1984-0306_ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT_Agreement 'j-- Agreement No. D84-011
I
• A G R E E M E N T
,CHIS AGREEMENT, for purposes of identification, hereby dated the C/
2
day of 1984 is
3
BY AND BETWEEN
411
THE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a
5 1 political subdivision of the State of California,
hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT,"
61
1 I I AND
THE CITY 01 SAN JUAN CAPISTELNND, a municipal
Oil corporation, hereinafter ceierreu w ay `Clii." i
9
W I T N E S S E T H
10 l�
WHEREAS, DISTRICT has approved plans and specifications and has advertised
11
itfor bids, the construction of flood control improvements for Oso Creek Channel from
12 II
•1$ I2000 feet northerly of Avery Parkway to approximately 950 feet southerly of San Juan
Capistrano City limits, hereinafter referred to as PROJECT; and
14
15 WHEREAS, portions of the flood control improvements within CITY's limits
16 include reinforced-concrete vertical-wall channel as shown on attached Exhibit "A"
17 and by reference made a part of this agreement; and
j
18 WHEREAS, the proposed channel improvements are inconsistent with the
X911 CITY's adopted General Plan; and
20 WHEREAS, the CITY is desirous of obtaining channel improvements within the
•
City of San Juan Capistrano consistent with its General Plan; and
21
22 WHEREAS, CITY requests that approximately 475 feet of the ultimate
23 portions of the reinforced-concrete vertical-wall channel within CITY's boundary be
24 deleted and in lieu, construct reinforced-concrete box-culvert, as shown on attached
25 Exhibit "8" and by reference made a part of this agreement and hereinafter referred
• 26 to as ALTERNATIVE; and
27 WHEREAS, DISTRICT is willing to include CITY's request for ALTERNATIVE as
28 an option to DISTRICT's PROJECT. DISTRICT's PROJECT shall be referenced as
-1-
Agreement No. D84-011
• I
• 1 ALTERNATE A and PROJECT with the inclusion of ALTERNATIVE shall be referenced as
2 ALTERNATE B.
3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows:
4 I. CITY SHALL:
I
5 A. Prepare and submit to DISTRICT plans and specifications for
6 ALTERNATIVE based on criteria set forth in DISTRICT's current Design I
i
7 Manual as approved by the Director, Orange County Environmental Management
O ;j _ _ _ c fclr:d tC •nlnnmm�n
nycuuy, vi i,ie uw ayucc, ,.c..«-.�....c.' �� _.. _
9 necessary for DISTRICT to issue an Addendum to its approved and advertised
loll PROJECT.
B. Obtain written approval for the plans and specifications for
12 ATTERNATIVE from the San Juan Basin Authority.
i
• 13 C. Be responsible for One Hundred Percent (1008) of the increased
14 cost of PROJECT resulting from the addition of ALTERNATIVE including
15 engineering, construction cost, and contract administration at an
i
16 estimated cost of $250,000. The construction cost of ALTERNATIVE shall be
17 the difference between the apparent low bid received by DISTRICT for
18 I ALTERNATE A and the apparent low bid received by DISTRICT for ALTERNATE B.
19 II. DISTRICT SHALL:
20 A. Review for approval by DIRECTOR, EMA, the plans and specifications
21 as to design and construction features affecting the construction,
22 operation and maintenance of ALTERNATIVE,
23 B. Be responsible for quality control of materials and testing.
24 C. Furnish a Resident Engineer during construction who shall be
25 responsible for contract administration in conformance with the approved
• 26 plans and specifications for ALTERNATE A or ALTERNATE B.
i
27 D. Issue an Addendum to DISTRICT's PROJECT necessary for bidders to
28 bid ALTERNATE A and ALTERNATE B, open bids, and notify CITY of the
-2-
Agreement No. D84-011
• 1 apparent low bids for ALTERNATES by March 14, 1984.
2 III. PAYMENTS AND FINAL ACCOUNTING
3 A. If DISTRICT awards construction contract for ALTERNATE B, DISTRICT
4 shall within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the Notice of
5 Completion for ALTERNATE B, adjust the estimated cost stated in Paragraph
6 I.0 hereinabove based on the actual construction, engineering, and
7I contract administration costs for ALTERNATIVE. DISTRICT shall submit to
O (,:1 TY LOI LeVYeW a(1Q apps wai a iivai ia�cv wiii,iy wcyvi� 1C: u � CJ:�1 L:
9 a certification signed by DIRECTOR, EMA that all expenditures applicable
1011 to CITY's costs for ALTERNATIVE have been made and that copies of all
11 invoices and warrants are on file with DISTRICT and shall be made
121! available to CITY upon written request,
•13I B. Within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the Notice of
14 Completion for ALTERNATE B, CITY shall deposit with DISTRICT twenty-five
15 percent (258) of the estimated construction costs for ALTERNATIVE, stated
16 in Paragraph I.0 hereinabove.
17 C. Final payment of actual costs for ALTERNATIVE specified in
18 Paragraph III.A hereinabove less amount deposited with DISTRICT specified
I 9 in Paragraph III.B hereinabove shall be made to DISTRICT within twenty-
20 four (24) months from the date of the filing of the Notice of Completion.
21 D. An annual interest rate of eleven percent (118) adjustable to the
22 interest rate earned by the Orange County Treasurer on deposited DISTRICT
23 funds, shall be charged on the unpaid balance due to DISTRICT and CITY
24 shall add the accrued interest to the amount(s) paid to DISTRICT.
