HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-74 AGENDA BACKUPVIT. New Efts.
3
1/3/74
MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: C. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: ADJUSTMENTS OF SECONDARY WATERSHED TRUNK SEWER
CHARGES AND INCLUSION IN DISTRICT CODE
Immediately following the review of the watersheds south of the
City of Walnut Creek (LID 30), we studied the balance of the watershed
plans adopted by the Board of Directors. Increasing sewer construction
costs, changes in land uses, an earlier return of funds invested by the
District (with an increase in District reserve funds) motivated this
review. We have been making an annual review of the status of each
watershed and have recommended previous increases, but spiralling
construction costs of the past two years indicate the need for new
adjustments. Many of the watersheds were estimated some time ago and are
affected by longer term increases. For example, the ENR index for 1966
construction was 1200 for the San Francisco area and that index is now at
2236 (November 1973). Our plans had a built-in average increase of 6% and
last year the actual increase was 11.5%.
Attached is a chart summarizing our review and recommended increases.
The effective date could be as early as March 1, 1974, or as late as
July 1, 1974.
It is also recommended that secondary watershed plans and charges be
included in the District Code. In this manner they will have more official
and legal status. They have been related to and considered part of the
Rebate Facilities section and we would propose to incorporate them therein,
as follows:
CHAPTER 9. REBATE FACILITIES.
Sec. 9-101. Definitions.
Add - (10) Watershed trunk plan means the engineering and financing
plan adopted by the Board upon the Engineer's recommendation for each
secondary watershed area of the District setting forth therein the
proposed facilities and unit charges established therefor.
Renumber Article 6 to Article 7 and insert the following:
ARTICLE 6. SECONDARY WATERSHED TRUNK SEWERS
Sec. 9-601. Adopted Watershed plans and payment
of charges.
Sec. 9-602. List of adopted secondary watershed
trunk sewer plans.
Sec. 9-601. Adopted watershed plans and payment of charges.
The Board of
Directors has adopted the secondary watershed trunk sewer
plans a::id charges
listed in Sec. 9-602 and no person may
connect to
the
District sewer system
within any secondary watershed service area listed
unless he pays the
watershed trunk sewer charge.
Sec. 9-602. List
of adopted secondary watershed trunk sewer plans.
Charge
Approved
Watershed
Per Unit
Per
W.S. No.
Location
of Use
Acre
2
Sleepy Hollow
520
520
3
N. W. Orinda
520
520
8
S. E. Orinda
500
500
10
Moraga Valley
300
500
11
South Lafayette
300
500
11A
South Lafayette
300
500
13
Rossmoor
Rebate
15
Rel.iez Valley
300
500
22
Happy Valley
300
500
23 & 30
S. W. Pleasant Hill
300
800
24N
West Pacheco
300
500
24C
C. C. Golf Course
300
500
24S
N. W. Pleasant Hill
300
500
27
Ygnacio Valley (Upper)
300
500
27W
W. Ygnacio Valley
300
500
29N
Walnut Heights
300
600
29S
S. E. Walnut Creek
300
600
33N
Lower San Ramon Valley
300
600
33S
Upper San Ramon Valley &
300
600
Amador. Valley
34N
N. Stone Valley
300
600
34S
S. Stone Valley (Job 746)
300
600
35N
E. Danville
300
600
35S
Sycamore Valley
300
600
Charge
Approved Watershed Per Unit Per
W.S. No. Location of Use Acre
35W N. Danville 300 600
C-1 Concord -Clyde 300 600
M Martinez -Mt. View 300 600
CHAPTER 11. FEES AND CHARGES.
Article 6 - change to
ARTICLE 6. REBATE CHARGES AND WATERSHED TRUNK SEWER CHARGES.
Substitute Sec. 11-602 - Charge for connection_ to sewer line within water-
shed trunk sewer planning area. J
A person who connects to a District sewer line within a secondary
watershed trunk sewer planning area shall pay to the District the watershed
trunk sewer charge fixed in accordance with Sec. 9-601 and Sec. 9-602.
