Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 07-07-88 . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary _-Jstrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 25 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Ju NO. IV. HEARINGS 1 SUBJECT DATE HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON UNINHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 102 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) J TYPE OF ACTION HOLD HEARINGS D.A. 102B, 102C, 102D, 102E, and 102F SUBMITTED BY Denni sHall Associate En ineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Di ision ISSUE: LAFCO has amended the boundaries of several of the parcels included within District Annexation 102, a proposed uninhabited annexation. The District must hold hearings and consider testimony by affected property owners before acting on the proposed amended annexations. BACKGROUND: The above-referenced annexation was sent to LAFCO as required for the formal annexation process. Part of the annexati on, consi sti ng of three parcel s, was not changed. These three parcels are being submitted for Board action on the consent calendar as District Annexation 102-A. Since D.A. 102-A is 100 percent landowner consent and was not amended by LAFCO, a public hearing is not required. LAFCO amended the boundari es of the seven remai ni ng parcel s duri ng its approval process. These amendments were made to improve the conti nuity of the resul ti ng District boundary. The amended annexations are designated as D.A. 102-B through G and are consi dered to be six separate annexations (two of the seven parcel s were combined into D.A. 102-F). D.A. 102-G is an inhabited annexation and is the subject of a separate position paper on this agenda. Maps are attached showing the remaining five amended annexations. 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 CEQA 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. The Board should order that the District Secretary file a Notice of Determination as a Responsible Agency stating that the District considered the Negative Declaration as prepared by LAFCO as required. ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS District Annexation 102 as submitted to LAFCO was a single annexation. The action by LAFCO separated District Annexation 102 into five uninhabited annexations, which require a public hearinq. Normallv, a se arate Dublic hearing would be held REVIEWF!D AND RECOMM~NDED FOR OARD ActiON JSM RAB GR!/C~ ROGER J. DOLAN 1302A-9/85 IJrY DH I~ INITIATING DEPT./DIV. SUBJECT POSITION PAPER HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON UNINHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 102 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) PAGE DATE 2 OF 25 June 29, 1988 for each of these five annexations. If no members of the publ ic appear, all annexations can be considered in one public hearing. If a member of the public wishes to testify on a particular annexation, a separate publ ic hearing shall be held on that annexation. The remaining annexations will then be the subject of the second public hearing. Legal notice was published, and the affected property owners were notified of the public hearings as required by law. The amended annexations are uninhabited (fewer than 12 registered voters). Factors to be considered by the Board in deci di n9 to approve or di sapprove the proposed annexati ons are set forth as Exhibit B. Following its review, the Board, not more than 30 days after the conclusion of the public hearing, shall adopt a resolution reflecting the appropriate action taken: 1. Di sapprove any of the proposed annexati ons if, in consi deri ng the above factors, the Board finds the annexation is improper; or 2. Disapprove anyone of the annexations if the Board finds that written protests have been filed and not withdrawn prior to the conclusion of the publ ic 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 considered the Negative Declaration and order the territory annexed. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing or hearings as appropriate, receive any testimony, and close the public hearing(s). 2. Adopt a Resolution concurring with and adopting the Negative Declaration of LAFCO, certifying that the Board has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration, and ordering the annexation of all parcels as amended which have no protests; or Adopt a resolution taking one of the following actions: o Disapprove one or more of the proposed amended annexations if the Board determines that the annexation is not warranted, o Disapprove any amended annexation if a majority protest exists, o Concur with and adopt the Negative Decl arati on of LAFCO and order the annexation if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by owners of 1 and who own 1 ess than 50 percent of the total assessed val ue of land within the affected territory. 13028-9/85 _ ;l/-"'kE .. ----- @ SHELlER REGENCY PARTNERS 12080 OR 180 POINT OF BEGINNING BARROW 57 DR 490 NiIOW'E \16.15' * t\1 C t'r) * ~ B ~ * '1' ~A TRACT 2202 81MB MARTINEZ District Pnnexation No. 102 Parcel 2 Page 3 of 25 ESTUOILLO ST. C?A. /02-/3 Page 4 of25 ~4t-:>P .~~. ~\\.-.... '\ o. '\ \f?'t. MARTJNEZ II...nexation No. 102 District MI Parcel 3 DA-./OZ - C <(; /0 Cf .....~~..c::"#... . '- .....''''""'r U. Q.<;..Ab, - "Y. ~...... --v I'/t:.. _ ,,"......... <..q ~~'t -. -, <6,3 ~ ,J . 1\ . I . , I ! I : I i I , Page 5 of 25 r-~4Cr- 8 ~-2...::> -. f ./.l7..t? ":>,..t'..>-,. , -''''/_~ , 8 I , , I I S , , , G;\ V&:J .G ..:> --- /-:7 RQt>.D TE VIsTf>.. ~ OR IIJDA /tJ. 102 frInexation Dlstrict Parcel 5 aA./OZ-D Page 6 of 25 . ~ 2 @ 2/ LS1W 26 / @ 19 B /lLA /VI 0 District fuilexation rtl. 102 Parcel 6 OA./OZ-E PDR J RJ-\NCHO 51-\N RAfi.ljOJ\J OANVILLE District A1nexation f'b. 102 Parcels 7 and 8 Page 7 of 25 PA.. /02 -F EXHIBIT A Page 8 of 25 .. . LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON PROJECT UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Lead Agency Local Agency Formation Commission Contra Costa County McBrien Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: (415) 646-4090 ~ U U, l5 lliJ MAR :2: 1988 J.R. OLSSON '::ountv Clel k CONTRA CO~T.:" COUNTY Dewey E. Mansfield Executive Officer : .. ,.-. .. ". ....-./(. ~" PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 102 TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-5) AND CONCURRENT REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOl) BOUNDARY FOR SAID DISTRICT (CCCSD), this proposal annexed + or - 22 acres consisting of ten separate parcels proximate to existing CCCSD boundaries in the communities of Alamo, Martinez and Orinda. Applicant: CCCSD Decision of Project: ~Approved Denied Withdrawn Decision on Environmental Impact: Will X Will not have significant effect. MAR 2 1 1988 X Not Environmental Impact Report: LAFCO Negative Declaration ey E. Mansfie tive Officer Date: cc: LAFCO Page 9 of 25 . ." . t LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) rc U OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY if U [g NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE ~ 110 r-E8 2;) 1988 ..l.R. OLSSON Person (Applicant): CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRIC1ttTl}IA'~. oe.=!.J'.Co~nty Clerk .' \LHl1f::fJ/:l'UN-ry Project Title: Central Sanitary Annexation No. 102 (LAFC 88-5) --- Project Location: scattered throughout Central County Responsible Agency Contact Person: Dewey E. Mansfield, Executive Officer Contra Costa County 8th Floor, McBrien Administration Bldg. Martinez, CA 94553 (415) 646-4090 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Nature, Purpose, Beneficiaries, Reasons Environmentally Insignificant): This is for the annexation of 10 separate areas of land to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. A sewer sphere of influence amendment is required for addition of 5.4 acres of land on the rear of existing parcels in the Orinda area. The annexation covers approximately 22 acres though staff intends to add additional lands to make a better boundary. These are all infill annexations which will create better jurisdiction boundaries. The Executive Officer will recommend the addition of adjacent parcels to provide improved jurisdictional boundaries. The addition of these lands will not cause any significant environmental impacts. It is determined from initial study by JIM CUTLER that this project does not have a significant effect on the environment. ( X) Justification for negative declaration is attached. FEB 25 1988 The Initial study is available at Date Posted: Date of Final Appeal: March 9, 1988 Original: County Clerk cc: LAFCO File 'il.... " Page 10 of 25 LOC1\L AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIvl.; (LAFCO) OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INITI1\L STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE File Name: LAFC 88-5 Prepared By: JIM CUTLER Date: 2/19/88 A. RECOMMENDATION: ( )Categorical Exemption ( )Negative Declaration ( )Environrnental Impact Report Required The project (May) (Will Not) Have A Significant Effect On The Environment. These are all infill annexations which will create better jurisdiction boundaries. The Executive Officer will recommend the addition of adjacent parcels to provide improved jurisdictional boundaries. The addition of these lands will not cause any significant environmental impacts. B. PROJECT INFORMATION: 1. Project Location and Description: This is for the annexation of 10 separate areas of land to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. A sewer sphere of influence amendment is required for addition of 5.4 acres of land on the rear of existing parcels in the Orinda area. The annexation covers approximately 22 acres though staff intends to add additional lands to make a better boundary. 2. Site Description: These sites are largely developed lands or subdivided lands within Orinda, San Ramon, Danville, etc. They are generally used or planned for residential use. 3. Character of Surrounding Areas: They are all located within developed areas. Parcel 5 abuts open space lands in orinda. -3- Page 11 of 25 S N C No U !!LA '. Air will the project result in deterioration 2. of existing air quality, inclullng creation of objectionable odors? x - - - - - Discussion: 3. Water Will the project result in: a) Erection of st.r\x:tureS within a designated flood hazard (prone) area? x - - - - - - b) ~ of surface or ground water quality or quantity? x - c) Alteration of drainage patterns or rurx:>ff? x - d) Disruption of streams or water l:odi.es? x Discussion: 4. Plant/Aninal Life will the project result in: a) Changes in the di versi ty of species, or nuni:lers of aTrI species of plants or anirrals? X - - b1 Reduction of the I'lllIt'ber of any uniques, rare- or errlangered species of plants Oi-- aninals? x - - - - c) Int.r<:ldu=tion of new species of plants or a.n.i.na1s into an area, or inhibition of the ronral replenisbrent, migration or novement of existing species? x - - - - - d) ~ in acreage of aTrI agricultural crop or existing fish or wildlife habitat? x - - - - - Discussion: 5. Noise will the project result in: a) stroctures wi thin the 60dBA roise contour per the General Plan Noise Elatent? X - b) :m:reases fran existing mise levels? X - Discussion : 6. Natural Resources Will the project affect the potential use, extraction, CXXlSerVC1tioo or depletion of a natural resource? 'x - - - - - Discussion: Page 13 of 25 EXHIBIT B FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE 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 Resol uti ons (88-5-B through F) maki ng the determi nati on that the proposed annexations should 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 14 of 25 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 102-B TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-5-B) The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On February 10, 1988 Resolution No. 87-200 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 102 to said District; 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; and The Executive Officer reviewed said application, caused to be prepared an initial study of the project's environmental significance and a resulting Negative Declaration, and prepared the Executive Officer Report including his recommendations therein; said application, Negative Declaration and report were presented to and considered by this Commission; and The public hearing by this Commission was held on March 9, 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, Negative Declaration and report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that: Section 1. The Negative Declaration finding, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, that the subject project (proposed annexation as amended herein) will not have significant effect on the environment is hereby adopted. Section 2. This portion of the proposal is hereby amended to include only Annexation Parcel 2 as identified in the application, with boundaries of said parcel revised to include certain additional territory. Section 3. The proposal is assigned the designation of "District Annexation No. 102-B to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-5-B)" and the affected territory is legally uninhabited. Section 4. 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 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56029 (b), the Sanitary Board of CCCSD 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 6. 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 March 9, 1988 by the following vote: Page 15 of 25 Resolution 88-5-B 2 AYES: Commissioners Fahden, Harmon, Torlakson, Uilkema and Rainey NOES: 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 By: LL_~. 1~~ g~'~ J. Mercurio Staff Analyst DEM:JJM:ap Attachment Distribution: Roger Dolan, General Manager; CCCSD Jay McCoy, Construction Division Manager; CCCSD Bill Gregory, Real Property Specialist; CCCSD Jack Garner, City Manager; City of Martinez Page 16 of 25 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATI~ COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 102-C TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-5-C) The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On February 10, 1988 Resolution No. 87-200 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 102 to said District; 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; and The Executive Officer reviewed said application, caused to be prepared an initial study of the project's environmental significance and a resulting Negative Declaration, and prepared the Executive Officer Report including his recommendations therein; said application, Negative Declaration and report were presented to and considered by this Commission; and The pUblic hearing by this Commission was held on March 9, 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, Negative Declaration and report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that: Section 1. The Negative Declaration finding, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, that the subject project (proposed annexation as amended herein) will not have significant effect on the environment is hereby adopted. Section 2. This portion of the proposal is hereby amended to include only Annexation Parcel 3 as identified in the application, with boundaries of said parcel revised to include certain additional territory. Section 3. The proposal is assigned the designation of "District Annexation No. 102-C to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-5-C)" and the affected territory is legally uninhabited. Section 4. 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 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56029 (b), the Sanitary Board of CCCSD 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 6. 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 March 9, 1988 by the following vote: Page 17 of 25 Resolution 88-5-C 2 AYES: Commissioners Fahden, Harmon, Torlakson, Uilkema and Rainey NOES: 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 By: lL). 1;~~ ~~hn J. Mercurio Staff Analyst DEM:JJM:ap Attachment Distribution: Roger Dolan, General Manager; CCCSD Jay McCoy, Construction Division Manager; CCCSD Bill Gregory, Real Property Specialist; CCCSD Jack Garner, City Manager; City of Martinez Page 18 of 25 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION -,~ISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 102-D TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-5-D) AND CONCURRENT REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOl) BOUNDARY OF SAID DISTRICT The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On February 10, 1988 Resolution No. 87-200 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 102 to said District; 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 boundary of CCCSD; and The Executive Officer reviewed said application, caused to be prepared an initial study of the project's environmental significance and a resulting Negative Declaration, and prepared the Executive Officer Report including his recommendations therein; said application, Negative Declaration and report were presented to and considered by this Commission; and The public hearing by this Commission was held on March 9, 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, Negative Declaration and report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that: section 1. The Negative Declaration finding, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, that the subject project (proposed annexation as amended herein and SOl update) will not have significant effect on the environment is hereby adopted. Section 2. 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. section 3. CCCSD SOl boundaries are hereby amended to include territory affected by this proposal as shown on the map attached as Exhibit "C." section 4. This portion of the proposal is hereby amended to include only Annexation Parcel 5 as identified in the application, with boundaries of said parcel revised to include certain additional territory. Section 5. The proposal is assigned the designation of "District Annexation No. 102-D to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-5-D)" and the affected territory is legally uninhabited. Section 6. 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 7. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56029 (b), the Sanitary Board of CCCSD 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. Page 19 of 25 Resolution LAFC 88-5-D 2 Section 8. 