HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2009 AGENDA BACKUP7.a. Hearings
HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE STAFF DECISION REGARDING
ASSESSMENT OF A CAPACITY FEE FOR A SECOND UNIT UNDER
CONSTRUCTION AT 2156 GRANITE DRIVE, ALAMO
SUGGESTED AGENDA
March 5, 2009
Request Staff Report
II. Hearing
A. Open Hearing.
B. Receive comments, if any.
C. Close Hearing.
III. Discussion
IV. Recommended Actions:
A. Deny the property owner's request for a waiver of the Capacity Fee for a
second unit at 2156 Granite Drive, Alamo.
N1ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Miyamoto- Mills\2009\Agenda for Hearing 03- 05- 2009.doe
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009 No.:
Type of Action: CONDUCT HEARING
7.a. Hearings
subject: CONDUCT A HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE STAFF
DECISION REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF A CAPACITY FEE FOR A SECOND
RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE PROPERTY AT 2156 GRANITE DRIVE IN ALAMO
AND THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE CAPACITY
FEE DUE AT THE TIME OF CONNECTION
Submitted By: Initiating DeptJDiv.:
Jarred Miyamoto - Mills, Engineering /Environmental Services
Principal Engineer
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
�A -z--- 0 6 6 A'
J. iyamoto -Mills C. Swanson A. Farrell
10A
K. Alm
J /"--
mes M. K Ily,
General Manager
ISSUE: Staff has rendered a decision regarding the assessment of a Capacity Fee
(due under District Code Section 6.12.040 D at the time of connection) for a second
residential unit on a property in Alamo. The property owner has requested Board
consideration of the staff decision and waiver of the Capacity Fee under the provisions
of District Code Section 1.16.030. This Section requires that a hearing be held when
the Secretary of the District receives a request for Board consideration of a staff
decision.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a hearing to consider an appeal of the staff decision
regarding assessment of a Capacity Fee for a second residential unit currently under
construction at 2156 Granite Drive in Alamo. Deny the appeal and the property owner's
request for a waiver of the Capacity Fee.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The Capacity Fee for connection of a second residential unit in
the Gravity Zone is $4,923.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: The Board could elect to grant the property
owner's request and waive the Capacity Fee.
BACKGROUND: In a January 23, 2009 letter to Mr. Alan Schurr, owner of the property
at 2156 Granite Drive in Alamo, Environmental Services Division Manager Curt
Swanson rendered the "final staff decision" that assessment of a Capacity Fee for a
second residential unit currently under construction on Mr. Schurr's property could not
be waived because the new building meets the District's and County's definition for a
residential unit. District staff does not have the discretion to ignore the fee assessment
provisions of the District Code. A copy of Mr. Swanson's letter is attached
(Attachment 1).
N: \ENVRSEC \Position Papers \Miyamoto- Mills\2009 \PP Schurr Appeal for 03 -05 -2009 Final.doc Page 1 of 2
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009
Subject: CONDUCT A HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A STAFF
DECISION REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF A CAPACITY FEE FOR A SECOND
RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE PROPERTY AT 2156 GRANITE DRIVE IN ALAMO
AND THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE CAPACITY
FEE DUE AT THE TIME OF CONNECTION
On February 4, 2009, the Secretary of the District received a letter from Mr. Schurr
requesting that the Board of Directors consider an appeal of the staff decision. A copy
of Mr. Schurr's letter is attached (Attachment 2).
In summary, Mr. Schurr requests that the Board waive the $4,923 Capacity Fee, which
would otherwise be due at the time of connection because he was unaware of the
magnitude of applicable District fees when he decided in 2004 to build a second
residential unit (rather than a pool cabana) on his property.
When an application for connection of Mr. Schurr's proposed building was filed at the
District's Permit Counter on April 26, 2004, prior to County Building Department review
of Mr. Schurr's plans and issuance of a building permit, it was noted that the building
was an additional residential unit as defined in the District Code. As part of the
application process, a District stamp was affixed to Mr. Schurr's plans. It is Permit
Counter staff's practice to estimate "applicable fees" for the customer when an
application for service is received. Regardless of whether this estimate was actually
provided in this case, as a matter of equity, it has been District policy to require the
payment of applicable fees when due.
For reference, the applicable sections of District Code Chapter 6.12 regarding the
definition of "Residential Unit," and the requirement for assessment of Capacity Fees
for additional Residential Units are included as an enclosure to Mr. Swanson's letter
(Attachment 1).
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Conduct a hearing to consider an appeal of the
staff decision regarding assessment of a Capacity Fee for a second residential unit
currently under construction at 2156 Granite Drive in Alamo. Deny the appeal and the
property owner's request for a waiver of the Capacity Fee.
N:\ENVRSEMPosition Papers \Miyamoto- Mills\2009 \PP Schurr Appeal for 03 -05 -2009 Final.doc Page 2 of 2
Attachment 1
Jl Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
January 23, 2009
Mr. Alan D. Schurr
2156 Granite Drive
Alamo, CA 94507 -1603
Dear Mr. Schurr:
FAX: (925) 225 -4624
JAMh:S M. Kh.Y L Y
Genera! Manager
KENTON L. ALM
Counsel for the Dtstrtct
(5 10) 808 -2000
L7.41NE R. HOEHMh.'
Secretary oJ'Me District
FINAL DECISION ON REQUEST THAT CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY
DISTRICT ( CCCSD) WAIVE FEES FOR SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT AT 2156 GRANITE
DRIVE, ALAMO (APN 193 - 273 - 008 -6)
This letter will confirm the substance of my January 15, 2009 telephone conversation with
you regarding your request that CCCSD consider waiving its connection fees for the new
structure recently constructed at 2156 Granite Drive, Alamo. The new structure is located
adjacent to your swimming pool. You indicated to me that you intended to use this structure
as an area for changing clothes and entertainment. After reviewing the enclosed excerpts
from the CCCSD Code regarding additional residential units, I have concluded that the new
structure on your property meets CCCSD's definition of an additional residential unit. I am
required to assess applicable sewer capacity and other fees for this new second living unit.
The new structure on your property is approximately 800 square feet in area. It includes a
bathroom, kitchen, and multipurpose or bedroom area, and has a separate exterior
entrance. Contra Costa County has permitted the structure as an additional living unit and
required that you provide off - street parking for an additional living unit. The County
Assessor lists the property as having a second residential unit.
You provided additional information about the building plan and permitting process with
Contra Costa County, which dates back to 2004. You stated that the structure in question
started out as a 600 square foot cabana with a bathroom for use by your family and guests
when using your swimming pool. The County Building Department encouraged you to
increase the size of the structure and add a full kitchen so that it could be considered a
second living unit. You provided me with a letter confirming that the County waived their
$11,000 transportation impact fee for the second living unit.
CCCSD staff reviewed and stamped the plans for your larger structure in 2004. CCCSD
staff also started a second residential unit sewer application at that time. CCCSD has
required a separate sewer capacity fee and sewer service charge for each additional
residential living unit on a property since the late 1980's.
Recycled Paper
N: \ENVRSEC\Admin\ Swanson \Letters\2009\Final- 2ndUnitFees -2156 Granite Dr., Alamo 1- 23- 09.doc
Mr. Alan D. Schurr
Page 2
January 23, 2009
You further stated to me that you do not intend to rent or use the structure as a residence.
You plan to use it when swimming or entertaining guests.
The applicable sewer fees in question here include the "Capacity Fee," currently $4,923 per
Residential Unit, and the annual "Sewer Service Charge," currently $311 per residential unit
per year. However, the first year's Sewer Service Charge applicable at the time of
connection is a prorated amount proportional to the time remaining in the current fiscal year
ending June 30th. For example, the first year's Sewer Service Charge for a residential unit
connection made in January 2009 would be $104. Application, permit and inspection fees
would also be due at the time the connection permit is issued.
As I discussed with you, regardless of the specific circumstances, CCCSD staff does not
have the discretionary authority to modify or waive rates, fees or charges that have been set
by the CCCSD Board of Directors. Therefore, this is the "final decision" of CCCSD staff. If
you wish to appeal this staff decision, you may request that the CCCSD Board of Directors
consider the matter. The process for such appeals is discussed in CCCSD Code Chapter
1.16 "Board Consideration of Staff Decisions." I have enclosed a copy of Chapter 1.16 for
your information. To request Board consideration, you must file a written notice of appeal
with the Secretary of the District within ten days of receiving notice of the final staff decision.
If you have further questions, please call me at (925) 229 -7336, or CCCSD Principal
Engineer Jarred Miyamoto -Mills at (925) 229 -7335.
Sincerely,
Oj L
Curtis W. Swanson
Environmental Services Division Manager
CWS:JM2 /nap
Enclosure
cc: Elaine Boehme, CCCSD Secretary of the District
N: \ENVRSECW dmin�Swanson \Letters12009\Final- 2ndUnitFees -2156 Granite Dr., Alamo 1- 23- 09.doc
JJ,, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Protecting public health and the environment 50191177h0ff Place, Martinez, CA 94553 4392
DEFINITION OF "SECOND LIVING UNIT"
CCCSD CODE SECTION 6.12.030.10:
Residential Unit. A "residential unit" is defined as the unit of measure for the use of any
parcel or portion of a parcel for exclusively residential purposes, which shall include, but
not be limited to, single - family dwellings, each unit of a multiple - family dwelling (such as
apartments, condominiums and townhouses), mobile home residences, and other forms
of property use providing for separate, independent habitation such as in -law units,
household worker quarters or "granny" units.
CCCSD CODE SECTION 6.12.040.D:
Additional Residential Units... In the event a separate additional residential unit is
constructed on a parcel, whether or not in compliance with applicable government
regulations, additional capacity fees for that residential unit shall become due. The
creation of a dwelling space that accommodates an additional separate living area
within a parcel, whether or not said additional separate living area is constructed within
the original building or is a detached building, shall subject the parcel to assessment of
applicable additional residential unit fees. An additional separate living area shall be
defined as an area designed for the purpose of separate habitation that 1) will be, or
can be, physically separated by a wall or door from other residential units on the parcel,
and 2) contains both a bathroom and kitchen, as well as a multipurpose or bedroom
area, and an exterior entrance.
.i r -I ,.
Chapter 1.16 BOARD CONSIDERATION OF STAFF DECISIONS
1.16.005 Final decision by staff.
1.16.010 Request for Board consideration of staff decision.
1.16.015 Request for Board consideration does not stay staff
decision.
1.16.020 Procedure for taking appeal or requesting Board
consideration of staff decision.
1.16.030 Requests for Board consideration and hearing.
1.16.040 Board determination final.
1.16.005 Final decision by staff.
Staff must render a final decision relative to a matter before a person who may
be aggrieved by such decision can request consideration of such decision by the
District Board. A person may obtain a final decision by staff relative to any matter
by requesting in writing such decision, directing the request to the staff member
with whom the person has primarily communicated relative to the matter subject
to the decision, or to the General Manager. Staff must render a final written
decision within forty -five days of the District's receipt of the request for a final
decision. If no final decision is rendered within such time, the person may request
the District Board to consider such matter pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 223 §
2(part), 2002; Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A (part)), 1996)
1.16.010 Request for Board consideration of staff decision.
A person aggrieved by a final decision of an officer or employee of the District
under this code may request consideration of such decision by the Board of
Directors. (Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A (part)), 1996)
1.16.015 Request for Board consideration does not stay staff decision.
A request for Board consideration of a final decision of any officer or employee of
the District does not prevent the District from acting, refusing to act, or continuing
to act relative to the decision which is complained of in the request for Board
consideration and does not prevent the District from pursuing any enforcement
procedure, penalty or remedy which may be available to the District as a result of
any violation of this code, the terms of any District permit, the requirements of the
CCCSD Code Chapter 1.16 Board Consideration of Staff Decisions
Page 2 of 3
District Standard Specifications, or other rule, order, or regulation of the District.
(Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A (part)), 1996)
1.16.020 Procedure for taking appeal or requesting Board consideration of
staff decision.
Wherever this code provides that an action, decision or order may be appealed
or consideration by the District Board of such action, decision or order may be
sought, and the procedure for such appeal or consideration is not specifically
provided for, the person appealing or seeking consideration shall file a written
notice of appeal or request for Board consideration of staff decision with the
Secretary of the District within ten days of receiving notice of a violation, decision
or order. The provisions of this chapter shall govern such appeal or Board
consideration. The provisions of this chapter shall not, however, govern appeals
for which a specific appeal procedure is provided, including but not limited to,
those which may be contained in a memorandum of understanding between the
District and a certified employee organization. (Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A (part)), 1996)
1.16.030 Requests for Board consideration and hearing.
Upon receiving a request for Board consideration of a staff decision, the
Secretary shall set the matter for hearing at a regular meeting of the Board of
Directors and shall give the person requesting Board consideration written notice
of the time and place of hearing at least ten days before the hearing. The Board
of Directors shall hold the hearing within forty -five days of the date of the request
for Board consideration is filed. This time may be extended by agreement. Each
affected party will be given an opportunity to make an oral and /or documentary
presentation at the hearing. Ordinarily no verbatim recording or stenographically
recorded transcript of the hearing will be provided by the District. The only official
records kept as a matter of course by the District of a hearing on Board
consideration of a staff decision will be the minutes taken by the Secretary of the
District and such documents as may be submitted to the Board at or prior to the
hearing by the District staff, Board members, affected parties or their
representatives, or other members of the general public. Any plans or
documentation of more than two pages in length which the Board is asked to
consider at the hearing must be submitted to the Secretary of the District at least
four working days prior to the hearing. No language in this provision may be
construed as allowing the stay of any action, decision or order for which Board
consideration is sought during the period a request for consideration is pending,
unless upon showing of good cause, the Board president or a duly designated
Board Hearing Officer grants such a stay. (Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A (part)), 1996)
CCCSD Code Chapter 1.16 Board Consideration of Staff Decisions
Page 3 of 3
1.16.040 Board determination final.
Any and all determinations of the Board arising from a request for Board
consideration of a staff decision are final and conclusive. (Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A
(part)), 1996)
February 4, 2009 Attachment 2 RECEOVE®
To: Elaine Boehme
Secretary of the District
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
FAX: TO (925)676 -7211 From: (925) 838 -5990
FEB 0 4 2009
SECRETARY of THE DISTRICT
RE: Appeal of the final decision on request that Central Contra Costa Sanitary District(CCCSD)
waive fees for Second Residential Unit at 2156 Granite Dr. Alamo, CA (APN 193- 273 - 008 -6.
I am requesting an appeal of the final decision by CCCSD staff not to waive the "Capacity Fee and
"Sewer Service Charge" for the second unit under construction at my address in Alamo. I am
addressing the "final decision letter" written by Curtis W. Swanson, Environmental Services Division
Manager on January 23, 2009 and received by me on January 26, 2009.
The reason for the original request and now appeal of the fee decision for this second unit is
because of inadequate information provided during the original planning phase of the project. My
family's residence has a swimming pool and to prevent damage to the floors of the main house
from water due to children running through the house to use the bathroom, we decided that a
bathroom near the pool would be helpful. A stand alone bathroom would not be good so a
decision was made to build a "Cabana ". Starting in 2002 and extending into 2003 we designed a
600 sq. ft. Cabana to include a bathroom, a great room, a under counter refrigerator, bar sink and
microwave oven. We call this our "Pool house or Cabana ". The use of this building is to provide
bathroom services for the pool and various entertainment and exercising activities.
I was directed to the planning department to start the process of planning and eventually pulling a
permit to start construction. I have a non standard R -20 zoned lot which requires a small lot review
for any changes to my property. While working with the "Planning Department" they suggested
excitedly that I consider putting in a "Second Unit" instead of a "Cabana ". Their reason for the
suggestion was primarily due to a newly established ordinance in early 2003 (Contra Costa County,
Title 8, Chapter 82-165/35 LAND PRESERVATION PLAN) written by the county and mandated by
the state of California in 2002 (65852.2) to increase "Affordable Housing" in Contra Costa County
and there would be a reduction of time required for the planning phase.
The Planning Department had not much experience with this new ordinance. In fad, they stated
that if I decided to change to a "second unit" I would be either the 2nd or 3rd application under the
new guidelines in Contra Costa County. The new ordinance had strict guidelines including no
variances on the design of what could be built. They stated it would allow me to construct the
Page 1 of 3
building without conducting a "small lot review ", plus added benefits of allowing me to build up to
1000 sq. ft. instead of 600 sq. ft. and install more of a full kitchen instead of a under the counter
refrigerator, bar sink, microwave and 4 foot counter. The planning personnel stated that because
no small lot review was needed all I would have to do is get my plans approved by the "plan check"
department and I could get my permit and start. I asked if there would be additional fees and they
said that the application fee would go up to $1000 but there would be no small lot review fee so
the cost would "likely be a wash ". Calculating out the costs to build and permit fees, my family
calculated we could afford the increased costs and so a decision was made to change to a "second
unit ".
After all planning and engineering was complete the permit department told me that "once I paid
for the permits I could pick up the "Inspection Record Card" and start my project. I went in to the
payment desk and requested the fee amount so I could pay. The total fees amounted to
$15,485.07. 1 was shocked! I immediately asked for a fee breakdown for me to figure out what
cost so much. The last (3) line items out of 13 amounted to $11,205.00. 1 asked the clerk what
these fees were for and he said "l don't know, I was just told to put them on there ". I asked where
they came from. He asked his supervisor and was told "Public Works ".
I contacted Public Works and they stated that the (3) fees were traffic fees (RS -49, RS -68, and RS-
70) for increased traffic due to having a "second unit ". I told them that I knew nothing about any
traffic fees until the time to pay for the permit. I stated that "had I known about the extra
$11,205.00 in fees when I applied for the permit, I would not have changed my plans away from
the 600 sq. ft. unit originally desired. I told them "this unit is for my family to use around the pool
for working out and recreation and that I would not be adding flow to the traffic patterns around
Alamo ". I also told them, "I cannot afford the fees and if I am required to pay them, I will not be
able to complete the project ". Considering the circumstances I asked them to waive the traffic
fees. I received a letter the next day (attached) indicating that they were going to waive the fees
for this project.
The Public Works department recognized that proper notification was not made during the
planning phase and that because of this situation they would likely work with the planning
department (since they are the initial department to contact) to make the information more clearly
stated prior to projects being undertaken.
Recently, I discussed with the CCCSD about getting a permit to connect my sewer line and to set up
inspections for the installation of the sewer pipe. I knew there would be a fee for the CCCSD to
inspect the sewer lines, most likely consistent to what the building department charges for a similar
type inspection. As with the traffic fee situation I had no idea that the fees would be as high as
they are and I had no idea there would be any additional annual "Sewer Service Charge ".
Page 2 of 3
Just like the traffic fee situation, these fees were not known ahead of time when the information
was needed to make a proper decision on which building to construct. I do not have the money for
all these extra unplanned fees. I have borrowed the complete amount allowed on my home equity
line. My project is stalled. Our use of this structure whether a "Cabana" or a "Second Unit" will not
alter the quantity of sewage generated from this property. Considering everything mentioned I am
requesting that the fees and annual charges be waived for this project.
Sincerely,
Alan D. Schurr
2156 Granite Dr.
&t"U
Alamo, CA 94507 -1603
adschurr @aol.com
Home (925) 314 -1712
Cell (925) 788 -5124
Page 3 of 3
^-M• - 9•Lw-0 7.rtjM �-U- PUML: WURK5 N0.233 P. 2/2 -
PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: August 3. 2004
TO: Barbara Pedc. Binding lnspectbn
FROM */Stephen Kowalearsld. Trsnsportatbn Erne
SUBJECT: ThefAc Fee Wal w for Assess" Pared Number (APN) 1 g3- 273-008
Alarm Are. a Benetft (49RS Fund No. Mi)
Alarm
Tri Vall y TMMWWon Fee (TORS Fund No. 8288)
SCC Regional Fee (86R$ Fund No. 8215)
The owner of the properly at 2159 Qranb Me, Alamo, CA, has applied fOr a bullding
Petmit f0r� a pool house. The mu{8-fitrngy rates for the A,@= Area of Den
eft Fee, and BCC Real Fea applylbrtfii� na�srdtal second u�nit�su�
During the tntbt planning propset, the was not Mfotmer! a these
These cuff" fife would have made the project too coat rrnedtWs for complftetbn if
wally disclosed. ltrrt&rwW the a�Pibent haf already PnxOsssed a aignlAcant
POW of the project and cannot ntohd hie land Ufa appIcatbn. Atq=ph then trafAa
fa" are apPllesble b the PrpppSed prpjeci; they should be wad due to the lack of
ProP� fee dkKkwnL
It You have " question», pisses 00 meat (925) 3134=a.
ow
a O**tWMeewoeuws M•vWWwMw WWM A nom
°« w LML To
e. UNA, TB
�fN Mw
FAX: on au Mqo
Item 7.a.
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
Hearing to Consider the Staff Decision
to Assess a Capacity Fee
and Annual Sewer Service Charges
for a Second Residential Unit at
2156 Granite Drive, Alamo
March 5, 2009
2156 Granite Drive - Alamo
• An application for wastewater utility service for a
second Residential Unit was processed at the
District's Permit Counter in April 2004, prior to
the County's building permit review.
• Plans were stamped:
- "The proposed structure may not be connected
...until ...applicable connection fees are paid..."
• During the building permit process, County staff
waived $11,205 in Transportation Impact Fees.
1
2156 Granite Drive - Alamo
• The new building was ready for connection to
sewer in January 2009.
- Owner requested that the capacity fee and annual
sewer service charge be waived.
- Staff responded that under the District Code, fees
and charges cannot be waived by staff.
- Owner filed an appeal of the staff decision.
- A hearing is required for the Board to consider
appeals of staff decisions.
2
History of Similar Requests
• Occasionally (perhaps 1 -3 times each year),
similar requests for fee waiver or relief for
"Affordable Housing" are considered.
• Second Units
• Low Income Multi - Family
• Senior Housing
• The District's past practice has been to deny
these requests so as not to require some
customers to subsidize others.
3
Recommendation
• Conduct the hearing.
• Consider the request for waiver of the Capacity
Fee and the annual Sewer Service Charge for
the second residential unit.
Deny the request so as not to require some
customers to subsidize others.
Questions ... ?
4
A. A bathroom was needed off the pool and Initial plans were to build a 600 sq. ft. Cabana.
B. The State of California passed the housing bill # AB 1866. It requires that increased housing areas be
identified. It also allows for a city or county to identify sites for 2nd Residences. (ITEM 4)
C. Contra Costa Building Dept. was mandated by the state to write an ordinance (82- 24.608) to allow for 2nd
residences without the need for variances or small lot reviews. (ITEM 6)
D. The Community Development Dept. encouraged me to switch from the Cabana to a 2nd residence.
e. The Community Development Dept. illustrated benefits for my family to change.
1. No small lot review required
2. No Variances required
3. Can build up to 1400 sq. ft.
4. Can have a normal sized refrigerator and counter
5. Can get plans approved quicker allowing for us to start building quicker.
6. Slightly increased permit fee but is offset by not needing to pay the small lot review fee.
a. A small lot review was still required due to other building occurring. (ITEM 12)
F. Fee rate sheets for all building department costs provided. (ITEM 11) No rate information provided for Public
Atoms (traffic fees) or CCCSD.
6. When paying for permits and picking up "Inspection Record Cards" the total fees for the building department
and Public Works department were then presented. (ITEM 19)
H. Public Works recognized the unfairness of not illustrating the traffic fees when the 2nd residence application
was paid for, therefore they waived the $11,205 of fees. (ITEM 20)
Under the drought guidelines, EBMUD has allocated an average of 35 units of water to this parcel. No
additional water is allocated automatically because of the 2nd residence.
1. We would have to apply for an increase allocation. EBMUD encouraged not applying for an
increase.
2. if increase in allocation was authorized, 8 units would be allowed for this structure, 23% more.
4. The intent for the 2nd residence and Cabana was and is the same.
1. A bathroom for the pool.
2. A place to have exercise equipment and entertainment (games).
3. We can move 1 of our 2 existing refrigerators to the Cabana instead of having to buy a under the
counter model.
4. No additional water purchased therefore no additional sewage to treat.
K. When a home owner who is not normally in the business of building either Cabana's or 2nd residences
considers a project, all fee information should be supplied. Since everyone directs people looking
to build to the Community Development Department as the 1st step, all fee information for every
phase of the project should be made available to the applicant so they can make an accurate
calculation as to whether they can afford one or another type of building or none at all.
L. A Cabana does not have a "Capacity" fee or a "Sewer Service Charge" fee. It does have inspection fees.
Since the usage of the building is the same and necessary fee information was not provided while
trying to make the determination of what to build, I am requesting a waiver of the 2nd residence
fees. Inspection fees were included in original planning therefore I have the money to pay those
fees.
REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF
STAFF DECISION
CAPACITY AND SEWER SERVICE
CHARGE FEES
FOR 2156 GRANITE DRIVE
ALAMO, CA. 94507
MARCH 5, 2009
N,
To: The Contra Costa County Sanitation Department Board of Supervisors Date: March 5, 2009
From: Alan Schurr - Home Owner of 2156 Granite Dr. Alamo, Ca 94507
Dear Board Members,
I have appealed the staff decision because my family and I feel in our case that the requirement to pay these fees
is unfair.
When we bought the house in 2000 the Real Estate market was on fire. Inventory was very low and we via
bidding ended up with this house. We were not looking for a pool but it had one and inevitably our children as
well as the neighbor's children started using the pool in the summer months. They were using the bathroom in
our house and being little children were waiting too long to go and then were having difficulty making it. As a
family, we decided it would be better if we had a bathroom closer to the pool.
We decided to build a 600 sq. ft. "Cabana" so we could have a bathroom close by. We calculated that we could
put our exercise equipment and other various entertainment items in there so we could get them out of our
house. We also did not have a garage so we decided to do a addition to the main house which contained a garage
and a separate shop.
We calculated the costs as best as possible and determined that we could not afford to hire a general contractor
to perform the work. We are doing most of the work. With the exception of the temporary hold up on the sewer
connection we are progressing, albeit slowly. We started the construction in August 2004.
I was told that all building projects for the county start with the "Community Development" or Planning
Department. I visited the planning department to receive direction on how to proceed. I discussed preliminary
designs on our addition and two outlying buildings one of which was our 600 sq. ft. Cabana. I found out that we
have a non standard R -20 lot that requires a small lot review for any building. The Community Development
Department representative said that in light of this why don't we consider changing from our 600 sq. ft. Cabana to
a "2nd residence ". That would eliminate that building from the small lot review and we could build up to 1000'
and have a full kitchen. They also stated that the application fees would be somewhat more but would be "a
wash" because we didn't need to do the small lot review and there would be a park fee. All the other fees were
for the building department to do engineering reviews (Plan Check) and permit issuing. I obtained a CCBID Fee
Schedule (ITEM 7) and went home to discussed this with my wife. We determined that we could find some extra
money for the 200 sq. ft. larger building and the Park Fee so we decided to go ahead.
