Date post: | 04-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | palisadian-post |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 40
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
1/40
DS-104 TASK FORCE
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
2/40
Agenda
Housekeeping
October 31 Meeting
Process overview
Follow-up information from last meeting
Collect Task Force identified sites
Review of preferred sites
Site selection for next meeting
Wrap up
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
3/40
Process Overview
There is not a perfect site and all sites require
some trade-offs.
The goal of these meetings are to help you to
understand all of the trade-offs, so you can makean informed recommendation.
We are working through a process to find the best
sites, which will be presented at a communitymeeting for further consideration.
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
4/40
Process Overview
The immediate task is to identify about 4 sites that
would be acceptable to this Task Force based on all
known constraints, challenges, and trade-offs
To do this, all sites will be categorized into 3 tiersbased on Task Force discretion
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
5/40
Site Tiers
Tier 1 Sites
Best sites as
identified
by the TaskForce
Tier 3 Sites
Sites
identified
as notcompatible
with the
community
Tier 2 Sites
Sites that
could be
consideredonly if none
of Tier 1 is
viable
To be presented at
the Community
Workshop
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
6/40
Step-by-Step
This week we are providing you detailed
information on your top 4 sites
At the end of this meeting, the Task Force will
decide what 4-6 should be reviewed at the nextmeeting in greater detail
Original list
Task Force identified sites Following week will be either another site review, or
begin ranking
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
7/40
Getting to a recommendation
Once the group has 4 sites for consideration, the
public workshop can occur
Understanding the tradeoffs, you will make a
recommendation based upon your discretion using: Community input
DWPs technical recommendations
DWP staff will not tier the sites, nor come up withyour recommendation
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
8/40
About the facilitator
My job is to usher a process that benefits the
community and DWP, not to push you towards a site
As a planner by background, my focus is to give
you all the tools you need to make a planningdecision, bringing you the tools planners in my
office use in these assignments
The focus of my practice working with task forcesand stakeholder groups is to find right-fit and
sometimes third way solutions
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
9/40
Facilitation Clients
LA County
Parks and Recreation
Public Works
Flood Control District
SCAG
CA State Parks
US Navy
FEMA CA Department of
Toxic Substances
San Bernardino County
Cities:
San Diego
Long Beach
Carlsbad
San Marcos
Laguna Hills
Imperial Beach Alexandria, VA
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
10/40
LA County Parks and Recreation
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
11/40
Project Basics
LA County Parks and Recreation had the
opportunity to receive grant funding to develop
off-highway vehicle facilities (dirt bikes, quads,
4x4s) The OHV community felt they were in desperate
need of new facilities locally
Environmental groups were largely opposed to theidea of dedicating open space areas for OHV use
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
12/40
Process
Completed an assessment of all OHV facilities inSouthern California
Took the committee to different types of facilities to
see if any could be compatible within LA County
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
13/40
Results
Group identified:
Training tracks in industrial areas could be compatible
in LA County
Needed trail linkages between existing trails and USFStrails
Staging areas needed for trails
Planning Guidelines were established to support
identified needs
Built consensus on approach that both sides of the
issue could be comfortable with
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
14/40
New Sites
Task Force presentation of new sites
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
15/40
Site Details
Top
Sites:
3
4
9
10
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
16/40
Site 3 Assessor Information
Location:
16931 Pacific Coast Hwy.
Site Characteristics: Vacant
Proximity: 2,447 feet
Size: 1.10 acres
APN: 4415-033-001
Use Code: 010V - Residential Vacant
Land
Last Owner Change: 04/04/07
Last Sale Amount: $0
Assessed Land Value: $545,321
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
17/40
Site 3 Planning and Zoning
Zoning: Residential Estate (RE40-1)
General Plan Land Use:
Minimum Residential
Hillside Area (Zoning Code): Yes
Baseline Hillside Ordinance: Yes
500 Ft School Zone: No
500 Ft Park Zone: No
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
18/40
Site 3 Additional Information
Coastal Zone Commission Authority
Coastal Zone
Dual Jurisdictional Coastal Zone
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Special Grading Area
Landslide Area
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
19/40
Site 3 Feasibility
Real Estate Available? Yes, property is currently for saleLand Use: Zoning? Conditional Use Permit is required
as property is zoned for residentialAccess to ConnectingCircuits? Long Runs (Roughly =Conductor 5500 ft and Conduit 3500 ft)Access for Major Equipment
deliveries? Small Residential Street may prove to be difficult indelivering large transformers and other largematerials and construction equipment
Geology: Mitigation work
required?
Yes, site is composed of all landslide debris.
Extensive work will be required Retaining Walls? Yes, large retaining wall will be required facing PCH
to get pad near the same elevation of Mantua Road Soil Stabilization? Yes, Site has a history of landslides
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
20/40
Site 3 Feasibility (cont.)
