test
soils at tunnel face. Soil sampling could determine soil moisture and
clay values and stiffness and perhaps explain the tunri~l conditions
problems encountered.
General condition #11, p.XA224A-V-6 relates to
differing site conditions. Jack Lewis"sugges'ts
the applicable specification section is Ge1l.
Henry Thom replied that the District's soil e~gineers are on site
to observe and make reports on operations and progress, not to make
samplin~ for contractor.
Further, the District does not feel that there is any indication
of differing site conditions and inspectors on slte have not reported
such.
It is recommended that Jack Lewis hire hi! own certified soil
engineer to take the soil samples and, if so, the District will then
,have their people take simultaneous samples.
Jack Lewis requested that he tape the meet~ng. Some of the Dis-
trict's representatives declined to have the meeting taped. Jack Lewis
stated that if the meeting could not be taped, that he did not want to
further discuss anything.
Exhibit
,'r
o
'0 a-
, Progress Meeting -- Revised
March 31, 1988
Page Two
Henry Thom asked to continue discussing some of the pipe jacking
topics, but Jack Lewis declined and left the meeting at this time.
Steve Klein stated that Westcon should not forward some of Jack
Lewis' letters because they generate extra work for the consultants
(WoodwaYd & Clyde).
Discussion of the survey reporte of settlement and requirement
of regular surveys.
The thrust block is moving back a few inches, two to three inches.
Piezometer reading on March 28, 1988 was up on P-S and p-6. About
a foot on p-6. Should look into this. (P-6 was down again on March 30,
1988).
far.
I -
Tunnel grade has been about 25 hundredths high for the tunnel so
Jack Lewis plans to take off from Saturday, 5:00.P.M. until Monday
morning. Henry Tho~:' states that this is contrary 'to earlier agreement.
P G & E will shut down power in part of Danvil1e from 10:30 P.M.
Monday to 6:30 A.M. Tuesday. This will not affect Jack Lewis.
Overall, progress for pipe laying is about 10% behind.
Milt: We will pick this up on these last'seetions which have only
one street crossing and a few utilities.
Need to check with Ca1Trans on traffic' control plan at Station
21-60+. Also, check with County Traffic.
Align change by Manhole 4 has been made to miss P G & E Manhole.
Force account will be used for removal of cement paving.
Cement will be replaced by deep AC hot mix.
Discussed the status of pipe jacking unde~ 1-680 submittal and
approval of the pipe.
,Las Trampas: We have County permit on how to reinstall the
storm drain.
Diversion structure #2 at Manhole #37.
James M. Montgomery will have drawing back next week. The diversion
and Manhole will be combined into one structure, south of grade change.
Manhole 137 will be the same without the connections.
Pipe from 134+17 to 134+49 does -not haVE T-lock on it. Manhol.
was moved south one pipe and the one bad pipe had to be replaced with .
unlined pipe.
/} -~..
(..'(') r (r ",--
..-. ,
_ .'j".I'f ,/,' (':1" -/ .
,/7/ t1
~.,....".1 t.~/'. '..-,;...
r- ...:-. /
central Contra Costa sanitary District
April 4, 1988
J?rt~~~~\W~[o)
~e.R. 'Z~
TO: Distribution List
FroM: Henry Than ~
I ~ I
SOBJECT: San Ramon Valley Interceptor CD.P. 4224A)
Progress Meeting No. 19
Minutes Of Meeting
. SUbject meeting was held en March 31, 1988 at the District's Alamo
office. '!he fOllCMing were in attendance:
CCCSD:
.I
Westcoo:
R. Collins
R. Klimczak
M. Lo.r.rery
c. SWanson
H. '!han
J. 'Zayac
B. Sibbett
M. Smith
J. !ewis
J. Bergen
H. Berger
S. Klein
..
.~, i
JLS:
JMM:
w:c:
1. (Backgrcxmd: Westcon' s letter dated 3-30-88 atttached a message
,.franJLS requesting a meeting a'1 soil condi ti~s. Westcal and JLS
,.'agreed to discuss JLS's issues. in the first part of this ProgreSs.
Meeting. JLS's cootention is that there is a differing soil conditioo
aH~g the jacking work, whereas 'the District in it's letter .77
dated March 28, 1988 reiterated that the District has oot ooticed any
unanticipated cooditions and, again, requested Westcon to sul::mit
evidence arid data, to substantiate JLS's elm.)
