HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/7/2002 AGENDA BACKUPCentral Contra Costa Sanitary District
/4"1 ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: MARCH 7, 2002 No.: 3.a. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: INITIATE ANNEXATION D.A. 159
Subject: INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORMALLY ANNEX 4 SEPARATE AREAS UNDER
THE TITLE OF DISTRICT ANNEXATION 159
Submitted By: Initiating Dept. /Div.:
Molly Mullin, Engineering Assistant Engineering /Environmental Services Division
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION.
r �- 4- oib�
M. Mullin J. iyamoto -Mills C. Swanson A. Farrell Char es W. at
General Manag
ISSUE: The District has received petitions for annexation for the parcels as shown on the
attached tabulation and maps. It is appropriate to initiate formal annexation proceedings
with the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO). This grouping allows the District
to honor the County Assessor's Office and LAFCO's preference that annexations be
grouped in the same geographical area and be less than 10 areas.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of Application for the annexation of properties
to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District under District Annexation 159.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The District pays fees to LAFCO and the State Board of
Equalization for annexation processing. Annexation costs are recovered as "Annexation
Charges" when property is connected to the public sewer system.
BACKGROUND: The owners of the properties listed in Attachment 1 have petitioned the
District to annex their properties in the Orinda area. Three annexation areas are a result
of septic tank conversion for existing homes, while PA 01 -15 was requested for a
proposed single family home project. LAFCO staff has indicated that adjoining unannexed
parcels may be added to the separate areas the District submits to eliminate islands or
straighten boundary lines. LAFCO will hold a public hearing to consider annexation of any
parcel added to District Annexation 159.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Not applicable.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of Application for District
Annexation 159.
2/28/02
U: \PPr \Annexations \position paper 159.wpd Page 1 of 7
ATTACHMENT 1
DISTRICT ANNEXATION NO. 159
TABULATION OF PARCELS
Parcel
PA No.
Owners Address and
Date Board Authorized for
No.
Location
Assessor's Parcel
Annexation and
and
Number
Remarks
Acreage
1
PA 01 -15
Dieter M. Scholz
May 24, 2001
Orinda
227 El Toyonal
New single - family home
23.40 Ac.
Orinda CA 94563
proposed.
265- 130 -008
Project is categorically exempt.
CCCSD is the lead agency.
2
PA 01 -20
Margaret Silverman and
August 9, 2001
Orinda
Robert Ziegler
Septic system conversion.
0.45 Ac.
12 Miramonte Rd.
Project is categorically exempt.
Orinda CA 94563
CCCSD is the lead agency.
264- 250 -016 -5
3
PA 01 -18
Kristofer S. amd Jennifer
May 24, 2001
Orinda
Pister
Septic system conversion.
.28 Ac.
20 Camino del Diablo
Project is categorically exempt.
Orinda CA 94563
CCCSD is the lead agency.
264 -102 -005 -8
4
PA 02 -01
Gladys Johnson
January 10, 2001
Orinda
358 El Toyonal
Septic system conversion.
0.32 Ac.
Orinda CA 94563
Project is categorically exempt.
264- 092 -001 -9
CCCSD is the lead agency.
2/28/02
U: \PPr \Annexations \position paper 159.wpd Page 2 of 7
"Ox
F110y0
4/41
RD
.j
ORINDA e�vo
j v�O�P 24
0 5000 10,000 �
FEET
LEGEND:
O
110 CCCSD ANNEXATION N0. &ILOCATION V,,
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
n
' C.C.C.S.D. ANNEXATION NO. 159
V
b
,
9
�Felf -
1
Attachment
MAP
Page 3 of 7
a;1 �= ANNL)W IUN
BOUNDARY
0 300 soo NO.
PREVIOUS
E FEET DAT
ANNEXATION
Central Contra Costa Attachment
Sanitary District PROPOSED ANNEXATION
P.A. 01 -15 I -
Prepared by Engineering Support Section
Page 4 of
01
z' C \
N 98-7
1988
m
r
61_1 6
Y Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
0
N
r
N ti
�ORINDA
! E�
MIRA
MONM
SITE _
1988
M113,q ONiE ' �,
131 LVERMA
issa Z/EGLE
264- 250-01
ANNEX
77-3
1982
LOCATION MAP
N.T.S.
1979,
cn
in --
�
j 1
I
\ LEGEND:
�. �. ANNEXATION
BOUNDARY
0 60' 120 NO' PREVIOUS
FEET DATE ANNEXATION
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
P.A. 01 -20
Attachment
Page 5 of 7
N L
1 ORINDA
El
SITE _
LOCATION MAP
N.T.S.
0 60 120
FEET,
Centr�l Contra Costa
Sanitary District
-S
4—im
C�
Prepared by Engineering Support Sectit
EL
,AOL
�l
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
P.A. 01 -18
S `I
MIRA �O\v
LEGEND:
ANNEXATION
BOUNDARY
N0. PREVIOUS
DATE ANNEXATION
Attachment
Page 6 of
�
Sp
C bA��
;A
1979
n
n
n
1988
�
0
0 61 -1
1978
0
0 60 120
FEET,
Centr�l Contra Costa
Sanitary District
-S
4—im
C�
Prepared by Engineering Support Sectit
EL
,AOL
�l
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
P.A. 01 -18
S `I
MIRA �O\v
LEGEND:
ANNEXATION
BOUNDARY
N0. PREVIOUS
DATE ANNEXATION
Attachment
Page 6 of
4�/
N
1 ORI NDA E`
SITE _
v LOCATION MAP
Q N.T.S.
QQ DEL
Q � J
G O
JOHNSON
64-43` 264 -092 -001
ANNEX
i
C
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
S
Prepared by Engineering Support Sec is
LEGEND:
N
ANNEXATION
BOUNDARY
NO. PREVIOUS
DATE ANNEXATION 0 so 120
FEET
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
P.A. 02 -01
Attachment
Page 7 of 7
C. S D.
BOUNDARY
.o
TOYONAL
154 -7 145-2
0
2000 1999 .
�
Q
i
C
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
S
Prepared by Engineering Support Sec is
LEGEND:
N
ANNEXATION
BOUNDARY
NO. PREVIOUS
DATE ANNEXATION 0 so 120
FEET
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
P.A. 02 -01
Attachment
Page 7 of 7
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
la- ' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002 No.: 3.b. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: ACCEPT CONTRACT /AUTHORIZE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Subject: ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK FOR THE WASTE- ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMP
REPLACEMENT PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT 6149A, AND AUTHORIZE THE
FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Submitted By: Initiating Dept ✓Div.:
James L. Belcher, Senior Engineer Operations Department /Plant Operations Div.
OVIE A R O MMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION. cher J. Kelly
General M+
ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the Waste- Activated Sludge Pump
Replacement Project, DP 6149A, and the work is now ready for acceptance.
BACKGROUND: This project purchased and installed a replacement pump and
variable- frequency drive for a vintage, 1970's, waste - activated sludge pump and drive
assembly that had failed beyond economical repair. Additional improvements were made
to discharge and suction piping and valving.
The Board of Directors authorized the award of a construction contract for this work in
the amount of $98,449 to Kaweah Construction Company on November 15, 2001. The
contractor was issued a Notice to Proceed, which was effective November 27, 2001,
with a required contract completion date of January 27, 2002. The District took
beneficial use on January 27, 2002, with all work being completed on February 28, 2002.
It is appropriate to accept the contract work at this time. The total authorized budget for
this project is 5189,430. An accounting of this project will be provided to the Board of
Directors at close out.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept contract work for the Waste- Activated Sludge Pump
Replacement Project, DP 6149A, from Kaweah Construction Company, and authorize the
filing of the Notice of Completion.
2/22/02
S: \Correspondence \POSPAPR \2002 \DP 6149A.wpd Page 1 of 1
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
/J a i BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002 No.: 3.c. CONSENT CALENDAR
Type of Action: ACCEPT CONTRACT /AUTHORIZE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Subject: ACCEPT CONTRACT WORK FOR THE DEAERATOR STORAGE TANK
REPLACEMENT PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT 6160, AND AUTHORIZE THE
FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Submitted By: Initiating Dept. /Div.:
James L. Belcher, Senior Engineer Operations Department /Plant Operations Div.
J. Belcher
RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION.
J. Kel
Ch arle-.3W,
General Manage ,
ISSUE: Construction has been completed on the Deaerator Storage Tank Replacement
Project, DP 6160, and the work is now ready for acceptance.
BACKGROUND: This project purchased and installed a new deaerator storage tank.
During the Steam System Improvements Project, the deaerator was inspected and
temporary repairs were made to the tank due to time constraints. Excessive pitting and
corrosion within the tank warranted replacement.
The Board of Directors authorized the award of a construction contract for this work in
the amount of $147,431 to Kaweah Construction Company on October 18, 2001. The
contractor was issued a Notice to Proceed, which was effective November 13, 2001,
with a required contract completion date of February 13, 2002. The District took
beneficial use on February 1, 2002, with all work being completed on February 8, 2002.
