The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 11-03-88 . CentrA_ Contra Costa Sanitar~ ~istrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Nov embe r 3, 1988 NO. IV. HEARINGS 1 SUBJECT DATE CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE RECYCLING PLAN PROPOSED BY V ALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR ZONES 2, 4 AND 5 October 31, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Paul Morsen, Deputy General Manager Administrative Department ISSUE: On October 6, 1988, the Board of Di rectors received a presentation of the recycl ing pl an proposed by Va.lley Waste Management for Zones 2, 4 and 5, and set a public hearing for November 3,1988 to consider the proposed plan. BAC<GROON): All cities within Contra Costa County are required by the County's Draft Rev ision of the Sol id Waste Management PI an to impl ement recyc"1 ing programs to reduce wastestream volume and thereby increase the I ife of in-county landfills. A general precondition of adjoining counties to accepting this county's exported solid waste is the existence of recycl ing programs in Contra Costa County. As the franchiser for refuse collection and disposal for four cities and the unincorporated areas in central county, the District has assumed a primary role in coordinating the development of recycl ing programs throughout its franchise areas. The franchise agreements between the District and its three franchised refuse collectors requi re submission of a recycl ing pi an by the collectors upon request of the District. The District organized a Regional Recycl ing Advisory Committee to review alternative recycl ing programs for suitabil ity in each of the cities and unincorporated areas within the franchise areas. Members of the Committee include two District Board Members and a representative from each of the cities and the unincorporated areas. Under the di recti on of the Committee, each of the three refuse collectors was directed to prepare proposals for pilot recycl ing plans. The recycl ing plan proposed by Valley Waste Management was presented to the Board on October 6, 1988. A public hearing on the proposed recycling plan was scheduled for November 3,1988; notices of the publ ic hearing were publ ished on October 21, 1988 and November 1, 1988 in the Contra Costa Times, and on November 2, 1988 in the Contra Costa Sun. Duri ng the month of October, presentations of the recycl ing plan were made to the Danville Town Council, Lafayette City Council and Alamo Improvement Association by Valley Waste Management, and District staff and Board 1 iason representatives. Written or oral comments of the cities and improvement association were requested for Board consideration at the November 3, 1988 publ ic hearing. Recycl1ng Plan Proposed By Valley Was'te ManagElllen't Valley Waste Management proposes a recycling plan which provides for curbside collection of the following recyclable items: aluminum cans; glass bottles; plastic soft drink bottl es; and newspapers. Each residenti at custaner woul d be prov ided a set of three plastic containers in which designated recyclable items would be placed. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION SUBJECT POSITION PAPER CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE RECYCLING PLAN PROPOSED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR ZONES 2, 4 AND 5 PAGE DATE 2 OF 4 October 31, 1988 Conection of recyclable items would occur on the same day as the regular weekly refuse collection. Conjunctively, the pl an proposes that the present backyard refuse collection service be converted to an automated curbside collection service. The expense reductions to be produced by conversion to an automated refuse collection system, which uses a one-person crew instead of the present two-person crew, are proposed to be applied to the net expense of the curbside recycling program; as a result, the present monthly refuse collection rates are proposed to be unchanged. Valley Waste Management has included in the proposed recycling plan a fundamental change to the method used in setting refuse collection rates from one based on a financial review to a system of automatic rate adjustments based on a price escalator, such as the Consumer Price Index. The recycling program would be phased-in over a nine month period beginning February 1, 1989. During the first three months, three pilot areas of 1200 homes in the Town of Danville, City of Lafayette and community of Alamo would receive weekly curbside recycling. Concurrently, 165 homes in each pilot area would be provided curbside recycling and automated refuse collection; each home would be provided with a 60 or 100 gallon refuse container on wheels which would be picked-Up at the curb by a one-person truck with a mechanical hoisting arm. A report of the results of the th ree-month pil ot proj ects w ill be prepared for rev iew by the Board and the affected cities before the program is approved by the Board for expansion throughout the Valley Waste Management service areas over the subsequent six months. Written Comments Received for the Public Hearing At the presentations of the proposed recycling plan to the Town of Danvil le, City of Lafayette, and Alamo Improvement Association, written or oral comments for consideration by the Board at the November 3, 1988 publ ic hearing were requested. To-date, written comments from the Danville Town Council, Lafayette City Council, and three residents of the City of Lafayette have been received. These comments are summarized on Attachment I, and appended thereto. Written and/or oral comments are anticipated from the Alamo Improvement Association. Circo Recyclers/Pacific Rim Recycling has submitted a letter dated October 31,1988 in which it requests an opportunity to submit a proposal for a curbside recycl ing program in Zones 2, 4, and 5. Appended to the letter was a copy of an outl ine of a recycl ing proposal recently submitted to the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City. The letter and document are provided as Attachment II. Staff Recommendations District staff endorses the overall reeycl ing plan proposed by Val ley Waste Management; however, the following clarifications and modifications are recommended: --------... 13028-9/85 SUBJECT POSITION PAPER CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE RECYCLING PLAN PROPOSED BY V ALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR ZONES 2 ~ 4 AND 5 PAGE DATE 3 OF 4 October 31, 1988 Nine Month Phase-In During the three-month test period, and the subsequent six-month phase-in period, all announcements, publ icity, and information regarding the recycl ing program which are prepared by the refuse collector are to be coordinated with the District and community representatives on the Regional Recycl ing Advisory Committee. The content of the report of the results of the three-month pilot projects will be defined by District staff and the refuse collector, and presented for review and approval by the Regional Recycl ing Advisory Committee. The report will be prepared upon compl eti on of the test period, and subm itted to the Committee. Based on the reported resul ts, the Board w ill determine whether the program shoul d be expanded th roughout the enti re Vall ey Waste Management serv ice areas over the subsequent six months. During the three-month test period, the refuse collection rates to be charged to the 165 homes in each pilot area will be unchanged from their current rates. Custaners presently receiving single can refuse service and two 32 gallon containers of trimmings weekly will be provided with a 60 gallon container and plastic recycl ing containers at the single can rate of $12.95 per month; custaners presently receiv ing two or more cans of refuse serv ice and two 32 gallon containers of trimmings weekly will be provided with one or more 100 or 60 gallon containers and pl astic recycl ing containers at thei r current rates, which are based on the total of the single can rate and $5.85 per month for each additional can. All of the terms of the franchise agreement between the District and Valley Waste Management will be unaffected by the proposed recycl ing pl an, incl uding the requirement for providing three seasonal refuse cleanups per year, and submission of audited financial statements annually. Following an assessment of the resul ts of the three-month test period, the Board will be requested to consider authorizing an amendment to the franchise agreement to incorporate the rate-setting modifications described in the next section, Rate-Setting Modifications. Rate-Setting Modifications District staff has met with John H. Garrity, Assistant District Manager, Waste Management of North America, Inc., and rev iewed the follow i ng mod if icati ons to the District's rate-setting procedures for consideration by the Board: o The present collection rates established for Valley Waste Management effective July 1, 1988 through June 30, 1989 should be unchanged for the next fiscal year from July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990. --------- 13028-9/85 SUBJECT POSITION PAPER CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE RECYCLING PLAN PROPOSED BY VALLEY WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR ZONES 2, 4 AND 5 PAGE DATE 4 OF 4 October 31, 1988 o The collection rates for the subsequent two fiscal years, July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991 and July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992, should be set based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (San Francisco/Oakland) for the respective May to May period, with a ceiling of eight percent. Publ ic hearings should be noticed and held prior to establ ishing the new rates effective July 1, 1990 and July 1, 1991. o The collection rates for fiscal years after June 30, 1992 should be set usi ng the Di strict's present f inanci al statement-based rate rev iew procedures. o For each fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1992, the refuse collector will be required to continue to submit audited financial statements by March 31, as required by the terms of the franchise agreement, and such supplemental financial information to permit review of the resul ts of operati ons. The resul ts of operati ons will be prov ided to the Board, which will have discretion to require a customary financial statement-based rate review procedure for any fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year ended June 30, 1990. o The refuse collector may submit application for rate increases during the July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1992 period based on extraordinary disposal and haul ing expense increases. These rate appl ications would be required to be subm itted on the customary forms, and woul d be subj ect to the District's present financial statement-based rate review procedures. RECOtI4EtI>ATION: Conduct a publ ic hearing on November 3, 1988 to receive comments from the publ ic, and the affected cities and unincorporated areas on the recycling plan proposed by Valley Waste Management for Zones 2, 4 and 5, and provide District staff with comments and guidance regarding the proposed recycling plan and implementation of the pilot programs for a three-month test period. ---------- 13028-9/85 ATTAa-tMENT I WRITTEN C<MENTS RECEIV ED FOR lHE PUBLIC HEARING Received From Summary of Comments The Danville Town Council enthusiasti- cally endorses the proposed recycling pl an, and agrees that the automated curbside collection system should be impl emented on a trial basis at the same time. The Council wishes to review the public information program and the results of the pilot program prior to a decision on impl ementi ng the program th roughout the town. Rate-setting issues require further information and study. Beverly W. Lane, Mayor Town of Danv ill e Ernest