HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 06-16-88
.
Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary -Astrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION
BOARD MEETING OF
June 16, 1988
PAPER
SUBJECT
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON UNINHABITED DISTRICT
ANNEXATION NO. 99 (SHADOW CREEK, DAME CONSTRUCTION,
DANVILLE) AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION (LAFCO)
SUBMITTED BY
Denni sHall
Associate Engineer
PAGE 1 OF 11
NO.
IV.
HEARINGS
1
DATE
June 10, 1988
TYPE OF ACTION
Hold Public Hearing
D.A. 99
Adopt Resolution
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department
Construction Division
ISSUE: LAFCO has added property to and has, thus, amended the boundaries of the
territory included within District Annexation 99, a proposed uninhabited
annexation. LAFCO has designated the District to be the conducting authority for
subsequent proceedings. The District must hold a public hearing concerning
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
appropriateness of the annexation. Testimony by affected property owners must be
considered before action is taken on the proposed amended annexation.
BACKGROUND: LAFCO amended the boundaries of the proposed annexation during its
review process to improve the continuity of the resulting District boundary. A
map is attached showing the amended annexation.
CEQA REQUIREMENTS
A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) addressing the proposed annexation has
been prepared by Contra Costa County (acti ng as Lead Agency) pursuant to CEQA.
LAFCO has reviewed and considered the FEIR for this annexation (project) in
making its determinations and approving this annexation.
The District, under CEQA, is a Responsible Agency. A Responsible Agency is a
public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead
Agency has prepared an EIR.
As a Responsible Agency, the District must consider the County's decision to
prepare a FEIR as final unless the exceptions found in Section 4.1.{c), 4.3, and
11.3 of the District's CEQA Guidelines exist. These sections are attached as
Exhibit A. District staff has evaluated the decision by the County to prepare a
FEIR specifically with respect to District CEQA Guidelines Sections 4.1.{c.), 4.3
and 11.3 and has found that no exceptional circumstances exist.
The Board must review and consider the environmental effects of the project as
shown in the FEIR which has been distributed to the Board before approving the
annexation. The si gnificant envi ronmental impacts whi ch were identified in the
FEIR and mitigation measures are summarized in County Board of Supervisors'
Resolution No. 87/702 including the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission's Resolution No. 17-1987 which have also been distributed to the
Boa rd.
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
~t'
II1fJ
1302A-9/85
JSM
RAB
JLH
DH
SUBJECT
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON UNINHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION
NO. 99 (SHADOW CREEK, DAME CONSTRUCTION, DANVILLE) AS
AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO)
POSITION PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
OF 11
June 10, 1988
Ine District as a Responsible Agency has responsibility for mitigating or
avoiding only direct and indirect environmental effects on those parts of the
project which it approves in this annexation; they are, providing of sewer
service and the sewer system for Shadow Creek. The District as a Responsible
Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the Di strict finds any
feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would
substanti all y 1 essen or avoi d any si gnificant effect the proj ect woul d have on
the environment. To complete its consideration of the environmental effects, the
Board must make findings pursuant to District CEOA Guidelines Sections 7.12 and
7.14 regardi ng each si gnificant impact identified in the FEIR and whether each
significant impact has been eliminated, substantially lessened, or properly
mitigated. Staff's proposed CEQA findings are attached as Exhibit B.
After adopting the proposed findings, the Board should order that the District
Secretary file a Notice of Determination as a Responsible Agency stating that the
District considered the EIR as prepared by Contra Costa County as required.
ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS
As required by law, legal notice of this public hearing was published, and the
affected property owners were notified of the publ ic heari ng. The amended
annexation is uninhabited (fewer than 12 registered voters). Factors to be
consi dered by the Board in deci di ng to approve or di sapprove the proposed
annexation are set forth as Exhibit C.
Following its review, the Board, not more than 30 days after the conclusion of
the public hearing, shall adopt a resolution taking one of the following actions:
1. Disapprove the proposed annexation if, in considering the above factors, the
Board finds the annexation is improper; or
2. Disapprove the annexation if the Board finds that written protests have been
filed and not withdrawn prior to the conclusion of the public hearing
representing landowners owning 50 percent or more of the assessed value of
the land within the territory proposed to be annexed; or
3. Certify that the Board has reviewed and consi dered the FEIR and adopt
findings pursuant to the District's CEOA guidelines and order the territory
annexed.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive any written protests, and close the public
heari ng.
2. Adopt a Resolution certifying that the Board has reviewed and considered the
Final Environmental Impact Report prepared by the County, adopt the proposed
findings of staff, order the District Secretary to file a Notice of
Determination and order the territorv annexed.
13028-9/85
5UBD.5G45
255 M 21
5 - 19 - 81
)
PAGE 3 of rl PAGES
~~
J\Q
8~ IU
ZQ
~-:- ~
I-~ (f
11J= t<)
IX) 0
o
o
z.
! '\
;:,
0
to
II
.
~ -
..
W
...J
~
()
(/)
c
N 8~!A'OO'W
42 L.S.M. 33
B
6U13o. COGll
'2'9'1 M 8
2- 2"1-8(0
P.O.B.
~CJOI2' ~4"W .,40G.GI'
I
N ooo5o'5<O~e~9~.50'
. '.
r--l- 8Go~l'~ 'OG E N OooIO'~5.E.
qG4:1!>' I J,IQ4.55
o @ @w.
@Jet
PeL' H'
i~SUBD G5ffi
fo-
o 2CJl M 16
12 -23-85
A
N 88059'5I"W
1314+
CAMINO
@ = PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
~ .
_ = EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
L_ = PROPOSED ANNEXATION
* = SIGNED PETITIO~
~=ADO.ED BY L.A.F.C.G.
II SHADOW CREEK ANNEXATION II
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
DISTRICT ANNEXATION 99
PAGE 4 of 11 PAGES
EXHIBIT A
EXCEPTIONS IN DISTRICT'S CEOA GUIDELINES
Section 4.1. Lead Agency Concept.
(15050)
(a) Where a proj ect is to be ca rri ed out or approved by more than one
public agency, one publ ic agency shall be responsible for preparing an
ErR or Negative Declaration for the project. This agency shall be called
the Lead Agency.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), the decision-making body of
each Responsible Agency shall consider the Lead Agency's ErR or Negative
Declaration prior to acting upon or approving the project. Each
Responsible Agency shall certify that its decision-making body reviewed
and considered the information contained in the ErR or Negative
Declaration on the project.
(c) The determination of the Lead Agency of whether to prepare an ErR or
a Negative Declaration shall be final and conclusive for all persons,
including Responsible Agencies, unless:
(1) The decision is successfully challenged as provided in Section
21167 of the Public Resources Code,
(2) Circumstances or conditions changed as provided in Section
11.3, or
(3) A Responsible Agency becomes a Lead Agency under Section 4.3.
Section 4.3. Shift in Lead Agency Designation.
(15052 )
(a) Where a Responsible Agency is called on to grant an approval for a
project subject to GEQA for which another public agency was the
appropriate Lead Agency, the Responsible Agency shall assume the role of
the Lead Agency when any of the following conditions occur:
(1) The Lead Agency did not prepare any environmental documents for
the project, and the statute of 1 imitations has expi red for a
challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead Agency.
(2) The Lead Agency prepared environmental documents for the
project, but the following conditions occur:
(A) A subsequent ErR is required pursuant to Section 11.3,
(8) The Lead Agency has granted a final approval for the
proj ect, and
(C) The statute of limitations for challenging the Lead
Agency's action under GEQA has expired.
PAGE 5 of 11 PAGES
(3) The Lead Agency prepared inadequate environmental documents
without consulting with the Responsible Agency as required by
Sections 6.3 or 7.3~ and the statute of limitations has expired for
a challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead Agency.
(b) When a Responsible Agency assumes the duties of a Lead Agency under
this section~ the time limits applicable to a Lead Agency shall apply to
the actions of the agency assuming the Lead Agency duties.
