task force meeting (october 17, 2012)

7/29/2019 Task Force meeting (October 17, 2012)

1/40

DS-104 TASK FORCE


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


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.


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


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


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


7/40

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


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


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


10/40

LA County Parks and Recreation


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


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


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


14/40

New Sites

Task Force presentation of new sites


15/40

Site Details

Top

Sites:

3

4

9

10


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


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


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


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


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


21/40


Location:

16970 &16948 Sunset Blvd., and 125

N. Marquez Pl.


Proximity: 1,999 feetSize: 4.04 acres

APN: 4415-022-007, 4415-023-009,

4415-023-010

Use Code: 010V - Residential Vacant Land


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


22/40


Zoning: Residential Estate (RE40-1)


Low/Medium Residential


Baseline Hillside Ordinance: Yes (No

on two lots)


500 Ft Park Zone:

Will Rogers State Beach


23/40



Coastal Zone

Dual Jurisdictional Coastal Zone



Landslide Area


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


25/40


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


26/40


Location:

390 N Los Liones Dr.

Site Characteristics: Vacant State Park

Land


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


27/40


Zoning: Residential Estate (RE15)

& Open Space (OS)


Very Low II Residential






28/40


Part of Topanga State Park


Coastal Zone

Watercourse



Landslide and Liquefaction Area


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


30/40


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


31/40


Location:

300 Via Nicholas



Size: 0.99 acres

APN: 4416-002-015


Last Sale Amount: $0

Assessed Land Value: $2,829,880


32/40


Zoning: Residential Estate (RE15)


Very Low II Residential






33/40


Would require a smaller footprint for

DS layout and slope stabilization


Coastal Zone

Watercourse Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone


Landslide Area


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


35/40


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


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


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


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


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.


40/40

Wrap Up

Questions

Next Meeting: October 30, 2012

task force meeting (october 17, 2012)

Documents