W. Parti, Mayor City of Lafayette Supports a pilot recycl ing project for a stated 1 ength of time with a full report of the results of the project. Believes the 1 egality of permitti ng other firms to subm it recycl i ng proposa I s shoul d be reso I ved. Exempti ons shou 1 d be made for customers unable to participate in curbside service. Council does not endorse along-term agreement with rate increases based on the CPl. The District should retain its financial review based rate-setti ng. Revenues from the sal e of recycled material should offset against expenses of the recycl ing program. Urges development of composting. Urges 51 percent ownership of landfill. Bruce Reed Goodmiller 3211 Sharon Court Lafayette, CA 94549 Urges rejection of the proposed recycling plan and change in refuse collection service because: o service would decrease while rates would be kept high o the program is a cost-cutti ng effort so as to increase the refuse collector's profits Received From Summary of Comments o the automated curbside collection system will not work in much, if not all, of Lafayette o requi ranent for curbi ng refuse containers woul d cause a severe hardship upon many, if not all, citizens of Lafayette Gilbert Henry Gates 3135 Sweetbr i er Ci rcl e Laf ayette, Ca 94549 Strongly supports the proposed recycl ing plan and the change to the automated curbside co"llection system. However, the use of the Consumer Price Index to in- crease collection rates is not supported. Grady and Norma Davis 1202 Vacation Drive Laf ayette, CA 94549 Objects to the proposed recycl ing program and the requi ranent for curbside refuse collection. Curbside collection would be a personal physical hardship and their steep driveway would make compliance impractical. ___~'"..H_~__,____~,___,"__'_H______H_____"'_"_"~'_" ....__....,.__.".._____..........__. ..___...___..___....______..._.'._......_.._..._"-______._ ..,_______..H._.._."','''._''. . Centri.... Contra Costa Sanltar i District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 22 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF November 3, 1988 NO. IV. HEARINGS 2 SUBJECT HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON UNINHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 104 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) DATE October 25, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS D.A. 104B, 104E, and 104F 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 104. The District must hol d a publ ic hearing and consi der testimony by affected property owners before acti ng on the proposed amended annexation. BACKGROUND: The above-referenced annexation was sent to LAFCO as requi red for the formal annexati on process. Part of the annexati on, consi sti ng of five parcels, was not changed. These five un-amended parcels are being submitted for Board action on the consent calendar as District Annexation 104-A. No publ ic heari ng is requi red for these parcel s because they are 100 percent 1 andowner consent. LAFCO amended the boundaries of the five parcel s during its approval process. These amendments were made to improve the conti nuity of the resul ti ng Di stri ct boundary. The amended annexations are designated D. A. 104B through F and are considered to be five separate annexations. D.A. 104C and 1040 are inhabited annexations and are the subject of a separate position paper on this agenda. Maps are attached showing the remaining three amended annexations, which are uninhabited. CEQA REQU IRE~NTS A Negative Declaration addressing the proposed annexations was prepared by LAFOO 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. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A ..9/85 fIftB r INITIATING DEPT./DIV. RAB SUBJECT HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON UNINHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 104 AS A~NDED BY THE LOCAl AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 OF DATE 22 October 25, 1988 ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS Di stri ct Annexati on 104 as submitted to LAFCO was a si ngl e annexati on. The action by LAFCO separated District annexation 104 into the subject three uninhabited annexations, which require a public hearing. Normally a separate public hearing would be held for each of these three subject annexations. If no members of the publ1c appear, these annexations can be considered in one publ ic hearing. If a member of the public wishes to testify on a particular annexation, a separate public hearing shall be held on the annexation. The remaining annexations will then be the subject of the second public hearing. Legal notice was publ ished, and the affected property owners were notified of the public hearings as required by law. The amended annexations are uninhabited (fewer than 12 regi ster voters). Factors to be consi dered by the Board in deci di ng to approve or di sapprove the proposed annexati ons are set forth as Exhibit B. Following its review, the Board, not more than thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the public hearing, shall adopt a resolution reflecting the appropriate action taken: 1. Certify that the Board has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration and concurs with the adoption of the Negative Declaration of LAFCO. 2. Disapprove the proposed annexations based upon any of the factors set forth in Exhibit B. 3. Terminate the annexation if the Board finds that written protests have been filed and not withdrawn prior to the conclusion of the hearing representing 1 andowners owni ng 50 percent or more of the assessed val ue of the 1 and within the territory proposed to be annexed. 4. Order the annexation if no written majority protest exists. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the publ ic hearing or hearings as appropriate, receive any testimony, and close the public hearing(s). 2. Adopt a Resolution certifying that the Board has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration and concurring with the adoption of the Negative Declaration of LAFCO and taking one of the following actions: 13026-9/85 SUBJECT HOlD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON UNINHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 104 AS A~NDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) POSITION PAPER PAGE 3 OF DATE 22 October 25, 1988 o Di sapprove one or more of the proposed annexations that the Board determines that the annexation is not warranted, o Disapprove annexation if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn prior to the conclusion of the public hearing representing 1 andowners owni ng 50 percent or more of the assessed val uati on of the land within the territory to be annexed, o Order the annexation if no written majority protest exists. 13028-9/85 Page 4 of 22 saoooo'oo.e 45.00' N "30 45'00. W lOG.lOG' ~ ~ ~ ~ LArAyerrE- DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 Parcel 3 D.A~ 104-8 Page 5 of 22 ~ pol1- ~~~:~tt:ttf:~{{:~:tttitN~iiff.lii~:tttt~f:~ftttt:~ttt:}t~:}~:::::::: @I , \ ~ ~ :::::::i:~:;:~:~:~ .-.- . PREVIOUS ANNEXATION . EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARY . PROPOSED ANNEXATION . SIGNED PETITION * DANV/LLE DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 I Parcel 7 O.A. 104- E page 6 of 22 ~.P "~~ " ~ ~ . PREVIOUS ANNEXA nON ~ i.t::~:m~:: . EXlS11NG cccso B~UNDARY . _ _. . PROPOSED ANNEXAnON * ~ SIGNED PETmON 04NVI,-LE. DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 D.A.I04-F Parcel 10 EXHIBIT A uOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COM., ..'sSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Page 7 of 22 Lead Agency UNDER 1? 0 IL rn lID AUG 1;) 1988 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON PROJECT CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Local Agency Formation commission Contra Costa County McBrien Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: (415) 646-4090 Clerk c UNTY Dewey E. Mansfield Executive Officer DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-29), this proposal would annex + or - 41.6 acres in ten separate parcels adjacent to existing CCCSD boundaries in the vicinity of the communities of Danville, Lafayette, Martinez, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek. Properties submitted for annexation are identified by Assessor Parcel Nos. (APN) 140-170-003, 006, 007, 008; 140-190-001; 140-200-001, 003, 005; 197-161-013; 197-250-007; 200-220-016; 208-031-005; 230-110-016, 017; 231-060-010; 231-070-010; 356-240-011; 376-200-006, 007, 008 and 009. The Commission amended the boundaries of affected territory to include additional properties identified by APN 140-100-004; 197-161-051, 052; 208-031-004; 230-110-002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 011, 012 and 231-070-008. Applicant: CCCSD Decision of Project: ~ Approved Denied ___Withdrawn Decision on Environmental Impact: Will X Will Not have significant effect Environmental Impact Report: ___prepared ~Not Required LAFC Negative Declaration ~/#~ . Mansfield tive Officer ~ Date: cc: County Clerk I" . Page 8 of 22 LOC)u" AGENCY FORMATION COMMISS... _tt (LAFCO) OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE Person (Applicant): Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Project Title: District Annexation No. 104 (LAFC 88-E 0 l E Project Location: Alamo, Lafayette, Martinez ur AUG 1 w 1 f"1 ". ' ~( . Responsible Agency Contact Person: Dewey E. Mansfield, Executive Contra Costa County 8th Floor, McBrien Administration Bldg. Martinez, CA 94553 (415) 646-4090 1 R. OLSSON, County CIert CONTRA. OOSTA COUNTY Officer ~ . K. Q'MerUf DIpuIf GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Nature, Purpose, Beneficiaries, Reasons Environmentally Insignificant): This is for the annexation of approximately 42 acres of land to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. It includes 10 separate areas with the largest being in the Walnut Creek area with 26 acres. Smaller annexations are proposed in the Alamo, Martinez and Lafayette portions of the County. Additional property may be added to this project to create better boundaries. The annexation of these areas will continue the process of creating a better District boundary for filling in areas currently outside the District. The areas are totally within the sewer sphere of influence. The addition of additional parcels by staff to this proposal to create even better boundaries will not have an environmental impact. These areas are all planned for development by the appropriate land use jurisdiction. 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 Posted: 8/1/88 Signed by: Date of Final Appeal: 8/10/88 Original: County Clerk cc: LAFCO File Page 9 of 22 LOCh... AGENCY FORMATION COMMISS. .1 (LAFCO) OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE " . File Name: LAFC 88-29 . , . prepa.re~ BY~',-J JIM CUTLER ~ ~ -.. . i r I, A. RECOMME:NtiATION: .. Date: July 29, 1988 .: " ~.:: 'i~':!~'\l~b,.!;,~~~~~~~_~{tf;l Exemption (X)Negative Declaration ~mb:~~i~~~~~t:;quired ...._....... ..._ ...... __... ... . -...--. "t~ -"~The project (May) (Will Not) Have A Significant Effect On The Environment. The annexation of these areas will continue the process of creating a better District boundary by filling in areas currently outside the District. The areas are totally within the sewer sphere of influence. The addition of additional parcels by staff to this proposal to create even better boundaries will not have an environmental impact. These areas are all planned for development by the appropriate land use jurisdiction. B. PROJECT INFORMATION: 1. Project Location and Description: This is for the annexation of approximately 42 acres of land to the Central Contra costa Sanitary District. It includes 10 separate areas with the largest being in the Walnut Creek area with 26 acres. smaller annexations are proposed in the Alamo, Martinez and Lafayette portions of the County. Additional property may be added to this project to create better boundaries. 