Section 11.3. Subsequent EIR
(15162)
(a) Where an ErR or Negative Declaration has been prepared~ no
additional ErR need be prepared unless:
(1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will
require important revisions of the previous ErR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
impacts not considered in a previous ErR or Negative Declaration on
the project;
(2) Substanti al changes occur with respect to the c1 rcumstances
under which the project is undertaken~ such as a substantial
deterioration in the air quality where the project will be located~
which will require important revisions in the previous ErR or
Negative Declaration due to involvement of new significant
environmental impacts not covered in a previous ErR or Negative
Declaration; or
(3) New information of substantial importance to the project
becomes available~ and
(A) The information was not known and could not have been
known at the time the previous ErR was certified as complete or
the Negative Declaration was adopted~ and
(8) The new information shows any of the following:
1. The project will have one or more significant effects
not discussed previously in the ErR;
2. Significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the ErR;
3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found
not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substanti ally reduce one or more si gnificant effects of
the project; and
4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which were not
previously considered in the ErR would substantially
lessen one or more significant effects on the environment.
PAGE 6 of 11 PAGES
(b) If the EIR or Negative Declaration has been completed but the
project has not yet been approved, the Lead Agency shall prepare or cause
to be prepared the subsequent EIR before approving the project.
(c) If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the
conditions described in subsection (a), the subsequent EIR shall be
prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary
approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency
shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been
completed.
PAGE 7 .9f 11 PAGES
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS
The following are proposed findings based on staff's review of the FEIR prepared
and certified by Contra Costa County as the lead agency and review of Resolution
No. 87/702 of the County Board of Supervisors (including Resolution No. 17-1987)
regarding this project.
o The District has reviewed and considered the FEIR as prepared by the County.
o With the exception of sanitary service being provided by Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District in compliance with the mitigation measures that are
within the District's responsibility and jurisdiction, mitigation measures
as shown in County Board of Supervisors' Resolution No. 87/702 are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the
Sanitary District.
o Board of Supervisors' Resolution No. 87/702 and its enclosures/attachments
are incorporated herein by reference and the Board of Supervisors' findings
and determinations set forth in said Resolution, which are within District
responsibility and jurisdiction, are adopted including statements of
overriding considerations.
o Each significant impact identified in the EIR and as shown in County Board of
Supervisors' Resolution No. 87/702 has been eliminated, substantially
lessened, properly mitigated, or deemed to be acceptable in view of the
overriding benefits of the project. The Board has used discretion in
determining that all significant effects on the environment have been
eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
o The determination of this proposal is in compl iance with the mitigation
measures that are within the District's responsibility and jurisdiction.
o There are no alternative or mitigation measures within the District's powers
that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect, or mitigate
or lessen the direct or indirect environmental effects of providing Sanitary
District services to the property to be annexed.
PAGE 8 of 11 PAGES
EXHIBIT C
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY 1HE BOARD
I. Whether the proposed annexation will be in the best interest of landowners
or present or future inhabitants within the District and within the
territory proposed to be annexed to the District.
2. LAFCO's Resolution (87-62) making the determination that the proposed
annexation shoul d proceed forward to public hearing by this Board (see
Attachment 1).
3. Factors required by Government Code Section 56841 which were taken into
consideration by LAFCO in making its determination to refer the proposed
annexation to our District as the conducting authority. These factors are
listed in Attachment 2.
4. Any other matters which the Board deems material to the decision to approve
or disapprove the proposed annexation. Except for findings regarding the
val ue of written protest, the Board is not requi red to make any express
findings concerning any of the factors considered by the conducting
authority.
ATTACHMENT 1
PAGE 9 of 11 PAGES
RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINATIONS
AND APPROVING PROPOSED
SHADOW CREEK ANNEXATION NO. 99 TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA
SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 87-62) AND CONCURRENT REVIEW AND
UPDATE OF THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOl) BOUNDARIES OF SAID DISTRICT
(CCCSD) AND OF EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD)
The Local Agency Formation Commission finds:
On October 26, 1987, Resolution No. 87-161 of the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer
of this Commission making application for proposed annexation of
affected territory to said District; and
Reasons for the proposal are set forth in said resolution of
application; and
At the times and in the form and manner provided by law, said
Executive Officer gave notice of public hearing by this Commission
upon said application. Said notice was sufficient for the Commission
to concurrently review and update the SOl boundaries of CCCSD and
EBMUD; and
The Executive Officer reviewed said application and prepared the
Executive Officer Report inclUding his recommendations therein; said
application and report were presented to and considered by this
Commission; and
The public hearing by this Commission was held on January 13,
1988 at the time and place specified in the notice of public hearing;
and
At said hearing, this Commission heard and considered all oral
and written protests, objections and evidence presented or filed, and
all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard in respect
to any matter relating to said application and report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that:
Section 1. It is hereby certified that the Commission has
reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
prepared by the County acting as Lead Agency, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, for environmental review of the
subject project.
Section 2. The Commission hereby finds that mitigation measures
specified in the FEIR, other than those previously implemented or
those implemented herein or those that cannot be implemented without
necessary prior action by another agency, are within the
responsibility and juriSdiction of agencies other than this
commission.
Section 3. The Commission hereby incorporates Board of
Supervisors Resolution No. 87/702 and its enclosures/attachments
herein by this reference and adopts the Board's findings and
determinations set forth in said resolution, that are within
Commis3ion responsibility and jurisdiction, including statements of
overriding considerations.
t
Section 4. The Commission hereby finds that its determination of
this proposal is in compliance with the mitigation measures that are
within the Commission's responsibility and jurisdiction.
Section 5. The Statement of Determinations, as set forth in
attached Exhibit "B," with respect to factors specified by Government
Code Section 56425 regarding SOl determinations is hereby adopted.
.Resolution LAFC 87.~1
PAGE 10 of 11 PAGES
Section 6. The 501 boundaries of CCCSD and EBMUD are hereby
amended to include territory affected by this proposal. CCCSD and
EBMUD 501 boundaries as herein amended are shown on the map attached
as Exhibit "c."
Section 7. The proposal is assigned the designation of "Shadow
Creek Annexation No. 99 to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
(LAFC 87-62)" and the affected territory is legally uninhabited.
Section 8. The proposed annexation is hereby approved subject to
conditions that 1) the boundary of affected territory shall be as
amended and described in attached Exhibit "A", and 2) said territory
shall be subject to CCCSD ordinances, rules, regulations, bonded
indebtedness and contractual obligations.
Section 9. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56029 (b), the
Sanitary Board of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is hereby
designated as the conducting authority; and pursuant to Government
Code Section 57000, said Sanitary Board is hereby directed to initiate
proceedings for the proposed annexation in compliance with this
resolution.
Section 10. The Executive Officer is hereby directed to mail
certified copies of this resolution in the manner and as provided in
Section 56853 of the Government Code.
.:
PASSED AND ADoPTED on January 13, 1988 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Fahden, Longshore, Tor1akson, Uilkema
and Rainey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
a resolution passed and adopted by said Commission on the date afore-
said.
Dewey E. Mansfield
Executive Officer
t: ~. ~=
Staff Analyst
By:
DEM:JJM:ap
Attachment
Distribution:
Roger Dolan, General Manager; CCCSD
Jay McCoy, Construction Division Manager; CCCSD
Bill Gregory, Real Property Specialist; CCCSD
Paula E. Malcom, Secretary of the District; EBMUD
Roger Ranulo, New Business Manager; EBMUD
Michael W. Ruprecht, Dame' Construction Co., Inc.
ATTACHMENT 2
PAGE 11 of 11 PAGES
FACTORS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT
CODE 56841 WHlOi WERE CX>NSlDERED BY LAFCO
(a) Population" population density; land area and land use; per
capita assessed valuation; topography" natural boundaries" and
drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the
likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent
incorporated and unicorporated areas, during the next 10 years.
(b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and
adequacy of governmental services and control s in the area;
probable future needs for those services and controls; probable
effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or
exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and
adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent
areas.
"Services," as used in this subdivision, refers to goverrmental
services whether or not the services are services which would
be provided by local agencies subject to this division, and
includes the public facilities necessary to provide those
services.
(c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions,
on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and
on the local governmental structure of the county.
(d) The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects
with both the adopted commission policies on providing planned,
orderly, efficient patterns of urban development, and the
policies and priorities set forth in Goverrment Coce Section
56377.
(e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and
economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by
Government Code Section 56016.