It is appropriate to accept the contract work at this time. The total authorized budget for
this project is $213,011. An accounting of this project will be provided to the Board of
Directors at close out.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept contract work for the Deaerator Storage Tank Replacement
Project, DP 6160, from Kaweah Construction Company, and authorize the filing of the
Notice of Completion.
2/22/02
S: \Correspondence \POSPAPR \2002 \DP 6160.wpd Page 1 of 1
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
/J a i BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002 No.: 3.d. CONSENT CALENDAR
TypeofAction: AUTHORIZE CAD
Subject: CONSIDER THE FORMATION OF A CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
(CAD) FOR PROPERTIES ON CAMILLE COURT IN ALAMO FOR INSTALLATION OF
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS; ADOPT RESOLUTIONS OF INTENTION TO CREATE CAMILLE
COURT CAD NO. 2002 -1, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BOUNDARY, AND REQUESTING
CONSENT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR CCCSD TO CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE CAD
Submitted By: Initiating Dept. /Div.:
Russell B. Leavitt, Management Analyst Engineering /Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION.
R. Leavitt C. Swanson A. Farrell K. Alm *General atts,
ager
ISSUE: Owners of properties on Camille Court in Alamo are interested in connecting their
homes to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( CCCSD) sewer system and have
requested formation of a Contractual Assessment District to finance an extension of the
public sewer system. Board approval is required for a Contractual Assessment District
(CAD).
RECOMMENDATION: Approve initiating the formation of Camille Court CAD No. 2002 -1.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are minor administrative costs for initiating the formation of
a CAD. These costs eventually will be paid by the CAD participants if a CAD is actually
formed. If the CAD receives final approval from the Board in the future, the estimated
CAD costs are $150,000. Neighborhood representatives have been informed that the
District is concurrently processing other CAD requests and the final funding decision is
subject to budgetary constraints.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Reject or defer initiating formation of the CAD - these
actions would halt or delay the CAD proceedings.
BACKGROUND: Owners of properties located on Camille Court in Alamo have contacted
District staff to obtain information regarding connecting their homes to CCCSD's public
sewer system. Signed forms expressing interest in investigating and forming a CAD are
on file from thirteen of the nineteen property owners that could be served by a Camille
Court public sewer. The area where the CAD would be formed is shown on Attachment
1.
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \CamilleCAD.wpd Page 1 of 10
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002
Subiect: CONSIDER THE FORMATION OF A CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
(CAD) FOR PROPERTIES ON CAMILLE COURT IN ALAMO FOR INSTALLATION OF
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS; ADOPT RESOLUTIONS OF INTENTION TO CREATE CAMILLE
COURT CAD NO. 2002 -1, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BOUNDARY, AND REQUESTING
CONSENT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR CCCSD TO CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE CAD
The initial steps toward creation of Camille Court CAD No. 2002 -1 are for the Board of
Directors to adopt a resolution indicating CCCSD's intention to designate an area within
which contractual assessments are appropriate; briefly describing the proposed financing
for the project; establishing the boundaries of the CAD; setting the time, date, and place
for a public hearing at which interested persons may inquire about or object to the
proposed program; and directing staff to prepare an Engineer's Report describing the
project and financing arrangements. Additional resolutions are required to approve the
boundary of the assessment district and to request the consent of Contra Costa County
for CCCSD to conduct proceedings for Camille Court CAD No. 2002 -1.
The proposed Camille Court CAD No. 2002 -1 complies with the revised CAD policy
approved at the February 1, 2001 Board of Directors meeting. The CAD formation criteria
are listed below.
CAD FORMATION CRITERION
1. A minimum of five properties must
be directly tributary to the
proposed CAD facilities.
PROPOSED CAMILLE COURT
CAD NO. 2002 -1
1. There are more than five properties
that would benefit from the
proposed CAD sewer.
2. A minimum of 60 percent of the 2. All of the properties are developed
properties directly tributary to the with existing homes using existing
proposed CAD facilities must have septic systems.
existing homes served by septic
systems.
3. A Participant Parcel may not have
more than two (2) dwellings to
participate in a CAD.
2/21/02
U APPr \Bertera \CamilleCAD.wpd
3. None of the properties has more
than two dwellings on it.
Page 2 of 10
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002
Subject: CONSIDER THE FORMATION OF A CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
(CAD) FOR PROPERTIES ON CAMILLE COURT IN ALAMO FOR INSTALLATION OF
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS; ADOPT RESOLUTIONS OF INTENTION TO CREATE CAMILLE
COURT CAD NO. 2002 -1, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BOUNDARY, AND REQUESTING
CONSENT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR CCCSD TO CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE CAD
Staff has concluded that this project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3), since it can be "seen with certainty that there is no possibility that
the activity in question may have a significant adverse effect on the environment." This
certainty is based on CCCSD's past experience with numerous sewer construction
projects of this nature, the relatively short distance involved, and the impact - limiting
nature of CCCSD's construction specifications that would be required of the project.
Approval of this project will establish the Board of Directors' independent finding that this
project is exempt from CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize formation of a CAD consisting of nineteen properties on
Camille Court by:
1. adopting a resolution of intention to create Camille Court Contractual Assessment
District No. 2002 -1 for the purpose of installing sewer improvements (Exhibit 1);
2. adopting a resolution approving the boundary of the assessment district (Exhibit 2);
and
3. adopting a resolution requesting consent from Contra Costa County for CCCSD to
conduct proceedings for Camille Court CAD No. 2002 -1 (Exhibit 3).
2/21/02
U:\PPr \Bertera \CamilleCAD.wpd Page 3 of 10
Page 4 of 10
o so 160 POTENTIAL EXISTING PLANNED PROPERTIES
'
o FEET
CAD AREA SEWER CAD SEWER SERVABLE
a
BY CAD SEWER
x Central Contra Costa
Attachment
b sanitary District
PROPOSED BOUNDARY
CAMILLE COURT
V '
1
n
V
CAD NO. 2002-01
Page 4 of 10
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO CREATE
CAMILLE COURT CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2002 -1
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS the public health and the environment will be best protected by the
expansion of the public sewer system;
WHEREAS the construction and installation of a sanitary sewer pipeline, together
with appurtenant work and facilities, in areas not presently connected to the sewer
system will facilitate the elimination of potential public health problems due to failing
septic systems; and
WHEREAS it would be convenient and advantageous to establish a boundary around
an area within which CCCSD and property owners may enter into contractual assessments
and make arrangements to finance public improvements to parcels which are developed
and where the costs and time delays involved in creating an assessment district pursuant
to alternative provisions in the law would be prohibitively large relative to the cost of the
improvement.
THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
resolves:
1. This Board intends to approve the following improvement under the authority of
the Municipal Improvement Act of 1911, as amended, to wit: construction and
installation of approximately 1,000 linear feet of sanitary sewer line, together
with appurtenant work and facilities located at Camille Court in Alamo,
California.
2. This Board finds that the parcels within the Contractual Assessment District are
shown within the boundaries of the map entitled, "Proposed Boundaries of
Camille Court Contractual Assessment District No. 2002 -1."
3. This Board intends to levy a special assessment upon participating parcels within
the described district in accordance with the special benefit to be received by
each parcel of land, respectively, from the improvement. The improvement
proposed will not confer any special benefit upon any publicly owned land.
Hence, there shall be omitted from special assessment all public streets, alleys,
and places and all land belonging to the United States, the State of California,
Contra Costa County, and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District now in use in
the performance of a public function.
4. CCCSD intends to provide loan financing for the improvements, subject to the
availability of funds and any limitation on the commitment or expenditure of
funds for the Contractual Assessment District Program as may be established
from time to time by CCCSD's Board of Directors. Loans shall be repaid by
Page 5 of 10
assessments on the property of participating parcel owners. Assessments shall
be paid over a maximum period of ten (10) years with interest at a rate to be
fixed by CCCSD.
5. The procedure for the collection of assessments will be the placement of
assessments on participating parcel owners' tax bills. The first assessments
may be placed on owners' tax bills in fiscal year 2003 -2004.
6. This Board appoints Curtis Swanson, Environmental Services Division Manager,
as Engineer of Work for this project to prepare the report required by
Section 5898.22 of the Streets and Highways Code.
7. A public hearing shall be held on this matter at 2 p.m. on or about Thursday,
July 18, 2002 at CCCSD offices, 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez. This date is
tentative and may be modified in the future.
8. The Board independently finds that this project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3),
since it can be "seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
in question may have a significant effect on the environment." This certainty is
based on CCCSD's past experience with numerous sewer construction projects
of this nature, the relatively short distance involved, and CCCSD's impact -
limiting construction specifications that would be required of the project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2002, by the Board of Directors of
the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following votes:
AYES: Members:
NOES: Members:
ABSENT: Members:
President of the Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
LEGAL REVIEW:
Kenton L. Alm
Counsel, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Page 6 of 10
IXOMMIM
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
RESOLUTION APPROVING BOUNDARY MAP
CAMILLE COURT CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2002 -1
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( CCCSD)
resolves:
A map entitled "Proposed Boundaries of Camille Court Contractual Assessment
District No. 2002 -1 " has been filed with the Secretary of the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District.