Revised Sec. 11-602 to read: Sec. 11-603. Rebate and watershed trunk_
char;es under Chapter 9 are in addition to all other charges.
The charges fixed under Chapter 9 for the connection to a rebate sewer
line or to a sewer within a watershed trunk sewer planning area_are. in :addition
to all other charges prescribed by this code. These charges shall be levied
and. collected in accordance with Chapter 9.
Respectfully submitted,
W. C. Dalton
Deputy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
Recommendation Approved,
A. Horstkotte, Jr.
ene al Manager -Chief Engineer
v
�4
U
Q) Q
O
O
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
b0
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�4 S4
Cfl
if1
u1
U'1
Lr)
Cf1
Lf)
Cf1
00
In
V)
Lr)
v1
U1
ni N
—rl Pa
U
.b
v
M 4-J
O •r1 N
0 �D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
P-1
Lr)
Lr)
L1)
M
M
M
crl
M
M
Cl)
Cl)M
M
M
M
M
M
N OI
a I`
m
ro
0
0
a3)
S4
i4
U
U
04
a
+�
4-3
�+
p
O
0
0
0
v
o
4-4
44
vi
a
a
rq
4-1av
i
a
4-1H
U
n
n
O
O
a
U
a)
rn
N
O
O
—1
U
H
U
14
N
w
�
o
a
a
d
v
v
o
p
v
.Q
v
s4
z
0.
b
m
w
b
a�
a,
04
v
Cd
v
+-)
v
-d
v
v
U
v
a)
l-
U
1J
�4
1
a)
G
G
ri
rI
c0
I
I
''d
v cn
v
v a
124
Cd
v
U
I~
w
h-1
O 1
�4
a)
O
N •ri "i fp
5 +J (W K
?C
>C
5C
5C
a)
O U) � O
G
U •r1 0 F=a
O
v A H
a)
I
'iy •rl
(1) 4-J
I
a) U G7
Cd O d-l'
I
v S4 Cn'
�4 1J 0
i
U CA U'
f~ t~
H 0
U
4-1
—1
O
Lr)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
V)
O
O
O
Cfl
O
O
O
cJ
O
v1
O
Cf1
O
M
a,
O
m
n
O
O
O1
m
0
v �
4-1
Cd �4
r-1
M
\.O
1-
O1
01
00
�
H
N
to
O
—4
d
M
Lr)
cn
0 Cd
%D
r-
�
1�0
1.0
%.0
�
�
�-o
%-D
1.0
�
r`
•ri v
Cl
01%
01
(0",
ON
01
O`.
01
41
01
01
Ol
01
Ol
O1
d1
dl
1.J ">4
r-1
r- I
r- i
r-i
r-I
r—I
r-I
r-i
r-I
r-1
co
W
4-1 LH
O
N U U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O p lw w
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U1
Lr)
O
O
O
O
O
Ul
a) Cd •rl `�
U)
lf)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
H
r I
N
N
CV
+N
N
N
U
'
P-i
OM
p
U
z
z
�°
z
v
m
U]
N
M
00
O
r-1
H
M
tf1
N
M
-t
�'
n
n
d1
•ri
•rq
ri
r-1
r-1
r-I
r-1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
i—1
P4
3
VII. New Bus.
10
1/3/74
December 28, 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE $8,500.00 FOR INFILTRATION/INFLOW STUDY -
LAMPMAN & ASSOCIATES
PROBLEM: In order to get further grant approval for the Treatment Plant,
E.P.A. will require generalized field monitoring of dry and wet weather
flows of all subbasins of District and analysis of their results. Due to
our workload we do not have the technical personnel available at this time
to conduct a study of this magnitude within the time frame.
BACKGROUND: Lampman & Associates are consultant engineers for only
governmental agencies. They do have background and experience in setting
up this type of study. As indicated by their letter, this would be a
joint effort between their firm and the District. They would establish
the infiltration -inflow monitoring system, select the monitoring stations,
review data. collection. procedure, develop preliminary analysis of data
and all other necessary office work. The District personnel would perform
all of the field duties such as establishing the monitoring station,
collecting flow data, etc.