25 Interest charge shall be assessed beginning the date that Notice of
• 26 Completion is filed.
27 IV. IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT:
28 I A. Upon execution of this agreement, AGREEMENT NO. D84-011, it is
-3-
• • Agreement No. D84-011
• 1 deemed that the CITY has approved PROJECT ALTERNATE B as required by the
2 Orange County Flood Control Act and that CITY COUNCIL authorizes CITY
3 ) Engineer to approve plans and gpecifications for ALTERNATE B.
4 B. CITY shall advise DISTRICT by March 21, 1984 if ALTERNATE B shall
5 be constructed. If CITY has not advised DISTRICT, by March 21, 1984, that
i
I
6j ALTERNATE B shall be constructed, this agreement shall be null and void.
I I
7Upon CITY notification that ALTERNATIVE B shall be constructed, DISTRICT
a shah promptiy award a C0n5Liva Liuu uu,,ivaC.v
9j availability of adequate DISTRICT funding and compliance with all
10applicable laws governing award of contract.
11
C. Nothing in this agreement shall diminish DISTRTCT's rights and/or
12. 11 respo; sibilities to operate, maintain, repair or modify DTSTRICT's
I
. 13 facilities, or to grant approvals to others to operate, maintain, repair
14 or modify DISTRICT's facilities.
15 D. Neither DISTRICT nor any officer or employee thereof shall be
16 responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything
17 done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work,
18
authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. It is �
19also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code
20 Section 895.4, CITY shall fully indemnify, defend and hold DISTRICT
21 harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government
22 Code Section 820.8) , occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be j
23 done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or
24 jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. '
25 E. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof shall be
• 26 responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything
27 done or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any
28 work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to CITY under this
-4-
Agreement No. D84-011
• 1 Agreement. It is also understood and agreed, that pursuant to Government
2 Code Section 895.4, DISTRICT shall fully indemnify, defend and hold CITY
3 harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government
4 Code Section 810.8) , occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
5 done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work, authority or
i
6jurisdiction not delegated to CITY under this Agreement.
�I
7 j F. If DISTRICT has not awarded a construction contract for PROJECT by
fI iJune 30, 1764, this dgLeelU1 lu 1, auaii vd uuii ouu +:i�.�.
9
I
loll
12
• 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
026
27
28
-5-
II' f
�! Agreement So. D84-011
. i
• .E IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY has caused this agreement to be executed by its
2 Mayor and attested by its Clerk, and DISTRICT has caused this agreement to be
3 executed by the Chairman of its Board of Supervisors and attested by its Clerk, all
4 thereunto duly authorized by the City Council and the Board of Supervi3ors,
5I respectively.
i
61 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
A municipal corporation
7 iI
9
Dated: 1%� BY
or
10
11 II ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
i
12
p
13 � fa —
14 Cld�of the Council City Atto ey
15
I
ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT a
16 political subdivision of the State of
17 California
18t _ �/ `y� ' • /
Doted: ��LL�1� , 19 By
19 Chairman., Board of Superv '. .;r,:
20
21 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN ADRIAN RUYPER, DISTRICT COUNSEL
22 DELIVERED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
23 BOARD
24
25 �A l /
DORIS L. HILBERT L Deputy
• 26 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors /
of Orange County, California
27 Date:
28
TR:eaiwPWDSB-3 -6-
2/23/84
AGREEMENT N0. D84 -011
Z
/7' V /7' Z/'
Z% /
h
Gnanu/or � 0 ,.r t✓
Grnr�c/ /3o se
F./fnr Fgbrii
ORANGE COUNTY
ENVOON ENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
EXHIBIT
A
• TYPICAL
R.C. RECTANGULAR CHANNEL
011
FACILITY NO.L03 D84-
ACREEMEN NO. D84 -Oil
Gn�de
i
Grnnular ^_ I /
� r
j i i Grcive/
QlIS�
Filter FAbr1c
ORANGE CMINTY
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
EXHIBIT
B
TYPICAL
R.C. BOX CULV E R T
FACILITY NO. L03 D84 —011 . .
^ MURRAYSTORM
4NTY O F DIRECTOR,EMA
C.R.NELSON
z ) DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
- � fl4 I,-� Gy;� LOCATION:
5 3 C CENTER DRIVE
RAN CA E 400 CISAINTA ANA,CAL FORNSIA
• ' MAILING ADDRESS:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGE�N�,NT AGENCY P.O. BOX 4048
PUBLIC WORKS'"" "� SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048
June 14, x'1''984 - TELEPHONE:
(714)834-2300
FILE L03
Mr. W. D. Murphy, Director of Public Works
City of San Juan Capistrano
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
SUBJECT: Oso Creek Channel (Facility No. L03)
Dear Mr— rphy:
Transmitted herewith is an original copy of Agreement No. D84-011 between the
Orange County Flood District and City of San Juan Capistrano.
If any questions should arise, please do not hesitate to call Mr. Ken Gong,
Project Engineer, (714)834-6389.
