The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 07-27-1978July 27, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR KEN BARKER TO ATTEND GOVERNMENT CONTRACT CLAIMS COURSE IN BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, FROM AUGUST 14 -18, 1978 Issue: The District is defending against large lawsuits and claims from t Contractors ontractors involved in the treatment plant expansion program. Background: A five -day course in Government Contract Claims will be held in Berkeley, California, from August 14 -18, 1978. This course has been developed by George Washington University and is administered by Federal Publications, Inc. The speakers for this course are recognized authorities in the field of construction claims and litigation. The topics to be covered are germane to the present lawsuits and claims received by the District, and the course is a follow -up to a previous course attended by District personnel in Henderson, Nevada, in 1977. Recommendation: Authorization of registration ($575) for Ken Barker to attend t e overnment Contract Claims Course in Berkeley, California, from August 14 -18, 1978. KB:sl R endation Approved: Rog J. olan General anager -Chief Engineer Respectfully submitted, K. Barker Construction Division Manager July 25, 1978 VII. NB 2&3 7/27/78 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: NEW BUSINESS: AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF QUIT CLAIM DEED AND ITS RECORDING No. Grantee Job No. Parcel No. Area 1. Philip E. Myers, et al 706 Misc. Orinda 2. Brunero Orsi, et ux 2985 1 Orinda Respectfully submitted, Jack L. Best J�Xnager-Engineering Department JLB:WG:js Ap d: og D a General Ma ager -Chief Engineer Remarks Easement was created on subdivision map. Staff has determined that the easement is not required for future District use. Easement relocated to opposite side of property, new easement granted July 21, 1978. VII. N8 4 7/27/78 July 21, 1978 AGENDA 7 -13 -78 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATION ACTION AGAINST MR. SCOTT KING, JOB 2904 - PARCEL 2, LOCATED AT 864 DIABLO ROAD IN THE DANVILLE AREA. ISSUE: This easement is required so that the District can install a 21 -inch main trunk sewer within and along Diablo Road in the Danville area. BACKGROUND: The alignment through the subject property is necessitated because of the location of a large concrete box culvert which would require a more expensive sewer installation if the alignment remained in the road right of way. The adjoining property owner to the west (Mr. Delgado) recently granted an easement to this District. Mr. Scott has stated that he does not want to grant this easement because he is presently trying to obtain County permission to split his property into two building sites. He believes this easement would adversly affect his proposed split. Staff has checked with the County and they say that only access easements are considered in property splits. Staff has offered $240 for this easement. This amount is based on 50% of the estimated market value of the easement area. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to obtain an easement appraisal and authorize District Counsel to begin Condemnation action. Respectfully submitted, Jack L. Best Manager- Engineering Dept. JLB:js WG A ndatio proved: . D an Ma ager -Chief Engineer Vii. NB 9 7/27/78 July 21, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: REQUEST AUTHORIZATION OF $3,500.00 FROM SEWER CONSTRUCTION FOR SECURITY AND LANDSCAPE WORK AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE ISSUE: For many years the District's front yard has been damaged by acts of vandalism. This request is made in order to improve security and restore damaged landscaping. BACKGROUND: It is a common occurrence for groups of people to congregate at the District parking lots in their vehicles on weekend nights. I feel that the "driving over" our front lawn is a result of these gatherings. We propose to block our driveways with chain gates and to construct a lb" block wall barrier in front of the lawn, denying the property to vehicle access. This project will require some landscape modification and at the same time we will restore the area burned out in June. RECOMMENDATION: Approve request for $3,500.00 from sewer construction for security and landscape work at the District office. Respectfully submitted, ��4 , I Robert H. Hinkson Manager, Collection System Operations RHH:yb Rec endation pproved: oger * an Gener 1 Ma ager -Chief Engineer SECURITY AND LANDSCAPING PROJECT AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE Cost Estimate I. Security Barrier 150 L.F. Concrete block to match building (16" high) $1,200.00 3 road gates II. Landscaping Materials 200.00 Shrubs, ground cover, sod, headers, 900.00 sprinklers, walkway III. Labor 1,200.00 Total Project Costs - - $3,500.00 July 26, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: INTERIM GROWTH POLICY On Tuesday, July 25, 1978, a meeting was held with representatives from the SWQCB (Ray Walsh and John Blubaugh), EPA (Tom Mix and Bill Helphingstine) and ABAG (Dean Macris, Stan Hoffman and John Davis). The main topic of discussion was restraints which each of the above agencies would have on future expansions of capacity. CCCSD asked each participant whether he felt that CCCSD was obligated to control growth either by some commitment that the District has already made or by means of a requirement that they intended to impose. Both the SWRCB and ABAG said no. The SWRCB said they have not imposed any grant restrictions which would prevent us from increasing capacity at the time our 40 mgd capacity is being approached. Current policy is that future expansions will not be grant funded regardless of when they are built. ABAG's position was that they had provided what they felt to be an adequate air quality maintenance plan and air quality non - attainment plan which require no actions by agencies such as CCCSD. They have avoided using water projects as growth limiting tools. The EPA was not as clear. There is currently a difference of opinion in EPA as to whether or not to impose air quality related requirements on CCCSD. EPA has imposed such conditions (the so called Simi Valley conditions) on several agencies already. In our case, there is already a negative declaration on 56 -1 so they would have to apply the conditions to the 56-2 EIS approval. The requirements would have CCCSD adopt and implement an air quality mitigation program which could call for limitation on growth. The EPA also has review authority on our NPDES permit. This permit includes a flow limit. Conceivably, the EPA could call for another EIS at the time we request an increase in NPDES authorized capacity and tie up the expansion project at that time. However, it does not appear that at the present time the EPA has any regulations which would limit CCCSD's authority to annex property or connect new customers. Recommendation: Continue the present policy of accommodating growth as such growth is permitted by local planning agencies. RJD:jf tfully submitted, ogee hief Engineer CAUFORNIA REGIONAL WATER APR 12 1978 `QUALITY COANTROI. BOARD 14r. John G. Evans ABAG, Legal counsel Association of Bay Area Governments Hotel Claremoat Berkeley, CA 94705 rtt'n � i�►, gear Mr. Evans: This is in response to your letter of parch 17, 1978 to the Regional AcUrLinistrator regarding the 20 -year project list for Municipal Wastewater Facilities. Your letter posed sevaral questions concerning the necessity for capacities to be included on the list and the relationship of the list to the construction grants and NPDE9 programs, before answering each of your questions 1 would like to Point out that EPA did conunent on the capacity issue in a letter dated February 5, 1978 from the project officer to D.J. Miller . We indicated the final Environmental =danagement Plar should describe p::ocedures for capacity determinations as futare specific 201 projaats. The answers to your questions are as follows: f 1. Is it legally required that the 208 plan show sewage treatment capacities for the facilities shown on the 20 -year project list of r1unicipal Wastewater Facilities? NO. zection 208(b) (2) (a) of tha Federal Water Pollution control Act, as amended, requires "the idenLiticat.ion of treatment works necessary to .iieet the anticipated municipal and industrial VIL3ate treaUaent needs of the area over a twenty- ; year period...." emphasis added) . -lnticlpated needs would only be equated with capacity if ABAG nad included some detailed level of facility planning in their work program. I should poi.rit that Al AG has identified capacities in 'rJ��teM Duality 1,I.i:ta(4amment Plaas - 'rechilical 4,1emoran�rt� # Lye. 5 ExistEn- an Planned wastewater glanageattent /. �, • 9,E� • r -. �-' ply- -2-» Facilities in the San Francisco Bay Region. Since t s is ouy a suuunary q� exzst�y plane and available information it is not +esential to indicate capacities in the 20 -year list. 208 regulations, however, do require the plan to include population projections. 40-CER Part 131 (Noveraber 28, 1975) under 131.11(h) Nunicipal waste treatment system needs states. "(ii) Population or population equivalents to be served, including forecasted growth or decline of such population over at least a 20 -year period Following the scheduled date for installation of the needed facility." ,W-NG has Population Projections implicit in the draft EMP and explicitly in supporting technical Memoranda. Vo luMe I includes a range of projections but no clear statement on the relationship of projections to future projects. It is required that ADAG develop a procedure for evaluating confornni•ty of any future expansion or construction of new facilities with the Environraental Management Plan, EPA realizes that capacity is dependent on industrial and commercial florsa, per capita usage (conservations programs) infiltration/ inflow and design period; however, a prcaceduze for assuring that population projections used in Facility Planning are consistent with the.EMP is v necessary. Formal action on the population projections supporting the E14P should be taken in relation to the 20 -year project list. Recent actions by the SURCB and OPR increase the importance of A;dAG's projections. (Copies of correspondence attached) Recent amendments to section 204(a)(5) emphasize the relationship between reserve capacity dater - nunations and areawide plans. 