2. site Description: This annexation includes lands which are all planned for develop- ment by either the County or the affected city. Most of the separate areas cover individual lots in need of District service. 3. Character of surrounding Areas: These properties are located in areas which are substantially developed with single-family residential homes. Page 10 of 22 -3- C. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Does the project conform to City or County General Plan proposals including the various adopted Elements? Yes No Maybe ~A x General Plan Designation; source: County, Martinez, Lafayette General Plans 2. Does the project conform to existing (or proposed) zoning classification? x Classification: R-20, R-40, A-2 and similar zones 3. Does it appear that any feature of the project, including aesthetics, will generate significant public concern? x Nature of Concern: 4. Will the project require approval or permits by agencies other than LAFCO? X Other Agency? Central Contra Costa Sanitary District not an environmental impact *S=Significant N=Negligible C=Cumulative No=None U=Unknown N/A=Not Applicable D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (include mitigation measures for significant effects where possible) *5 N C No U N/A 1. Earth Will the proposal result in or be subject to: a) Erection of structures within an Alquist- Priolo Act Special Studies Zone? x ---- b) Grading (consider amount and aesthetics)? c) Slides, liquefaction or other hazards on or immediately adjoining the site? X --- --- X ----- d) Adverse soil or topographic characteristics (consider soils type, slope, septic tank limitations, etc.)? x ------ e) Wind or water erosion of soils, on site or off? x f) Prime agricultural lands? X ---- Discussion: -4- 2. Air Will the project result in deterioration ~existing air quality, including creation of objectionable odors? Discussion: 3. Water Will the project result in: a) Erection of structures within a designated flood hazard (prone) area? b) Reduction of surface or ground water quality or quantity? c) Alteration of drainage patterns or runoff? d) Disruption of streams or water bodies? Discussion: 4. Plant/Animal Life Will the project result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants or animals? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or animals? c) Introduction of new species of plants or animals into an area, or inhibition of the normal replenishment, migration or movement of existing species? d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop or existing fish or wildlife habitat? Discussion: 5. Noise Will the project result in: a) Structures within the 60dBA noise contour per the General Plan Noise Element? b) Increases from existing noise levels? Discussion: 6. Natural Resources Will the project affect the potential use, extraction, conservation or depletion of a natural resource? Discussion: Page 11 of 22 S !! C No U N/A ---~-- _ _ _ X X X X ----- _ _ _ X X X X X --- X --- X Page 12 of 22 -5- 7. Energy Will the project result in demands upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new energy sources? S N C No !l N/A X ----- Discussion: 8. Utilities Will the project result in the need for new systems or alterations to the following utilities (including sphere of influence or district boundary change): electricity, natural gas, communications facilities, water, sewers, storm drainage, solid waste disposal? X Discussion: 9. Public Services Will the project result in the need for: a) New or altered services in the following areas: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or other recreational facilities, roads, flood control or other public works facilities, public transit or other governmental services? X b) Alteration of sphere of influence boundaries? c) Alteration of service district boundaries? x x Discussion: 10. Transportation/Circulation (Consider the Circulation Element) Will the project result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement with initiation or intensification of circulation problems (consider road design, project access, congestion, hazards to vehicles, pedestrians)? _ _ _ X b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demands for new parking? X c) Impact on existing waterborne, rail, air or public transportation systems? X Discussion: Page 13 of 22 -6- 11. Growth Inducement Will the project: a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? S N ~ No U N/A x b) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? x c) Establish a precedent for additional requests for similar uses? X - -- d) Impacts or include agricultural preserve lands? X e) Impact on agricultural production? X Discussion: 12. Aesthetics Will the project obstruct any public scenic vista or view, create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, or produce new light or glare? X Discussion: 13. Recreation Will the project affect the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities? x 14. Archeological/Historical Are there known archeological, historical or other resources on the site or in the general vicinity? (Historical Resources Inventory and archeological site maps) X Discussion: 15. Hazard Will the project result in a risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances or other dangers to public health or safety? X ----- Discussion: Page 14 of 22 -7- 16. Other (Consider impact on open space or sprawl) Will the project result in other significant effects on the environment? S N C No !! N/A ___..:f_ Discussion: 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance (A "significant" check on any of the following questions requires preparation of an EIR) a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? x b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? x - -- c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? x d) Does the project have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x Discussion: Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County McBrien Administration Building, 8th Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 (415) 646-4090 Page 15 of 22 EXHIBIT B FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD 1. Whether the proposed annexati on wi 11 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 Resolutions (88-29-B, 88-29-E, and 88-29-F) making the determination that the proposed annexation should proceed forward to 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 stri ct as the conducti ng authori ty. 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 value of written protest, the Board is not required to make any express fi ndi ngs concerni ng any of the factors consi dered by the conducting authority. RESOLUTLvN OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION Cu~~ISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104-B TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-29-B) ATTACHMENT 1 Page 16 of 22 .._....,...-..........--_..,-'_.._--~-,.- The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On June 28, 1988 Resolution No. 88-079 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 104 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 August 10, 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 annexations 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. 104-B to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-29-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; 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 August 10, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Harmon, Longshore, Schroder, Torlakson and Rainey NOES: None Resolution LAFC 88-. 3 Page 17 of 22 2 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. ........y~--- -~-_..~-~., Dewey E. Mansfield Executive Officer t) !!c~ 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 Robert F. D. Adams, City Manager; City of Lafayette ~;; Page 18 of 22 RESOLUTI )F THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION CO: ,SION OF CON~~ COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINATlv~S AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104-E TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-29-E) The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On June 28, 1988 Resolution No. 88-079 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 104 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 August 10, 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 annexations 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 7 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. 104-E to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-29-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; 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 August 10, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Harmon, Longshore, Schroder, Torlakson and Rainey NOES: None . .ti.. Resolution LAFC 88 .E Page 19 of 22 2 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 taL ~. 1, JMN~ ~~-J. Mercurio Staff Analyst By: DEM:JJM:ap Attaclunent Distribution: Roger Dolan, General Manager; CCCSD Jay McCoy, Construction Division Manager; CCCSD Bill Gregory, Real Property Specialist; CCCSD George Sipel, City Manager; Town of Danville ~" RL..,_ '" ,",.... ." ' Page 20 of 22 RESOLUTI JF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION CC SSION OF CO~LKA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINAT~urlS AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104-F TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-29-F) ....~--_.-.:...._..._-_.,.,_. . The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On June 28, 1988 Resolution No. 88-079 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 104 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 August 10, 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 annexations 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. 104-F to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-29-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; 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 August 10, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Harmon, Longshore, Schroder, Torlakson and Rainey NOES; None Page 21' of 22 Resolution LAFC f 9-F 2 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 ~.~~~ 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 George Sipel, City Manager; Town of Danville ~ ATTACHMENT 2 Page 22 of 22 FACTORS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE 56841 WHIOt WERE CONSIDERED BY LAFCO Ca) Population, population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unicorporated areas, during the next 10 years. Cb) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of goverrrnental 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 control s in the area and adjacent areas. "Services," as used in this subdivision, refers to governmental services whether or not the services are services which would be provided by local agencies subject to this division, and includes the public facilities necessary to provide those servi ces. Cc) 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. Cd) 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 pol icies and priorities set forth in Government COGe Section 56377. (e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Government Code Secti on 55016. Cf) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unicorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. (g) Consistency with city or county general and specific plans. (h) The sphere of i nfl uence of any 1 oca 1 agency wh i ch may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed. (i) The comments of any affected local agency. . Centr&-.. Contra Costa Sanitar ~ District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 19 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF November 3, 1988 NO. IV. HEARINGS 3 SUBJECT HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON INHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 104 AS A~NDED BY THE LOCAL KJENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) DATE October 28, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION HOLD PUBLIC HEARING D. A. 104C AND 1040 SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate En ineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: LAFCO has amended the boundaries of several of the parcel s incl uded within District Annexation 104. 