Very truly yours,
K. E. Smith, Chief
EMA/PW/Design A
KCG:bjm(M6)041/KCGMurp
Enclosure: Agreement No. D84-011
Cc: D. Updegraff (EMA/Transportation-Flood)
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
March 6 , 1984
IN RE: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT OSO CREEK CHANNEL CITY OF
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
On motion of Supervisor Nestande , duly seconded and unanimously
carried , the Clerk of the Board , on behalf of the Board of Supervisors ,
is authorized to execute Agreement No . D84-011 , dated March 6 , 1984 ,
between the Orange County Flood Control District and the City of San
Juan Capistrano for reimbursement of added costs for Oso Creek Channel .
IN RE : BUDGET TRANSFER
On motion of Supervisor Nestande, duly seconded and unanimously
carried , Budget Transfer No . 84-7 is granted and so ordered on the
following roll call :
AYES : SUPERVISOR BRUCE NESTANDE , RALPH B. CLARK, ROGER R. STANTON
THOMAS F . RILEY AND HARRIETT M . WIEDER
NOES SUPERVISOR NONE
ABSENT: SUPERVISOR NONE
IN RE : AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH RELATIVE TO JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUED
On motion of Supervisor Riley , duly seconded and unanimously
carried , consideration of the Agreement with the City of Newport Beach
relative to John Wayne Airport improvements is continued to March 13,
1984•
41 RECEIVED
MAR 121984
FMA
fR F1013-2.3(12/76)
OV
:fines
el,
32400 PASEOACSLANTC� t
SAN JUA?eCAMTRANO,CALIFORNIA 92675
PNCWZ493v117Y
4
March 21 , 1984
Ken E. Smith, Chief
Orange County Environmental Management
Agency Public Works , Design A
P. O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
Re : Cost Consideration for Oso Creek
Improvements
Dear Mr . Smith:
At their meeting of March 20 , 1984 , the City Council
approved the construction of a closed reinforced concrete channel
in Oso Creek within the City of San Juan Capistrano by the County
of Orange in accordance with the agreement between the City and
County designated as Agreement No. D-84-111 . Staff was directed
to inform the County of their action and to allocate $151 , 845 in
the budget for fiscal year 1984-85 to conform with the
requirements of the agreement.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours ,
MARY ANN f�ANOVER, CMC
City Clerk
MAH/mac
CC : Peter Herman, Office of George Mokski
Supervisor Thomas F. Riley Law office of
Ray Woodside , Woodside/Kubota Marlene Fox
and Associates , Inc . Randy Williams
Lowry and Associates William Zaun , Orange
Bill Bathgate County Environmental
Capistrano Valley Water District Management Agency
Director of Public Works
AGENDA ITEM March 20 , 1984
TO: Stephen B. Julian, City Manager
FROM: W. D. Murphy, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Cost Consideration For Oso Creek Improvements
(County of Orange)
SITUATION
On March 12th, the County of Orange opened bids for the improvement
of Oso Creek. The agreement with the County of Orange requires
that the City pay the full amount of costs incurred in constructing
the closed channel. The amount estimated in the agreement that the
City would fund is $250 , 000 . The amount that the bid results
indicate is $151 , 845 . The obligated amount is subject to change
during construction due to quantity changes or change orders . The
City must inform the County if it intends to proceed with the closed
channel , and this must be done by March 21st. Staff is recommending
that the County be immediately informed to proceed with the closed
channel.
COMMISSION/BOARD REVIEW, RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The bid costs obligated to the City amount to $151 , 845 . Using a
10% contingency and administrative costs, the future obligation
of the City would be $190 , 000 . The agreement with the County
requires the following estimated payments.
Payment 1 - 90 days after filing notice of completion
pay deposit (estimate winter of 1985) 25% of $151 , 845
$37 , 961
Payment 2 - Within 2 years of filing notice of completion
pay balance (up to winter of 1987) $190 , 000 - $37 , 961
$152 , 039 + 11% interest/year
ALTERNATE ACTIONS
1. Proceed with the closed channel.
2 . Proceed with the open channel .
Oso Creek Improvements -2- March 20 , 1984
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, approve the construction of a closed reinforced concrete
channel in Oso Creek within the City of San Juan Capistrano by the
County of Orange in accordance with the agreement between the City
and County designated as Agreement No. D-84-111. Further , direct
Staff to immediately inform the County of this action and to allocate
sufficient funds in the budget for fiscal year 1984-85 to conform
with the requirements of the said agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
W. D. Murphy
WDM:GML/rem
v �
AGENDA ITEM March 6 , 1984 j
TO: Stephen B. Julian, City Manager
FROM: W. D. Murphy, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Progress of Channel Improvements - Oso Creek
(County of Orange)
SITUATION
Following the approved action by the City Council at their meeting
of February 21 , the agreement has been executed by both the Mayor
and City Clerk and is now at the County. The agreement is expected
to be agendized for the Board of Supervisors ' action on March 6 .
In discussions with County staff the actions that will be taking
place are as follows:
Pre-bid conference ------------------------ February 29
Receipt of bids --------------------------- March 12
City Council review of cost implications
at their regular meeting --------------- March 20
Notification by the City Council to the
County to proceed with Bid Alternate B-- March 21
COMMISSION/BOARD REVIEW, RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission has reviewed the covered box concept.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
As discussed in a prior memorandum costs will be ascertained at the
time of the County bid process , with the estimated cost from
$250 , 000 to $300 , 000.
ALTERNATE ACTIONS - None
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file this report pending receipt of County bids.
Respectfully submitted,
� i� �
W. D. Murp y
WDM/rem ftwwwom
ja6
tie r{.
