Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11191996 - C7 ._ oil � r TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WA_LFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: November 19, 1996 SUBJECT: Approve Second Amendment to Cooperative Agreement with the Contra Costa Water District for the Vasco-Road Replacement Project. Project No.:0662-6R4054 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute a second amendment to the Cooperative Agreement with the Contra Costa Water District for the Vasco Road replacement project. II. Financiallmpact: There is no financial impact to the County. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: The Contra Costa Water District and the County entered into a cooperative agreement (AGREEMENT) on February 15, 1996. The AGREEMENT covers the design, construction, ownership and maintenance of a new roadway to replace a section of Vasco Road. The AGREEMENT has previously been,amended effective April 2, 1996. The parties now desire to further amend the AGREEMENT to address additional issues that have arisen during construction and to enable County to accept the new Vasco Road into the County Maintained Road System, as provided in the AGREEMENT. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: If this amendment is not approved, the County will not be able to accept the new Vasco Road. Continued on Attachment: SIGNATURE: ,✓ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE —APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON WOV 19SMAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOJ OF SUPERVISORS 7// UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PMc:drg 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct Copy of an action takeentered on the minutes; of the g:\design\bo\19.t11 Board of supery cqr In ATTESTED: Contact: Pattie McNamee, (313-2303) oPHIL BATCHELOR.o nClerk tAf"'Hdmim�tor Orig. Div: Public Works (Design Division) cc: Auditor Controller E. Kuevor, CAO P.W. Accounting SECOND AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT1� 1. PARTIES Effective on , 1996, the Contra Costa Water District ("DISTRICT"), and the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California ("COUNTY"), mutually agree and promise as follows: 2. PURPOSE Effective February 15, 1994, the parties entered into an agreement entitled "Cooperative Agreement" (referred to as the "AGREEMENT'). The AGREEMENT covers the design, construction, ownership and maintenance of a new roadway ("REPLACEMENT ROADWAY") to replace a section of Vasco Road. The AGREEMENT has previously been amended as follows: First Amendment dated April 2, 1996. The parties now desire to further amend the AGREEMENT to address additional issues that have arisen during construction and to enable COUNTY to accept the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY into the County Maintained Road System, as provided in the AGREEMENT. 3. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT A. Drainage Releases: Indemnification. In the AGREEMENT, Article I, add the following new Section (39): "Pursuant to Section (9) of this Article, DISTRICT is required to obtain for COUNTY drainage releases from the owners of property abutting the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY for those drainage facilities not in compliance with COUNTY collect and convey requirements. In lieu ofobtaining drainage releases, DISTRICT has proposed to provide to COUNTY indemnification that would protect COUNTY to the same extent as the drainage releases. Accordingly, DISTRICT shall have the option of not obtaining drainage releases from the owners of property abutting the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY, in which case DISTRICT shall defend, indemnify, save and hold harmless COUNTY, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions, including without limitation those for injury to real property, trespass or inverse condemnation, arising from, or in any way connected with, surface water discharged or conveyed from the drainage facilities listed on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The foregoing indemnification provision is intended to provide to COUNTY the same protection as if DISTRICT had obtained drainage releases from abutting property owners." Pg. 1 "If there is any future development or entitlement on property adjacent to the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY, COUNTY as part of the development approval process, will make every attempt to include a condition requiring the developer to provide a drainage release or to collect and convey runoff, in order to relieve DISTRICT from the liability for the surface water discharged or conveyed from the drainage facilities listed on Exhibit A." "The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of the AGREEMENT." B. Paving: Slurry Sealing: In the AGREEMENT, Article I, add the following new Section (40); "Pursuant to Sections (12), (15) and (21) of this Article, DISTRICT is required to construct the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY in accordance with the final PS&E to the satisfaction of COUNTY, to have certain material testing and quality control performed at DISTRICT's expense, and to provide a one-year warranty for the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY. COUNTY has objected to certain paving along the northerly section of the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY from Station 302 to Station 675 (referred to as the "SECTION") and has refused to accept the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY unless the pavement is repaired with a surface treatment to COUNTY's satisfaction. Accordingly, DISTRICT agrees at its sole expense to perform a surface treatment repair for the entire SECTION, subject to COUNTY inspection and approval. "The COUNTY has approved a Type III slurry seal as an acceptable surface treatment repair method if the seal is applied