Over a period of time we drew all the plans and had them engineered. We acquired all the stamps from the
building department and went to the CCCSD to get their stamp on the plans (ITEM 16). We submitted our plans
to the Permit Counter so they could do what they do and so we could receive our permits. They called me and
said that all 3 permits were ready. All I had to do was "come down and pay and you can pick up your permits ". I
went to the building department to pay for the permits and they gave me the total for all the permits (ITEM 19). 1
was shocked! I had no idea why the cost was $15,485. 1 calculated it to be closer to $4,000 to $4,500. The extra
fees were for traffic fees of $11,205 (ITEM 19). 1 communicated with the Public Works Department and since the
fees were not plainly and clearly indicated up front when making the decisions about changing from a "Cabana" to
__ 2nd Residence at the planning stage that they decided it was only fair to waive the fees (ITEM 20). 1 received a
letter stating the waiver immediately.
I was too far into the project to be able to back out and switch back to the 600 sq. ft. Cabana. My family had to
borrow most of the money to finance the construction. The uncalculated fees would have put us over the top and
we would not be able to proceed. After we received the waiver we were able to go forward.
In January, I called the CCCSD to have someone come out and inspect my property to determine what I needed to
do to connect my Cabana's sewer line. They came out and told me what I needed but they also said I needed to
contact the permit counter and get my permit. I did and that is when I was told that the "applicable connection
fees" which is listed as such in (ITEM 17 - section E, back page) was much higher than I had calculated. When
originally figuring the costs for fees my "600 sq. ft. Cabana" required a CCCSD inspector to come out before and
after the laying of pipe so he could see that it was done correctly. The cost for inspection and permit was
originally slated to be around #300 to $400. 1 was informed only in January that because I switched to a 2nd
Residence that there is a Connection Fee of "$4,923 and a "Sewer Service Charge" of $311 annually (ITEM 1).
There is no annual fee with a 600' sq. ft. Cabana.
Had I been informed of the actual costs to hook up the sewer during the planning phase of the project I would not
have changed. My family does not have the money to pay these fees. Our home equity line is completely used.
The value of our house has dropped almost 40% and we are unable to get any other loans.
This building has never been intended to be used as a rental and we don't in the future. This building is supplied
power, water and gas from the main house's meters the cable and phone hook ups are also the same as the main
house. The location of the building is way in the back of the property (ITEMS 14 and 15). We are restricted by
EAST BAY MUD on how much water we use. We are allocated under the current drought requirement to 34 Units
on average of water. We are not allowed, according to EBMUD, additional units of water just because we have a
2nd residence. We would have to apply for it and there is no assurance under the present drought conditions
(ITEM 21) if we would get it. EBMUD stated that even if we did get an increase we would only be allotted 8 units
because of the type of structure. According to EBMUD we are under our current allotment. We will not be
sending you additional amounts of water to treat. Your treatment plant costs will not go up because of this
property.
My family and I request that you please waive these fees. We will be forever grateful.
Sincerely,
Alan and Nichole Sch rr
2156 Granite Dr.
Alamo, Ca 94507
REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION
CAPACITY AND SEWER SERVICE CHARGE FEES
ITEM 1
STAFF DECISION LETTER
ITEM 2
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
ITEM 3
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ISSUE LIST
ITEM 4 HOUSING BILL # AB 1866 from the STATE of CALIFORNIA
A. 1st page
Paragraph 1- Determine adequate sites for housing
B. 1st page
Paragraph 2 - Identify sites for 2nd units
C. 1st page
Paragraph 3 - Bill requirement to provide by ordinance the
creation of units
D. 1st page
Paragraph 4 - This bill also requires that applications for 2nd
units be considered without discretionary review or hearing
E. 2nd page
States the need by counties to identify sites for 2nd units and that
nothing in this section reduces the responsibility of a county to
identify a total number of sites for residential development
ITEM 5 LAND PRESERVATION PLAN
A. 2nd page Last paragraph - States that the county shall review and update the new
general plan to conform to state housing requirements and to ensure its
capacity to accommodate a variety of housing types
ITEM 6 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ORDINANCE - ZONING - SECTION 82- 24.608 APPLICATION PROCESSING
A. All applications for 2nd units shall be processed expeditiously and
receive priority permit processing
ITEM 7 CONTRA COSTA BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003
ITEM 8 PREVIEW OF FORCASTED FEES FOR MY 2ND RESIDENCE
ITEM 9 SECOND UNIT APPLICATION
ITEM 10 SECOND UNIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
ITEM 11 FEES PAID TO BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR SECOND UNIT APPLICATION AND SMALL LOT REVIEW
ITEM 12 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT
ITEM 13 RESTRICTION PLACED ON 2ND UNIT SHOWING UNIT SHALL NOT BE SOLD SEPARATELY
ITEM 14 2156 GRANITE DRIVE SITE PLAN
ITEM 15 "CABANA" FLOOR PLAN
ITEM 16 "CABANA" BUILDING PLANS SHOWING CCCSD STAMP DATED 4 -23 -2004
ITEM 17 CCCSD PERMIT PROCESS - NEW CONNECTIONS
ITEM 18 CCCSD FEE MODELING
A. No Example or Preview of Forecasted Capacity or Sewer Service Charge fees listed
orprovided
ITEM 19 BUILDING FEES INCLUDING TRAFFIC FEES IMPOSED BY PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM 20 WAIVER OF TRAFFIC FEES BY PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM 21 CALIFORNIA IN DROUGHT EMERGENCY
District
January 23, 2009
Mr. Alan D. Schurr
2156 Granite Drive
Alamo, CA 94507 -1603
Dear Mr. Schurr:
FAX: (925) 228 -4624
JAMES M. KELLY
General Manager
KENTON E ALM
Counsel for the District
(510) 808 -2000
ELAINE R BOEHME
Secretary of the District
FINAL DECISION ON REQUEST THAT CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY
DISTRICT ( CCCSD) WAIVE FEES FOR SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT AT 2156 GRANITE
DRIVE, ALAMO (APN 193 - 273 - 008-6)
This letter will confirm the substance of my January 15, 2009 telephone conversation with
you regarding your request that CCCSD consider waiving its connection fees for the new
structure recently constructed at 2156 Granite Drive, Alamo. The new structure is located
adjacent to your swimming pool. You indicated to me that you intended to use this structure
as an area for changing clothes and entertainment. After reviewing the enclosed excerpts
from the CCCSD Code regarding additional residential units, I have concluded that the new
structure on your property meets CCCSD's definition of an additional residential unit. I am
required to assess applicable sewer capacity and other fees for this new second living unit.
The new structure on your property is approximately 800 square feet in area. It includes a
bathroom, kitchen, and multipurpose or bedroom area, and has a separate exterior
entrance. Contra Costa County has permitted the structure as an additional living unit and
required that you provide off - street parking for an additional living unit. The County
Assessor lists the property as having a second residential unit.
You provided additional information about the building plan and permitting process with
Contra Costa County, which dates back to 2004. You stated that the structure in question
started out as a 600 square foot cabana with a bathroom for use by your family and guests
when using your swimming pool. The County Building Department encouraged you to
increase the size of the structure and add a full kitchen so that it could be considered a
second living unit. You provided me with a letter confirming that the County waived their
$11,000 transportation impact fee for the second living unit.
CCCSD staff reviewed and stamped the plans for your larger structure in 2004. CCCSD
staff also started a second residential unit sewer application at that time. CCCSD has
- required a separate sewer capacity fee and sewer service charge for each additional
residential living unit on a property since the late 1980's.
N: IENVRSEC1AdminkSwansonll .etters\20091Final- 2ndUnitFees -2156 Granite Dr., Alamo 1- 23 -09.dx ir1
Recycled Paper
Mr. Alan D. Schurr
Page 2
January 23, 2009
You further stated to me that you do not intend to rent or use the structure as a residence.
You plan to use it when swimming or entertaining guests.
The applicable sewer fees in question here include the "Capacity Fee," currently $4,923 per
Residential Unit, and the annual "Sewer Service Charge," currently $311 per residential unit
per year. However, the first year's Sewer Service Charge applicable at the time of
connection is a prorated amount proportional to the time remaining in the current fiscal year
ending June 30th. For example, the first year's Sewer Service Charge for a residential unit
connection made in January 2009 would be $104. Application, permit and inspection fees
would also be due at the time the connection permit is issued.
As I discussed with you, regardless of the specific circumstances, CCCSD staff does not
have the discretionary authority to modify or waive rates, fees or charges that have been set
by the CCCSD Board of Directors. Therefore, this is the "final decision" of CCCSD staff. If
you wish to appeal this staff decision, you may request that the CCCSD Board of Directors
consider the matter. The process for such appeals is discussed in CCCSD Code Chapter
1.16 "Board Consideration of Staff Decisions." I have enclosed a copy of Chapter 1.16 for
your information. To request Board consideration, you must file a written notice of appeal
with the Secretary of the District within ten days of receiving notice of the final staff decision.
If you have further questions, please call me at (925) 229 -7336, or CCCSD Principal
Engineer Jarred Miyamoto -Mills at (925) 229 -7335.
Sincerely,
Curtis W. Swanson
Environmental Services Division Manager
CWS:JM2 /nap
Enclosure
cc: Elaine Boehme, CCCSD Secretary of the District
N:\ ENVRSEC1 Admin\SwansonLLe #tem\2009\Final- 2ndUnitFees -2156 Granite Dr., Alamo 1- 23- 09.doc
istrict
DEFINITION OF "SECOND LIVING UNIT"
CCCSD CODE SECTION 6.12.030.10:
Residential Unit. A "residential unit" is defined as the unit of measure for the use of any
parcel or portion of a parcel for exclusively residential purposes, which shall include, but
not be limited to, single - family dwellings, each unit of a multiple - family dwelling (such as
apartments, condominiums and townhouses), mobile home residences, and other forms
of property use providing for separate, independent habitation such as in -law units,
household worker quarters or "granny" units.
CCCSD CODE SECTION 6.12.040.D:
- Additional Residential Units... In the event a separate additional residential unit is
constructed on a parcel, whether or not in compliance with applicable government
regulations, additional capacity fees for that residential unit shall become due. The
creation of a dwelling space that accommodates an additional separate living area
within a parcel, whether or not said additional separate living area is constructed within
the original building or is a detached building, shall subject the parcel to assessment of
applicable additional residential unit fees. An additional separate living area shall be
defined as an area designed for the purpose of separate habitation that 1) will be, or
can be, physically separated by a wall or door from other residential units on the parcel,
and 2) contains both a bathroom and kitchen, as well as a multipurpose or bedroom
area, and an exterior entrance.
ARecycled Paper
Chapter 1.16 BOARD CONSIDERATION OF STAFF DECISIONS
1.16.005 Final decision by staff.
1.16.010 Request for Board consideration of staff decision.
1.16.015 Request for Board consideration does not stay staff
decision.
1.16.020 Procedure for taking appeal or requesting Board
consideration of staff decision.
1.16.030 Requests for Board consideration and hearing.
1.16.040 Board determination final.
1.16.005 Final decision by staff.
Staff must render a final decision relative to a matter before a person who may
be aggrieved by such decision can request consideration of such decision by the
District Board. A person may obtain a final decision by staff relative to any matter
by requesting in writing such decision, directing the request to the staff member
with whom the person has primarily communicated relative to the matter subject
to the decision, or to the General Manager. Staff must render a final written
decision within forty -five days of the District's receipt of the request for a final
decision. If no final decision is rendered within such time, the person may request
the District Board to consider such matter pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 223 §
2(part), 2002; Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A (part)), 1996)
1.16.010 Request for Board consideration of staff decision.
A person aggrieved by a final decision of an officer or employee of the District
under this code may request consideration of such decision by the Board of
Directors. (Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A (part)), 1996)
1.16.015 Request for Board consideration does not stay staff decision.
A request for Board consideration of a final decision of any officer or employee of
the District does not prevent the District from acting, refusing to act, or continuing
to act relative to the decision which is complained of in the request for Board
consideration and does not prevent the District from pursuing any enforcement
procedure, penalty or remedy which may be available to the District as a result of
any violation of this code, the terms of any District permit, the requirements of the
CCCSD Code Chapter 1.16 Board Consideration of Staff Decisions
Page 2 of 3
District Standard Specifications, or other rule, order, or regulation of the District.
(Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A (part)), 1996)
1.16.020 Procedure for taking appeal or requesting Board consideration of
staff decision.
Wherever this code provides that an action, decision or order may be appealed
or consideration by the District Board of such action, decision or order may be
sought, and the procedure for such appeal or consideration is not specifically
provided for, the person appealing or seeking consideration shall file a written
notice of appeal or request for Board consideration of staff decision with the
Secretary of the District within ten days of receiving notice of a violation, decision
or order. The provisions of this chapter shall govern such appeal or Board
consideration. The provisions of this chapter shall not, however, govern appeals
for which a specific appeal procedure is provided, including but not limited to,
those which may be contained in a memorandum of understanding between the
District and a certified employee organization. (Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A (part)), 1996)
1.16.030 Requests for Board consideration and hearing.
Upon receiving a request for Board consideration of a staff decision, the
Secretary shall set the matter for hearing at a regular meeting of the Board of
Directors and shall give the person requesting Board consideration written notice
of the time and place of hearing at least ten days before the hearing. The Board
of Directors shall hold the hearing within forty -five days of the date of the request
for Board consideration is filed. This time may be extended by agreement. Each
affected party will be given an opportunity to make an oral and/or documentary
presentation at the hearing. Ordinarily no verbatim recording or stenographically
recorded transcript of the hearing will be provided by the District. The only official
records kept as a matter of course by the District of a hearing on Board
consideration of a staff decision will be the minutes taken by the Secretary of the
District and such documents as may be submitted to the Board at or prior to the
hearing by the District staff, Board members, affected parties or their
representatives, or other members of the general public. Any plans or
documentation of more than two pages in length which the Board is asked to
consider at the hearing must be submitted to the Secretary of the District at least
four working days prior to the hearing. No language in this provision may be
construed as allowing the stay of any action, decision or order for which Board
consideration is sought during the period a request for consideration is pending,
unless upon showing of good cause, the Board president or a duly designated
Board Hearing Officer grants such a stay. (Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A (part)), 1996)
CCCSD Code Chapter 1.16 Board Consideration of Staff Decisions
Page 3 of 3
1.16.040 Board determination final.
Any and all determinations of the Board arising from a request for Board
consideration of a staff decision are final and conclusive. (Ord. 198 § 1(Exh. A
(part)), 1996)
February 4, 2009
To: Elaine Boehme Secretary of the District
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
FAX: TO (925)676 -7211 From: (925) 838 -5990
RE: Appeal of the final decision on request that Central Contra Costa Sanitary District(CCCSD)
waive fees for Second Residential Unit at 2156 Granite Dr. Alamo, CA (APN 193 - 273 - 008 -6.
I am requesting an appeal of the final decision by CCCSD staff not to waive the "Capacity Fee and
"Sewer Service Charge" for the second unit under construction at my address in Alamo. I am
addressing the "final decision letter" written by Curtis W. Swanson, Environmental Services Division
Manager on January 23, 2009 and received by me on January 26, 2009.
The reason for the original request and now appeal of the fee decision for this second unit is
because of inadequate information provided during the original planning phase of the project. My
-- family's residence has a swimming pool and to prevent damage to the floors of the main house
from water due to children running through the house to use the bathroom, we decided that a
bathroom near the pool would be helpful. A stand alone bathroom would not be good so a
decision was made to build a "Cabana ". Starting in 2002 and extending into 2003 we designed a
600 sq. ft. Cabana to include a bathroom, a great room, a under counter refrigerator, bar sink and
microwave oven. We call this our "Pool house or Cabana ". The use of this building is to provide
bathroom services for the pool and various entertainment and exercising activities.
I was directed to the planning department to start the process of planning and eventually pulling a
permit to start construction. I have a non standard R -20 zoned lot which requires a small lot review
for any changes to my property. While working with the "Planning Department" they suggested
excitedly that I consider putting in a "Second Unit" instead of a "Cabana ". Their reason for the
suggestion was primarily due to a newly established ordinance in early 2003 (Contra Costa County,
Title 8, Chapter 82-165/35 LAND PRESERVATION PLAN) written by the county and mandated by
the state of California in 2002 (65852.2) to increase "Affordable Housing" in Contra Costa County
and there would be a reduction of time required for the planning phase.
The Planning Department had not much experience with this new ordinance. In fact, they stated
that if I decided to change to a "second unit" I would be either the 2nd or 3rd application under the
new guidelines in Contra Costa County. The new ordinance had strict guidelines including no
variances on the design of what could be built. They stated it would allow me to construct the
Page 1 of 3
building without conducting a "small lot review ", plus added benefits of allowing me to build up to
1000 sq. ft. instead of 600 sq. ft. and install more of a full kitchen instead of a under the counter
refrigerator, bar sink, microwave and 4 foot counter. The planning personnel stated that because
no small lot review was needed all I would have to do is get my plans approved by the "plan check"
department and I could get my permit and start. I asked if there would be additional fees and they
said that the application fee would go up to $1000 but there would be no small lot review fee so
the cost would "likely be a wash ". Calculating out the costs to build and permit fees, my family
calculated we could afford the increased costs and so a decision was made to change to a "second
unit ".
After all planning and engineering was complete the permit department told me that "once I paid
for the permits I could pick up the "Inspection Record Card" and start my project. I went in to the
payment desk and requested the fee amount so I could pay. The total fees amounted to
$15,485.07. 1 was shocked! I immediately asked for a fee breakdown for me to figure out what
cost so much. The last (3) line items out of 13 amounted to $11,205.00. 1 asked the clerk what
these fees were for and he said "I don't know, I was just told to put them on there ". I asked where
they came from. He asked his supervisor and was told "Public Works ".
I contacted Public Works and they stated that the (3) fees were traffic fees (RS -49, RS -68, and RS-
70) for increased traffic due to having a "second unit ". I told them that I knew nothing about any
traffic fees until the time to pay for the permit. I stated that "had I known about the extra
$11,205.00 in fees when I applied for the permit, I would not have changed my plans away from
the 600 sq. ft. unit originally desired. I told them "this unit is for my family to use around the pool
for working out and recreation and that I would not be adding flow to the traffic patterns around
Alamo ". I also told them, "I cannot afford the fees and if I am required to pay them, I will not be
able to complete the project ". Considering the circumstances I asked them to waive the traffic
fees. I received a letter the next day (attached) indicating that they were going to waive the fees
for this project.
The Public Works department recognized that proper notification was not made during the
planning phase and that because of this situation they would likely work with the planning
department (since they are the initial department to contact) to make the information more clearly
stated prior to projects being undertaken.
Recently, I discussed with the CCCSD about getting a permit to connect my sewer line and to set up
inspections for the installation of the sewer pipe. I knew there would be a fee for the CCCSD to
inspect the sewer lines, most likely consistent to what the building department charges for a similar
type inspection. As with the traffic fee situation I had no idea that the fees would be as high as
they are and I had no idea there would be any additional annual "Sewer Service Charge ".
Page 2 of 3
Just like the traffic fee situation, these fees were not known ahead of time when the information
was needed to make a proper decision on which building to construct. I do not have the money for
all these extra unplanned fees. I have borrowed the complete amount allowed on my home equity
line. My project is stalled. Our use of this structure whether a "Cabana" or a "Second Unit" will not
alter the quantity of sewage generated from this property. Considering everything mentioned I am
requesting that the fees and annual charges be waived for this project.
Sincerely,
Alan D. Schurr
2156 Granite Dr.
Alamo, CA 94507 -1603
adschurr @aol.com
Home (925) 314 -1712
Cell (925) 788 -5124
Page 3 of 3
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO APPLICANTS
is located at = Z55 filacier Dr., Martinez.
FEES. Development Application Fees -The Community Development application fee schedule, is structured to generality tuire sufficient filing fees to cpver
- _ e eost of r�ccssir4g devsh patent applie ti its. iicte the a iplacaCioti review c0gWeXeCed I e initial deposit, initial applicants will,be required to submit
additional deposits. For additional information about application fees or for a copy of theApplication Fee Schedule contact a Community Development
Representative at the Application and Permit Center (925) 646 -1600.
Staff Costs for Processing an Appeal are Borne by the Applicant - If an interested party files an appeal, the appeal most be accompanied by a filing fee
of $ 125. However, please note that the County fee schedule requires the applicant to pay fees for all staiTcosts of processing the appeal, even if the appeal
is filed by a; party that opposes the project.
California Department of Fish & Game Fees - An additional fee may be due at the time of the project decision and before permits are issued. Per
Assembly Bill 3158, additional fees will be based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination as follows:
Categorically Exempt; No additional fee
Negative Declaration: S1250
Environmental impact Report: $ 850
Post - Approval Fees - Once a development permit is approved, most development still requires issuance of other types of ministerial permits (e.g.,
building permits, grading permits, parcel maps, etc.). Development fees and additional processing fees are normally payable Lt the time of the issuance of
those permits Development fees are often required for such area -wide infrastructure improvements as traffic improver- h --tts, park dedication, and child
care. An estimate for many of the post - approval fees which will apply to your project may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection Drpartmcnt
at (925) 335 -1192.
PROPOSED COMMERCiAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES: Disclosure of Hazardous Materials - Applications fordevelopment permits involving commercial and
industrial projects, and uses where hazardous materials will be handled (in accordance with Sec. 65850.2 of the Government Code), To reduce the possibility that
youi application will be deemed incomplete, you are encouraged to follow the steps listed below:
Complete a Hazardous Material Questionnaire form and submit it to the Health Services Departments, Hazardous Materials Section. [4333 Pachcco
Blvd., Martinez, CA 94553; Phone- (925) 646 -2286; FAX (925) 646 - 2073.] Forms may be obtained from the Application and Permit Center, Building
Inspection Department, or Hazardous Materials Office. They can assist you with any questions and additional materials for submittal with your
development application.
Notice-to Bay Area Air Quality 11 OWAI tTrent District (BAAQMD - !U Air Permit requirements apply to all types of co merrrial an,d industriaII projects which
generate direct sources of air pollution. Copies of the BAAQMD Inquiry Form maybe obtaited from the Contra Costa Regio_--m! Permit Assistance Center (651 Pine
Street, 2th Floor, North miring, Martinsm, 925- 229 - 5950), Application and Permit Center, Building Inspection Departmcm, or Health Services Department,
Hazardous Materials Section.
Requirement for Business License - The approval of a development permit for a commercial or industrial operation neither sat0fres nor replacer any County
requirement to obtain a business license for the proposed use. Applicants may need to separately obtain a business license for their use. Questions on any Countv
requirement for a business license should be directed to the County Treasurer/Tax Collector located at 625 Court Street, Martinez (925- 6464230).
APPLICANT V E MWICATION
Iyerify that I have read and.uiadersta d tha,statements aboveandhe rreverse an
'surves ted.
Signature print- A
F
F4
Date,.
t /se Only
Application File Number 1
� � J
(OVER)
variance) application as' 4ompitd4 the County wild requite lute following project
improvements or alterations are proposed.)
The site (grading and development) plan shall accterotelyandititly disclose the Iocati+
circumference of 20 melee fill R rm. annrn :irnatriv f,'A inA.,> in AiarrK:fs.tl ~ a_ra'
circumferences n easures,40- inches or more, measured 4 %feet from ground level.
Trees Along Proms es - Trie site pia^. s-W! in-cludelartyqualffying trees n•h`cse trtmks tle, on joiniriS. op ,;r but whose canopy (dripl ne)
extends onto the subject property.
Nurnbertng of Tiers for Identification Purrwses - Ifthe proposed development is in proximity to two or more qualifying trees, then each tree shall be
assiwned a number for identification purposes (e g., #3, #5, etc.). (Trees whose triniks are more than 50 feet removed from the proposed ground
disturbance need be only denoted by the outline of the aggregate tree canopy.)
* identi rcatiou qMr- eaC ftwon Individual Titer- The siteplaasttalfalwspedJ aaUyanddeark& dicrwwhedb wIndividualtreesareproposed
to be (I) removed, or (2) altered 1 or otherwise affected2. The plan shalt identify any proposed drainage ditches, sewer or water mains, drainage lines
or other utility improvements which would result in trenching.
If mature trees are not shown on the site plan as proposed to be removed or altered. the County May assume that those trees are intended to be
preserved without alteration, and a {county development permit may be so conditioned. Applicants should be aware that a subsequent ministeriaf
Pei mit (gradiig or building permits, or approval of itnprrfvement plans) by the Courtly arrant be cleared unless ht is consistent with the Tree
Ordwance and any applicable development or tree permit.
• Tally of Trees to be F.ranoved - The site plan shall contain a tally of the total number of trees proposed to be removed,: and their respective aggregate
trunk circumference sizes.
• Project t Construction Activity Near Trams - The site plan (err version thereof) shall disclose the location of airy stockpilitig, paving, companion (which
may be caused by maneuvering of construction vehicles), parking or storing of vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, or
construction trailers, or dumping of oils or chemicals which is proposed within the dripline of any above - described tree.
• No Trees Near Development - If there are no qualifying trees on site (including along the site perimeter) or within 50 feet of proposed development,
then that site condition shall be expressly noted on the site plan in this circumstance, other prtoect details specified in this form may not be needed
Identification of Deducated tier sage Tres - Any-tree dial. has been desisted by the Booavdi"upervisors for " heritage "status slialMe so labeled on
the site plan.
Failure to f ftyand accurately disclose information about trees and project impacts that can reasonably be anticipated (trenching far utility lines, drainagr
ditches, grading, etc.) may result in;
A. stuff determining that ttie application is not complete, in which case the project w&-
ig net be scheduled for hearing; and/or
A subsequent interruption of development actiii6T until such time as there is compliance with applicable tree ordinances.
IFor purposes of the Tree Ordinances, "alteration" does not necessarily mean removal of a tree branch or pruning. However,
"alteration" does include any proposed trenching, grading, filling, paving, structural development, change in ground elevation within the dripline of a
protected tree. Alteration also includes trim by tapping (i.e., removal of the upper 25% or more of a protected tree's trunk or primary leader.)
2Though not required, an applicant may also choose to identify on the site plan a third classification of trees - (3) trees to be preserved
(without alteration). However, any tree designated on an approved site plan for _ preservation, or so designated by condition of approval,
automatically becomes a' protected" tree under the ordinance. No removal or (unauthorized) alteration of protected tree is allowed without first
obtaining a Tree Permit from the County.
3These construction related activities are normally prohibited by the Tree ordinance.