LA
00 P4
SAN J PTSTR 1 92675
FICYN B]�117
February 28 , 1984
Ken E. Smith, Chief
Orange County Environmental Management
Agency Public Works , Design A
P. O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
Re: agenputr
ec or Construction of
Improvements
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed please find an original and two copies of the
Agreement between the Orange County Flood Control District and
the City of San Juan Capistrano for the construction of Oso Creek
Improvements. This Agreement was approved by the City Council at
their meeting of February 21 , 1984.
Upon approval of the Board of Supervisors , please
return one fully-executed copy of the Agreement to this office.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
MARY ANN HAOVER, CMC
City Clerk
MAH/mac
Enclosures
CC: Peter Herman, Office of George Mokski
Supervisor Thomas F. Riley Law office of
Ray Woodside, Woodside/Kubota Marlena Fox
and Associates , Inc. Randy Williams
Lowry and Associates William Zaun, orange
Bill Bathgate County Environmental
Capistrano Valley Water District Management Agency
Director of Public Works
Gedlernoi Prvryl County P,c.�'�c/ UYOO
2. COST CONSIDERATION FOR OSO CREEK IMPROVEMENTS (COUNTY OF
// ORANGE (38---#4-5-8F—
V4 Written Communications:
(80) Report dated March 20 , 1984 , from the Director of Public
Works , advising that the agreement with the County requires
the City to pay the full amount of costs incurred in
constructing a closed channel in the City limits; that the
amount had been estimated at $250 , 000. The report advises
that bids received for the improvement of Oso Creek
indicate that the City will be obligated to $151 ,845 ,
subject to change during construction due to change orders.
Using a 108 contingency and administrative costs , the future
obligation of the City will be approximately $190 , 000.
Allocation of Funds:
It was moved by Councilman Hausdorfer, seconded by
Councilman Friess and unanimously carried to approve the
construction of a closed reinforced concrete channel in Oso
Creek within the City of San Juan Capistrano by the County
of Orange in accordance with the agreement between the City
and County designated as Agreement No. D-84-111 . Staff was
directed to immediately inform the County of the Council
action and to allocate sufficient funds in the budget for
fiscal year 1984-85 to conform with the requirements of the
agreement.
Mayor Bland commended staff for their work on this project.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM February 21 , 1984
TO: Stephen B. Julian, City Manager
FROM: W. D. Murphy, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Agreement for Construction of Oso Creek Improvements
(County of Orange)
SITUATION
Attached for City Council review is a draft agreement between the
City of San Juan Capistrano and the County of Orange, developed by
City Staff for the Oso Creek Channel Improvements. This agree-
ment has been developed after meeting with County staff and
expressing City concerns with the conflicts between the proposed
County improvements and San Juan Capistrano ' s General Plan. It
is important to point out to the City Council three provisions
within the City draft agreement which provide as follows:
1 . Through the agreement the City is providing approval
of a project which will allow construction of a
reinforced concrete box culvert within the City' s
portion of Oso Creek. No approval is granted for
construction of an open channel within the City.
2. The agreement provides for the County to fund the
entire project while permitting the City to defer
their cost of the project modifications until completion
of the project. Upon completion the City would pay
for 25% of the increased construction cost with the
balance due within 24 months.
3 . The City agreement contains no provisions for interest
accrual, however, staff has learned that the County
proposes to include a provision to assess interest
beginning at project completion, at a rate equivalent
to the County ' s current rate of return on investments
(approximately 11% . )
Due to the time constraints associated with the project including
the County bid date of March 12 , 1984, staff is presenting the
draft agreement for City Council approval in concept with the final
agreement to be submitted for signatures within the next few days.
�3
• •
Oso Creek Improvements -2- February 21 , 1984
COMMISSION/BOARD REVIEW, RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission reviewed the County proposed vertical
lined channel on January 10 , 1984, and recommended against the
design due to its conflict with the City' s General Plan.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Approval of the Agreement will obligate the City to fund the
modifications to the Oso Channel Improvements at a cost of
$250 , 000 to $300, 000.
ALTERNATE ACTIONS
1. Approve the draft agreement between the City and the County
of Orange for the Oso Creek Channel Improvements.
2 . Do not approve the agreement.
3 . Request further information from Staff.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, approve in concept the draft agreement between the City
of San Juan Capistrano and the County of Orange for funding of the
Oso Creek Channel Improvement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute the agreement upon final submittal by the Director of
Public Works .
1Respectfully submitted,
W. D. Murphy
WDM:CMB/rem
Attach.
AGENDA ITEM February 21, 1984
TO: Stephen B. Julian, City Manager
FROM: W. D. Murphy, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Agreement For Construction of Oso Creek Improvement
(County of Orange)
SITUATION
The City and County staffs have been working closely together
to develop a cooperative agreement for funding a modification
to the County' s Oso Creek Improvement project. As of the
date of agenda preparation, we have not come to final resolution
of the terms of the agreement. An oral report will be presented
by the Director of Public Works at the City Council meeting
of February 21st.
IRespectfully submitted,
W. D. Murph 1
WDM/rem
tUK ui i Y COUNCIL AGENDA .«
3
0 0
3. AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF OSO CREEK IMPROVEMENTS (COUNTY
OF ORANGE) (38-#458)
(38) Written Communications:
(80) (1) Report dated February 21 , 1984 , from the Director of
Public Works , advising that City and County staff
members have been working on a cooperative agreement
for funding of a modification to the County' s project
and a report will be submitted at the meeting.
