HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0516 CC REG ITEM 11CPAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr.
Mayor
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Mayor Pro Tern
ELOISE BROWN
Councilmember
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
BERNARDO M. PEREZ
Councilmember
LILLIAN KELLERMAN
City Clerk
1 7q.19
MOORPARK ITEM�L�.
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
JORPARK, CALIFORNIA CHERYL J. KANE
City Cou II Meefing City Attorney
of -'' �P ATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Director of
ACTION: Community Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public o
�#
DATE: April 20, 1990 (Council Meeting 5-2-90)
SUBJECT: A Request from CALTRANS to Consider Acceptance of
the Responsibility for the Issuance of Encroachment
Permits for Work on State Highways
OVERVIEW
This report discusses a request from CALTRANS to consider
entering into an Agreement with the State of California to
provide for the transfer of the authority and responsibility
for issuance of Encroachment Permits (and the inspection
relating thereto) for certain types of construction, repair
and maintenance work on State Highways within the City.
DISCUSSION
A. Background
Some months ago the City received a letter from CALTRANS
expressing some interest in the concept of delegating
authority and responsibility to the City for the issuance and
inspection of certain types of State Highway Encroachment
Permits. Being always interested in cutting red -tape and
streamlining the often laborious process surrounding this
process, staff agreed to meet with CALTRANS to further discuss
the concept.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
CALTRANS Permits
May 2, 1990
Page 2
A meeting was held at CALTRANSI offices in Los Angeles. The
meeting clarified certain aspects of the proposal, but raised
even more questions. A letter (Exhibit 1) was sent to
CALTRANS listing those questions and asking for clarification
of certain matters. At this point staff was merely attempting
to determine the scope (types of work) of the proposed
program, and the process (procedures, standards, etc.)
required to administer it. It was the intent of staff to
discuss the question of liability with the City Attorney at
the appropriate time, when and if the program appeared to be
worth exploring further.
A response (Exhibit 2) to our questions was received early
this month.
B. Analysis
After reviewing all of the information received from CALTRANS
on this matter, staff offers the following observations:
WHAT: The program would be limited to minor projects
(signs, awnings, banners, sidewalk drains, sidewalk
repairs, s. f. residential driveways, etc.). All
major projects (drainage improvements, commercial
driveways, traffic signals, etc.) would still be
handled by Caltrans. The scope of the type of
projects to be delegated would be determined by
CALTRANS. This list would be subject to future
reviewed and amendment by CALTRANS.
HOW: The program would involve the adoption of procedures
requiring the use of CALTRANS' forms and the routing
of all permit applications and issued permits to
CALTRANS. At any time CALTRANS would have the right
to usurp the City's authority on any given permit or
category of work.
The Engineering Standards to be employed would be
CALTRANS standards unless the City agrees to accept
the responsibility for all future maintenance and
liability associated with any improvements
constructed under the permit.
CALTRANS Permits
May 2, 1990
Page 3
WHO: Only five (5) CALTRANS Encroachment Permits were
issued to the City last year. Five times that number
were issued to Developers, Utilities, etc. The
program would have the City administering the permit
process serving these clients.
C. Conclusion
As stated earlier, staff entered into this dialogue with
CALTRANS in hopes of simplifying the process surrounding the
issuance of permits for work within the State right-of-way.
The program being proposed by Caltrans, however, accomplished
just the opposite. Very little in the way of local control
and discretion is offered. CALTRANS would control the types
of projects to be included, and would dictate the methods and
procedures to be employed. And in exchange, the City of
Moorpark would assume the day-to-day work load for not only
City initiated work, but also for work initiated by developers
and utility companies. And, most importantly, by being
included in the approval loop for permit issuance and
administration, the City enters into a realm of liability
exposure which is troubling. It would seem to be difficult to
structure an agreement and related procedures which would
limit the City's liability to its own acts and omissions. And
even if this were possible, the numbers and types of vehicles
traveling the City streets designated State Routes, offers a
level of liability exposure which is atypical of a community
our size. The program offers many more potential costs than
benefits.
RECOMMENDATION
The program, as presently described, does not really delegate
any authority to the local authority. It only succeeds in
delegating responsibility and liability. For this reason it
is recommended that staff be directed to send a letter to the
appropriate CALTRANS officials stating that:
1) the City declines participation in the program as
proposed; and that,
2) in the event CALTRANS ever considers developing a
program designed to truly delegate authority to the
local agency, the City would be interested in re -opening
discussions.
MOORPARK
PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr.
Mayor
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Mayor Pro Tern
ELOISE BROWN
Councilmember
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
BERNARDO M.PEREZ
Councilmember
LILLIAN KELLERMAN
City Clerk
February 21, 1990
Caltrans
District 7
120 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Att: Fred Fujimoto
District Permit Engineer
re: Encroachment Permits
Caltrans Right -of -Way
Delegation to Local Agency
Dear Fred,
Thank you for inviting John Knipe
discuss the subject proposal.
interesting and is one well worth
aXWt17 L [ I.a�2)
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYLJ.KANE
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Director of
Community Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
and myself to your office to
The concept sounds very
pursuing.