IztnotncO'44 (21") (OVER)
AB 1866 Assembly Bill - CHAPTERED Page 1 of 11
BILL NUMBER: AB 1866 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT
CHAPTER 1062
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 29, 2002
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2002
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 29, 2002
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 27, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 22, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 5, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 19, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 23, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 14, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 22, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 1, 2002
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Wright
JANUARY 31, 2002
An act to amend Sections 65583.1, 65852.2, and 65915 of the
Government Code, relating to housing.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1866, Wright. Housing: density bonuses.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires the housing element of
the general plan of a city or county, among other things, to identify
adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory -built
b- -sing, and mobilehomes, and to make adequate provision for the
E sting and projected needs of all economic segments of the
community. That law permits the Department of Housing and Community
Development to allow a city or county to identify adequate sites by a
variety of methods.
This bill would authorize the department to also allow a city or
county to identify sites for 2nd units based upon relevant factors,
including the number of 2nd units developed in the prior housing
element planning period.
(2) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency to
provide by ordinance for the creation of 2nd units on parcels zoned
for a primary single - family and multifamily residence, as prescribed.
This bill would require, when a local agency receives its first
application on or after July 1, 2003, that the application shall be
considered ministerially without discretionary review or hearing,
notwithstanding other laws that regulate the issuance of variances! s or
special use permits. 1
The bill would authorize a local agency to charge a fee to %
reimburse the agency for costs it incurs as a result of these
provisions. r
(3) The Planning and Zoning Law also requires, when a developer of
housing proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction o�f
the local government, that the city, county, or city and county
provide the developer with incentives or concessions for the
production of lower income housing units within the development if
the developer meets specified requirements. Existing law requires
tba local government to establish procedures for carrying out these
I risions.
This bill would revise those provisions to refer to an applicant
who proposes a housing development and would recast them to, among
http: / /info.sen.ca.gov /pub /01- 02/bilVasm/ab 1851- 1900 /ab 1866 bill 20020929 chaptered.html 2/5/2009
AB 1866 Assembly Bill - CHAPTERED
other things, revise criteria for making written findings that a
concession or incentive is not required, add criteria for continued
affordability of housing in a condominium project, authorize an
applicant to request a meeting on its proposal for a specific density
bonus, incentive, or concession or for the waiver or reduction of
development standards, and exempt developments meeting certain
affordability criteria from specified laws. By increasing the duties
of local public officials, the bill would impose a state - mandated
local program.
The bill would also authorize an applicant to initiate judicial
proceedings if the city, county, or city and county refuses to grant
a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession in violation of
these provisions, and would require the court to award the plaintiff
reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. It would authorize a
local agency to charge a fee to reimburse it for costs that it incurs
as a result of these provisions.
(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 65583.1 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
65583.1. (a) The Department of Housing and Community Development,
in evaluating a proposed or adopted housing element for compliance
with state law, may allow a city or county to identify adequate
sites, as required pursuant to Section 65583, by a variety of
methods, including, but not limited to, redesignation of property to
a more intense land use category and increasing the density allowed
within one or more categories. The department may also allow a city
or county to identify sites for second units based on the number of
second units developed in the prior housing element planning period
whether or not the units are permitted by right, the need for these
units in the community, the resources or incentives available for
their development, and any other relevant factors, as determined by
the department. Nothing in this section reduces the responsibility
of a city or county to identify, by income category, the total number
of sites for residential development as required by this article.
(b) Sites that contain permanent housing units located on a
military base undergoing closure or conversion as a result of action
pursuant to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and
Realignment Act (Public Law 100 -526), the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101 -510), or any subsequent act
requiring the closure or conversion of a military base may be
identified as an adequate site if the housing element demonstrates
that the housing units will be available for occupancy by households
within the planning period of the element. No sites containing
housing units scheduled or planned for demolition or conversion to
nonresidential uses shall qualify as an adequate site.
Any city, city and county, or county using this subdivision shall
address the progress in meeting this section in the reports provided
pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65400.
"(c) (1) The Department of Housing and Community Development may
allow a city or county to substitute the provision of units for up to
25 percent of the community's obligation to identify adequate sites
for any income category in its housing element pursuant to paragraph
Page 2 of 11
http: // info. sen .ca.gov /pub /01- 02/bill/asm/ab 1851- 1900 /ab 1866 bill 20020929 chaptered.html 2/5/2009
AB 1866 Assembly Bill - CHAPTERED Page 5 of 11
development and permit fees Have been paid or the unit is eligible to
be lawfully occupied.
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, "committed assistance" means
that the city or county enters into a legally enforceable agreement
d ng the first two years of the housing element planning period
ti. -,: obligates sufficient available funds to provide the assistance
necessary to make the identified units affordable and that requires
that the units be made available for occupancy within two years of
the execution of the agreement. "Committed assistance" does not
include tenant -based rental assistance.
(5) For purposes of this subdivision, "net increase" includes only
housing units provided committed assistance pursuant to subparagraph
(A) or (8) of paragraph (2) in the current planning period, as
defined in Section 65588, that were not provided committed assistance
in the immediately prior planning period.
(6) For purposes of this subdivision, "the time the unit is
identified" means the earliest time when any city or county agent,
acting on behalf of a public entity, has proposed in writing or has
proposed orally or in writing to the property owner, that the unit be
considered for substantial rehabilitation, acquisition, or
preservation.
(7) On July 1 of the third year of the planning period, as defined
by Section 65588, in the report required pursuant to Section 65400,
each city or county that has included in its housing element a
program to provide units pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of
paragraph (2) shall report in writing to the legislative body, and
to the department within 30 days of making its report to the
legislative body, on its progress in providing units pursuant to this
subdivision. The report shall identify the specific units for which
committed assistance has been provided or which have been made
available to low- and very low income households, and it shall
quately document how each unit complies with this subdivision.
._, by July 1 of the third year of the planning period, the city or
county has not entered into an enforceable agreement of committed
assistance for all units specified in the programs adopted pursuant
to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (2), the city or county
shall, not later than July 1 of the fourth year of the planning
period, adopt an amended housing element in accordance with Section
65585, identifying additional adequate sites pursuant to paragraph
(1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 sufficient to accommodate the
number of units for which committed assistance was not provided. If
a city or county does not amend its housing element to identify
adequate sites to address any shortfall, or fails to complete the
rehabilitation, acquisition, purchase of affordability covenants, or
the preservation of any housing unit within two years after committed
assistance was provided to that unit, it shall be prohibited from
identifying units pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of
paragraph (2) in the housing element that it adopts for the next
planning period, as defined in Section 65588, above the number of
units actually provided or preserved due to committed assistance.
SEC. 2. Section 65852.2 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65852.2. (a) (1) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for
the creation of second units in single - family and multifamily
residential zones. The ordinance may do any of the following:
(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency
where second units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be
based on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the
equacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units
. traffic flow.
(B) Impose standards on second units that include, but are not
limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural
http: // info. sen. ca. gov / pub /01- 02/bill/asm/ab_1851- 1900 /ab 1866 bill 20020929 chaptered.html 2/5/2009
AB 1866 Assembly Bill - CHAPTERED Page 6 of 11
review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse
impacts on any real property that is listed in the California
Register of Historic Places.
(C) Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density
for the lot upon which the second unit is located, and that second
units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing
general plan and zoning designation for the lot.
(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of
any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(3) When a local agency receives its first application on or after
July 1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the -
application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary
review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any
local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use
permits. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to require a
local government to adopt or amend an ordinance for the creation of
second units. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for
costs that it incurs as a result of amendments to this paragraph
enacted during the 2001 -02 Regular Session of the Legislature,
including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that
provides for the creation of second units.
(b) (1) When a local agency which has not adopted an ordinance
governing second units in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c)
receives its first application on or after July 1, 1983, for a permit
pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the
application and approve or disapprove the application ministerially
without discretionary review pursuant to this subdivision unless it
adopts an ordinance in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) within
120 days after receiving the application. Notwithstanding Section
65901 or 65906, every local agency shall grant a variance or special
use permit for the creation of a second unit if the second unit
complies with all of the following:
(A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented.
(B) The lot is zoned for single - family or multifamily use.
(C) The lot contains an existing single- family dwelling.
(D) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling
and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or
detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as
the existing dwelling.
(E) The increased floor area of an attached second unit shall not
exceed 30 percent of the existing living area.
(F) The total area of floorspace for a detached second unit shall
not exceed 1,200 square feet.
(G) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage,
architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other
zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction
in the zone in which the property is located.
(H) Local building code requirements which apply to detached
dwellings, as appropriate.
(I) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage
disposal system is being used, if required.
(2) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the
basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this
subdivision.
(3) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local
agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned
for residential use which contain an existing single - family dwelling.
No additional standards, other than those provided in this
subdivision or subdivision (a), shall be utilized or imposed, except
that a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued
pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner - occupant.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pu`b/01-02/bill/asm/ab—I 851-1900/ab 1866 bill 20020929 chaptered.html 2/5/2009
Chapter 82-165/35 LAND PRESERVATION PLAN
Title 8 ZONING
Chapter 82-165135 LAND PRESERVATION PLAN
82 ^1_002 New generai_pipm
82_1_004 651351andreservaton_l_an_
82 -1.006 65/35 {arldpreservation standard.
82_1.008 Chan eg s to the 65/35 land preservation Dian.
82 -1.010 Urban limit line.
82_1_012 Growth management,
82 -1.014 Al p policies minimum parcel sizes.
82- 1.01.6 Hillside protection.
82 -1.018 Chances to the urban limit line_
82 -1.020 Annexations and in gyrations_
82- 1.02.2 Housing._
822 -1.024 Cooperation with cities_
82 -1.026 Applicatioon_to_proiects rior to adoption of new general Dian_
82 -1.028 Duration.
82 -1.030 No violation of law by this chapter.
82 -1.032 Definitions.
82 -1.002 New general plan.
The county shall adopt a new general plan by December 31, 1990 (the "new general plan') or as soon
thereafter as possible, in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. (Ords. 91 -1 § 2, 90-66 § 4).
82 -1.004 65135 land preservation plan.
The policies contained in this chapter shall be reflected in the new general plan, as ultimately adopted by
the board of supervisors in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State Planning
Law. (Ords. 91 -1 § 2, 90-66 § 4).
82 -1.006 65135 land preservation standard.
Urban development in the county shall be limited to no more than thirty-five percent of the land in the
county. At least sixty-five percent of all land in the county shall be preserved for agriculture, open space,
wetlands, parks and other nonurban uses. (Ords. 91 -1 § 2, 90-66 § 4).
Page 1 of 4
http:// municipalcodes .lexisnexis.com/codes/ccosta/ DATAMTLE08 /Chapter 82_1-65-35—LAND—P... 2/5/2009
Chapter 82-165/35 LAND PRESERVATION PLAN
Page 3 of 4
(2) An objective study has determined that the urban limit line is preventing the county from providing its
fair share of affordable housing, or regional housing, as required by state law, and the board of supervisors
finds that a change to the urban limit line is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the county to
meet these requirements of state law;
(3) A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a
change to the urban, limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation
agreement;
(4) A minor change to the urban limit line will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal
boundaries;
(5) A five -year cyclical review of the urban limit line has determined, based on the criteria and factors for
establishing the urban limit line set forth in Section 82 -1.010 above, that new information is available (from
city or county growth management studies or otherwise) or circumstances have changed, warranting a
change to the urban limit line;
(6) An objective study has determined that a change to the urban limit line is necessary or desirable to
further the economic viability of the East Contra Costa County Airport, and either (i) mitigate adverse
aviation - related environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the
county's aviation related needs; or
(7) A change is required to conform to applicable California or federal law.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any proposed general plan amendment that would
expand the urban limit line by more than thirty acres will require voter approval of the proposed general
plan amendment in addition to and following a four -fifths vote of the board of supervisors approving the
general plan amendment and making one or more of the findings required by subsection (a) of this section.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a proposed general plan amendment to expand the urban limit line by more
than thirty acres does not require voter approval if, after a public hearing, the board of supervisors by a
four -fifths vote makes either of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (i) the
expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property; or (ii)
the expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to comply with state or federal law. Proposed expansions
of thirty acres or less do not require voter approval.
(c) The board of supervisors may conduct a cyclical review of the urban limit line every five years.
(d) The board of supervisors will review the boundary of the urban limit line in the year 2016. The purpose
of the year 2016 review is to determine whether a change to the boundary of the county's urban limit line
map is warranted, based on facts and circumstances resulting from the county's participation with the cities
in a comprehensive review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County sufficient to meet housing and
job needs for twenty years. This review of the urban limit tine is in addition to any other reviews of the
urban limit line the board of supervisors may conduct.
(e) Any change to the urban limit line proposed as a result of any review authorized by this section will not
be effective unless it is approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. (Ords. 2006-06 § 4,
91 -1 § 2, 90-66 § 4).
82 -1.020 Annexations and incorporations.
The local agency formation commission ( °LAFCO ") shall be advised to (1) respect and support the county's
65/35 preservation standard, urban limit line and growth management standards when considering
requests for incorporation or annexation to cities or service districts, (2) apply the stricter of the growth
management standards of either the -county, the incorporating city or the annexing city or service district,
when considering requests for incorporation or annexations of land to cities or service districts, and (3)
require unincorporated land located within the urban limit line that is included in the incorporation of a new
city or annexed to a city to provide a fair share of affordable housing when and if such land is developed.
(Ords. 91 -1 § 2, 90-66 § 4).
82 -1.022 Housing.
As required by the State Planning Act, the county shall periodiealty review and update the new general
plan to conform to state housing requirements and to ensure its capacity to accommodate a variety of
housing types and prices throughout the county. In accordance with the provisions of Section 82- 1.018, the
hoard of supervisors may make findings of necessity that the urban limit line should be changed to allow
the county to meet its fair share of affordable housing and other state housing requirements. (Ords. 91 -1 §
2, 90-66 § 4).
82 -1.024 Cooperation with cities.
http:// municipalcodes .lexisnexis.com/codes /ccosta/ DATA/TI`ILEOS /Chapter_82_4-65-35—LAND—R... 2/5/2009-
t t
r
82- 24.602 -82 24.1002 ZONING
r -
Article 82 -24.6
Applications
82- 24.602 Applications— Required. A sec-
ond unit proposed for approval shall require
submission of an application to the community
development department. (Ord. 87-67 § 3).
82-24.604 Applications -- Contents. An ap-
plication for a permit approving a second unit
must be made in writing and contain the follow-
ing information:
(1) Name(s) and address(es) of applicant(s),
property owner(s), and all adjoining property
owners;
(2) Address and assessor's parcel number
for the property;
-(3) Size, indicating - dimensions and square
footage of the primary residence and the
proposed second unit;
(4) A legible scale drawing, showing:
(A) A north arrow to indicate parcel orienta-
tion,
(B) Lot dimensions and labels for all
property lines,
(C) Siting of the primary residence and the
proposed second unit,
(D) Floor plan configuration of the primary
residence and the proposed second unit,
(E) All other existing improvements, includ-
ing driveways and parking areas,
(F) Exterior design, including architectural
features of the primary residence and the
proposed second unit;
(5) Location of and distances to existing
improvements on adjacent parcels;
(6) Location and description of water and
sanitary services for both the primary residence
and the proposed second unit;
(7) Property owner's consent to physical
inspection of the premises;
(8) A written legal description of the
property. (Ord. 87-67 § 3).
82- 24.606 Applications —Types of second
unit. The application shall set forth the manner
in which the second unit will be established, as
follows:
(1) Conversion of an attic. basement, garage
or other portion of the existing primary resi-
dence;
(2) Addition of a separate unit to the exist.
ing primary residence;
(3) Creation of a detached .structure on the
lot or parcel in addition to the existing primary
residence. (Ord. 87-67 § 3).
f 2 24.608 Applications— Processing. All ap-
ations for second units shall be processed
accordance with the provisions of Chapter
, except for Article 26 2.21. All such
lications shall be expeditiously reviewed
shall receive priority permit processing
tive to other. community development de-
ment permit processing activities. (Ord.
67 § 3).
Article 82-24.10
Land Use Permits
82-24.1002 Land use perniits —Standards.
The planning agency division hearing the matter,
either initially or on appeal, shall make the
findings established in Article 26 -2.20, along
with the following, before granting a land use
permit for a second unit:
(1) The second unit is intended for rent or
lease or occupancy by one or more persons.
(2) The lot contains a net building site area
of at least six thousand square feet.
(3) The second unit may include one kitchen,
living room, and dining room, and no more than
two bathrooms and two bedrooms.
(4) In single- family residential districts, the
total floor area of the second unit may not
exceed one thousand square feet or cause the
maximum structural lot coverage to exceed
forty percent, whichever is less.
(5) In multiple - family residential districts.
the total floor area of the second unit may not
exceed one thousand square feet or cause the
maximum structural lot coverage to exceed
twenty -five percent in the M-6 through M -17
districts, or thirty -five percent in the M-29
district, whichever is less.
(6) In planned unit (P -l) districts, where
no fixed standards are specified, the zoning
administrator shall have the authority to estab-
lish reasonable standards for floor area, yards,
building height, distance between buildings, and
lot coverage.
(7) If a private sewage disposal system,
water system or both are proposed to be used. it
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
FEE SCHEDULE, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003
SERVICE PROVIDED
FEE
GRADING PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION
Improvement Value:
$100,000 or less
$100,001 or more
Over $1,000,000
Work goes over 1 year
Work goes over 2 years
The greater of 5% or $100
$5,000 + 4% of amount over $100,000
$41,000 + 3% of amount over $1,000,000
1% of value of uncompleted work + $100
2% of value of uncompleted work + $100
BUILDING DEMOLITION REVIEW
$60
MOBILE HOME PARK ANNUAL INSPECTION
Licensing
$25 + $2 per lot
Inspection
$4 per lot
MOBUX HOME PERMIT INSPECTION
Application
$20
Inspection
$100 + $30 for each 1/2 hour over l hour
Reinspection
$60 + $30 for each 1/2 hour over l hour
PERMANENT MOBILE HOME INSPECTION
Building Permit
As set in attached Building Valuation Table, or
$62.25, whichever is greater
Energy Compliance Surcharge
25% of building permit and plan review or permit
review fee
Access Compliance Surcharge
25% of building permit and plan review or permit
review fee
SITE INVESTIGATION (R FORM)
$200 + hourly rate for travel outside County
CODE COMPLIANCE DETEItNMATION
$200 per report
RECORDS INFORMATION SEARCH
Research or retrieval
Cost of copies only
Photocopy charge: 8 -1/2" x 11"
Larger documents
$.10 per sheet
$.20 per sheet
Certification: First Page
Additional Pages
$4.50 + photocopy charge
$1.00 each + photocopy charge
SUBPOENA SERVICES
Evidence Reproduction
$24 per hour, $6 minimum
Witness Summons
Time and materials, $150 deposit
Sx1erksWormsWeecover
A. PLAN REVIEW
B. PERMIT REVIEW & PROCESSING
C. ADDITIONAL PROCESSING
D. REFINERY AND CHEMICAL PLANT FEE
1. Yearly Building/Grading Permit
2. Individual Building/Grading Permit
3. Yearly Electrical Permit
65% of Building Permit Fee. Applicable when
plans are required beyond a plot or site plan.
25% of Building Permit Fee. Applicable when
review for compliance can be determined through
a plot or site plan, or references to a master plan
previously reviewed and approved by the
department.
Applicable when additional plan review is
required due to: 1) incomplete or unacceptable
follow- through by applicant on deficiencies
found in the initial plan review; 2) significant
revisions submitted after plan review is well
underway; or 3) revisions submitted during
construction to reflect field changes. Fees for
such reviews shall be at the following hourly
rates: Structural Engineers - $70; Plans
Examiners - $50; Inspectors - $60.
10% of the actual annual valuation of building
construction and grading activity. Excluded from
this category are all expenditures for which
individual building or grading permits are
applicable.
For new construction, additions, or major
alterations of buildings, the fees charged will be
consistent with other sections of this fee
schedule. For all other construction work the
valuation will be based upon the actual cost of
materials and labor associated with the
installation of foundations and other structural
items only. The permit will be calculated as per
Table No. 1 -A.
1% of the actual valuation of electrical
construction activity.
BUILDING VAIATATION DATA CTTppi F_TMFuT
The work listed in this supplement shall be valued based on the gross square footage of the work, or
where
noted, as a lump sum. Where actual costs are higher, those costs shall
be used for the
valuation.
$ /Sq.Ft
1.
_Residential addition
- Good quality
92.40
- Average quality
67.30
2.
Residential remodel (to existing floor areas)
53.80
If bathrooms are added or remodeled, for each one, add lump sum of
5,675.01
If kitchen is remodeled, add lump sum of
17,025.01
3.
Residential use conversion from garage, basement or unfinished area
- Good quality
64.12
- Average quality
38.47
If bathrooms or kitchen are added, include lump sum(s) as for
residential remodel
4.
Sun room with >60% glazing, cabanas, other similar structures
42.10
If conditioned space and integrated with main structure
66.66
5.
Patio cover (includes pre -fab types, usually with ICBO research listing)
19.25
If enclosed with walls or glazing
36.08
6.
Deck
18.05
7.
Retaining wall (projected sq.ft. areas of wall and footing)
concrete or CMU
12.03
wood
6.02
8.
Freestanding fence (projected area)
concrete or CMU
6.02
- wood, chainlink
3.60
9.
Swimming pool, lump sum of
28,375.00
-10.
Remodel or tenant improvement work in commercial buildings
Type I and II Construction
32.64
Type III, IV and V Construction
27.20
If restrooms are added or relocated - add lump sum for each
11,350.01
If commercial kitchen is added= add lump sum of
34,050.00
11.
Reroofing - Built up, composition shingles, foam
4.30
- Treated wood, metal and proprietary products
4.30
- Tile - masonry, clay, concrete-
5.53
12.
Mobile home on permanent foundation (based on square footage of
mobile home)
12.03
A. BUILDING INSPECTION
1. Building Permit The Building Permit fee shall be as set forth in
the Fee Schedule (Table No. I -A) of the 1994
Uniform Building Code, or $62.25, whichever is
greater.
2. Energy Compliance 25% of Building Permit and Plan Review or
processing fees. Applicable on all structures with
heated or air- conditioned space.
3. Access Compliance 25% of Building Permit and Plan Review or
processing fees. Applicable on all buildings
except residential use buildings with fewer than 4
dwelling units. Additions and alterations to an
exempt building, and accessory structures on the
same parcel with an exempt building, also are
exempt from this fee.
B. EARTHQUAKE FEE Residential: $10 per each $100,000 of building
valuation.
Commercial: $20 per each $100,000 of building
valuation.
Valnntion.- The determination of value or valuation under any provisions of the County Building
Code shall be made by the Director of Building Inspection. The total valuation to be used with the
Fee Schedule shall be determined using the Building Valuation Data contained in the Building
Standards Magazine, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier,
California. The data in the March -April issue of each year shall be used for the ensuing fiscal year.
Work not listed in the Building Valuation Data shall be valued per the Building Valuation Data
Supplement below, which may be expanded administratively by the Director of Building Inspection
to clarify or cover additional types of work and situations:
The valuation to be used in computing the building permit fee shall be the total valuation of all
construction work for which the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing,
mechanical, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire extinguishing systems,
and any other permanently installed equipment. For industrial facilities, the value of process
equipment and heavy machinery supported by the structure or by its own foundation shall be
included. Contractor overhead and profit shall be included.
The valuation of grading, retaining walls, paving and other site work, and any demolition work,
shall be included unless such work was included in other permits issued by the Building Inspection
Department.
The valuation data is used to establish consistent criteria for calculating permit fees, and the
calculated total valuation does not necessarily reflect actual costs. The County Assessor does not
rely on this cost, but performs independent assessments of the permitted work.
13. Moved building (for existing s.f. any added s.f. shall be at "average
quality's valuation)
38.79
14.
Agri cultural/husbandry buildings
- Pole construction
- 10.22
- Wood construction
15.89
- Steel construction
18.16
C. ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FEES
1.
New dwelling
15% of the Building Permit Fee.
2.
Addition or alteration to dwelling unit
20% of the Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
3.
New commercial building
25% of the Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
4.
Shell building;
5% of the - Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
5.
Commercial alterations & tenant improvements
20% of the Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
6.
Electrical Permit
$62.25 minimum. See * note.
* An electrical permit is required for all electrical work regulated by the Electrical Code. Fees
for work not included in Items 1 - 5 above shall be
calculated using Table 1 -A of the Building
Code, and based on the contract amount of the electrical work. Where such electrical work is
- performed in conjunction with a building - permit, the fee may be added to that permit, and a
separate electrical permit is not required.
D. MECHANICAL INSPECTION FEES
1.
New dwelling
10% of the Building Permit Fee.
2.
Addition or alteration to dwelling unit
15% of the Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
3.
New commercial building
15% of the Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
4.
Shell building
5% of the Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
5.
Commercial alterations & tenant improvements
10% of the Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
6.
Mechanical Permit
$62.25 minimum. See * note below.
A mechanical permit is required for all mechanical work regulated by the Mechanical Code.
Fees for work not included in Items I 5 above shall be calculated_ using Table 1 -A 'of the
Building Code, and based on the contract amount of the mechanical work. Where such
mechanical work is performed in conjunction with a building permit, the fee may be added to
that permit, and a separate mechanical permit is not required.
E. PLUMBING INSPECTION FEES
1, New dwelling 15% of the Building Permit Fee.
2. "Addition or alteration to dwelling unit 20% of the Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
3. New commercial building 20% of the Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
4. -Shell building 5% of the Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
5. Commercial alterations & tenant improvements 15% of the Building Permit Fee, $62.25
minimum.
6. Plumbing Permit $62.25 minimum. See * note below.
* A plumbing permit is required for all plumbing work regulated by the Plumbing Code. Fees
for work not included in Items 1 - 5 above shall be calculated using Table 1 -A of the Building
Code, and based on the contract amount of the work. Where such plumbing work is performed
in conjunction with a building permit, the fee may be added to that permit, and a separate
plumbing permit is not required.
F. MISCELLANEOUS FEES
1. Reinspections. When return trips to the site by an inspector are necessary as specified below, a
reinspection fee shall be charged as follows:
a. For building permits with total valuations not exceeding $5,000, $25 per trip.
b. For building permits with total valuations of more than $5,000,$60 per trip.
c. For electrical, mechanical and plumbing permits on residential buildings, $25 per trip.
d. For electrical, mechanical and plumbing permits on non - residential buildings, $60 per trip.
Situations where reinspection fees shall be applicable include the following.
a. When the work for a called inspection is not ready or not accessible to the inspector.
b. When extra inspections are necessary due to deficient or defective work through fault or
error of the owner or contractor. One such extra inspection will be made for each phase of
work that requires inspection (i.e. foundation, rough electric, etc.) under the regular fees
prescribed in this section. A reinspection fee shall be charged for each additional visit or
inspection thereafter.
c. When more than one inspection is made on a phase of work (i.e. "partial inspections ") that
normally is inspected in one trip. The fee may be waived when partial inspections are
necessary due to the large size of the project, or when the inspections do not adversely affect
the efficiency of the inspector.