(2) Additional Agenda Item dated February 21 , 1984 , from
the Director of Public Works, forwarding a draft
agreement with the County providing for City approval
of construction of a reinforced concrete box culvert
within the City portion of Oso Creek; City payment upon
completion of the project of 25% of the increased
construction cost with the balance due within 24
months; and, assessment of interest beginning at
project completion at a rate of approximately 118 .
Costs to the City are estimated at $250 , 000 to
$300 , 000.
Ken Smith, Chief, Flood Design, Orange County Environmental
Management Agency, noted the items added to the agreement
relating to the General Plan and advised that the San Juan
Basin Authority date should be deleted.
Approval of Agreement
It was moved by Councilman Schwartze, seconded by Councilman
Hausdorfer and unanimously carried to approve in concept the
draft agreement between the City of San Juan Capistrano and
the County of Orange for funding of the Oso Creek Channel
Improvement and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the agreement upon final submittal by the Director
of Public Works.
ala/���
- �PJIICCHASE ORDER - '1
s•_ PURCHASE ORDER
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO No. 6456
- THIS P.O. NUMBER MUST
32400 PASEO ADELANTO - - - . APPEAR-ON ALL PKG_, CAR-
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA- 42675 - - r TONS, SHIPPING PAPERS ETC. .
(714) 493-1171 - - DATE: February 10, 1984
VENDOR: ""Wr & ASSOCiate8E/�/� - SHIP TO:
f ,
1l 48 Skypark Blvd., Suits 100 - - -
Irvine, CA 92714
' - VENDORiND: .: ',.. -.. -- -'. .i.'EI6 RHERENCE -". - " -:.d.' ..-• Ji CQNFIRMfNG.. • • .
REQUISITION NO. ACCOUNT NM DEPARTMENT EO K
26-4720-012 Public Works/
Redesign of Oso Creek improvements from
Station 66+00 To Staliion 70+77
, ■clog
NOT
NEW . 20,000.00
I
C
te i1Dr ns as d
I
r
`9w. 'tea '%X{ �,iF.up�r3✓5.w �}.✓
TERMS SALES
� `� TAX
e,J[�
`
BY "P�RcrAnc DIE u7Y ',-E't 11
TOTAL
No, 6456 Memorandum
Date Paid Warrant No. Amount Paid Posted byENCUMBRANCE
MADE BY
•ACCOUNTING COPY DATE
rUnl, m ntllm I m N2 NAMES A LOWRY & ASSOCIATES
17748 SKYPARK BLVD. , SUITE 100
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO DATE 1/31/84 AND IRVINE CA 92714
FUND FUNCTION ORIECT FUNDS AVAILADLE EXPENDITURES APPROVED vo—"WRER ADDRESS
.?6 y9zo o�
C� VENDORS B
ACCOUNTING USE
ONLY' —-.
CONTACTED
DELIVf-R SHOP
ON OR REFORE 10 , VIA
DELIVERY '
DDRESS:
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION FROM �¢� TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
(include catalog no. — manufacture,— else — color, etc.)
A B PRICE C
REDESIGN OF OSO CREEK IMPROVEMENTS FROM
STATION 66+00 TO STATION 70+77
r
Q_
O COMPE14SATION BASED ON LOWRY & ASSOCIATES '
v
U e
z ESTABLISHED SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
z DATED JANUARY 1 , 1984 .
v —
o<
0.
TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $20,000
SALES
PURPOSE iax
SPECIAL TOTAL S S S
INSTRUCTIONS
PAYMENT
TERMS
SHIPPING INCLUDED
CHARGES EXTRA
PROMISED
DE PA R T M. EAD SURM TED by O D RY QUOTED
Y or
CAPITAL OUTLAY NO 1: A.0 APPROVED A P 70TAL THIS REO QUOTES
�� RECEIVED
RY
wry
ssociates
pm TL Consulting Engineers
JANUARY 1, 1984
STANDARD SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
APPLICABLE FOR SERVICES FURNISHED ON PER HOUR BASIS
CIASSIFICATION: PER HOUR
1. SENIOR PRINCIPAL ENGINEER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 99.12
2. PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, CNSTRUCTION & CONTRACT MANAGER. . . . . . . 70.94
3. SENIOR ENGINEER, SENIOR PLANNER, SENIOR SCIENTIST. . . . . . . . 64.70
4. SENIOR ASSESSMU ENGINEER, ASSISTANT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER . . . 58.94
5. PRO= ENGINEER, RESIDENT ENGINEER, PLANNER III . . . . . . . . 54.75
6. ASSOCIATE ENG]IEER, PLANNER II, CHIEF DRAFTSMAN. . . . . 43.06
7. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PLANNER 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.02
8. ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.41
9. SENIOR DRAFTSMAN, DESIGNER DRAFTSMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.06
10. DRAFTSMAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.75
11. COMPUTER PROGRA vER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.05
12. COMPUTER ANALYST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.73
13. CHIEF CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.40
14. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.23
15. TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.97
COMPUTER. TIME, REPRODUCTION AND OTHER
APPROVED CUTSIQE SERVICE'S . . . . . . . . . . .BTr.I AT ACTUAL COST PLUS 15%
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ABOVE FEES INCLUDE INCIDENTAL
CASTS FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION,
TELEPHONE COSTS, ETC.