prior to November 15, 1996, and is applied in compliance with the provisions of Section 37-2 of the Caltrans State Standard Specifications, including without limitation the dry pavement and acceptable weather conditions described in Section 37-2.06. "If DISTRICT does not install the slurry seal by November 15, 1996, the pavement in the SECTION may deteriorate further to a condition not appropriate for minor pavement repair and a Type III slurry seal, in which case a more extensive treatment, such as an asphalt overlay (see Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 39), will be required. If, in the sole opinion of COUNTY, a more extensive surface treatment is required for all or a portion of the SECTION, DISTRICT shall perform such work. The surface treatment work shall be completed no later then July 15, 1997. P9.2 "Until such time as the surface treatment work is completed by DISTRICT to COUNTY's satisfaction, DISTRICT shall be responsible for the following: (1) DISTRICT shall perform at its sole expense any and all maintenance required for the pavement in the SECTION, including without limitation emergency repairs. (2) DISTRICT shall obtain from each contractor hired by it to perform maintenance, repair or surface treatment work on the pavement in the SECTION: (a) written indemnification requiring the contractor to defend, indemnify, save and hold harmless COUNTY, its governing body, officers and employees from any and all claims, costs and liability for any damages, injury or death arising directly or indirectly from, or connected with, the contractor's work and due to, or claimed or alleged to be due to, negligence or willful misconduct of the contractor, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors or any person under its direction or control, save and except claims or litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of COUNTY, and requiring the contractor to make good to and reimburse the indemnitees for any expenditures, including reasonable attorney's fees, the indemnitees may make by reason of such matters and, if requested by any of the indemnitees, to defend any such suits at the sole cost and expense of the contractor; (b) Workers' Compensation Insurance pursuant to state law; and (c) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, including blanket contractual (or contractual liability) coverage, broad form property damage coverage, and coverage for owned and non-owned vehicles, with a minimum combined single limit coverage of$1 million for all damages due to bodily injury, sickness or disease, or death to any person, and damage to property, including the loss of use thereof, arising out of each accident or occurrence, and naming COUNTY, its governing body, officers and employees as additional insureds and requiring 30 days'written notice to COUNTY of policy lapse, cancellation or material change in coverage. Before allowing a contractor to begin work, DISTRICT shall be responsible for ensuring that the required indemnification and insurance have been provided and are in force. (3) To the extent not covered by the indemnification or insurance provided by the contractor, DISTRICT shall defend, indemnify, save and hold harmless COUNTY, its governing body, officers and employees from any and all claims, costs and liability for any damages, injury or death arising directly or indirectly from, or connected with, the design, construction, use, operation, repair or maintenance of the pavement in the SECTION, save and except claims or litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of COUNTY, and shall make good to and P9.3 reimburse the indemnitees for any expenditures, including reasonable attorney's fees, the indemnitees may make by reason of such matters and, if requested by any of the indemnitees, to defend any such suits at the sole cost and expense of DISTRICT. A claim that occurs before the surface treatment work is approved by COUNTY but that is not asserted or discovered until after approval shall be deemed to be covered by this subsection. "Should the DISTRICT fail to complete the surface treatment work by July 15, 1997 or fail to perform any other obligation required by this section, the provisions of the third paragraph of Section (21) of Article 1 shall apply to any legal action brought by the COUNTY. DISTRICT's obligation under this section shall terminate upon written notification by County's Public Works Department that the surface treatment work has been completed to County's satisfaction. However, DISTRICT, its contractors and their insurance carriers shall remain responsible for any claims or liabilities that occur before such notification, even if the claims or liabilities are not asserted or discovered until after such notification. C. Rockslope Protection. In the AGREEMENT, Article I, add the following new Section (41): "Pursuant to Sections (12) and (21) of this Article, DISTRICT is required to construct the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY in accordance with the final PS&E to the satisfaction of COUNTY and to provide a one-year warranty for the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY. During the course of construction, a field change was made to eliminate the grout from the rock slope protection below a number of outfall structures. This modification was discussed with but not formally approved by COUNTY. In order to facilitate County's acceptance of the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY into the County Maintained Road System, DISTRICT agrees to provide to COUNTY, prior to COUNTY acceptance of the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY, a letter from the design engineers indicating that this modification will not affect the performance of the rockslope protection, and DISTRICT also agrees that the warranty provided under Section (21) of this Article shall, as to the rockslope protection, last for two years from April 16, 