2. Owner - requested inspection of an existing building. The fee shall be based on an hourly rate @
$60 per hour, with 1 hour minimum. If overtime is required the rate shall be $180 per hour with
a one hour minimum.
3. Inspection for Change of Occupancy. The fee shall be based on an hourly rate @ $60 per hour,
with 1 hour minimum
4. " Investigation of work without permit. When a Stop Work Notice is issued for work being
performed without permits or performed beyond the scope of existing permits, a special
investigation and inspection shall be made before permits may be issued for such work. An
investigation fee shall be charged equal to two times the amount of all permit fees required by
this ordinance with a minimum of $100. The fee is additive to the permit fees. This provision
shall not apply to emergency work when it can be proven to the satisfaction of the Director of
Building Inspection that such work was urgently necessary, that it was not practical to obtain a
permit before the work was commenced, and that a permit was applied for as soon as practical.
5. Abatement of code violations.
Rnilding: Abatement Costs: When an RF (Report Form) is issued as a result of an inspection
of a property, and compliance is required to correct violations found, or permits are
required to legalize work previously performed without building permits, a code
enforcement cost shall be charged equal to two times the amount of all permit fees
required by this ordinance, with a minimum of $100. Where repeat visits are
required before the owner complies or obtains the required permits, a reinspection
cost of $25 per trip shall be charged after the second trip. Where repeat visits are
necessary after compliance or permit issuance to enforce the abatement work, a
reinspection cost of $25 per trip shall be charged after the second trip. The costs in
this section are additive to the permit fee.
Zoning: When Code Enforcement activities are required as a result of an inspection of a
property and compliance is required to correct violations found, or permits are
required for compliance, a code enforcement cost shall be charged equal to the
amount of all permit fees required by this ordinance, with a minimum of $100.
Where repeat visits are required before the owner complies or obtains the required
permits, a reinspection cost of $25 per trip shall be charged. Where repeat visits are
necessary after compliance or permit issuance to enforce the abatement work, a
reinspection cost of $25 per trip shall be charged. The costs in this section are
additive to the permit fees.
6. Renewal fee for an expired permit:
• For Final Inspection: 10% of the current building valuation will be used as the basis for the
calculation of the building permit fee.
• For permits that have expired within one year after issuance date: the permit fee will be
50% of the sum of the original building, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing fees.
• For permits that have expired more than one year from issuance date: full fee is applicable.
s:cserWonnsveescheduJe
1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
1-A
TABLE 1 -A— BUILDING PERMIT FEES
TOTAL VALUATION _ F
FEE
51.00 to $500.00 $
$21.00
$501-00 to $2.000.00 $
$21.00 for the first $500.00 plus $2.75 for each additional
$100.00. or fraction thereof, to and including $2.000.00
$2.001.00 to $25.000.00 $
$62.25 for the First $2.000.00 plus $12.50 for each additional
$1, 000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25.000.00
$25.001.00 to $50,000.00 $
$349.75 for the firm $25,000.00 plus $9.00 for each
additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including
$50,000.00
$50.001.00 to $100,000.00 $
$ 574.75 for the First $50.000.00 plus $6.25 for each -
additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof. to and including
$100,000.00
$100,001.00 to $500,00000 $
$887.25 for the First $100,000-00 plus $5.00 for each
additional $1y000 -00, or fraction thereof, to and including
$500.000.00
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000:00 $
$2,887.25 for the first $500,000:00 plus $4 -25 for each
additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including
$1.000,000.00
$1,000,001 -00 and up $
$5,012.25 for the first $1,000,000.0(1 plus $2.75 for each
additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof
Other Inspections and Fees: I
I. Inspections outside of normal business hours .. . ....... . ..:::.....::...::.. _ : $42.00 per hour*
(minimum charge -two hours) ..
2 Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of
Section 108.8 ..... . .................::.. $42.00 per hour*
3. Inspections for which no feeds specifically indicated .
.... _ .. .......... , .. • .. $42:00 per hour*
(minimum charge—one-half hour).
4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions
or revisions to plans ..... _ .. . ..... ... . ... _ .... ..... _ .. _ ... , .... $42:00 per hour*
(minimum charge -- one -half hour)
5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and
inspections, or both ....... . ............. . ........ Actual costs**
*O h lh
r t e tota Doily cost to the jurisdiction. whichever Is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead,
equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
* *Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs
County of Contra Costa
BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Martinez, California 94553 -1213
RECEIPT NUMBER: P140836
APD #. �E�SITE ADDRESS: 2 ITE DR AL
PARCEL: 193 - 273 -008
TRANSACTION DATE: 06/29/2004
TRANSACTION LIST:
Type
------------------ - - - - --
Payment
RECEIPT
Activity TYPE: Building Combo
Sub-Type ...... : NEW SF RESIDENCE
TOTAL PAYMENT: 527.96
Method Description
--------- - - - - -- ------------------ - - - - --
Check 1023
CCOUNT ITEM LIST:
Item # Description
-- - - - - -- ------------------ - - - - --
100 Building Permit -BP4
110 Plan Check Fee - PC
130 Energy Surcharge - ES
170 Community Develop - #P
220 Earthquake - EQ
ISSUED BY: MB
DATE: 06/29/2004
Lvvu
Total Fee Current Pay
812.25
.00
527.96
527.96
335.05
.00
536.08
.00
8.75
.00
- Z 2 • 0?
04:56 PM
Amount
527.96
Total Pay
.00
527.96
.00
.00
.00
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
-. CQ,DEVOP.I�IENT:7�EPAt'�NN'T
Mom-
T,O,.BB. COMPLETED BY APPLICANTlOS'i'NER
APPLICANT
— blame
Address 8iddress "
City; eta :.. , State
'
Phone 2S JZ7 ZzP Phone
Fire Dist. 2 V1 m0t) � +'
By signing below, owner agrees to pay all costs, including any
By signing below, the applicant agrees tapay all costs for
S -06.6 .
-
accnied interest, if costs notpaid by the applicant
piocess'ing this:app"�ication,plus any accrued interest, if costs not
#Unit, x 195
(Developmm -- —man)
_:Q-Check here if billings are to be sent to applicant ntier than
paid within 30 days of invoking
/ / L)
'Census Tract � 6 {
o .
t
s Bignature :f -
gUer'ant'
ApFhcs Signature
Panel No.
::
5 -029.
Atlas. Page %!7
CONT.WT PERSON (a ti alb
PROXCT DATA APPLICATION TYPE
xae urrt'
Fatal I*op. Size O D' ent Plan
x -ref Files -
Address . _.
-_� .. •.
„
Number of Units O Land Use Permit
-S-05M
_ , _ , ..., - .. ..: ° .-
CrtY, .S - t
Ph
Estzmatd Project iralne - - O DP/LUP Combo
ABdresses x Si so S30
-. '13 0 ther
Supmrvisorial Dist
Nature of Request: (t�ttach supplemental `statement if necessary fi !
Fish & Game Posting
- . . .:. �._a _ Elt ,!
,I
S -048
�{
(if not CEQA exempt)
r.
�-
- �
ApPlicat}onDescription. '1L° ' .IiIn , �f i ✓t d
t(H .
yu d
EnviromnentalHealth .
$ �0
5884.
Property Description _
Oidinanee:ite£
-
TypeflfFee.:.+EEAlYiOUNT:
-CODZ :
Assessor's%To.
Area. ��l�W1D
*Base FeelDe posi£
$ l , DD b
b �7�► S -'
LL
-2 6Ira �/
Fire Dist. 2 V1 m0t) � +'
*Late Filing Penalty ..
. of applicable - 50% of ebove)
S -06.6 .
-
Site Address �'li I�
Zoning bistr ct�,L "�(J
Sphere of Influence .
#Unit, x 195
(Developmm -- —man)
$
514
/ / L)
'Census Tract � 6 {
Flood Zone .
t
S -014
Panel No.
'/ �% value over $100,000 $
5 -029.
Atlas. Page %!7
tof.=t? ojectvabr LUP)
GeneralPlzn J�-
x -ref Files -
Notification Pee
$
-S-05M
ABdresses x Si so S30
Supmrvisorial Dist
Fish & Game Posting
$,pD
\
S -048
Rec'd by Z4.S` 1 U Ol
(if not CEQA exempt)
C oncurreut Files:
EnviromnentalHealth .
$ �0
5884.
'
Date Filed
-Oth er
_
$
--
TOTAL
Receipt 4
File 1\Tumb er 3 G'_(- 0 L' is
REQUEST TO RECEIPT
Planner _�_p( tit (!" s Date: ; 1 Z
Payer. All �C A 01(f r? 5 C 4 to f-
Application Nbr. 5 U o qoo (,3
Concurrent App Nbr (List All)
Prefix Code
Purpose of Deposit (S -Code) Amount
y V114 07-74 100o-
CLERK'S POSTING FEE (F & G) CLKF
ADMIN FEE (F & G) 048F
.a
CASWCHECK TOTAL: $ OCk} C
PLEASE ATTACH COPY OF APPLICATION FORM
`NICHOLE V SCHURR 1020
ALAN D SCHURR
2156 GRANITE DR c" 90- 7162/3222
ALAMO, CA 94507
DA
PAY TO THE
ORDER F '� ---
DOLLARS t.! °e:�i�� "0
Washington Mutual PLATINUM CUSTOMER
i WaaMnglon Mutual Bank, FA
Antioch Finantial Center im -
3M Deft Fair Boulevard t- 19M7e&7m00
FOR Anbodh.�a+CJ /K
I ,31�227 -L6 271 :393ooi L86749.@tOn■ 1020
0i4VaAHD2000
Mar 22 04 02j32p Dennis Foster C.P.H. 525-655-1051
CDD APP,
O.K. O.K.
I. Application Form with nmu($) end address(es) of applimt(s) and PrOPOITY
14.• Ad&us and assessor's pmtd- Mbft for die lot.
Size, footage of tl)z primary rmda= and 1=
moat dimensions and squm f
pmposed woond unit
2/ A lepble scale site VIM, dm4*
V. n-I W&, av=3fww=O of an trees w the propmV.
�Avor& arrow tOiu&CatCPwCdOfiwW=
db=dm with ISI)ICIS for an WVwty lives, distances bdwem all *uAwes and
bath cdg�)x and pro
,;POOL
VO
ash of the primary mAeWe and the WWosod so umt
p&m4ry residence and the proposed Second unit.
71-1=3r plaa comfigumtim Of ft
���All 00= Clivtmg M4=vemm&l mcbdmg &vemys and pmkmg are" (412
-I . ft propogW mmd wk wExWnm
ztwi� dwip of ft
style aid armor iju i, and
i. _FUCOUP 0r
lot awmp. Totals UM ftftp of &U imqmv=Cgj3. bmldmp od
rjje�er,�� 031-
MpO* W tObI PrOPCAY gq= ftbig
grUCbX= foUqr�p (M pL
A i&� V
PA An
d., ,tw of ft bUD&g and Wdm=IBb ()f the p6DKy rcj� and second
M
P-T ,V
• and a sample board of Se CIDIM Of &t Xtmy red&we and second unit.
6. Color pbjMpqftDf f&P=UY rwWmm and =O=dk9PWfffieStd=from
each of te property Enes of the Proj ad Site.
LOCIdi= and d=iom of w8ft and gmiWy services ft bath ffit primary
T "ic jam and & p m
e wpowd md tud
g. owner's consent to physical m of the praises.
9. AVwri'd:= legal &wriPfiOn Of the VmPedy (deed)
p.1
L
by:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT
ear Property Owner:
Date: Al f l,i (It" {,
An application for a building permit has been submitted to this department. The subject lot is smaller in area or width
than required by the current zoning. In situations where buildingpermits are requested on these "small " lots, the County
may notify all nr_opgM owners within 300 feet and provide opportunity to request a public hearing to consider the
compatibility of the project with other development in the immediate neighborhood in terms of its size, height, design and
location.
Should you want additional information about the proposed project, you may contact the applicant directly or come into
our office. Any request for this project to be scheduled for a public hearing must be submitted in writing before the date
noted below. The applicant will then be notified and a hearing will be scheduled. You will be re- notified of any scheduled
hearing.
The County Zoning Administrator may consider ' s ce of a_ bull , ijg penni�w thout a hearing if a request for a public
hearing is not received in writing by 5: 00 pm on ! (' d ' � � G` l ( at the:
Application and Permit Center
Community Development Counter
651 Pine Street
2"d Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 9,43,
Attn:File
Site Address:
Application Description:%
i) C71
f
( 1� (/ t rj jff (r J
1' (` � �..' i L (. Yl fl.�•_
Applicant:
Name:
Phone:
reci r,
' { ! `,
f
(See reverse side for any further information)
Address:
Building Permit May Be Issued
'ONING ADMIMSTRATO I- -��+ -� -"^ e- ; D► DATE:
THIS APPROVAL IS VALID FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH
No iv,o �yE =od' r Caw,^ . 1v o A 41tripr. OP., , 11 C4,a.., -�,
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
651 PINE STREET, 4TH FLOOR, NORTH WING
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
APN: 193 - 273 -008
FILE # SU040013
NOTICE OF RESTRICTION
I, Alan Shurr, owner of the property identified as 2156 Granite Drive, wish to have
the following statement included within the title to the above property:
(1) "You are purchasing a property with a permit for a second residential unit.
This permit carries with it certain restrictions that must be met by the
owner of the property. You are prohibited from selling the second unit
separately. The second unit is restricted to the maximum size allowed
under County Ordinance Code Section 82- 24.012. The permit is available
from the current owner or from the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department."
(2) The second unit shall not be sold separately.
(3) The second unit is restricted to the maximum size allowed under
Ordinance Code section 82- 24.012.
(4) The restrictions are binding upon any successor in ownership of the
property and lack of compliance may result in legal action by the County
against the property owner.
(5) The owner of this parcel containing a second unit shall occupy either the
primary dwelling unit or the second unit.
(6) The property owner is responsible for maintaining the compatibility
between the main residence and the second unit at all times.
The undersigned as owner of the property at 2156 Granite Drive agrees to the
above statement(s).
Signature
Date
P4
VL
31.M
........... :24
m
i
L ,j.
t
19
5
RIE
mm
sill
bIII
i�
,2A
S
1 cr
zm
�o
a � owc
N Q
$
0:3
I�
i•
Ili
�i
I
e�
�+
� }fit
trtytty� a:
�
d
YI� °•
sqitlf......7�;;�
flSj�!
3�3�5g�gsg i�l
,2A
S
1 cr
zm
�o
a � owc
N Q
$
0:3
I�
i•
Ili
�i
i
1/2" CDX OR
15132" O.S.B. NER 124
ROOF SHEATHING W1
ROOF SYSTEM PER PLAN
PRE4MG111MEERIED R OOF
TRUSSES
H1 HURRICANE CLIP:
EEACM TRUSS'
l.C. SHEATHING TO �as
(ING. OMIT EVERY
3LOCK FOR VENT /
)GE NAIL. PANEL E
)P OF LOWER TOP
EXTERIOR SIDING OR
"r' ATHBIG PER PLAN
2 X STUDS a law O.C.
PER PLAN - -+—
rtters. CEC 210492.
n"10 OLdw
110 -57.
:C 210 -52.
CEC 370.27
prism
orescent
ry baekkuGp,9 3fig_
1 99.
>, CEC 410 -8.
C 1 - tD
losets or
'ceilings
JBC709 &710.
neters, PG &E
•44.
3. Smoke detectors M hapways, be
and at each story, CSC 310.9
4. Stairway requirements, CBC 100
5. Sahty glass, CBC 2406
• at tubs & showers
- within 24' of a door
• within 18' of the floor
- at stairways b land ngs
6. 36' landing 0 exterior doors CS
7. 5/8' type 'x' gypsurr board belwe
/i residence, including support,
5 c
8. 5/8' type 'x' gypsum board in cl
under stairways. CBC 1003.9.3
9. Provide fluorescent lighting in k
3 and bathrooms, Title 24
`�- 1O
`� 8 Metal /glass door 0 fireplace, T
11 Seismic strap 6 thermal expan
tank 0 water heater CPC 51C
120 d hu we, cpt. ' 7 for wd'
and lurnaCe, CPC ` �.)7. CMC
13Dryer Vent 14' max length, Ck^
14Code editions:
ATTIC VENTS /CODE
(1:160 ATTIC AREA)
- DSL 2X TOP PLATE
PER PLAN
X 12 D.F. #Z HEADERS
2001 Calif Building Cnn.:
2001 Calif MecNwka
2001 Calif Plim6ing t- a.
2001 C4111 Elecbk Co
1203
AC 310.4
!Ms
i So
'Ht
� T T OF AN EN ` D11 NCT 4P,ROS O NECESSARY A A
'IdTY Or HF N 0ACHM.EN1 if SMALL BE THE RESPO '
OWNEP TO ESTAIR r S ALL PER BUILDING Zli
.SYATION OF PLUMBING OUTLETS i0 PROVIDE ACC£prA
`.rg FOP CONNECTIONS TO PUBLIC ROVIDE.
Coil ASSUMES NO RESPONSIB41r1' Fps, THE ACCURAC
�+ "! RECORD INFORMATION PROVIDED ;T IS THE OWNER
+E5PONSIUILIry TO VERIFY ACTUAL FIEIC' LOCATION OF
"14Lt SEWER FACILITIES.
-k OPOSE� STRG'CTUREiS; :SAY N,'T RE CGNNECTEC
hE PUBLIC MAIN UNTIL:
'HE BUILDING ROUGH
AP PR PLUMBING IS COMPLETEC AND
L O E CITY OR COUNTY,
APPL BLE CON TION FEES ARE PAID 70 CCCSD.
Afi PROyV�ED SEWS CONTRACTOR OBTAINS A'C
E 10ltSllBD IT F ONN
n— I CUNT R E I
1( 9ANITA Y
SIM SEE DETAIL
/— 4' CONS. SLAB WI
*3 SAM Q 113` O.C. EA. W.1Y
4' CRUSHED ROCK SASE
SEE S FOR ETP S
nd TYP_Ir_ -
11' =1-0 '
SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE
OTES - MR. AND MRS. ALLAN SCHURR - ALAMO, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Reference: 2003 Simpson Strong TR rnrl .q1I mr
�s. t
ge
r3
3 5 5 5 j 6 4W C� 43
-- 2-
XROLIMOM C8E
Emergency X
ATTIC VENTS /CODE
(1:160 ATTIC AREA)
- DSL 2X TOP PLATE
PER PLAN
X 12 D.F. #Z HEADERS
2001 Calif Building Cnn.:
2001 Calif MecNwka
2001 Calif Plim6ing t- a.
2001 C4111 Elecbk Co
1203
AC 310.4
!Ms
i So
'Ht
� T T OF AN EN ` D11 NCT 4P,ROS O NECESSARY A A
'IdTY Or HF N 0ACHM.EN1 if SMALL BE THE RESPO '
OWNEP TO ESTAIR r S ALL PER BUILDING Zli
.SYATION OF PLUMBING OUTLETS i0 PROVIDE ACC£prA
`.rg FOP CONNECTIONS TO PUBLIC ROVIDE.
Coil ASSUMES NO RESPONSIB41r1' Fps, THE ACCURAC
�+ "! RECORD INFORMATION PROVIDED ;T IS THE OWNER
+E5PONSIUILIry TO VERIFY ACTUAL FIEIC' LOCATION OF
"14Lt SEWER FACILITIES.
-k OPOSE� STRG'CTUREiS; :SAY N,'T RE CGNNECTEC
hE PUBLIC MAIN UNTIL:
'HE BUILDING ROUGH
AP PR PLUMBING IS COMPLETEC AND
L O E CITY OR COUNTY,
APPL BLE CON TION FEES ARE PAID 70 CCCSD.
Afi PROyV�ED SEWS CONTRACTOR OBTAINS A'C
E 10ltSllBD IT F ONN
n— I CUNT R E I
1( 9ANITA Y
SIM SEE DETAIL
/— 4' CONS. SLAB WI
*3 SAM Q 113` O.C. EA. W.1Y
4' CRUSHED ROCK SASE
SEE S FOR ETP S
nd TYP_Ir_ -
11' =1-0 '
SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE
OTES - MR. AND MRS. ALLAN SCHURR - ALAMO, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Reference: 2003 Simpson Strong TR rnrl .q1I mr
�s. t
ge
r3
3 5 5 5 j 6 4W C� 43
-- 2-
AN APPLICANT'S GUIDE TO PROCEDURES FOR
Central Contra Costa SIDE SEWERS
Sanitary District Pf r m i't P ro C e s s-
1 New Connections
ANTRODUEnON
Construction of a new building normally requires a
connection to the District's sewer system. The District
has developed procedures to approve the connection,
collect applicable fees, and inspect the construction of
needed sewer facilities.
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW
District staff reviews plans specifically for possible serve the proposed building. The District does not
encroachments into existing public easements or conflicts approve the building plans. That function is handled by
with existing District facilities- 1f encroachments exist, the county or cities within the District boundaries.
plans must be revised to meet District requirements. Stag'
also determines the availability of sewers in the area to
VEFIN11IUNb i
"Homeowner'' is a person(s) who owns and occupies
or will occupy the residence on which the sewer work
will be personally performed. Builders of "spec"
houses, apartments, rental units, and commercial or
industrial buildings do not qualify for a homeowner's
sewer permit.
B. "Side sewer' ' is the privately owned and maintained
sewer which connects the plumbing system of the
building to the public sewer. The side sewer begins
with and includes the connection to the public sewer
and terminates at the point of connection to the
building plumbing system usually two feet outside the
foundation line or building wall. "Side sewer"
includes the lateral sewer and the house sewer.
C. "Lateral sewer" is that portion of the side sewer
which is within the public right -of -way or District
easement.
D. "House sewer" is that portion of the side sewer
from the lateral sewer to its connection to the
building plumbing system.
E. "Public sewer" is amain sewer which may have one
or more side sewers connected to it. These sewers
are normally 8 to 10 inches in diameter.
PROCEDURES
New Building Construction:
A. Applicant delivers building plans to District for review.
B. District staff reviews building plans specifically for
possible encroachments into easements. If encroach-
ments exist, plans must be revised to meet District
requirements.
C. If the proposed building location does not interfere
with an existing or proposed sewer facility, District
staff will then stamp building plans noting specific
District requirements. These requirements must be
met prior to connection of the structure to the public
sewer. These requirements can include, but are not
limited to, the payment of applicable fees and the
construction of necessary public sewers.
D. Applicant obtains building permits from appropriate
county or city building department.
2244A -12197
E. Prior to final inspection of the building by the county
or city, and not earlier than the completion of the
roofing, the applicant must return to the District to
pay all applicable connection fees. All checks must
be made payable to Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District or CCCSD.
F. When the connection fees are paid, the District will
issue a house connection permit to a District - approved
contractor hired by the applicant. The District permit
to do the work can be issued to the contractor only at
the District's permit counter. This contractor will
perform all necessary side sewer work.
If homeowners wish to install their own side sewers,
they can perform only that work which is located
within their property. Specific requirements for
"Homeowner" work are summarized in the
"Conditions for Homeowners Permit" handout.
r
G. If a "lateral sewer" has not already been installed to
serve the property, connection to the public sewer may
require a tap procedure. Taps are required to be
installed by prequalified sewer contractors. After
appropriate fees are paid, a permit will be issued to. a
District- approved sewer contractor hired by the
applicant. Homeowners will not be issued permits for
sewer taps or lateral installations.
H. The sewer contractor must arrange a District inspec-
tion prior to performing any work. This is normally
done when the permit is issued to the contractor.
I. The contractor can begin the sewer work on the date
of the scheduled inspection. It is the responsibility of
the sewer contractor to arrange for the necessary
District inspections as the work progresses. Twenty -
four -hour notice to the District is required for all
inspections. Work performed without inspection will
be required to be removed and reconstructed.
J. When the side sewer work is completed, including
backfill and compaction, a District inspector will
provide a final inspection upon notification by the
sewer contractor.
Septic Tank Conversions
A. The applicant applies for a District permit to connect
to public sewer. Staff will determine if the property is
within District boundaries and if annexation is
required. If annexation is required, the property owner
must obtain and complete an annexation application
and petition. The District must process the petition
prior to the start of any sewer work.
B. The District will investigate the availability of publtL;
sewers to serve the property. If a public sewer is not
adjacent to or within the property, the applicant must
first extend the public sewer. The "Public Main
Extension" handout details this procedure.
Assuming the public sewer is available and after the
applicant pays connection fees, the District will issue
a connection permit to a District- approved contractor
hired by the applicant. The District permit to do the
work can be issued to the contractor only at the
District's permit counter. This contractor will
perform all necessary side sewer work.
If homeowners wish to install their own side sewers,
they can perform only that work which is located
within their property. Specific requirements for
"Homeowner" work are summarized in the
"Conditions for Homeowners Permit "handout.
Most connections to an existing public sewer will
require a tap procedure. Taps are required to be
installed by prequalified sewer contractors. After
appropriate fees are paid, a permit will be issued t
District - approved sewer contractor hired by the
applicant. Homeowners will not be issued permits
for sewer taps or lateral installations.
C. The work included in a septic tank conversion
consists of the installation of a new side sewer from
a point two feet outside of the building to the public
sewer main and the proper abandonment of the
existing septic tank. The existing pipeline from the
building to the septic tank may be used as part of the
new side sewer only if it is a minimum of four
inches in diameter and will hold a District - specified
pressure test. The test of the existing side sewer as
well as the installation of the new side sewer must be
completed and accepted before the existing septic
tank is removed from service and abandoned.
Abandonment of a septic tank includes uncovering
the septic tank and filling the empty septic tank with
compacted dirt or sand. Specific requirements for
abandonments of septic tanks may be obtained from
the Contra Costa County Health Services
Department Environmental Health Division, which
has jurisdiction over the abandonments.
22448 -12/97
LEP2880P
FEE MODELING
PERMIT: CC BI CR PARCEL: 193 273 008 6
CITY SAN DIST CENTRAL SANITARY
OWNR SCHURR ALAN D & NICHOLE SITE 2156 GRANITE DR
ALAMO
TRA: 66009 C.T: 3461.02
SCHOOL DIST: 7801 SAN RAMON UNIFIED
FIRE DIST: 3005 SAN RAMON VLY FIRE
PARK DED:
DRAINAGE: DRAINAGE AREA
BEDRMS: BATH:
VAL CODE DESC
19C SUNROOM CONDITIONED
70 AOB TRI- VALLEY DEV
66 AOB SCC REG
49 AOB ALAMO
NBR UNIT: 0
------------------------------------
AREA @RATE VALUATION
759 66.17 50223.03
HABITABLE 759 50223.03
-'09/26/2003 APPL. DATE: 09 26 2003 APPROVED: MB
J 11.-d:p-4a a4 10; 45 tRJ L I1YU 1 Pb1-tL 111.11V
Ca b a Fee items- assess
_�� i•;i:.� �'.��: f•. L•_ .... SOY
- Ef.