TRAVEL COSTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AIR, BUS & TAXI, LODGING AND
OTHER RELATED TRAVEL COSTS
BILS,ID AT ACTUAL COST
MINM24 DAILY CHAR FOR CURT TESTDIONY AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IS $750. PREP-
ARATION FOR A COURT CASE WILL BE CHARGED AT REGULAR HOURLY RATES.
3Z400 P^SEO`ADEMANtic "
SAN JUAUCAPTSTRANO,CA4.,WOOi'41A 9?675
PHONF493.117t
February 10 , 1984
Lowry & Associates
17748 Sky Park Boulevard
Suite 100
Irvine, California 92714
Re: Oso Creek Improvement Project
Gentlemen:
At their meeting of February 7 , 1984 , the City Council
took the following actions regarding the Oso Creek Improvement
Project:
1. Confirmed the action of the Planning
Commission in finding that a concrete
vertical wall channel shown on the present
County plans is not consistent with the
General Plan, but that rock riprap or
underground conduit concepts are consistent,
subject to Planning Commission Resolution
83-3-22-1 .
2. Authorized staff to contract with your firm
in an amount not to exceed $20 ,000 to develop
an alternate improvement design providing for
an undergrounding conduit and low-flow
surface streambed.
3. The City Manager was authorized to negotiate
a draft agreement with the County providing
for construction and funding of the
underground conduit design, and return with
it to Council for its review and approval.
Lowry & Associates -2- February 10 , 1984
If you have any questions , please don' t hesitate to
call.
Very truly yours ,
22YAMN jA'NOVER, CMC
City Clerk
MAH/mac
CC: Orange County Environmental Management
Agency Public Works
Ray Woodside
Woodside/Kubota & Associates, Inc.
Bill Bathgate
Capistrano Valley Water District
George Mokski
William Zaun
Orange County Environmental Management
Agency
Supervisor Thomas F. Riley
Bret Reed
Law Office of Marlena Fox
Randy Williams
r r , •
AGENDA ITEM February 7, 1984
TO: Stephen B. Julian, City Manager
FROM: Thomas G. Merrell, Director
Community Planning and Development
SUBJECT: Oso Creek Improvement Project
SITUATION
A. Background
At its January 10 meeting, the Planning Commission
reviewed the Oso Creek improvement project for consis-
tency with the General Plan. The Commission found that
the proposed design, a portion of which includes a vertical
concrete wall open channel, is not consistent with the
General Plan but that a rock-lined channel or an under-
ground "conduit" could be deemed consistent (Commission
resolution attached) . The Commission then forwarded the
project to Council recommending a confirmation of its
General Plan finding.
The project is now before Council for review of the
Planning Commission recommendation and, per state law,
actual approval or denial of the project.
B. Project Description
The proposed County design would extend from north of
Avery to a point approximately 840 feet into the City
(ref. Attachment A) . The design for most of the length
is a vertical-walled channel (ref, sketch, Attachment B) --
including approximately 570 feet within the City. At
that point, it would transition to a trapezoidal rock-lined
channel. The detailed County plans are available in both
the Planning and Public Works Departments for Council
examination.
County staff has proposed the present design because of:
(1) the proximity of major sewer lines, power lines, and
the railroad tracks near the eastern side of the channel;
and (2) the presence of the Bathgate bridge and San Juan
Basin Authority pumps over and into the creek, respectively,
at the north City boundary. The proposed design thus has
the vertical-walled channel extending into the City to a
point where the channel course has diverged far enough from
the parallel utilities to transition to the trapezoidal
rock riprap design.
.e
T3�11 0.
Agenda Item -2- February 7 , 1984
An alternative to the above design would be to transition
to the trapezoidal channel before entering the City.
This would require curving the channel away from the
railroad within the Schuller property, north of the City
limits. It is our understanding that the County staff
is opposed to this design because of extra costs due to
the need for a longer replacement bridge for the Bathgate
property (104 feet instead of 34 feet for the vertical-
walled channel) and the need for additional right-of-way
outside of the City for the wider trapezoidal channel .
Another alternative would be to transition to an underground
conduit upon entering the City. This would eliminate the
bridge and right-of-way problems but would also be more
costly. Estimated cost differences are discussed later
in this report.
C. Staff Findings
The issues before the Council are :
1) Whether the proposed design, with 570 feet of all
concrete, vertical-walled channel, is in conformance
with the General Plan.
2) If the proposed design is not consistent with the
Plan, what alternative design should be pursued?
Staff understands the valid County reasons for the proposed
vertical-walled section, but believes that the City ' s
basic General Plan goals and policies should take precedence
in this case. The applicable General Plan/Policy Plan
sections include :
"The flood plain area, as defined by the Army Corps
of Engineers, should be maintained in as natural a
state as possible. "
"Streambeds, creeks, and ponds should be protected
and preserved. "
"Streambeds, creeks, and ponds should be maintained
in their natural state, not cemented in. "
In addition to the above, the approval of even this short
segment of all-concrete channel could set a precedent for
future concrete channels in the City.