(f) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the
territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines
of assessment or ownership" the creation of islands or
corridors of unicorporated territory, and other similar matters
affecting the proposed boundaries.
(g) Consistency with city or county general and specific plans.
(h) The sphere of influence of any local agency which may be
applicable to the proposal being reviewed.
(i) The comments of any affected local agency.
.
Centrl.. . Contra Costa Sanltar) District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
June 16, 1988
NO.
V. BIDS AND AWARDS
1
SUBJECT
AUlHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO WINTON JONES
CONTRACTOR, INC. FOR REMOVING DIGESTER "C"
ROOF STRUCTURE AND REMOV ING DIGESTED SLUOOE
DATE
June 10, 1988
TYPE OF ACTION
AUlHORIZE AWARD
Sl$MITTED BY
J ames Bel cher
Assistant Engineer
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Plant Operations Department
ISSUE: On June 8, 1988, sealed bids were opened for removal of a 62-foot diameter
digester cover and removal of approximately 2,500 cubic yards of digested sl udge
from Di gester "C". The Board of Di rectors must authorize award of contract or
reject bids within 60 days of the opening of bids.
BACKGROUND: Di gester "c", 1 ocated at the Di stri ct Treatment Pl ant, was 1 ast
operated in 1978. As the Pl ant expanded from a primary treatment process with
anaerobi c di gesti on to an advanced wastewater treatment pl ant, Di gester "C" was
removed from service. It is now prudent to remove the deteriorating roof structure
and di gested sl udge. The di gested sl udge w ill be removed to an allln sl udge basi n
for drying prior to disposal.
The project was advertised on May 29 and June 3, 1988, inviting contractors to
review the project and submit sealed bids by June 8, 1988. To encourage contractor
participation, the bid request allowed the contractor to bid on the roof removal
and/or the sludge removal. Three bids were received for the work, as listed on the
bid opening sheet, Attachment I.
An eval uati on of the bi ds, conducted by the Pl ant Operati ons Department staff,
concluded that the lowest responsible bidder was Winton Jones, Inc. at $71,676. The
Engi neer' s estimate for th i s work was $80,000. Other consi derati ons addressed in
this project were the safe disposal of the sludge and the reduction of odors. The
amount of $80,000 is budgeted for this project in the 1987-1988 Plant Operations
Department Operations and Maintenance Budget under Outside Maintenance Services for
digester cleaning.
This project is exempt from CEQA, as it only involves the maintenance of an existing
public facility (District CEQA Guidelines, Section 18.2, Public Facilities).
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of contract for providing all labor, equipment, and
materi al to remove and relocate a 62-foot di ameter di gester cover and for the
removal of digested sludge to Winton Jones, Inc. for the lllnp sum contract price of
$71,676.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302....9/85
T0776P
BID OPENING WEDNESDAY.. JUNE 8.. 1988 10:00 AM
REMOVE AND RB.OCATE 62-FOOT DlNETER COVER
AND
REMOVE DIGESTED SLUDGE
Page 2 of 2
ATTADUENT I
I I TOTAL BID PRICE -
I SUPPLIER I REMOVE COVER AND DIGESTED SLUDGE
I 1. Bigge I
I I
2. Dal zell I $84,660
I I
I 3. Wi nton Jones 71..676
I I
.
Centra.. Contra Costa Sanitar~ ..listrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 3
NO.
v.
BIDS AND AWARDS 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
SUBJECT
DATE
AU1l-I0RIZE AWARD OF PURa-IASE ORDER TO KRATOS ANALYTICAL,
INC. TO FURNISH AND INSTALL 1l-IE GAS OiROMATOORAPI-l/
MASS SPECTROMETER/DATA SYSTEM, DISTRICT PROJ ECT
NO. 10041
o 1988
TYPE OF ACTION
AU1l-I0RIZE AWARD
SUBMITTED BY
Bhupi nder S. Dhal iwal
INITIA TING DEPT.lDIV.
Plant 0 erations De artment
ISSUE: On May 23, 1988, sealed bids for District Project No. 10041, Gas
Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer/Data System were received and opened. The Board of
Directors must award a purchase order or reject proposals within 60 days of opening of
seal ed bi ds.
BACKGROUND: The Regional Water Qual ity Control Board (RWQCB) has mandated priority
pollutants moni tori ng for i nfl uent, effl uent, sl udge, and ash. Under these moni tori ng
programs, the District is required to monitor 112 organic priority pollutants in various
process streams.
In addi ti on to the above RWQCB mandated programs, the Di stri ct shoul d also moni tor
septage haul ers and industri al /commerci al di schargers to verify compl iance with the
District's Industrial Source Control Ordinance. Furthermore, the District plans to
participate with the Aquatic Habitat Institute (AHI)-sponsored local effects and
regional effects monitoring programs that also call for the monitoring of organic
priority pollutants.
The purchase and installation of the gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer/data system
will enable the District to perform priority pollutant analyses with greater
sensitivity, accuracy, and precision and will ensure timely data availability for
appropriate control decisions and regulatory reporting.
The request for bids was publ icly advertised on May 3 and 9, 1988, and publ icly opened
on May 23, 1988. Four sealed bids were received and are summarized on Attachment No.1.
The technical portions of the bids were evaluated by Plant Operations Department staff,
and the commerci al porti ons were eval uated by the Purchasi ng and Materi al s Control
Section. The lowest responsible bidder is Kratos Analytical, with a bid of $233,235.
The bid estimate prepared by District staff was $250,000. The total project and
start-up cost estimate is $311,000. (See Attachment 2 for details.)
This project is included in the Fiscal Year 1987 - 1988 Capital Improvement Budget on
page GI-10. District staff has concluded that this project is exempt from CEQA under
the general rules that this project will have no significant effect on the environment.
(District CEQA Guidelines, Section 5.2(b)(3), Review for,Exemption).
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of purchase order to Kratos Analytical, the lowest
responsible-i)i dder for $233,235, to furni sh and install the Gas Ch romatograph/Mass
Spectrometer/Data System, District Pro ect No. 10041.
REVIEWED AND COMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A9'85
BSD
INITIA TING DEPT.lDIV
......
0
0
z:
(V)
I-
4- z:
0 lJ.J
:!::
N ::c
U
Q) ex: e....
0) I- 00
lO l- I.!")
e.... ex: I.!")
0
I-
:s
D
:E
::J
Z
~
,.-,
~1J
-
~ l'
1~
z
~
H
Q
~
~
JJ I
~..
..Il
0"
.....
....
-y
~f
":t: j..
;!Y
~ I~ 0<< e
.....
...... c 1 ~ co
lO ~ 'r- ~ ~
~~ o~ ~ Q)
.... c
c -u 0
C ~ ~ z - z:
::J lie
...... r- r- ..
W- I ,gl~ ~
j" 8
t; ;!y
W 11] 011: ~
X ....
OIl
N
VI ~ ::: :;> ~
~ ~ ~ V) ..w Q)'
I - U N C
.~ I.;:: s: !-) z - 0
lO ;:)11:
~ Ir- ~ .. z:
L~ I~~ "'-
8 I I 0
~ or- or-
jW +> u 4- :::s
.u ~ o Q) ou ~ ~ ~
-c;: .. - ~
011: c+> "0
.. ...
.,.,~ ~ Q) ..cor- r- I
~ "0 ~ 0. Q) "0 :::s
- !~ ~o~ ::> 9: ~ "00 s::l:;i ~ 3 <:
Q) v, ..w >"0 r- .~ +> "0 ~~
b i~ .~ s: -u N ~ lO C
~ z- Q) lO U ~~ lO
;:)11:
~ i~ - .. t ~ Q) or- +> ~ ii
.9i~ +>~ c u+> VI
Lr
tc::r; ~: c VI
0 VI C
~'-' jW or- I E 0
:!y 6- I E ~ 'r-
~g .,.,~ oil: ;;: VI 0 Q) +>
.... Q) or- U +> or-
r-.:. u Cl "0
~~~ ~.~ ~ ~ Q) Q) lO 0
.... ~ +> or- U
~ ~~ .;: !-) -u ~ +>u u
z- 0 r- ~ "0
;:)11:
3 Q; ='- - ~ .. 0 o ~ Q) .c
Q).....I ~~ l- +> +> E lO
re....r "'-
l/)
Cl
........ ~ .
l/) 'i
::E II: a ! ~ . ~
........ 8
u ..