WSdWNMWW
Now I rfwv% I rrAw VAW 1 MJUML:
FU
TOW Rows: 13
I
925 646 1219 P.01101
15--09 07128MOO4
scum
sgzc-'- 83=NW '
wdjxujm 151
07
c Works &V6-12,69 _
ra �% C �- t�loa � ....L.µP►- o�e.ue�3T5
-T —t-o gi c Fee S -- -_ %ALA ,Pc.0 4Rea
l� Lcz S ? u
ST-fue, A<owa� e W Sic; -313-22 2 2.S-
-7- w-c- /�Io r 77 orb
�iIr�'CTDr
RYOr T� �OQ>^c� a �' S'
`,`�°r ►'' lJiS7 o rS cg-
page 1
TOTAL P.01
Fax Server 10/6/2006 5:26:37 PM PAGE 11001 Fax Server
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: August 3, 2404
TO: Barbara Peck, Building Inspection
� 1�Y
FROM: te Stephen Kowaiewski, Transportation EngIneerin ,?
SUBJECT: Traffic Fee Waiver for Assessors Parcel Number (APN) t 93- 273 -008
Alamo Area of Benefit (49RS Fund No. 6641)
Tri Valley Transportation Fee (70RS Fund No. 8288)
SCC Regional Fee (66RS Fund No. 8215)
The owner of the property at 2156 Granite Drive, Alamo, CA, has applied for a building
permit for a pool house. The mu#i- family rates for the Alamo Area of Benefit, Td -Valley
Transportation Fee, and SCC Regional Fee apply forthis residential second unit land use.
During the initial planning process, the applicant was not Infomed of these traffic fees.
These current fees would have made the project too cost prohibitive for completion if
originally disclosed. Unfortunately, the applicant has already processed a significant
portion of the project and cannot rescind his land use application. Although these traffic
fees are applicable to the proposed project, May should be waived due to the lack of
proper fee disclosure.
If you have any questions, please call me at (925) 313 -2225.
SK-WI
G:` PD8t8%Tra d&0A061A03 umpiwOM r Waiver Alamo.dw
W. W. Lai, TE
.9.: LqWS, TE
K. Femander, Aoc3ow*9
,/Applicant: Alan Stwrr
FAY: 925 838 -5990
the issue of dams.
The governor's proclama-
See DROUGHT, Page 14
Ai4 212 SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2009
D�rureaches a certain amount of
rought or with fines for wa-
tering lawns during daylight
FROM PAGE I hours.
not mother nature's fault " He "Our board was already
said he hopes to persuade op- considering calling for man -
ponents of new dams and res- datory conservation, and the
ervoirs that "the emergency governor's proclamation will
Presents an opportunity," give them another reason to
including creating jobs. He move ahead with it," said Su-
also said the Sacramento -San san Siravo a spokeswoman
Joaquin River Delta, which
for the district.
supplies water to much of the
The governor could im-
, must be reps•
pose mandatory water ra-
"We have a water system
tion ng by executive fiat
built for 18 million people.
--- and on Friday he held out
We now have 38 million peo-
that possibility in the future
ple," the governor said.
— but for now he has chosen
Despite heavy rainfall this
to allow local water districts
month, state water officials
to pursue their own conser-
isay there is only a 15 percent
vation efforts.
chance that California will re-
Jim Metropulos, a senior
Pled the diminished water
advocate for Sierra Club
supply caused by the past few
California, did not dispute
years of below average rain
that the state is indeed in the
.and snowfall. Storage levels
midst of a drought. But he
in the state's reservoir system
urged Schwarzenegger not
are at historic lows, they say.
to use that as ammunition
Schwarzenegger in June
to renew his case for addi-
declare+d that` California had
tional dams, saying the gov-
reached a state of drought.
error instead should launch
Friday's announcement ramps
a statewide water conserva-
-up the sense of urgency even
tion campaign,
s more and could cause water
Dams would take years
districts around California to
to build and face numerous
take more aggressive steps to
court challenges, Metropulos
clamp down on water use.
said. "It's not going to help us
The Santa Clara Valley
now, tomorrow or five years
°Water District board is ex-
from now," he said.
pected to consider recom-
But Schwarzenegger,
r, mending mandatory reduc-
Republican lawmakers and
tions of 10 percent to 20
Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne
percent for customers. The
Feinstein have called for ad-
�.s district includes more than i, a
ditional dams to be included
>s `dozen towns and cities.
in a multibillion -dollar water
An earlier voluntary drive
infrastructure bond. Conser-
to cut water usage by 10 per-
vation alone, they say, won't
cent fell short, achieving only
solve the problem.
,a 7 percent reduction. Man-
-datory conservation could be
MediaNews writer Mary
• encouraged with water rates
Anne Ostrom contributed to
that would spike once a home
this story.
4i53 EAST BAYMUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
EBMUD 1- 866 -40 -EBMUD
i� YOUR ACCOUNT NO. IS:
36718999
- -qROUGHT WATER RATES WENT INTO EFFECT ON AUGUST
1 2008. IF
.'OU HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE NEW DROUGHT RATE, FEEL THAT YOUR
ALLOCATION AMOUNT IS INADEQUATE OR WANT WATER
SAVING TIPS --
VISIT OUR DROUGHT HELP CENTER AT WWWEBMUD.COM
OR CALL
CUSTOMER SERVICES AT 1 -866- 403 -2683
Gal/Da Y
YOUR PAYMENT IS DUE BY 11/06/08. NEXT BILL DATE IS 12/22/08 --
��•. u�u�••• ��• u�••• �u •��•��u��nu•��••�•�••��•••�••��
Billing Period
ALAN SCHURR
CURRENT ALLOCATION 37
2156 GRANITE DR From To
ALAMO CA 94507 -1603
08/19/08
10/20/08
For 2156 GRANITE DR AMU w
AMOUNT
PRIVATE RESTDENCE
PREVIOUS CHARGES AND CREDITS
- - -PRE€VTUUS AMOUNT- DUE— ---- _ _:. .. - .:__ __.,,_
1-84,44-_
FULL PAYMENT - 09/05/08
184.10-
WATER CHARGES - EBMUD
WATER SERVICE CHARGE
19.06
WATER FLOW CHARGE 15 UNITS a'2.00
30.00
18 UNITS a 2.49
44.82
2 UNITS a 3.05'
6.10
WATER ELEVATION CHARGE 35 UNITS a .35
12.25
SEISMIC' IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SURCHARGE
3.52
TOTAL
0.00
115.75
PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE
FOR BILLING EXPLANATION Please Pay
This Amount Now
Due
125.75
METER ELEV. METER READINGS
CONSUMPTION INFORMATION
SIZE Band Current Previous UNITS
Gallons
Days
Gal/Da Y
5/8" 2: 4759 4724 35
26,180
62
422
CURRENT ALLOCATION 37
27.,676_._
62
ALLOCATION NEXT PERIOD 22
16,456
.._,_ .._ _.__._
63
..____ -.. .446
261
PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT OR BRING ENTIRE BILLTO PAY IN PERSON
2156 GRANITE DR AND
39742
01632
08/19/08 10/20/08
ACCOUNT NO. 36718999
115.75
MailpaymentfoAY BY CREDIT /ATM /E -CHECK FOR A FEE. Call 1- 800 - 690 -4798
EBMUD PAYMENT CENTER TOTAL CURRENT 115.75
PO BOX 1000
OAKLAND CA 94649 -0001
Please Pay This Amount Now Due
367189990000011575000000000000
46/3 EASTBAYMUNIC /PAL UTILITYDIMICT
EBMUD 1- 866- 40 -ESMUD
H YOUR ACCOUNT NO. IS: 36718999
— DROUGHT WATER RATES WENT INTO EFFECT ON AUGUST 1, 2008. IF
IOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE NEW DROUGHT RATE, FEEL THAT YOUR
ALLOCATION AMOUNT IS INADEQUATE OR WANT WATER SAVING TIPS --
VISIT OUR DROUGHT HELP CENTER AT WWW.EBMUD.COM OR CALL
CUSTOMER SERVICES AT 1-866-403-2683
YOUR PAYMENT IS 'DUE BY 01/08/09. 'NEXT BILL DATE IS 02/25/09 - --
11. 6•. lul• I• I• II••• i••• I•.• II •II••II•••••Ilui.l•.II•••I••11 Billing Period
ALAN SCHURR
2156 GRANITE DR From TO
ALAMO CA 94507 -1603
10/20/08 12/22/08
For 2156 GRANITE DR AND AMOUNT TOTAL
PRIVATE RESIDENCE
PREVIOUS CHARGES AND CREDITS
_ PRE V I,OiS. AMOUNT :'DUE 115.75 u__ .
FULL PAYMENT - `11/03/08 115.75- 0.00
WATER CHARGES - EBMUD
WATER SERVICE CHARGE 19.06
WATER FLOW CHARGE 15 UNITS a 2.00 30.00
7;UNITS a 2.49 17.43
WATER ELEVATION CHARGE 22 UNITS a_ .35 7.70
SEISMIC IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SURCHARGE 3.52 77.71
PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE
FOR BILLING EXPLANATION Please Pay This Amount Now Due 77.71
METER ELEV. METER READINGS CONSUMPTION INFORMATION'
SIZE Band Current Previous UNITS Gallons Days Gal/Day
5/8" 2 4781 4759 22 16,456 63 261
CURRENT ALLOCATION 22 16,456 63�
ALL'O'C`A 34 25,432 65 391
PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT OR BRING ENTIRE BILLTO PAY IN PERSON
2156 GRANITE DR AND 10/20/08 12/22/08 ACCOUNT NO. 36718999
39805
01103
77.71
PAY BY CREDIT /ATM /E -CHECK FOR A FEE. Call 1- 800 - 690 -4798
Mail payment to:
EBMUD PAYMENT CENTER TOTAL CURRENT 77.71
PO BOX 1000
OAKLAND CA 94649 -0001
Please Pay This Amount Now Due ' 77.71`
367189990000007771000000000000
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
9.a. Bids and Awards
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009 No.:
Type of Action: AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT /AUTHORIZE EXECUTION
OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
subject: AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO C. OVERAA & COMPANY
AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATMENT PLANT PIPING
RENOVATIONS, PHASE 4, DISTRICT PROJECT 7216
Submitted By: Initiating Dept. /Div.:
Gary Rathunde, Associate Engineer Engineering / Capital Projects
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
AW-- &IT rip
G. Rathunde B. Than . lecki A. Farrell lAames M. 411y,
General Manager
ISSUE: On February 10, 2009, thirteen sealed bids were received and opened for the
construction of the Treatment Plant Piping Renovations, Phase 4, District Project 7216.
The Board of Directors must award the contract or reject bids within 50 days of the bid
opening.
RECOMMENDATION: Find that the project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), award a construction contract to C. Overaa &
Company, and authorize the General Manager to execute the Contract Documents.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approximately $1,250,000 including design, bid price,
contingency, and construction management.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Reject all bids, which is not recommended.
BACKGROUND: During the construction of the secondary treatment facilities in the
early 1970s, numerous piping systems were installed throughout the treatment plant.
These pipes carry the processed wastewater, sludge, steam, air, and other utility
services between the various sections of the plant. These pipes have been in place for
over thirty years and are showing signs of deterioration. For example, the discharge
piping in the north return - activated sludge (RAS) pumping station has developed leaks
through the pipe wall requiring patching by maintenance staff. On other more recently
constructed piping systems, such as the ash collection and transport piping, leaks have
developed as the ash has eroded through the steel pipe walls.
M \PESUMPosition Papers \Rathunde \7216_Award_ger_1.doc Page 1 of 7
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009
subject AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO C. OVERAA & COMPANY
AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATMENT PLANT PIPING
RENOVATIONS, PHASE 4, DISTRICT PROJECT 7216
Phase 4 of the Piping Renovations Project will focus on replacing the discharge piping
at the RAS pump station, the north and south ash pipelines from the furnaces up to the
filters on the third floor of the Solids Conditioning Building (SCB), the PVC piping on the
sodium hydroxide storage and feed system at the Ultraviolet (UV) Facility, and two
corroded drain lines in the SCB. In addition, six influent channel slide gates will be
replaced at the UV Facility.
This project also incorporates design work that was part of the Clarifier Scum Pit
Modifications Project, District Project 7262. In spring 2008, the District issued a Safety
Alert describing a potential electrical hazard at the secondary clarifier scum pits. The
PVC - coated conduit within the pits are failing at the joints, and exposing hot wires in a
moist environment. The construction work will relocate the conduits outside of the
scum pits, improving the maintenance accessibility and removing confined -space
maintenance work. Attachment 1 shows the locations of all the project work.
District staff prepared the plans and specifications for the project, with the exception of
the electrical modifications at the clarifier scum pump pits, which were prepared by DTN
Engineers, Inc. (DTN). The Engineer's pre -bid estimate for construction cost was
$1,625,000. This project was advertised on January 16 and 22, 2009. Thirteen sealed
bids ranging from $810,000 to $1,438,500 were received and publicly opened on
February 10, 2009.
The Engineering Department conducted a technical and commercial review of the bids
and determined that C. Overaa & Company is the lowest responsive bidder with a bid
amount of $810,000. A summary of bids received is shown in Attachment 2.
District staff will perform construction management, contract administration, inspection,
survey, office engineering, and submittal review. However, staff recommends retaining
DTN to provide support services during construction because they have expertise in the
electrical aspects of the project for the work at the clarifier scum pump pits. Staff
negotiated a contract amendment with DTN not to exceed $10,000. This will bring the
total professional service contract with DTN to $48,000, which is within staff limits and,
therefore, does not require Board action.
The funds required to complete this project, as shown in Attachment 3, are $1,250,000.
The total cost of Treatment Plant Piping Renovations, Phase 4, is anticipated to be
$1,350,000.
This project is included in the fiscal year 2008 -2009 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB)
on pages TP -71 and TP -72. Staff has determined that there are adequate funds in the
Treatment Plant Program for this project.
NAPESUP \Position Papers \Rathunde \7216_Award_ger_1.doc Page 2 of 7
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009
subject AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO C. OVERAA & COMPANY
AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATMENT PLANT PIPING
RENOVATIONS, PHASE 4, DISTRICT PROJECT 7216
Staff has concluded that this project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 since it involves
minor alterations to an existing public facility involving negligible or no expansion of use.
Approval of this project will establish the Board of Directors' independent finding that
this project is exempt from CEQA.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Staff recommends the following:
1. Find that the project is exempt from CEQA,
2. Award a construction contract in the amount of $810,000 for the construction of
the Treatment Plant Piping Renovations, Phase 4, District Project 7216, to C.
Overaa & Company, the lowest responsive bidder, and authorize the General
Manager to execute the Contract Documents.
NAPESUP \Position Papers \Rathunde \7216_Award_ger_1.doc Page 3 of 7
-�-Z-
i
o 150 300
tEr
a HOLDING BASIN "A"
SOUTH
o..
z SOLIDS
CONDITIONING
BUILDING TUNNELS
ullum
. cACS
PIPING RENOVATIONS, PHASE 4
DISTRICT PROJECT 7216
LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT
1
NAPESUP \Position Papers \Rathunde \7216_Award_ger_1.doc Page 4 of 7
ATTACHMENT 2
TREATMENT PLANT PIPING RENOVATIONS, PHASE 4
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 7216
SUMMARY OF BIDS
PROJECT NO.: 7216 DATE/TIME: FEBRUARY 10, 2009/2:00 PM
PROJECT NAME: TREATMENT PLANT PIPING RENOVATIONS, PHASE 4
PROJECT MANAGER: GARY E. RATHUNDE
PROJECT LOCATION: MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA ENGINEER EST.: $1,625,000
NO.
BIDDER
BID PRICE
1
C. Overaa & Company
$810,000
200 Parr Boulevard
Richmond, CA 94801
2
Monterey Mechanical Company
$914100
8275 San Leandro Street
Oakland, CA 94621
3
Kaweah Construction Co.
$936,600
3960 Industrial Boulevard
Suite 300
W. Sacramento, CA 95691
4
JMB Construction, Inc.
$973,900
132 South Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
5
GSE Construction Company, Inc.
$1,053,700
1020 Shannon Court
Livermore, CA 94550
6
D. W. Nicholson Corporation
$1,056,100
24747 Clawiter Road
Hayward, CA 94540
7
NCCI, Inc.
$1,060,029.43
Pier 26 — The Embarcadero
San Francisco, CA 94105
8
Gantry Constructors, Inc.
$1,172,000
761 Ygnacio Woods Ct
Concord, CA 94518
9
NTK Construction, Inc.
$1,282,000
T501 Cesar Chavez St., Suite 123
San Francisco, CA 94124
NAPESUP \Position Papers \Rathunde \7216_Award_ger_1.doc Page 5 of 7
10
Pacific Mechanical Corporation
$1,334,900
2501 Annalisa Drive
Concord, CA 94520
11
Arnold Construction
$1,408,250
2119 Wood Road
Fulton, CA 95439
12
Synergy Project Management, Inc.
$1,435,455
150 Executive Park Boulevard, Suite 4750
San Francisco, CA 94134
13
Schram Construction, Inc.
$1,438,500
3162 Regional Parkway
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
BIDS OPENED BY /s/ Elaine Boehme DATE February 10, 2009
NAPESUP \Position Papers \Rathunde \7216_Award_ger_1.doc Page 6 of 7
ATTACHMENT 3
TREATMENT PLANT PIPING RENOVATIONS
PHASE 4
DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 7216
POST - BID /PRE- CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
No.
Item Description
Amounts
% Construction Cost
1
CONSTRUCTION
a. Construction Contract
$810,000
b. Contingency at 20%
$162,000
SUBTOTAL - CONSTRUCTION COST
$972,000
100%
2
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
a. District Forces
- Construction Management and Inspection
$253,000
- Operations Department Support
$15,000
b. Consultants
- DTN Engineers, Inc.
$10,000
SUBTOTAL - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
$278,000
29%
3
PREBID EXPENDITURES
$100,000
SUBTOTAL - PREBID EXPENDITURES
$100,000
10%
4
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$1,350,000
5
FUNDS AUTHORIZED TO DATE ( *)
$100,000
6
ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION NEEDED TO
COMPLETE PROJECT (Line 4 - Line 5)
$1.250.000
* Greater percentage of construction cost than typical due to extremely low construction bids
Page 7 of 7
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
9.b. Bids and Awards
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009 No.:
Type of Action: CONSIDER BID PROTEST /AWARD CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT /AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
subject: CONSIDER NCCI, INC. PROTEST; AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
WITH F. D. THOMAS, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AERATION AIR
RENOVATIONS, PHASE 2, DISTRICT PROJECT 7274
Submitted By. Initiating Dept✓Div.:
Nathan Hodges, Assistant Engineer Engineering / Capital Projects
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
T'
N. 1-16dges Than i ecki A. Faire K. Alm mes M. Kelfil
eneral Man ger
ISSUE: On January 21, 2009, nine sealed bids were received and opened for the
construction of the Aeration Air Renovations, Phase 2, District Project 7274. On
January 28, 2009, a timely bid protest was received. As part of its deliberations, the
Board needs to consider the merits of any timely bid protests. The Board of Directors
must award the contract or reject bids within 50 days of the bid opening.
RECOMMENDATION: Find that the project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); reject the bid protest; award a construction contract;
and authorize the General Manager to execute the Contract Documents.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approximately $2,372,000 including design, bid price,
contingency, and construction management if awarded to F. D. Thomas Inc.
Approximately $96,000 more if awarded to NCCI, Inc.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: Accept the protest and award to the second
lowest bidder NCCI, Inc., which is not recommended. Reject all bids, which is also not
recommended.
BACKGROUND: The aeration basins have experienced air leaks from the floor of the
air plenum boxes for many years. District Project 6157, Aeration Air Leaks Damage
Assessment, was initiated in 2002 to investigate the condition of the air plenum boxes
and slab floors of the aeration basin, as well as to investigate secondary piping
systems. Air leaks in the branch lines, couplings, and concrete encasement were
identified and repaired.
NAPESUP \Position Papers \Hodges \7274 Award.doc Page 1 of 16
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009
subject. CONSIDER NCCI, INC. PROTEST; AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS WITH F. D. THOMAS, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
AERATION AIR RENOVATIONS, PHASE 2, DISTRICT PROJECT 7274
District Project 7207, Aeration Air Renovations was constructed last summer (2008) to
address the air leaks through the slab floor in Tank 1, using the pressure grouting
method. The project significantly reduced the quantity of air escaping through the
existing cracks that were present in the floor of the 160 air plenum boxes in Tank 1.
Other improvements constructed during this project included replacing hydrostatic relief
valves, replacing diffuser retaining rings and replacing diffuser gaskets.
Aeration Air Renovations, Phase 2, addresses the air leaks in Tank 2, using the
pressure grouting method. This construction project will seal the existing cracks that are
present in the floor of the 160 air plenum boxes of Tank 2, coat the slab floor, replace
gaskets, retaining rings, hydrostatic relief valves and aeration air valve actuators.
Attachment 1 shows the location of the project work.
The Aeration Air, Phase 1, bid documents gave the District the option to award the
Phase 2 work to the Phase 1 Contractor (NCCI, Inc.). District staff elected to rebid the
Phase 2 repair work instead of awarding the work to the Contractor from the first phase.
After including additional work items, additional grout quantities, and extra costs to
rebid, the District saved approximately $660,000 by rebidding.
District staff prepared the plans and specifications for the project. The Engineer's
estimate for construction of the Aeration Air Renovations, Phase 2, is $2,000,000. The
project was advertised on January 5 and 10, 2009. Nine bids ranging from $1,823,101
to $3,126,000 were received and publicly opened on January 21, 2009. Engineering
staff conducted a technical and commercial review of the bids and determined that
F. D. Thomas, Inc. is the lowest responsive bidder, with a bid amount of $1,823,101.
A summary of bids received is shown in Attachment 2.
On January 28, 2009, the second lowest bidder, NCCI, Inc. submitted a timely bid
protest claiming the bid submitted by F. D. Thomas, Inc. contained material defects
(Attachment 3). These defects were identified as:
1) F. D. Thomas, Inc. did not comply with the Statement of Experience bid form, by
not listing in sufficient detail projects involving repair to concrete slabs.
2) F. D. Thomas, Inc. did not list a subcontractor for the ultrasonic testing of aeration
piping.
3) The bid amount for crack repair submitted by F. D. Thomas, Inc. is insufficient to
cover the cost of materials and labor.
NAPESUP \Position Papers \Hodges \7274 Award.doc Page 2 of 16
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009
subject. CONSIDER NCCI, INC. PROTEST; AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS WITH F. D. THOMAS, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
AERATION AIR RENOVATIONS, PHASE 2, DISTRICT PROJECT 7274
F. D. Thomas, Inc. responded to the bid protest in their letter dated February 5, 2009
(Attachment 4). District staff and Legal Counsel have reviewed NCCI, Inc's bid protest.
Based upon the information provided, staff and Legal Counsel have determined the
following:
1) F. D. Thomas, Inc.'s bid was responsive in that concrete repair experience was
provided. The statement of experience submitted by F. D. Thomas, Inc. is not a
material defect.
2) F. D. Thomas, Inc. has provided evidence that the ultrasonic testing performed by a
subcontractor is less than' /2 percent of the bid amount. In this case, there is no
need to list a subcontractor on the bid forms.
3) F. D. Thomas, Inc. has confirmed they intend to honor their bid and perform the
specified work.
Therefore, staff has determined that the bid submitted by F. D. Thomas, Inc. is
responsive and F. D. Thomas, Inc. is the lowest responsive bidder with a bid amount of
$1,823,101. A letter stating staff's determination was sent to NCCI, Inc. on
February 24, 2009 (Attachment 5). In accordance with the Contract Documents, the
Board has the ultimate authority to determine whether a bid is responsive or not and to
waive any non - material irregularities in bids received; staff seeks the Board's
concurrence with staff's determination.
District staff will perform construction management, contract administration, office
engineering, and submittal review. Inspection services will provided under a contract
with Valley Engineering Group, which is the subject of another position paper being
considered by the Board today. The additional funds required to complete this project,
as shown in Attachment 6, are $2,297,000. The total cost of the Aeration Air
Renovations, Phase 2, is anticipated to be $2,372,000.
This project is included in the FY 2008 -09 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) on
pages TP -30 and TP -31. Staff has conducted a cash -flow analysis of the Treatment
Plant Program and concluded that adequate funds are available for this project.
Staff has concluded that this project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) under District CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 since it involves
only alterations of existing facilities with negligible or no expansion of capacity.
Authorization of the construction contract for this project will establish the Board of
Directors' independent finding that the project is exempt from CEQA.
NAPESUP \Position Papers \Hodges \7274 Award.doc Page 3 of 16
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009
subject. CONSIDER NCCI, INC. PROTEST; AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
AND AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS WITH F. D. THOMAS, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
AERATION AIR RENOVATIONS, PHASE 2, DISTRICT PROJECT 7274
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Staff recommends the following:
1. Find that the project is exempt from CEOA,
2. Reject the bid protest,
3. Award a construction contract in the amount of $1,823,101 for the construction of
the Aeration Air Renovations, Phase 2, to F. D. Thomas, Inc., the lowest
responsive bidder, and authorize the General Manager to execute the Contract
Documents.
NAPESUP \Position Papers \Hodges \7274 Award.doc Page 4 of 16
0 150 900
FEET
O /
L! !i
Central Contra Costa Attachment
Sanitary District AERATION AIR RENOVATIONS PROJECT
r District Project 7274 1
' Project Location
n -
Page 5 of 16
ATTACHMENT 2
AERATION AIR RENOVATIONS, PHASE 2
DISTRICT PROJECT 7274
SUMMARY OF BIDS
PROJECT NO.: 7274 NO. OF ADDENDA: 1 DATE: JANUARY 21, 2009
PROJECT NAME: AERATION AIR RENOVATIONS, PHASE 2
PROJECT LOCATION: MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT MANAGER: NATHAN HODGES
ENGINEER EST.: $2,000,000
NO.
BIDDER
BID PRICE
1
F. D. Thomas, Inc.
$1,823,101
217 Bateman Drive
Central Point, OR 97502
2
NCCI, Inc.
$1,921,413.30
Pier 26 - The Embarcadero
San Francisco, CA 94105
3
Valentine Corporation
$1,947,369
111 Pelican Way
San Rafael, CA 94901
4
Kaweah Construction Co.
$2,017,000
3960 Industrial Boulevard
Suite 300
W. Sacramento, CA 95691
5
GSE Construction Company, Inc.
$2,102,900
1020 Shannon Court
Livermore, CA 94550
6
Pacific Infrastructure, Inc.
$2,232,900
2134 Rheem Drive, Suite C
Pleasanton, CA 94588
7
Gantry Constructors, Inc
$2,516,700
761 Ygnacio Woods Court
Concord, CA 94518
8
Pacific Mechanical Corporation
2,600,500
2501 Annalisa Drive
Concord, CA 94520
9
NTK Construction, Inc.