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 March 9, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Fahden, Harmon, Torlakson, Uilkema and Rainey NOES: 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 ~ ~, 7J~ By: John J. Mercurio Staff Analyst DEM:JJM:ap Attachment Distribution: Roger Dolan, General Manager; CCCSD Jay McCoy, Construction Division Manager; CCCSD Bill Gregory, Real Property Specialist; CCCSD Thomas Sinclair, City Manager; City of Orinda _ __.___,_,.____~_._.._~_._,_"____,_~..__".._.,__~~.__.,.""'_y_"__,_._~~_._."W"_..~._,.."..,,_""_.. . __ "_,_,..__,~__,___.___~,,_,_,_,__,_,.,,,_,_______""~_'.,...-----~~---- Page 20 of 25 EXHIBIT "B" STATEMENT OF DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO FACTORS SPECIFIED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 56425 REGARDING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOl) REVIEW AND UPDATE FOR CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (CCCSD) AS DETERMINED IN CONJUNCTION WITH APPROVAL OF "DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 102-D TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LArC 88-5-D)" This Commission has reviewed and considered the Executive Officer Report dated March 4, 1988 regarding "District Annexation No. 102 to central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-5) and Concurrent Review and Update of the Sphere of Influence (SOl) Boundary for Said District (CCCSD)." Said report and its enclosures contain information substantiating these determinations and are incorporated herein as though set forth at length. Factors specified by Government Code Section 56425 and determina- tions for each are as follows: Factor 1: The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. Determination: Territory affected by the subject SOl amendment consists of one complete parcel and portions of five other parcels planned for single-family residences. The other portions of the partial parcelS are already within CCCSD. Factor 2: The present and probable need for public faci~ities and services in the area. Determination: Sewage disposal service by CCCSD is crucial to achieving residential development of the affected area as planned. Factor 3: The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide. Determination: This factor is authoritatively addressed in the Executive Officer Report and its enclosures incorpor- ated herein as though set forth at length. Factor 4: The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. Determination: Properties affected by the subject SOl update are within the community of interest for receiving urban level municipal-type services from agencies that serve the community of Orinda. CCCSD is the agency that provides sewage disposal service to the community. DEM: ap Page 21 of 25 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 102-E TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-5-E) AND CONCURRENT REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) BOUNDARY OF SAID DISTRICT The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On February 10, 1988 Resolution No. 87-200 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 102 to said District; 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;and The Executive Officer reviewed said application, caused to be prepared an initial study of the project's environmental significance and a resulting Negative Declaration, and prepared the Executive Officer Report including his recommendations therein; said application, Negative Declaration and report were presented to and considered by this Commission; and The public hearing by this Commission was held on March 9, 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, Negative Declaration and report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that: Section 1. The Negative Declaration finding, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, that the subject project (proposed annexation as amended herein) will not have significant effect on the environment is hereby adopted. Section 2. This portion of the proposal is hereby amended to include only Annexation Parcel 6 as identified in the application, with boundaries of said parcel revised to include certain additional territory. Section 3. The proposal is assigned the designation of "District Annexation No. 102-E to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-5-E)" and the affected territory is legally uninhabited. Section 4. 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 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56029 (b), the Sanitary Board of CCCSD 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 6. 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 March 9, 1988 by the following vote: Page 22 of 25 Resolution LAFC 88-5-E 2 AYES: commissioners Fahden, Harmon, Torlakson, Uilkema and Rainey NOES: 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 ~.L ~. h~ ~ohn J. Mercurio 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 Page 23 of 25 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 102-F TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-5-F) The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On February 10, 1988 Resolution No. 87-200 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 102 to said District; 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; and The Executive Officer reviewed said application, caused to be prepared an initial study of the project's environmental significance and a resulting Negative Declaration, and prepared the Executive Officer Report including his recommendations therein; said application, Negative Declaration and report were presented to and considered by this Comnission; and The pUblic hearing by this Commission was held on March 9, 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, Negative Declaration and report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that: Section 1. The Negative Declaration finding, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, that the sUbject project (proposed annexation as amended herein) will not have significant effect on the environment is hereby adopted. Section 2. This portion of the proposal is hereby amended to include only Annexation Parcels 7 and 8 as identified in the application, with boundaries of said parcels revised to include certain additional territory. Section 3. The proposal is assigned the designation of "District Annexation No. 102-F to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-5-F)" and the affected territory is legally uninhabited. Section 4. 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 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56029 (b), the Sanitary Board of CCCSD 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 6. 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 March 9, 1988 by the following vote: " Page 24 of 25 Resolution LAFC 88-5-F 2 AYES: Commissioners Fahden, Harmon, Torlakson, Uilkema and Rainey NOES: 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 kL~.11~ g~hn J. Mercurio 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 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 25 of 25 FACTORS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE 56841 WHIQ-f WERE roNSIDERED BY LAFGO (a) Population, population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundarfes, 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 ne~ 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, annexatfon, 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 governmental services whether or not the services are services which woul d 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 1n Government Code Section 56377 . (e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and econanic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Goverrvnent 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 un1corporated territory, and other sim'~lar 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. (1) The canments of any affected local agency. . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary uistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 13 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF July 7, 1988 NO. IV. HEARINGS 2 SUBJECT HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON INHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 102 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) DATE June 29, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION HOLD HEARING D.A. 102G SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: LAFCO has amended the boundaries of several of the parcel s incl uded within District Annexation 102. 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 annexation consisting of ten separate parcels was sent to LAFCO as required for the formal annexation process. LAFCO' amended the boundaries of some of the parcels during its approval process. These amendments were made to improve the conti nuity of the resul ti ng Di stri ct boundary. In amendi ng the boundaries of Di stri ct Annexati on 102G, LAFCO added sufficient properties to change the annexation from uninhabited to inhabited (12 or more registered voters). DA 102G is being considered separately because the criteria for determining the validity of protests for inhabited annexations is different from the criteria for uninhabited annexations. The criteria for inhabited annexations appears later in this position paper. GEQA REQU IREfJCNTS A Negative Declaration addressing the proposed annexations was prepared by LAFCO pursuant to GEQA and was used by LAFCO in making its determinations and approving this annexation. In accordance with District GEQA 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. The Board should order that the District Secretary file a Notice of Determination as a Responsible Agency stating that the District considered the Negative Declaration as prepared by LAFCO as required. ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS The District must hold a public hearing on District Annexation 102G because LAFCO amended the boundaries of DA l02G. Legal notice was published, and the affected property owners were notified of the publ ic hearing as requi red by law. The subject amended annexation is inhabited (12 or more registered voters). Factors REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ARD ACTION ~Lf P/f)J 1302A-9/85 RAB INITIATING DEPT./DIV. SUBJECT HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON INHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 102 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) POSITION PAPER PAGE DATE 2 OF 3 June 29, 1988 to be considered by the Board in deciding to approve or disapprove the proposed annexation are set forth as Exhibit B. Following its review, the Board, not more than 30 days after the conclusion of the publ i c heari ng, shall adopt a resol uti on refl ecti ng the appropri ate acti on taken: 1. Order the annexation and certify that the Board has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration if no protests are received. 2. Terminate proceedings if a majority protest exists in accordance with Section 57078. 3. Order the annexati on subj ect to confi rmati on by the regi stered voters residing within the affected territory if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by either of the following: A. At least 25 percent, but less than 50 percent, of the registered voters residing in the affected territory. B. At least 25 percent of the number of owners of land who also own at least 25 percent of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. 4. Order the annexation without an election if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by less than 25 percent of the registered voters or less than 25 percent of the number of owners of land owning less than 25 percent of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing, receive any testimony, and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt a Resolution concurring with and adopting the Negative Declaration of LAFCO, certifying that the Board has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration, and ordering the annexation of DA 102G if no protests are filed; or Adopt a resol ution certifying that the Board has reviewed and considered LAFCO's Negative Declaration and is taking one of the following actions: o Terminate annexation proceedings if a majority protest exists in accordance with Section 57078. 13028-9/85 SUBJECT HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON INHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 102 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) POSITION PAPER PAGE DATE ~ OF 13 .1l1nA?Q 1988 o Order the annexation subject to confirmation by the registered voters resi di ng with i n the affected territory if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by either of the following: A. At least 25 percent, but not less than 50 percent, of the registered voters residing in the affected territory. B. At 1 east 25 percent of the number of owners of 1 and who al so own at least 25 percent of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. o Order the annexation without an election if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by less than 25 percent of the registered voters or 1 ess than 25 percent of the number of owners of 1 and owni ng less than 25 percent of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. --------- 13028-9/85 Page 4 of 13 ~ \f3' @ 1'36 DANVIL.LE District .Annexation No. 102 Parcel 10 P.A. /02 - G EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 13 "I' ~ LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON PROJECT UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Lead Agency Local Agency Formation Commission Contra Costa County McBrien Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: (415) 646-4090 ~ u lb LS uu MAR :2: 1988 J.R. OLSSON: ~ountv Cler k CONTRA CO~T.':" CCUNTY Dewey E. Mansfield Executive Officer :' r-'" ". ....' 'fl. ~'. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 102 TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-5) AND CONCURRENT REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOl) BOUNDARY FOR SAID DISTRICT (CCCSD), this proposal annexed + or - 22 acres consisting of ten separate parcels proximate to existing CCCSD boundaries in the communities of Alamo, Martinez and Orinda. Applicant: CCCSD Decision of Project: ~Approved Denied Withdrawn Decision on Environmental Impact: Will X Will not have significant effect. MAR 2 1 1988 X Not Environmental Impact Report: LAFCO Negative Declaration ey E. Mansfie tive Officer Date: cc: LAFCO Page 6 of 13 . t J} U U Jg fn NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE ~ I f-f:J:3 2 [1' 1988 ..R. OLSSON Person (Applicant): CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRIC1t~:{e.)Q. Pe;r.G~~nty Clerk '-)Vl~Il/!/)UNjy Project Title: Central Sanitary Annexation No. 102 (LAFC 88-5) --- LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Project Location: Scattered throughout Central County Responsible Agency Contact Person: Dewey E. Mansfield, Executive Officer Contra Costa County 8th Floor, McBrien Administration Bldg. Martinez, CA 94553 (415) 646-4090 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Nature, Purpose, Beneficiaries, Reasons Environmentally Insignificant): This is for the annexation of 10 separate areas of land to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. A sewer sphere of influence amendment is required for addition of 5.4 acres of land on the rear of existing parcels in the Orinda area. The annexation covers approximately 22 acres though staff intends to add additional lands to make a better boundary. These are all infill annexations which will create better jurisdiction boundaries. The Executive Officer will recommend the addition of adjacent parcels to provide improved jurisdictional boundaries. The addition of these lands will not cause any significant environmental impacts. It is determined from initial study by JIM CUTLER that this project does not have a significant effect on the environment. ( X) Justification for negative declaration is attached. The Initial Study is available at the Date of Final Appeal: March 9, 1988 FEB 25 1988 Date Posted: Signed by: LAFCO Original: County Clerk cc: LAFCO File . .> ,I Page 7 of 13 LOC1\L AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENT1U. SIGNIFICANCE File Name: LAFC 88-5 Prepared By: JIM CUTLER Date: 2/19/88 A. RECOMMENDATION: ( )Categorical Exemption ( )Negative Declaration ( )Environmental Impact Report Required The project (May) (Will Not) Have A Significant Effect On The Environment. These are all infill annexations which will create better jurisdiction boundaries. The Executive Officer will recommend the addition of adjacent parcels to provide improved jurisdictional boundaries. The addition of these lands will not cause any significant environmental impacts. B. PROJECT INFORMATION: 1. Project Location and Description: This is for the annexation of 10 separate areas of land to the central Contra Costa Sanitary District. A sewer sphere of influence amendment is required for addition of 5.4 acres of land on the rear of existing parcels in the Orinda area. The annexation covers approximately 22 acres though staff intends to add additional lands to make a better boundary. 2. site Description: These sites are largely developed lands or subdivided lands within Orinda, San Ramon, Danville, etc. They are generally used or planned for residential use. 3. Character of Surrounding Areas: They are all located within developed areas. Parcel 5 abuts open space lands in Orinda. -]- Page 8 of 13 I S N C No U ~ ~. 2. Air Will the project result in deterioration of existing air quality, inclullng creation of objectionable odors? x - - - - - Discussion: 3. Water Will the project result in: a) Erection of st:.nx::tures within a designated flood hazard (prone) area? X - - - - - b) Ped\rtion of surface or ground water quality or quantity? X - c) Alteration of drainage pa.tterns or rurx>ff? X - d) Disruption of streams or water lxxties? X - Discussion: 4. Plant/Aninal Life will the project result in: a) Chmges in the di versi ty of species, or nurd:ers of any species of plants or a.niIra.ls? X - - b1 Reduction of ~ 1'l1.II"Cber of any uniqae.s, rare- or errlangered species of plants 01-- ani.nals? X - - - - c) Int.rodu::tion of new species of plants or ani.na1s into an area, or inhibition of the rornal replenisment, migration or novatent of existing species? X - - - - - d) Ped\rtion in acreage of any agricu1 tura1 crop or existing fish or wildlife habitat? X - - - - - Discussion: 5. Noise Will the project result in: a) stJ:u:tures wi thin the 60dBA mise contour per the General Plan ~ise Elenent? X - b) Increases fran existing mise levels? X Discussion : 6. Natural Reoources Will the project affect the FQtential use, extraction, conservation or depletion of a natural resource? 