II: 0 g II! J
a z 0::> 0
W ~OO.: w
. .> 0
~i
~~~
0:0;)
:i~uS
5 = ~
. .
l/)
z:
0
.....
l-
e....
lJ.J
U
><
lJ.J
l/) ..
Cl ......
.......
l/) lJ.J
::E I-
, 0
U z:
C!)
......
~
o
iii
...
o
z
o
t:
j :g
~ ~
~ :t2
~
~
~
I~
.0
r-
..
..
.
01
~
~
+-'
~
.....
, ~
~ II:
.: H
. ~ Q
Q~
I
'"
~
~ ~ .
;1~1~
~ t;;;:r
:.. -
i lEi ......
11
a
a
~
!
.
i
Page 3 of 3
ATTAaitENT NO.2
District Project No. 10041
Gas Chr~atograph/Mass 5pectraneter/Data 5yst.
Proj ect Budget
Expended to Date:
$ 6,700
Project Management and Inspection:
4,000
Furnish and Install GC/MS/DS:
$233,300
Training
Support Equipment
Contingency (5%)
5,000
47,000
15,000
-------
Total Proj ect Budget
$311,000
--------
.
Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary.."istrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 15
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
June 16, 1988
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 2
SUBJECT
INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX 10 SEPARATE
AREAS UNDER THE TITLE OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION 104
DATE
Ju
TYPE OF ACTION
INITIATE
ANNEXATION
D.A. 104
SUBMITTED BY
Dennis Hall
Associate Engineer
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department,
Construction Division
ISSUE: The District has received petitions for annexation for 10 parcels as
shown on the attached tabulation and maps. It is appropriate to initiate formal
annexation proceedings with the Local Agency Formation Commission CLAFCO).
BACKGROUND: LAFCO has requested that the District submit no more than 10
separate areas under anyone proceeding to avoid overloading their schedule. The
subject areas are generally located in Danville, Lafayette, Martinez, and Walnut
Creek. LAFCO has indicated that they may add adjoining unannexed parcels to the
separate areas we submit to eliminate islands or straighten boundary lines. The
District will have to hold a public hearing to consider annexation of any parcel
added by LAFCO.
RECOMMENDATION: Pass a Resolution of Application for the annexation of
properties to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District under District Annexation
104.
RAB
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
1302A-9/85
~r
DH
jI/if
JSM
p19jJ
~~~- '~A .~.-. ~o """ '" \ .-,y ~ -- - ,,\w\~ ,.,
,"~ l? ii("ij::'1 '"~~ CENTRAL CONTr-' COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
<_. ~-,=.j 8-X~-~li~~1 !Y.--t~~~.~,.. .DISTRIC'~ ANNEXATION '104 . .'
\."'- ' '-c~,~Z,11 : '-, 1/ '!=!~,,' """,:,, '\<\---:>1IG \,' I ~eserlJOlr,., ':'>,11 ......-\.,~-.<~
\ ' ~-r-.1-.....L___-r- ---1\ ,~\ \ ~ JiliUZ%\L\{:\f ,:~ . - \ ~_::_:_::':::\1;->}</::::::;~.-..- ..../
."-., ~ i :rJ >-" ::~~~ Pac ~co / '-'''' '~:1"-'~, " 'x '>>~ 'I\~ \l~ I"'l \ ~ "n :Iv\'yi' "
.-- -:"\ :K~-: ~ ' II ': ....:.> ::., " . I \ / --
';-- .~'":~ '<. '("? ~:s\",,:,t,1..L;~...t ":: >b-,.< . }~L O' . i8~ :-. ".) - :.:: '.'~\~' -~ .........
. . '-.. "...~,.. ~'t~) I I" ! I ql..~_/,:~' :':::}). '- \ I~" <{,-"
'," ,..~ r \. --:i k4 v-' ;,...../ }'. \ \ H, '-:' ' ,'"'__>:. I
.:.\,.' 'J"I '," .....1J "-.,.~f~\~:~~' J.:-:rl" ~,. -~:",il~ .'\:~-' '" ., I f':':!;/::! ·
---'-'~~. ,,,-c.l..'t.u.]' - 'Y" -,,'~ ."'" '"'~:-f:~ 1 .,.'. NVI"!"
-.., \ \.~, :.~~~1 . ~.~__1: I' : I 1 r- "',\ ,.:t4~;I::(~\::::--: . a!~ ///l.../"
\ '. . \... /~jl' 11~'IJT'I' .>-..;n' /:.. ~ " ~_~jV. ~ '} _"'(;":' ,:jJ f.//'f.! /\ (--"j
...:>.,.- ..... 'r-:;t - / , ,,: ;__J~ ~'lioIf; .,. _.~~ .:;)'y'(J /.:~~ ", ~
'~. - "'l x . '. -, _--- _ -' 'r---,-- ~\ 1 "" ........ ',-c-- ri::J: -<.....i... :-/ ::::::':::-\. \ ". ~
" C' '~.i'Vj.i-""ft \'~ -1 '.;><:,-,'2,>--"" i ' '. :,..__, Ji', :" ~::~?1" ;;, ~~ I~": 'i/i-:..~t? ~ .
. ':\: :1'\~ '- -..~ -::--.. ....~ ~'----it... ~ \. "'......:( 1"'\ ~ t-L./~, ~' ''"1. ~
...i '", ....:,.::<::::):J,N ~_~0. /'" - "'~r' .~~-,.. ';-~"'" ~"'- \ "'~ to ..,s;:.-....( <,::/:-:::'\' ./../...J-}-\; t::z::...~' //lr"~"/~1 :
'.i i'..:..~'hc. 'L' . ';-1>,'. -'-.' - '.:,,\ ~ ~'''.' ~ ':-:::..:j I i I ':" ' '\
\ . ~~, >..J . ~~... , .;:-:~;.~~;. \'.:!ii\ji.i[' )\>;"U: 't~::::1M~tif~~~,
~ /-...~"'ll.~)~\. ....<< -:<::\.;'\o<'! \1:i~.:1lt:'..J-..:.tS?it. Yjr'ij ".:::'';> ~\"'\Yt~;J-, \ ~
"~ ~/-'"j ~'::<'> ~ ..~. .(:-> ^..~~V ....:; \' '\ 1; .. /1.,-, .~"')'-~tf<;/"\ ~~.
.-,'\..'X\)\5--.......f'&.. ".... ....... '.. .... '", ~(, .<,K."><-",\->e:ol
-l ~ ' ~ '.' ... v ". '. ...... 'if.(" "u-::<-:\/' ,~
";,...-- "'-/ , <../ i \'R\:::,,-?;'iR..)~ ~.'.~ 41._ ' , ~ ~ __,'
.// . ,,,,.,,, \ :~y..> /*,'\."-'-42 ( I?TLcb1n~i~ 1 ~ ',,< . IV'\ ~-T~' ---::
~ \ '.."" ........\3! ,..... ..... . 4/It. ,.....,1 .. '. <u ' I> J~ .', no.;:. '--.,..~ j,-.- - _
-, ", - .~-. 7 FY . L .., LU '/' .....' '.~-' ,.......,/:r-f-:.' , '
;; . ''.>~ -_._/; ! ..........>->........... ,Lftl .. .:.'~ '/).; > ~ f' ! ....1:f'1.; :' 'fP, ~t i-'
~"- \ v-, H+. :,....... ;:,' ~~ ..... ~ /' ~ 4, ~IJ
--====- t. \ \ v .: "~ ."~ . ~ ' / \ I -, .. I, If"-. .
~\. ~ '--.' ," ...... ':'-'. ./ ''4.. 1 -,,1,,--,
... ... ..... \ .:;:C::::>:;;:: .:.:::~ \ .~. ... .;,...,.-L.:::...!$..~.I / : t: r
, I r' .'. ......., ". . " "v-?'\" ?.U-l -} Ii'. '
~~. ,~5--\)~~ .-; ';0)) ''',>)r~;'' . ^.> ~'t~~ </~i~~'~i\l ~~;~~~:.