&JLS: JLS stated thflt the jacking operation is presenting an
oppottuni ty for soil sartIpl ing and noted that the District had soil
:inspectors (WX) on the job and felt that they could be used. to obtain
samples fran the face of the jacking shield.JLS also asked that the
w:c inspectors mcnitor the production of water fran the face of the
excavation, noting particularly the location of in-flcws. JLS also
noted the use of a p:x:ket t:enetraneter reCently by the wee inspectors.
'District: '!he District responded that the inspectim and records
do not indicate any condition that may be considered as a differing site
Ca1di tioo and suggested that a Soils Engineer be obtained ~ Westcon/JLS
Exhibit
p
~~._-.....
'. ill;"" a-
~. ~),'~.~. l:
San RamOn Valley Interc. .or CD.P. 4224A)
_ Progress Meeting No. 19
-Page 2
to perform the ~ling and testing that are being mentiooed by JLS in
order to substantiate JLS's cla.iJn. :As to the wee inspectors, the
. District clarified that they are inspecting the jacking work 00 behalf
of the District to ensure contract cOmpliance.
Ql the issue of water seeping into the face ~ the excavaticn, the
District reminded the Contractor that, at the request of JLS, the
: jacking work proceeded without lowering the groundwater to 2-ft belCM
the tunnel invert as required in the Contract. The District, therefore,
;~ did not see water producticn' in the face of the tunnel as a naterial
,-.;issue. As to the four wood piles encountered in the tunnel, the
District reminded the Contractor that the District had agreed to
canpensate for their remOl7al in accordance with Gt-12 and the usual
r procedure being used throughout the project. To this date, We have not
~Vr~ceived' the records ai Time and.Material as requested:linLClUr.let~r.71_
'>,and .72.': -
._ MX: As to the p:>cket penetraoeter, wx noted that it"should c:nly
'~'be :used en undisturbed samples which is not the case at the face of the
. . excavaticn. lCC bas ally started using it recently and 'will disccntinue
the use of this device en the excavated face. lCC.will provide westcon
~with;the reading they have cbtained thus far, if requested, but cautioned
all conoerned that the tests would have to be performed 5 to 6 feet into
the undisturbed material ahead of the face to obtain meaningful results.
lCC felt that to substantiate arrj claim as to cMnged conditicns, JLS
would have to employ a professicnal Soils Engineer to perform the
~lin9 and tests with wee taking simultaneous samples along with JLS's
\~'. engineer.
.
J!fi: JMM noted that the occurance of unforeseen pilings in the
path of the pipe jacking was properly cOI7ered under Secticn GC-12. JMM
also concurred with wee that the soil conditicns do rot materially differ
frau those indicated in the WX geotechnical repOrt. -
" "..' .
. I -m..s: JLS disagreed that the remOl7al of the four piles should be
considered as work under GC-12 (Changes and Extra Work) and insisted
that it is considered under GC-ll CDiffering site Conditicns). (At this
point, JLS displayed a tape recorder and indicated the desire to record
the meeting if it was to be continued. '!be District explained that the
no~.procedure is the .distribution of minuteS of the meeting to all
partlClpantS for record plrposes. JLS then repeated the intentioo of
leaving the meeting unless the tape recorder could be used. 1he
District invi tea JLS to remain for the conclusion of the discussions
relating to pipe jacking, but JLS declined and left the meeting.)
2. '!he District requested westcon to continue with the jacking work
.;:o:".:;,~"
'. __ \:- ':J.. r_
San Ramon Valley Interceptor <D.P. 4224A)
Progress Meeting No. 19
Page 3
'::'1'
"
~:a:nd to follow the aw1icab1e section of the COntract (e.g. 0:-1, 0:-5,
: etc.) if there are disputes during the perf ormanc~ of the work. The
· District also assured Westcon of continuing full cooperation, as '
}repeated1y demonstrated since the start of the Proj~ct.
o I
i3.. l<<:C expressed the concern that JLS claims were spurious and
.'requiring undue manhours by their staff to respond ito these c1aJ.ms and
, allegatims and felt that WestCon should review thEl clams and requests
:r.of its subcontractor and reject those ~at were oI::wious1y without merit.
.<',
,d~. l<<:C mentialed that more frequent breasting of the face of the ,
F excavati~ during jacking may lessen the excessive sett1euents that.. have
'been~ted in District letter t86~ '!be District ,reitera~ed the point
made in fhe letter that if the settlement pattern and magnitude CCl'ltinue
under Danvi11e BaoeImprcw'ement CeI:1ter, damage may occu~to the interior
~ti ticn of the bui~ding. '
:,,~' . Westcm mentialed that the slow rate of the jacking progress may be
~',a11cMing excessive migratial of fines into the jacked pipe.