Mr. Knipe and I would like to discuss this plan in detail with
the City Manager, and possibly the City Council. To properly
do this we need to develop a concise Program Description
outlining the essential elements of the program. Could you
please take the time to answer the questions and/or confirm the
assumptions listed below.
1. Could you please provide us with a draft list of the types
of work which would be subject to the Agreement? I think
Mr. Boyer had the "beginnings" of such a list.
2. Based on Moorpark history, do you have an idea of how many
projects (permit applications) per year, for work within
Caltrans right-of-way, initiated by both private parties
and the City of Moorpark, would be eligible for processing
under this new program? In that the list of the types of
projects you mentioned seemed to be quite limited, our fear
is that the number of applications could be very few. If
this is true, it would appear that the effort required to
create this new program may not be warranted.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
r
EYIaIIK17 L ( 2 ev 2)
Fred Fujimoto
Delegation of Permits
Page 2
3. We discussed the possibility of using local standards for
the types of minor improvements which would be subject to
the Agreement. Is this possible or would the Agreement
require such work to comply with the Caltrans Green Book?
4. It is our presumption that, with one exception, we could
utilize our present Encroachment Permit forms, procedures,
personnel, fee structure, etc. for the administration of
this program. The exception would be the need for a
management review of all candidate projects in order to
verify that they fall within the scope of the Agreement and
are thus eligibility.
As we discussed, the matters pertaining to liability will be
referred to the City Attorney for review.
Again, thank you for attempting to explain your process to us.
Our meeting and tour were quite informative. If you have any
questions regarding our questions, please give John or I a call.
Yours T ly
Kenneth C. Gilbert
Director of Public Works
cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager
John Knipe, Assistant City Engineer
Chuck Boyer, Chief / Permits Branch
Fx pAiBI-r z C i o� 9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
TDD (213) 620-3550
Telephone: (213) 620-2206
April 3, 1990
Ref: C-93
Delegation of
Issuance/Insp.
Mr. Kenneth C. Gilbert
Director of Public Works
City of Moorpark
Moorpark, CA 93021
Attention: Kenneth Gilbert
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
It was a pleasure meeting with you and John Knipe to discuss the
aspect of delegation of issuance and inspection of encroachment
permits for projects on Conventional highways within your City.
Your letter of February 21, 1990 requested further information to
further assist you in the merits of permit delegation. The
following is in response to your questions:
1. Types of work subject to an Agreement. Although not limited to
the original list discussed at our meeting, attached is a list
of permit types offered for delegation. The types not proposed
for delegation have been also included. These more complex
permits will normally require extensive review by the District
and therefore would not lend themselves to delegation. The
agreement with your City will indicate the encroachment permit
types that are to be delegated.
2. Permits per year processed within or adjacent to Caltrans
right-of-way. In the City of Moorpark for the 1989 Calendar
Year the breakdown of permits processed were:
RECEIVED
APR 0 9 90
CITY OF MOORPARK
ExI�I%1—t" 2 ( Z o5" a)
Mr. Kenneth C. Gilbert
Page 2
April 3, 1990
Cityof Moorpark......... ..................... 5
Others (Developers - Utility Companies, etc) .... 25
Approx. Total 30
Permits/Year
This figure is only representative for the 1989 Calendar year
and may vary from year to year depending on planned
development and utility work affecting the State Highways
within the City.
3. Using local standards for types of minor improvements. As
discussed in our meeting this is permissible if the City is
willing to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability
(concurred therein by Moorpark City Council). If the City
standards are more stringent than Caltrans standards, then
this requirement would not apply.
4. Utilization of Encroachment - Permit Forms. Statewide policy
requires the use of Departmental forms augmented by special
notations that the City may require for filing purposes. The
fees ($60/hr.) normally are optional as the City may wish to
use their own fee schedule. Logistics of fee collection,
numbering, filing, filming, etc. will need to be addressed.
The City may use their own numbering system but a copy of each
permit application and ensuing permit approval must be sent to
Caltrans for its files.
Should there be further clarification needed, please give me a
call at (213) 620-4013. In the sample agreement attached, please
note references to other items such as files, copies, Notices of
Completion, As -built plans. I look forward to hearing from you in
the near future.