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 amending the boundaries of District Annexation 104C and 1040, LAFCO added sufficient properties to change the annexation from uninhabited to inhabited (12 or more registered voters). DA 104C and 1040 are being considered separately because the criteria for determining the val idity of protests for inhabited annexations is different from the criteria for uninhabited annexations. The criteria for inhabited annexations appears later in this position paper on page 2, items numbered 3, 4, and 5. 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. M /14 JSM INITIATING DEPT./DIV. 1302A.9/85 DH SUBJECT HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON INHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 104 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) POSITION PAPER PAGE 2 OF DATE 19 October 28, 1988 ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS The District must hold a public hearing on District Annexation 104C and 1040 because LAFCO amended thei r boundari es. Legal noti ce was publ i shed, and the affected property owners were notified of the public hearing as required by law. The subject amended annexations are inhabited (12 or more registered voters). Factors to be consi dered by the Board in deci di ng to approve or di sapprove the proposed annexation are set forth as Exhibit B. Following its review, the Board, not more than 30 days after the conclusion of the publ ic hearing, shall adopt a resol ution reflecting the appropriate action ta ke n: 1. Certify that the Board has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration and concurs with the adoption of the Negative Declaration of LAFCO. 2. Disapprove the annexation if the Board finds the annexation is improper based upon any of the factors set forth in Exhibit B. 3. Disapprove and abandon the proposed annexation if the Board finds that written protests have been filed and not withdrawn prior to the conclusion of the public hearing representing 50 percent or more of the voters residing within the territory proposed to be annexed. 4. Order the annexation subject to confirmation by the registered voters resi di ng withi n the territory proposed to be annexed 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 within the affected territory, or 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. 5. Order the annexation without an election if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by not less than 25 percent of the registered voters or 1 ess than 25 percent of the number of owners of 1 and owni ng 1 ess than 25 percent of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. 6. If it is determined that an election is required the Board may terminate the proceedings and avoid the cost of an election ($200t special mailing election by County Election Department). This action may satisfy objections by landowners who would be forced in by LAFCO's action and avoid the 13028-9/85 --~.,..... SUBJECT HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON INHABITED DISTRICT ANNEXATION 104 AS AMENDED BY ll-IE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISS ION (LAFCO) POSITION PAPER PAGE 3 OF DATE 19 October 28, 1988 possibil ity of the annexation fail ing. The executive officer of LAFCO has stated we coul d then resubmit the ori gi nal proposal and he woul d not recommend any additi ons, thus keepi ng the annexati on 100 percent owner consent. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing, receive any testimony, and close the public hearing. 2. Order the District Secretary to file a Notice of Determination as a Responsible Agency stating that the District considered the Negative Declaration as prepared by LAFCO. 3. Adopt a Resolution certifying that the Board has reviewed and considered the Negative Decl arati on, concurri ng with the adopti on of the Negative Declaration of LAFCO, and taking one of the following actions: A. Di sapprove one or more of the proposed annexati ons if the Board determines that the annexation is not warranted, B. Di sapprove and abandon the annexati on if the Board finds that written protests have been fil ed and not withdrawn prior to the conclusion of the public hearing representing 50 percent or more of the regi stered voters resi di ng with i n the terri tory proposed to be annexed, C. Order the annexati on subj ect to conf i rmati on by the regi stered voters residing within the territory proposed to be annexed if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by either of the following: 1) At least 25 percent but less than 50 percent of the registered voters residing within the affected territory, or 2) At 1 east 25 percent of the number of ow ners of 1 and who al so own at least 25 percent of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. D. Order the annexation without an election if written protests have been fil ed and not withdrawn by not 1 ess 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. 13028-9/85 Page 4 of 19 ~ ~ ~ \!& r:N. I!&J L-AFAye TTE DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 Parcel 4 D.A./04-C Page 5 of 19 ~ w ~ . PREVIOUS ANNEXAnON ~ MMf} . EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARy · - -. - · PROPOSED ANNEXATION * - SIGNED PEnnON WAt..Nur c~e-E~ DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 Parcel 6 I D.A. 104-D EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 19 uOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COf\___SSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Lead Agency UNDER 1? n ~ moo AUG 1;) 1988 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON PROJECT CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Local Agency Formation commission Contra costa County McBrien Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: (415) 646-4090 Dewey E. Mansfield Executive Officer DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-29), this proposal would annex + or - 41.6 acres in ten separate parcels adjacent to existing CCCSD boundaries in the vicinity of the communities of Danville, Lafayette, Martinez, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek. properties submitted for annexation are identified by Assessor Parcel Nos. (APN) 140-170-003, 006, 007, 008; 140-190-001; 140-200-001, 003, 005; 197-161-013; 197-250-007; 200-220-016; 208-031-005; 230-110-016, 017; 231-060-010; 231-070-010; 356-240-011; 376-200-006, 007, 008 and 009. The Commission amended the boundaries of affected territory to include additional properties identified by APN 140-100-004; 197-161-051, 052; 208-031-004; 230-110-002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 011, 012 and 231-070-008. Applicant: CCCSD Decision of Project: X Approved Denied ___Withdrawn Decision on Environmental Impact: Will X Will Not have significant effect Environmental Impact Report: ___Prepared ~Not Required LAFC Negative Declaration 2/$4 . Mansfield tive Officer ~ Date: cc: County Clerk Page 7 of 19 " . LOeN" AGENCY FORMATION COMMIS::'_.JN (LAFCO) OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE Person (Applicant): Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Project Title: District Annexation No. 104 (LAFC 88-E 0 L E Project Location: Alamo, Lafayette, Martinez ur AUG 1 w 1f""\" , .:J( . Responsible Agency Contact Person: Dewey E. Mansfield, Executive Contra Costa County 8th Floor, McBrien Administration Bldg. Martinez, CA 94553 (415) 646-4090 1 R. OLSSON, County Clerk CONTIU. OOST. COUNTY Officer Ir . K. Q'Melf!f DIpuIr GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Nature, Purpose, Beneficiaries, Reasons Environmentally Insignificant): This is for the annexation of approximately 42 acres of land to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. It includes 10 separate areas with the largest being in the Walnut Creek area with 26 acres. Smaller annexations are proposed in the Alamo, Martinez and Lafayette portions of the County. Additional property may be added to this project to create better boundaries. The annexation of these areas will continue the process of creating a better District boundary for filling in areas currently outside the District. The areas are totally within the sewer sphere of influence. The addition of additional parcels by staff to this proposal to create even better boundaries will not have an environmental impact. These areas are all planned for development by the appropriate land use jurisdiction. 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 Posted: 8/1/88 Signed by: Date of Final Appeal: 8/10/88 Original: County Clerk cc: LAFCO File Page 8 of 19 LOC. ~ AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSo ..i (LAFCO) OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE , .. File Name: LAFC 88-29 " Prep~eq; BY~,-J JIM CUTLER i! .. Date: July 29, 1988 , . ~ i \_- A. .'j' I, RECOMMENDATION : .Hiv ~ ~')9~,~~~9Jr~~l Exemption (X)Negative Declaration ( )Environmental ":';'.t~,' J,":-:'" .~.!.t',:t}::' Impact Report Required ______ .. ""'.'_ __..... . .-----. t~ .'.........The project (May) (Will Not) Have A Significant Effect On The Environment. The annexation of these areas will continue the process of creating a better District boundary by filling in areas currently outside the District. The areas are totally within the sewer sphere of influence. The addition of additional parcels by staff to this proposal to create even better boundaries will not have an environmental impact. These areas are all planned for development by the appropriate land use jurisdiction. B. PROJECT INFORMATION: 1. Project Location and Description: This is for the annexation of approximately 42 acres of land to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. It includes 10 separate areas with the largest being in the Walnut Creek area with 26 acres. Smaller annexations are proposed in the Alamo, Martinez and Lafayette portions of the County. Additional property may be added to this project to create better boundaries. 2. site Description: This annexation includes lands which are all planned for develop- ment by either the County or the affected city. Most of the separate areas cover individual lots in need of District service. 3. Character of Surrounding Areas: These properties are located in areas which are substantially developed with single-family residential homes. Page 9 of 19 -3- C. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Does the project conform to City or County General Plan proposals including the various adopted Elements? Yes No Maybe HLA --L General Plan Designation; source: County, Martinez, Lafayette General Plans 2. Does the project conform to existing (or proposed) zoning classification? Classification: R-20, R-40, A-2 and similar zones x 3. Does it appear that any feature of the project, including aesthetics, will generate significant public concern? x -- Nature of Concern: 4. Will the project require approval or permits by agencies other than LAFCO? x Other Agency? Central Contra Costa Sanitary District not an environmental impact *S=Significant N=Negligible C=Cumulative No=None U=Unknown N/A=Not Applicable D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (include mitigation measures for significant effects where possible) *S !! ~ No !:! N/A 1. Earth Will the proposal result in or be subject to: a) Erection of structures within an Alquist- Priolo Act Special Studies Zone? x b) Grading (consider amount and aesthetics)? c) Slides, liquefaction or other hazards on or immediately adjoining the site? x x d) Adverse soil or topographic characteristics (consider soils type, slope, septic tank limitations, etc.)