This Board approves the map and adopts the boundaries shown on the map as
describing the extent of the territory included in a proposed assessment district to be
known as Camille Court Contractual Assessment District No. 2002 -1, Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, California.
This Board intends to levy a contractual assessment upon participating parcels
within the described District in accordance with the benefit to be received by each parcel
of land, respectively, from the improvement. There shall be omitted from assessment, all
public streets, alleys, and places and all land belonging to the United States, the State of
California, Contra Costa County, and CCCSD because it has been determined that no
special benefit will be conferred on any such land within the District.
This Board finds that the map is in the form and contains the matters prescribed by
Section 3110 of the California Streets and Highways Code.
This Board directs the Secretary of CCCSD to certify the adoption of this resolution
on the face of the map and to file a copy of the map with the County Recorder for
placement in the Book of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts.
Page 7 of 10
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2002 by the Board of Directors of
the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following vote:
AYES: Members:
NOES: Members:
ABSENT: Members:
President of the Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
LEGAL REVIEW:
Kenton L. Alm
Counsel, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Page 8 of 10
EXHIBIT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONSENT TO
CONDUCT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS
CAMILLE COURT CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2002 -1
The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD)
resolves:
On March 7, 2002, the Board adopted a Resolution of Intention, a copy of which is
attached hereto, marked Exhibit 1, and by reference incorporated herein as though fully
set forth.
All of the property proposed to be assessed lies within the County of Contra Costa.
All public streets, alleys, places, and all land belonging to the United States, the State of
California, Contra Costa County, and CCCSD shall be omitted from assessment because
it has been determined that no special benefit will be conferred on any such land within
the proposed Assessment District.
Contra Costa County will, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of CCCSD, be
benefitted by the improvements referred to in the Resolution of Intention, and the
purposes sought to be accomplished by the work can best be accomplished by a single,
comprehensive scheme of work.
The consent of Contra Costa County, through its Board of Supervisors, is hereby
requested to the formation of the Assessment District described in said Resolution of
Intention, to the improvement described, and to the assumption of jurisdiction by the
CCCSD Board of Directors for all purposes in connection with the formation of this
Page 9 of 10
Assessment District, the improvements to be made and the assessment of property within
the boundaries of the proposed Assessment District.
The Secretary of CCCSD is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this
resolution with the Resolution of Intention attached and a certified copy of the map
showing the boundaries of the Assessment District to Contra Costa County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2002, by the Board of Directors of
the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following vote:
AYES: Members:
NOES: Members:
ABSENT: Members:
President of the Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
LEGAL REVIEW:
Kenton L. Alm
Counsel, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Page 10 of 10
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002 No.: 4.a. HEARINGS
Type of Action: CONDUCT HEARING; ADOPT RESOLUTIONS
Subject: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT'S EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
LIMIT INCREASE PROJECT, DP 7176
Submitted By:
Russell B. Leavitt, Management Analyst
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION.
R. Leavitt C. Swanson A. Farr
Initiating Dept. /Div.:
Engineering /Environmental Services
l
;II K. Alm
C*has atts
General Manage
ISSUE: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
District CEQA Guidelines, a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be certified as
being legally adequate before the Board of Directors can consider approval of the project.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on certification of
the EIR and approval of the project, and barring any unresolvable comments to the
contrary, adopt the attached resolution certifying that the Final EIR is legally adequate.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Deny or defer certification of the Final EIR - these
actions would halt or delay the project approval process. If certification is denied,
direction should be given to staff as to which issues require further documentation.
BACKGROUND: The project is a proposed District policy change to increase the District's
treated wastewater (effluent) discharge limit from 45 million gallons per day (mgd) of
average dry- weather flow (ADWF) to up to 53.8 mgd ADWF. This project would not
require construction of new facilities nor substantial physical modification of existing
facilities.
To comply with CEQA, the District prepared an EIR to disclose any significant, adverse
environmental impacts that would be caused by the project. Before considering project
approval, the Board of Directors must first certify that the EIR is legally adequate.
The Final EIR consists of two documents: the Draft EIR dated November 2001 and the
Final EIR Responses to Comments dated February 2002. Both documents were prepared
by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) based on CEQA and District EIR Guidelines.
2/25/02
Ll: \PPr \Bertera \Public Hearing- Certification PP.wpd Page 1 of 4
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002
Subject: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
LIMIT INCREASE PROJECT, DP 7176
CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL
THE DISTRICT'S EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
On November 27, 2001, the District distributed a Draft EIR or a notice of Draft EIR
availability to federal, state, and local agencies, individuals, and to community and special
interest groups that might be interested in the project. On December 12, 2001, the
District held a public meeting at the District's Collection System Operations Conference
Room in Walnut Creek to give Draft EIR recipients an opportunity to ask questions and
express concerns about the DEIR and the project. No one from the public attended. The
public comment period ended on January 14, 2002. The three comment letters received
from EBMUD, Caltrans, and the City of San Ramon contained relatively minor comments
that were addressed in the Final EIR.
While not required by law or the District's procedures, it has been the District's customary
practice to hold a public hearing to receive public comments on the Final EIR and the
project during the Board Meeting at which the Final EIR is presented for consideration of
approval. After the public hearing, the Board will consider certifying the Final EIR as an
adequate evaluation of the project's environmental impacts and adopting associated
findings as required by CEQA. Following that, the Board may proceed to considering
approval of the project. A resolution of certification is attached for the Board's
consideration (Attachment 1).
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Conduct a public hearing to receive comments on
certification of the EIR and approval of the project, and barring any unresolvable
comments to the contrary, adopt the attached resolution certifying that the Final EIR is
legally adequate.
2/25/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Public Hearing- Certification PP.wpd Page 2 of 4
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE DISTRICT'S EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LIMIT INCREASE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District has identified a need to
increase the effluent discharge limit of its wastewater treatment plant in unincorporated
Martinez, CA due to planned and reasonably foreseeable development in its service area
and potentially high groundwater infiltration; and
WHEREAS, the District has undertaken planning activities related to the Effluent
Discharge Limit Increase Project, culminating in the following reports:
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project, dated November 2001
Report of Waste Discharge - Application for Renewal of Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District NPDES Permit, dated November 1999
Treatment Plant Capacity Evaluation, dated 1999
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update, dated 1998
WHEREAS, the District has distributed the Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Report to the appropriate federal, state, and local government agencies for review, and
made all of the reports listed above available for public review; and
WHEREAS, the District distributed a Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact
Report, dated March 7, 2001, to affected federal, state, regional, and local government
agencies, and to interested community groups and citizens; and
WHEREAS, the District conducted a meeting for local government officials on
March 21, 2001, and a public meeting on March 21, 2001, for the purpose of receiving
comments on the specific impacts of the project that should be analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the District conducted a public meeting on December 12, 2001 for the
purpose of describing the project and Draft EIR to and answering questions from the
public; and
WHEREAS, written comments about the Draft EIR were received by the District
during the public review period; and
2/25/02
UAPPr \Bertera \Public Hearing- Certification PP.wpd Page 3 of 4
WHEREAS, the District Board of Directors has reviewed the Draft EIR, all comments
about this report, and responses to these comments that are included as part of the Final
EIR; and
WHEREAS, the District conducted a public hearing on March 7, 2002, for the
purpose of receiving public comments on the Final EIR and project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District does hereby find and certify that the Final EIR for the
District's Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project is legally adequate.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2002, by the Board of Directors
of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District by the following votes:
AYES: Members:
NOES: Members:
ABSENT: Members:
President of the Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
LEGAL REVIEW:
2/25/02
UAPPr \Bertera \Public Hearing- Certification PP.wpd
Kenton L. Alm
Counsel, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Page 4 of 4
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002
POSITION PAPER
No.: 4.b. HEARINGS
Type of Action: APPROVE PROJECT; ADOPT RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS
subject: APPROVE PROJECT AND ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT'S EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LIMIT
INCREASE PROJECT, DP 7176
Submitted By: Initiating Dept ✓Div.:
Russell B. Leavitt, Management Analyst Engineering /Environmental Services
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION. 0 R. Leavitt C. Swanson A. Fa ell K. Alm *General *s,
ger
ISSUE: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
District CEQA Guidelines, it is appropriate for the Board of Directors to approve the project
and adopt Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the District's
Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the project and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations for the District's Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This project would not require construction of new facilities nor
substantial physical modification of existing facilities. Any additional capital or operating
expenses incurred to treat the increased volume of flow would be offset by capacity fees
and sewer service charges from additional customers.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS:
1 . Deny or defer approval of the project.
2. Approve a lesser increase in the effluent discharge limit.
3. Approve a combination of a lesser increase in the effluent discharge limit, increased
recycled water distribution, and improvements to decrease groundwater infiltration.