, ' . :
" . As movement has been noted at the thrust" block behind the
;~:~ac:king pit, the District will begin mooitoring i~ ,movement.
, '.the District reminded Westcon al the requirement of settlement
survey for the Danville Bane Improvement Cen~er building perimeter every
,other day. , . '
5.,''1he District noted that piezaneter readings taken CI'1 March 28, ;1988
shcMed' that the level for PS and P6 had raised I-ft. 'Ihe tmme1 grade
is still higher than the design as of March 29, 1988 and the slope is
essentially flat when checked at the bentonite pipe.
6. Westcon confirmed that JLS had refused the District' s request to
install a certified pressure gauge by the District in the jacking ~stem
to pr~r1y mcnitor the jaCKing pressure.
, 7. '!he ale day shutdown proposed for Easter SUnd~y by JLS was 'noted as
ccntrary to the specifications and JLS's agreement of 24-hour operaticns
for that area.
Lastly, a newspaper article noting 'a P.G.& E. ,shutdown scheduled
)~:L;
- .. ~,.__.;.:::.-_.._~ -
CD.P. 4224A)
'4' .', . . ;
or'MOnday at 10:20 p.m. to Tuesday at 6:30 a.m. .was given to Westcon.
s may impact the jacking operation. If so, calsideration should be
'given to using a p:>rtab1e p:Mer plant, to keep the q;>eratial caltinuous.
/<At..this !X)int, the meeting continued fOllCMing the usual agenda.)
;,,,
Progress
,... . '!he District noted that the work appears to be awroximately 10%
/behlnd schedule. Westcon feels they are a:fProxilnately one week. behind
,{the schedule and ~ June 1, 1988, they project they will be 2 to 3 weeks'
.. ahead.
.Manhole !b. 3
J
, ' , '!he District request~ that Westcon obtain written calcUtrence. fran
r..Caltrans al the proposed detour plan to be used for cros!?ing South Main
X,Street at the vicinity of Manhole No.3. When this is finalized, the
.,District will send a ccfr:f to Contra Costa Flood Control along with
!'notification of westcon' s proposed schedule for the work which is now
g;projected to ccmnence April 11, 1988.
~ ,
:.. A minor change in alignment has been deslgneq by JMM to avoid the
f)?Pacific Bell vault vicinity of Manhole NO.4. A copy of this revisial
t;, will be sent to Westca1 and the survey crew. The pipe, as fabricated
}'.for the previous alignment, will work without alteratialS. . '!be pipe
> should now clear by l1l=Proximately 1-1/2 feet:
::i>.' , '!he District requested that Westcon conductt;he remOl7al of. any
~i calcrete pavement and subsequent' replacement with deep lift A. C. as an
~, ,
/-easily separable q;>eratial for the p.1rpose of keeping Time and Materials
irecords.
t~ \j
Pipe Jacldng Beneath 1-680, Vicinity Of Laurel Drive
Caltrans has accepted the proposal for pipe jacking, bUt the
, marked-up dOOJrnents have J'l9t been returned. The District will respond
1, to Westcon' s proposal on plpe jacking in this area early next week. l<<::c
:,is,awaiting receipt of design calculaticns for the jacked pipe to
'f-;review. , The District noted that Westcon should irisure a consensus
.:between the pipe supplier and Walter C. Stith (jackingsubcmtractor) on
;,the issue of tolerance en the pipe spigots,. as it relates to jacking,
ibefore the pipe is fabricated.
'L- .
"",' __ ,,1_ 'V..,_~___,...
.
Centra~ "':ontra Costa Sanitary ~istrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 9
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
August 3, 1989
NO.
VIII. BUDGET AND FINANCE 2
SUBJECT
RECEIVE lHE FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM YEAR-END REPORT
DATE
J ul y 31, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
RECEIVE REPORT
SUBMITTED BY
John J. Mercurio
Administrative Analyst
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Engineering Department/
~anning Division
ISSUE: The Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) system provi des for a year-end
report to the Board of Directors on the status of the District's Capital
Improvement Program.