It is my suggestion that we authorize Lampman and Associates to proceed
only with Phase I at a cost not to exceed $8,500.00 as indicated in their
proposal. We have been advised by E.P.A. and the State that 87.5% of the
total cost of this study by Lampman and Associates and District personnel
is eligible for recovery under the grant.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
Respectfully submitted,
L ' d. h, (I u, . -
G. Horstkotte, J . ,
General Manager -Chief gineer
e
JLB:sf
Attachment
VII. New Bus
11
1/3/ 74
December 27, 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr. - General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO APPOINT ED ABEL SENIOR CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTOR
PROBLEM: Workload in the Inspection Division requires more coordination.
We are now heading into the 1974 construction season and I would like to
make this appointment now, prior to the beginning of that construction period.
BACKGROUND: The Inspection Division was reorganized under the Engineering
Department on July 1, 1971. At that time Mr. Abel's (Civil Engineering
Assistant I Range 56 $1083-$1317) duties were expanded to handle the office
work for the Inspection Division. Much of his activity involves checking
Job Engineer's plans to see they are in conformance with the District's code
and specifications. He is in close contact with the Engineers, Developers,
Contractors and Inspectors involved in these projects.
In the past two years his workload and duties have expanded to the point where
his entire time is devoted to Inspection related work. Also, at times his
workload is such that we temporarily assign a Construction Inspector Assistant
to assist him in this work.
It is requested that Mr. Abel be reassigned to the Inspection Division where
he will be working directly under Mr. Ramsay, Supervisor of Inspection, to
assist in the overall coordination of inspection operations. His position as
Senior Construction Inspector (Office) will permit him to work closely with
the other members of Inspection Department (now eleven) and more effectively
coordinate the functions of the Division. This adjustment would result in a
salary change from Range 56E $1317 to Range 59D $1349 which is within my
authorized 1973-1974 budget.
RECOMMENDATION: We request the following Resolution be adopted:
Resolution No. A Resolution transferring Ed Abel's appointment as
Civil Engineering Assistant I (Range 56 $1083-$1317) to Senior Construction
Inspector (Office) - (Range 59 $1165-$1417).
Respe fully submitted,
Jack L. es
Oanagaer-Engineering Dept.
Reviewed:
Deputy General Manager -Chief Engineer
Recommendation Approved:
Horstkot te, J .
(Ge eral Manager-Ch' f Engineer
Fropy
"sled:
.:.:ceutber 18, 1973
F0'1:: 110110,BLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATE IN THE APWA COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT 73-8
PROBLEM: This project is to improve and find better methods to control
root growth in sewer mains with chemicals.
BACKGROUND: This State and Sacramento County Utility District in parti-
cular, have been in the fore front of chemical root treatment. This
District has worked extensively with chemicals over the last 3 years.
We have been particularly concerned with application. We know roots can
be controlled by chemicals using the soak method, but our District does
not lend itself readily to soaking so we have worked on spray applications
a great deal. I feel it would be very beneficial to participate in this
program. APWA anticipates an expense of $3,000 to $10,000 per partici-
pant. I would anticipate expending around $5,000 in this work anyway. It
may be possible to have some of the costs reimbursed through a grant.
RECOMMENDATION: That we advise the APWA Research Foundation of our will-
ingness to participate in Project 73-8. We still have the opportunity
to withdraw if we do not like the roll we would play in the project.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert H. Hinkson
Manager, Maintenance Department
RHH:yb
Attachment
Recommendation Approved:
G. A. Horstkotte, Jr.
General Manager -Chief Engineer
*' RESEARCH FOUNDATION
1313 EAST 60TH STREET - CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60637 - PHONE. 324-3400 AREA 312
December 7, 1973
Mr. Robert H. Hinkson
Manager, Maintenance Department
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
1250 Springbrook Road
P. O. Box 5266
Walnut Creek, California 94596
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
CHAIRMAN
Dear Mr. Hinkson :
Samuel S. Baxter
Commissioner (retired)
Water Department
Philadelphia, Pa.