2. If sewage treatment capacities are shown on the 20 --year project list of Municipal wastewater Facilities, whether required or not, what legal effect will EPA give to such capacities? -3-- The capacities, if shown on the 20 -year list, would have the same effect as those capaoities and waste flow projections indicated in doctuaents supporting the plan. EPA and the S69RCB would use the information as a tool in evaluating any facility plans or construction grant application. It is realized that except for projects where planning is already complete the capacity and waste flows identified would only be a prsliiainary estimate. As noted above the basic population projections supporting the plan gust be consistent with any future 201 planning. Where future 201 planning results in recomimended projects not in general conformance with the recommendations in an approved plan, review of the proposed change would have to be made by the designated agency responsible for operatilig the continuing water quality management planning process. The annual update could address these situations. (a) [ would listed capacities be considered by EPA to be a maximum lLmitation (ceiling) for grant purposes? No, not necessarily. As described above more detailed analysis might require changes in the originally identified capacities. If a proposed capacity did exceed that identified in the 208 plan and could be justified (through, for example - industrial commitments, expanded service area etc.) then the 208 plan could be revised accord - ingly. (b) Will EPA's approval of the plan, including treat- ment capacities, constitute approval of the sewage treatment plant capacities thenaelves for purposes Of later grant proposals? No. As described earlier, the final datermination on capacity for a particular facility could be dependent on factors that can change, such as conservation, industrial flows, design period etc. It is ezantial that used in developing plans as in :section 1977) be consistent planning. i basic assumptions for population the A.Q.M.P. (or nonattaiivaant 172 of the Clean Air Act of with any subsequent facility --4- 3. Would a sewage treatment facility to be constructed solely with local, or private funding (without a federal grant) ba barred from construction by 3S 208(e) and 402, if it did not appear on the 20- year project list of municipal Wastewater Facilities? No. The 20 year project list is a tool to be used in the 201 construction grants program. If a facility were to be constructed solely with local or private funds and would not violate water quality standards, e£xluent limitations, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (MIUCB) policies it could not be barred by not appearing on a list of anticipated needs. As you noted in your letter section 208 (e) states that "no permit under section 402 of this Act shall be issued for any point source which is in conflict with a plan approved..." It is expected that the RWQCD would review any / NPD S periai.t application to assura it conformed with general assumptions in the approved 208 plan. If you have any additional questions please contact Harry Seraydarian at 556 -8039. Sincerely, by* Paul De Falco, Jr. Regional Administrator cc: Larry talker, SWRCB Fred Dierker, AWQCB N July 27, 1978 IN MEMO TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE ACTUAL EXPENSES FOR ATTENDANCE AT THE 51ST ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION AT ANAHEIM, OCTOBER 1 -6, 1978. ISSUE: This year's national conference will be held in Anaheim, California. BACKGROUND: Because of the close location, it is recommended that the Board give the maximum practical number of staff a chance to benefit from the experience of attending a national conference. The money is included in the 1978 -79 budget. An advance of up to $300 per person for registration, lodging, meals, and trans- portation for 5 persons is requested. It is suggested that the individuals attending be reimbursed for actual expenses. The people included are: Roger Dolan David Niles Bob Hinkson Jay McCoy Jim Johnson RECOMMENDATION: Authorize payment of actual expenses for attendance at the 51st Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation at Anaheim, October 1 -6, 1978. Respectf ly submitted, og r la General Manager -C ief Engineer RJD:JM :js VI. OB 2 7/27/78 July 25, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: FURTHER CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION FOR THREE PARCELS, P.A. 78 -23, DANVILLE AREA, P.A. 78 -24, ALAMO AREA, AND P.A. 78 -28, DANVILLE AREA, (THESE THREE PARCELS WERE PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE BOARD ON JULY 13, 1978) TO BE INCLUDED IN PENDING ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT qj q1 Cj Board Actior, �a "$o �g 0 y�Y g1 78 -23 Danv. Yes 19.14 Tibros Corp. Sub. 5223. Preliminary 2948 Buskirk Ave. plan & E.I.R. approved by Walnut Creek, CA 94596 County, of the 69 lots in 207 - 081 -026 this subdivision, 16 lots are in this annexation, 53 lots are within present District boundaries. Held over from July 13, 1978. 78 -24 Alamo Yes 21$.53 ELBACO, INC. E.T.R. and Preliminary P.O. Box 415 plans approved by County. Danville, CA 94526 Proposed subdivision 4915 193-180-06 Roundhill Unit 8 (last 193 - 190 -07 & -08 unit) 150 lots +. Held _ over from July 13, 1978. 78 -28 Danv. Yes 318+ John M. Bryan Sub. 5026 - Preliminary pla 220 Russ Building and E.I.R. approved by San Francisco, CA 94101 County 321 lots +. Held 194 - 060 -01 (portion) over from July 13, 1978 193- 190 --06 (portion) RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Parcels 78 -23, 78 -24, and 78 -28, to be included in pending annexation to the District. Respectfully submitted, W. C. Dalton Deputy General Manager -Chief Engineer WCD:WG:js ARe endation Approved: Roge J. D lan VII. NB 5 7/27/78 July 25, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR SIX PARCELS, P.A. 78 -30, ORINDA AREA, P.A. 78 -31, ORINDA AREA, P.A. 78 -32, LAFAYETTE AREA, P.A. 78 -33, WALNUT CREEK AREA, P.A. 78 -34, ALAMO AREA, AND P.A. 78 -35, ORINDA AREA, TO BE INCLUDED IN PENDING ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT Board Action 0 e3 ,fie o . 4 e��fi e a�G�, ��a 4 e�'�o �'G�e� e�.�a 4a�ce1 � 78 -30 Orinda Yes 0.77 William H. Wallace Owner would like to develop 8 Las Mesas Path property (2 Sites possible) Orinda, CA 94563 264 - 702 -025 78 -3 Orinda Yes 1.28 Nancy Stickel Owner would like to develop 29 Las Piedras remainder of property - (2 Orinda, CA 94563 additional sites possible) 5- 090 -32 & -033 78 -3 Laf. Yes 2.78 Pamela Hughes 2 Building Sites 3450 Mt. Spring Rd. Lafayette, CA 94549 167- 090 -004 Negative Declaration by the County. 78-33 W.C. Yes 4.12 Louie DeLaucrenti Proposed Subd. 5200 50 Northgate Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Negative Declaration by the County -- 10 lots. 138 - 010 -010 Yes 22.6 Ronald E. Schlaegel Proposed Subd. 5046 78-34 Alamo 1990 N. California Blvd. #710 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Negative Declaration & Preliminary plan approved County. 19 Lots. 78 -3 Orinda Yes 0.20 Anna Sanchez 10 Vista Del Orinda Orinda, CA 94563 Owner would like to connect to sewer __� 265 -090 -007 RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Parcels 78 -30 through 78 -35 to be included in pending annexation to the District. Respectfully submitted, W. C. Dalton Deputy General Manager -Chief Engineer WCD :WG:js Rec mendat en Approved: oger J. olan General pager -Chief Engineer VII. NB 8 7/z7/7s July 21, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIA: Roger J. Dolan, General Manager -Chief Engineer SUBJECT: ESTABLISH CHARGES FOR PREPARATION AND PROCESSING OF AGREEMENTS RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. , "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DISTRICT FEES AND CHARGES, DISTRICT CODE, CHAPTER 11, SECTION 101 BY ADDING CHARGES FOR PREPARATION AND PROCESSING AGREEMENTS RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY" ISSUE: The District should charge for work done in the preparation and processing of Agreements Relating to Real Property. BACKGROUND: When a structure is built over an existing sewer, the person responsible for building the structure is usually required to move the structure or relocate the existing sewer. In instances where the District determines that leaving the structure will not be detrimental, an Agreement Relating to Real Property is prepared. The agreement benefits the property owner in that the owner does not have to pay for relocation work. The agreement protects the District but is more for the benefit of the owner. Use of the agreement is limited. RECOMMENDATION: Establish charges for preparation and processing Agreements Relating to Real Property as follows: 1) Document Preparation $20 per hour 2) Surveying $70 per hour and adopt Ordinance No. "An Ordinance Amending District Fees and Charges, District Code, Chapter 11, Section 101 by Adding a Charges for Preparation and Process- ing Agreements Relating to Real Property." Respectfully submitted, _Lrl W. C. Dalton Deputy General Manager -Chief Engineer WCD:JM:js Recommendation approved: Rage o an General anager- -Chief Engineer