•
Agenda Item -3- February 7, 1984
At its January 10 meeting, the Planning Commission
concurred with the staff assessment and found the
vertical wall design not consistent. However, the
Commission went on to express its receptiveness to a
mutually agreeable alternate design and further recommended
that funding sources to finance a design deemed consistent
with the General Plan be investigated (ref . Planning
Commission minutes, Attachment E) . If Council agrees
that the vertical wall channel is not consistent with
the General Plan, staff believes that the most desirable
alternate is the underground box conduit (ref. sketch,
Attachment D) . Our reasons are : (1) when coupled with
a low-flow surface streambed, it would be more attractive
and natural-appearing than a rock-lined channel; and
(2) transitioning to a rock-lined channel at or north
of the City limits would be difficult and possibly
infeasible.
If the underground alternate is pursued, only about 460
feet of undergrounding would be needed for this project
because the drop structure at the downstream end of the
project must be open and accessible. A low-flow streambed
could then be incorporated into future improvements
starting at the downstream end of the present project.
This design, however, would require accommodation by the
San Juan Basin Authority, which now desires to pull all
low flows out of Oso Creek to improve downstream well
water quality.
Since the January 10 Planning Commission meeting, the
City has had field trips to the project areas and various
meetings with County staff. In addition, two Councilmen
and the City Manager have met with Supervisor Riley. As
a result of these meetings, the County has agreed to
include the underground concept as an alternate design
for its bid package if the City will commit to paying
the additional construction costs for this design.
Therefore, staff recommends:
1) That the alternate design of an underground conduit
with surface low-flow streambed be pursued.
2) That the City contract with Lowry & Associates, the
project design engineers, to develop the above
underground conduit concept as an alternate design
for the County' s project bid package.
3) That Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate
a draft agreement with the County regarding funding
of the additional cost for the underground design
and return with it to Council for its review and
approval.
Agenda Item -4- February 7, 1984
Per our contacts with the County, if Council concurs with
the above recommendation, the alternate design would be
made an addendum to the County' s original package and
would be bid as an alternate by the prospective contrac-
tors. (The original design is scheduled to go out to
bid this month. The alternate design would be added
when completed by Lowry) .
COMMISSION/BOARD REVIEW, RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission review and recommendations are outlined
above.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The cost of the additional engineering work for the alternate
design is estimated to be $20, 000. The additional construction
cost for the underground alternates is estimated at about
$200 , 000. From our initial discussions with the County, the
agreement for the alternate design would provide for either
progress payments to the County during construction or full
reimbursement upon completion of construction. Construction
completion is estimated to be early 1985.
ALTERNATE ACTIONS
1. Approve the original County design.
2 . Direct that an alternate design be pursued.
3. Do not approve an improvement project for Oso Creek at
this time.
Agenda Item -5- February 7, 1984
RECOMMENDATION
By motion :
1) Confirm the Planning Commission findings that a
concrete vertical wall channel shown on the present
County plans is not consistent with the General
Plan, but that rock riprap or underground conduit
concepts are consistent--subject to the design
measures set forth in the attached Planning Commission
resolution.
2 ) Authorize the staff to contract with Lowry & Associates
to develop an alternate improvement design providing
for an undergrounding conduit and low-flow surface
streambed in an amount not to exceed $20 , 000 .
3) Authorize the City Manager to negotiate a draft
agreement with the County providing for construction
and funding of the preceding underground conduit
design, and return with it to Council for its review
and approval.
RespectfullyyJ submitted,
Thomas G. Merrell,
Community Planning and Development
TGM:LL: jtb
Attachments
I
i
li PROPOSED OSO CREEK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS
21 PC RESOLUTION NO. 83-3-22-1
3A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, MAKING
4 FINDINGS REGARDING THE CONFORMITY OF CERTAIN
PROPOSED CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS TO OSO CREEK
5
1 WHEREAS, the County of Orange Environmental Management
Agency proposes to construct certain channel improvements in
that portion of Oso Creek, Facility No. L03, from approximately
7 400 feet upstream of Avenida De Las Flores Bridge to a maximum
i! of approximately 6 , 400 feet downstream of Avenida De Las
8 Flores Bridge, a portion of which distance lies within the
City of San Juan Capistrano; and
WHEREAS , the Government Code of the State of California,
10 ' Section 65402 , provides in part that a local agency shall not
acquire real property nor dispose of .any real property, nor
11 construct a public building or structure in any county or
city, until the location, purpose and extent of such activity
1211 has been reported upon as to conformity with the adopted
lI general plan applicable thereto.
13 I!
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
14 of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby find as follows
15 regarding the proposed project:
1. The proposed Oso Creek Channel improvement project,
16i with project limits and channel alignment identified
on Attachment A, is in conformity with the General
171 Plan only if alternate design concept 2 or 3,
shown on Attachments C and D, is used and provided
18 that the following design features are incorporated
into each alternate :
19
a. Alternate 2 : the covering, during initial
20 channel improvements or at some later date,
of the rock slope bank with earth fill and
21 the seeding of the fill for future vegetation;
also, the use of variable side slopes and a
22 curvilinear horizontal channel alignment.
23 b. Alternate 3 : the creation, during initial
channel improvements or at some later date,
24 of a surface earthen channel in addition to
the underground concrete conduit to accept
25 low water flows.
26I 2. Find that alternate design concept 1, a reinforced
concrete vertical wall channel, as shown on Attach-
27 ment B, is not in conformity with the General Plan.