, ) 'J.. .. _ .N~~.}l ... k ~"::\ ~)'. ;.\, "" ,t
r t ", ~ ./> ~;0' " ~" .~ . .
i """', ..........Jl'.. ..... .. ~:" "', %).\ V'n~\
\ . ">i..' .. ...' ?)../ ' /' t.:...., '';:'' '. .-_y-
\., \ 00;[': ..........1.. ~.. ........ . , ....:..J l !F.\ \~,X/ih- "----: .,; j ~ .., ",'J.
\ ( i;;.{ .*1-;< ....., " =m : ~/;:'17~ / <"\-/), ~"
L:' .,-----_~..... .. :~: . '. .sj}r. 2"" l~{,,:,! .Ii} , 'YL...~~~1~ .y.,..~~:J I,,' \>.'
"'\~/.-..;;;; \ 1ft'. i~:' '. ~'-_..~' . V'\6/1'?~I~~,'\M . ~ .)~, ~~/~~'~.::);. '<<<'x,
. "'~ _, ,/ '" ~.. " ,," .....,..-}..> \;J ~ ..... 111 R. 1-. ~~,.'Y' :.v' " ...,;>/~.
) ~ " . .. -.' .......<...... .......- . .It... 'r;i,' /"'./....< . ,",(. ,.
,~ I\.\ [-' ..... > ~.i ". ....ii",: \. f!l;....:~~:..(:;... .:~ c/~:-
, ) /-/ '-, ..Ii! .' .'.\~./ .,i.i .~\X
; /;1).~.._.,..,-~..::', ~;~.. ~"" ~
'Y ,-'eel( ~ [\C.......... 'i.
.'
, ~~. --- .r: ,.,.~ .' ...~...
::r7 /.6<"', ...{'.~" ~i~{ti:-:,~.. .. ~~~
," '.. __, ~ .' __. '!:l~i M.2. NJ.... '12:..' . ............... ..,.>,
". ,_.:::.:r-'". ~."" .., 4 224. "'t\~. .ii- .."uL
~ __.__.--", '. ~ J '. ~_~'!' '. . ~d,
diM (,r: i ' @)f;~8it~ "\ ' !
~~;':~'h~1~~W.Ji~I'.~...... '"c. ;,.... ' ;~~~;~<!
&~~:~d~;~ ~ ..... .;'~ '. ....~=',~
,;. ~fV...,...___ '.~~ ~ ~.... ..t>'f. u ..tA>. ~ . .... ..' .' ..... ". .... .... ..' ?' ..... ........ .... . Xi ". "".;..;:~'. ___
.. ',.>('J:.~-'
Sf",/'.'. /.
'. ..'
E j1;~~j~
<7> . :/:1. ". . .."..... r; M;~ .,,'" ';~ .1;';~~~ tr!
I\. '. .----........ ........ .~~L, b..LlD",,-, ",;.__...;\\'.... '..Xc': ~ !:f:_e:Lc..h...,~.~......~.....i._~'>'-_~.........2iI.l,1. .., .....n'V.", - .. -'
\;... .,
,
\ 0 \.
CENTRAL CONTP-A COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
DISTRIC'~ ANNEXATION 104
~
/
Or
~.
:;;
"
"
.;; )
,~
" "\
,. "'.
\spring
.
,
.
,r
.,
. ~ I
.. .
~. . '.,
..... ;, "'.
..... - '\
I _."
/ '. '-..
. M) , ' ------',,
. .....-... ",,---
.
.~ ,~Eugene
: Si'.
"
. '. ".
., ~.,-
\!;:"
t .
/
I
"-
--",
/
\ --- ~.
.,' ~,
.I ,.. ~."'.
"'"
,
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104
Tabulation of Parcels
Parcel P.A. No. Owner Address Date Approved by Board Lead
No. & Area Parcel No. & Acreaae and Remarks Aqencv
1 87-1 R. Vanderkous Approved 1/15/87 I CCCSD
Martinez I 116 Forest Way I
I Martinez, CA 94553
I 376-200-01 & -05
\ (4.19 acres)
87-4 I Dirk Angell
Lafayette I 2353 North rup Ave.
I
I
\
I Approved
F-1l8
2
2/19/87
1
I
\
I CCSSD
I Sacramento CA 95825 I I
365-240-011 (0.46 acre)
3 86-18 Paul E. Vi da Approved 7/17/86 CCCSD
Lafayette 3575 Springhill Road
Lafayette CA 94549
A.P. No. 231-070-10
(0.75 acre)
4 85-18 Rose C. Burger Approved 9/19/85 I CCCSD
Lafayette 3498 Springhill Court I
I Lafayette CA 94549
5
6
\230-110-013 (1.01 Ac.) I
84-9 I R. Cole-Doyle I Approved 5/17/84
Lafayette 227 Randall Street I
San Francisco CA 94131 I
231-060-010 (0.98 acre)
87 - 27
Wal nut
Creek
I D.C. Sullivan, etux
121 Brodi a Way
I Wal nut Creek CA 94596
1140-170-003 <3.07 Ac.)
I
I C.B. Teller, etux
1125 Brodi a Way
I Wal nut Creek, CA 94596
1140-170-006 <1.14 Ac.)
1140-170-08 (3.25 Ac.)
I Approved 8/20/87
I (Negative Declaration
I on L.I.D. 56)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CCCSD
I
I
CCCSD
W.C. Claraty Jr., etux
127 Brodi a Way
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
140-170-007 (1.49 Ac.)
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104
Tabulation of Parcels
Parcel
No.
6
(cont.)
P.A. No. Owner Address Date Approved by Board
& Area Parcel No. & Acrea e and Remarks
Lead
A enc
S.R. Rovanpera, et al
449 La Casa Via
Walnut Creek CA 94596
140-190-001 (5.38 Ac)
R.E. Kerley, etux I
I 354 La Casa Via I
Walnut Creek CA 94596
140-200-001 (9.04 Ac)
H.R. Hammill, etux
I 396 La Casa Via
140-200-003 (1.63 Ac)
140-200-005 (1.00 Ac)
7 I 85-27 Sabin Construction, Inc. Approved 11/21/85 CCCSD
I Danv i 11 e B. J. Sabin
I I 175 Bernal Road, #200
San Jose CA 95119
197-161-013 (2.55 Ac)
8 85-24 I Donald Hansen Approved 11/7/85 CCCSD
Danvill e I 866 El Pintado I I
Danvill e CA 94526
197-250-006 (2.35 Ac)
I
9 85-15 Darla Stevens I Approved 8/1/85 CCCSD
Danvill e 45 Spri n9 Lane I I
I Danville CA 94526
200-220-016 (1.44 Ac)
I
10 85-6 Jay Weymouth I Approved 5/2/85 Town of
Danville 215 Marks Road Danv ill e
Danvi 11 e CA 94526 I
196-070-011 n.l0 Ac)
2
flAl'lC\-lO
~
~
Jul'l1 AS
~
~
&P:\
~
- PREVlOU
. 5 ANNEXATION
- EXISTING CCC
_ PROPOSE SO BOUNDARY
_ SlGNE D ANNEXATION
o PETITION
.:~~~t~~t{:r
.__.~
*
~
DISTRICT ANNEXATION
NO. 104
Parcel 1
OA}(MONT
lYlE/wOR/AL
PAR}(
.......
.......
~. ~~~~~~
~ ===:::=
~. liiiiil 2
N ::=:=== ~
(\J .::::::
~ :t: fu
:z :r: ..J
ll: t-J61"31'30-E IrO':!: . t:: ~
l!ipttttt.::?:=:"~::::::::=:::::=:=:=:=:=:=:~:=:=:~::::=:::::::::::=:=:::::=:=:=:::::=:=:0::!=::!=%::!=:=:".:=:= im
"r EX.ISTING CCCSD eoUNOA,RV ~
4l~ ~
fi~~~~}'
@
\%
S 4,o50'W 5.00'
GRA'(SON ROAD i
PORJ RAfYcHO
Rc36.40'
Lc2Z.'35'
CAfYADA DEL HAJ'Y.lBRE
POI T OF BEGINNING
RcZ1.2'3'
L"~.83'
*
COLLIN .