Thank you for your letter concerning the APWA Cooperative
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Research Project 73-8. Our investigations to date confirms
Milton s
Commisssioner
Commissioner
your experience that soaking roots on small lines does work,
Departmen[of Public Works
Chicago, III.
but,. that it is an impractical method for larger lines or where
MEMBERS
there is much of a grade. Some work has been done in this area
Fred J. Benson
Dean of Engineering
with high pressure sprays and, as I recall, with foam.
Texas A & M
College Station, Tex.
John F.CollinsPProfessor offPublic Affairs
Massachusetts Institute
The purpose of the research project will be to draw together
of Technology
Cambridge, Mass.
those who have had experience in the various methods of application,
Rosa L.Clark
Commissioner Works
and to develop a program for experimentation and field testing. The
of
Municipality of Fletro. Toronto
Toronto, Out., Canada
experimentation will indicate the various modes of application which
W. D. Hurst
seem most appropriate and the field testing will determine their
Consultant
Board of Commissioners
relative effectiveness in order to establish the most effective
Metropolitan Winnipeg
Winnipeg, Man., Canada
methods. It is important that many agencies join in this project
F. Pierce Linaweaver
Director
Department Public
to gain a wide variety of experience and so that each agency does
of Works
Baltimore, Md.
not have to conduct the entire testing program itself.
D. Grant Mickle
President
High�y Users D.Cderatlon
Washington,
A copyof the research proposal is attached. I hope that the
Milton Offner
Secretary (retired)
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District might join this research
Board of Public Works
Los Angeles, Calif.
project. We anticipate that each agency will be asked to provide
LyaR A. Pardee
gine
City Enec (retired)
in -kind services . The extent and nature of the services however,
Depart,of
LAngeles, Calif.Works
os
will be determined after the project is formed. At that time each
SECRETARY -TREASURER
agency Will .be free to acc.e.pt. or..reject their in -kind service role.
Robert D. Bugher Executive Director
We anticipate that the bulk of the out -of- ocket costs will be
P
APWA, Chicago, Ill.
GENERAL MANAGER
payable from a USEPA demonstration grant. If you have additional
Richard H. Sullivan
A"t. Executive Director
questions, please let me know.
APWA, Chicago, III.
Yours truly,
: <
ac and H. Sullivanr,'
General Man�ger
r u, a
RHS/ces i
C I
M
Enclosure �r y
o �
i9 _ D
VII. New Bus.
9
1/3/ 74
December 26, 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: CLAIM FROM MR. THEODORE KELLER IN THE AMOUNT OF $125.01.
1. PROBLEM: Overflow inside residence at 1620 San Luis Road, Walnut
Creek.
2. BACKGROUND: On Monday, November 26, 1973, the District received a
call to relieve an overflow at the address mentioned above.
Upon arrival, the crew found the 6" line H-10 plugged 170'
upstream from MH-100 toward MH-101 on San Luis Road.
The stoppage consisted of loose roots and was cleared with
no difficulty.
The District crew cleaned and disinfected throughout and an
overflow device will be installed.
3. RECOMMENDATION: The total claim comes to $125.01 and it seems to
be reasonable for this type of damage. I recommend this claim be
paid.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert H. Hinkson
Manager, Maintenance Dept.
Recommendation approved,
G.6er
Horstkotte, 7r.
G,1 Manager -Chief gineer
M 6
kt L) V
i,-
lop ar
is e, rainYZ- P L 0
IZ csn- o S/,� Yj L o in,
LI (�,P- V-- e�- r, --r'4
L 0 c.,v (2- 1 JU
E D
F Rtz
V- to c- -C I ),a L7 Pik r->
c 1% Ing.