These alternatives were addressed in detail in the EIR. All are either inconsistent with
adopted planning documents of CCCSD service area jurisdictions, would have
questionable success in being implemented, and /or would result in project- specific,
construction - related environmental impacts not associated with the proposed project. For
these reasons, the proposed project is the environmentally preferred alternative.
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 1 of 20
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002
Subject: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT'S EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
LIMIT INCREASE PROJECT, DP 7176
BACKGROUND: The project is a District proposed policy change to increase the District's
effluent discharge limit from 45 mgd ADWF to up to 53.8 mgd ADWF. The basis for the
increase is the anticipated growth in base wastewater flow from buildout of planned
development in the District's service area (assumed by the year 2035) with worst -case
groundwater infiltration. This increase in discharge would occur over time, as the need
for sewer service gradually increases within the District's service area. Without an
increase in its permitted discharge, the District would eventually be unable to serve
increased demand for sewer service related to growth planned by local land use
agencies and projected to occur within the District's service area.
Assuming the Board has certified the Final EIR as legally adequate, District staff requests
that the Board take these addition actions:
1 . Approve the District's Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project.
2. Adopt Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Consideration.
A resolution approving the project is attached for the Board's consideration (Attachment
1). Recommended Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been
prepared for Board review (Attachment 2).
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Approve the project and adopt the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations for the District's Effluent Discharge Limit Increase
Project.
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 2 of 20
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DISTRICT'S
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LIMIT INCREASE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of Directors, on March
7, 2002, has certified the Final EIR for the District's Effluent Discharge Limit Increase
Project as being legally adequate; and
WHEREAS, the District Board has considered all available information regarding the
District's Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project, including information contained in the
project's Draft EIR and Final EIR and the results of the public meetings conducted on
March 21, 2001 and December 12, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the District Board has reviewed and considered the proposed Findings
of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the District's Effluent Discharge
Limit Increase Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District does hereby approve the District's Effluent Discharge Limit
Increase Project and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the District's Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project.
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 3 of 20
FURTHERMORE, the District Board directs the General Manager to prepare a Notice
of Determination for the project and submit the notice to appropriate government
agencies.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board of
Directors this 7th day of March 2002 by the following vote:
AYES: Members:
NOES: Members:
ABSENT: Members:
President of the Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
LEGAL REVIEW:
Kenton L. Alm
Counsel, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 4 of 20
ATTACHMENT 2
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
DISTRICT EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LIMIT INCREASE PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The proposed project is a change in the policy of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District (District) to allow an increase in the amount of treated wastewater (effluent) that
would be discharged to Suisun Bay by the District via its outfall pipeline and structure.
The proposed increase is from 45 million gallons per day (mgd) of average dry- weather
flow (ADWF) to up to 53.8 mgd ADWF. (ADWF is the average daily discharge during the
three consecutive months of the calendar year with the lowest discharge quantities,
usually the mid- to late summer months.)
The District owns, operates, and maintains a wastewater collection, treatment,
disposal, and reclamation system serving nearly half the population of Contra Costa
County. The District's wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) and discharge outfall are
located in unincorporated Contra Costa County, near the City of Martinez.
Under its 1995 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit,
the District was limited to discharging up to 45 mgd ADWF of effluent to Suisun Bay.
The permit imposes limits on the amount of effluent the District may discharge, includes
conditions for the quality of the effluent, and defines action items with which the District
must comply. The District must apply to the RWQCB every five years for re- issuance of
the District's main operating water quality permit under the NPDES program.
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 5 of 20
The proposed increase cannot be implemented without an effluent discharge limit
increase in the District's NPDES Permit. In anticipation of potentially reaching and
exceeding the 1995 effluent discharge permit limit within the next several years, the
District, in November 1999, submitted an application to the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for re- issuance of its 1995 permit, requesting an
effluent discharge limit increase from the 45 mgd ADWF limit to a maximum of 53.8 mgd
ADWF, an increase of 8.8 mgd.
The District's WWTF and outfall system currently have sufficient daily capacity to
treat, transport, and discharge in excess of the proposed maximum effluent quantity.
Therefore, no physical changes to the existing treatment or outfall systems would be
required to accommodate the proposed effluent discharge limit increase.
On June 20, 2001, the RWQCB approved Order No. 01 -068 reissuing the District's
NPDES Permit. The permit includes a provision allowing the District's effluent discharge
limit to increase to 53.8 mgd ADWF once the RWQCB's Executive Officer approves the
water quality "Antidegradation Analysis" the District submitted as part of its application.
No schedule has been established for the Executive Officer's review of the study. While
the District has decided to appeal some aspects of the NPDES Permit requirements, the
effluent discharge limit increase provision is not included in that appeal. Furthermore, no
other party has filed an appeal on the effluent discharge limit increase provision.
There are two components to ADWF: base wastewater flow (BWF) and
groundwater infiltration (GWI). This proposed effluent discharge limit is expected to
accommodate planned growth within the District's service area through year 2035, as
reflected in General and Specific Plans for service area jurisdictions, even during years
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 6 of 20
when GWI to the District's sewer pipeline system is high due to heavy rainfall. Without
a change in District policy to allow the effluent limit increase, in years of high GWI, the
District could reach or exceed its effluent discharge limit as early as year 2006, triggering
the need for a sewer connection moratorium.
The purpose of the proposed project is to allow the District to fulfill its obligation
to reliably meet the wastewater disposal demand anticipated within its service area in
accordance with projected and planned growth through year 2035. The proposed project
is intended to accomplish the following objectives:
• Provide existing and planned Central Contra Costa County residents and
businesses with reliable sewer service through year 2035.
• Effectively treat and dispose of both major sources of wastewater -- BWF and
GWI -- through the year 2035.
II.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record
of the District decision on this project shall consist of the following:
1. the Draft and Final EIR for the project;
2. all reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other documents prepared by the
District and its consultants;
3. all documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in
connection with the proposed project;
4. minutes and verbatim transcripts, if any, of all public meetings and public
hearings held by the District;
5. any documentary or other evidence submitted at such public meetings and
public hearings; and
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 7 of 20
6. Matter of common knowledge to the District, which it considers, including but
not limited to, the following:
a. the Contra Costa County General Plan;
b. the City of Clayton General Plan;
c. the City of Concord General Plan
d. the Town of Danville General Plan;
e. the City of Lafayette General Plan;
f. the City of Martinez General Plan;
g. the Town of Moraga General Plan;
h. the City of Orinda General Plan;
i. the City of Pleasant Hill General Plan;
j. the City of San Ramon General Plan; and
k. the City of Walnut Creek General Plan
TERMINOLOGY /THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant
environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency
must issue a written finding reaching one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The
first is that Ic]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR." (Emphasis added.)
The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or alternations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency."
The third permissible conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social,
technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternative
identified in the final EIR."
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 8 of 20
As regards the first of the three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not
define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely
"substantially lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms therefore must be
gleaned from the other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources Code Section
21081, on which CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate"
rather than "substantially lessen."
The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening."
Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code
Section 21002, which declares the Legislatures's policy disfavoring the approval of
projects with significant environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" will refer to the ability of one or
more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less -than-
significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" will refer to the ability of
such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but
not to reduce that effect to a level of insignificance.
Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires only that approving agencies
specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these
findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question
has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has simply been
substantially lessened (and thus remains significant).
Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to
address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant,"
these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 9 of 20
IV.
LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation
measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded
or withdrawn, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( "District ") hereby binds itself
and any other responsible parties to implement those measures. These findings, in other
words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of
obligations that will come into effect when the District adopts a resolution approving the
project.
V.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 regarding a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program is not applicable to this project since no changes or conditions of
project approval are required to mitigate potentially significant effects.
1W
SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
DIRECT EFFECTS. The Final EIR identified that the project would not result in
direct, significant adverse impacts to the environment. The project would directly result
in impacts that are individually less- than - significant, and would not, in combination with
other projects, result in a significant impact. In addition, the project does not make a
considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact, including air quality,
biological resources, water quality, traffic, and utilities and service systems. The project
2/21/02
WPPABertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 10 of 20
also will not result in new significant, irreversible environmental changes or a new
irretrievable commitment of resources, except as identified below under
"Indirect /Secondary Effects."
INDIRECT /SECONDARY EFFECTS. The analysis contained in Chapter 6.0, Growth
Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth, identifies growth- induced impacts
that could occur if the proposed project were implemented. The 45 MGD ADWF effluent
discharge limit poses a future barrier to planned growth within the service area described
in adopted plans of service area planning agencies. This barrier to growth would occur
when the 45 MGD ADWF effluent discharge limit is met, as follows:
• Under high GWI conditions, as early as 2006; and
• Under average GWI conditions, by approximately 2023.
Under either of these conditions, once the effluent discharge limit is met, either the
District would exceed its effluent discharge limit, which would be contrary to District
policy, or the District would need to impose a sewer service moratorium to cap effluent
to be discharged at the policy limit. The latter would, in effect, create a barrier to growth
and delay some portion of growth- induced impacts that would otherwise occur with a
higher effluent discharge limit in effect.