Sincerely,
FRED FUJY OTO
District. ermit Engineer -Office
Attachment
X-Z. (S6M
PERMIT TYPES - DELEGATION/NON-DELEGATION*
1. Potential Permit Types for Delegation (Item III -A)
a. Signs - highway (no parking -temporary signing for events
etc.)
b. Marquees
C. Awnings
d. Banners and Decorations
e. Replace and/or repair of existing curbs, gutter &
sidewalks
f. Roof drains (modification of existing)
g. Sidewalk drains
h. Replacement/repair of single family driveways
i. Mailboxes (using Federal requirement)
j. Parades (routine types)
k. Traffic counts
2. Types not to be delegated
a. Commercial Development
b. Drainage features
C. Utility -covered by annuals to permittee
d. Signals/Lighting
e. Commercial Driveways
*Subject to change during agreement negotiations.
XEROX TELECOPIER 295 : 3-28-90: 3:50 PM: HO PERMIT OFFICE 8640294 : # 2
MAR 28 190 16:25 HO PERMIT OFFICE 86e P02
1)
N = �JL-Ll
AGREEMENT WITH (CITY/COUNTY OF TO ISSUE ROUTINE
1-1;'NMIT;5 UN (:UNVENTIONAL HIGHWAYS
x-7 c'� okdt
ENCROACHMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in duplicate this day of
19 , by and between the State of California acting by and through tha
Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as State and the
Wity/C'nunt.y of ) hereinafter referred to as (City/County).
WITNESSETH:
A. RECITALS
The Parties hereto desire to provide for the (City/County) to perform
particular encroachment permit functions on (designated State highways)
within the jurisdictional limits of (City/County), to wit, the issuance
of routine encroachment permits and the control and inspection of work
performed pursuant to said permits, as provided for in Sections 130 and
676 of'the Streets and Highways Code.
B. AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall supersede any previous AGREEMENT WITH
CITY/COUNTY OF TO ISSUE ROUTINE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS ON
STATE HIGHWAYS and/or AMENDMENTS thereto.
C. In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained
it is mutually agreed that (City/County);
1. Shall use State's Standard Encroachment Permit forms.
2. Shall follow State's policies as contained in State's Encroachment
Permit Manual. A copy of said Manual will be furnished upon execution of
this Agreement.
3. Shall follow State's design standards unless (City/County's)
standards are more restrictive. In the event of conflict as to
interpretation, State's standards shall apply.
4. May issue Encroachment Permits for the following routine
encroachments without State's prior approval.:
a.
b.
c. (etc.)
5. Shall collect sufficient fees from the permittee to cover its cost
of permit administration, inspection and other permit_ related costs. No
cost. for (City/County) administration, review or inspection shall be charged
to or borne by the State.
1
XEROX I ELEC;UP I EH 29b J-28-9U; :S: bU YM; HU HEHM I I OFF ICE 4 8640294 # 3
MAR 28 190 16:26 HO PERMIT OFFICE see P03
.�� Q• VJt' c> tilt-� Y- 2 (5 4 R )
6. ( i4' y/Caunl.y) 411,A11 aa:Jign guelil,.t-d persunnel to review permit
application, plans and specifications, to revise plans and produce permit
with appropriate specifications, and to provide construction inspection or
monitoring and conduct final inspection of all work performed within the
highway right of way.
7. Shall keep on file, subject to State's inspection, all permits
issued on State highways; and shall forward copies of all issued permits,
along with Notices of Completion, As -Built plans (if any) and all other
related data to State's District Permit Engineer immediately upon completion
of the work permitted or upon the expiration of the permit.
D. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Nothing in the provisions of this agreement is intended to created
duties or obligations to or, rights in third parties not parties to this
contract or affect the legal liability of either party to the contract by
imposing any standard of care respecting the maintenance of State highways
different from the standard of care imposed by law.
It is understood and agreed that neither the STATE nor any officer or
employee is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by the (CITY/COUNTY) under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the
(CITY/COUNTY) under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that
Pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4 (CITY/COUNTY) shall defend,
indemnify and save harmless the State of California, all officers and
employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and
description brought for or in account of injuries to or death of any person
or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by
the (CITY/COUNTY) under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction delegated to the (CITY/COUNTY) under this agreement.
The (CITY/COUNTY) waives any and all rights to any type of express and
implied indemnity against the STATE, its officers and employees arising from
any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the (CITY/COUNTY) under
this agreement.
E. TERMS OF AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT shall become effective and shall remain
in full force and effect until amended or terminated.
This Agreement may be amended or terminated at anytime upon mutual
consent of the parties hereto. This Agreement may also be terminated by
either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party.
h
XEROX TELECOPIER 295 ; 3-28-90; 3:51 PM; HQ PERMIT OFFICE 8640294 ; # 4
MAP 28 190 16:26 HO PERMIT OFFICE 888 PO4
ror C% t,• t.� �C 2 C (o
I27 tVlm2d�D3 4Jri1'ltL"bl�, r-he parties nereto have set their. hands and
seals the day and year first above written.