28
7
/ •
1 PC Resolution 83-3-22-1 L2-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
3 strongly supports the improvement of Oso Creek consistent
with the General Plan throughout its entire length within
4I the City to correct erosion and other problems; therefore,
the Commission would also be receptive to consideration of
5Ivariations of Alternates 2 and 3, which are consistent with
the General Plan.
6
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, this 22nd day of March,
7 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
8 AYES: Atkins, Campbell , Davies, Rios, Tyler
9 NOES : None
10 ABSENT: None
I
11
12 ;I
LENE PB L, CHAIRMAN i
13
I
14
15 PHO S G. MERRELL, SECRETARY
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2$
26
27
28
29
I'
�J
fi
44 Te+.s on
�f
s
wz
2i1�.
2sT5 �
a
���p+u•
LA OU.LLA
P
LIMIT OF VERTICAL-WALLED SECTION
�\v 1
PER ORIGINAL COUNTY PLANS
�.
+ LIMIT OF PROJECT 1 I L I
41 h
� o
h r
` m /
Ne O e
Jsl R \\ a4J
•1 ��� ez
°x
1 �
1 @xn i
I /�TTaCNM�NT
1 1
( • `0
,4�rt:¢rrdrE F.(c. I
R�tN�D¢GEU G04G2ET'E ' P—I=GT"F.�.:Ei c1 LO CZ ChLNI,(EL
3
LEV
d
�rNtS is 5 tleFACE
.N 34; IAA PorT6b
L'o n.(pAcr
18S
I �pICAL SECT�nN
R
'I
A!-rAcNMENT' $
( �t T22wJdTE �Q. �.'•
Fes,tC S�GP � "T'�A•P��OIO.o,L G(-t d,d il(.EL _
t ISO
goorr ,oN of
EARTH AND
SBSD,NG ovER
/ Rock RIP RAA
SLOPES/ BOTH S,DEs
CoF.t r /
5,reeaca 145
ArT,,ck. c
Q�tµG02GP_D GeHL2>cy-E voK G0+1CLlIT
Possl6�-fi
t �
Loc,kTIOId of t
Low- FLOvVpC(NEIl I — —
C41UNEt- / qe
! baGCF`
t 95
t^u�VAC: 44T2.D I:n Lj� 1 as
=YpvgL �CP'Ip►.�
1
L
a
D
ATtAcH. b
Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 10 , 1984
NEW BUSINESS
Determination of General Plan Consistency - Oso Creek
Channe Improvements Orange County
Mr. Lawrence described the proposed County channel improve-
ments to Oso Creek. The staff findings were outlined, and
it was recommended that the Commission reaffirm their previous
finding that the proposal is not consistent with the General
Plan.
Chairman Davies opened the floor for public input.
Mr. Bill Bathgate, 29643 Camino Capistrano, addressed the
Commission in support of the proposed channel improvements .
He discussed the erosion problems in that area and requested
that the Commissioners visit the site prior to making a
determination.
Mr . Ken Smith of the Orange County Environmental Management
Agency addressed the Commission. He stated that the proposed
improvements were targeted for this area for safety reasons ,
as well as to protect the railroad tracks and control flooding.
Discussion ensued, and the Commission expressed their concern
with the flooding and erosion problems . There was a general
consensus that the improvements proposed by the County did
not meet the intent of the City' s General Plan. The Commissioners
indicated a desire to work with the County to develop an
alternate design consistent with the Plan.
Commissioner Tyler moved:
1 . To reaffirm the findings of Commission Resolution No.
83-3-22-1, specifically that a reinforced concrete
vertical wall channel is not in conformance with the
City' s General Plan;
2 . To forward the project to the City Council recommending
confirmation of the Planning Commission findings; and
3 . To forward a recommendation to the City Council for
consideration of alternate means of financing in order
to effect improvements that are consistent with the
General Plan.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moore and carried
unanimously.
ATTaC-H . E
714/493-1515 SAN JUAN BASIN AUTHORITY
31301 Andres Pico Road 'F'_'iVED
Post Office Box 967
San Juan Capistrano, California 92693 Z7
CITY CI
January 30, 1984
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of San Juan Capistrano
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675
Subject : Oso Creek Channel Improvements
Gentlemen:
The Orange County Flood Control District has prepared plans for the
construction of an improved Oso Creek Channel . The concrete portion
of the channel would end with a drop structure to control erosion
about 700 feet southerly of the northerly City limits .
The San Juan Basin Authority was formed in 1969 for the purpose of
improving the groundwater quality in the basin. The goal is to improve
the groundwater quality in the Lower San Juan and Lower Trabuco Basins
so that it can be used for domestic purposes . One of the major causes
of degeneration in the basin is the low quality water in Oso Creek.
Last year the Authority placed in operation a barrier in Oso Creek to
intercept most of this low quality water and pump it to the ocean.
Diversion of the low quality water is critical to improving the ground-
water quality. The Oso Channel construction includes reconstructing
the Authority' s Oso Creek Barrier and Pumping Station which will help
in controlling the low quality water in Oso Creek.
The Board of Directors of the San Juan Basin Authority believes con-
struction of the Oso Creek Channel will help improve water quality in
the San Juan Basin because it will assist in controlling the non-storm
low flows .
We therefore urge you to support construction of the Oso Creek Channel
as now designed.
Respectfully submitted,
SCAN )JUAN (BASIN AUTHORITY
W. W. Knitz
President
WWK:jt
CC : L. Buchheim J . Serences
J . Mocalis F. Stradling