12860 O.R.581
~
~
~
~
.tt?~~~r}:t
.---
.. PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
.. EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
.. PROPOSED ANNEXATION
. SIGNED PETlnON
*
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104
Parcel 2
s eoooo'oo..e
45.00'
N 304S'OO"W
lOG.lOG'
CAfYADA
.~
~
@
1972
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104
Parcel 3
~
~
~
~
~
v:w
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104
Parcel 4
~
~
PORJ RA1VCHO
DEL
pOINT OF BEGINNING
*
COLE
I nee O.R. 209
~
~
tft~ttf.
.---
= PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
= EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
= PROPOSED ANNEXATION
= SIGNED PETlT10N
*
CA1VADA
PhVOLE
B
~
~
B
A
17 Pjy} 13
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104
Parcel 5
A
@~'I
.9..:
6'
~
~
Gi:\
~
tM1Wi.
----
" PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
" EXISTING CCCSO BOUNDARY
. " PROPOSED ANNEXATION
- SIGNED PETITION
*
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104
Parcel 6
~
~
"'ffj,W!;,~'lff!ifjJflli{
..\~ *
~ 'OOJo1S> o~ \~c,.
uc,\: ~
~6'\:~ ~'Z..\
~ c.O\'O e O~.
sr>'P~ \'Z. 6.?)
sue-
poA-
@ = PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
..................
::::::::::::::::=:
= EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
= PROPOSED ANNEXATION
= SIGNED PETITION
kft+%WWi&Y<iiWliliWlllitt41iiHfK@i,nntWfn
~ \ \
~
*
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104
Parcel 7
@
/982
~
~
N?IOO6'OO'W 82.40'
GQ\
\eP
:t:g:::r
: PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
: EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
: PROPOSED ANNEXATION
: SIGNED PETlnON
*
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104
Parcel 8
I
RA/YCHO E'L RiO
POR LOTS 85& 86
POINT OF BEGINNING
~
~
~\\1\j:{
r~
\@7
':;9 LS/Y./ J
A
f9 EAST . 215'1.
~---------
(\J STEVENS *
uJ 8410 OR '503
~
~
b
z N 8'3029'3SUW
~ :::::::::::
IX! :::::::::::
._----
(iJ :rr::
~ iI:iI
8 ......
8 :.:.:.:.:.:
~ ::~~I::~
'215.%' tt:~:
...........
:.:.:.:.:.:
E'L RiO POR LO 817
...........
...........
:iII~!!i!IIIr
RAJYCH
*
= PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
= EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY
= PROPOSED ANNEXATION
= SIGNED PETITION
J09P1YJ24
A
B
SPRING LANE
,~
f-~~
B
C
ttH:fffffilNi$~t5t~mi:{{(a::t.$tf{~~81ffi:ffffffff\ii
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104
Parcel 9
.
~
\
~.P
"'~~
\
/
~'- Do
~~ 4v€,.
~
~
:~~:~:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:~r
. ---
= PREVIOUS ANNEXATION
s EXISTING CCCSD B~UNDARY
= PROPOSED ANNEXATION
= SIGNED PETITION
*
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104
Parcel 10
.
Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary .Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 1
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
June 16
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 3
SUBJECT
AUTHORIZE THE SUBSTITUTION OF ATLAS GRADING AND
PAVING, INC., THE LISTED SUBCONTRACTOR, WITH
RANSOME COMPANY, A NEW SUBCONTRACTOR, FOR PAVING
WORK ON THE DEWATERING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
<D.P. 3791>
DATE
SUBMITTED BY
Munawar Husain
Associate Engineer
AUTHORIZE
SUBSTITUTION OF
SUBCONTRACTOR
ISSUE: Board authorization is required for a substitution of subcontractors on
District projects.
BACKGROUND: Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc. listed Atlas Grading and Paving,
Inc. as the subcontractor for paving work on its bid proposal to the District for
the Dewatering System Improvements project. This subcontractor will not provide
a bond to Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc. Under these circumstances
Dill ingham now seeks approval to use Ransome Company for the performance of the
same' work.
Under Public Contract Code Section 4107, substitution of a listed subcontractor
is permitted only in certain situations; one of which is when the listed
subcontractor fail s to provide a bond to the prime contractor. The awardi ng
authority must consent to the substitution to effect the change. In the present
instance, consent by the District is appropriate.
The proposed substitution will not result in any additional cost to the District
or result in a delay in the project completion.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the substitution of the listed subcontractor, Atlas
Grading and Paving, Inc., with a new subcontractor, Ransome Company, for paving
work on District Project 3791.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1302A-9/B5
MH
RSK
JSM
RAB
INITIATIJiT.lDIV.
~
f!f4
.
Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary ,..Astrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
June 16, 1988
NO.
VI.
CONSENT CALENDAR 4
SUBJECT
ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE ClOSE OUT OF THE CONCORD
INDUSTRIAL AND BATES AVENUE PUMP STATIONS UPGRADE
PROJECT IN THE NORTH CONCORD AREA <DP 4091>
DATE
June 6, 1988
TYPE OF ACTION
INFORMATIONAL
SUBMITTED BY
Thomas Trice
Engineering Assistant
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Engineering Department/
Construction Division
ISSUE: All work has been compl eted on the Concord Industri al and Bates Avenue
Pump Stations Upgrade Project in the North Concord area (DP 4091>, and this
project can now be closed out.
BACKGROUND: This project is the first phase of the pump stations' upgrade plan
for the North Concord/Clyde area (Watershed 44) that will eventually lead to the
abandonment of two of the four existing pump stations in that area. The
improvements at the Concord Industrial and Bates Avenue Pump Stations under this
contract resul ted in an increased pumpi ng capacity together with a more energy
efficient system. A more detailed description of this project is provided in the
1987-88 Capital Improvement Budget on page CS-71.
At the Concord Industrial Pump Station, the work consisted of installing two new
40 horsepower pumps together with vari able frequency drive units, new control
panels, and other related site improvements. At the Bates Avenue Pump Station,
the work consisted of installing a new control panel and associated electrical
work. Also, the existing flows in the adjacent collection system were redirected
by various manhole modifications to provide the most effective pumping capability
for the area using the improved pump station facilities.
The contractor, Pacific Engineering Construction of Santa Clara, commenced work
on November 11, 1987, and substantially completed all work on March 4, 1988. The
original project completion date of January 19, 1988, was extended by two change
orders to March 4, 1988. The project was accepted by the Board of Directors on
March 17, 1988.
Pacific Engineering Construction's original construction contract was for
$140,000.00. There were four change orders issued on the project for additional
work associated with minor equipment modifications, providing additional control
wiring, and the installation of sweep bends on the electrical conduits. The
total amount for all change orders was $1,632.00. The total contract amount paid
to Pacific Engineering Construction was $141,632.00.
The total budget for the project was $229,200. The total completed project cost
is $224,913, which is $4,287 less than the budget. Staff is closing out the
project account which will result in $4,287 being returned to the Collection
System Program.
RSK
JSM
RAB
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
1302A-9/85
774f
TAT
'~c
j/~
/11\
J~//
SUBJECT
ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSE OUT OF THE CONCORD
INDUSTRIAL AND BATES AVENUE PUMP STATIONS UPGRADE
PROJECT IN THE NORTH CONCORD AREA (DP 4091)
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE 2 OF
DATE
2
June 6, 1988
RECOMMENDATIONS: This item is presented to the Board for information. No action
is necessary.
13028-9/85
~.~~_"_""__"'__w_.__.________,...__,."_..____~...u__'~~'''__.__''_'____'__~___''''_'''''.'''_'''''_'''__"__.'_.._,,~.__ _,'. _,,,, ~,"_,.._____.__.,
.
Centre.. Contra Costa Sanltar) District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 5
POSITION PAPER BOARDM3~T~~G~6, 1988
SUBJECT
APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CONTRA
COSTA WATER DISTRICT (C()ID) FOR THE DEMONSTRATION
INDUSTRIAL WATER REQAMATION PROJECT
NO.
VII. ENGINEERING 1
DATE
June 10, 1988
XpP~6V'tT~
SlJBMITTED. BYK 1 1
James M. e y
Planning Division Manager
1~I'nff~'tffi'igolt;epa rtment/
~anning Division
ISSUE: Board of
Understanding (MOU)
Recl amati on Proj ect.