Approved as to form and procedure
Attorney
Department of Transportation
City/County Attorney
(CITY/COUNTY) OF
BY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY
i
XEROX TELECOPIER 295 ; 3-28-90; 3:51 PM; HO PERMIT OFFICE
MAR c^o '90 16:27 HQ PERMIT OFFICE
888 F05
Agdn7Qd : * 6
8640294 ; # 5
X-L C-7 49)
AGREEMENT WITH (CITY/COUNTY OF ) TO TSAUE MAJOR ENCROACHMENT
PERMITS ON CONVENTIONAL STATE HIGHWAYS
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in duplicate this day of
. 15 , by and between the State of California acting by and through
the Department Of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as State and the
(City/County of _ ) hereinafter referred to as (City/County).
WITNESSETH:
A. RECITALS:
The parties hereto desire to provide for (City/County) to perform
Particular encroachment permit functions on (designated State highways
within the jurisdictional limits Of' (City/County)), to wit, the issuance of
encroachment permits for major projects and the control and inspection of
work done pursuant to said permits, as provided for in Sections 130 and 676
of the Streets and Highways Code.
B. AGREEMENT:
This Agreement shall supersede any previous AGREEMENT WITH (CITY/
COUNTY OP ) TO ISSUE MAJOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS ON STATE HIGHWAYS
and/or AMENDMENTS thereto.
C. In consideration of the mutual. covenants and promises herein
contained:
1. (CITY/COUNTY) shall use State's standard encroachment permit forms;
shall follow State's policies as contained in State's Encroachment Permit
Manual (a copy of said Manual will be furnished upon execution of this
Agreement); and shall follow State's design standards unless (City/County's)
standards are more restrictive.
2. Major encroachment permits are deemed to be the following:
a.
b. (etc.)
All requests for encroachment permits other than routine permits, the
subject of a separate Agreement, and those described hereinabove, shall be
issued directly by State without. (City/County) participation.
3. (City/County) shall review, prepare and sign all proposed major
encroachment permits and forward them to State's District Permit Engineer
for his approval, disapproval or required changes_ Upon final approval,
State shall return the permit to (City/County) which shall then issue
the permit.
1
XEROX TELECOPIER 295 ; 3-28-90; 3:52 PM; HO PERMIT OFFICE 8640294 ; # 6
MAR 28 190 16:27 HO PERMIT OFFICE 888 P06
X-Z ('s *�9�
4. State shall keep adequate records of the cost of review and will
submit a Statement of the amount to be billed to (City/County) with l.11e
approved permit. (City/County) shall collect sufficient fees from the
per.mi.ttee to cover the cost of State's review in addition to all
(City/County) costs incurred by reasons of issuing the permit.
(City/County) shall reimburse State for its costs of review. No review
charges will be assessed, by State, to public agency permits.
5. (City/County) shall assign qualified personnel to review permit.
application, plans and specifications, to revise plans and produce permit
with appropriate specifications, and to provide construction inspection or
monitoring and conduct final inspection of all work performed within the
highway right of way. Upon completion (City/County) shall notify State
inspector for final inspection and acceptance.
6. State may, at its discretion, assign State personnel to monitor
major encroachment permit projects under this Agreement. State shall not
bill (City/County) for this activi.ty. (City/County's) inspector shall
cooperate fully with State's inspector. In the event of conflict, the
decision of State's inspector regarding work performed within the right of
way of a State highway shall be final.
7. (City/County) shall forward a copy of each permit issued at the
time of issuance. Immediately after completion and acceptance of the work
permitted, (City/County) shall forward Notice of Completion, As -built Plans
(if any) and other additional data to State's District Permit_ Engineer.
D. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. _Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof shall be
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done
or omitted to be done by (CITY/COUNTY) under or in connection with any work,
authority or jurisdiction not delegated to STATE under this agreement. It
is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4 (CITY/COUNTY)
shall fully indemnify and hold STATE harmless from any liability imposed for
injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by (CITY/COUNTY) under or in connection
with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to STATE under
this agreement.
2. Neither (CITY/COUNTY) nor any officer or employee thereof shall. be
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done
or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work,
authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this agreement. It is
also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall
fully indemnify and hold (CITY/COUNTY) harmless from any liability imposed
for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason
of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with
any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this
agreement.
2
XEROX TELECOPIER 295 ; 3-28-90; 3:53 PM; HQ PERMIT OFFICE 8640294 # 7
MAR 28 190 16:28 HQ PERMIT OFFICE 686 P07
X'Z ( Q a�Cq)
E. TERM OF AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT shall. become effective_ _ and shall
remain in full force and effect until amended or terminated.
This Agreement may be amended or terminated at anytime upon mutual.
consent of the parties hereto.. This Agreement may also be terminated by
either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals
the day and year first above written.
Approved as to form and procedure
Attorney
Department of Transportation
C1 y County Attorney
(CITY/COUNTY) OF
BY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY
3