$3,126,000
501 Cesar Chavez St., Suite 123
San Francisco, CA 94124
NAPESUP \Position Papers \Hodges \7274 Award.doc Page 6 of 16
AD NCCI, Inc. ATTACHMENT 3
Pier 26 The Embarcadero ■ San Francisco, CA 94105-1248
CA license #836382
AZUcense #osssaa_ose9a7 (415) 974-0947m Fax: (415) 974 -0948
January 28, 2009
Secretary of the District
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA. 94553 -4392
VIA FACSIMILE & HAND DELIVERY
Subject: Aeration Air Renovations, Phase II
Project No. 7274
Protest of Apparent Low Bidder -F.D. Thomas, Inc.
Bid Date: 1/21/09 @ 2:OOPM
Dear Secretary of the District:
In accordance with Section 20 of the Instructions to Bidders for the above subject project,
NCCI, Inc herein protests the bid of the apparent low bidder, F.D. Thomas. NCCI
protests F.D. Thomas's bid for the following reasons:
A. Reference is made to Specification Section 03061- Concrete Crack Repair, 1.3
Quality Assurance, and B.1. Polyurethane Grout Injection
"The applicator shall be a concrete repair contractor (and/or subcontractor) with a
minimum of three (3) years experience in the installation of sealant materials as specified
herein and shall be certified and approved by the product manufacturer."
• FD Thomas's Bid Forms, Part III, Section 5, Statement of Experience, required
the listing of three (3) projects involving repair to concrete slabs using techniques
as described in the project documents, and be certified by the product
manufacturer. F D Thomas listed the titles of three (3) Pipeline Projects with no
description of work and omitted the required certification as an approved installer
by the product manufacturer. NCCI did submit the required Certification from the
polyurethane manufacturer, Sika Corporation for our listed subcontractor, The
Pressure Grout Co.
Refer to Section 03061.1.3. B.2. Polyurea Coating
"The concrete repair contractor (and/or subcontractor) shall submit a list of five (5)
previous jobs that successfully utilized the specified sealant materials."
• FD Thomas did not submit a duplicate Bid Form, Part III, Section 5, and
"Statement of Experience" listing previous polyurea application projects from a
specialized subcontractor or themselves. NCCI did submit the required project
Page 7 of 16
listing from our polyurea application subcontractor, KC Industries utilizing
VersaFlex FSS 45DC materials.
B. Reference is made to F.D. Thomas's Bid Forms, Part III, Section 2, and Schedule
of Bid. Bid Item # 11, "Conduct non - destructive ultrasonic testing of aeration air
pipe and submit documentation in accordance with the method specified." F.D.
Thomas has submitted a Lump Sum value of $ 25,000.00 for this work, without
listing a specialized subcontractor. The District's Instructions to Bidders
contained a form for each bidder to list those subcontractors who would be
performing work on the project in excess of the minimum dollar amount specified
by Public Contract Section 4104.
C. Reference is made to F.D. Thomas's Bid Forms, Part III, Section 2, and Schedule
of Bid. Bid Item # 5, "Concrete Crack Repair of air plenum boxes using pressure
grout method specified, including box cleaning drilling injection ports, injecting
grout, and final finish polyurea coating for the per each price of $ 3,000.00 times
160 each, equal a total Bid Item value of $ 480,000.00 ". Given NCCI's
experience on the Tank # 1 Aeration Air Renovations, Phase I, we can say with
certainty that FD Thomas's Bid Item # 5 does not include enough funds to
purchase, without labor, the 9600 gallons of the District's # 1 specified
polyurethane grout material, Sika HH, and the VersaFlex Polyurea coating
material. The District's specification section GC -15 (A) (2nd paragraph),
Substitution of Eauinment Materials and/or Products: Construction Methods and
Substitution, states clearly that "The first named manufacturer of particular
equipment, materials, and/or products is the basis for the design shown on the
Project Drawings." Section 03061 - Concrete Crack Repair, 2.2B was updated
from Phase I using the # 1 listed material polyurethane Sika HH physical
properties. NCCI was tempted at bid time to consider quotation from the
District's # 2 listed manufacturer, Prime Resin, as there was a $ 124,000.00
material only savings. NCCI feels that any quotation, other than Sika HH is a risk
in obtaining District approval, performance to meet specifications, cost
containment, and the additional expense to provide accelerator in the range of
10% per batch.
In light of the above, it appears that F.D. Thomas's bid is non - responsive. We feel it is
fair and reasonable to protest F.D. Thomas's bid and request F.D. Thomas provide
CCCSD with proof that they are certified to self - perform the work, have included the
costs to supply the # 1 listed Polyurethane Grout, Sika HH, and VersaFlex per the
specifications, and fully meet the experience requirements of specification section 03061 -
1.3.B.1 for the projects they have self - performed. In the absence of legitimate proof,
NCCI Inc respectfully requests that the project be awarded to the legitimate low and
responsive bidder, NCCI.
If you have any questions regarding this protest response, please feel free to contact me at
our San Francisco office, (415) 974 -0947 or my cell (707) 344 -6666. Thank you for your
attention.
Page 8 of 16
Sinc
Lee Sanna
General Manager
NCCI, Inc.
CC: F.D. Thomas-541- 664 -1105
VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL
Page 9 of 16
2
MILLER NASH<<
ATTORNEYS AT t.AW
John F. Purcell
john.purcell@ millernash.com
(503) 205-2454 direct line
PORTLAND,ORF(;ON ATTACHMENT 4 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower
SEATTLE, wASHINGTON 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue
VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON Portland, Oregon 97204 -3699
CENTRAL OREGON OFFICE 503.224.5858
WWW.MILLERNASH.COM #Ij�AN FAx 503.224.0155
R �D
FEa ` 6 Z009
CAPI SAL
ROJECTS
February 5, 2009
VIA FED EX AND FACSIMILE
925-372-7892
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553-4392
Attn: Mr. Nathan Hodges
Subject: Aeration Air Renovations, Phase 2, Project No. 7274
Bid Protest by NCCI, Inc.
Gentlemen:
This firm is legal counsel for F. D. Thomas, Inc. ("F. D. Thomas "),
headquartered in Central Point, Oregon, which is the low bidder on the subject project.
On January 28, 2009, F. D. Thomas received a copy of the bid protest letter filed by
NCCI, Inc. ( "NCCI ") with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( "CCCSD "). F. D.
Thomas has asked us to provide a reply to the bid protest letter of NCCI.
NCCI has claimed that F. D. Thomas's bid is not responsive to the bid
solicitation. We believe that NCCI's position is without merit, that F. D. Thomas's bid is
responsive, and F. D. Thomas should be awarded the contract as the low responsive
bidder.
As a preliminary point, F. D. Thomas would point out that, under the law,
its bid need not be loo percent compliant to the bid solicitation so long as there are no
material and substantial deviations. Technical defects or minor irregularities can and
should be waived by the CCCSD. The bid document specifically states that the CCCSD
reserves the right to "waive any non - material irregularities in Bids received."
Instructions to Bidders, Section 14 (DP 7274, Vol. 1, p.14).
Moreover, it is well established under California law that a public agency
may accept a bid which substantially conforms to the bid solicitation even though it
contains a minor irregularity.
PDXDOCS:1816826.1
203740 -0021 Page 10 of 16
HE)
MILLERNASH-
ATTORNEYS AT l -AW
February 5, 2009
Page 2
PORTLAND, URECON
SEATTLE, WASHiNCTON
VANCOUVER, WASH- INCrON
CENTRAL OREGON
WWW.MILLERNASH.COM
"A basic rule of competitive bidding is that bids must conform to
specifications, and if a bid does not so conform, it may not be accepted.
However, it is further well established that a bid which substantially
conforms to a call for bids may, though it is not strictly responsive, be
accepted if the variance cannot have affected the amount of the bid or
given a bidder an advantage or benefit not allowed other bidders or, in
other words, if the variance is inconsequential." Ghilotti Constr. Co. v.
City of Richmond, 45 Cal. App. 4th 897, 904, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 389 (1.996)
(citing 47 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 129,130 (1.966)).
"Whether in any given case a bid varies substantially or only
inconsequentially from the call for bids is a question of fact. * * * [T]he
factual issue to be resolved is whether the variation resulted in an unfair
competitive advantage in the bidding process." Ghilotti Constr., 45 Cal.
App. 4th at 906.
Now, we will respond to the specific complaints of NCCI. These issues will
be addressed in the same order as stated in NCCI's January 28 letter.
A. Statement of Experience.
The only statement of experience required to be submitted with the bid
package is the "Bidder's Statement of Experience," Bid Forms, Section 5 (DP 7274, Vol.
1, pp. 26, 27). This form required that:
"The undersigned Bidder submits below a statement describing
work the Bidder has completed within the last five (5) years that is similar
in character to that anticipated in the proposed Project. A listing of
three (3) jobs is preferable. To meet the experience required for the
proposed Project, the Bidder or sub contractor shall have completed one
or more projects involving the repair of concrete slabs using techniques as
described in the project documents." (Emphasis added.)
The bidder was required to list jobs that were "similar in character to that anticipated in
the proposed Project." A listing of three jobs is stated as preferable, although not
required. The bidder was required to list "one or more projects involving the repair of
concrete slabs using techniques as described in the project documents."
F. D. Thomas filled out the Bidder's Statement of Experience exactly as
required, listing three projects which, although not exactly the same, were similar in
character to the proposed project. Each of these three projects involved grout injection.
PDXDOCS:1816826.1
203740 -0021 Page 11 of 16
,MN
MILLER NASH.,F
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
February 5, 2009
Page 3
PORTLAND, OREGON
SEATTLE, WIISHI NCTON
VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
CENTRAL OREGON
WWW.MILLERNASH.COM
One of the projects, namely the Contra Costa A -Line Interceptor Rehabilitation Phase 2,
involved repair of concrete slabs using techniques as described in the project
documents.' Accordingly, F. D. Thomas complied with the requirements of bid.
In its bid protest letter, NCCI references other provisions of the project
specifications requiring experience. For example, the grout applicator is required to be
a concrete repair contractor with a minimum of three years experience and certified by
the project manufacturer. Likewise, the concrete repair contractor is required to submit
a list of five previous jobs successfully utilizing the specified sealant materials. These
experience requirements are a part of contract performance, to be submitted after
award, and are not a part of the bid submittal. F. D. Thomas has all of this required
experience and will submit it to the CCCSD during the course of contract performance,
as required by the specifications. However, F. D. Thomas was never required to submit
this documentation with its bid.
B. Listing of Subcontractors
In its bid protest letter, NCCI complained that F. D. Thomas did not list a
subcontractor for bid item No. 11, Ultrasonic Testing, for which F. D. Thomas submitted
a price of $25,000. The reason for this is simple —F. D. Thomas intends to self - perform
most of that work. F. D. Thomas's total bid on this project was $i,823,ioi, and the bid
documents only required F. D. Thomas to list subcontractors performing work in an
amount greater than one -half of one percent of the total bid. This figure is $9,115.50.
F. D. Thomas's price of $25,000 included pipe cleaning, supervision, safety, overhead,
and profit, all of which F. D. Thomas will self - perform. Any amounts subcontracted for
the actual testing will be less than $9,115.
F. D. Thomas did not omit any subcontractors that were required to be
listed on Section 4, Bidder's Statement of Subcontractors. Accordingly, F. D. Thomas's
bid is perfectly appropriate and responsive.
C. Price for Concrete Crack Repair
In its bid protest letter, NCCI complains that F. D. Thomas has listed a
price of $48o,000 for bid item No. 5, Concrete Crack Repair of Air Plenum Boxes, and
that, in the opinion of NCCI, such price is insufficient to perform this work item. NCCI's
commentary on appropriate pricing for this work item is highly speculative and
completely irrelevant. F. D. Thomas hereby reconfirms to CCCSD that it is willing to
This project was the repair and lining of a "box structure" which had a flat slab for the floor.
F. D. Thomas's work included installing a lining to the slab, just as it is required to do on this project.
PDXDOCS:1816826.1
203740 -0021
Page 12 of 16
_J
MILLERNASH -,
ATTORNEYS AT I.AW
February 5, 2009
Page 4
PORTLAND, ORECON
SEATTLE, WASWNG,FON
VANCOUVER, WASWNGrON
CENTRAL OREGON
WWW.MILLERNASH.COM
perform this work item in accordance with the project specifications for the listed price
Of $48o,000. Contrary to NCCI's assertions, the bid documents allow F. D. Thomas to
perform this work item using the first -named manufacturer's product, or the second -
named manufacturer's product which has been contractually determined to be an
acceptable "equal." F. D. Thomas is also allowed to apply to the CCCSD, after award, for
use of a substituted "proposed equal" product and utilize such substituted equal product
if it is pre- approved by CCCSD. Section GC -15 of the General Conditions (DP 7274, Vol.
2, P. 41). In any event, F. D. Thomas will perform work item No. 5, using product
allowed by the specifications and in full conformance with the contract documents, for
the agreed price of $480,000.
As demonstrated above, each ground of NCCI's bid protest is without
merit. F. D. Thomas's bid is responsive, and F. D. Thomas should be awarded this
contract as the low responsive bidder.
Respecfully submitted,
F. Purcell
PDXDOCS:1816826.1
203740 -0021 Page 13 of 16
ATTACHMENT 5
' Central Contra Costa Sanitar y District
February 24, 2009
File: 7274.8.3 and 7274.5.1.4
NCCI, Inc.
Pier 26 -The Embarcadero
San Francisco, CA 94105
Sent by e-mail and Federal Express
Attn: Mr. Lee Sanna, General Manager
Dear Mr. Sanna:
FAX: (925) 372 -7892
.IAMI:;SM. KLILY
General Manager
KLMION L. ALAI
Counsel or the District
(510) 808 -2000
hI.AINl R. BOEHMli
Secretary gjlhe District
AERATION AIR RENOVATIONS, PHASE 2, CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY
DISTRICT PROJECT 7274; PROTEST OF BID
Thank you for your interest in Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's (District) Project
No. 7274 (Project). We have received your letter of January 28, 2009, which protests
the bid submitted by F. D. Thomas, Inc. (Thomas). After careful review of your letter
with our District Counsel, we respectfully disagree with the positions set forth in your
letter and hereby deny your bid protest. Consequently, the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District will recommend award of the contract for this Project to F. D. Thomas,
Inc.
In response to your issue that Thomas failed to list sufficient experience in compliance
with the Statement of Experience, Bid Forms, Part III, Section 5, we find that Thomas
did comply with the bid form requirements. The experience listed is of a similar nature
to what is specified for this project. The experience requirements identified in the
technical specifications has been verified by District staff.
In response to your issue that Thomas did not list a subcontractor for ultrasonic testing,
Thomas has shown the District that their subcontractor's costs for this work do not
exceed the one -half of one percent threshold.
Your third issue as to the cost submitted by Thomas to perform concrete crack repair
does not go to the responsiveness of the bid. Thomas did not request bid relief and has
confirmed to the District that the bid submitted will be honored.
N:\PESUP \DESIGN \District Projects \7274 \Final NCCI Deny Protest Itr.DOC Page 14 of 16
Protest of Bid
Page 2
February 24, 2009
Based on the foregoing, District staff determines that the bid presented by
F. D. Thomas, Inc. is the lowest responsive bid. Accordingly, the District will
recommend award of a contract to F .D. Thomas, Inc. at the March 5, 2009, Board of
Directors (Board) meeting. At the time award of the contract is considered, the Board
will also consider the merits of any timely protests. You may have an opportunity to
make a statement to the Board regarding your protest.
Please advise the undersigned by 5 p.m. on Monday, March 2, 2009, if you plan to
pursue the issue further. Thank you for your interest in Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District.
Sincerely,
mcn,
Nathan Hodges
Assistant Engineer
NH:jf
cc: Kent Alm, Richard Pio Roda (Meyers Nave)
NAPESUP \DESIGN \District Projects \7274 \Final NCCI Deny Protest Itr.DOC Page 15 of 16
10
z
W
ra
r
a
N
W
a
x
a
N
z
O
H
Q
O
z
W
R
z
O_
H
Q
W
Q
04
ti
H
U
W
O
m
a
H
V
.
W
Q
N
W
z
O
H
U
z
O
V
W
a
D
m
N
O
IL
ATTACHMENT
O
U
c
0
t5
0
0-0
O
c\l
It
C
O
U
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
r-
LO
O
M
I-
Cli
N
�3
O
°
O
o
U,
Q
O
M
6s
r
N
EH
CD
0
M
O
N
00 O
O p
In
o
6s
w
w
�
z
J
d
O
W
U)
N
Z
w
O
UU
a o
w
w
0
a
a
z
Q
z
N
g
w
o
w
Q
w
E
cr
�-
�
z
car
rn
F-
x
o
w
H
< c
W
U J
O +• z
O
a N
z
O
z
z
O
E
Q
U
O C
U
O , �co
W
JrnQ
i c
Q
-C
-
z H
0
p p
F
N O Q
O
Q
-1
U)
w
z
Quo
z
oUO
U
O
cC .6 U)
O
cu
a
D
cn
LU
a (d
m
O0
z
o0
cr
U)
Z)
¢
Z
r
N
M
It
In
(O
Page 16 of 16
10.a.1) Reports
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
February 27, 2009
TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: JAMES M. KELLY, GENERAL MANAGER
ANN FARRELL, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEENQ G
CURT SWANSON, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER
ov 1111
FROM: JARRED MIYAMOTO- MILLS, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
V
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CAPACITY FEE INCREASE AND REVISED SCHEDULE
OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT - RELATED RATES AND
CHARGES
The General Manager's Report at the March 5, 2009 Board Meeting will include a
presentation of the staff - proposed changes for Capacity Fees and Environmental and
Development - Related Rates and Charges. At the March 19th Board Meeting staff will
ask the Board to set April 16, 2009 as the date for public hearings to receive comments
and to consider adopting the proposed changes.
If the Board decides to consider the staff proposal and sets a hearing date, an outreach
program will be conducted to contact and engage customers with an interest in the fees,
rates and charges. Notices of the public hearing will be posted on the bulletin board in
the Headquarters Office Building Lobby and published in the Contra Costa Times. In
addition, about 350 letters with detailed information about each proposal will be mailed
to those companies and individuals who have specifically requested notice of fee
increases, the Home Builder's Association of Northern California, the Engineering and
Underground Contractors' Association, the Associated Building Contractors Golden
Gate Chapter, current permit applicants, and contractors, engineers and developers
who regularly work in the District. Informal meetings to discuss the fee proposals will be
held one to two weeks before the public hearing. In the past, few customers have
attended these meetings since they have generally accepted our fee setting
methodology and considered the proposed changes in fees, rates and charges to be
modest.
Copies of the draft letter and the two reports comprising the proposed outreach mailing
are attached for your information, review and comment. After incorporating any review
comments you may have, we plan to mail out these letters after the Board sets the
hearing date. If you have any questions or would like to make comments on the
outreach materials, please bring them up at either the March 5th or 19th Board Meeting,
or call Jarred Miyamoto -Mills at (925) 229 -7335.
JM2:
Attachments
NAENVRSWFees & Charges - Capacity, Environmental & Development\2009 ReviewWlemo to BOD re Outreach.doc
DRAFT - JM2: 02/27/2009
March 25, 2009
Dear Interested Customer:
FAX: (925) 228 -4624
JAMES KELLY
General Manager
KENTON L. ALM
Counsel for the District
(510) 808 -2000
Elaine Boehme
Secretary of the District
PROPOSED INCREASE FOR CAPACITY FEES, AND REVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DEVELOPMENT - RELATED RATES AND CHARGES
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( CCCSD) staff has recommended to its Board of Directors
that capacity fees be increased, and that development - related rates and charges be revised to be
current with our present cost of doing business. These fees were last increased on July 1, 2008.
Reports discussing each of the two proposals are enclosed for your information. If approved, the
new capacity fees, and development - related rates and charges will be effective on July 1, 2009.
Capacity Fees: The proposed capacity fee increases are principally due to CCCSD's 2007 -2008
investment of over $31.5 million in additions, upgrades, renovation, and replacement of capital
facilities. The fees have been calculated so that new customers "buy in" to the current value of all
CCCSD assets. This approach was first adopted in 2001, and was used in 2008, when the fees
were last increased. Using this approach, each new customers' share in the current value of
District facilities, equipment, land and fund balances is "equalized" with existing District customers
at the time of connection. This is done by dividing the current value of all CCCSD assets by the
current number of connections and charging this amount for new connections. The current and
proposed capacity fees for each new residential unit and "Residential Unit Equivalent (RUE)" are:
Current
Fee (before July 1, 2009)
Gravity Service $4,923 per RUE
Pumped Service $6,509 per RUE
Proposed
(effective July 1, 2009) Increase
$5,298 per RUE 7.6%
$6,949 per RUE 6.8%
Capacity fees for nonresidential (commercial, industrial and institutional) projects are also based
on "Residential Unit Equivalents," so they will also increase by the same percentages if the
proposal is adopted.
Capacity Fees, and Environmental and Development - Related Rates and Charges
March 25, 2009
Page 2
Environmental and Development - Related Rates and Charges: Chapter 6.30 of the CCCSD
Code establishes environmental rates and charges to recover the costs for permitting of industrial
users and for regulating septage /grease hauling and disposal, and development - related rates and
charges to recover costs to provide services including:
• Permit Issuance
• Plan and easement review for main sewer extension projects
• Inspection of main sewer extensions and side sewers
• Processing of quitclaims and real property agreements
• Administering the reimbursement and capacity use charge programs
• Surveying and review of geotechnical engineering
• Preparing development - related record drawings and adding new development
information to the District's maps
After a review of the rates and charges in effect since July 1, 2008, CCCSD staff recommended
to the Board of Directors that most environmental and development - related rates and charges
(including those for industrial user permits and septage /grease disposal) remain unchanged, that
seven fees be increased, eight fees be decreased, one new fee be established and that the
structure of two fee categories be modified.
Outreach Program: District staff will hold two informal meetings to discuss the proposed
increases in capacity fees, as well as revision of the rates and charges, with interested
customers. The first meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 7:00 p.m., and the second
is scheduled for Wednesday, April 8, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Both meetings will be held in the District
Board Meeting Room at 5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez.
Public Hearings to receive comments on the capacity fee and rates and charges proposals are
scheduled for Thursday, April 16, 2009, at 2 p.m., in the CCCSD Board of Directors Meeting
Room. The draft ordinances to be considered by the Board, and the data and documents on
which the fee proposal is based will be available for review ten (10) days prior to the public
hearing, as required.
If you have questions or would like any additional information, please telephone me at (925) 229-
7335 or Kurt Darner at (925) 229 -7338, or send an e-mail message to jm2 @centralsan.dst.ca.us.
Sincerely,
Jarred Miyamoto -Mills
Principal Engineer
JM2:KD /ms
Enclosures
N: \ENVRSRV\Fees & Charges - Capacity, Environmental & Development\2009 Review\2009 Stakeholder's Notice.doc
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
Report Regarding the Capacity Fee Proposal
February 2009
INTRODUCTION
In September 1998, the state enacted SB1760 that requires sewer connection fees to
be based on one of two methods: 1) a buy -in to existing assets, or 2) the cost of future
facilities expansion. This bill was enthusiastically endorsed and supported by home
builders' associations statewide.
In 2001, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's method for determination of Capacity
Fees was changed to a "buy -in -to -all assets" approach. This was done to provide a
rational, practical, equitable and defensible method to calculate the financial burden of
new connections.
The buy -in -to -all- assets approach is preferred primarily due to the "facilities- mature"
status of the District. In this context, facilities- mature means that the value of existing
assets (about $1.54 billion) is many times the value of future facilities expansion
needed to accommodate future customers. Stated differently, most of the facilities
needed to serve new customers have already been built and paid for by current
customers. As a consequence, most of the work envisioned in the District's Capital
Improvement Plan is for renovation, replacement or upgrading of facilities to maintain
capacity for both current and prospective customers. Charging a Capacity Fee based
on a buy -in -to -all- assets at the time of connection to the public sewer system equalizes
the unit investment of each customer as they move from being a "future" to "current"
customer.
The following sections present a discussion of the District's Capacity Fee approach,
staff - proposed increases, and a planned customer /public outreach program.
THE DISTRICT'S APPROACH TO CALCULATING CAPACITY FEES
The District's current method of calculation for Capacity Fees is based on a buy- in -to-
all- assets approach. The calculation estimates the "current value" of real property
(land), facilities, equipment and the balances in the Sewer Construction, Running
Expense, Debt Service and Self Insurance Funds.
In the calculation, the current value of each asset category is determined as follows:
❑ Land: The "current value" of investments in real property is estimated based on
the opportunity value of like cash investments deposited in the District's
temporary investments at the time of each purchase and held at interest to the
present, rather than by attempting to determine actual market value.
Capacity Fee Proposal
February 2009
Page 2
❑ Facilities: The current value of investments in physical facilities is estimated by
both, 1) escalating each year's facilities expenditures based on the change in the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay
Area (ENR- CCI -SF), and 2) applying straight -line depreciation using the following
life cycles with no salvage value.
Please note that a category for "Mains (Renovation Program)" has been included
again this year in the current value of facilities for determination of Capacity
Fees. This category accounts for the District's significant investment since 1988
in life -cycle replacement and renovation of sewers 10- inches in diameter and
smaller. This work renews capacity in these smaller sewers for the benefit of
both existing and new connectors and reduces future maintenance costs.
Average Useful Life:
Gravity Sewers
Interceptors 150 years
Trunks 100 years
Mains (Renovated by District) 75 years
Treatment Plant & Pumping Station Facilities
Tanks /Foundations 100 years
Buildings 75 years
Mechanical, Electrical & Control Equipment 30 years
Recycled Water Facilities
Pipelines 50 years
Mechanical, Electrical & Control Equipment 30 years
General Improvements
Buildings 50 years
Mechanical /Electrical Equipment and Furnishings 25 years
Vehicles and other Equipment 10 years
Major Repairs /Replacements 10 years
Capacity Fee Proposal
February 2009
Page 3
❑ Fund Balances: Prior fiscal year -end balances for the Sewer Construction,
Running Expense, Debt Service and Self Insurance Funds are used. The Sewer
Construction Fund Balance is reduced by the principal value of the District's
outstanding debt.
After estimating the "current value" for an asset category, the component of the
Capacity Fee attributable to that category is calculated by dividing current value by the
current number of customers (number of Residential Unit Equivalents: "RUE "):
Buy -in Fee =
Value of Assets
Number of Customers (RUE)
RECOMMENDED CAPACITY FEE INCREASES
Staff recommends that the Board consider adopting Capacity Fees for the 2009 -10
fiscal year by applying the valuation approach and facilities life cycles described above.