'X - - - - - Discussion: Page 10 of 13 EXHIBIT B FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE 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 (88-5-G) making the determination that the proposed annexation should 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 annexati on to our Di strict as the conducti ng 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 11 of 13 RES~ JXION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATIv~ COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 102-G TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-5-G) The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On February 10, 1988 Resolution No. 87-200 of the Central Contra Costa sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 102 to said District; 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; and The Executive Officer reviewed said application, caused to be prepared an initial study of the project's environmental significance and a reSUlting Negative Declaration, and prepared the Executive Officer Report including his recommendations therein; said application, Negative Declaration and report were presented to and considered by this Commission; and The public hearing by this commission was held on March 9, 1988 at the time anq 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, Negative Declaration and report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that: Section 1. The Negative Declaration finding, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, that the subject project (proposed annexation as amended herein) will not have significant effect on the environment is hereby adopted. Section 2. This portion of the proposal is hereby amended to include only Annexation Parcel 10 as identified in the application, with boundaries of said parcel revised to include certain additional territory. Section 3. The proposal is assigned the designation of "District Annexation No. 102-G to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-5-G)" and the affected territory is legally inhabited. Section 4. 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 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 56029 (b), the Sanitary Board of CCCSD 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 6. 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 March 9, 1988 by the following vote: ;. t- ~. \ " Page 12 of 13 Resolution LAFC 88-5-G 2 AYES: Commissioners Fahden, Harmon, Torlakson, Uilkema and Rainey NOES: 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 k l' 2'1~ JOhn J. Mercurio Staff Analyst By: DEM:JJM:ap Attachment Distribution: Roger Dolan, General Manager; CCCSD Jay McCoy, Construction Division Manager; CCCSD Bill Gregory, Real Property specialis~; CCCSD ATTACHMENT 2 Page 13 of 13 FACTORS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE 56841 WHIOi WERE CONSIDERED 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 un1corporated areas, during the next 10 years. (b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of goverMlental 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 governmental services whether or not the services are services which woul d 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 Government Co(je Section 56377. (e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by GoverMlent Code Sect; on 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 sim\.lar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. (g) Consistency with city or county general and specific plans. ( h) The sphere of i nfl uence of any 1 oca 1 applicable to the proposal being reviewed. anAnr" ::J......-J which may be (1) The comments of any affected local agency. . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary LJistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 5 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF J ul 7, 1988 NO. v. B IDS AND AWARDS 1 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING DEFICIENT SEWER FACILITIES IN MARTINEZ, ORINDA, WALNUT CREEK, AND PLEASANT HILL, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4327 DATE June 23, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: On June 21, 1988 sealed bids for District Project 4327 were received and opened. The Board of Directors must award the contract or reject the bids within 60 days of the opening of the bids. BACKGROUND: This project includes the replacement or improvement of existing sewer facilities at four sites in the District. A description of each of the sites is presented in Attachment No.1. The General Manager-Chief Engineer authorized predesign funds for this project on December 30, 1986 and October 10, 1987. Plans and Specifications for the project were completed in April 1988 and advertisements inviting the submission of sealed bids were placed in the Contra Costa Times on May 27 and June 3, 1988. Two bids of $102,548 and $123,645 were received. A summary of bids is shown on Attachment No.2. The engineer's construction cost estimate is $100,000. After a thorough eval uation of the bids, the Construction Division has determined that V & M Construction/Backhoe, who submitted a bid of $102,548, is the lowest, responsible bidder. A Post Bi d-Preconstruction Estimate of Costs is shown on Attachment No.3. A total of $134,519 is required to complete the project, including construction, construction management, and consultant services. This project is included in the 1988-89 Capital Improvement Budget starting at page CS-48. A Notice of Exemption has been filed for this project with the County Clerk in accordance with District CEQA guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Authori ze award of the constructi on contract for Di stri ct Project No. 4327 to V & M Construction/Backhoe, the lowest responsible bidder. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 JJr DH w RAB INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Page 2 of 5 ATTACHMENT 1 REPlACEMENT OF DEFICIENT SEWER FACILITIES DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4327 PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION SITE A - Warren Street, Martinez Approximately two years ago, District forces installed an a-inch public sewer in Warren Street as the first phase in providing upgraded sewer service to 14 parcels which are presently served by a 4-inch publ ic sewer. The existing 4-inch sewer traverses six properties through landscaping and improved areas, under one structure, and is close to complete failure. Excessive maintenance is required to keep this deficient system in marginal operating condition. This particular sewer is one for which the District has no public sewer easement. The new a-inch public sewer was installed two years ago in Warren Street for two main reasons. First, the installation of a new public sewer along the alignment of the existing 4-inch sewer by pipe bursting methods is impractical because pipe bursting cannot be used on pipes which are smaller than 6 inches in diameter. Second, the installation of a new public sewer along the alignment of the existing 4-inch sewer by open trenching methods would damage existing landscaping and improvements. The proposed work at this site consists of two tasks: 1) the redirection of eight 4-inch private side sewers to the a-inch public sewer in Warren Street, and 2) the installation of approximately 100 feet of a-inch public sewer in Grandview Avenue and the reconnection of six private side sewers to this new line. SITE B - Sleepy Hollow, Orinda This project consists of the installation of 166 L.F. of 6-inch public sewer and one manhole. The construction will provide an access point (manhole) in a public street where mechani cal cl eani ng equi pment can be used to cl ean the downstream line. Presently, the maintenance of over 740 feet of downstream sewer is performed by hand operations from a manhole located in the backyard of a private property. An easement was obtained to provide access rights from the existing backyard manhole to the new manhole located in Sleepy Hollow Lane. SITE C - Sunset Road, Pleasant Hill The existing clay sewer serving five residences on Sunset Road is in poor condition, shallow, and is located within the front yard landscaping. The project will provide for the relocation of the sewer to the paved roadway and provide new si de sewers to the poi nt of connecti on with the exi sti ng private systems. The project quantities include 265 feet of a-inch sewer main, one manhole, and the reconnection of five side sewers. Page 3 of 5 SITE D - Arbutus Court The residence at 24 Arbutus Court is served by a private 4-inch side sewer which is located on two other private properti es before enteri ng a publ i c system. Maintenance records indicate that the District has been maintaining this private system since the early 1960's when the District was involved in the relocation of the side sewer to its present location. This project will result in the abandonment of the existing line and the construction of a new 4-inch system entirely on the subject property. Staff is working with the property owner to obtain an agreement by which the owner will maintain the new 4-inch sewer after the expiration of the one-year warranty period included in the construction contract. If staff is unsuccessful in obtaining an agreement, staff will notify the Board and recommend appropri ate, al ternati ve action. :~t Page 4 of 5 ATTACH~1ENT 2 Centra~ Contra Costa SanL Jry District SUMMARV OF BIDS PROJECT NO. -4327 -- DEFICIENT SEWER FACILITIES DATE JUNE 21, 1988 ENGR. EST. $ 100,000 LOCATION MARTINEZ, ORINDA, WALNUT CREEK, PLEASANT HILL II: \V BID PRICE BIDDER (Name, telephone & address) V JI. M rnnc;trlJ(~t;nn/Rrlrkhnp (415 ) 432-9624 $ . 2121 Pi~dmont Way, Pittc:;hIJrg, r.A 102.548.00 - Mountain Cascade, Inc. (415 ) 837-1101 $ P.O. Box 116. San Ramon. CA 123.645.00 - ( ) $ - ( ) $ - ( ) $ - ( ) $ - ( ) $ , , - ( ) $ - ( ) $ - ( ) $ - ( ) $ ~ ( ) $ PREPARED BY Dennis Hall DATE May 21. 1988 SHEET NO. OF ITEM 1 2 3 ATTAa-tMENT 3 Page 5 of 5 POST BID - PREOONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE OF COSTS FOR DISTRICT SEWERING PROJ ECT 4327 DESCRIPTION Construction Contract (As Bid) Estimated Construction Contingencies @ 10 % Total Estimated Construction 4 Estimated Construction Incidentals to Project Completion 5 6 Survey Inspection Engineering During Construction Contract Administration Outside Testing Legal Total Estimated Construction Incidentals Easement Acquisition Total Estimate Required to Complete Proj ect 7 Pre-Bid Expenditures 8 9 10 11 Planning Survey, Engineering Printing, Advertising Total Preconstruction Incidentals as of June 21, 1988 Total Estimated Project Cost (Items 6 and 8) Funds Previously Authorized Total Additional Funds Required to Complete Project (Item 9 minus Item 10) ITEM AMOUNT $ 4,000.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $16,700.00 $12,222.00 $11,772.00 $ 822.00 $24,816.00 TOTAL $102,548.00 $ 10,255.00 $112,803.00 $ 16,700.00 $ 3,000.00 $132,503.00 $ 24,816.00 $157,319.00 $ 22,800.00 $134,519.00 CONTRACT 100.00 14.81 117.46 22.00 139.46 . Central Contra Costa Sanitary uistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE OF 4 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF July 7, 1988 NO. v. BIDS AND AWARDS SUBJECT AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO V & M CONSTRUCTION/BACKHOE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 4326, PORT CHICAGO PUMP STATION ABANDONMENT AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - WATERSHED 44 DATE June 30, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AWARD SUBMITTED BY Thomas C. Cheng Assistant Engineer INITIATING DEPT .LDIV.. . Englneerlng Department Engineering Division ISSUE: Sealed Abandonment and June 30, 1988. within 60 days bids for District Project No. Sewer Improvements - Watershed The Board must authorize award of the opening of bids. 4326, Port Chicago Pump Station 44, were received and opened on of a contract or reject all bids BACKGROUND: The North Concord/Clyde area, designated as Watershed 44, is currently served by four pump stations: Clyde, Port Chicago, Bates Avenue, and Concord Industrial (Attachment I). The facilities plan for Watershed 44 recommends consolidating the four pump stations by, first, upgrading the Concord Industrial Pump Station and the Bates Avenue Pump Station; and then in turn abandoning the Port Chicago and the Clyde pump stations. The improvements to the Concord Industrial Pump Station and the Bates Avenue Pump Station were completed in the Fiscal Year 1987-88. Abandoning the Port Chicago Pump Station is the next project to be completed. This project consists of the installation of approxi- mately 1,860 lineal feet of IS-inch and 18-inch gravity sewer together with 3 trunk manholes, 3 standard manholes, and other appurtenances plus the abandonment of the pump station. This project is described in more detail in the FY 1988-89 Capital Improvement Budget, Page CS-42. Plans and specifications for the project were completed, and advertisements inviting the submission of sealed bids were placed in the Contra Costa Times on June 16 and 22, 1988. Four bids were received and opened on June 30, 1988. The bid tabulation is shown in Attachment 2. The bids range from $228,241. 75 to $344,943.00. District staff reviewed the bids and has determined that the lowest responsible bidder is V & M Construction/Backhoe of Pittsburg, California with a bid of $228,241.75. The Engineer's Estimate for construction cost was $266,500. A Post Bid/Preconstruction Cost estimate is presented in Attachment 3. The estimated total project cost is $354,800 which includes all design and construction work. An additional authorization of $309,800 is required to complete the construction of the project. Funds for this project are included in the FY 1988-89 Capital Improvement Budget. A Negative Declaration for the proposed North Concord/Clyde Sewage Collection System Improvements Project was adopted in August 1985. The District concluded that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize award of the construction contract for District Project No. 4326, Port Chicago Pump Station Abandonment and Sewer Improvements to V & M Construction/Backhoe, the lowest responsible bidder. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 DRW RAB . M Rk::' ROGER J. DOLAN INITIATING DEPT.lDIV, -- ,-C C ,:t 4- e.. DJC J)JoJ Mfj Existing pumps upgraded D.P. 4091 FY 1987-88 TO CCCSD Via Existing Force Main & Sewers TO CCCSD Via Existing Force Main & Sewers D.P.4093 FY 1986-87 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . Attachment 1 Page 2 of 4 Concord Industrial P.S. Invert E1.=-o.71 ~~~~.~ .",...',.i:<.'.."."'ii'..... ~r:t7S,20 (:::::~\\j::f~d?:.::;~;:{P\t.::.:_? :....-....'.'................'.......-... .::....... .:::.7:...::........:::......:..:......: -. I ...~....j~[~~ ....1 I -..... . . ;:. . j::: I 1~:: FY 1989-90 I .... ;:. u I N I t I :::: .... I ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:. I t Town of Clyde Gravity . Contribution I . This Position Paper Bates P.S. Gravity Contribution Invert EI.=26.5 ...... Existing Sewer Future Gravity Sewer Existing Force Main or Pump Station To Be Abandoned Existing pumps upgraded D.P. 4091 FY 1987-88 .:::::::::::::::: SYSTEM SCHEMATIC 2523-1/87 ATTACHMENT 2 Centra.. ~ontra Costa Sani{ ry District SUMMARY OF BIDS Port Chicago Pump Station PROJECT NO. 4326 Abandonment and Sewer Tmprnvpmpnt" DATE 6/30/88 LOCATION Concord, Cal ifornia ENGR. EST. $ 266.500 II: W BIDDER (Name, telephone & address) BID PRICI! 0 V & M Construction/Backhoe ( 415) 432-9624 $ 2121 Piedmont Way. Pittsburg. CA 94565 228.241.75 2 Pfister Excavating Tnc. (707 ) fl43-7715 $ P. O. Box 4312, Vallejo, CA 94590 294.047.00 3 Mountain Cascade (415) 837-11 01 $ P. O. Box 116, San Ramon, CA 94583 344.800.00 4 MGM Construction (415) 685-8812 $ P. O. Box 5757, Concord. CA 94524 344,943.00 ( ) $ ( ) $ ( ) $ ( ) $ ( ) $ ( ) $ ----- -- -- --- ( ) $ ~---------- ______u____. __...__ --- ( ) $ PREPARED BY Thomas C. Cheng DATE 6/30/88 2503-9/84 ATTACHMENT 3 PORT CHICAGO PUMP STATION ABANDONMENT AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS (DP 4326) POST BID - PRECONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEM AMOUNT TOTAL 1. Construction Contract (As Bid).........................$228,241.75 2. Estimated Construction Contingencies.....................45,758.25 @ 20% 3. Estimated Construction Incidentals to Project Completion Survey ................................. $ Inspection ............................. Engineering during Construction ........ Contract Administration ................ Geotechnical Service & Testing ......... (DCM/Thomsen) Engineering Service (McKay & Somps)..... Legal .................................. As-Built Drawings....................... P.G. & E. Assistance ................... 4. Subtotal 4,500.00 11 ,200.00 2,500.00 3,600.00 5,500.00 3,000.00 500.00 1,000.00 500.00 5. Total Estimated Construction Incidentals $ 32,300.00 $274,000.00 Total Estimated Construction Cost.......................306,300.00 7. 6. Prebid Expenditure.......................................48,500.00 Estimated Total Project Cost ...........................354,800.00 8. Less Funds Previously Authorized .......................(45,000.00) 9. Total Additional Funds Required to Complete the Project....................$309.800.00 Page 4 of 4 % CONST. CONTRACT 100.00 11.80 111. 80 129.50 . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary lJistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF J ul 7, 1988 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 7 SUBJECT QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENT TO NORMAN C. BOTTORFF, ET AL JOB 4011, SUBDIVISION 6079, LAFAYETTE AREA DATE June 28, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE QUITCLAIM OF EASEMENT SUBMITTED BY Denni sHall Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT.lDIV Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: Norman E. Bottorff, et al, owner-developers of Subdivision 6079, have requested the District to quitclaim a portion of the sewer easement which lies within Lot 2 of Subdivision 6079. BACKGROUND: The subj ect easement was dedi cated to the Di stri ct in August, 1986, when the subdivision map was filed. Subsequently, the boundary line between Lots 2 and 3 was adjusted to provide for better use of the building site on Lot 2. The public sewer has not been constructed but will be constructed in a newly created repl acement sewer easement along the adj usted lot 1 i ne between Lots 2 and 3. Therefore, the subject portion of the existing easement is no longer needed. The owner-developers have paid the District's processing fee. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitclaim Deed to Norman E. Bottorff, et al, Job 4011, authorize the Presi dent of the Di stri ct Board of Di rectors and the Secretary of the District to execute said Quitclaim Deed, and authorize the Quitclaim Deed to be recorded. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 DH JSM RAB INITIATING <</DIV. /l4JJ /.4T Z t' ~# 2$.) S"C/B dd79 ~\.. J \' ft\~~" \~ ,'tJ I ~I _a"~1 ~. t- O"' ",' ~~ aW "/ ~~fJ~ " ~ lIt> 0:/ / . / ~') 'Ij t'JOUtJ ~;// Ij),\~ 5 /. 1/ / /. I ~48. I I , oS' S7-.3~ '//"'c ?5:(}(}' H.5ZH2~'#"G ' /~7d' (......." J';?-~?';rEJIJ.(}4 A/S7-.:u'//"W .."........;;1' ,"r7-'/'//"E.~"" ~2.7~'~ '. 'I", -- , !iJt.~}:' ........ ftf! 0 J"tJ'!l7'41W!lMd' ~ 1-':../1 ~ Vf.::\} N()'37:!J/",::~~2' J\: [:.:;:.:1 J ~~f/:::) 1 ~.::.;;:./ ""/ ~~~fl I ~44' A\ (.:.::::1) / t ,y/:".,..::ll1 ~ ,:.::i::::i1 ~ / \is) "....f ,. ~'A .\' ........ " 'Jr /":..:. ~. 'l~sll'J ~ f I ~~ s .~.~.:.lv t,.. '\ I .". L\ (::::;;:-:. I' ~. I. ,/ v t....:::1 ~ ~ .V/ "" ?'(:{l~ ~ k./hi.J ~ "':"'~' (j I.: ,'J "v ~~:::::: ~.!'ll .\1 ,... ~ ~ . .:.:'~:::i" ~I ~ . :.\':1 ~I It.. [:':'f ~ ~ I::i:f; . /17. 79' 1::,::,:,:" . . . , f....:..:.. ~'" at) -- ~:::::::'::: ..~2/~ .J J>'-"7,/7"/f/ QVlrCLAIM EA~I:MENT - tl)T~ t' 3t:J5"" '?.!V SUB ~()7P - REPLACeMENT eASEMENT /I .P'~T/IJN I)' .rU8JJIII/J'/'N ~1J7' QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENT Job 4011 - Sub 6079 - Lot 2 La fayette Area . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary ~istrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF J ul NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 8 SUBJECT DATE QUITClAIM SEWER EASEMENT TO BLACKBURN-TIMME ASSOCIATES, JOB 4474, SUBDIVISION 6965, ALAMO AREA TYPE OF ACTION SUBMITTED BY Denni sHall Associate En ineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: Blackburn-Timme Associates, owner-developer of Subdivision 6965, has requested the District to quitclaim sewer easements which lie within Lots 6, 10, and 14 of Subdivision 6965. BACKGROUND: The subject easements were created when the subdivision map was filed on April 25, 1988. During Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's review of the sewer construction plans, it was determined that private sewers could be constructed to serve the lots that were originally intended to be served by publ it sewer mains. Private sewers will be installed to these lots from publ ic sewer mains as shown on the attached map. The publ ic easements. are being quitcl aimed because no publ ic sewers will be installed within them. The publ ic easements will be repl aced with private easements. The owner-developer has paid the District's processing fee. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitcl aim Deed to Bl ackburn-Timme Associ ates, a California Limited Partnership, Job 4474, 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 I)/f' DH JSM RAB INITIATING DEPT./DIV. I If I~ ~/' ~*r~' g ~ J-tl'<..J ~~ Q~Ol\ ~~ \ A.BINGTO 1tf",. ~O\:. VAL EY , , -l <:> -- QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENTS Job 4474 - Misc. Alamo Area . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary lJistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF J ul 7, 1988 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 9 SUBJECT QUITClAIM SEWER EASEMENT TO WALNUT VIEW PROPERTIES, JOB 114, SUBDIVISION 2027, PLEASANT HILL AREA DATE June 28, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE QUITCLAIM OF EASEMENT SUBMITTED BY Denni sHall Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: Walnut View Properties, owner-developer of property in the Pleasant Hill BART Redevelopment Area, has requested the District to quitclaim a portion of the sewer easement which lies within Lot 41 of Subdivision 2027. BACKGROUND: The subject easement was dedicated to the District in 1954, when the map of Subdivision 2027 was filed. A sewer main was constructed within the subject easement and was in service until recently when it was rerouted. Staff has determined that the subject easement is no longer needed for public purposes and should be quitclaimed. The owner-developer has paid the District's processing fee. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitclaim Deed to Walnut View Properties, a General Partnership, Job 114, 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 INITIATIN~yT./DIV. ffW DH JSM RAB ./?::-G. ROGER J. DOLAN 1302A-9/85 .' I ~ ~\'f- ., 'l;JV tv. i.~..j / 'if'" 1/ ( \)\\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , 7 t]t"'4 L 1";:~iBIODC ~~"'N' i~. ;:} Ue. ... , , , '_-I, r~ r~ ~~ idil~J-~~' ~ "" Its~lifD ' .~, I) Ip..r" if! 0:, ~J It~ ' M ~ p#'\/IA .l:: v it r4llll ~ e....... .... '.' D - "'--- .... I .. I ~ ~' .... Ia,~< 8A8<TTE ~ '--__7. . '? :l! ~ il j ,\~ .' ,...... - ............. \ R J '=I:. .;Tl~t; f!;#L;a3 III} ~,'P'I r JJ /-)' ~ ./ " ~ ;t I :f!e "'M '~~~"g'if[T\~.OO-l. - j , <A!." QUI'1aA' ~ ~S w.~ I <:=_' ;(Ill" --~!;'!...\H i JJ · , ,,- - - .... ; 0 2 '/ Ii\PJ tAse~ DR ~~ ~.. S- L ~ ~ " ",. .... ':0 4' , ~ , 7' fi. -.. ... .ft" I I "': l'f';~ IF' l!.m. " " i: ,/' ~l ~~ I~OI i co 1c.~ ~:fleb 'g~ :"'~ ,\ ()FFIC~ .\~, '~.' .l- . I .' - - - . "'% /'\, \ ~ I2IJiLOltJ6 l~~ ' It; , ""i' fit . ~ .. LN .I:.. \ I.J' C I:J - -"h . ~ ;~~~: .1It. ~ 1~~",:liil ~ '\\-/0>-'", '\ _~ S~1~~~~~;I~!:r;~h' ~: ~;;!~: ,~~ /~' - - ..> ~~- _ c? ~~"c~~~~ ~~\ ,. ~ ..; KI". OJ , lH.:-j , ",,~~', /Ii!. " · ' <', , III e: ~EARY I ,-'RD- . .., ,if / ll~~ 010;' / \', : ~&~ ~ 'il-. -5 ~n",~ ' , Jfl. REAT II! ~ / .... ..... .~.' . . '..!j'~ '~!.J PIONEER 'J: ~..~ I~ -~ ' ..... i'!.1I~ ,.' - AY,O<>.'L'" .....;.N.. oy /~'f.\ f ~ ~ ", "'~~ ..,.." ..--, I I ,~~ r~ ~1f;-,;~;=::3 '__"-:~I ,~J~~((,...~'~'; 148-1.02-53 ~ 148-'20'2-54 (49 B3) ~) ':/;1~ .~711:M~!I~~~ .iI.... !~; ~~. ',' r~rB" ml/A..{.C~~~~ ::;;I1~ -~) '~~n~~~~~~~-R1'~ v"II~: ,-', i.A' f,e ~ ~ IIllI'I :.. TOO ., F. 1 ,.. '~ ~J..r;. f," 1;'< :~ :'0" Iti 'b: ~AV ~~~' :. ,Jr:" ,li'"AijILH ,~CI' ~ ~ /f. (.r ~ ,,: .;jl~...~,~~ ~loo- \'I'~ .u.;~~ i..'......., '". ~~ .' ~..~,,,.'.. THER"'.J>.~~)" i ';', ..,!' "P, ,.,~ ~'i'~':I\~~ ) . ii' "'''''~Jii.' ,.:> ,'riS' ~~ri. , ~ . __ I ' ::,:; :.f;:;; :J~ 'lGN:'~' ~.. . . FPLa.:{'P! (~ ,") f' IUIII .. )11~.~ ,.. ;".(,." "~'~" I'UJ..':>. ;. ,':' .,~IlJO.,: ~:ll IIr' .Ii- . l"fl~ 'N'4i.r'!;' ~... ~':;;i':;':;::~'" 11~ ~' . ;;,.\: - ~~: ~~ lW~-~ ~ ~ t/,'j S ~ J\f~~~f.t~~ -].;;~ ;1:~f ~~ .-;:.. . .;, .'.; ~1:J. ~...~ ~ J ~ ,.~, -"",;. ,l;~1l I" II: v_a ~... < ,~ . '~Y' ~ . " It : I :~'<.~ ..: GI ~ ~ .~~o 'A>. "'... _~ ~~;~;.l 1L ~,'~~; "'. '.~ :!I" ",. , . ~'':'' .: ~ "'"'i :~ 5i'i~' ~. -t;F"'. ~,,<,,'(,1I ~IMJ'R' ,. ........:~Oit :-- ~~n ?t.l ~ ;., ~ I} rx:""~r-:"''''' )~1I1"'" ~l ~ ~/ .:.' ." .:~t>.~"~ 110$1' ,. I '.,~, . m ~?~$,t;~ ~ :..,.~ij ~)' 'IJ~ ~E.tW,:: DR {>'. ~ / ,() '~"":~~:+'~' ~'''i~,l, .,,~~ ~:' ,...;,. .~~ i'~ ..-.. '~ ~. ~!<.'" ,- \"" ' , ' J,1 _I ~~ :~'" < -{', ~.~ ~- -:.: "":".'" Cj.,,:.:.,,~,,~~ !j> ~ ~ J. 1'5 \<:o~ t., ~J, Ii.,~~,~rri:": ~\ll" '''~j~ '~~ho:' ~ r? "t.l ~' SIO<~ cr . ~ IF ~ .";.' 'i;; f' cvl1 ~ ;;c:";'~ ,,;' .I," ~, ~ "TO;' \..C.q .ll~'1 IA _1P.-M.Im ,,," \ \..Ii::'~,~~ \ ~.. ~ fPrf' ~ ~o\' \Mj rJ,d :~, t.VAillvI I Dn",:t~ "~ ' -" 1 r.:lo. I ' ':~"~'1,,\.€l~\~~PI:,.~Ii,:\~~::I::/~~y.., ,I' ~~ ~. I~~'" (;I:~ .!tL . ~... I~tll ".::"i ',:.\llL<. ~~'~..- 'I <<Mid I"' _.. _ ~"r;",,_\fo:', g,,4" "'--_ I QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENT Job 114 Pleasant Hill Area . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary ..Astrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF J ul 7, 1988 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 10 SUBJECT QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENT TO DAVIDON HOMES, JOB 1586, PARCEL NO. 46, PLEASANT HILL AREA DATE June 28, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE QUITCLAIM OF EASEr-ENT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate En ineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: Davidon Homes, owner of Subdivision 6541, has requested the District to quitclaim a sewer easement which crosses their property. BACKGROUND: The subject easement was granted to this District in 1957 and was in use until June, 1986. At that time the sewer line was abandoned and rerouted into Heritage Hills Drive as part of the improvements of Subdivision 6541 (see attached map). The subj ect sewer easement is no longer needed. The ow ner has pai d the District's processing fee. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitclaim Deed to Davidon Homes, Job 1586, 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 INITIATING DEPT./DIV. -ill (!IJfJ 1302A-9/85 DH JSM RAB GRA,ys ON - ,ROAD :.:\ ~ ~ ~J ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ t ~ ........ ,~ ,J_ -;:> 0 a:: SIJ~ ~ w ..J ~ g ,{....) ...... \ -:z -:c:. .., Q:. ~ 'S. ~ ..... 9 ~ <r.I <. ~ \.4> ~ .'t ~ ~2~ -;, ? ~\.\ (...' '~' ~ (J" ~ ff~ ~ I\- ~ ..... ~ _\ <.:~ \::..~ " .PL '9ft' ~.. PI. S'S'. 6P N 6<' Iii! 'J!J / /r;'J.J. ,-. /....."'''' r.;8/iS #89.SS'/4HJV' 49"- 617' I St/so/t//$/aw i ... 4467 ( /66 ""'" ;'17) QUITCLAIM S EWER EA . JOB 1586 PA ' SEMENT PLEASANT HILRLCEL 46 AREA :.. . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary ~istrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 12 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF July 7, 1988 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 11 SUBJECT DATE ORDER COMPLETION OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION 102-A J u 1 Y 1, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION COMPLETE ANNEXATION OF DA 102-A SUBMIi5~Wn~Ys Hall Associate Engineer INITIAT.!NG QEPT.lDIY. D tm t/ cnglneerlng epar en Construction Division ISSUE: A resolution by the District's Board of Directors must be adopted to finalize District Annexation 102-A. BACKGROUND: The District previously made application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the annexation of ten parcels of land designated as District Annexation l02-A. LAFCO has considered this request and has recommended that Parcels 1, 4, and 9, as shown on the attachments, be processed as submitted. LAFCO has designated this parcel to be District Annexation No. 102-A. No public hearing is required and the annexation of these parcel s can be completed. 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 CEQA 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. The Board should order that the District Secretary file a Notice of Determination as a Responsible Agency stating that the District considered the Negative Declaration as prepared by LAFCO as required. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution concurring with and adopting the Negative Declaration of LAFCO certifying that the Board has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration and ordering the completion of District Annexation No. 102-A. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 DH JSM RAB Ai PtJf( INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Page 2 of 12 ! i .i \ J.5 SHELL HEIGHTS @ 11 f2 e. . PlIE'nOUS _XATION ........ . bISONG CCCSO IIOUNOAlIY . _0 ANNEXATION I '* . SIGlED PETITION ;""POINT OF . IlEEoINNING \ t 9 ~ I PIEDMONT TRACT ,J.lJ _..._ MAR T/NEZ District ft1nexation No. 102 Parcell QA.I02-A ~ ~ fAJRWA~ r:RE.:1 A.., OR INDA Page 3 of 12 \-.\f>,.~ll>\bl) pu o.~' ,., ~\'1 ( \..- ~ ~ --, OA. /OZ- A ..... N4'5'"~S'04"W ~:::::::::::::::i:i:i:fi:i:i:i:fi:i:i:i: :?i:i:i:i:i:liJiiif!iiJJJ!I! in p.:~:~ .......: .... cg 2 ..': ,.: -' 11\ : .:~ !! JEFFERY ~ .. 8e~'20.R.ng ~ of en ESCONO/OO ---- r ~ ~ .~ 8 4 T.RJ . .: +1 ~ Sl -r"'04"E iijijr':;l~ _ 61 ::::::: P.A. 84 15 UI ::tj !:Ll 13 ~ ~ ~ IS GRAHAM ~ ~ Ii. ~ 1~1840.R.eo"7 of I' !~~fi_i!IA.;:;~!~ ...... ...... .:.:.: J~1E: 12 /I \ 14 S-n'04"W 'as.ClO' 15 fIOIl\IT OF BEGINNING AOELE CT. 10 Page 4 of 12 .... .. - ~ 5 6 District Pnnexation ttl. 102 Parcel 9 Y. \ ..t CT 7 29ZJ 8 9 EX/ST/Nq c.c. c. 5.0. OANVJLL E. ~ ~ ~ "'< DA.IOZ-A 'J' EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 12 )' . LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON PROJECT UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Lead Agency Local Agency Formation Commission Contra Costa County McBrien Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: (415) 646-4090 ~ U lb l5 ill! MAR ~: 1988 J.R. OLSSON, Sounty Clei k CONTRA C()~T,':" COUNTY Dewey E. Mansfield Executive Officer ~, (-,.. ". ..../ ~ "fC :'; PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 102 TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-5) AND CONCURRENT REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOl) BOUNDARY FOR SAID DISTRICT (CCCSD), this proposal annexed + or - 22 acres consisting of ten separate parcels proximate to existing CCCSD boundaries in the communities of Alamo, Martinez and Orinda. Applicant: CCCSD Decision of Project: ~Approved ___Denied Withdrawn Decision on Environmental Impact: Will X Will not have significant effect. Environmental Impact Report: LAFCO Negative Declaration X Not MAR 2 t 1988 ey E. Mansfie tive Officer Date: cc: LAFCO ~ 'r,1 Page 6 of 12 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) R U /I . OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Lr' . ~ ~ f n NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE ~ F=fB 2 5 1988 JR. OLSSON Person (Applicant): CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRIC'1I~:tL~t1fJh~g~N$!erk Project Title: Central Sanitary Annexation No. 102 (LAFC 88-5) ---- Project Location: Scattered throughout Central County Responsible Agency Contact Person: Dewey E. Mansfield, Executive Officer Contra Costa County 8th Floor, McBrien Administration Bldg. Martinez, CA 94553 (415) 646-4090 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Nature, Purpose, Beneficiaries, Reasons Environmentally Insignificant): This is for the annexation of 10 separate areas of land to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. A sewer sphere of influence amendment is required for addition of 5.4 acres of land on the rear of existing parcels in the Orinda area. The annexation covers approximately 22 acres though staff intends to add additional lands to make a better boundary. These are all infill annexations which will create better jurisdiction boundaries. The Executive Officer will recommend the addition of adjacent parcels to provide improved jurisdictional boundaries. The addition of these lands will not cause any significant environmental impacts. It is determined from initial study by JIM CUTLER that this project does not have a significant effect on the environment. ( X) Justification for negative declaration is attached. The Initial Study is available at the above-noted office. Date of Final Appeal: March 9, 1988 FEB 25 1988 Date Posted: Signed Original: County Clerk cc: LAFCO File Page 7 of 12 'I' LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIv&.-' (LAFCO) OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE File Name: LAFC 88-5 Prepared By: JIM CUTLER Date: 2/19/88 A. RECOMMENDATION: ( )Categorical Exemption ( )Negative Declaration ( )Environmental Impact Report Required The project (May) (Will Not) Have A Significant Effect On The Environment. These are all infill annexations which will create better jurisdiction boundaries. The Executive Officer will recommend the addition of adjacent parcels to provide improved jurisdictional boundaries. The addition of these lands will not cause any significant environmental impacts. B. PROJECT INFORMATION: 1. Project Location and Description: This is for the annexation of 10 separate areas of land to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. A sewer sphere of influence amendment is required for addition of 5.4 acres of land on the rear of existing parcels in the Orinda area. The annexation covers approximately 22 acres though staff intends to add additional lands to make a better boundary. 2. Site Description: These sites are largely developed lands or subdivided lands within Orinda, San Ramon, Danville, etc. They are generally used or planned for residential use. 3. Character of Surrounding Areas: They are all located within developed areas. Parcel 5 abuts open space lands in Orinda. ---_._-_.._--..,~.~.._'--~_._------,_._,--,._------ ~-~- -~- . Page 8 of 12 c. GmEPAL a:N;IlEPATIm5: Yes No M:lYbe..!&. 1. ():)eS the project oonform to City or OJunty General Plan pxqx>sals incluUng the various adopted ElEl'lS'lts? x General Plan Designatic.u source: County General Plan; Martinez, Orinda, Danville plans 2. toes the project oonfonn to existing (or proposed) zoning classification? X Classification: residential zoning categories 3. [):)eS it awear that ~ feature of the project, in=luling aesthetics, will generate significant public concern? Nature of O:>ncem: X 4. Will the project require awroval or pennits by agencies other than lAFO)? X other Agency? Central Contra Costa Sanitary District *S=Significant N=Negligible C=Cunulative No=None U=Unkrx:IWn N/A=l'bt Awlicab1e D. ENVIKNMENTAL IK>AC'l'S: (in=lu1e mitigation measures for significant effects where possible) *SNCNoU~ 1. Earth Will the prqosa1 result in or be subject to: a) Erectioo of structures within an Alquist- Priolo kt Special stuiies Zone? b) Grading (consider anount, arrl aesthetics)? Only minor grading for attachment to district lines c) slides, liquefaction or other hazards on or irmY:diate1y adjoini.nq the site? d) 1rlverse soil or to~aphic characteristics (consider soils type, slope, septic tank limi tations, etc.)? X X X --- -- X e) wW or w:iter erosic:n of soils, 00 site or off? x f) Prine agricultural lards? ..x.. Discussion: -]- Page 9 of 12 I S N ~ ~ U ~ ," . 