Public Works improvements Required? NoSite Configuration? Rectangular or Square? Yes Irregular? No Steep? Yes, 100 ft elevation change from
front of lot to back close to PCH Flat? NoGrading Required? Extensive; Site is sloping to
PCH with no flat land to utilizeView Shed Issues? YesRoom for Landscaping Improvements? Small Area as the site is only 1.1 acres
much of which will be sloped
Development restrictions? Known Easements? None Other? None known at this time
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
21/40
Site 4 Assessor Information
Location:
16970 &16948 Sunset Blvd., and 125
N. Marquez Pl.
Site Characteristics: Vacant
Proximity: 1,999 feetSize: 4.04 acres
APN: 4415-022-007, 4415-023-009,
4415-023-010
Use Code: 010V - Residential Vacant Land
Last Owner Change: 04/11/89
Last Sale Amount: $10,050,099($3,350,033 per APN lot)
Assessed Land Value:
$1,123,168 + $3,318,378 + $561,562
= $5,003,108
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
22/40
Site 4 Planning and Zoning
Zoning: Residential Estate (RE40-1)
General Plan Land Use:
Low/Medium Residential
Hillside Area (Zoning Code): Yes
Baseline Hillside Ordinance: Yes (No
on two lots)
500 Ft School Zone: No
500 Ft Park Zone:
Will Rogers State Beach
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
23/40
Site 4 Additional Information
Coastal Zone Commission Authority
Coastal Zone
Dual Jurisdictional Coastal Zone
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Special Grading Area
Landslide Area
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
24/40
Site 4 Feasibility
Real Estate Available? YesLand Use: Zoning? Conditional Use Permit is required as
property is zoned for residentialAccess to Connecting Circuits? Adjacent, (Roughly= Conductor 3700 ft.
and Conduit 400 ft.)Access for Major Equipment
deliveries? Major Street Access and minor street accessGeology: Mitigation work required? Yes, historic landslides on the site. There is a
potential problem of an active fault(Malibu Coast Fault or as the State identified
Alquist-Priolo active fault) on the site Retaining Walls? Yes, Landslides can be mitigated
with soldier pile wall system Soil Stabilization? Yes
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
25/40
Site 4 Feasibility (cont.)
Public Works improvements Required? NoSite Configuration? Rectangular or Square? No Irregular? Yes, Station would need to be configured in a
long rectangle Steep? Yes, portions of the site are steep.
A 50 ft. drop in the middle of the site Flat? NoGrading Required? Yes, depending upon final site configuration
access roads may need to be builtView Shed Issues? Yes, Coastal Commission cited in earlier
reports possible view shed issuesRoom for Landscaping Improvements? Large Area can be landscaped to aid in
mitigation of the stationDevelopment restrictions?
Known Easements? None
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
26/40
Site 9 Assessor Information
Location:
390 N Los Liones Dr.
Site Characteristics: Vacant State Park
Land
Proximity: 1,310 feet
Size: 5.36 acres
APN: 4416-002-901
Use Code: 8800 Government Owned
Last Owner Change: 06/30/77Last Sale Amount: $0
Assessed Land Value: $344,559
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
27/40
Site 9 Planning and Zoning
Zoning: Residential Estate (RE15)
& Open Space (OS)
General Plan Land Use:
Very Low II Residential
Hillside Area (Zoning Code): Yes
Baseline Hillside Ordinance: Yes
500 Ft School Zone: No
500 Ft Park Zone: No
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
28/40
Site 9 Additional Information
Part of Topanga State Park
Coastal Zone Commission Authority
Coastal Zone
Watercourse
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Special Grading Area
Landslide and Liquefaction Area
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
29/40
Site 9 Feasibility
Real Estate Available? No, State owned property. Part of the State ParkLand Use: Zoning? CUPAccess to Connecting
Circuits? Medium Run (Roughly [site 9B data]=Conductor 8100 ft and Conduit 800 ft )Access for Major
Equipment deliveries? Street Access via Los LionesGeology: Mitigation work
required?
Possibly, the northwest portion of the site has
a mapped landslide. The site is identified for
future landslides and liquefaction Retaining Walls? Yes, minor walls Soil Stabilization? Yes, depending upon location
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
30/40
Site 9 Feasibility (cont.)
Public Works improvements
Required? NoSite Configuration? Rectangular or Square? No
Irregular?
Yes, highly variable dependingupon actual location selected
Steep? No, some slope to the site Flat? No, some slope to the siteGrading Required? YesView Shed Issues? YesRoom for Landscaping
Improvements? Large Area can be used to landscapeDevelopment restrictions?