It is important to note that while the effluent discharge limit may pose a future
barrier to growth that the proposed project would eliminate, the proposed increase in
discharge does not ensure that such growth would occur. Other actions and factors are
necessary to accommodate or induce planned growth:
• Regional housing and employment markets must support additional growth.
• Adequate supplies of potable water and energy must exist and be made
available. Such resources are managed and supplied by entities other than the
District.
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 11 of 20
• Fundamental infrastructure such as roadways, water pipelines, and power
lines must be adequately sized for future growth and be in place. Such
infrastructure is constructed and managed by entities other than the District.
• On a project -by- project basis, local decision - makers must exert their
discretionary power of approval to allow or disallow the majority of planned
growth, as well as to guide the fundamental nature and density of such
growth. The adverse effects of such growth are generally avoided or
otherwise addressed through mitigation measures and permit conditions
imposed on a project applicant by the permitting agencies.
• On a project -by- project basis, relevant permitting agencies also exert their
discretionary judgment, and avoid or otherwise address adverse effects of
growth via permit denial or conditions of approval.
Should any one of these conditions, actions, or factors fail to materialize, it would
create a barrier to growth. Moreover, it is important to recognize that only agencies with
approval or permitting authority have available the primary mechanisms for avoiding
growth- induced impacts via project modification or denial, or via conditions of approval,
including mitigation measures.
The intent of the proposed project is to respond to reasonably anticipated planned
growth within the service area, as defined in service area General Plans. The project
would serve demand for treated effluent discharge as that demand is presented to the
District by local jurisdictions approving planned growth across the service area. The
proposed project would not affect the density, distribution, scope, duration, or timing of
growth in the service area for the following reasons:
• The project would respond to growth whose density, distribution, scope,
duration, and timing are determined by planning and approval processes that
precede service by CCCSD.
• The project would not affect local General Plan land use designations or
zoning, which control planned land uses (scope) and development distribution
and density.
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 12 of 20
• The project would not alter any District facility, including facility capacity, nor
would it extend infrastructure into undeveloped or under - developed areas.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not affect development density,
distribution, or scope.
• The project would not affect the scope of growth because the project would
not expand the District's service area.
The District does not approve projects proposed by other agencies, nor does it
issue discretionary permits. Therefore, the District's project authority is limited to
approval of its own projects and to reducing the impacts of its own projects via project
modification, approval of the proposed project or an alternative that could avoid or reduce
impacts, and adoption and implementation of project- specific mitigation measures that
avoid or reduce significant impacts of its own projects. In this case, no project- specific
impacts would occur from implementation of the proposed project, and the District,
therefore, has not needed to identify mitigation measures for direct project impacts.
As demonstrated by the analysis presented in Chapter 6.0, Growth Inducement
Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth, the project, in combination with other
non - District actions, factors, and conditions, would accommodate planned growth in the
District service area jurisdictions. Implementation of planned growth would result in
secondary environmental effects. The effects of planned growth have been identified and
addressed in the EIRs on the General Plans, and associated Specific Plans and General
Plan Amendments adopted by each of the service area jurisdictions. Some of these
secondary effects of growth are significant and unavoidable; others are significant but can
be mitigated.
Potentially significant, unavoidable impacts as a result of planned growth in the
central Contra Costa County area have been identified in the following areas: agricultural
and open space resources, land use, traffic, air quality, noise, public services, water
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 13 of 20
supply and facilities, wastewater disposal capacity, energy resources, visual resources,
flooding, urban runoff, and vegetation /wildlife habitat. (Draft EIR, Table S -1)
The proposed project would mitigate the effluent discharge limitation aspect of one
of the impacts: need for additional wastewater disposal capacity. The project would not
address or alter (improve or worsen) the other significant and unavoidable impacts, noted
above, which would remain significant and unavoidable.
Overall, the authority to implement mitigation for impacts associated with planned
growth resides with the service area jurisdictions. The District does not have the
authority to implement mitigation measures associated with land use and development
actions of the local jurisdictions, nor does it have the authority or jurisdiction to implement
mitigation measures necessary to address many of the identified significant, secondary
effects of planned growth. However, the District recommends that other appropriate
agencies implement the mitigation measures identified by local jurisdictions.
The proposed project would mitigate the effluent discharge limitation aspect of one
of the impacts: need for additional wastewater disposal capacity. The project would not
address or alter (improve or worsen) the other significant and unavoidable impacts, which
would remain significant and unavoidable.
The District is not precluded from participating in existing mitigation programs or
program -level mitigation identified in these EIRs, if such participation is feasible and within
the District's scope of responsibility. However, the District is not required to implement
program mitigation adopted by another lead agency, if implementation of that mitigation
is clearly the responsibility of, and within the jurisdiction of, the adopting agency.
FINDINGS. Although the secondary effects of growth remain potentially significant,
unavoidable impacts, the District does not have the authority to control growth within its
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 14 of 20
service area nor to implement mitigation measures to address the secondary effects of
growth. The District finds that authority to implement such mitigation measures lies with
the land use /project permitting agencies, primarily the County and cities which enforce
local, state and federal regulations through the permit process.
Other agencies with authority to implement or with responsibility for mitigation
measures include regional and state agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, California Department of
Fish and Game, California Department of Health Services, Caltrans, and the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and federal agencies such as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Draft EIR, Table 6 -6,
pp. 6 -48 through 6 -90)
f�
FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The District considered the feasibility of any project alternatives that could meet
one or more of the CEQA screening criteria and would avoid or substantially lessen the
project's indirect /secondary effects noted above. Only after determining that any such
alternatives were infeasible could the District adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and approve the project. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount
Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443 -445 [243 Cal.Rptr. 7271; see also Pub. Res.
Code, Section 21002.)
As will be explained below, the District concluded that none of the proposed
alternatives could feasiblely meet the project's objectives while at the same time
eliminating or substantially lessening the environmental effects of the project as described
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 15 of 20
in Section VI above, and thus has decided to approve the District's Effluent Discharge
Limit Increase Project as proposed.
ALTERNATIVES SCREENED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION. The Draft EIR
identified several conceptual alternatives that did not meet one or more of the CEQA
screening criteria: 1) a recycled water alternative that would divert all effluent above 45
mgd ADWF for further treatment and sale to recycled water customers; and 2) a
groundwater infiltration reduction alternative that would seek to prevent infiltration of at
least 8.8 mgd ADWF of groundwater. Both of these alternatives were infeasible for
technical, environmental, social, and economic reason; both would have project- specific,
construction - related environmental impacts that the proposed project would not have; and
neither would avoid or reduce any of the growth - related impacts associated with the
proposed project. Elements of each of these alternatives, however, were considered in
the Hybrid Alternative described below. (Draft EIR, pp. 5 -3 through 5 -4)
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. Under the No Project Alternative, no effluent
discharge limit increase would occur, and the District's normal wastewater transport and
treatment operations would continue as they presently occur. This alternative includes
ongoing maintenance and other efforts, such as the District's sewer renovation and
recycled water programs, in accordance with current program schedules and budgets.
Under the No Project Alternative, the District's effluent discharge limit would remain at
45 mgd.
This alternative cannot serve planned growth as described in adopted service area
plans, and therefore is fundamentally inconsistent with these plans. Because this
alternative cannot serve projected planned growth, the District's discharge limit eventually
would be met or exceeded, triggering the need for a sewer connection moratorium.
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 16 of 20
Therefore, this alternative would not fulfill project objectives. However, creating a partial
barrier to growth would delay some of the significant growth- induced impacts that could
occur from implementation of the proposed project, if the No Project Alternative lasts
indefinitely, unless developers employ other wastewater service alternatives. (Draft EIR,
p. 5 -5)
REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, only
about one -half of the proposed effluent discharge limit increase would occur (4.4 mgd
instead of 8.8 mgd), for a total maximum effluent discharge of 49.4 mgd ADWF. This
alternative cannot serve planned growth as described in adopted service area plans, and
therefore is fundamentally inconsistent with these plans.
Because this alternative cannot serve projected planned growth, the District's
discharge limit would be met or exceeded, triggering the need for a sewer connection
moratorium. Therefore, this alternative only partially achieves project objectives.
However, creating a partial barrier to growth would delay some of the significant
growth- induced impacts that could occur from implementation of the proposed project if
the Reduced Project Alternative lasts indefinitely, unless developers employ other
wastewater service alternatives. (Draft EIR, pp. 5 -6 through 5 -7)
HYBRID ALTERNATIVE. The Hybrid Alternative combines the lower effluent
discharge of the Reduced Project alternative and escalation of the implementation of two
existing District programs: the recycled water program and the sewer renovation
program. Under this alternative, the effluent discharge would be 49.4 mgd ADWF.