? x ---- e) Wind or water erosion of soils, on site or off? x f) Prime agricultural lands? x ------ Discussion: -4- 2. Air Will the project result in deterioration ~existing air quality, including creation of objectionable odors? Discussion: 3. Water Will the project result in: a) Erection of structures within a designated flood hazard (prone) area? b) Reduction of surface or ground water quality or quantity? c) Alteration of drainage patterns or runoff? d) Disruption of streams or water bodies? Discussion: 4. Plant/Animal Life Will the project result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants or animals? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or animals? c) Introduction of new species of plants or animals into an area, or inhibition of the normal replenishment, migration or movement of existing species? d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop or existing fish or wildlife habitat? Discussion: 5. Noise Will the project result in: a) Structures within the 60dBA noise contour per the General Plan Noise Element? b) Increases from existing noise levels? Discussion: 6. Natural Resources will the project affect the potential use, extraction, conservation or depletion of a natural resource? Discussion: Page 10 of 19 ~ H C No g N/A ---~- ---~-- x x - -- x ----- _ _ _ X X X _ _ _ X ---~-- ---~-- X Page 11 of 19 -5- 7. Energy Will the project result in demands upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new energy sources? S N C No ~ N/A _ _ _ L Discussion: 8. Utilities Will the project result in the need for new systems or alterations to the following utilities (including sphere of influence or district boundary change): electricity, natural gas, communications facilities, water, sewers, storm drainage, solid waste disposal? x Discussion: 9. Public Services Will the project result in the need for: a) New or altered services in the following areas: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or other recreational facilities, roads, flood control or other public works facilities, public transit or other governmental services? x b) Alteration of sphere of influence boundaries? x c) Alteration of service district boundaries? x Discussion: 10. Transportation/Circulation (Consider the Circulation Element) Will the project result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement with initiation or intensification of circulation problems (consider road design, project access, congestion, hazards to vehicles, pedestrians)? _ _ _ X b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demands for new parking? X c) Impact on existing waterborne, rail, air or public transportation systems? X Discussion: -6- 11. Growth Inducement will the project: a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? b) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? c) Establish a precedent for additional requests for similar uses? d) Impacts or include agricultural preserve lands? e) Impact on agricultural production? Discussion: 12. Aesthetics Will the project obstruct any public scenic vista or view, create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, or produce new light or glare? Discussion: 13. Recreation Will the project affect the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities? 14. Archeological/Historical Are there known archeological, historical or other resources on the site or in the general vicinity? (Historical Resources Inventory and archeological site maps) Discussion: Page 12 of 19 S N C No U N/A X - - - - - - X - - - - X - - - X X X _ _ _ X --~ 15. Hazard Will the project result in a risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances or other dangers to public health or safety? _ _ _ ~ _ Discussion: Page 13 of 19 -7- 16. Other (Consider impact on open space or sprawl) will the project result in other significant effects on the environment? S N ~ No U N/A X Discussion: 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance (A "significant" check on any of the following questions requires preparation of an EIR) a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? X b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? X X d) Does the project have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Discussion: Local Agency Formation commission of Contra Costa County McBrien Administration Building, 8th Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 (415) 646-4090 PAGE 14 OF 19 EXHIBIT 8 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD 1. 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 Resolutions 88-29-C and 88-29-D making the determination that the proposed annexations should proceed forward to 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 stri ct 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 value of written protest, the Board is not required to make any express findings concerning any of the factors considered by the conducting authority. RESOLUTl OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION CC SSION OF CO~~RA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINATivSS AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104-C TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-29-C) ATTACHMENT 1 Page 15 of 19 ~~",--_.... The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On June 28, 1988 Resolution No. 88-079 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 104 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 August 10, 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 annexations 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 4 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. 104-C to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-29-C)" 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; 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 August 10, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: commissioners Harmon, Longshore, Schroder, Torlakson and Rainey NOES: None Resolution LAFC 88- ::: 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. By: Dewey E. Mansfield Executive Officer }!:} 2:::: Staff Analyst DEM:JJM:ap Attachment Distribution: Roger Dolan, General Manager; CCCSD Jay McCoy, Construction Division Manager; CCCSD Bill Gregory, Real Property Specialist; CCCSD Robert F. D. Adams, City Manager; City of Lafayette ~"--"'-----~"--'-"""~'~' .,,-..-_____.._._~_.,~,._.__._.._.,,__.._.__._~..__._~.~_~. .' . ,...,~....__,....." ......,.,~__._"',._._A~._",."__..___"_~...,___.__,~.".,___..,."..,,~.,._, V.lJ' P age 160 f 19 2 -::', ~ ~, Page 17 of 19 RESOLUT OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION C rSSION OF CO~~RA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINA~~uNS AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104-D TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-29-D) The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On June 28, 1988 Resolution No. 88-079 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 104 to said District; and At the times and in the form and manner provided by law, said Executive Officer gave notice of pUblic hearing hy 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 August 10, 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 annexations 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. 104-D to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-29-D)" 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; 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 August 10, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Harmon, Longshore, Schroder, Torlakson and Rainey NOES: None Resolution LAFC 88- ) Page 18 of 19 2 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 ~. 1, lMy~ J 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 Specialist; CCCSD ~ ATTACHMENT 2 Page 19 of 19 FACTORS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE 56841 WHICH 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 unicorporated areas, during the next 10 years. (b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and control s in the area; probable future needs for those services and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and control s in the area and adjacent areas. "Services," as used in this subdivision, refers to goverrrnental services whether or not the services are services which would be provided by local agencies subject to this division, and includes the public facilities necessary to provide those services. (c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county. (d) The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects with both the adopted commission policies on providing planned, 'orderly, efficient patterns of urban development, and the pol icies and priorities set forth in Goverrrnent Coae Section 56377 . (e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined' by Government Code Secti 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 similar 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 agency wh i ch may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed. (i) The comments of any affected local agency. . Centr.. Contra Costa Sanitar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 3 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF November 3, 1988 NO. V. BIDS AND AWARDS 1 SUBJECT REJECT ALL BIDS SUBMITTED FOR TREATMENT PLANT LANDSCAPING PROJECT, PHASE I, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 10031 DATE October 28, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION REJ ECT BIDS SUBMITTED BY James L. Belcher Associate En ineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Plant Operations Department ISSUE: On October 12, 1988, seal ed bi ds for Treatment Pl ant Landscapi ng Project, Phase I, District Project No. 10031, were received and publicly opened. The Board of Directors must award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder or reject all bids within 60 days of the opening of bids. BAa<GROUND: On May 7, 1987, the Board of Di rectors authorized a consul ti ng agreement with the firm Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey (RHAA) to take the first segment of the conceptual design of the Treatment Plant Master Plan and develop it into a biddable set of plans and specifications for Phase I. The Treatment Plant Landscaping Project, Phase I, was intended to improve the main entrance and to establ ish a Di strict identity to the publ ic. The desi gn consi sted of signage and a pond using reclaimed water surrounded by scenic landscape. Pl ans and speci f icati ons for the proj ect were adverti sed to the publ ic on September 19 and September 29, 1988. A tabulation of the bids is shown in Attachment 1. An evaluation of the bids (Attachment II) conducted by Plant Operations Department staff concluded that the lowest responsible bidder is Monkdale Brothers with a bid of $467,081. The engineer's estimate, prepared by RHAA for the construction, was $400,000, with $250,000 computed for the base bid. Of the 54 sets of plans and specifications issued, only four bids were received from general contractors due to the diverse and distinctive aspects of the proj ect. A post bid preconstruction evaluation of the bid cost indicated to the District that minor design changes could result in significant savings without diminishing the overall intent and aesthetic value of the project. A meeting held with the District Landscape Committee and the landscape architect consultant identified several areas in which considerable cost savings could be generated. It is bel ieved that these design changes would bring the project nearer to the original Capital Improvement Budget estimate of $262,000. Therefore, it is the staff's recommendation that the Board of Directors reject all bids at this time. RE<XMENDATION: Rej ect all bi ds submitted for Treatment Pl ant Landscapi ng Project, Phase I, District Project No. 10031 REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302....9/85 BID OPENING TREAlMENT PLANT LANDSCAPING PROJECT, PHASE I District Project No. 10031 October 12, 1988 I I Alternate** I Alternate*** I Proposal Companv Name I Base Bid* No.1 No. 2 Total Munkdale Brothers I $397,310 $ 32,203 $ 37,568 $ 467,081 Lemings 423,054 30,632 32,466 486,152 Gol den Bay 414,800 80,100 73,800 568,700 Dalzell 636,000 39,000 52,000 727,000 I I i I I I I * Base bid consisted of entry area, fencing, signage wall, and pond. ** Alternate No.1 consisted of landscaping and irrigation west of the entry and along Imhoff Drive. *** Alternate No.2 consisted of landscaping and irrigation of the area north of Imhoff Drive to the Filter Plant. ..... ..... ~ 7- l..