BACKGROUND: The Fiscal Year concluded June 30, 1989, and the final budget
figures have been accumul ated for presentation in this report. A comparison of
the Capital Improvement Pl an (CIP) estimated and year-end actual revenues and
expenditures is presented below:
Revenues
Expenditures
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1989
Year-End
CIP Year-End Variance
Estimate Actual Actual to
FY 1988-89 FY 1988-89 CIP Estimate
$19,153,000 $19,724,000 3%
$24,292,000 $16 ,392 ,000 (33%)
Revenues over
( under)
Ex enditures
( $5 ,13 9 ,000 )
$ 3,332,000
Attachment 1 provides a detailed analysis of the year-end status of the
District's Capital Improvement Program. Highlights are summarized below.
Capftal Improvement Revenues:
Di stri ct revenues received from all sources credi ted to the Sewer Constructi on
Fund for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1989, total $19,724,000, which
represents 103 percent of the $19,153,000 revenue proj ected in the Capital
Improvement Pl an. Tabl e 1 of Attachment 1 compares the actual and CIP estimated
revenues for the entire fiscal year.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV. rvtf-- 5fV1 J~ j}fJfJ
~
1302A-9/85
JJM JMM JMK RAB
SUBJECT
RECEIVE THE FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM YEAR-END REPORT
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
OF
9
July 31, 1989
Expenditures for Capital I.provement Projects:
Di stri ct expenditures for capital improvement proj ects for the fi scal year total
$16,392,000, which represents 67 percent of the $24,292,000 projected for
expenditures for FY 1988/89 in the Capital Improvement Pl an.
It was estimated in the mid-year status report that the total capital improvement
expenditures would be within 13 percent of the amount estimated in the Capital
Improvement Pl an. The actual 33 percent vari ance in CIP-estimated expenditures
was chiefly due to unanticipated delays in the Dewatering System Improvement
Project ($1.24 M), Sludge/Ash Handling Project ($0.77 M), Walnut Creek Downtown
Bypass ($1.61 M), Martinez Early Start Sewer Improvements ($0.88 M), WS23 Sewer
Improvements ($1.18 M), Hall Drive Sewer Improvements ($1.20 M), and the Lagiss
Property Acquisition ($1.19 M). Table 3 of Attachment 1 presents a comparison of
actual and estimated CIP FY 1988/89 expenditures in each budget program.
Allocations to Capital I.provelllent Projects:
Allocations of funds from program budgets to capital improvement projects for the
fiscal year total $10,890,000, which represents 56 percent of the $19,484,000
authorized by the Board for the entire fiscal year. Table 2 of Attachment 1
presents a comparison of actual allocations from program budgets to specific
proj ects and estimates for these all ocati ons made at the time the CIS was
prepared. Unanticipated delays in the Walnut Creek Downtown Bypass Project and
five other major Di stri ct proj ects li sted in Tabl e 2 resul ted in deferri ng over
$8 million in allocations.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the fiscal year 1988-89 Capital Improvement Program
Year-End Status Report.
13026-9/85
P'~-<'!e 3 of 9
ATTAa-tMENT 1
CEN"ffiAL CON"ffiA CXlSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
Fiscal Year 1988-89 Capital Improvement Program
Year-End Status Report
Detailed Analysis
INTROOOCTION
A year-end report on the status of the Capital Improvement Program is
required under the District's Capital Improvement Program management
system. This report compares Fi scal Year 1988/89 actual revenues,
expenditures, and allocations with those projected in the Capital
Improvement Plan and Budget adopted by the District Board prior to Fiscal
Year 1988/89.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVENUES
District revenues received from all sources credited to the Sewer
Construction Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1989, total
$19,724,000, which represents 103 percent of the $19,153,000 projected in
the Capital Improvement Pl an for the enti re fi scal year. Tabl e 1
presents the di stri buti on of actual versus estimated amounts among the
capital revenue categories. Specific information on the status of each
of the revenue categories is presented below:
Interest on Investments
Interest income on temporary investment of the Sewer Constructi on
Fund for the fiscal year totals $5,481,000, which represents 156
percent of the $3,512,000 proj ected revenue for the enti re year.
Interest rates were higher than projected in the CIP.
Fixture Fees
Fixture Fees collected during the fiscal year total $2,795,000,
which represents 113 percent of the $2,467,000 estimated revenue for
the entire year. The original projection for the rate of
development was slightly underestimated, resulting in higher than
anticipated revenue.
Watershed Fees
Watershed Fees coll ected duri ng the fi scal year total $1,398,000 ,
whi ch represents 90 percent of the $1 ,556,000 proj ected revenue for
the anti re yea r. Si nce Watershed Fees are speci f i c to pa rti cul ar
watersheds and vary between $300 and $1,253, actual revenue wil 1
vary from that proj ected if development occurs at a di fferent rate
than anticipated in one or more areas. The mid-year CIB report
recognized that Watershed Fees would not reach the amount estimated
in the CIP.