Diverting effluent to recycled water customers and reducing plant inflow by improving
pipelines to reduce GWI would be needed to further reduce the amount of effluent
discharged by at least an additional 4.4 mgd ADWF. This alternative would require
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 17 of 20
substantial compression of the District's sewer renovation and recycled water program
schedules, and re- prioritization of the District's goals and objectives. It would also require
aggressive construction and re- construction of facilities; such activity would result in
project- specific environmental impacts not associated with the proposed project. It is
uncertain if this alternative can be accomplished, given other District priorities and the
fluctuating nature of the recycled water market.
If successful, this alternative would fulfill project objectives, but would not avoid
or substantially reduce the growth- induced impacts that could occur in part from
implementation of the proposed project and would result in project- specific environmental
impacts not associated with the proposed project. (Draft EIR, p. 5 -7)
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE. By creating a barrier to growth
as early as 2006, the No Project Alternative would avoid some of the significant
growth- induced impacts that could occur in part from implementation of the Proposed
Project. For this reason, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior
alternative. However, this alternative is fundamentally inconsistent with adopted planning
documents of the District's service area. In addition, it ranks lowest in ability to fulfill
project objectives.
Of the "action" alternatives, the Hybrid Alternative scores equally with the
proposed project in its ability to fulfill project objectives and serve planned growth, but it
would contribute to service area growth- induced impacts of the same type and
significance as the proposed project. Its successful implementation, however, is
uncertain, and it may result in project- specific environmental impacts not associated with
the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is identified as the environmentally
preferred alternative. (Draft EIR, p. 5 -9)
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 18 of 20
VIII.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As explained in Section VI above, the proposed project would accommodate
planned growth in the District service area jurisdictions that would result in secondary
environmental effects, some of which would be significant and unavoidable. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15043, subdivision (b), and Section 15093 allow agencies to approve
projects with significant unavoidable environmental effects, such as those set forth above,
when the benefits of the projects outweigh those significant effects, and thus render them
"acceptable."
Despite the occurrence of these significant effects, the District chooses to approve
the District's Effluent Discharge Limit Increase Project because, in its view, the economic,
legal, social and other benefits that it will produce will render those significant effects
acceptable. These benefits are chiefly derived from the District's ability to accommodate
planned growth as described in the adopted land use plans of its service area jurisdictions.
Implementation of the project will avoid the otherwise eventual need to institute an
economically and socially disruptive sewer connection moritorium to limit additional
wastewater flow into the District's treatment plant. Such a moritorium would restrict
residential and non - residential construction activity, as well as expansion of commercial
activities and housing opportunities.
The proposed project will bring the District's effluent discharge limit policy in line
with the effluent discharge limit that will be allowable under in the District's latest NPDES
permit (once the RWQCB's Executive Director approves the Antidegradation Analysis).
2/21/02
WPPABertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 19 of 20
The proposed project also can accomplish these objectives with fewer
environmental impacts, less community disruption, and at a lower cost than any
alternative considered in the DEIR.
2/21/02
U: \PPr \Bertera \Project Approval PP.wpd Page 20 of 20
CSOD
An Overview and Update
March, 7 2002
By
John Pearl, Division Manager
Agenda
*Who We Are
• What We Do
• How We're Doing
• Where We're Going
V,
'r
i
.:�
.w�
CEMTAA...tiTaa " "•„
SAN I 7.A -f
� ... Y
AMi i
R
w.
r
" r
� l
y_
_ r 1
9
Who We Are
• Formed in November of 2001
• Purely operational group
• Responsible for
■ 1,500 miles of sewer
■ 23 Pumping Stations
■ 10 Miles of recycled water pipe to 19 active
customer sites
• First point of customer contact
• 50 employees
CSOa
Responsibilities
Fleet and field Recycled
PurylIft Vehicle Water
Stations Shop Operations
Fadillift
Cleaning Construction
CSOD
Responsibilities
Pumping Fleet and Field Recycled
Stations Vehicle Shop Operations Water
7 4 34 Distribution
Facilities (2)
Cleaning Construction
(18) (16)
CSOD Managers
-70111' lwer,
• John Larson
• John Pearl & Jim Kelly
3 -Year Turnover
* Includes Pumping Stations
Agenda
• Who We Are
,*What We Do
• How We're Doing
• Where We're Going
# of
Retired/
Turnover
% of New
Authorized
Transferred
Percentage
Hired
Hires
Positions
'99/00
3
6%
5*
11%
44.5
'00/01
7
13%
3*
6%
44.5
'01/02
4
8%
3
6%
45/51
Retired/
Transferred/
Supervisor
# of Authorized
Hired/
Eliminated
Turnover
positions
(incl. MCLs)
Promoted/
% of New
Positions
Percentage
Transferred
Supervisors
'99/00
3
15%
20
1
5%
'00/01
8
40%
20
5
20%
'01/02
4
17%
23*
1 4
17%
* Includes Pumping Stations
Agenda
• Who We Are
,*What We Do
• How We're Doing
• Where We're Going
What We Do
• Collect and transport wastewater
• Repair sewer lines and related facilities
• Work in both streets and easements
• Lift wastewater over hills - 20% of total flow
• Distribute recycled water
• Manage & maintain the District's vehicle
fleet
The focus is keeping
wastewater within the
collection system.
Agenda
• Who We Are
• What We Do
• How We're Doing
• Where We're Going
How We're Doing
• Overflows
• Safety
• Financial - Maintenance & Operations
• Customer Service
• Pumping Stations
• Cleaning
• Recycled Water
• Construction
• Vehicles
• Benchmarking
• Employees
Overflow Comparison Chart
160
140
120
100
11111
xu
60
0
au
o
144 1-41
1999 2000 2001
Overflow Comparison Chart
14%
54%
Routine Scheduled Misc. Debris
How We're Doing
• Overflows
• Safety
• Financial - Maintenance & Operations
• Customer Service
• Pumping Stations
• Cleaning
• Recycled Water
• Construction
• Vehicles
• Benchmarking
• Employees
Cal /OSHA - Recordable 2001
Injury & Illness Statistics
Section
Hours Worked
Injuries
Frequency Rate
Operations Support
Field Operations
Pumping Stations
17.439
59,609
i
13,252
2
22.9
16
0
53.7
0.0
Total 90,301
18
39.9
Vehicle Accidents - 2001
• Cleaning - 4
• Construction - 1
• Fleet Services - 1
• Pumping Stations - 3
How We're Doing
• Overflows
• Safety
• Financial - Maintenance & Operations
• Customer Service
• Pumping Stations
• Cleaning
• Recycled Water
• Construction
• Vehicles
• Benchmarking
• Employees
CSOD O &M Budget
6.000.000
5.000,00a -
4.000.000
3.000.000
?.000,000
1,000,000
I
0 I
Labor Expenses Total
Pumping Stations O &M Budget
1.400.01)0
1.200.000
A 1.000.000
800,000
6011.0110
400.001►
88/89 90/91 92193 94/95 96/97 98199 00 /01
Labor I- Apenscs Tolal
Financial Performance
FY 00/01
FY 01/02
(Actual)
(Projected)
Collection Systems
Budgeted
$ 4,924,118
$ 5,266,218
Final
$ 4,939,597
$ 5,164,518
Difference
$ 15,4791
$ 101,700
Pumping Stations
Budgeted T
$ 1,354,585
$ 1,439,248
Final
$ 1,216,456
$ 1,499,248
Difference
$ 138,129
-$60,000
How We're Doing
• Overflows
• Safety
• Financial - Maintenance & Operations
• Customer Service
• Pumping Stations
• Cleaning
• Recycled Water
• Construction
• Vehicles
• Benchmarking
• Employees
2001 Customer Service Statistics
On -Call Response time (12 month average)
Response time (not including consecutive calls)
45 minutes
Number of calls (including consecutive calls)
247
User Feedback Survey (12 month average)
Overall Service (out of 4.0)
3.72 (letter grade A)
Number of responses
183
2001 return rate
46%
15
r'
y
WIN
}$
i
y
WIN
-,owl
-At
-t-7
AG
rx
40
ION
AG
rx
r
;F
r- •V�1 •�_ ._•
OAK
`e
How We're Doing
• Overflows
• Safety
• Financial - Maintenance & Operations
• Customer Service
• Pumping Stations
• Cleaning
• Recycled Water
• Construction
• Vehicles
• Benchmarking
• Employees
M
C
� A,
---ow j
wi r
.k� w R 1
Pipeline Statistics
• Miles of Pipeline
■ 1946 15 mi.
■ 1948 80 mi.
■ 1957 310 mi.
■ 1990 1300 mi.
■ 2002 1500 mi.