Di rectors' approval of an interagency Memorandum of
is needed to begin the Demonstration Industrial Water
BAO<GROUND: The District and C()ID initiated a Joint Water Reclamation Study in
November 1986. As discussed in the 1988-89 Capital Improvement Budget on page
TP-88, the District and C()ID have developed a joi nt Demon strati on Industri al
Water Reclamation Project. The Demonstration Industrial Water Reclamation
Proj ect has received the necessary regul atory permits to proceed. C()ID is
finalizing arrangements with TOSCO and Shell for them to receive the reclaimed
water. Recl aimed water del iveri es are schedul ed to begi n in mi d-June to Shell
and early July to TOSCO. Deliveries are scheduled to continue through October.
A proposed MOU has been developed to establish the responsibilities and
activities for the District and C()ID during the Demonstration Industrial Water
Reclamation Project. The proposed MOU is attached. In summary, the MOU calls
for:
o CCCSD to produce a nitrified effluent.
o C()ID to soften and meet Department of Health Services requirements.
o C()ID to deliver and meter the reclaimed water to Shell and TOSCO.
o C()ID to collect revenues from Shell and TOSCO based on the same cost as
canal water.
o CCCSD and C()ID to spl it the revenue and share the consul ti ng cost from
the Demonstration Project on an equal basis.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve MOU with CQolD for the Demonstrati on Industri al Water
Recl amation Project.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
5/~1 tL
1302....9/85
(ENTRAl CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT
tEJl>RANDUM OF UtllERSTANDING FOR WATER REUSE DEtDfSTRATION
PROJECT
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING made and entered into this day of
, 1988, by and between CENTRAl CONTRA COSTA SANITARY
DISTRICT, a public corporati on, herei nafter call ed "CCCSD"; and CONTRA
COSTA WATER DISTRICT, a public corporation hereinafter called "COWD."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, CCCSD and ~D, hereinafter called "CCCSD/~D" when acting
jointly, have conducted a water reuse study to identify viable water
reuse proj ects; and
WHEREAS, the goal s of this water reuse study, which began in October
1986, were to develop a cost effective water reuse project that would:
1) maximize use of existing facilities, 2) extend water supplies, 3)
reduce water storage requi rements, and 4) improve system reliability
during a drought; and
WHEREAS, this water reuse study identified industrial water recl amation
as a potentially cost-effective reuse project; and
WHEREAS, in May 1987 the CCCSD/~D recognized the potential for a
drought in 1988 and began an effort to implement industrial water
reclamation by May 1988 as a Demonstration Project; and
WHEREAS, CCCSD/COWD has met with Shell; TOSCO; the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, hereinafter called RWQCB; Department of Health Services;
and Contra Costa County Health Department several times to discuss
implementation of the Industrial Water Reclamation Project; and
WHEREAS, CCCSD/CCWD submitted an Engineering Report for the Water
Recl arnati on Proj ect to the ~OCB in January 1988 (a copy attached as
Exhibit A and said document incorporated by reference herein); the
Engineering Report requested approval for a six-month to a year
Demonstration Project that would deliver reclaimed water to Shell and
TOSCO; Exhibit A described the proposed Demonstration Project, including
recl amati on treatment and di stri buti on system, process reliability,
monitoring program, and contingency pl an in compl iance with the
wastewater reclamation criteria in Sections 60301 to 60335, inclusive, of
the California Administrative Code, Title 22; the Demonstration Project
would reclaim water during the 1987-88 drought while verifying the
existing reclamation treatment system will comply with Title 22
Wastewater Recl amati on Criteri a, whil e assessing the impact of recl aimed
water use on Shell and TOSCO, and while developing cost data for
long-term recl amati on; and
WHEREAS, the RWOCB accepted the Engineering Report for the Demonstration
Project in a letter to CCCSD/CCWD dated March 16, 1988; acceptance of the
Engineering Report allows the Demonstration Project to proceed after
CCCSD/CCCWD demonstrate the reclamation process produces Title 22 quality
water;
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Demonstrati on Proj ect is to determi ne if
recl aimed water is suitabl e for use as a repl acement for canal water by
industries;
NOlI, lHEREFORE, CCCSD and CCWD agree that th i s Memorandum Of
Understanding intends to set forth, in general terms, responsibilities
and activities to be undertaken by CCCSD and CCWD during the
Demonstration Project only, all as set forth herein.
A. For the purpose of thi s Memorandum of Understandi ng, all water
reclamation facilities shall be operated in the manner described in
the January 1988 Engineering Report (Exhibit "An). The exceptions
to the procedure set forth in the January 1988 Engi neeri ng Report
are as foll ows:
1. CCCSD agrees to use its best efforts to produce a nitrified
effluent during the period of the Demonstration Project; and
2. C()ID agrees to use its best efforts to dech1 ori nate pri or to
ion-exchange and rech10rinate to meet Title 22 standards after
ion-exchange.
3. Additional reclaimed water uses identified during the
Demonstrati on, not named in Exhibit "A," may be part of the
Demonstration Project. The purpose of eva1 uating the
additional reclaimed uses would be to determine if reclaimed
water is suitable for use as a replacement for canal water for
any additional use identified.
B. C()ID will meter reclaimed water deliveries and collect revenues from
Shell and TOSCO for reclaimed water delivered based on the same rate
schedul e by whi ch C()ID furni shes canal water from the Contra Costa
Canal to Shell and Tosco. This revenue will be split SO percent to
CCCSD and SO percent to C()ID. In simil ar fashi on, any consul ti ng
cost to CCCSD/CC)/D for the Demonstration Project jointly contracted
by CCCSD and C()ID will be paid SO percent by CCCSD and SO percent by
C()I D.
C. Each District will pay for their own incremental O&M costs for the
Demon strati on Proj ect. Capital and force account costs for the
Demonstration Project will also be paid by each District; these
costs will be compiled and used for the reimbursement calculations
from future revenues from the sa1 e of recl aimed water if there is a
long-term reuse project. In the event there is no long-term reuse
project, each District shall be solely responsible for these costs
incurred by each District.
D. Each agency agrees to be responsible for its own acts in undertaking
this Demonstration Project.
E. Each agency agrees in good faith to perform as set forth herei n.
Except for any failure to perform in good faith, each party
knowingly waives its right to bring an action at law or in equity to
compel performance of thi s contract or for damages as a resul t of
the fail ure of either party to produce the qual ity and/or quantity
of the nitrified effluent or reclaimed water as set forth herein.
F. This Memorandum of Understanding is not an amendment to the original
Water Reuse Contract between the parties. Neither party by signing
this Memorandum of Understanding waives any right, claim, or defense
relative to CO\'D v. CCCSD, Contra Costa Superior Court No. 258786.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto each herewith subscribe this
Agreement in triplicate.
CONTRA OOSTA WATER DISTRICT
CENTRAL CONTRA OOSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
by
Board President
.
Centra~ ':ontra Costa Sanitar'i Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 2
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
June 16, 1988
NO.
IX.
BUDGET AND FINANCE
2
SUBJECT DA TE
June 8, 1988
APPROV E BOARD RESOl UTION TO ADOPT THE 1988-1989 PERSONNEL, TYPE OF ACTION
EQUIPMENT, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE,
AND SRF-INSURANCE FUND BUDGETS AS COMPRISING lHE 1988-1989 BUDGET ADOPTION
DISTRICT BUDGET
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer
Administrative/Finance & Accounting
ISSUE: The 1988-1989 Personnel, Equipment, Capital Improvement, Operations and
Maintenance, and Self-Insurance Fund Budgets are submitted for adoption by the Board
of Directors.
BAa<GROUI'I>: The 1988-1989 Operations and Maintenance and Capital Improvement
Budgets were approved by the Board of Directors on June 2, 1988. In its approval
action, the Board continued the present 1987-1988 residential Sewer Service Charge
rate for 1988-1989. The Board al so approved a $500,000 sel f-insurance expense
charge in the Operations and Maintenance Budget for payment to the Sel f-Insurance
Fund, and approved the 1988-1989 Self-Insurance Fund Budget.
The 1988-1989 Personnel and Equipment Budgets were approved at the April 21, 1988
and May 19, 1988 Board Meetings, respectively.