The proposed capacity fee increases are principally due to CCCSD's 2007 -08
investment of approximately $31.5 million in additions, upgrades, renovation, and
replacement of capital facilities. The proposed fees are:
Fee Cate-gory Current Proposed % change
Gravity Service $4,923 per RUE $5,298 per RUE 7.6%
Pumping Service $6,509 per RUE $6,949 per RUE 6.8%
The calculation of these proposed fees is shown in Table 1. If the recommended
Capacity Fees are adopted by the Board of Directors, approximately $400,000 in
additional annual revenue will be generated in fiscal year 2009 -10, based on
connection of 500 Residential Unit Equivalents (RUE) in the gravity zone and 500 RUE
in the pumped zone.
The fee calculation approach is a rational, practical, equitable and defensible method to
determine the financial burden of new connections. A comparison of the proposed
Capacity Fees to the fees charged by neighboring agencies is presented in Table 2.
EM:JM2:mbs
p
O
o
o
e
o 0 0
0
o
e
e
o
e
o
�
O
O
O
r N O
r
C1
M
OD
40
to
tMi
�
C
N
n
to
tw to It
O
r
n
t0+1
O
n
t0
O
d
` cc
av
N
o
401,
n
a
M to le
W
4m
w
N
M
o
=
—
K
-- 0 M
tH C
to
to
W
C E
d
.+
t0 O
c
L
V W
V
W
to
n
M
o
O
to
M O O
a to
It
O
co
o
I
n
r
a
0!
—
Go
m
CI
e
•
m
N
w
—
N
W
to w t0
W
N
p
W
N
{A
ti/
N
W
W
O
44
#A
44
ER
�
Q
d
II
(�
d
LL
'
d
N
O
O
3
n O M to
OD O C1 N
to
O
N
—
M
to
N
O
M
co
O
O
O
M
to
N
01
sf
co
2 O v to
n
Wt
cc
r
a
at)
I
{a
M
M
01 N le le
N IT n r
O
V
r
N
r
IV
M
co
N
N
O
N
M
to
Go
n
n
to It M f It
00
CL
I
1
I
N
Of
r.+
N
a
Of
O
—
M 00 — to
n O O n
M
M
01
to
O
to
to
M
to
O
—
O
m
to
to
to
W
to
N N W
N N
tq
ti
to
r
Go
0
w
V
Ud
a7
y
�Mp�
LD
C
+
p M
R
O
T
C t
w
m
Z
7
'O
M
pop,,
ppMo
a.
O U)
_
d
0
C
Q
a
,pr-�
n . a
C
A-
LL
N
+
O
CD
+
t
LO
T
CL
v
G
�`
O N
n+
o
N
N s
'� L�U�+
17'
v
c
c
o
o
U c �'
w•-
d
V
I}i ayi
Lg)i CD 0
U+
to
V
��
m
O
=
_
O
N
M
o
o o
O
�+
«s
v
.n..
m �°
=
m
`
to
+=
o a
@�
LL
LL
m
>+
C.
o
M
Q
7
R
al
v
0
ti
E m go a
'o
E+
0 L
c
W
=
LL
L
t9
a
D
NJ ai
�,
m
::
a v C c y
p �'
v
`
y
d
W
t
d a
CI
a
t) m m
a In
"
H
C.
U
J
d
d
LL__
*+
..
C
'a
a.+ C
Y C !� 'p
c
d
p
W
U
w
i
Q
L
LL
LL
U.
Q
:'w
V
mE
v
O
�3c W
�c
V
W
r
'
W v
.�
T
d 0 7
I-UGCL
d
c�
C
L
C
C
J
U
V
m CL 'a
H
c
1
0
0
�
a
c.
Fa-U m
Q
J
LL O
N
N
�
V
U
w
m_yy
a.d
C
_d
t0
.3
Q
W
C
Ta
c
m
y W
d 7
Ix O:
to n
M O
r �
t0 to
to �
r
d
d w
_ l0
LL
LL O1
Z' a
> E
m a
m
d
>
C a
N t
d
� t
C t
V •�
C
)
H 1
d t
L t
H
y
o
Z
Table 2
COMPARISON OF CAPACITY FEES
Agency
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Capacity Fee
$14,475
Pittsburg (Delta Diablo Sanitation District for Treatment)
$8,903
Antioch (Delta Diablo Sanitation District for Treatment)
$8,228
Mountain View Sanitary District
$8,032
Bay Point (Delta Diablo Sanitation District for Treatment)
$7,810
Proposed CCCSD Pumped Zone
$6,949
Current CCCSD Pumped Zone
$6,509
Proposed CCCSD Gravity Zone
$5,298
Current CCCSD Gravity Zone
$4,923
Concord
$4,447
West County Wastewater District
$2,431
1* Other agencies' fees are for 2008 -09
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
Report Regarding
Environmental and Development - Related Rates and Charges Proposal
February 2009
OVERVIEW
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (District) Board of Directors will soon
consider adopting an ordinance to revise Chapter 6.30, Schedule of Rates and
Charges, for various environmental and development - related services.
If, the proposed 2009 -10 fees are adopted, estimated increased revenue in the fee
categories where increased fees are recommended will likely be balanced by decreased
revenue in those fee categories where reduced fees are recommended.
BACKGROUND
Chapter 6.30 of the District Code includes a schedule of rates and charges for
environmental and development - related services provided to property owners,
contractors, developers, septic and grease waste haulers, and permitted industrial
users. These services include permitting, plan review, inspection of construction for
laterals and main line extensions, addition of new sewers, parcels, and permit
information to District maps, source control permits and inspections, and septic and
grease hauler sampling and treatment.
These rates and charges are intended to recover the District's direct and indirect labor
costs, other operating expenses, and administrative overhead incurred in providing
each service.
These rates and charges were last revised in 2008. District staff annually reviews the
rates and charges to assess whether changes are appropriate. This year, as in the
past, the District has re- evaluated the rates and charges for the categories of
Development Plan Review, Construction Inspection and Collection System, Right -of-
Way, and Miscellaneous services. The recommended rates and charges are explained
in the following pages. District staff has proposed that environmental rates and charges
for industrial user permits and septage /grease disposal remain unchanged.
PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES
The State of California mandates that revenues from fees, rates and charges not
exceed the cost of providing services. Following its review, District staff recommended
that rates and charges be revised to include: 1) adjustment for increased salaries,
benefits and overhead; 2) adjustment of the mileage rate for those charges that include
a mileage factor; 3) incorporation of a new approach to calculating fees for Mainline
Plan Review and various adjustments to other fees and charges. Table 1 presents a
comparison of the current and proposed rates and charges.
Proposal to Revise Development - Related Rates and Charges
February 2009
Page 2
In 2007 and 2008, most rates and charges were increased by a fixed percentage in
order to account for higher salaries, benefits, and overhead. This year, staff has
conducted a comprehensive review of all rates and charges and has included factors for
higher salaries, a lower benefit and overhead rate, a lower vehicle use rate, a decrease
in the District's credit card transaction costs, as well as changes to some of the staff
time requirements applicable to several of the rates and charges. These staff time
requirements were evaluated in light of data for several prior years, changes in staffing
levels, and the resource requirements of the recently - completed District Code update,
which changes how some services are provided. The recommended rates assume that
no Cost of Living Adjustment for District staff salaries occur in 2009 -10, however, the
District's employee benefits /administrative overhead rate has decreased from 190% of
direct salary cost in 2008 -09 to 178% of direct salary cost for 2009 -10. The
comprehensive review resulted in many minor "calculated" increases and decreases to
individual fees and several more significant increases or decreases. Where calculated
changes indicated potential increases or decreases less than five percent, staff
recommended that the current fee remain unchanged. Explanations are presented
below for those fees rates and charges where increases or decreases are proposed.
Proposed Chancies
Mainline Plan Review: Staff is proposing to change the way that Mainline Plan Review
fees are charged so that the costs are more accurately attributed and so that projects
that require less plan review effort do not subsidize those that require more effort.
Staffs proposal is to charge for Mainline Plan Review work at the actual cost of $128
per hour, with a minimum charge of $2,115 per job. If adopted, this new method of
charging for Mainline Plan Reviews will replace the previous "base fee" and "per- foot"
charges. Only those customers whose plans require repeated reviews and extensive
staff time will pay additional plan review fees.
Manhole Only Design and Plan Review: The fee would increase by 22.52% ($158)
due to a reassessment of actual staff time required. Manhole design work is now done
by the District rather than requiring customers to hire their own engineers.
Application Fee — Capacity Use Program: The calculated fee increase that resulted
from a reassessment of actual staff time required is $142 per completed Capacity Use
Agreement. Staff recommends spreading the proposed increase over a three year
phase -in period to mitigate the impact on customers. An increase of $34 (19.10 %) each
year for the next three years is recommended. This one -time fee is applied to only
three or four customers each year.
Reimbursement Account Set -Up Fee: Changes from the recent code update require
a written agreement between the District and the reimbursement account holder, and an
annual notification to all reimbursement account holders. These changes will result in
additional time spent on setting up reimbursement accounts. The calculated fee
increase that resulted from a reassessment of actual staff time required is $210 per
Reimbursement Account setup. Staff recommends spreading the proposed increase
Proposal to Revise Development - Related Rates and Charges
February 2009
Page 3
over a three year phase -in period to mitigate the impact on customers. An increase of
$70 (9.51 %) each year for the next three years is recommended. This one -time fee is
applied to only four to six main line extension projects each year.
Reimbursement Account Transaction Fee: Staff has streamlined the process for
disbursement of reimbursements to account holders, and recommends a decrease of
$27 (16.27 %) in the "per transaction" fee.
Special Studies: Staff recommends that the base fee for Special Capacity Fee Studies
be reduced by $7 (1.39 %); that the base fee be a minimum charge that covers up to
four hours of staff time; and that each additional hour of staff time required be billed at
$108 per hour. Some special studies are uncomplicated and require only a few hours to
complete, and some are complicated and require many hours of research and analysis.
The proposed fee structure will result in a more equitable attribution of costs.
Site Collector Plan Check (formerly Commercial Development Plan Check): The
$increase proposed is due to a reassessment of actual staff time required. The
calculated fee increase that resulted from a reassessment of actual staff time required is
$96 (51.34 %). Staff recommends spreading the proposed increase over a three year
phase -in period to mitigate the impact on customers. An increase of $32 (17.11 %) each
year for the next three years is recommended. This one -time fee is applied to only eight
to ten multi -use projects each year.
Private Pumping System Plan Check, Additional Review, and Pre - approved Pump
Systems: Staff recommends modest decreases in the fees for: 1) Private Pumping
System Plan Check: $18 (4.83 %); 2) Additional Review: $15 each (9.74 %); and 3) Pre -
approved Pump Systems: $15 (9.74 %). Implementing spreadsheet applications,
reference tools and streamlined procedures recently developed by staff resulted in a
reduction in the time required to complete these reviews.
Mainline Inspection Base Fee and per foot charges: The base fee for inspection of
mainline extension projects is proposed to decrease by $79 (11.65 %) due to a
reassessment of actual staff time required. This reduction would be partially offset by
proposed increases in the Mainline Inspection "per foot" charges of $0.62 per foot
(6.75 %) for jobs in existing streets; and $0.41 per foot (6.46 %) for jobs in undeveloped
land (new subdivisions) that result from a reevaluation of actual staff time spent on
these inspections.
New Manhole, Rodding Inlet (Mainline) Inspection: Staff recommends this new fee be
established to cover inspection and mapping costs for projects involving installation of a
single manhole or rodding inlet.
Inspection of Non - Permitted Work: This fee would decrease by $133 (31.74 %) due
to a reassessment of actual staff time required. Any applicable charges avoided by a
contractor working without a permit are also collected in these cases.
Proposal to Revise Development - Related Rates and Charges
February 2009
Page 4
Dye Test: This fee is proposed to be decreased by $65 (20.19 %) due to a
reassessment of actual staff time required.
Sewer Locating and Marking: This fee is proposed to be decreased by $61 (22.26 %)
due to a reassessment of actual staff time required.
Right of Entry / Encroachment Permit Fee: This fee is proposed to be increased by
$21 (20.59 %) due to a reassessment of actual staff time required.
Summary
If the staff - proposed revisions to the Environmental and Development - Related Fees,
Rates and Charge are adopted by the District Board of Directors, 54 fees would remain
unchanged, seven fees would increase, eight fees would decrease, one new fee would
be established, and the structure for two fee categories would be modified. Staff
estimates that increased revenue in the fee categories where fee increases are
recommended will likely be balanced by decreased revenue in those fee categories
where reduced fees are recommended.
EM:KD:JM2:mbs
Attachments
TABLE 1
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
COMPARISON OF CURRENT & PROPOSED RATES & CHARGES FOR 2009 -10
February 2009
Fee Category
Current Fee
I Proposed Fee
% Change
(A) DEVELOPMENT AND PLAN REVIEW
Review of new sewer plans and related documents; review of plans for and processing of residential and commercial
permit applications; installer reimbursement of sewer construction costs from subsequent connectors; identification of right -
of -way conflicts; and interest rates for District programs.
(A -1)
Development Review:
Mainline Plan Review (actual cost):
NEW
Base Fee (minimum charge)
- --
$2,074
NEW
NEW
Each additional hour in excess of base fee
- --
$125
NEW
Special Cut Sheet Review
$200
$200
no change
Manhole only design & plan review
$702
$843
20.1%
Right of Way Document Review - IOD / Sub Map (each):
$579
$579
no change
Right of Way Document Review - No Changes Required
$376
$376
no change
Right of Way document review -Appurtenance (initial):
$539
$539
no change
Appurtenance (each additional)
$199
$199
no change
(A -2)
Application Fees
Basic Application (side sewer work, easement staking)
$89
$89
no change
Existing parcel - new sewer service
$121
$121
no change
New parcel - new sewer service
$196
$196
no change
Commercial Application
$200
$200
no change
Capacity Use Program ($34 increase each year for three years)
1 $178
1 $212
19.1%
(A -3)
Reimbursement Accounts:
Set -up fee ($70 increase each year for three years)
$736
$806
9.5%
Transaction fee
$166
$139
-16.3%
(A-4)
Commercial Business Plan Review (change in RUE value)
$123
$123
no change
Special Studies
Base fee (4 hours plus misc. costs)
$504
$504
no change
NEW
Each additional hour
- --
$108
NEW
Source Control Review
$190
$190
no change
Grease Variance Review (includes site visit)
$286
$286
no change
Site Collector Plan Check - formerly "Commercial Development Plan Check"
$32 increase each year for 3 ears
$187
$219
17.1%
(A -5)
Private pumping system plan check
$373
$355
-4.8%
Additional Review
$154
$139
-9.7%
Pre - approved Pump Systems
$154
$139
-9.7%
Annexation Fee
$574
$574
no change
(A -7)
Special Approvals
$206
$206
no change
2009 -10 R & C Comp zero COLA KD -jm2 Page 1
TABLE 1
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
COMPARISON OF CURRENT & PROPOSED RATES & CHARGES FOR 2009 -10
February 2009
Fee Category
Current Fee
Proposed Fee
% Change
(B) CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
Inspection of new sewer main construction and new connections and other sewer work on private property (includes TV
inspection when appropriate).
(B -1)
Mainline Inspection (contributed assets):
Base Fee
$678
$599
- 11.7%
Per Foot Charge (in street)
$9.19
$9.81
6.7%
Per Foot Charge (in undeveloped land)
$6.35
$6.76
6.5%
NEW
New Manhole, Rodding Inlet
- --
$596
NEW
(B -2)
Inspections by type:
Side Sewer Installation / Repair per 100 feet:
$137
$137
no change
Single Inspection Charge (e.g. sewer connection; encroachment verification;
side sewer cap on property; tap and lateral (new or replacement); air test;
reinspection; homeowner preconstruction inspection)
$137
$137
no change
Manhole tap; lateral abandonment at main; pipe bursting; trash enclosure
w/o trap; side sewer CIPP repair
$274
$274
no change
Manhole Alteration; trash enclosure with trap
$411
$411
no change
New Manhole or Rodding Inlet (private); outside pump installation
$547
$547
no change
Grease / Sand / Oil Interceptor / Trap
$821
$821
no change
(B -3)
Overtime inspection:
First Hour (if responding from off -site)
$85
$85
no change
Every hour thereafter
$58
$58
no change
Weekend /Holiday (New Year's Day, Martin Luther King, President's Day,
Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas) - 4 hr.
minimum
$262
$262
no change
(B-4)
I Inspection of non - permitted work (+ avoided charge)
$419
$286
- 31.7%
2009 -10 R & C Comp zero COLA KD jm2 Page 2
TABLE 1
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
COMPARISON OF CURRENT & PROPOSED RATES & CHARGES FOR 2009 -10
February 2009
Fee Category
Current Fee
I Proposed Fee
% Change
(C) COLLECTION SYSTEM SERVICES
TV inspection of sewers conducted separate from a construction inspection activity,' verification of sewer location and
sewer service connection.
(C -1)
TV Inspection:
Weekday, hourly rate
$187
$187
no change
Minimum Charge (2 hr min)
$376
$376
no change
Overtime - First Hour
$126
$126
no change
Overtime - Each Additional Hour
$105
$105
no change
Overtime - Weekend / Holiday (4 hr min)
$446
$446
no change
(C -2)
Dye test
$322
$257
-20.2%
(C -3)
Collection system repair
Actual Expense
Actual Expense
no change
(C-4)
Cancelled TV Inspection without prior notice
$331
$331
no change
(C -5)
Sewer locating and marking
$274
$213
1 -22.3%
(D) RIGHT -OF -WAY
Establishing right -of -way agreements and resolving conflicts.
(D -1)
Process Quitclaim Deeds
$907
$907
no change
Process Quitclaim Deed - plat and legal by others
$551
$551
no change
(D -2)
Process Real Property Agreement, License, or Easement
Base Fee (minimum charge)
$746
$746
no change
Each Additional Hour (after 2 hours)
$116
$116
no change
(D -3)
Right -of -way Research / Encroachment Resolution Fee
Actual Expense
Actual Expense
no change
(D-4)
Right of Entry / Encroachment Permit Fee (+ $23 each yr over next 3 yrs)
$102
$123
20.6%
(E) MISCELLANEOUS
District services provided for private sewer projects.
(E -1)
Engineering - private sewer projects
Actual Expense
Actual Expense
no change
(E -2)
Soil evaluation - private sewer projects
Actual Expense
Actual Expense
no change
(E -3)
Surveying
Actual Expense
Actual Expense
no change
(E -4)
Minimum annual interest rate for CADs and Capacity Use Program
6.00%
6.00%
no change
Document / Plan Copying Fees
8 1/2" x 11'; 8 1/2" x 14'; 11" x 17" (per sheet)
$0.15
$0.15
no change
24" x 36" Plan (per sheet)
$3.00
$3.00
no change
CCCSD Standard Specifications
$20.00
$20.00
no change
2009 -10 R & C Comp zero COLA KD -jm2 Page 3
TABLE 1
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
COMPARISON OF CURRENT & PROPOSED RATES & CHARGES FOR 2009 -10
February 2009
Fee Category
Current Fee
I Proposed Fee
% Change
(F) INDUSTRIAL PERMIT FEES
Permiting and inspection of industries and other commercial dischargers to ensure availability and use of pretreatment
processes.
Base permit fee of
Base permit fee of
(F -1)
Class I Fees
$3,256 + cost of
$3,256 + cost of
no change
g
District's lab
District's lab
analysis
analysis
Base permit fee of
Base permit fee of
(F -2)
Class II Fees
$3,256 + cost of
$3,256 + cost of
no change
9
District's lab
District's lab
analysis
analysis
(F -3)
Class III Fees
0
$0
no change
(F-4)
Industrial user permit application fee
0
$0
no change
(F -5)
Special discharge permit application fee ( *)
No on -site inspection
$65 each
$65 each
no change
On -site inspection
Base fee of $345
Base fee of $345
no change
(G) SEPTAGE DISPOSAL ( * *)
Sampling and disposal of septic waste and grease.
(G -1)
Annual permit fee $1,650 $1,650
no change
(G -2)
Residential septic/toilet waste
< 2,000 gallons
$18 + $0.14/gal
$18 + $0.14/gal
no change
> 2,000 gallons
$58 + $0.14/gal
$58 + $0.14/gal
no change
(G -3)
Restaurant grease waste
< 2,000 gallons
$18 + $0.02 /gal
$18 + $0.02 /gal
no change
> 2,000 gallons
$58 + $0.02/ al
$58 + $0.02/ al
no change
( *) Additional charges to be billed separately if staff time incurred is above that included in the base fee.
( * *) Other approved waste will be charged at the residential septic and portable toilet waste rate unless actual strength characteristics
are provided.
2009 -10 R & C Comp zero COLA KD -jm2 Page 4
Item 10.a.1
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
Proposed Capacity Fees &
Environmental and
Development - Related
Rates & Charges
General Manager's Report
March 5, 2009
Schedule
• General Manager's Report------- - - - - -- 3/5/2009
• Set Public Hearing Date ------- - - - - -- 3/19/2009
• "Outreach" --- - - - - -- March 20 to April 16, 2009
• Conduct Public Hearing --- - - - - -- April 16, 2009
• Fees & Charges effective--- - - - - -- July 1, 2009
Capacity Fees
• This one -time "buy -in" fee is charged at
time of connection and is used primarily
for capital facility needs.
• Capacity Fees are — 25 -30% of long-
term Sewer Construction Fund revenue.
• Annual Capacity Fee revenue is
somewhat unpredictable since it is
dependent on rate of development.
Capacity Fee Approach
• "Buy -in" calculation:
Value of Assets
---------------- - - - - -- = Capacity Fee
Number of RUE
This approach avoids having current
customers subsidize new connectors.
2
Current Capacity Fees
• Gravity Zone:
• Pumped Zone:
$4,923 / RUE
$6,509 / RUE
Proposed Capacity Fees
• Gravity Zone: $5,298 / RUE ( +7.6 %)
• Pumped Zone: $6,949 / RUE ( +6.8 %)
3
Environmental Services and
Development - Related Rates & Charges
• Recommended Rates and Charges reflect:
- Revisions to address actual cost of
services and benefits of process
improvements.
- Adjustment for net decrease in overhead
multiplier.
• If adopted, 54 fees would remain
unchanged, 7 would increase, 8 would
decrease, one new fee would be added,
and two fees would be restructured.
Public Outreach
• Letters ( -350)
— Home Builders Association
— Applicants, Developers, Engineers, Business
Owners and Contractors
• Meetings with Customers (tentative dates)
— April 7, 2009 at 7 pm
— April 8, 2009 at 10 am
4
Schedule
• General Manager's Report------- - - - - -- 3/5/2009
• Set Public Hearing Date ------- - - - - -- 3/19/2009
• "Outreach" --- - - - - -- March 20 to April 16, 2009
• Conduct Public Hearing --- - - - - -- April 16, 2009
• Fees & Charges effective--- - - - - -- July 1, 2009
Questions ... ?
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
March 3, 2009
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
FROM: JIM KELLY, GENERAL MANAGER 01"If
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON FINANCIAL WORKSHOP (AGENDA ITEM 10.a.2)
The slides that present the update on the financial workshop are attached. They
summarize the Prop 218 /rate setting schedule, the update on the FY 2008 -09 expenses
and revenues, estimate savings from the current good bid climate, projects that are
eligible for federal funding, and updated scenario and staff's recommended SSC
increase for Board consideration.
The Prop 218 notice would need to be approved by the Board on April 2, 2009 to allow
45 day notice to our rate payers. The rate setting public hearing would be scheduled for
June 4, 2009, and budget adoption would be June 18, 2009.
The Board received the mid -year update on O &M and capital expenses and revenues
on February 19, 2009. In sum, O &M expenses are expected to be on budget and O &M
revenues are expected to be $1.06 million under budget. Capital expenses are
expected to be $2.3 million over budget and revenues under budget $2.7 million. This
will draw the sewer construction fund down $5.6 million.
Our Capital Savings for 2009 -10 are estimated to be $2.5 million due to change in
scope of two projects and 20% lower bids. Ten percent lower bids are estimated for
2010 -11. These values were used in our updated financial model scenarios.
Slide number eight presents the projects staff has submitted for federal funding. The
funding program is still under development, so we do not have a good idea of what our
chances are for receiving funding.
The tax take response is not developed yet, since the State budget was resolved
without taking our property taxes. Staff is developing a response, and will present it to
the Board at a future Board meeting.
Staff updated the financial model using current estimates of O &M and capital expenses
for 2008 -09, actual benefit costs for 2009 -10, and updated future capital and O &M
revenue and expenses. The updated information showed reduced short-term
expenditures; however, there was an even greater reduction in revenues. Without SSC
increases, further reductions in expenditures, and /or debit financing, the District may not
meet its Funds Required balance at the start of FY 2010 -11.
CSO /H: \General Manager's Directory\Memos\2009 \Update on Financial Workshop March 5th.doc
Regarding our O &M Budget, staff's goal is to have the FY 2009 -10 budget be less than
FY 2008 -09 for all non -salary and benefit line items. This should be accomplished
without any reduction in program activities or services.
The table below shows various scenarios of raising SSC and bond funding so that we
meet our Funds Required balance.
As shown above, if we only rely upon SSC increases, the increases are large in the first
years. The use of bonds reduces the near -term SSC increases considerably. However,
the bond market is still unstable, so at this time, we can not be assured we would have
a buyer for bonds.
Accordingly, staff recommends the following:
• A Prop 218 notice for $10 2009 -10
• Pursue $30,000,000 Bond for Capital Projects to be sold in the next year
The proposal is made because there are considerable risks to a multi -year 218 notice:
• We may not be able to sell bonds.
• The economy could get worse and cause our revenues to decline further than
projected.
Health care and retirement cost could increase greater than projected
requiring a greater increase in 2010 -11.
If the Board desires, a multi -year 218 notice of $11 for 2009 -10 and $12 for 2010 -11
could be published, and if bonds could not be sold and the economy continues to
deteriorate, as this is a large increase in benefit costs, a revised 218 notice could be
sent to the rate payer.
CSO /H: \General Manager's Directory\Memos\2009 \Update on Financial Workshop March 5th.doc
SSC Raise $/ r
SSC $/ r
2009 -10
2010 -11
2011 -12
2018 -19
January Recommended
15
15
16
455
SSC Raise Only
10
20
24
415
SSC Raise Only + No Increase l't
Year
0
32
32
410
SSC Raise + $30,000,000 Bond
11
11
11
418
SSC Raise + $30,000,000 Bond
+ No Increase 1St Year
0
14
14
429
As shown above, if we only rely upon SSC increases, the increases are large in the first
years. The use of bonds reduces the near -term SSC increases considerably. However,
the bond market is still unstable, so at this time, we can not be assured we would have
a buyer for bonds.
Accordingly, staff recommends the following:
• A Prop 218 notice for $10 2009 -10
• Pursue $30,000,000 Bond for Capital Projects to be sold in the next year
The proposal is made because there are considerable risks to a multi -year 218 notice:
• We may not be able to sell bonds.