2. Air Will the project xesul.t in deterioration of existing air quality, inclu1ing creation of objectiooable odors? x - - - - - oiscussioo: 3. Water Will the project result in: a) Erectial of stru::tures within a designated flood hazam (prone) area? X - - - - - b) ~ of surface or grouOO water quality or quantity? X c) Alteration of drainage patterns or ruIX>ff? X d) Disruption of stream; or water l:odi.es? X - Discussion: 4. Plant/Aninal Life will the project result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or nunbers of any species of plants or ani.nals? X - - b1 Reduction of the nurrber of any uniques, rare- or errlangered species of plants O.i- ~ ani..nal.s? X - - - - c) Int.I:'odu=tion of new species of plants or ani.na1s into an area, or inhibition of the oornal replenisbnent, migration or llO'lE!1eIlt of existing species? X - - - - - d) ~ in acreage of arrj agricultural crq> or existing fish or wildlife habitat? x - - - - - Discussion: 5. Noise Will the project result in: a) S1:r\x::tures wi thin the 600BA ooise contour per the General Plan N:>ise Elem:nt? X b) Iocreases fran existing ooise levels? X - Discussion: 6. Natural Rerources Will the project affect the potential use, extraction, ronservatic:m or depletion of a natural resource? 'x - - - - - Discussion : -4": , Page 10 'Of 12", ...! N ..s ~ u ',,:' ~~\ 7. Energy Will the project result in dEmards upon existing sources of ~, or require the deve10prrent of new erv!rCJY sources? ___.L Discussioo: 8. utilities will the project result in the need for new systans or alterations to the follo.dng utilities (in:luti.ng ~ of influeJO! or district 00un3ary change): electricity, natural gas. cama.mications facUities, water, sewers, stonn drainage, s:>lid waste disposal? _ x Discussion: 9. Public Services Will the project result in b'le need for: a) New or alteroo services in the following areas: fire protection, police protection, sc}xx)1s, parks or other recreational facilities, roa:is, flocxl control or other p..1blic w:>rks facilities, ?Jblic transit or other c;pvenmental services? _ x b) Alteration of sphere of influence OO\m3aries? Technical correction on Orinda- c) Alteration of service district bot....~ies? Annexation to Central San Discussion: ~ ..x _.-!. 10. Transportation/Circulation. (Cbnsider the Circulatial ElSlEnt) Will the project result in: a) Generation of cdll.tiana1 vehicular IID'Je'ISlt with in! tiatiat or intensificati.a1 of circulatioo problems (consider road design, project access, congestion, hazaIds to vehicles, pedestrians)? _ b) Effects on exist.in:J parking facilities, or denerrls for new parki..ng? c) Inpact at existing waterl:orne, rail, air or public trans{:Oration systens? x - - X - - X - - Discussial -. .- -..-._-~_."-------_.--'---~,._--_._--_._---~------- -6- r . . Page 12 of -12 . 16. Other (O:lnsider inpact 00 open space or sprawl) will the project result in other significant effects 00 the enviroment? Discussim: s -!. -S. No. U ' !tlA' --- -.',. ..... x ------ 17. Mux3a~ FW~ of Significarx:e (A · s gn.ificant check on artf of the following questions xequires preparaticn of an ErR) a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the enviroment, or curtail the di versi ty :in the envi.ror1nent? - - - L - - b) [bes the project have the potential to achieve srort-term, to the disOOvantage of long-term, envi.ronnental goals? x - - - - - - c) I):)es the project have inpacts ~h are in:lividually limited, bit cunulatively oonsi.derable? x - - - - - d) O:>es the project have envi.ronnental inpacts - which will- cause substantial adverse_effects - 00 hurran beings, either directly ...- WirecUy? x Discussioo: . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary --' istrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER SUBJECT BOARD MEETING OF J ul Y 7, 1988 PAGE 1 OF 3 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 12 AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 88-14 (ORINDA AREA) AND P.A. 88-15 (DANVILLE AREA) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT DATE June 28, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT ANNEXATION FOR PROCESSING SUBMITTED BY Denni sHall Associate Engineer P a rce 1 No. Area 88-14 Orinda (69C4) 88-15 I Danvil 1 e I (97E1) Owner, Address Parcel No. & Acrea e JohnA. Williams 184 Lombardy Lane Orinda CA 94563 265-090-001 (0.33 AC.) United States of America National Park Service 4202 Alhambra Avenue Martinez CA 94553 199-010-011 (13.19 AC.) INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division Remarks Lead A enc Property owner wants to build one single family home. District to prepare "Notice of Exemption" CCCSD Subject property is the CCCSD Eugene Of/Neill National Historic Site. A new barn is being built on the site with one bath- room. All other existing structures will be connected to a new public sewer which will be extended to the site. District to prepare a "Notice of Exemption" for the annexation. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 88-14, and 88-15 to be included in a future formal annexation. INITIA T1NG DEPT.lDIV. Ar 1302A-9/85 DH REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ~ !II'/I>I JSM RAB GUARANTY .~"........ I~ 41. 7C II At > ~~. " .~, ~. , ,. -,/(14, '(I ( ""- 9"t ~ ~7 ,. #1, <PO 2< i ~ 21 ~ JOHNSON 65.7At ~H / :~~ At ~--~ /-- ....." /~TIEN'EtK "" '" .......-" 1,71 At 9AC ~NS""I.~1l 17...AC PROPOSED ANNEXATION F!A. 88 -/4 -~- ste: \,:'p 0 151.61AC <lo.~ I>I~TlZ.IC.'- Gf'lNeX JOVICK n.IOAC JOVICK 2380 At MAl N HAIIOT FA' PROPOSED ANNEXATION RA. 88-/~ 21.00AC '0. I . Centra~ ":ontra Costa Sanitary Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF July 7, 1988 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 13 July 1, 1988 SUBJECT ACCEPr '!HE <XNmACl' ~ FOR '!HE FHASE lB, SAN RAMOO VALLEY INl'ERCEPl'OR SEWER ProJECl' (D.P. 4224B) AND AU'lHORIZE '!HE FILIr:G CF '!HE NJI'ICE OF <n!PLEl'ION DATE TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPr amRACl' ~ SUBMITTED BY Henry B. 'Ihan Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department COnstruction Division ISSUE: Construction has been canpleted on the Schedule-B (Phase lB) San Ramon Valley Interceptor Sewer Project in Danville and the work is nCM ready for acceptance. BAO<GIaJND: The Schedule-A and Schedule-B projects are the initial phases of the new San Ramon Valley Interceptor Project. 'lhe coostruction of the Schedule-A project is scheduled for canpletioo in August, 1988. The constructioo of Schedule-B is now canpleted. The major elements of the Schedule-B project coosisted of the installatioo of 1.5 miles of 42-inch diameter concrete pipeline, an inverted double barrel siphon (33-inch and 24-inch diameter) under the San Ramoo Creek, and 12 manholes and structures. 'Ihe system will be rut into operation in conjunction with the canpletion of the Schedule-A project. As part of the Schedule-B project, a paved 10-foot wide trail was constructed along the pipeline fran Sycamore Valley Road to san Ramon Creek. 'Ihe trail consists of 6-inch aggregate base and 2-inches of asphalt concrete surfacing. 'Ihe permanent fencing and bollards will be installed by the East Bay Regional Park District. Additional information on the Schedule-B project is given on page CS-ll of the 1987-1988 capital Improvement Budget. en July 1, 1987, the Board authorized the General Manager - Chief Engineer to execute a cootract with Mountain cascade, Incorporated, to construct the Schedule-B project. Notice to Proceed was issued 00 July 27, 1987. The contract canpletioo date was June 26, 1988. All cootract work was essentially canpleted by the contract completion date. 'lhe total authorized budget for the Schedule-B project, including the engineering and design, consultant services, District forces, testing services, etc., is $2,312,900. The total expenditure to date is awroximately $1.8 million. A detailed accounting of the project cost will be provided to the Board at the time of project closeout. It is awropriate to accept the contract work at this time. RE<XJ.t.tENDATION: Accept the contract work for construction of the Schedule-B (Phase lB) San Ramon Valley Interceptor Sewer Project (District Project 4224B) and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 HBT RSK JSM RAE INmATING k ~~. fl3 . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary ..Astrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER PAGE OF 1 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 14 SUBJECT DATE CONTINUE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR SAN RAMON VALLEY INTERCEPTOR SEWER, DISTRICT PROJECT 4224 (PARCEL 32) TO AUGUST 4, 1988 CONTINUE BOARD DECISION Department Division ISSUE: Board of Directors action, previously scheduled for July 7, 1988, needs to be continued to allow completion of prerequisite staff activities. BACKGROUND: On June 2, 1988, the Board conducted a hearing to consider amending an eminent domain action to acquire property rights for the San Ramon Valley Interceptor Sewer. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board decided to continue consideration of the adoption of a resolution of necessity until July 7, 1988, so that 1) staff could obtain signed agreements from the property owners consenting to a stipulated judgment of condemnation for the sum of $325,000, and 2) the County Board of Supervisors could approve the subsequent acquisition of the property from the District subject to a permanent sewer easement. Because of the number of parties involved and the complexities of the issues, staff is still in the process of obtaining the signed stipulations from the property owners and completing negotiations with Contra Costa County for the subsequent property sale. Staff estimates that one more month will be needed to complete both activities. RECOMMENDATION: Continue consideration of the adoption necessity authorizing acquisition of property rights for Interceptor Sewer to August 4, 1988. of a resolution of the San Ramon Valley REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 CWS DRW RAB f)M MJ . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar\ .Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF J ul 7, 1988 NO. VI!. ADMINISTRATION 1 SUBJECT CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESo.UTION REQUESTING CON SO. IDATION OF THE EL ECT ION OF DISTRICT BOAAD MEfvBERS WITH THE STATEW IDE GENERAL ELECT ION DATE June 23, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION ADOPT RESo.UTION CON sa.. IDA T ING ELECT ION SUBMITTED BY Joyce E. McMill an Secretary of the District INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Adm i ni strative ISSUE: A request for consol idation of the election of District Board Members must be filed with the Board of Supervisors no later than August 12, 1988. BACKGROJND: Effective January 1, 1987, the Cal iforni a Legi sl ature enacted Assembly Bill 2737 which added Section 23302.1 to the Cal ifornia Elections Code. Section 23302.1 provides that special districts may require that elections of their board members be held on the same day as the Statewide General Election, the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November in even-numbered years. In February 1987, the Board of Di rectors consi dered th is new 1 egi sl ati on and gave members of the publ ic an opportunity to address the issue. It was determined that consol idating District Board elections with the Statewide General Election would have two si gn i f icant advantages.. Fi rst, changi ng the Off-year el ecti ons to even-numbered years would increase voter turnout. Secondly, putting the District Board elections on the ballot with several other issues woul d reduce District costs. A resol ution requiring that elections of District Board Members be held on the same day as the Statew ide General El ecti on was adopted by the Board of Di rectors and approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Notification has now been received from the Contra Costa County Registration - Election Department that the District must file a request for consolidation for the November 8, 1988 election with the Board of Supervisors no .later than August 12, 1988. A proposed resolution has been prepared and is attached for your consi derati on. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resol uti on requesti ng consol idati on of the elections of District Board Members with the Statewide General Election. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON G G Z':" ROGER J. DOLAN INITIATING DEPT./DIV. {fie 1302A-9/85 JEM ------,.._._--_.~_..._-._-------_._--_.-..._._,-,..."-..'".__._-~.~._-_. '.'....-..-.-,-.-- RESQ UTION NO. 88- RESQ UTION OF THE BOAAD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CENTRAL CX>NTRA COSTA SANITAAY DISTRICT RffiUESTING CONSQ IDATION OF THE ELECTIONS OF ITS DISTRICT BOAAD MEM3ERS WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL RECTION WHEREAS, Elections Code Sections 23302 et seq. provide that the governi ng body of all speci al di stricts such as the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District may, by resolution, require that elections for its members be held on the same day as the Statewide General Election; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 1987, at a regul ar schedul ed meeti ng at which members of the publ ic were given an opportunity to address the issue, th e Boa rd of Di rectors of the Central Contra Costa Sani tary District detennined that it would be in the best interest of the District and its citizens to consol idate el ecti ons with the Statew ide General El ect ion. NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESQVED by the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Sanitary District, that the Board does hereby order that elections of District Board Members shall be held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November in each even-numbered year, commencing with the election to be held on November 8, 1988, and the Board does hereby request that el ecti ons of Di strict Board Members be consolidated with the Statewide General Election held on said date; and BE IT FURlHER RESQVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, Californi a, is hereby respectfully requested to approve this resolution pursuant to the provisions of Elections Code Section 23302; and BE IT FURlHER RESQVED that the Secretary of the District is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution ~---_._.,' ..-~'._~--------- ._-_.__._._,._-.-._.->--,._--~.-.,...._--~-_."-,--_.,. ........_. -. ..~_.,,-_.,...,.. .,.._-'_..._,.....~-'---.._,-,~._--_._-..,,_.- .~-_.._." Resolution No. 88- - 2 - July 7, 1988 to the Board of Suparv isors of the County of Contra Costa, and to the Registration - Election Department of said County. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Di rectors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District this 7th day of July, 1988, by the following vote: AYES: Manbers: NOES: Members: ,asSENT: MEmbers: President of the Board of Directors, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California COU NrERSIGNED: Secretary of the Central Contra Costa Sani ta ry Oi str i ct, County of Contra Costa, State of California Approved as to Form: James L. Haz ard Di strict Counse"j --~-'--____"_____M____.._,___._.~,._._..____.___.._.._,_~___,."._..,~._ . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary BOARD OF DIRECTORS istrict PAGE OF 5 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF July 7, 1988 NO. VIII. ENGINEERING 1 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE JOINT VENTURE JMM/CDM TO ASSIST THE DISTRICT WITH THE HEADWORKS AND CONTRA COSTA BLVD./"A" LINE FACILITIES PLANS DATE July 1, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY Douglas J. Craig/Joye Kurasaki Associate En ineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Engineering Division/Planning Division ISSUE: Authorization by the Board of Directors is required for the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute professional service agreements greater than $50,000. BACKGROUND: The current wet weather flows to the Treatment Plant are restricted by the inadequate capacity of the two major sewers: the "A" Line and the Contra Costa Boulevard interceptors. The Board has approved funding for two projects to provide relief interceptors which will prevent wet weather overflows from these sewers (these projects are discussed on page CS-l in the 1988-1989 Capital Improvement Budget). The Contra Costa Boulevard relief sewer is proposed to be constructed first; this project, coupled with increased headworks capacity, will eliminate most of the uncontrolled wet weather overflows in the Contra Costa Boulevard sewer service area (refer to Figure 1 for location of overflow areas). The "A" Line Relief Sewer is proposed to be constructed by the year 2005 (or sooner if the Caltrans 1-680 Widening Project forces relocation of the District's existing "A" Line). The new "A" Line relief sewer may have to be constructed deeper than the existing "A" Line which could limit the future use of the existing headworks. The existing headworks facility consists of coarse screening of solids, flow metering, and influent pumping. In November 1987 the District began work on a headworks facility plan. This project is included in the 1988-1989 Capital Improvement Budget on page TP-6 and is entitled, "Preliminary/Primary Treatment Facilities Expansion." The efforts completed to date include a preliminary capacity evaluation of the existing headworks and the development of long-term conceptual expansion alternatives and their estimated costs. The capacity evaluation concluded that the existing headworks is not capable of handling the long-term projected wastewater flows and that near-term modifications to the headworks are required to accommodate present peak wet weather flows to meet regulatory requirements. The next recommended step is a three-month effort to coordinate the development of near-term alternatives for the Headworks and Contra Costa Boulevard/"A" Line projects. These alternatives will satisfy the needs of both projects and must be compatible with all probable scenarios of the Caltrans relocation project. Near-term headworks expansion alternatives will focus on providing adequate capacity to treat the projected wet weather flows which will result from the completion of the Contra Costa Boulevard Relief Interceptor. An auxiliary headworks may be required in the near-term if expansion of the existing headworks REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON ;J4e 1302A-9/85 DJC cp: JLK JJ~ ,) ~l'~ //dfJ INITIATING DEPT./DIV. DRW JMK RAB SUBJECT AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE JOINT VENTURE JMM/CDM TO ASSIST THE DISTRICT WITH THE HEADWORKS AND CONTRA COSTA BLVD./"A" LINE FACILITIES PLANS POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 OF 5 DATE July 1, 1988 facility cannot meet the required capacity. The joint venture of JMM/CDM will assist the District in this three-month effort. An outline of the consultant scope of services is provided in Attachment I. The type of contract for this work will be cost reimbursement with a ceiling of $95,000 (Refer to Attachment II). This work is estimated to cost 0.1% of the total cost of the Contra Costa Boulevard/"A" Line relief sewers and the Headworks projects which are estimated to ultimately cost approximately $100 million. At the conclusion of the work covered by this authorization, staff will present the Board with separate predesign authorizations for the Contra Costa Boulevard and Headworks Projects. No funding authorization is required for this position paper; funds have already been authorized in the 1988-1989 Capital Improvement Budget. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to execute an agreement with the joint venture JMM/CDM. 13026-9/85 N UJ Z ~ a: c( ~ , , \~ '" '" I g ... w '" U '" ~ 0 AVE. l>: ;;::: w .... U w jj '" :J w w !f 0 ~ '" 0 ~ Z ~ w UJ '" z 2 CJ j;i '" 0 ~ UJ ~ '" ...I ... I . I . . 0 I . 0 . a: ::j:.~ 0 I Ii 0 :~~: ~ z I .~ 0 :::: ":.; 0 ...I ...I :i: .- z < (/) < UJ ...I Q. o .. '\:""- . 1Il}_ ~ .., ... '" ~\\ ~ \:LU \_z .::i . \ cr.'- c( ~.\: ., . - 1= ,: \: - ~ UJ UJ a: o .- :J Z ...I c( ~ Q Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . LDCATIDN MAP Figure 1 2523-1/87 ATTACHMENT I OUTLINE OF CONSULTANT SERVICES Contra Costa Boulevard/"A" Line Project o Participation in brainstorming sessions to identify near-term and long-term expansion alternatives which are compatible with headworks expansion alternatives and minimize the impacts of the Caltrans 1-680 Widening Project. o Assist the District in final route selection for the Contra Costa Boulevard relief sewer. o Assist in the technical effort and preparation for discussions with Caltrans concerning the 1-680 Widening Project, its impact on CCCSD, and the possibility of a future joint project. o Provide collection system modeling to estimate flow rates and hydraulic grade lines for specific alternatives. o Provide interproject coordination. Headworks Project o Coordinate with other District projects. o Assist the District in determining the maximum expansion capacity of the existing headworks and in developing conceptual alternatives for auxiliary capacity. o Screen near-term conceptual alternatives for compatibility with the Contra Costa Boulevard/"A" Line Project and with long-term headworks expansion alternatives. o Select recommended near-term and long-term alternatives. ATTACHMENT II ENGINEERING CONSULTANT COSTS Headworks Facility Plan Contra Costa Boulevard/"A" Line Facility Plan JMM/CDM Contract Value $ 50,000 45,000 TOTAL $ 95,000 . Centra. ;;ontra Costa Sanitar\ .listrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF July 7, 1988 NO. X. PERSONNEL 1 SUBJECT APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS FOR THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER, SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT, AND COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT DATE June 27, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF EXECUTIV E MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT.lDIV. Geral d R. Lucey District Labor Counsel ISSUE: Fi nal Board approval and executi on of the Employment Contracts for the General Manager-Ch ief Engi neer and the Secretary of the Di strict, and the Legal Services Contract for the Counsel for the District are now appropriate. BACKGROOND: The General Manager-Chief Engineer, Secretary of the District, and Counsel for the District have met with the Board's representative and have agreed upon contracts for those Executive Management positi ons. The current Employment Contracts with the General Manager-Chief Engineer and the Secretary of the District expi red on April 30, 1988. The Legal Serv ices Contract for the Counsel for the District expired on June 30, 1988. Negotiations with Executive Management were delayed until bargaining with other representation groups was concluded. The Employment Contract for the General Manager-Chief Engineer will be effective for sixty months commencing July 1, 1988. It provides for salary adjustments consistent with those previously granted by the Board in the Memoranda of Understanding effective May 1, 1988, with Local #1, the Management Support/Confidential Group, and the Management Group. In addition, the annual allowance for purchase of reti ranent credit for prior publ ic service will be increased by 4.5 percent effective July 1, 1988 and will be further increased each July 1 for the years 1989 through 1992 in an amount eq uival ent to the Consumer Price Index (San Franci sco, Oakl and, San Jose - All Urban Consumers) published by the U.S. Department of Labor for the year ending February prior to the adjustment rate. The adjustment will be at least 3 percent, and no more than 8 percent. In the fifth year of the contract, 1992, the retiranent buy-back will end and one-twel fth of the 1992 annual a"llowance will be added to the General Manager-Chief Engineer's monthly salary. The Employment Contract for the Secretary of the Di strict w ill be effective for sixty months commencing July 1, 1988. It provides for salary adjustments and benefits consistent with those previously granted by the Board to the other bargaining units in Memoranda of Understanding effective May 1, 1988. In addition, the monthly Benef it Opti on Pl an all owance w in be increased by $100 effective J ul y 1, 1988, and by $25 each year effective on July 1 for the years 1989 through 1992. The Contract for Legal Services will retain Mr. James L. Hazard, as Counsel for the District, and the firm of Sellar, Hazard, Snyder, Kelly & Fitzgerald for the period from July 1, 1988 through June 30, 1991. The contract provides for an initia"1 rate increase on July 1, 1988, of $10 to $110 per hour for all partners and also rate REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 _.._---_.._-~.~--_._.~.._~--_._-",.._--~.._"--"-~_..-"''''''_~,-".,.'.,",~-,_._.._"._.~."->.__.,,_.,,.~_....'''-------..-----.-,---.---- SUBJECT APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS FOR THE GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER, SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT, AND COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT POSITION PAPER PAGE ? OF DATE ? Julv 7, 1988 increases for the legal services of senior associate, associate, and paralegal/law clerk. Higher rates are establ ished for major 1 itigation work. All rates will increase by $5 per hour on each January 1 in the years 1989,1990, and 1991. Mr. Kent Alm, now a partner of the firm, will be compensated at the partner rate effective July I, 1988. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize execution of Employment Contracts for the General Manager-Chief Engineer and the Secretary of the District, effective July I, 1988 through June 30,1993; and approve and authorize execution of Contract for Legal Services for Counsel for the District, effective July I, 1988 through June 30, 1991 . --------. 13028-9/85 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT I. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, a special district organized pursuant to the State of California H&S Code, Sanitary District Act of 1923, herein referred to as the District, hereby employs the Employee as General Manager-chief Engineer, subject to the terms, conditions and provisions of this agreement. The Employee hereby accepts such employment and agrees to render services as provided herein, all of which services shall be performed conscientiously and to the full extent of Employee's ability. Employee's services shall be exclusive to the District during the term of this Agreement. II. Term. The Employee's employment shall continue for a period of five (5) years, beginning on July 1, 1988 and ending on June 30, 1993. III. Positions and duties. The Employee shall serve in the posi tion referred to above with authority to act on such matters as may from time to time be appropriate. IV. Exclusivity. The Employee warrants that there are no agreements or arrangements, whether written or oral, in effect which would prevent the Employee from rendering exclusive services to the Company during the term hereof, and that the Employee has not made and will not make any commitment or do any act in conflict with this Agreement. V. Salarv and Benefits. Salary Effective July 1, 1988 $103,044 per annum. To be further increased each July first for the years 1989 through 1992 in an amount equivalent to the Consumer Price Index (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose - All Urban Consumers) published by the U.S. Department of Labor for the year ending February prior to the adjustment rate. The adjustment would be at least 3 percent, and no more than 8 percent. No change in the basic benefits program which went into effect May 1, 1986, except as follows: The $12,500 per annum allowance for purchase of retirement credit for prior public service will be increased by 4.5 percent Benefits - . VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. to $13,063 effective July 1, 1988; and will be increased by the same CPI factor, subject to the same limits described above on July first for the years 1989 through 1992. Fifth Year Provision: In the fifth year, the retirement buy-back period of 60 months will have expired. For that reason, effective July 1, 1992, the program of purchase of additional retirement credi t would cease and one twelfth of the 1992/93 annual allowance (calculated as indicated under Salary above), would be added to the Employee's monthly salary. These benefits would be considered to be accrued on a monthly basis in the event of termination of service under this contract prior to the payment date. Return of Propertv. Upon termination of this Agrement, regardless of how termination may be effected, or whenever requested by Employer, Employee shall immediately turn over to Employer all of Employer's property, including all items used by Employee in rendering services hereunder or otherwise, that may be Employee's possession or under his control. This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California, and the laws of California shall govern its validity and interpretation and the performance by the parties hereto of their respective duties and obligations hereunder. Termination. Either the District or the Employee may terminate this agreement with or without cause at any time upon 90 days written notice to the other party. Entire Aqreement. This instrument contains the entire agreement of the parties. It may not be changed orally and any wri tten modification must be signed by both parties. Arbitration. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agrement or breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration conducted through the offices of the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator selected from a panel provided by the California state Mediation and Conciliation Service may . 2 be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. In reaching his or her decision, the arbitrator shall have no authority to change or modify any provisions of this Agreement. ~-~?-Jg Dated RECOMMENDED BY: {, - ~ f'-~'f Dated ~v?4 Gerald R. Lucey Dated Susan McNulty-Rainey . 3 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT I. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, a special district organized pursuant to the State of California H&S Code, Sanitary District Act of 1923, herein referred to as the District, hereby employs the Employee as Secretary of the District, subject to the terms, conditions and provisions of this agreement. The Employee hereby accepts such emploYment and agrees to render services as provided herein, all of which services shall be performed conscientiously and to the full extent of Employee's ability. Employee's services shall be exclusive to the District during the term of this Agreement. II. Term. The Employee's emploYment shall continue for a period of five (5) years, beginning on July 1, 1988 and ending on June 30, 1993. III. Positions and duties. The Employee shall serve in the position referred to above with authority to act on such matters as may from time to time be appropriate. IV. Exc1usivitv. The Employee warrants that there are no agreements or arrangements, whether written or oral, in effect which would prevent the Employee from rendering exclusive services to the Company during the term hereof, and that the Employee has not made and will not make any commitment or do any act in conflict with this Agreement. V. Sa1arv and Benefits. Salary - Effective July 1, 1988 $4,113 per month. Salary increased each July first for the years 1989 through 1992 in an amount equivalent to the consumer Price Index (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose - All Urban Consumers) pub1 ished by the U. S . Department of Labor for the year ending February prior to the adjustment rate. The adjustment would be at least 3 percent, and no more than 8 percent. In addition the Employee may receive a merit increase every twelve (12) months from the date permanent status was achieved (November 17, 1983) until the top of the range is reached. . VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. Benefits - The Employee shall enjoy the same benefits as the Management Group except as follows: The Employee Benefit Option Plan (BOP) shall be increased on July 1, 1988 one hundred dollars ($100.00) to two hundred, fifty dollars ($250.00) per month. It shall further be increased an additional twenty-five dollars ($25.00) on July first of 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. Return of Propertv. Upon termination of this Agrement, regardless of how termination may be effected, or whenever requested by Employer, Employee shall immediately turn over to Employer all of Employer's property, including all items used by Employee in rendering services hereunder or otherwise, that may be Employee's possession or under his control. This Agreement is made and entered into in the state of California, and the laws of California shall govern its validity and interpretation and the performance by the parties hereto of their respective duties and obligations hereunder. Termination. Either the District or the Employee may terminate this agreement with or without cause at any time upon 90 days written notice to the other party. Entire Aqreement. This instrument contains the entire agreement of the parties. It may not be changed orally and any written modification must be signed by both parties. Arbitration. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agrement or breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration conducted through the offices of the California state Mediation and Conciliation Service, and jUdgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator selected from a panel provided by the California state Mediation and Conciliation Service may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 2 In reaching his or her decision, the arbitrator shall have no authority to change or modify any provisions of this Agreement. (,'A,!.jf Dated ~CLt. m~~ Jo[1e cMillan RECOMMENDED BY: ? - 29' --f'1 Dated ~/2~ Gerald R. Lucey Dated Susan McNulty-Rainey President, Board of Directors . 3 CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT AND SELLAR. HAZARD. SNYDER. KELLY & FITZGERALD BY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of June, 1988, by and between the CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as the "District", and JAMES L. HAZ- ARD, hereinafter referred to as "Counsel for the District", and the firm of SELLAR, HAZARD, SNYDER, KELLY & FITZGERALD, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Counsel for the District," mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I: SCOPE OF SERVICES Counsel for the District shall perform legal services and legal representation on behalf of the District as directed by the Board of the District. Counsel for the District shall work in a cooperati ve role wi th the District I s Management Team through .the General Manager-Chief Engineer. It is anticipated that Counsel for the District will attend the meetings. of the Board of Directors, Board Agenda Meet- ings, Risk Management Meetings, and the various other Dis- trict meetings, as needed. He will provide the Board and its Management Team with legal advice, including but not limited to evaluation of litigation handled by outside counsel, legal administrative matters, the "Brown Act" and general "special district" law. It is anticipated that the firm, on a case by case basis, will continue to handle outside litigation for the District, as set forth in a separate contract between the firm and the District. Addi tionally , it is anticipated that on a periodic basis, additional contract work on special projects such as the Code Revision as set forth below, will be contracted for on a separate basis. ARTICLE II. COMPENSATION 1. Counsel for the District will provide legal services at the hourly rates set forth below for the fiscal year 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. Counsel for the District will provide on a monthly basis documentation of actual hours worked by each member of the firm, together with a designa- tion of the subject matter. - 1 - District Counsel and Routine Litiaation Major Litiaation 7/1/88 - 12/31/88: Partner Senior Associate Associate Paralegal/Law Clerk 1/1/89 - 12/31/89: $1.1.0 100 90 45 $1.25 110 100 50 Partner Senior Associate Associate Paralegal/Law Clerk $115 105 95 50 $130 115 105 55 1/1/90 12/31/90: Partner Senior Associate Associate Paralegal/Law Clerk $120 110 100 55 $135 115 110 60 1/1/91 - 6/30/91: Partner . Senior Associate Associate Paralegal/Law Clerk $125 115 100 60 $140 125 110 65 2. The firm's billings contain an administrative charge of four percent (4%) reflecting the annual costs of postage, telephone and duplicating services. For the purpos- es of this Contract, a senior associate will be a non-partner lawyer having in excess of three (3) years experience as a practicing attorney. ARTICLE III: TERM OF THE AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 1988 through June 30, 1991 or unless terminated sooner. It is anticipated that this contract may be extended on an annual basis with the mutual consent of each party thereafter, and accordingly, this contract will be reviewed by each party in March of 1991. ARTICLE IV: CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP All dealings of the parties under this Agreement shall be confidential and no report, data, information, or communica- tion developed, prepared, or assembled by Counsel for the District under this Agreement shall be revealed, disseminat- ed, or made available by Counsel for the District to any - 2 - person or organization other than the District without the prior knowledge and concurrence of the District. ARTICLE V: EXEMPT EMPLOYEE STATUS Pursuant to Chapter 2.16.020 of the District Code, Counsel for the District shall act as attorney for the District in all matters affecting the affairs and administration of the District, except in those matters where special counsel are from time to time retained for specific responsibilities. The District will not be required to pay for Counsel for the District's Workmen's Compensation benefits. ARTICLE VI: ASSIGNMENT AND LAWS Counsel for the District shall not subcontract any of the work or assign any of its rights or obligations without the prior written consent of the District. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. ARTICLE VII: NOTICES All notices or other official correspondence relating to contractual ~atters between the parties hereto shall be made by depositing same first-class, postage-paid mail addressed as follows: . To Counsel for the District: JAMES L. HAZARD SELLAR, HAZARD, SNYDER, KELLY & FITZGERALD 1111 Civic Drive, suite 300 P. O. Box 3510 Walnut Creek, California 94598 To District: BOARD OF DIRECTORS c/o ROGER DOLAN, General Manager-Chief Engineer CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT 5019 Imhoff Place Martinez, California 94553 or to such other address as either party may designate herein- after in writing delivered to the other party. RECORDS ARTICLE VIII: Counsel for the District shall at all times keep a complete and thorough record of the time expended in performing servic- es on behalf of the District as herein agreed upon and Coun- - 3 - se1 for the District shall also make available to the Dis- trict for audit all of such records so maintained. ARTICLE IX: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Counsel for the District promises and agrees that Counsel for the District and members of his staff shall avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Counsel for the District agrees to immediately notify the Board of Directors and the General Manager-Chief Engineer of any case which may involve an actual or potential conflict of interest. ARTICLE X: INDEMNIFICATION Neither the District nor Counsel for the District shall be required to indemnify the other party to this Agreement ex- cept as specifically set forth herein. Nothing in this Agree- ment, with the exception of the specific terms of this para- graph, is intended to limit or alter the rights of each party as against the other party as such rights may exist under the laws of the State of California. When, and only when, the District requests Counsel for the District to retain the services of a consultant on behalf of the District, then the District agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the -Counsel for the District, its agents and employ- ees, for any expense, loss, or damage, including attorneys fees, to which the Counsel for the District may be subjected arising from. any suit or claim, which suit or claim arises out of the District Counsel engaging said consultant's servic- es on behalf of the District. ARTICLE XI: INSURANCE During the entire term of this Agreement and any extension or modification thereof, Counsel for the District shall keep in effect insurance policies providing coverage for general public liability, including lawyers' professional liability, and worker's compensation exposure at limits deemed accept- able by the District. Counsel for the District shall provide Certificates of Insurance and other evidence of insurance, including copies of the policies as may be requested by the District to demonstrate that the above required insurance coverages are in effect. Automobile insurance coverage will be provided by the firm through its general liability cover- age or by the individual members of the law firm pursuant to their personal automobile policies, and such coverage shall be at levels acceptable to the District. ARTICLE XII: TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by either party, at its sole discretion, upon ninety (90) calendar days prior written notice. - 4 - ARTICLE XIII: TERMS No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the par- ties hereto. No oral understanding or agreement not incorpo- rated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. ARTICLE XIV: ARTICLE HEADINGS Article headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement. PARTIAL INVALIDITY ARTICLE XV: If any term, covenant, condition, provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions here- of shall remain in full force and effect, and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated thereby. ARTICLE XVI: SURVIVAL Notwithstanding the District's acceptance of the services or termination thereof and payment therefor, Counsel for the District shall remain obligated under all clauses of this agreement which expressly or by their nature extend beyond and survive such acceptance, termination and payment. Notwithstanding the Counsel for the District's acceptance of the services or termination thereof and payment therefor, the District shall remain obligated under all clauses of this agreement which expressly or by their nature extend beyond and survive such acceptance, termination and payment. - 5 - ARTICLE XVII: SIGNATURES These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto. CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT By: Its Attest: JOYCE E. McMILLAN, Secretary of the District By: Approved as to Form: ~~6 Special Counsel for the District SELLAR, HAZARD, SNYDER, KELLY & FITZGERALD By: JAMES L. HAZARD, Managing Partner - 6 - . Centra~ ~ontra Costa Sanitar\t .Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF J ul 7, 1988 NO. x. PERSONNEL 2 SUBJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARBITRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION DENY THE GRIEV ANCE OF BElli MAPLES REGARDING HER CLASSIFICATION DATE June 29, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION PERSONNEL SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Paul Morsen, Deputy General Manager Adm i ni strati ve ISSUE: In accordance with the current Memorandum of Understandi ng between the District and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Employees' Association, Publ ic Employees' Local #1, Grievance Procedure, the Board of Directors may adopt, rej ect, or modify the recommendati on of an appoi nted neutral th i rd party (a rbi trator) . BACKGROUND: On April 2, 1987, Ms. Beth Maples, Secretary II, appealed her grievance to the Board in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the parties. The District authorized the hiring of an arbitrator to hear the grievance and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors for their consideration. Ms. Maples' grieved that her position as a Secretary 1/11 should be more appropri ately cl assif ied to a Secretary III. Th i s grievance rai sed two rel ated issues: (1) is an employee's classification--that is, their allocated job assi gnment--a grievabl e issue; and (2) if so, was the Personnel Officer's recommendation to deny the reclassification appropriate? The first issue was heard by Arbitrator Norman Brand. He rendered his OplnlOn in August 1987 that an employee's reclassification request that is denied is a grievabl e right under the Memorandum of Understandi ng. Accordi ngly, Arbitrator Donald H. Wonett was engaged to make a recommendation on the second issue regarding the appropriate classification for Ms. Maples. His decision of June 13,1988, is attached as is Arbitrator Brand's recommendation for the Board's information. Arbitrator Wollett has upheld the Personnel Officer's decision and recommends that the Board deny Ms. Maples' grievance. Therefore, the grievance of Ms. Maples should be dismissed. RECOMMENDATION: Deny and dismiss the grievance of Ms. Beth Maples as Secretary II as the final action of the District. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION .r: ROGER J. DOLAN In the Matter of a Controversy ) ) Between ) ) THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY ) DISTRICT EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION ) PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LOCAL NO.1) ) and ) ) CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY ) DISTRICT ) ) (Grievance of Beth Maples) ) ) ARBITRATOR'S OPINION AND AWARD DONALD H. WOLLETT, ARBITRATOR For the Union: Jenny T. Lipow Public Employees Union, Local No. 1 P.O. Box 222 Martinez, CA 94553 For the Employer: Gerald R. Lucey, Esq. & Linda G. Ashcraft, Esq. Corbett & Kane Suite 500, Cutter Tower 2200 Powell Street Oakland, CA 94608 1 ISSUE The parties were in disagreement over the question of the issue to be submitted to the arbitrator. It was agreed that each of them would make an opening statement. Thereafter, they would revisit the question of the issue. That procedure was followed, and the issues which were agreed to were as follows: 1. Whether or not the recommendation of Cathryn Freitas on November 20, 1986 that the grievant's request forreclassification be denied was appropriate? 2. If the arbitrator concludes that the denial of the request for reclassification was inappropriate, what is the appropriate remedy within the constraints of the Memorandum of Understanding? The parties also stipulated that if the arbitrator formulated a money remedy, he would not go back beyond August 1, 1986. BACKGROUND The Memorandum of Understanding between the Union and the District (Jt. Ex. 1) provides in Article III, Section 7.1 as follows: "...if an employee has reason to believe that duties and responsibilities are being performed outside of the employee's class description so as to justify a reclassification, the employee may submit that evi- dence, in wr i ting, through his/her Department Manager to the Personnel Officer. The Personnel Officer shall evaluate the written request with the Department Mana- ger and render an appropriate recommendation. If the recommendation is that a reclassification is approp- r iate, then that recommendation shall be subm it ted to the Board of Directors for consideration." 2 The grievant, Beth Maples, submitted a request on August 1, 1986 directed to Cathryn R. Freitas, Personnel Director, seeking the reclassification of her job in the Purchasing Office from Secretary 1/11 to Secretary III. Her claim was that the duties required of her in that job fulfilled the District's written definition of Secretary III. (Un. Ex. 1) This request was denied by a memorandum dated November 20, 1986. (Em. Ex. 1) Ms. Maples filed a grievance in response to this denial. (Un. Ex. 2) The "distinguishing characteristics" of a Secretary II, compared to a Secretary III, are described as follows: "Positions in this class (Secretary II) are distinguished from the III level in that they are not working within a one-person office or division and do not have direct responsibility for the clerical support of a separate and independent office or division of the D istr ict." Furthermore, a Secretary I I "rece i ves general supervision from higher level clerical positions and may receive functional supervision from managers and other clerical personnel." The duties of a Secretary II include but are not limited to the following: "Edit, type, and/or proof a variety of documents including reports, memorandums, letters, contracts, and purchase orders. Act as a receptionist; provide information, externally and internally, regarding District policies and/or procedures: refer inquiries as appropriate. Perform a wide 3 variety of general clerical duties including filing, copying materials, handling phones, and ordering office supplies and materials. Assume responsibility for inputting data on data processing terminal. Maintain and/or update a variety of records and logs including, as applicable, postage usage, gasoline usage, inventory, and routine personnel and payroll records; compile information and data for statistical and financial reports. Receive, sort, and distribute incoming and outgoing correspondence. Operate a var iety of off ice machines incl ud ing word processing equipment. May receive incoming telephone and radio calls requiring use of voice radio to dispatch appropriate crews; secure and record applicable information. Perform related duties as required." (Un. Ex. 3) A Secretary III performs in a "one-person office or division." She receives "general supervision from an office manager, division head or the Supervising Secretary." Her duties include but are not limited to the following: "Manage the cleri- cal support functions of an independent, one-person office or division; prioritize and process own workload; assign and check work of the clerical support group as necessary and appropriate." (Un. Ex. 4) 4 POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The Union Ms. Maples works within a "one-person office" and she does not receive supervision from a higher level clerical posi- t ion. These are the characteristics of a Secretary III. Furthermore, the grievant manages the clerical support functions of the office, prioritizes and processes her own work- load, and performs other functions specified in the job descrip- tion of Secretary III. There have been changes in job content with expanded responsibilities in Purchasing for larger contracts involving multiple bids and requiring advanced level secretarial skills. The comparison between the duties performed by the Secretary III in Risk Management and the Secretary III in Purchasing makes it clear that the latter should be reclassified at the higher level. The Union's prayer for relief is that the grievant be compensated for the difference between her Secretary II/Engineer- ing Technician trainee salary and the Secretary III salary to which she would have been entitled had the correct recommendation regarding reclassification been made by Mrs. Freitas. According to the Union, this monetary remedy should be made effective August 1, 1986, when the grievant originally requested reclassification. Furthermore, the Union contends that the arbitrator should recommend that the position itself, even though it is no longer occupied by the grievant, be reclassified as a Secretary I I!. 5 '-"'-~---'--"""'---------~'-'-~-'-"---,~"-,-,,-,,-..-...,"~.*----,.~---_... .-."........._...._.__._.._....,,_.,,_..__._...-_.__.__.~. ".-...,----.,.,.'''..----,..".-.----- -....'.--. ....~--~._._---,-----_.__.._.._.. The Employer The position at issue in this case was analyzed during the reclassification study conducted in 1983 and 1984 on behalf of the District by Ralph Andersen & Associates. The incumbent of the job at that time objected, as Ms. Maples does now, to the Secretary 1/11 classification. She appealed: her appeal was denied. In 1985 the same employee requested another review of the job: again it was found that the job was properly classified. Ms. Maples request is simply another effort to gain a reclassifi- cation for this job. Since there have been no significant changes in job content, her efforts to gain a reclassification should fail as the efforts by her predecessor failed. The District also relies on Section 7.1 of the Memoran- dum of Understanding which states as follows: "The District is responsible for determining the methods, means and personnel by which District operations are conducted including, but not limi- ted to, classifying and reclassifying personnel." The District argues, accordingl y, that the job cl ass i f icat ions as de fined by Ralph Andersen & Associates (pursuant to the aforementioned analysis and study) are not subject to the collective bargaining process. Finally, the District contends that even if her job is improperly classified, Maples would not have been eligible for advancement to the Secretary III level until February 28, 1988 at 6 which point she would have served 12 months as a Secretary II. Section 9.7(B) of the Memorandum of Understanding requires that an employee in order to be eligible for advancement to a III level must have been in a II level position for at least 12 months. Thus, even if her job should be reclassified, Maples was not entitled to the higher pay until February 28, 1988. DISCUSSION The grievant's contention that the denial of her claim for reclassification was erroneous rests primarily on two propo- sitions: (1) that the secretary in the Purchasing Department functions in a "one-person office", a characteristic of a Secre- tary I I I: (2) that the secretary in Purchasing is not sub jec t to supervision from a higher level clerical: she is, rather, largely on her own, as a Secretary III is, receiving only general supervision from the manager of Purchasing. This is a formalistic argument which finds support in the language of the documents describing the two classifications. (See Un. Exhs. 3 and 4) However, the controlling inquiry in a reclassification case is functional, that is, what in fact is done. Does the job call for the performance of tasks which, when compared to functions performed in other jobs, calls for a higher rating? Applying this analysis to the evidentiary record in this case, I find the grievant's proofs wanting. While I do not agree with the District's assertion that questions of reclassifi- 7 cation are not grievable, I do agree that the burden is on the claimant to prove error. And it is a substantial burden, parti- cularly in a case like the one at hand. This is so because the claim that this job was wrongly classified has previously been examined, not once but three times in 1983, 1984, and 1985. On each occasion the classification of Secretary 1/11 was affirmed by the District management on the advice of its consultant. (Em. Ex. 3; Tr. at 91) The claimant in those instances (Ms. Maples' predecessor) did not grieve. Ms. Maple, as the grievant in the present case, might have argued that the content of the job has changed since the decision in 1985. But this is not her contention. While she argues that the responsibilities have increased in complexity and technical demands (Un. Ex. I), her basic belief is that the job was "originally misclassified." (Un. Ex. 5) In short, she is raising the same issue that was raised by her predecessor. The arbitrator does not suggest that the legal doctrine of res judicata ("the thing has been decided") should be applied. That would be inappropriate. The earlier claimant did not grieve, but apparently -- as the Union points out -- the Memoran- dum of Understanding requires an employee willing to grieve (Un. Br. at pp. 5-6; see Article 3 of the MOU, Section 2.3). However, the fact that this issue has been carefully looked at three times in recent years, the claim being denied on each occasion, makes the gr ievan t' s job a 1 it t Ie tougher than it 8 might be if this were a case of first impression. There is no claim that management's review on the earlier occasions was superficial or driven by bad faith or some ulterior motive. In order to carry the day, the gr ievant must prove that management was wrong in 1983, 1984, and 1985, as well as 1986. An arbitrator must be willing, of course, to examine the possibility that management was wrong in all instances, and to look at the question afresh, without indulging in presump- tions. It may be that the grievant is right, that management has a blind spot. But the evidence arrayed against the grievant is more formidable because of history than would otherwise be the case. A functional analysis of the grievant's job, at least as it existed in November of 1986 (which is the relevant time frame under the agreed-upon issue (Tr. at 19)), shows that she supported a process, not a staff. Most of her work involved handling material requisitions and invoices. This meant that she got requisitions from the buyers and put them in the word pro- cessor or computer. (Tr. at 132) The grievant did not prioritize her work in the sense of exercising an independent judgment. Much of her workload was actually prioritized by the day of the month and the days or the work time that documents had to be produced. As the Personnel Director pointed out, "There are certain days that bills get paid and certain days that certain pieces of work get processed." (Tr. at 133) Her work was very "process-oriented." She didn't assign 9 --_._-~~_..