&.J ~ 3: u <1: ~ ~ c:( <..0 co en ..... N ..... ~ QJ .Q o +.l U o Ql 1; C ... CV CV .c tn c o .- ... ca :s - ca > W "a 1- m QJ VI to .c ~ A QJ C- to U VI -C C to ...J +.l C to ~ ~ +.l C QJ +.l .s C to '" c: QJ ~ ~ +.l c:: QJ ..... .s M ~ 0 0 ~ ..... ~ Ql E III c: z .2 0Cl 1; 0 () 0 Z ...J ti ~ Ql '0' '0' .. .. ll. ll. I ..><: :0<: >0< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 VI QJ ~ QJ :;: QJ:: ell:;: .lO: +.l +.l +.l ..... .. 0.... O,+- O,+- O,+- III co co co co E Ql +.l +.l +.l +.l +.l +.l +.l cc oc:: oc oc 0 c::QJ c:: QJ C QJ C U U U "O~ "O~ "O~ -c .... QJ .... QJ .... QJ .... o c- oo ClQ 0 ... ... ... ... '1:l ~ ~ III III VI VI l:' QJ QJ QJ QJ .!! >- >- >- >- ~ '1:l ~ VI '1:l QJ VI VI VI >- QJ QJ QJ iXi >- >- >- ~! :O:c VI VI VI VI oi QJ QJ QJ QJ ~l >- >- >- >- c .2 Ql 13'3 211 III Vl VI Vl -&: QJ QJ QJ QJ ~ell >- >- >- >- <3 -'~3 .3:a i VI VI ... VI co(.- QJ QJ ... QJ '" ." >- >- it >- .5 ~ 8- ... .. ...w e! 0 it ... it it .oU VI VI VI VI ~~ QJ QJ QJ QJ c >- >- >- >- <3 .!!e! ... .~ :! ... VI VI VI QlQ, QJ QJ QJ 0 -Q, "':. >- >- >- z ~CIl Ql- -'" :.- !~ VI VI VI VI ell: QJ QJ QJ QJ '1:lE >- >- >- >- iXi! Qliii :ic71 Oi"" VI VI VI VI s,Ql QJ QJ QJ QJ <n~ >- >- >- >- 'gg 0 ~ a:: ~ en ..,., "" @~ 0::::: := c>> NM M co ..,...... ClJf!1; ""'0 MN ~~ i'i5.C It, , ,...., Ll'l"" co N ~g ON U" NO MO N..... ::JW E ~11 VI Vl Vl c_ QJ QJ QJ 0 ~O >- >- >- Z '1:lZ 0( ...; U C C 0 C ..... .... - +.l A U A C ~ Vl 0 ~ .. ~ .... +.l QJ +.l Vl 0 .c:: to ... U +.l CJl 0 ~ 0 'S: u E ~ ~ a:l ~ 0 - <.) QJ LQ ~ Vl ..... '" 01 C Qj -C C QJ ..><: 's -C N C ~ ~ ~ QJ 0 '" Z ...J c.!:J 0 ~ +.l IOU .... QJ ~....., QJ 0 +.l~ tO~ :E:'" it ... ... it '~ ~ "' ell Oil .- ~ co "JJ ::l'I ..... o >- CD 'tl !! III Q. Ql ~ c; ll. C QJ +.l QJ ..... C- <: (5 U C .... "0 QJ +.l +.l VlO .... C +.l ~ 0 QJC ..... Vl C-QJ CoN ~.... VI VI . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary ..Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 16 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF November 3, 1988 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 9 SUBJECT DATE October 13, 1988 ORDER COMPLETION OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION 104-A TYPE OF ACTION COMPLETE ANNEXATION OF DA 104-A SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate Engineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: A resol uti on by the Di stri ct' s Board of Di rector's must be adopted to finalize District Annexation 104-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 104. LAFCO has considered this request and has recommended that Parcels 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9, as shown on the attachments, be processed as submitted. LAFCO has designated this parcel to be District Annexation No. l04-A. No public hearing is required and the annexation of these parcels can be completed. A Negative Declaration addressing the proposed annexations was prepared by LAFCO pursuant to CECA 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 Decl aration 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 resol uti on concurri ng with and adopti ng the Negative Declaration of LAFCO certifying that- the Board has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration and ordering the completion of District Annexation No. 104-A. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION JSM RAB 1302A-9/85 ~ DH f;(J INITIATING DEPT./DIV. AS Jut\1' :v S \,.A t\GrlO f{A ~,\ c:, ~'\ \"> ~ MART/NEZ DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 Parcel 1 ~ ~ .:;~?:~ii~tt~f --.. * Page 2 of 16 . PREVIOUS ANNEXAnON . EXISTING CCCSO BOUNDARY . PROPOSED AHNEXAnON . SIGNED PETITION DA. I04-:A Page 3 of 16 OA}(MONT ME1YJORJAL PAR}( PORJ RA1YCHO @ \% S 4io50'W 5.00' GRA'(SON ROAD ....... ~ ~::::: ~ :~~t ~ :~:~::: ~ U~ :z :::::: J 'jffffjj~?'0!"'~;:';;:':::~?" ~I ~ AiW' EX.IS,\N6 CCCSD eouNO.&.RV S ,fJ]) ~ R-36.40' L-2Z.3S' CA1YADA DEL HA/wBRE * COLLIN . ~O.R. 58' ~ ~ ~ ~ If\if}:::::::{ -.-- _ PREVIOUS ANNEXATION _ EXISTING CCCSD BOUNDARy _ PROPOSED ANNEXATION _ SIGNED PETITION * LAFAyeTTE DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 D.A. I04-A Parcel 2 Page 4 of 16 PDR.I RA1YCHD CA1YADA DEL P/iYDLE @ A B 17 PiYi 1.3 ~ ~ 'l~iftt/ .--- . PREVIOUS ANNEXATION . EXlST1NG CCCSD BOUNDARY . PROPOSED ANNEXATION . SIGNED PETITION * LAFA ye-rrE DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 A Parcel 5 D.A. 104-A Page 5 of 16 @ 1982 ~ NrIOOE,'OO'W 8'2.40' &\ ~ jf~t!{ . PREVIOUS ANNEXATION . EXISTING CCCSO BOUNDARY . PROPOSED ANNEXATION . SIGNED PETITION * D4NVIt-tc DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 Parcel 8 D.A. 104-A ~ ~ ili@t RAIYCHO EL RlO POR LOTS 8.5&86 POINT OF BEGINNING @ .39 LSM 1 A t9. EAST . '215''t RA1YCH ~ r:t:: ._---- (\i ::::::::::: STEVENS * 8410 O.R. S03 ~ ~:~:::~f 8 ...... ~ ::::[:::::[ '2,5.'35' tt::: EL RIO POR 1.0 tAt! (IJ Ul * ~ b :z N e~O~9'35'W l09PMZ4 A * . PREVIOUS ANNEXATION . EXISTING CCCSO BOUNDARY . PROPOSED ANNEXATION . SIGNED PETITION OAN VI L t..IE Page 6 of 16 B SPR\NG LANE -~@ B ........ ........ ....... fArtrtrl"?/.......:.:..........;....::......:,{{: :ttt..{;.. .:....'.. .... .:....:... ;::)f:?frtrtrtrt:t:t: DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 Parcel 9 C D.A.I04-A EXHIBIT A Page 7 of 16 uOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COM. ,SSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Lead Agency UNDER 1? 0 ~ moo AUG 1;) 1988 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON PROJECT CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Local Agency Formation commission Contra costa County McBrien Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: (415) 646-4090 Clerk c UNTY Dewey E. Mansfield Executive Officer DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104 TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-29), this proposal would annex + or - 41.6 acres in ten separate parcels adjacent to existing CCCSD boundaries in the vicinity of the communities of Danville, Lafayette, Martinez, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek. Properties submitted for annexation are identified by Assessor Parcel Nos. (APN) 140-170-003, 006, 007, 008; 140-190-001; 140-200-001, 003, 005; 197-161-013; 197-250-007; 200-220-016; 208-031-005; 230-110-016, 017; 231-060-010; 231-070-010; 356-240-011; 376-200-006, 007, 008 and 009. The Commission amended the boundaries of affected territory to include additional properties identified by APN 140-100-004; 197-161-051, 052; 208-031-004; 230-110-002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 011, 012 and 231-070-008. Applicant: CCCSD Decision of Project: X Approved Denied ___Withdrawn Decision on Environmental Impact: Will X Will Not have significant effect Environmental Impact Report: ___prepared ~Not Required LAFC Negative Declaration 2/#4t . Mansfield tive Officer Date: cc: County Clerk " . Page 8 of 16 LOC~ AGENCY FORMATION COMMISS",...4~ (LAFCO) OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE Person (Applicant): Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Project Title: District Annexation No. 104 (LAFC 88-~ U l E Project Location: Alamo, Lafayette, Martinez Ui AUG 1 ~ 1("1" , ~( . Responsible Agency Contact Person: Dewey E. Mansfield, Executive Contra Costa County 8th Floor, McBrien Administration Bldg. Martinez, CA 94553 (415) 646-4090 1 R. OLSSON, County Clerk CONTU COSTA COUNTY Officer Ir . K. O'MeU!f, DIpuIf GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Nature, Purpose, Beneficiaries, Reasons Environmentally Insignificant): This is for the annexation of approximately 42 acres of land to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. It includes 10 separate areas with the largest being in the Walnut Creek area with 26 acres. Smaller annexations are proposed in the Alamo, Martinez and Lafayette portions of the County. Additional property may be added to this project to create better boundaries. The annexation of these areas will continue the process of creating a better District boundary for filling in areas currently outside the District. The areas are totally within the sewer sphere of influence. The addition of additional parcels by staff to this proposal to create even better boundaries will not have an environmental impact. These areas are all planned for development by the appropriate land use jurisdiction. 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 Posted: 8/1/88 Signed by: Date of Final Appeal: 8/10/88 Original: County Clerk cc: LAFCO File Page 9 of 16 LOCj.__ AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSo '( LAFCO) OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE " , File Name: LAFC 88-29 Prepareq; BY~,l JIM CUTLER i: . '. I; ~ .i \.~-; A. RECOMMENDATION: Date: July 29, 1988 qi~ l. JS:~J.e~~,F~~l Exemption (X)Negative Declaration ( )Environmental ,':'A~,,' ,,"'~.'\:'('I;():' Impact Report Required '. .. _..... __. _ ___ ,._.._._. '(i! .'......,rThe project (May) (Will Not) Have A Significant Effect On The Environment. The annexation of these areas will continue the process of creating a better District boundary by filling in areas currently outside the District. The areas are totally within the sewer sphere of influence. The addition of additional parcels by staff to this proposal to create even better boundaries will not have an environmental impact. These areas are all planned for development by the appropriate land use jurisdiction. B. PROJECT INFORMATION: 1. Project Location and Description: This is for the annexation of approximately 42 acres of land to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. It includes 10 separate areas with the largest being in the Walnut Creek area with 26 acres. Smaller annexations are proposed in the Alamo, Martinez and Lafayette portions of the County. Additional property may be added to this project to create better boundaries. 2. Site Description: This annexation includes lands which are all planned for develop- ment by either the County or the affected city. Most of the separate areas cover individual lots in need of District service. 3. Character of Surrounding Areas: These properties are located in areas which are substantially developed with single-family residential homes. Page 10 of 16 -3- C. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Does the project conform to City or County General Plan proposals including the various adopted Elements? Yes No Maybe ~A x General Plan Designation; source: County, Martinez, Lafayette General Plans Does the project conform to existing (or proposed) zoning classification? 