A copy of the Board resolution adopting the 1988-1989 Personnel, Equipment, Capital
Improvement, Operations and Maintenance, and Self-Insurance Fund Budgets, and
establishing the amount to be paid to the Self-Insurance Fund, is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Board resolution to adopt the 1988-1989 Personnel,
Equipment, Capital Improvement, Operations and Maintenance, and Self-Insurance Fund
Budgets, as comprising the 1988-1989 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Budget.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
.Z--~--<.<--4~
1302A-9/85 WNF
RESOLUTION NO. 88-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTI~ THE 1988-1989
CEN1RAL CONTRA OOSTA SANITARY DISTRICT BlIlGET
The District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District does
hereby resolve as follows:
lHAT, the 1988-1989 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Budget,
consisting of the Operations and Maintenance Budget, Self-Insurance Fund Budget,
Capital Improvement Budget, Equipment Budget, and Personnel Budget, be adopted,
and
lHAT, the payment by the Running Expense Fund to the District's
Self-Insurance Fund for 1988-1989 be $500,000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 1988 by the District Board of
the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following vote:
AYES: Members:
NOES: Members:
ABSENT: Members:
Presfdent of the Board of Directors,
Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District, County of Contra Costa,
State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary of the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District, County
of Contra Costa, State of California
Approved as to Form:
James L. Hazara
Counsel for the District
.
Centra~ -:ontra Costa Sanitar\t .Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 4
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
June 16, 1988
NO.
x.
SOLID WASTE
1
SUBJECT
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSIS OF AN APPLICATION FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SLBMITTED BY V ALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT
DATE
June 10, 1988
TYPE OF ACTION
REFUSE COLLECTION
RA TE REV IEW
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer
Administrative/Finance & Accounting
ISSUE: Valley Waste Management has submitted an application for refuse collection
rate increases effective July 1, 1988.
BACKGROUND: The refuse collection rate application for Valley Waste Management was
received on the designated due date of March 31, 1988.
Valley Waste Management is applying for a 55.02 percent across-the-board increase in
all collection rates. The substantial increases in collection rates requested by
the refuse collector are based on the following three primary causes:
Disposal Fees - The refuse collector's rates were set last year based on a
lower di sposal fee allowed by the Board of Di rectors than was imposed by the
1 andfl1l. In the current applicati on, the refuse coll ector has forecasted
di sposal expenses based on the higher fee, and al so seeks to recover the
differential in disposal fees paid last year.
Sale of Valley Disposal Service, Inc. - Certain assets and liabilities of
Valley Disposal Service, Inc. were sold to SAWDCO, a subsidiary of Waste
Management, Inc. on January I, 1988. Valley Disposal Service, Inc.'s ownership
in Acme Fill Corporation was not acquired by SAWDCO. The successor entity
operates as Valley Waste Management, an operating division of Waste Management,
Inc. Substantial intercompany charges assessed by the parent company are
included as operating expenses in the rate application submitted by the refuse
collector; additionally, other acquisition-related expenses are included as
operating expenses in the rate application.
Operating Ratio - The 55.02 percent increase in rates applied for by the refuse
collector was calculated using a 90 percent operating ratio, instead of the 95
percent operating ratio customarily used by the District.
The di sposal fee differenti al, and the intercompany charges and other
acqui siti on-rel ated expenses are described in the following secti ons in greater
detail.
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
~'1Jv'~J
1302A-9/85 WN F
SUBJECT
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSIS OF AN APPLICATION FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INffiEASES SUBMITTED BY V ALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT
POSITION PAPER
PAGE
DATE
2
OF 4
June 10, 1988
Disposal Fee Differential
On July 1, 1987, Acme Fill Corporation (Acme) increased its landfill disposal
fee by 118 percent from $2.68 to $5.84 per cubic yard. Because of the severe impact
on refuse conection rates which would result, the Board, in its rate-setting
process last year, initiated a review of the supportability of the disposal fee
increase by Price Waterhouse, Certified Publ ic Accountants. Based upon the
findings of the review, the Board allowed a disposal fee of $3.69 per cubic
yard. The $3.69 fee refl ected Price Waterhouse's reductive adj ustments to
Acme's projections of closure and operating expenses, and excluded the cost of
transfer stati on pl anni ng and transfer vans from the $5.84 fee impl emented by
Acme. The refuse collector has incurred disposal fees charged at $5.84 per
cubic yard from July 1, 1987 through April 30, 1988; as of May 1, 1988, Acme
converted its fee structure to a weight basis, which is asserted by Acme to be
equivalent to the $5.84 per cubic yard fee.
The Price Waterhouse report contained a summary of Acme's projection of
1 andf ill closure, post-closure, and operati ng expenses for the two rema i ni ng
years before closure. Acme projected that the $5.84 per cubic yard fee
implemented July 1, 1987 would require adjustment to $6.70 per cubic yard on
July 1, 1988. Valley Waste Management has submitted its current appl ication
based on a $6.70 disposal fee.
Intercompany Charges, and Expenses and Other Effects of Acquisition
Intercompany Charges
The following charges are assessed by the parent company to Valley Waste
Management, and are claimed in the rate application as operating expenses
in General and Administrative Expenses-Other:
Management Fee - A charge of 2 percent of gross revenues is made for
regional support services to operating divisions in the areas of
purchasing, safety, maintenance, information systems, finance, legal,
environmental management, governmental affairs, and employee
relations. The Management Fee projected for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1988 is $77,980; the fee forecasted for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1989, based on the increased revenues applied for, is
$215,631.
Corporate Serv ices and Development Fee - A charge of 2 percent of
gross revenues is made for corporate services to operating divisions
in such areas as purchasing, risk management, human resources,
vehicle/equipment maintenance programs, safety programs, governmental
affairs, legal, finance and accounting, publ ic affairs, Enployee
1..._______
13026-9/85
SUBJECT
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSIS OF AN APPLICATION FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY V ALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 3 OF 4
DATE
June 10, 1988
rel ations, and internal audi t. The Corporate Services and
Development Fee forecasted for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1988
is $77,609; the fee forecasted for the fiscal year endi ng June 30,
1989, based on the increased revenues applied for, is $215,631.
Interest - Interest at 7 percent per annum is assessed semi-annually
on the daily net bal ance of cash advances received from, and cash
deposi ts into, the corporate bank account. Additi ona lly, a charge
based on 7 percent per annum of Net Tangible Assets is assessed twice
per year; for the forecasted fiscal year ending June 30, 1989, this
charge is $192,220.
Expenses and Other Effects of Acquisition
Expenses and other effects which are di rectly rel ated to the acquisition
and claimed in the rate application are summarized below:
Legal Fees - Legal fees incurred in connection with the sale of
certain assets and 1 iabil ities of Valley Disposal Service, Inc. in
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1988 totaled $61,991, and are claimed
in the rate appl ication in General and Administrative-Legal and
Accounting Fees.
Goodwill Amortization - Goodwill, in the amount of $3,857,965,
representi ng the difference between the considerati on given and the
net assets acquired, was recorded on the books of Valley Waste
Management. The amortization of this amount over a 40 year period
totaled $48,275 and $96,449 in the fiscal years ending June 30, 1988
and June 30, 1989, respectively. The Goodwill amortization expense
is cl aimed in the rate appl icati on in General and
Administrative-Depreciation.
Stockholders' Equity - The Valley Disposal Service, Inc.
stockhOlders' equity account balance as of December 31, 1987 was
$1,153,533. The stockholders' equity of Valley Waste Management
increased to $5,470,000 as of January 1, 1988 as a result of
increasing the value of the net assets acquired to market value, and
recording the consideration given for those net assets. The
stockholders' equity is the base on which an alternative Return on
Equity computation for rate-setting consideration is made.
The rate-setting issues raised by the foregoing are addressed in the accompanying
staff analysis of the Valley Waste Management rate application <see section titled
"Staff Analysis and Recommendations">, which is being submitted for initial review
13028- 9/85
SUBJECT
RECEIVE STAFF ANALYSIS OF AN APPLICATION FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INffiEASES SlBMITTED BY V ALLEY
WASTE MANAGEMENT
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
4
OF
4
June 10, 1988
on June 16, 1988. The staff analysis is being forwarded to the City of Lafayette
and Town of Danville for review and comment. A public hearing to receive comments
from the publ ic, the affected city and town, and the refuse collector has been set
for July 6, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the staff analysi s of the appl icati on for rate increases
submitted by Valley Waste Management, and provide staff with comments and guidance.
13028-9/85