P'."'e 4 of 9
Annexation Charges
Annexation Charges collected during the fiscal year total $853,000,
whi ch represents 213 percent of the $400,000 proj ected revenue for
the enti re year. Thi s favorabl e vari ance refl ects a hi gher than
anticipated rate of connection in areas not previously annexed to
the District, primarily in the Danville-San Ramon area.
Ad Valorem Taxes
Tax revenue for the fiscal year totals $6,095,000, which represents
112 percent of the $5,460,000 projected revenue for the entire year.
The reason for this difference is that the CIP estimate of
$5,460,000 was based on an incorrect assumption of FY 1987-88 tax
revenue.
Funds from Government Agencies
Thi s revenue category is compri sed of funds received from the City
of Concord, addressed separately below.
Ci ty of Concord
The city has paid $3,090,000 for its contribution to the fiscal
year 1988-89 Capital Improvement Program. This bill ing
refl ects actual expenditures for the fi rst six months of the
fiscal year and a projection of expenditures for the remainder
of the year. The bill ed amount represents 81 percent of the
$3,802,000 projected revenue for the entire year. The
unfavorabl e vari ance for the proj ected amount is due to a lower
than estimated 1 evel of expenditures in the Treatment P1 ant
Program, an adj ustment for actual FY 1987/88 expenditures, and
a reducti on in Concord's share of the Treatment Pl ant Program
from 32 percent to 31 percent, based on their actual monitored
flow.
eal trans
It was expected that payment of $1,624,000 woul d be received
from Cal trans th i s fiscal year for the I-680/ SR-24 rel ocati ons
project necessitated by freeway widening in Walnut Creek.
However, this reimbursement will not be received until FY
1989-90. The reimbursement of approximately $1,700,000 will
result in a zero net cost to the District.
The payment from the City of Concord described above, which totals
$3,090,000, was the only source of revenue collected in this
category thi s year. Therefore, an unfavorabl e vari ance in Funds
from Government Agenci es' revenue of approximatel y 43 percent
exists at the end of the fiscal year.
~-'1e 5 of 9
Miscellaneous Income
Income under this category includes revenue from cash discounts
earned and rebates and water recl amati on revenue from the
Demonstration Project. Miscellaneous Income for the fiscal year
tota 1 s $12,000, whi ch represents 4 percent of the $332,000 revenue
estimated for the entire year. As projected at mid-year, an
unfavorable variance in Miscellaneous Income of approximately 96
percent exists at the end of the fiscal year. This variance is due
to a change in accounting for the water reclamation revenue;
therefore, receipt of the total estimated income was not achieved.
ALLOCATIONS TO PROJECTS FROM PROGRAM BU[X]ETS
Allocations of funds from program budgets to specific capital improvement
projects during the fiscal year total $10,890,000, which represents 56
percent of the $19,484,000 authorized by the Board. A summary of this
i nformati on for each Budget Program is presented in Tabl e 2. A 1 ist of
major projects which incurred unanticipated delays in receiving
allocations from program budgets is included at the bottom of Table 2.
A total of $1,078,000 in Program Contingency funds were allocated during
the fiscal year to fund unanticipated new projects and construction
overruns. (A listing of all Program Contingency allocations can be found
in the FMIS year-end financial statements.) A total of $3,000 in the
Treatment Pl ant Program Conti ngency Fund was returned to the fund. The
resul tant Program Conti ngency Fund bal ance of $406,000 is avail abl e for
carry-over into the next fiscal year.
EXPENDITURES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
District expenditures for capital improvement projects for the fiscal
year total $16,392,000, which represents 67 percent of the $24,292,000
projected expenditures for the entire year. (Expenditures for particular
proj ects are presented in the Capital Improvement Budget Status Reports
provided to the Board in the monthly FMIS financial statements.) A
summary of this information for each Budget Program is presented in Table
3. Unforeseen delays in seven major projects accounted for about $8
million in fewer expenditures than estimated prior to FY 1988-89. These
proj ects are 1 i sted at the bottom of Tabl e 3.
FORCE ACCOUNT BUOOET
Force Account 1 abor hours expended for capital improvement proj ects for
the fiscal year total 67,532 hours, which represents 91 percent of the
74,458 hours projected in the CIB for the entire fiscal year.