2. x Classification: R-20, R-40, A-2 and similar zones 3. Does it appear that any feature of the project, including aesthetics, will generate significant public concern? x Nature of Concern: 4. Will the project require approval or permits by agencies other than LAFCO? X Other Agency? Central Contra Costa Sanitary District not an environmental impact *S=Significant N=Negligible C=Cumulative No=None U=Unknown N/A=Not Applicable D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (include mitigation measures for significant effects where possible) *S N C No ~ N/A 1. Earth Will the proposal result in or be subject to: a) Erection of structures within an Alquist- Priolo Act Special Studies Zone? x ---- b) Grading (consider amount and aesthetics)? x c) Slides, liquefaction or other hazards on or immediately adjoining the site? x d) Adverse soil or topographic characteristics (consider soils type, slope, septic tank limitations, etc.)? x e) Wind or water erosion of soils, on site or off? x f) Prime agricultural lands? x ------ Discussion: -4- 2. Air Will the project result in deterioration of existing air quality, including creation of objectionable odors? Discussion: 3. Water Will the project result in: a) Erection of structures within a designated flood hazard (prone) area? b) Reduction of surface or ground water quality or quantity? c) Alteration of drainage patterns or runoff? d) Disruption of streams or water bodies? Discussion: 4. Plant/Animal Life Will the project result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants or animals? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or animals? c) Introduction of new species of plants or animals into an area, or inhibition of the normal replenishment, migration or movement of existing species? d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop or existing fish or wildlife habitat? Discussion: 5. Noise Will the project result in: a) Structures within the 60dBA noise contour per the General Plan Noise Element? b) Increases from existing noise levels? Discussion: 6. Natural Resources Will the project affect the potential use, extraction, conservation or depletion of a natural resource? Discussion: Page 11 of 16 S !! C No U N/A ---~- ---~-- x x --~-- x x --- x _ _ _ X X ---~-- x Page 12 of 16 -5- 7. Energy Will the project result in demands upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new energy sources? S N C No U N/A X ------ Discussion: 8. Utilities Will the project result in the need for new systems or alterations to the following utilities (including sphere of influence or district boundary change): electricity, natural gas, communications facilities, water, sewers, storm drainage, solid waste disposal? X Discussion: 9. Public Services Will the project result in the need for: a) New or altered services in the following areas: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or other recreational facilities, roads, flood control or other public works facilities, public transit or other governmental services? x b) Alteration of sphere of influence boundaries? c) Alteration of service district boundaries? x X Discussion: 10. Transportation/Circulation (Consider the Circulation Element) will the project result in: a) Generation of additional vehicular movement with initiation or intensification of circulation problems (consider road design, project access, congestion, hazards to vehicles, pedestrians)? _ _ _ b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demands for new parking? X --- c) Impact on existing waterborne, rail, air or public transportation systems? x Discussion: Page 13 of 16 -6- 11. Growth Inducement Will the project: a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? S N g No U N/A x b) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? x c) Establish a precedent for additional requests for similar uses? _ _ _ X d) Impacts or include agricultural preserve lands? X e) Impact on agricultural production? X Discussion: 12. Aesthetics Will the project obstruct any public scenic vista or view, create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, or produce new light or glare? X Discussion: 13. Recreation Will the project affect the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities? 14. Archeological/Historical Are there known archeological, historical or other resources on the site or in the general vicinity? (Historical Resources Inventory and archeological site maps) _ _ _ X _ _ _ X Discussion: 15. Hazard Will the project result in a risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances or other dangers to public health or safety? X ----- Discussion: Page 14 of 16 -7- 16. Other (Consider impact on open space or sprawl) Will the project result in other significant effects on the environment? S N C No !l N/A X ------ Discussion: 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance (A "significant" check on any of the following questions requires preparation of an EIR) a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? _ _ _ X b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ---~-- d) Does the project have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Discussion: Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County McBrien Administration Building, 8th Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 (415) 646-4090 Page 15 of 16 RESOLU~ OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION C ISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING PROPOSED DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 104-A TO CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT (LAFC 88-29-A) ~-.-.........-~_...~...: The Local Agency Formation Commission finds: On June 28, 1988 Resolution No. 88-079 of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) was submitted to the Executive Officer of this Commission making application for proposed District Annexation No. 104 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, the Executive Officer noting that all of the owners of affected land have given their written consent to the proposal; and The public hearing by this Commission was held on August 10, 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 annexations 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 1,2,5,8 and 9 as identified in the application. ~~ Section 3. The proposal is assigned the designation of "District Annexation No. 104-A to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (LAFC 88-29-A)" 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; pursuant to Government Code Section 57000, said Sanitary Board is hereby directed to initiate proceedings for the proposed annexation in compliance with this resolution; and pursuant to Government Code Section 56837, said Sanitary Board is hereby authorized to conduct such proceedings without notice and hearing. 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 August 10, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Harmon, Longshore, Schroder, Torlakson and Rainey NOES: None Resolution LAFC 8L _9-A Page 16 of 16 2 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 J:} M2~ 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 George Sipel, City Manager; Town of Danville Robert F. D. Adams, City Manager; City of Lafayette Jack Garner, City Manager; City of Martinez ~"' . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary uistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF Novembe r 3 1 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 10 SUBJECT QUITCLAIM SEWER EASEMENT TO STEPHEN R. WILLIAMS, ET UX, JOB 1119, SUBDIVISION 3144, LAFAYETTE AREA DATE o TYPE OF ACTION APPROVE QUITCLAIM OF EASEMENT SUBMITTED BY Dennis Hall Associate En ineer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division ISSUE: Stephen R. Williams, owner of property at 1228 Cambridge Drive, Lafayette, has requested the District to quitclaim a portion of the sewer easement which lies within Lot 4 of Subdivision 3144. BACKGROUND: The subject easement was dedicated to the District in 1963, when the map of Subdivision 3144 was filed. A sewer main was subsequently constructed within the subject easement. In 1979 the land which adjoins the Williams' property was subdivided into six new lots (Subdivision 4703). A new public sewer was de'signed and constructed to flow in a northerly direction to serve this subdivision. Portions of the existing sewers were abandoned, but the subject sewer was left in place across the Williams' property to serve an adjoining lot to the west. A house was built on the adjoining lot and the house was connected to the subject sewer. The house has been recently reconnected to the new public sewer menti oned above. The subj ect sewer has no connecti ons to it and can be abandoned. Staff has determined that the subject easement is no longer needed for public purposes and can be quitclaimed. The owner has paid the District's processing fee and will pay the District's costs of the physical abandonment of the subject sewer main. Thi s proj ect has been eval uated by staff and determi ned to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines Section 18.6, since it involves a minor alteration in land use limitations. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Quitclaim Deed to Stephen R. Williams, et ux, Job 1119, 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 N 4t INITIATING DEPT./DIV. 12/ 0 I(/) en 9 \ \3 \ \ 6. 6 .\ LAFAYETTE SCHOOL DISTRICT ~ u..l o~t.o -- ~ ~e~o~~ U1 _ ~~_ u. .:...-- ........ - ...J cO ::> 0- SUB. -- -- ___..- I'fJ ~ ~84'-8AC-2988_-+ 1'fJ<\j ~........ 4703 <:7 /2/7 /209 T R QUITCLAIM EASEMENT JOB 1119 SUBDIVISION 3144 LAFAYETTE AREA . Centra. Contra Costa Sanltar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF November 3, 1988 NO. SUBJECT ACCEPT THE CONTRACT WORK FOR THE TREATMENT PLANT REMODEL PROJECT, PHASE I, WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOM - GAS CHROMATOGRAPH/MASS SPECTROMETER (GC/MS) LABORATORY, DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 10039, AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 11 DATE October 26, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK SUBMITTED BY David J. Reindl Assistant Engineer INITIA TING DEPT./DIV. Plant Operations Department ISSUE: All work has been completed on the Treatment Plant Remodel Project, Phase I, Women's Locker Room - GC/MS Laboratory, District Project No. 10039, and the work is now. ready for acceptance. BACKGROUIt>: The Treatment Plant Remodel Project, Phase I, provides Plant Operations Department personnel with a new facility in the Pl ant Operations Building for lockers, showers, and toilet facilities for female employees. The laboratory remodel portion provides a new day room, additional office space, and a separate clean environment for the GC/MS equipment. On May 5, 1988, the Phase I construction contract was awarded to RGM Associates Inc. of Pacheco, California for $199,457. The work was scheduled for completion on September 7, 1988. The portion of the work associated with the laboratory remodel and GC/MS area was completed on time allowing the delivery and setup of the Kratos GC/MS equipment on schedule. Work in the women's locker room, however, has only recently been completed as a result of delays caused by the manufacturer of the lockers. The Environmental Protection Agency had requested that the manufacturer change to a high sol ids paint, which resulted in quality control problems and delayed production. A no-cost change order granting a time extension is being processed to cover the delay. Additional change orders totaling $14,831.50 were granted to cover work that was not part of the original contract. Ten change orders addressed changed building conditions, improvements in acoustical ceiling material and sound attenuation, adding plumbing and electrical outlets for a washer dryer in the women's locker room, and revising the GC/MS laboratory equipment layout. The total amount due to the contractor, including change orders, is $214,288.50. The total budget for the Treatment Plant Remodel Project, Phase I is $276,000. To date $252,657.50 has been spent. A detailed accounting of the project cost will be provided to the Board of Directors at the time of project close out. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the contract work for the construction of Treatment Plant Remodel, Phase I, Women's Locker Room - GC/MS Laboratory, District Project No. 10039, and authorize the filing of Notice of Completion. 1302....9/85 . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary LJistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE OF 1 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 12 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF SUBJECT DATE ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE CLOSE OUT OF THE STAGE 5B PHASE II PROJECT (DP 3763) AND RETURN $50,414 TO THE TREATMENT PLANT PROGRAM TYPE OF ACTION INFORMATIONAL SUBMITTED BY Curtis Princi Department Division ISSUE: All work has been completed on the Stage SB Phase II (5B-II) Project and this project (DP 3763) may now be closed out. BACKGROUND: The Stage SB-Phase II Project was initiated in the mid-1970's to provide solids handling capacity for the City of Concord and to provide the capability for co-incineration of District wastewater sludges with refuse from the central county area. Extensive engineering studies and co-incineration pilot studies were conducted under this project. Because of construction claims and operational problems encountered with the Stage 5A-I facilities, as well as major industry-wide problems with co-incineration, the facilities initially envisioned as part of the Stage 5B-II Project were never built. While there were no physical facilities constructed under the Stage 5B-II Project, the engineering and planning studies from this project, specifically the Amended Stage 5B Facilities Plan and EIR which were produced in 1982, provided the scope and approach for the Stage 5B Hydraulic Expansion and Dissolved Air Flotation Facilities (DP 3816) constructed in 1985 and the Dewatering System Improvements (DP 3791) currently under construction. Since the 5B-II Project was funded in part by State and Federal grants, an audit of the project costs was required before the project could be closed but. The audit was completed in November 1986. This project was not closed out earlier because staff believed that it should remain open until the audit of the Stage 5B Hydraulic Expansion Project (DP 3816) was completed. That project's audit is now underway and SWRCB staff have advised the District that the Stage SB-II Project is considered complete and may be closed. The total project cost for the Stage 5B-II Project was $1,703,567. The District received $918,023 in Federal and State grant funds for the project. The District's share of the project costs was $785,544. The total project cost was less than the authorized budget and $50,414 will be returned to the Treatment Plant Program Budget. RECOMMENDATION: This item is presented to the Board of Directors for information only. No action is necessary. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 CWS DRW RAB INITIATIN~ZOV. {)Jw "~_._-,-_._--,--'" ~--~---~~--"_..._..__...-.,,---,. . -_._._,_.__._~_.,----,_..--.--._,....,_._.._,_._,..'"..,.'-"'---"--~--'_.'-.'"--"-~--.~- . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar). District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF November 3, 1988 NO. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 13 SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM FROM A. A. MAREK, CONTRACTOR FOR lHE MUlH DRIV E CONSTRUCTION PRill ECT DATE Octobe r 26, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION SUBJECT SETTLEMENT REPORT SUBMITTED BY Jack E. Campbell Administrative Operations Manager INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Administrative/ Risk Management and Safety ISSUE: A cl aim settl ement exceed i ng $5,000 but which is not more th an $10,000 requires approval by the General Manager-Chief Engineer and is to be reported to the Board of Directors. The above contractor's claim has been settled for $6,250. BACKGROUND: A. A. Marek was the horizontal drilling contractor for a small project on Muth Drive, Orinda, which involved rerouting and replacing a storm damaged sewer line. A billing dispute arose when the contractor claimed that $24,400 was owed for the job because of the extra work involved. This was $15,000 over the original contract price of $8,400. The District contended that although some additional costs were incurred, the contractor had caused extra expense for the District because of the way the work was performed. On October 12, 1988, a meeting was held between the parties to review the contract, the way the proj ect was performed, and the detail s of the $15,000 cl aim. After discussion, the parties agreed that the claim should be settled rather than litigated because of the potential legal costs, but that this would require significant compromises by both sides. Additional negotiations resulted in a settlement amount of $6,250 payable to the contractor for a portion of the claimed costs. This settlement amount was approved by the General Manager-Chief Engineer. RECOMMENDATION: This claim settlement is being reported to the Board of Directors for informational purposes; no further action is required. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. f1e- JEC PM --_..__.__..~_._-~^----"_._---,-----_._----_..._-,-~-'~-~.*---~_..,_..._-_._,-_.~.+..._"~,-~._-'_'<-'-~"~-_'-,-~-----~----"._.-_..._---_._-_. . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF November 3, 1988 NO. VIII. BUDGET AND FINANCE 2 SUBJECT RECEIVE THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1988 DATE Octobe r 26, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION RECEIV E AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPTlDIV. Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer Administrative/Finance & Accounting ISSUE: The audited f inanci al statements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1988, and the related management letter are being submitted to the Board of Directors. BACKGROUND: Johnston, Gremaux and Rossi, Certified Public Accountants, have completed their examination of the District's financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1988, and have submitted the audited financial statements and their auditor's opinion thereon. The related management letter, which provides recommendations, if any, to improve the system of internal accounting controls based on observations during the examination of the financial statements, is provided as Attachment I. The audited financial statements, auditor's opinion, and management letter were submitted in draft form to the Board's Budget and Finance Committee for rev iew. State and local governments which receive federal financial assistance of $100,000 or more annually are subject to the requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1984 for fiscal years beginning after December 31, 1984. As Clean Water Grant proceeds received by the District in the fiscal year ended June 30, 1988 were less than $100,000, the requi rements of the Singl e Audit Act did not apply to the audit by Johnston, Gremaux and Rossi. Singl e Audit Act reports were prepared by the District's auditor for the two prior fiscal years. In performing their examination of the financial statements, the auditors evaluated the District's internal accounting controls to determine the nature and extent of the auditing procedures required. Based on their observations during the course of the examinati on, the auditors adv ise Di strict management of any maj or weaknesses noted in the system of internal accounting controls. As indicated in Attachment I, the auditor's evaluation disclosed no condition that was considered to be a material weakness in the system of internal accounting controls. REcotI4EN>ATION: Receive the audited financial statements, auditor's opinion, and related management letter for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1988. ~ ~~~ REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 1302A-9/85 WF PM INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ATTACHMENT I Johnston, Gremaux &Rossi CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS September 2, 1988 BOARD OF DIRECTORS CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT Ve have examined the financial statements of CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT for the year ended June 30, 1988, and have issued our report thereon dated September 2, 1988. As part of our examination we made a study and evaluation of the company's system of internal accounting control to the extent we considered necessary to evaluate the system as required by generally accepted auditing standards. The purpose of our study and evaluation was to determine the nature, timing, and extent of the auditing procedures necessary for expressing an opinion on the company's financial statements. Our study and evaluation was more limited than would be necessary to express an opinion on the system of internal accounting control taken as a whole. The management of CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal accounting control. In fulfilling that responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of control procedures. The objectives of a system are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, and that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Because of inherent limitations in any system of internal accounting control, errors or irregularities may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of the system to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with procedures may deteriorate. Our study and evaluation made for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph would not necessarily disclose all material weaknesses in the system. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the system of internal accounting control of CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT taken as a whole. However, our study and evaluation disclosed no condition that we believed to be a material weakness. This report is intended solely for the use of management and should not be used for any other purpose. j~,C~~ JOHNSTON, GREMAUX & ROSSI Certified Public Accountants 500 Lennon Lane, Walnut Creek, California 94598 . (415) 944-1881 . Centra. Contra Costa Sanitar) District BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF November 3, 1988 NO. IX. LEGAL/LITIGATION DATE Octobe r 26, 1988 1 SUBJECT APPROIE lHE SETlLEMENT OF THE CCCSD V S FIREMAN'S FUND LITIGATION CONCERNING lHE 1979 BOILER ROOM EXPLOSION TYPE OF ACTION APPROIE SEffiEMENT SUBMITTED BY Jack E. Campbell Administrative Operations Manager INITIATING pEPT./DIV. Adm 1ni strative/ Risk Management and Safety ISSUE: Settlement of the Fireman's Fund litigation has been reached within the authOrized amount previously established by the Board. The Fireman's Fund Insurance Company has requested that the settlement amount be officially approved by the Board of Directors. BACKGROUND: The Board, at a closed session on October 6, 1988, concerning this 1 itigati on, gave the District's negoti ators the authority to settl e th is 1 awsuit provided that Fireman's Fund pay not less than the amount specified by the Board. Subsequent to this, Fireman's Fund has agreed to pay $187,500 in final settlement of the District's claim. This amount is over the minimum figure established by the Board of Directors and, therefore, has been accepted by the negotiators on behalf of the District. The Fireman's Fund Insurance Company is requesting that the Directors approve this settlement by official action before the payment is made to the District. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the payment of $187,500 to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company in final and complete settlement of the insurance claim resulting from the explosion in the auxiliary boiler room which occurred on September 24, 1979. 1302A-9/85 L PM JH INITIATING DEPT./DIV.