-.__...~~--_.__.,_.__._---~-_.-----------;,""~"-'--~-'~-'~"'---"'.'_.~-'--~,----,-,-,,-------~._- or check the work of a clerical support group. (Tr. at 134) The important point here is that the Secretary in Purchasing does not make independent judgments as to when to process purchase orders. Primarily what she does is process information. While it is true that she does not get supervision from a higher level clerical person, she does receive functional supervision from the manager of Purchasing. By contrast the Secretary III in Risk Management, a comparison upon which the grievant relied, exercises a good deal of discret ion, part icular 1 y in connection with highly sens i t i ve matters. Thus, since the District doesn't want the general public to know how much it is paying lawyers, either to defend the District or to bring an action on behalf of the District, Risk Management typically keeps information in respect to law suits and the costs thereof in separate accounts kept by the Secretary III. (Tr. at 96) She acts as the accountant for all legal expenditures in the accounting office. "She keeps that set of books that exists no where else in the District." (Tr. at 99) Furthermore, the Secretary III is "responsible for keeping and dealing with the billing offices of the various attorney firms and she has to work out problems of overbilling or underbilling." (Tr. at 100) Indeed, it is true generally of Secretary Ill's that they have sign i f ican t areas for independent dec ision-making, and the handling of discretionary matters of a sensitive nature. 10 These are sufficient differences to make unpersuasive the claim that the Secretary IIII in the Purchasing Department is comparable. AWARD For the reasons set forth above, it is the judgment of the arbitrator that the recommendation of Cathryn Freitas on November 20, 1986 that the request for reclassification be denied was appropriate. Accordingly, it is not necessary for the arbi- trator to deal with the second issue, which goes to remedy. The June 13, 1988 Sacramento, California grievance of Beth Maples shoul ismissed. 11 . . NORMAN BRAND August 14, 1987 ~ ~ ft.- I~ :: '(If Ie ..... n E \':'".:.' ~"J-4l, .;' ...r7.:1 t.L.!J A,\;"'2' ~9''>7 '. J . 'i: !~ c! Gerald R. Lucey, Esq. Corbett & Kane Suite 500, Cutter Tower 2200 Powell Street Oakland, CA 94608 '. CC/.~SC' ~"~"<;T~A Tlt"'lM Mr. David V. Platt Public Employees Union, P.O. Box 222 Martinez, CA 94553 Local No. 1 RE: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Public Employees Union, Local No. 1 Grievance: Beth Maples/Arbitrability NB 680 Dear Parties: Enclosed please find my Award and Opinion in the captioned matter. I have also enclosed my bill for transmittal to the appropriate parties. I enjoyed working with you both. I look forward to working with you again in the future. Yours truly, L) 1 ~. i ~) in ~. / \...- ..' I ~.(..(. I'c- ,- Norman Brand , /.-....., NB:,rah....... "--" enclosures /) ( . 11 " '. '~;'I' /JL (1... ,,'--c. 7'- ARBITRATOR. MEDIATOR AITORNEY-AT-LAW 417 E STREET DAVIS. CALIFORNIA 95616 TELEPHONE (916) 756-1341 I ~n ~he Ma~ter of an Arbitration Between CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT ADVISORY AWARD & OPINION and Case Number PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 1 NB 680 Grievance: Beth Maples/Arbi~rabili~y Before: Norman Brand Appearances For ~he Cen~ral Contra Costa Sanitary District Corbe~~ & Kane by Gerald R. Lucey, Esq. For Public Employees Union, Local No. 1 David v. Pla~~, Assis~an~ General Manager BACKGROUND On December 2, 1986, Beth Maples ("Grievant") and Public Employees Union, Local No.1 ("Union") filed a grievance regarding the reclassification of her position, alleging a violation of Article 7.1 of the current Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ("District") denied the grievance, 2 . asserting that the mat~er was no~ grievable. The Union demanded arbitration. A hearing was held on July 28, 1987, a~ the Dis~ric~ offices in Mar~inez, California. .-..._~ - Bo~h par~ies were presen~ a~ ~he hearing and the Dis~rict was represen~ed by counsel. Each was ~iven a full oppor~uni~y to examine and cross-examine witnesses, presen~ evidence, and make argumen~s in behalf of its position. Neither party objected to the conduct of the hearing. A stenographic record of the proceeding was made. The'par~ies waived briefs and made closing argumen~s. I received the transcript on August 10, 1987, at which time I declared the hearing on arbitrability closed. ISSUE At the hearing the parties stipula~ed the following issue: Is the grievance of Beth Maples of December 2, 1986 regarding reclassification of her position a matter subject to the grievance provision of the MOU? 3 RELEVANT CONTRACT LANGUAGE ARTICLE I. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS -- SECTION 2. MANAGEMENT AND UNION RIGHTS 2.2 District Rights: The rights of the District include, but are not limited to, the exclusive right to determine the missions of its constituent departments and divisions; set standards of services; determine the procedures and standards of selection for employment and promotion; direct, classify and assign its employees; ... provided, however, that the exercise of such District rights shall not conflict with the express provisions of this memorandum. ARTICLE III. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS SECTION 2. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 2.3 Matters Subject to Grievance: Any complaint an employee has concerning the interpretation or application of rules, regulations, policies, or procedures governing personnel practices, working conditions, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. 2.4 Matters Not Subject to Grievance: The District policies, rules, and regulations, as such. A rating as given in an Employee Performance Appraisal. Disciplinary and Termination Actions as outlined in Section 6. SECTION 7. EMPLOYEE RECLASSIFICATION REQUESTS 7.1 Procedure: The District is responsible for determining the methods, means and personnel by which District operations are conducted including, but not limited to, classifying and reclassifying personnel. However, if an employee has reason to believe that duties and responsibilities are being performed outside of the employee's class description so as to justify a reclassification, the employee may submit that evidence, in 4 " ----- writing, through his/her Department Manager to the Personnel Officer. The Personnel Officer shall evaluate the written request with the Department Manager and render an appropriate recommendation. If the recommendation is that a reclassification is appropriate, then that recommendation shall be submitted to the Board of Directors for consideration. FACTS The current Article III, Section 7, Employee Reclassification Requests, was first agreed to as Section 19 of the 1982-85 MOU (J-2). In the earlier MOU the section had an additional paragraph. It read: The District shall initiate a District-wide classification study by a competent third party. The classification study shall be implemented no later than July 1, 1983 after which time this Section will become applicable. This additional paragraph was dropped in the current MOU, because it had become superfluous. The bargaining history shows that during the 1982 negotiations the Union originally proposed the following language: When an employee has reason to believe that duties and responsibilities are being performed outside of the employee's job description, so as to justify a reclassification, the employee should submit that evidence in writing to the Director of Personnel through his/her supervisor. The Director of Personnel shall conduct a desk audit on the position seeking to be reclassified and make an appropriate recommendation to the General Manager. (U-1) The initial position of the District, in its first comprehensive counter-proposal, was to reject this Union proposal in its entirety. There was a great de~l of argument at the table about whether reclassification should be grievable, or whether it should remain a non-grievable management right. The Union proposal was never withdrawn. Rather, it became one of the last four issues about. which , the parties met and conferred right down to the wire. According to the Deputy General Manager, " it became clear by the end that unless we did something in that regard, we were not going to have an agreement." (Tr at 42) On June 4, 1982, the District made another counter- proposal, which read in relevant part: The District is responsible for determining the methods, means and personnel by which District operations are conducted including, but not limited to classifying and reclassifying personnel. However, if an employee has reason to believe that duties and responsibilities are being performed outside of the employee's class description so as to justify a reclassification, the employee shall submit that evidence, in writing, through his/her Department Manager to the Personnel Officer. The Personnel Officer shall evaluate the written request and with the Department Manager's concurrence and render a recommendation which will be submitted to the Board of Directors for consideration. This employee reclassification request will be considered only after July 1, 1983. (U-3) 5 ,- 6 " The Union did not reject this out of hand, but insisted upon eliminating the concurrence of the Department Manager and adding the word "appropriate." The Union felt that adding the word "appropriate" would give it a basis for grieving the recommendation. According to the Deputy G~neral Manager: My recollection is that Section 7.1 was put in to respond to a demand by the Union that didn't seem to go away, and that was that they wanted to make classification grievable. Instead, the District proposed and the Union accepted what is now . Section 7, which was a procedure outside of the grievance procedure for dealing with employees who had some dissatisfaction with their classification. (Tr at 47) 1/ According to the Deputy General Manager, the District did not seek to specifically add this section to the list of non-grievable matters: Because I felt that by reiterating the Management Rights Clause, that that would have been good enough and because, you know, just did what we did at the time.(Tr at 47) The Union insists that it was explicitly agreed that this matter was grievable. I The Section does, in fact, provide a procedure for an employee to seek a reclassification without grieving his or her current classification. That does not bear, however, on the issue of whether complaints about how this procedure has been applied are grievable. 7 DISCUSSION The MOU requires the District and Union to subject an extremely broad range of disputes to the grievance --__procedure. They include "Any complaint an employee has concerning the interpretation or application ot ... procedures ... governing ... terms and conditions of employment." The MOU specifically excludes a small group of disputes from the coverage of the grievance procedure. These are enumerated in Section 2.4. Maples submitted a complaint about how the procedure contained in Article III, Section 7 was applied to her. That Section deals with whether an employee's job will be recommended for reclassification as a result of changes in the job duties. It unquestionably covers a term or condition of employment. The Section is not one of those specific areas excluded.from the grievance procedure under Section 2.4. Thus, Section 7 appears -- by the expl~cit language of the contract --to be "subject to grievance," as that phrase is used in the MOU. Since the District argues that Section 7 is not subject to grievance, it must prove that argument. The District offers two arguments in support of its position that Section 7 is not subject to grievance. First, it asserts that by arguing across the table that reclassification should not be grievable and including language from the District Rights section in Section 7, it 8 negotiated a non-grievab1e provision. Second, it asserts that classification is an explicit management right contained in the District Rights section, and therefore complaints regarding classi~ication are not grievable. Neither argument is convincing. First, the language of Section 7 is not the same as the language in the District Rights section. In the District Rights section the MOU recites that the District has the "exclusive right to ... classify... employees." In Section 7 the MOU recites that the District "is responsible for reclassifying personnel." The Union did not agree to language in Section 7 that says the District has the exclusive right to do anything. To the extent that the District relies on this language as evidence that the Union agreed Section 7 was not grievable, the District argument is unconvincing. Furthermore, it is clear from the District's evidence that the Union never explicitly ag~eed that Section 7 would not be grievable. Thus, neither the specific language of Section 7, nor its bargaining history, support the District argument that the Union agreed Section 7 would not be subject to the grievance procedure. The District's second argument, that Section 7 is not grievable because classification is an exclusive District Right, is flawed in two ways. First, as the Union argued, the District Rights section is limited by the provision that 9 the District may not exercise those rights so as to conflict with the MOU. The MOU provides for a specific reclassification procedure which can be invoked by employees. To the extent that-this involves restricting the District's otherwise unfettered right to class~fy employees, the District has chosen to restrict itself by agreeing to Section 7. Section 7, however, contains nothing more than a procedure for employees to request a reclassification, submit evidence, have the Personnel Officer "render'an appropriate recommendation, "2/ and have him submit that recommendation to the Board of Directors for "consideration." All that is required of the Personnel Officer is that he evaluate the request and render an appropriate recommendation. All that the Section requires of the Board of Directors is that they "consider" the recommendation. If the employee believes that the recommendation is inappropriate, he or she qan grieve and attempt to prove to an arbitrator that it is, in fact, inappropriate. If the employee shows that the recommendation is inappropriate, presumably the arbitrator will require the 2 The Union relied heavily on the word "appropriate" to show that the section is grievable. In fact, the addition of "appropriate" to the section does not affect whether the section is subject to the grievance procedure. Rather, the word provides a standard for judging the Personnel Officer's recommendation. Neither the precise nature of the standard, nor what the Union would have to prove to show that a recommendation was not appropriate, is before me. 10 Personnel Officer to make an appropriate recommendation. The Board of Directors would then consider that recommendation. The basic power to classify remains in the hands of the District. All th~_~as happened is that the actions of the Personnel Officer have been rev!ewed. There is nothing in Section 7 that conflicts with the District Rights section in a way that could make an otherwise grievable section not subject to the grievance procedure. The language of the MOU unquestionably makes an employee complaint regarding Section 7 grievable. There is nothing in the language of Section 7, its bargaining history, or the District Rights clause, which takes Section 7 outside the coverage of the grievance procedure. Consequently, I recommend that the Board find that the Maples complaint is subject to the grievance procedure. By reason of the foregoing I make the following: ADVISORY AWARD I recommend that the Board of Directors find the grievance of Beth Maples of December 2, 1986 regarding reclassification of her position is a matter subject to the grievance provision of the MOU. Davis, California ~~..4 , Norman Brand August 14, 1987