• The economy could get worse and cause our revenues to decline further than
projected.
Health care and retirement cost could increase greater than projected
requiring a greater increase in 2010 -11.
If the Board desires, a multi -year 218 notice of $11 for 2009 -10 and $12 for 2010 -11
could be published, and if bonds could not be sold and the economy continues to
deteriorate, as this is a large increase in benefit costs, a revised 218 notice could be
sent to the rate payer.
CSO /H: \General Manager's Directory\Memos\2009 \Update on Financial Workshop March 5th.doc
/0'a I j
Update on Financial Workshop
March 5, 2009
Follow Up to Financial Workshop
• Firm Up Prop 218 Schedule
• Update O &M and Capital expenses and
revenues and projections
• Evaluate Capital program savings due to good
bid climate
• Evaluate financing opportunities from Feds
• Develop "Tax Take" response
• Update model scenarios /Staff's
Recommendation
• Present to Board on February 19th and March 5th
1
l" ♦ % ,, s
Prop 218 Schedule
• Agree Upon Rate for Notice April 2, 2009
• Hold Hearing to Set Rates June 4, 2009
• Adopt Rate June 18, 2009
Update O &M Expenses
O &M Expenses Projected to be on budget
O &M Revenue Projection Down 1.86% or
$1.06 million
— Fewer connections
— Business sewer service charge down due
to drought and less business
— Lower interest
2
Update on Capital Expenses and
Revenue
Capital Expenses $2.3 million over budget due to
late progress billing on A -Line project last year.
Capital Revenue Down $2.7 million
— $0.4 million less property tax than projected
— $0.5 million lower interest earnings
— $1.5 million lower connection fees revenue
Expected to draw Sewer construction fund down
$5.6 million
Handy Facts
$1 SSC Increase = $170,000
1 % Salary Increase = $2.80 SSC
Ad Valorem Tax = $73 SSC
3
Evaluate Capital Savings Due to
Good Bid Climate
• Re- scoping of two projects reduces planned
expenditures by $2.5 Million
— Miner Road, Orinda change to CIPP
— Diablo Renovations reduction in scope
Use new 10 -Year Plan scenario with 2009 -10 bids
reduced by 20% and 2010 -11 bids reduced by
10% to reflect bid climate
• This provides a $7.8 million savings in the first 2
years; 10 year expenditures projected to be $1.5
million less than January estimates
Evaluate Financing Opportunities
from Feds
District Project
Estimated Cost
CSO Facility Improvements
$17,000,000
Concord Recycled Water (A -Line Project)
7,200,000
Solids Handling Improvements
4,500,000
Wet Weather Bypass Improvements
1,430,000
Primary Structures Demolition
1,000,000
Diablo Renovations, Phase 1
1,410,000
Pleasant Hill Renovations, Phase 1
1,550,000
4
Develop "Tax Take" Response
• No need for months if not years
• If taken in full, would equal $73 SSC
• Would require either major SSC increase
or spending cut
• Probably require short -term borrowing or
bonds to provide cash flow until SSC
increases /spending cuts put in place
Update Model Scenarios
• Use updated O &M and Capital Expense and
Revenue estimates
• Use actual insurances and retirement rates for
2009 -10
• Used lower NG cost based on projected
purchase price
• Reduced connections in near -term years,
increased in future years
• Labor, Benefits assumed to increase 4.5% per
year
4
Based on Current Information
• Near term expenditures down
• Near term revenues down more
• To meet Funds Required by 2010 -11, we
need to do some or all of the following:
— Raise SSC
— Cut expenditures
— Bond finance some capital projects
• Long Term revenues up
Current Sewer Service Charge Rankings
for Bay Area Agencies
AVR per SSC plus Rank from
08/09 Rank from connection, AVR, lowest
SSC lowest if known if known (with AVRI
Crockett Sanitary District
$563
22
$309
$872
22
Berkeley (EBMUD for treatment)
$525
21
N/A
$525
20
Benicia
$496
20
N/A
$496
19
Livermore
$489
19
N/A
$489
18
Oakland (EBMUD for treatment)
$487
18
N/A
$487
17
Mountain View Sanitary District
$480
17
$56
$536
21
Richmond
$469
16
N/A
$469
16
Average for Contra Costa County —
$445
CCC Average
CCC Average
Rodeo Sanitary District
$443
15
N/A
$443
15
Vallejo
$429
14
N/A
$429
14
Novato
$422
13
N/A
$422
13
Napa Sanitation District
$416
12
N/A
$416
12
Average for California—
$406
CA Average
CA Average
Pleasanton
$378
11
N/A
$378
7
Stege SD (EBMUD for treatment)
$370
10
$11
$381
8
Pittsburg (DDSD)
$364
9
$34
$398
10
Fairfield
$312
8
N/A
$312
5
CCCSD
$311
7
$73
i $384 `
9
Antioch (DDSD)
$307
6
$51
$358
6
Bay Point (DDSD)
$303
5
$109
$412
11
Concord (CCCSD for treatment)
$294
4
$294
3
Dublin San Ramon SD
$292
3
$15
$307
4
Union Sanitary District
$259
2
N/A
$259
2
West County Wastewater District
$190
1
$30
$220
1
A
If We Only Raise SSC
• Large near term increase
• Low future increases
If We Only Cut Expenditures
• Build few projects
• Provide few services
• Don't pursue new initiatives
Bond Funding /Borrowing
• Smooths Rates until revenues return
• Doesn't put full burden on current rate
payers
• May not be available ....
March 5, 2009 Revised Staff Recommendation
• Prop 218 notice for up to $10 in 2009 -10
• Pursue $30,000,000 bond for Capital Projects.
Recommendation Reasoning
The recommendation is made because there are
considerable risks to a multi -year 218 notice:
• We may not be able to sell bonds
• The economy could get worse and cause our
revenues to decline further than projected
• Health care and retirement cost could increase
greater than projected requiring a greater
increase in 2010 -11
Prop 218 Notice Option
If the Board desires, a multi -year 218 notice
of $11 for 2009 -2010 and $12 for 2010 -11
could be published, and if bonds could not
be sold and the economy continues to
deteriorate, as this is a large increase in
benefit costs, a revised 218 notice could
be sent to the rate payer.
9
Other Considerations
• Some economic advisors predict the economy won't hit bottom until
mid -2010 and that it could take 5 years to fully recover. Our
revenue projections could still be too optimistic.
— Interest Income
— Number of connections driving connection fee and SSC revenue
— Property Tax
• CCCERA costs could be higher than scenario assumptions — one
prediction is that they will double by 2013
• GASB 45 costs could be higher than scenario assumptions
• State may borrow /take property tax in future years
• Positive outcome: could see lower than assumed O &M and Capital
expenses due to deflated pricing
Recommendation
➢ Publish Prop 218 Notice
• Supports current goals of Excellent Customer Service, Regulatory
Compliance, Responsible Rates, & Being High Performance
Organization
➢ Support GASB -45 Costs
➢ Prepares us for future retirement system costs
➢ Rates can be set for less than Notice if conditions change
➢ Pursue Bond Fund for projects
10
Conclusion /Questions
11
rnt of
s�
CCCSD Board Meeting
March 5. 2009
Recycled Water History
• Filter plant and distribution pipelines to refineries
constructed in the 1970's for industrial reuse
• Industrial reuse not implemented due to
institutional constraints, costs, and water quality
issues
• Filter plant only used for plant utility water and to
supply a few small businesses near the plant until
mid 1990's
• Contra Costa Water District water purveyor in area
nearest CCCSD treatment facilities
Agreements with Contra Costa
Water District (CCWD)
• General Agreement with CCWD negotiated in 1994
with a ten year term to "facilitate development of
recycled water projects by either District."
• Zone 1 project agreement negotiated with CCWD in
1995 that allowed CCCSD to purvey recycled water
within certain areas of Pleasant Hill, Concord and
Martinez.
• General Agreement amended in 2004 and
agreement term reduced to five years with
termination provision.
• 0 &M agreement negotiated with CCWD in 2004 to
maintain and repair recycled water pipelines.
Overview of Existing
Recycled Water Program
• 11 miles of recycled water pipelines and
about 30 metered connections in Zone 1
(Pleasant Hill, Concord, and Martinez areas
near the 680 corridor).
• 2008 Annual recycled water use:
- 220 million gallons sold for landscape
irrigation and commercial uses
- 400 million gallons used internally by CCCSD
at the treatment plant
Attempt to Expand Landscape
Irrigation Program
• A -Line Expansion into Diamond /Meridian Blvd
areas for landscape irrigation of businesses
was thought to be cost effective
- Approx 60 Mgal per year of demand
- $140,000 per year in net revenue
- $1.7M capital cost
- 12 year payback
• CCWD addition of double check valve
requirement added - $1 M in capital cost and
increased payback to > 20 years making
project not cost effective
Attempt to Develop Industrial
Recycled Water Projects
• CCCSD believes that industrial reuse remains
potentially attractive; however, no interest from
CCWD, the water purveyor to the refineries
• CCWD concerns:
- Industrial water sales provide large revenue
source to CCWD at minimal cost
- Delta modeling study suggested water recycling
increases salinity at CCWD fresh water intake
- Sunk cost in CCWD pipelines and storage tanks
($10M) feeding refineries should be recovered
- CCWD could lose some water rights
Is the General Agreement with CCWD
the appropriate tool for encouraging
recycling?
• Since being amended in 2004, few significant
users have been added to Pleasant Hill Zone 1
and no significant backbone extension has
occurred
• Attempts by CCCSD to significantly expand
landscape irrigation were stopped by costly
increased backflow prevention requirements
• Attempts by CCCSD to supply local refineries
were met with a series of CCWD concerns and no
cooperation or interest in such a project
We can reach only one conclusion...
The CCWD General Agreement has
NOT facilitated the development of
new significant recycled water
projects, either for landscape
irrigation or industrial recycling.
CCCSD wishes to pursue all available
options to expand our Recycled Water
Program, without constraints of existing
CCWD General Agreement.....
• Staff recommends a position paper to
terminate the CCWD General Agreement
be considered at the April 2, 2009 Board
Meeting to meet the Agreement terms
which require the termination notice be
received by CCWD by April 6, 2009.
• Staff would follow -up with CCWD to
determine their interest in crafting a new
agreement that would more effectively
facilitate expansion of recycled water use.
Additional Information Needs?
• REW Board Committee has held a series of
meetings and given this matter serious
consideration and has provided all information
to the full Board.
• The issues are complex, but one thing is clear,
the CCWD General Agreement is not meeting
its stated intent of "facilitating the
development of recycled water projects by
either district ".
• Does the Board require any further information
before considering a position paper to
terminate the CCWD General Agreement on
April 2, 2009?
Questions
Board Input
Agenda Item 10.a.4)
Board Meeting of March 5, 2009
Written Announcements:
Events/Conferences/Travel
a) NACWA's Annual Pretreatment and Pollution Prevention
Workshop
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) Annual
Pretreatment and Pollution Prevention Workshop on March 25 -27, 2009 is
in Charlotte, North Carolina. Environmental Compliance Superintendent
Tim Potter will be attending so that he can keep abreast of national trends
with the core pretreatment and pollution prevention activities. The subjects
being covered include: emerging pollutants and their effect on reclaimed
water programs, antimicrobial pesticides, pressure to protect storm water
quality by directing to sanitary sewer systems, and dental amalgam
programs. This conference is included in the Source Control budget for
the current fiscal year.
b) Staff to Volunteer at Hidden Valley Elementary Science Fair
Assistant Engineers Nate Morales and Edgar Lopez volunteered on behalf
of the District to judge the Hidden Valley Elementary Science Fair in
Martinez. It is an annual event with Engineering providing volunteers every
year. The science fair took place on Thursday, February 26, 2009 from
12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the school's multi - purpose room.
c) CWEA Pollution Prevention Conference in Monterey
Four District employees took part in the California Water Environmental
Association's Pollution Prevention Conference in Monterey earlier this
week. Environmental Compliance Superintendent Tim Potter served as a
Conference Awards Chair and headed a panel on Pre - treatment Programs
that included Environmental Compliance Inspector Jeff Skinner on Permit
Reinvention — Mobile Washing Program. On another panel, Melody
Labella of Environmental Services spoke on Pollutant Prioritization.
Lastly, Communication Services Manager Michael Scahill gave a
presentation on Public Education and Outreach via The Pipeline
Newsletter.
d) Standby Power Facility Improvements, DP 7248
The two new 2 MW standby generators for the Standby Power Facility
Improvements Project are nearing manufacturing completion and are
tentatively scheduled to be factory tested at the Detroit Diesel /MTU facility
in Mankato, Minnesota on March 17 and 18, 2009. These generators are
critical to the reliability of the Treatment Plant and it is important to verify
their performance prior to shipment. The District will be sending Senior
Engineer Dave Reindl and Associate Engineer Craig Mizutani to witness
the factory testing. In addition, Assistant Engineer Clint Shima will attend
to assist with the testing and to obtain training in how to perform factory
witness testing for equipment. The cost of travel was included in the
project budget.
Project Updates
e) South Orinda Sewer Renovations (Phase 4) Project
The South Orinda Sewer Renovations (Phase 4) Project is part of the
ongoing Collection System Renovation Program. Multiple phases of
sewer renovations are planned for South Orinda. The project will replace
approximately 11,000 linear feet of 6 -, 8 -, and 10 -inch sewer lines within
public right -of -way and easements. Open -cut, pipeburst, and horizontal
directional drilling methods will be used.
This project will be advertised on March 12 and 19, 2009. Bids will be
opened on March 31, 2009. The construction cost is currently estimated
at $1,900,000. More information will be presented when the Board is
asked to approve the construction contract on April 16, 2009.
f) Advertisement of Solids Handling Improvements Project,
DP 7260
The design of the Solids Handling Improvements Project is nearing
completion and the work will be advertised for bids later in March. The
major goal for this project is to improve dewatered sludge handling
capability to address emergency or non - routine operation. The existing
sludge truck loading station was not designed for processing the entire
sludge production for any length of time. Therefore, a properly designed
sludge truck loading station is required. This project includes the
construction of a sludge truck loading facility with odor control facilities and
sludge cake hoppers to store sludge cake generated in overnight hours or
on holidays during emergency sludge hauling operation when landfills are
closed.
We plan to request award of this project at the May 7, 2009 Board
Meeting. The engineers construction cost estimate is $3,600,000.
Construction of the project should be completed by February 2010.
Agenda Item 10.a.4)
Board Meeting of March 5, 2009
Additional Written Announcements:
Board Request Follow -Up Items
g) Headquarters Office Building (HOB) Leaks
Recently, two water leaks were identified on the third floor of the
Headquarters Office Building. The leak in the Executive Conference
Room was due to a leaking plug on one of the water valves related to the
HVAC System. The other leak in the Administration work area was due to
a missing plug on a roof mounted electrical box. Both leaks have been
corrected. Neither leak is related to the recently installed new roof.
Events /Conferences
h) Orinda City Council Presentation for Miner Road Sewer
Renovation Project
The City of Orinda requested that the District and East Bay Municipal
Utilities District ( EBMUD) make a second joint presentation at the March
3, 2009 City Council Meeting on their respective construction projects that
will impact Miner Road this summer. At the City Council's request, notices
requesting public input were sent to approximately 1850 residences that
may be impacted by the projects. Approximately 20 residents attended
the meeting and provided input/asked questions. Based on the input from
the public, the City Council voted to authorize EBMUD to close Miner
Road above Oak Arbor Road this summer from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. because it
has the shortest construction schedule. The road closure will benefit the
District's project by reducing the traffic flow through its construction area.
i) CWEA Conference
The District will play a significant role at the California Water
Environmental Association (CWEA) Conference this year. We have eight
employees presenting or co- presenting papers; two who serve on the
CWEA Board /Statewide CWEA Operators Committee; and one who will
serve as a session moderator. Two are attending in recognition of
receiving the District Safe Worker of the Year Award and Operator of the
Year Award. And finally, two are attending as potential awards recipients
and one using his manager training allowance.
j) South Orinda Sewer Renovation Project, Phase 4 Public
Workshop
The District will host a public workshop at Del Rey Elementary School in
Orinda located at 25 El Camino Moraga on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 from
7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The project will replace /rehabilitate approximately
11,500 feet of 6, 8 and 10 -inch sewer pipe at several different sites in
Orinda using both open cut and pipe- bursting methods. Staff has already
spoken to 63 residents who will be affected by easement work on their
property.
General Updates
k) Wet Weather Update
Collection System: From the weekend of February 28th through the
morning of Wednesday, March 4, 2009, pumping stations recorded 3.7
inches of rain at Orinda Crossroads, 2.95 inches at Moraga, and 1.970
inches at Martinez. The pumping stations performed very well during this
rainfall period.
There was one call -out to respond to the start of the diesel driven
wetweather pump at Orinda Crossroads on March 2, 2009, after normal
working hours. This is the conventional operational practice. One
electrically driven wetweather pump ran for part of the day on March 2,
2009, at Lower Orinda. San Ramon and Martinez pumping stations each
had one electrically driven wetweather pump operating through this
period. The Moraga pumping station ran on the dry weather pumps.
From February 25 to March 3, 2009, there were six call -outs for the
collection system but there were no overflows during this period.
Treatment Plant: A total of 1.64 inches of rainfall was recorded between
March 1 and March 4, 2009. The peak influent flow recorded during the
same period was 101 million gallons per day. On March 3, 2009, the
treatment plant received a 24 -hour total flow of 88.3 million gallons. Some
treatment plant flows were temporarily diverted to the holding basins, but
all diverted flows have been drained back to the treatment plant and have
been processed.
From a historical perspective, these flows are on the low side due to the
low moisture content in the soil and low groundwater levels. All equipment
performed as expected, and all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit requirements were achieved.
I) Source Control Program Evaluation /Inspection
The District's Source Control Program is periodically evaluated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and /or contractors of these agencies to ensure that
the federal Pretreatment Program Standards are being effectively
implemented. Two contracted Tetra Tech staff completed this year's
Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI). They were new to reviewing
the District's pretreatment program and the format followed in previous
years.
Systron- Donner located in Concord and Varian located in Walnut Creek
were the sites selected for on -site review. Both District inspectors
performed a good job conducting the inspection portion of the PCI. Both
businesses were identified by Tetra Tech as meeting the pretreatment
standards.
As with all of all of these evaluations, some issues (3 to 4) were identified
in the exit interview that will require a response from the District. All of
these issues were identified as recommendations but some may shift to
requirements as the report is finalized.
Both Tetra Tech staff were complimentary of the District's program during
the inspection and the exit interview. The lead inspector stated that he
may suggest to EPA and RWQCB that they skip an inspection of the
District's program for next year in order to visit more "needy" programs in
the state. He stated that he does not often make this recommendation.
The other Tetra Tech inspector stated her concurrence with this
recommendation. The final report will be available in approximately 60
days, if the state agencies provide timely turnaround. A report will be
prepared for the Board after receipt of the final PCI report.
m) Public Bidding of Underground Utility Locating, DP 035599
The District employs utility locating services to accurately locate existing
utilities in streets and easements. This information is utilized during the
design process to develop the alignments for new District facilities. This
project will be advertised on March 6 and 11, 2009. The bids will be
opened on March 23, 2009. The construction cost is currently estimated
at $180,000 ($60,000 per year for up to 3 years). More information will be
presented when the Board is asked to approve the construction contract
on April 2, 2009.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Board Meeting
March 5, 2009
Board Member McGill
Item 10.d.1)
FUTURE MEETINGS AND CONFERENCES WITH PAID
EXPENSES AND /OR STIPEND
Will attend the Mayors' Conference
March 5, 2009, Danville
Future Committee Meetings:
Capital Projects March 18, 2009
Will attend Supervisor Uilkema Breakfast
Contra Costa County Treasurer -Tax Collector Bill
March 19, 2009
MEETINGS AND CONFERENCES THAT EXPENSES
AND /OR STIPEND WAS PAID
Committee Meetings
Recycled Water February 23, 2009
Ou#rReach February 24, 2009
Met with Walnut Creek City Officials
February 25, 2009
See Meeting Notes
Item 10.d.4 Announcements
Met with Joe Campbell Board Member CCWD
February 20. 2009
Met with Tesoro Officials with Board President Jim Nejedly
and General Manager Jim Kelly
February 26, 2009
Met Assembly Member Joan Buchanan with Board Member
Mario Menesini, General Manager Jim Kelly and Michael
Scahill
February 27, 2009
Met with Shell Officials with Board President Jim Nejedly and
General Manager Jim Kelly
March 3, 2009
Attended:
Contra Costa Council Board Meeting
February 20, 2009
Will attend
Meeting with Assembly Member Nancy Skinner
March 6, 2009
Tour West County Wastewater District Facilities
March 6, 2009
CCC Land Use Task Force Meeting
March 11, 2009
Pleasant Hill Chamber of Commerce Mixer
March 11, 2009
CCC Water Task Force Meeting
March 17, 2009
10.d.1)
City of Walnut Creek — Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Meeting Summary
Sunrise Bistro
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 7:30 a.m.
1) Future CCCSD Walnut Creek Sewer Projects
Discussed future projects. Provided Walnut Creek staff with a map showing
planned projects.
2) Proposed CSO Facilities Renewal
Updated Walnut Creek on project status.
3) Economy /Impact on Walnut Creek and CCCSD
Walnut Creek budgeted for 4% increase in property tax income, and there was
no increase. Sales tax revenue is off 40 %.
4) Water Reclamation
Walnut Creek continues to support water recycling. They suggested that the
District host City Managers for a briefing on potential projects.
5) Pharmaceutical Drop -off
The Pharmaceutical Drop -Off Program is off to a great start. Walnut Creek
views it as a great public service and benefit to public safety.
6) Ongoing Staff Coordination
Coordination discussed. The process is functioning well.
7) Future City Council Meeting Overview Presentation
Staff will contact Walnut Creek when we are ready to give overview.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
' BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
ll.a. Engineering
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009 No.:
Type of Action: AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT
subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS
WITH VALLEY ENGINEERING GROUP, VALI COOPER & ASSOCIATES, AND THE
COVELLO GROUP TO PROVIDE RELIEF INSPECTORS FOR THE 2009 -2010
CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Submitted By: Initiating Dept /Div.:
Tom Godsey, Associate Engineer Engineering / Capital Projects
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
T. Godsey ntkowiak cki A. Farrell James . Kelly,
Genera Manager
ISSUE: Board of Directors' authorization is required for the General Manager to
execute professional engineering services contracts for amounts greater than $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the General Manager to execute agreements with
Valley Engineering Group, Vali Cooper & Associates, and The Covello Group to provide
relief inspectors on an as- needed basis for the construction of the District's 2009 -2010
capital improvement projects.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The estimated cost for these inspection services is $600,000:
$350,000 for Valley Engineering Group, $150,000 for Vali Cooper & Associates, and
$100,000 for The Covello Group.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: There are no open positions available to fill with
construction inspectors. The District could add new full -time positions, which is not
recommended since the need for additional inspection services is seasonal.
BACKGROUND: Summer is the start of the construction season. Several construction
projects have recently been awarded by the Board or will shortly be presented to the
Board for award in both the Collection System and the Treatment Plant. Engineering
Department staff provides construction management and inspection duties on most
District projects, and supplements with consultant inspectors if and when needed. An
evaluation of the workload for the 2009 -2010 construction season indicates that hiring
up to six additional inspectors and one assistant surveyor is necessary.
While we have typically supplemented Engineering Department staff with additional
inspectors during the busy summer construction season, our needs this summer are
N: \PESUP \Cbradley \POSITION PAPERS \Godsey \Consult Inspector 2009 -2.doc Page 1 of 3
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009
subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS
WITH VALLEY ENGINEERING GROUP, VALI COOPER & ASSOCIATES, AND THE
COVELLO GROUP TO PROVIDE RELIEF INSPECTORS FOR THE 2009 -2010
CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
greater than in past years due to several factors. We are planning a large dollar
volume of work this year made up of many smaller projects, thus more inspectors are
required than past years when we did a smaller volume of work, or last year when a
large part of the dollar volume of work was consumed by one project, the A -Line
Phase 2A. Also, we currently have several staff from Capital Projects participating in
the engineering rotation programs, and assigned to the Plant and Collection System
Operations for the summer, and are thus unavailable to inspect projects. Finally, we
have one experienced construction inspector on maternity leave.
On January 21, 2009, Request for Proposals (RFP) were sent to seventeen (17)
professional engineering service and personnel firms, which included: Vali Cooper &
Associates, Inc.; RES Engineers, Inc.; BSK Associates; Harris and Associates; CH2M
Hill; The Covello Group; Whitley Burchett & Associates; Valley Engineering Group;
Damon S. Williams; DCM /GeoEngineers; RMC; Carollo Engineers; MWH; Brown and
Caldwell; Black & Veatch; BKF; and Zumwalt Engineering Group. Seven firms
responded with proposals. Staff selected Valley Engineering Group, Vali Cooper &
Associates, and The Covello Group as the best firms for supplying construction
inspection services.
Staff has negotiated an hourly rate from $80 to $134 with Valley Engineering Group and
Vali Cooper & Associates for specialty treatment plant inspectors, and an hourly rate of
$80 to $100 with Valley Engineering Group and The Covello Group for collection
system relief construction inspectors and assistant surveyor, based on qualifications.
The cost for the relief inspection will be paid directly by the capital improvement
projects, and no separate budget allocation is requested at this time. Staff has
estimated up to 7,500 hours of time, plus miscellaneous charges (travel, reproduction,
etc.), for the relief construction inspectors on an as- needed basis. The total cost for a
professional services contract with Valley Engineering Group is not to exceed
$350,000. The total cost for a professional services contract with Vali Cooper &
Associates is not to exceed $150,000. The total cost for a professional services
contract with The Covello Group is not to exceed $100,000.
Two additional specialty construction inspectors may be necessary for the Solids
Handling Project and the Collection Systems Operation Administration Building Project.
If needed, these consultant contract authorizations will be addressed as part of the
contract award position papers for these projects.
NAPESUP\Cbradley \POSITION PAPERS \Godsey \Consult Inspector 2009 -2.doc Page 2 of 3
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 5, 2009
Subject: AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS
WITH VALLEY ENGINEERING GROUP, VALI COOPER & ASSOCIATES, AND THE
COVELLO GROUP TO PROVIDE RELIEF INSPECTORS FOR THE 2009 -2010
CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Authorize the General Manager to execute a
professional engineering services agreement with the following listed consultants and
amounts to provide relief construction inspection services for the construction of the
District's summer 2009 -2010 capital improvement projects:
• Valley Engineering Group in the amount of $350,000.
• Vali Cooper & Associates in the amount of $150,000.
• The Covello Group in the amount of $100,000.
NAPESUP\Cbradley \POSITION PAPERS \Godsey \Consult Inspector 2009 -2.doc Page 3 of 3