• 391 miles of easements
• 1,080 miles of 6" & 8" pipe
• 645 miles of vitrified clay pipe
Scheduled Lines by Frequency
39 "'
14 1 -3 Month
6 -9 M onth
12 1lonth
18 -24 )I onth
36 -60 .M onh
Scheduled Cleaning
1/3 Of system on scheduled cleaning
Note: Hand rod miles approx. 10 miles per year
'02
Scheduled
226
224
99.1
233
Hydro
232
231
99.6
Power
244
247
246
99.6
Rod
243
242
99.6
242
Completed
% complete
Scheduled
264
254
267
Complete 225
% Complete 96.6
241
98.7
260
251
-
98.5
98.8
1/3 Of system on scheduled cleaning
Note: Hand rod miles approx. 10 miles per year
Routine Cleaning
• Cleaned once every 10 years minimum at an
interval less than 10 years
• Hydroflush 14" max
• Power rodder 12 "max
• 2/3 of system on routine cleaning
• Peak routine feet in 93 -94
• VC & AC pipe, 12" or less is the priority for
cleaning
250.000
200.000
�. 150,000 j
I
100.000 t
50.000
Routine Cleaning
1998 1999 2000 2001
HNrolush — a —Po«cr Rod
How We're Doing
• Overflows
• Safety
• Financial - Maintenance & Operations
• Customer Service
• Pumping Stations
• Cleaning
• Recycled Water
• Construction
• Vehicles
• Benchmarking
• Employees
Recycled Water
• Approximately 10 miles of recycled water
lines
• 19 delivery sites
• Pipe size range from 24" - 8" of various
materials
• Pressurized system - 110 -115 psi
How We're Doing
• Overflows
• Safety
• Financial - Maintenance & Operations
• Customer Service
• Pumping Stations
• Cleaning
• Recycled Water
• Construction
• Vehicles
• Benchmarking
• Employees
Priority System
• Priority 1
• Dig up equipment lost or stuck in pipe (retrieve
TV camera, stuck augers or hydro hose)
• Emergency repairs
• Homeowner complaint
• Priority 2
• Confined space entry to remove heavy roots
• Structure paved over in street
• Priority 3
• Minor cracks
• RI riser repairs
Priority System
• Priority 4
• Channel repairs for TV access
• Request from crews for new manhole
• Priority 5
■ Backlog prior to May 1992
Recent Construction Activity
600
500
400
300
?00
l0U
0
Tota10 pen Folders Priorit} 0 ne Folders
Folder Turnover
goo
9(
80
70
60
;0
40
30
0
iu
o
•��� .1� ' �J` fee ,�° �`�° .��� .ti`s ' � °` �eQ ';° ��O
Added Folders -a- Completed Folders
How We're Doing
• Overflows
• Safety
• Financial - Maintenance & Operations
• Customer Service
• Pumping Stations
• Cleaning
• Recycled Water
• Construction
• Vehicles
• Benchmarking
• Employees
iz
rIO
,MR
Vehicle Inventory
• Current 96
• Proposed vehicle budget 87
How We're Doing
• Overflows
• Safety
• Financial - Maintenance & Operations
• Customer Service
• Pumping Stations
• Cleaning
• Recycled Water
• Construction
• Vehicles
• Benchmarking
• Employees
r�
I
Benchmarking
Facilities
Average
Median
CCCSD
Miles of Pipe
2523
85%
34
83%
49,033
4.1
2547
84%
1500
69%
% in Right of Way
Average age
% small pipe
29
36
84%
41,000
3.9
91%
28,000
Manholes
P.S. /F.T.E.
3.3
Benchmarking
Benchmarking
Average
7-M
edian
J-
CCCSD
Construction
Main repair per FTE
15.3 10.4
23.9
No. of IFTE's 100
1.6 1.5
0.7
miles of pipe
35
Rodding: Miles per
CCTV
FTE's per 100 miles of
0.4
0.3
0.1
pipe
Spills /Overflows
Per 100 miles/yr
Miles TV'd per FTE
15.2
11.3
17.9
Benchmarking
Average
Median
CCCSD
Preventative Maintenance
Vactor: Miles per
FTE
41
37
35
Rodding: Miles per
24
21
40
FTE
Spills /Overflows
Per 100 miles/yr
0.9
0.4
2.0
(>1,000 gal)
Gal./mile/yr
377
131
307
Per 100 miles/yr
6.3
4.2
6.9
(all spills)
Claims /100
3.2
0.6
0.5
miles/yr
New Benchmarking Effort
• MOU - 7 Agencies
• CCCSD
• City of Sacramento
• Union Sanitary District
• Orange County Sanitation District
• City of Los Angeles
• City of San Diego
• County of Sacramento
How We're Doing
• Overflows
• Safety
• Financial - Maintenance & Operations
• Customer Service
• Pumping Stations
• Cleaning
• Recycled Water
• Construction
• Vehicles
• Benchmarking
• Employees
Awards
• CWEA - Bay Section
■ Collection System of the Year 1988, 1992, 1996
• CWEA - State Level:
• Award for Excellence 1988
• Collection System of the Year 1992
• US EPA
■ Operations & Maintenance Excellence Award
1989
• CWEA President - John Larson
Paul Louis - Collection System Supervisor
• Past Chair of CWEA Collection Systems
Committee - State
• Chair of CWEA Awards Committee - State
• Northern Liaison to CWEA TCP Committee
- State
• Completing 2nd term as Collection Systems
Committee - Bay Section
• Second Director in line for Section Chair
- Bay Section
Agenda
*Who We Are
• What We Do
• How We're Doing
• Where We're Going
Regulation Impacts
• CMOM /Cal CMOM
• Prohibition of SSOs
• Southern California & beach closures
• Vehicle emissions
• Pumping Stations - odors and engines
Information Systems - CSOD A
Critical User
• Fleet Max
• SMMS /Sussex /lap top computers
• Mainsaver at pumping stations
• Ethernet
• GDI
Sussex Wmk Management System 7. 3. 42 Database. Swms.mdb
M— Menu
SUSSEX WORK AL- 1N_1GEAlE-W SYSTEM
I —wn -.?. 12
i 1991 - 2002 Susses Business Syxtems 1nr.
I irensed fu: C C C Sauitat% Dktrirt
Serial Number: 1998 -1123 -998
Walnut Creek Facility
• Constructed in 1956
• Location issues
• Short term
• Longterm
■ Facilities Task Force
Staffing
• Needs based
• Impact of regulation
• Impact of TV inspection program
• Recent efficiencies gained
• Cleaning crews 3 - 2
• Construction crews 5 - 4
• Pumping Stations 9 - 7
Small Pipe TV Inspection Program
• Target is 250,000+ feet of 6 ", 8" and 10"
pipe
• First focus is East Bay MUD watershed
• Technology permits the "capture" of bad pipe
segments, etc., onto CDs
Chemical Root Control
• Focused on system segment that requires
hand rodding
• 27,000 feet this year @ 75 cents /ft.
• Effect is guaranteed for two years (1St
treatment), and 3 years for subsequent
treatments)
Corrosion Control
• Crown Spraying
■ 13,500 ft
• Nearly all repeat
• Martinez and Moraga
• Working with Engineering Department on
causes and controls
Pumping Station Construction
Program
• PS required in spite of "No Pump Station
Policy"
■ Terrain constrained
• A history of building, remodeling, and
upgrading
• Growth of stations, especially in the South
• Current major projects
■ PS SCADA
■ San Ramon PS
■ Lower Orinda PS
Opportunities
• Continue the focus on cleaning effectiveness
and efficiency
• Improved management of routine cleaning
• Management of the vehicle fleet
• Pumping Station SCADA
• Increased cooperation /integration between
CSO and Pumping Stations
• Use of information and technology to
address sewer problems
Opportunities coat...
• Coordination with engineering, including
Source Control
• Resolution of issues around major slides and
erosion areas
• Pipe corrosion - causes and cures
• Dealing with the impact of new regulations
• Continued benchmarking and
implementation of "best practices"
• Crew Leader training program
.j
Overview
• Instructor Information and Qualifications
• Attendees
• Presentation Information
• Desktop Exercises
• County Coordination Efforts
• Next Steps
Instructor Information
• Wende Schallman
• Retired Fire Service Training Officer,
Alameda County
• Certified Instructor, California Specialized
Training Institute (CSTI)
• 18 Years of Hand on Experience with
Incident Command
• Cypress Structure Collapse, Oakland Fire
Storm, Niles Canyon Flood
1
Summary of Emergency
Response Plan
• Implement the incident
command system
• Implement CCCSD's
emergency response plan
• Understand the hazards and
risks associated with
emergencies
• Manage the emergency
• Mitigate the emergency
✓ Get back to normal
Attendees
• General Manager
• Department Directors
• Managers
• Plant Superintendents
• CSO Superintendents /Supervisors
• Shift Supervisors
2
Presentation Information
• Principles of Emergency
Management
• Structure of Command
• Managing Multiple
Functions
• Communications
• Developing Action Plan
• Activating the Emergency
System
• Perimeter Control
• Coordinating the
Emergency Scene
• Psychological Impact of
Emergencies
• Handling the Media
• Activating of Emergency
Ops Center
Desktop Exercises
• Aircraft Crash
• Bomb Threat
• Civil Unrest
• Disruptive Intruder
• Compressed Gas
Release
• Power Outage
• Earthquake
• Fire
• Floods
• High Winds
• Natural Gas Leak
• Power Outage
• Spill to the Collection
System
County Coordination Efforts
• Participant in County Wide Mutual Aid
System
• WWARN Agreement
• Participate in County Wide Incident
Command Operations Meetings
• County Emergency Alert System
• Provide staffing to E.O.C. in the event of a
major emergency.