Known Easements? None
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
31/40
Site 10 Assessor Information
Location:
300 Via Nicholas
Site Characteristics: Vacant
Proximity: 2,537 feet
Size: 0.99 acres
APN: 4416-002-015
Last Owner Change: 12/30/04
Last Sale Amount: $0
Assessed Land Value: $2,829,880
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
32/40
Site 10 Planning and Zoning
Zoning: Residential Estate (RE15)
General Plan Land Use:
Very Low II Residential
Hillside Area (Zoning Code): Yes
Baseline Hillside Ordinance: Yes
500 Ft School Zone: No
500 Ft Park Zone: No
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
33/40
Site 10 Additional Information
Would require a smaller footprint for
DS layout and slope stabilization
Coastal Zone Commission Authority
Coastal Zone
Watercourse Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Special Grading Area
Landslide Area
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
34/40
Site 10 Feasibility
Real Estate Available? No, recently sold in March 2012.Land Use: Zoning? Conditional Use Permit is required as
property is zoned for residentialAccess to Connecting
Circuits?Long Run (Roughly = Conductor 10,000 ft
and Conduit 1500 ft )Access for Major Equipment
deliveries? Tight Small Residential StreetGeology: Mitigation work
required?
Some work has been performed by previous owner.
That work must coincide with the station configuration
and underground duct work coming into the site Retaining Walls? Yes, there are some existing walls. Some may
remain while others may need to be reworked
depending on station configuration
Soil Stabilization?
Possibly due to station configuration
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
35/40
Site 10 Feasibility (cont.)
Public Works improvements
Required? Possibly as Via Nicholas is not an improvedstreet and Paseo Miramar is paved but someimprovement will need to be done. Also
Via Nicholas has drifted onto State land.
Site Configuration? Rectangular or Square? No Irregular? Yes, although closer to rectangular than not Steep? No, site is partially developed but may need to be
expanded to get the pad size required for the station Flat? NoGrading Required?
Yes
View Shed Issues? Yes, homes above will look directly into the stationRoom for Landscaping
Improvements? Some Area depending upon site configurationDevelopment restrictions? Known Easements? None
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
36/40
Summary
Site 3 Site 4 Site 9 Site 10
Real Estate Available? Yes Yes No No
Land Use/Zoning? CUP CUP CUP CUP
Access to ConnectingCircuits?
Long Run Short run Medium Run Long Run
Access for Major
Equipment deliveries?
Small
Residential
Street
Major Street
Access
Street
Access
Tight Small
Residential Street
Geology: Mitigation work
required?
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Retaining Walls? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Soil Stabilization? Yes Yes Yes Yes
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
37/40
Summary Continued
Site 3 Site 4 Site 9 Site 10Public Works improvements
Required? No No No NoSite Configuration? Rectangular or Square? Yes No No No Irregular? No Yes Yes Yes Steep? Yes Yes No No Flat? No No No NoGrading Required? Extensive Yes Yes YesView Shed Issues? Yes Yes Yes YesRoom for Landscaping
Improvements? Small Area Large Area Large Area Some AreaDevelopment restrictions?
Known Easements? None None None None
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
38/40
Cost Breakdown
Site 8 Site 11 Site 4 Site 9 Site 10
Similar to Site 3 (Parcel 9B)
Design Cost Estimate
Geotech $200,000 $175,000 $200,000 $150,000 $200,000
Civil $122,346 $131,877 $122,346 $122,346 $166,977
Structural $320,000 $333,333 $333,333 $333,000 $333,333
Architectural $900,000 $700,000 $850,000 $750,000 $950,000Electrical $1,144,250 $1,144,250 $1,144,250 $1,144,250 $1,144,250
Total: $2,686,596 $2,484,460 $2,649,929 $2,499,596 $2,794,560
Construction Cost Estimate
Real Estate $7,000,000 $16,000,000 $13,500,000 $1,760,000 $3,595,000
Civil $896,230 $714,851 $989,402 $861,487 $1,037,792
Structural $7,100,000 $7,700,000 $7,700,000 $7,700,000 $7,700,000
Structural-SoilStabilization $9,954,718 $3,791,050 $1,680,000 $3,794,245 $3,500,800
Architectural $1,000,000 $950,000 $870,000 $1,000,000 $1,130,000
Electrical $9,930,250 $9,930,250 $9,930,250 $9,930,250 $11,474,500
Electrical-Feeder $4,400,000 $3,500,000 $2,600,000 $4,100,000 $6,200,000
Total: $40,281,198 $42,586,151 $37,269,652 $29,145,982 $34,638,092
Total Cost Estimate $42,900,000 $45,000,000 $39,900,000 $31,600,000 $37,400,000
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
39/40
Next Sites
Identify sites you would like more information
on.
Determine if there is other information you
would like to have presented to you.
7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)
40/40
Wrap Up
Questions
Next Meeting: October 30, 2012