4;0 co4nwl
OL-0 t4tvr 1�01-)TreA
ParMit
CAL)5:cz-0 OY 14 t 5 Q LF� T A,
S AMU -Tt4�� C-'AUS:ff):�
'1 (4 E PIZ 4 rS L VA
VII. New Bus.
6
1/3/74
December 19, 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PURCHASE OF THREE M-2A EXPLOSIMETERS AT A
COST OF $421.68
PROBLEM: Due to an increase in maintenance personnel and to implement
standard safety requirements, additional gas detection equipment should
be purchased at this time.
BACKGROUND: The maintenance department has four M-2A explosimeters
currently in use. In order to maintain a high degree of safety aware-
ness, seven additional detection units will be needed, three to be pur-
chased now and the balance at the start of the new fiscal year. The
cost of each explosimeter is $140.56 or a total cost of $421.68 for
three.
RECOMMENDATION: Purchase three explosimeters.
Respectfully submitted,
c
Robert H. Hinkson
Manager, Maintenance Department
RHH:yb
Recommendation Approved:
.6
G. orst otte, r
Ge er Manager -Chief ngineer
VII. New Bus.
7
1/ 3/ 74
December 18, 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATE IN THE APWA COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT 73-8
PROBLEM: This project is to improve and find better methods to control
root growth in sewer mains with chemicals.
BACKGROUND: This State and Sacramento County Utility District in parti-
cular, have been in the fore front of chemical root treatment. This
District has worked extensively with chemicals over the last 3 years.
We have been particularly concerned with application. We know roots can
be controlled by chemicals using the soak method, but our District does
not lend itself readily to soaking so we have worked on spray applications
a great deal. I feel it would be very beneficial to participate in this
program. APWA anticipates an expense of $3,000 to $10,000 per partici-
pant. I would anticipate expending around $5,000 in this work anyway. It
may be possible to have some of the costs reimbursed through a grant.
RECOMMENDATION: That we advise the APWA Research Foundation of our will-
ingness to participate in Project 73-8. We still have the opportunity
to withdraw if we do not Like the roll we would play in the project.
Respectfully submitted,
fJ.
Robert H. Hinkson
Manager, Maintenance Department
RHH:yb
Attachment
Recommendation Approved:
I(*kot`,y1 XL1
G. Hors Jr.
Ge er 1 Manager -Chief En eer
VII. New Bus.
2
1/3/ 74
December 18, 1973
MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: ADJUSTMENT OF UNIFORM REBATE FEES
The establishment of uniform rebate fees has been based historically
on the cost of area installations which are, in general, determined by
terrain, soils, street improvements, density of land use, time of construction,
and competition among contractors. A major determinant for many years, where
comparable, has been the cost of local sewering under the District LID program,
since it has been considered a fair measure of unit costs of sewers applicable
to rebate areas.
Construction costs based on the ENR index have doubled since 1965 and
our last adjustment of uniform rebate fees was in 1967.
In reviewing the present code provisions which classify according to
terrain and density, it would seem most appropriate not to change the classifi-
cations but to insert ranges of fees reflecting increases in costs since 1967
and a reasonable allowance for the future.
Retaining the present classifications would result in a minimum of changes
in present rebate jobs, and by expanding the fee schedules within each classifi-
cation the recognition of cost appreciation can be accomplished. The changes
would apply primarily to new installations, and the review of existing classifications
would be minimized. The updating of related cost areas would be confined to
comparisons with LID proceedings.
Suggested changes:
(1) Class I $650
Change to (a) $650, (b) $1,000, (c) $1,400
(2) Class II $1,000
Change to (a) $1,000, (b) $1,400, (c) $1,700
(3) Class III $1,400
Change to (a) $1,400, (b) $1,700, (c) $2,000
(4) Class IV $1,700
Change to (a) $1,700, (b) $2,000, (c) $3,000
(5) Class V
Change to (a) $2,000, (b) $3,000, (c)-$4:,000
(6) Class VI $12.00 per front foot or $0.06 per square foot of served property
Change to $15,00 per front foot or $0.10 per square foot of served property
Charges included in the above for District administration would remain
unchanged.