Unanticipated vacancies in the Engineering Department accounted for most
of the 9 percent fewer force account hours than previously estimated.
SUMMARY
Actual versus projected performance in Capital Improvement Revenues
collected continues to meet expectations. Actual allocations amounted to
only 56 percent of those projected for FY 1988-89. This condition is
primarily the result of unanticipated delays in start-up of the
constructi on phase of major projects such as the Wal nut Creek Downtown
Bypass Proj ect. Actua 1 expendi tures amounted to 67 percent of those
p"'Q~ 6 of 9
proj ected for FY 1988-89. As 1 n the case of reduced all ocat1 ons,
unant1 c1 pated constructi on del ays were pr1marl1 y responsi bl e for reduced
expenditures.
At this time, it appears that the expenditures which were deferred in FY
1988-89 should be realized in FY 1989-90. However, the impact of
deferring $8 ml1l10n worth of capital expenditures into the next fiscal
year may have a yet to be determined effect on the work currently planned
for FY 1989-90.
PC~~9 7 of 9
TABLE 1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVENUE SUMMARY
Note: All amounts in thousands
CIP
ESTIMATED ACTU AL ACTU AL
REVENUE REVENUE PERCENT OF
FY 1988/89 FY 1988/89 CIP ESTIMATE
INTEREST $ 3,512 $ 5,481 156%
FIXTURE 2,467 2,795 113%
WATERSHED 1,556 1 ,398 90%
ANNEXATION 400 853 213%
TAXES 5 ,460 6,095 112%
OTH ER
CONCORD 3,802 3,090 81%
CALlRANS 1,624 0 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 332 12 4%
TOTALS: $19,153 $19,724 103%
_.___.______ __.~_...__,_..,,,.."___.____._.__...._ ..,G.._._._._.._.._.._".... .__._._._._..."__.~.+,_,_._._._,_,.__..~__.__._.._..___._._._ ..~.___.__,_._.__.___.~_._._____._~_._...._,. .____.._..__......_... _.__.."._.______,,__..._.._.______.__.__,_~__..__,.,_.."" --0-----.---..---.._",.-..+-,- -------..
'e 8 of 9
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ALLOCATIONS BY PROGRAM
Note: All amounts in thousands
TREATMENT
PLANT
COLLECTION
SYSTEM
CIS
ESTIMATED ACTU AL ACTUAL AS
ALLOCATIONS ALLOCATIONS PERCENT OF
FY 1988/89 FY 1988/89 CIP ESTIMATE
$ 5,148 $ 2,465 48%
13 ,394 7,825 58%
942 600 64%
GENERAL
I MPROV EMENTS
TOTALS:
$19,484
$10,890
(1) Actual all ocati ons were 1 ess than estimated due primarfl y to underall ocati ons
to the following projects:
Proj ect
Sludge/Ash Handling Project
Walnut Creek Downtown Bypass
WS23 Sewer Improvements
Hall Drive Sewer Improvements
Martinez Sewer Improvements - Area 5L
Expansi on of Pl ant Parki ng
Underallocation ($1,000)
$ 949
3,931
1,114
955
846
337
TOTAL
$8,132
ppge 9 of 9
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM
Note: All amounts in thousands
CIP
ESTIMATED
EXPENDITURES
FY 1988/89
ACTU AL
EXPENDITURES
FY 1988/89
ACTU AL AS
PERCENT OF
CIP ESTIMATE
TREATMENT
PL ANT
$11 ,126
$ 8,198
74%
COLLECTION
SYSTEM
11 ,586
8,083
70%
GENERAL
IMPROVEMENTS
1 ,580
111
7%
TOTALS:
$24,292
$16,392 (1)
67%
(1) Actual expenditures were less than
underexpenditures in the following projects:
estimated
due
primarily
to
Proj ect
Underexpenditure
($1,000)
Remarks
o Dewatering System Improvements
$1,240
o Sludge/Ash Handling Project
770
o Under construction.
Progress payment timi ng.
o Construction postponed
for further study.
o C. O. E. del ays
o Under construction.
Progress payment timi ng.
o Construction postponed
for further study.
o Construction postponed
for further study.
o Purchase delayed by
litigation.
o Walnut Creek Downtown Bypass
o Martinez Early Start Sewer Improvements
1,610
880
o WS23 Sewer Improvements
1,180
o Hall Dr. Sewer Improvements
1,200
o Lagiss Property Acquisition
1,190
TOTAL
$8,070