3
Next Steps
Modify and Update Current District
Emergency Plan
— Plan Modified July 1995 by EQE International
— Review of Plan shows updates and
modifications required
— Emergency Management Consultant to review
and update plan (6 months)
Next Steps
Train Additional CCCSD Employees on
Emergency Preparedness and Incident
Command
— 220 Additional Employees Require Training
— Consultant and District Staff to Provide
— Prior to Sept. 1, 2002
Next Steps
Conduct Training Drills on Evacuation and
Shelter in Place on a regular basis.
— Conduct Training Drills on shelter in place and
emergency evacuation
— District staff to schedule and coordinate
quarterly
4
Next Steps
Continue work on District Notification
System at POD and HOB
— District staff has identified areas in the HOB
and POD where the notification system is not
audible.
— Staff to conduct ongoing testing to optimize
performance of existing system
— Consultant/Contractor will be required to
upgrade system in dead areas.
Board Presentation
Douglas J. Craig
March 7, 2001
AGENDA
Description of Pacific Gas & Electric
Outage
X Treatment Plant Power Impacts
39 Treatment Plant Staff Response
x Status of Cogeneration
39 Cost of Power Outage
• Summary
• Questions
Description of PG &E Outage
• February 24, 2002 at 11:20 p.m.
• Ground fault on 115 KV line
st 1.77 miles east of Bowman Water Plant
39 Cause unknown
39 Other customers affected
X Power restored at 11:53 p.m.
Treatment Plant
Power Impacts
• Treatment plant went black
• Cogeneration tripped off — Ground Fault
• Standby power did not automatically start
$9 Several breakers opened
2
Treatment Plant
Power Impacts
x Standby power manually started and failed
• PG &E restored power at 11:53 p.m.
• Treatment plant power was restored at
11:57 p.m.
• Cogeneration manually restarted but failed
Treatment Plant
Staff Response
Shift change at 11:30 p.m.
Two shifts and Electrical Technician
worked to restore power
• Nearly 500 alarms in 33 minutes
• Restart and stabilize processes
3
Treatment Plant
Staff Response
39 No air to activated sludge for over 3 hours
• By- passed effluent to ponds for 44 hours
• No NPDES permit violations
• No furnace opacity exceedances
• Two odor complaints
Status of Cogeneration
$9 Tripped on ground fault
st Internal damage
X Sent to Houston February 27, 2002
$9 New, rebuilt unit arrived March 7, 2002
4
Cost of Power Outage
X Cogeneration electric cost equal to PG &E electric cost
39 Steam value
• PG &E Demand Charge
• Odor Control
X Total
39 Rare event
- $48,000 (12 days)
- $341,000 (2 months)
-$5,000
-$871,000
Summary
• Fortunate timing
• Rapid staff response
• No violations
• Quick turn- around on Cogeneration
• Costly event
s
1 � i
�> •ate. � � ,-
b `
TI& , /
23
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002 No.: 7.a. TREATMENT PLANT
Type of Action: AUTHORIZE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS /CHANGE ORDER
Subject: AUTHORIZE $25,000 OF SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE AERATION
AIR LEAKS DETECTION ASSESSMENT PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT
NO. 6157A; AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Submitted By: Initiating DeptJDiv.:
James L Belcher, Senior Engineer Operations Department, Plant O erations Div.
REVIEW D RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION.
J. Belcher J. Kelly Charles alts,
General Manage
ISSUE: The Board of Directors must authorize additional project funding when supplemental
funding requirements exceed 15 percent of Board - approved project budgets. The Board of
Directors must authorize contract change orders that exceed 10 percent of the contract cost.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize $25,000 of supplemental funding for the Aeration Air Leaks
Damage Assessment Project, District Project No. 6157A. Authorize issuing Contract Change
Order No.1 to D &D Pipelines in an amount up to $50,000.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approximately $25,000 in additional construction funds.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: It is economically advantageous to complete the
change order work at this time.
BACKGROUND: The Board authorized award of the Aeration Air Leaks Damage Assessment
Project, District Project 6157A, on November 15, 2001. D &D Pipelines was the low bidder at
$94,000. Due to the uncertain nature of the project, staff requested a 32 percent contingency
amount of $30,000, thus making the Board authorized project cost $124,000.
This Aeration Air Leaks Damage Assessment Project is the initial phase of a multi -phase effort
to identify and repair the source of large amounts of aeration air leaking from near and under
the aeration and nitrification (A &N) tanks. The two -fold concern is that the aeration air leaks
are wasting valuable energy, but more importantly could be undermining the soil foundation
of the tanks and nearby roads and piping. The aeration air is leaking directly from under the
tanks and from piping on the north and south sides of the A &N tanks. Also, there were known
corrosion - generated leaks in the Tunnel T -7 interior aeration air piping. The contract work
included excavating four 12 to 20 -foot deep holes and installing engineered shoring to provide
safe access for inspection and repair of the piping leaks.
In the course of the contract work, changed field conditions required significant, additional out -
of -scope effort. Three excavation sites required doubling excavating and shoring to identify
3/1/02
S:\ Correspondence \POSPAPR \2002\Aeration Air Leaks.pp.wpd Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002
Subject: AUTHORIZE $25,000 OF SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE AERATION
AIR LEAKS DETECTION ASSESSMENT PROJECT, DISTRICT PROJECT
NO. 6157A; AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
the source of the leaks. At one site, a 78 -inch diameter flange was welded on, in addition to
the expected bolt restraint. This delayed entry into the pipe and required cutting the welds to
enter. The cost to complete this contract change order work will exceed the $30,000 project
contingency and will require supplemental project funding up to $25,000.
Board authorization is required when supplemental project funding exceeds Board - approved
budgets by greater than 15 percent. Board authorization is required when a change order
exceeds 10 percent of the project budget or is greater than $50,000.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize $25,000 of supplemental funding for the
Aeration Air Leaks Damage Assessment Project, District Project 6157A. Authorize issuing
Contract Change Order No.1 to D &D Pipelines in an amount up to $50,000.
3/1/02
S:\ Correspondence \POSPAPR\2002\Aeration Air Leaks.ppmpd Page 2 of 2
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002 No.: 9.a. BUDGET AND FINANCE
Type of Action:
subject: APPROVE AN INCREASE IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF)
MAXIMUM INVESTMENT LIMIT
Submitted By:
Debbie Ratcliff, Controller
Initiating Dept. /Div.:
Administrative /Finance & Accounting
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION.•
J ►
J. King D. Ratcliff K M graves
General Manage
ISSUE: L
The Board of Directors reviews and sets policy regarding the District's temporary
investments.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve staff's request to increase the limit in the Sewer
Construction Fund LAIF account to $40 million.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: If the District increased its investment in LAIF from the District's
current $30 million limit to the $40 million limit allowed by LAIF, the District's interest
income could increase by up to $137,000 per year based on the current interest rates.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS:
The Board could choose to keep the LAIF limit at the current limit of $30 million.
However, it is difficult to find short -term investments and the interest rate on these short-
term investments are less favorable than the return on LAIF.
BACKGROUND:
Effective January 1, 2002, the State Treasurer has increased the Local Agency
Investment Funds (LAIF) deposit limit from $30 to $40 million. LAIF is part of the Pooled
Money Investment Account (PMIA) which has policies, goals, and objectives to ensure
that safety, liquidity, and yield are not jeopardized and that prudent treasury management
prevails. LAIF is overseen by the Pooled Money Investment Board (PMIB) and Local
Agency Investment Advisory Board and is subject to various Government Code provisions
which state that LAIF is not subject to loans or transfers and it is not subject to
impoundment or seizure by any State Official or State Agency. The $18.9 billion LAIF is
part of a $52.3 billion pooled investment account. LAIF is subject to annual audits. There
are currently 3,039 member agencies.
2/27/02
H:\ WPDOCS \LaifincrPositionPaper.wpd Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 7, 2002
Subject: APPROVE AN INCREASE IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF)
MAXIMUM INVESTMENT BALANCE
Currently the District's LAIF limit is at $30 million. In order to maximize the return on the
District's investment portfolio, staff requests the limit be increased to the $40 million
maximum allowed by LAIF. Due to the continuing decline in interest rates, the return on
short -term investment vehicles have yielded 1 to 1.5 percent less than LAIF. When the
District's LAIF balance is at $30 million, it forces staff to buy very short -term investments
to meet obligations such as payroll and contractor progress payments. These short -term
investments are hard to find, frequently yield less interest income than LAIF, and are more
expensive to purchase than LAIF due to higher transaction and service fees.
This request will be discussed with the Board Finance Committee on Monday, March 4,
2002.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION:
Approve staff's request to increase the limit in the Sewer Construction Fund LAIF account
to $40 million.
2/27/02
H:\ WPDOCS \LaifincrPositionPaper.wpd Page 2 of 2