The adoption of revised class -if icat:ionsis not critical and an effective
date of July 1, 1974 is recommended.
Respectfully submitted,
UIJVC����
W. C. Dalton
Deputy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
Recommendation approved:
G. A. Horstkotte, Jr
G,nerll Manager-Chie gineer
VII.. New Bus,
8
1/ 3/ 74
December 17, 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., - General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE $3,000 TO PREPARE E.I.R. FOR PSA 51, SPRINGHILL
LANE, LAFAYETTE AND RELEVANT PRELIMINARY INFORMATION
PROBLEM: The property owners within PSA 51 are requesting the Sanitary
District to proceed with the formation of a Local Improvement District to
sewer their area. In order to recover the District Expenses through the
Local Improvement District proceedings, it is necessary that we have Board
approval and set up a drawing account for PSA 51.
BACKGROUND: Five residents living within the tentative boundaries of PSA 51
attended the December 6, 1973 Board Meeting, requesting Board take affirma-
tive action on PSA 51. Staff was instructed to review PSA 51 and report
back to the Board. The Engineering Staff had requested the property owners
within the PSA have their petitions and letters in order by December 6, 1973
so an evaluation could be made by the District Staff and Attorney as indicated
below.
Referring to the sketch on PSA 51, posted on the bulletin board within the
Board Room, the tentative boundary of PSA 51 is outlined in yellow. Within
the PSA there are 11 properties, all developed. They have signatures repre-
senting 72.7 of area and 87% of the assessed valuation, and five supplemental
letters requesting sewers be installed from petitioners. The three properties
on Springhill Court, colored in red, have presented letters requesting they
not be included within PSA 51 and since they are outside of the Sanitary Dis-
trict we do not intend to include them. Our staff has advised all of the
property owners contacted that the estimated cost of a Local Improvement
District for this area would be approximately $5,000 per building site.
The staff_ advised the five residents who attended the December 6, 1973 Board
Meeting that this item was going to appear on the January 3, 1973 agenda
and it would not be necessary for them to attend.
We have a letter from the Health Department of Contra Costa County dated
November 26, 1973, attached, urging the District to proceed with the forma-
tion of a Local Improvement District.
In view of the foregoing the Staff is recommending the following procedures
be followed in formation of future PSA's:
[11 District costs for informing property owners in seeking sewering is
charged to a "general account" until the Board officially establishes
the PSA on basis of legal signature requirements for L.I.D. formation.
[21 Request Board approval to proceed with the PSA and establish a drawing
account.
December 17, 1973
Page Two
[31 Prepare an Environmental Impact Report with necessary maps and
estimates to present to the Board for their approval prior to survey
crew work and preparation of engineering plans and specifications.
[41 Submit E.I.R. to Board for determination on E.I.R. hearing.
[51 Conduct E.I.R. hearing after full notice to all involved parties
[61 Board determination on formation of L.I.D.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
NI
Hor � f*"
Gene al anager-Chief En er
GAH: sf
Attachment
VII. New Bus.
4
1/3/ 74
December 17, 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: G. A. Horstkotte, Jr., General Manager -Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: ACT ON NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR DISTRICT SEWERING
PROJECT 2259 - Green Valley Creek and Diablo Road, WS .35N
PROBLEM_: Pursuant to C.C.C.S.D. Ordinance No. 89, Environmental Guidelines,
we are requesting Board action on Notice of Determination..
BACKGROUND: On September 27, 1973 the Board adopted Resolution No. 73-109,
a Resolution making a negative declaration and providing for notice thereof.
The negative declaration was sent to the County Clerk on September 28, 1973
for filing.
Under Ordinance 89 for action on Notice of Determination, the Board has
the following options: (1) approve or disapprove the project, (2) following
approval or disapproval of the project the Board shall cause to be prepared
said Notice of Determination.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve District Sewering Project 2259 and determine that
the project will not have significant effect on the Environment.
Respectfully submitted,
-`
s
. t�.1��Sq lei
G. A. Horstkotte, �gineer
General Manager -Chief
GAH:sf