1996." D. Under Crossings. In the AGREEMENT, Article I, add the following new Section (42): "Pursuant to Section (24) of this Article, DISTRICT is required to obtain license agreements, subject to COUNTY review and acceptance, for cattle passes or under crossings which provide passage under the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY. In lieu of obtaining license agreements, DISTRICT has proposed that, subsequent to its conveyance of title to the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY to COUNTY, COUNTY would then grant to DISTRICT, or adjacent property pg.4 owners, revocable easements for the six under crossing structures located within the REPLACEMENT ROADWAY right-of-way. DISTRICT agrees to accept from COUNTY a grant of revocable easement related to each of said structures. COUNTY agrees to accept control of and maintain at its own cost the six under crossings except as provided for otherwise in the Grant of Easement documents. 4. REMAINING PROVISIONS Except as modified by this and prior amendments, all provisions of the AGREEMENT will remain in full force and effect. 5. SIGNATURES These signatures attest the parties' agreement thereto: CONTRA TA TER DISTRICT COUNT F CONT OSTA By: By: President, B Directors C i Bpard of upervisors ATTE T: Secretary ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: � By: � Deputy klerk Approval as to form RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: � > J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director By: Counsel for the District FORM APPROVED: Victor 1. Westman, County Counsel By: IAi"W. David F. Schmidt Deputy County Counsel PMc:ly gAMcmd-ca.vas [11/961 pg-5 Vasco Road Drainage Exhibit A August 20, 1996 Page 1 Page D-2 Station 270+23: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-3 Station 296+11: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-4 No station given: see detail "A": This does not meet the CCR. *** Station 314+13: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-5 Station 322+73: This outfall is not built to our B-50 standards. While the easement provided goes to the creek, the riprap falls decidedly short. Consequently, we would not recommend acceptance, as significant erosion (including sedimentation into Brushy Creek) could occur. While the damage would not affect the rancher, we could be liable for the related sedimentation in Brushy Creek and be fined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. We do not recommend this outfall be considered to meet the CCR. Page D-6 Station 340+30: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Neither adequate easement area nor rock slope protection exist to meet the CCR. Station 343+75: This outfall does not meet the CCR for the reasons stated in Sta.340+30. Station 344+90: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-7 Station 345+95: This outlet does not meet the CCR. The rock slope protection does not reach down into the creek, and therefore does not meet the CCR. "** Page D- 8 Station 361+15, 364+86, 371+00, and 374+70: All of these outfalls discharge into the Pescadero Wetlands. Brushy Creek lies on the other side of the road. The wetlands does not constitute a natural watercourse by out ordinance definition of"definable bed and banks." Page D-9 G. 7 Vasco Road Drainage Exhibit A August 20, 1996 Page 2 Station 379+11: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-10 - Station 402+58: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-11, 12, 13, & 14 None of the facilities on these pages meet the CCR. Page D-15 Station 466+72, 476+50, 479+50: These outfalls do not meet the CCR. The systems would have to have been in a pipe, within an adequate easement, and would have to have B-50 outfalls into Frisk Creek to meet the necessary criteria. Page D-16 None of the outfalls on this page meet the CCR. Page D-18 Station 511+85: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-19 Station 535+38: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-20 Station 546+88: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-22 - Station 571+86: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-23 Station 599+00: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-24 Station Approx. 603+75: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page D-26 Stations 632+47 and 636+50: These outfalls do not meet the CCR. Page DG-11 Station 147+80: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Also, there is an additional Vasco Road Drainage Exhibit A August 20, 1996 Page 3 pipe placed here that is currently not shown on these plans. The outfall could be modified to meet the CCR, but would require revised plans. Page DG-12 Station 157+30: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Also, an additional pipe was installed that is not shown on the plans. As-builts need to be made. The easement area only goes to the access road, and does not include the pipe or outlet to the stock pond. Page DG -13 Station 166+30: This outfall does not meet the CCR. The outfall falls short of the area where there are definable bed and banks. There is not enough rock to handle the transition and there is an additional pipe placed here not shown on the plans. This outfall could be modified to meet the CCR and the plans revised. Page DG-14 Station 180+00: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page DG-15 Station 196+60: This outfall does not meet the CCR. There is a slip out in the bank and the rock outfall falls short of where the creek meets definable bed and banks. To meet the CCR, we recommend that the rock be enhanced to adequately protect the immediate outfall area and reach to the actual creek. *** Station 199+55: This outfall does not meet the CCR. Page DG-17 The outfall with Note 24 attached meets the CCR. The outfall with Note 27 attached does not meet the CCR. Because of the outfall's proximity to the creek, however, the outfall could be modified to meet the CCR.