Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 0215 CC REG ITEM 11E ILE COPY r►a 30�); MOORPARK ITEM I I . E. ELOISE BROWN STEVEN KUENY �%��^. City Manager Mayor o��/�•i r° CHERYL J. KANE BERMa Mayor Pro PEREZ �� City Attorney A Tern ��.A CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. - ��, 'ewe PATRICK RICHARDS,ctorofA.I.C.P. Councilmember y•W Director of ,/ Community Development PAUL LAWRASONmemberR. DENNIS DELZEIT Councilmember City Engineer SCOTT MONTGOMERYmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE CHARDT. HARE Chief of Police RICHARD as er City Treasurer MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: February�l0 1989,' (CC meeting of 2/15/89) SUBJECT: C ENERAL PEAN=UPDATEYCARL_SBERG, SPECIF.IC.PLANr-CONSULTANT (ELECTION BACKGROUND On July 20, -1988 the City Council approved the RFP for the General Plan Update to the Circulation and Land Use Elements, and directed Staff to send the RFP out to selected consultants. On September 14, 1988 the City Council approved the RFP for the Carlsberg Specific Plan and directed Staff to send out the RFP to selected consultants. Replies for the General Plan were due on October 21, 1988, the Specific Plan on October 31, 1988. The City received three proposals regarding the General Plan Update, four regarding the Carlsberg Specific Plan. On November 23, 1988 the City Council created a number of "Standing Committees". One of these was the Community Development Committee. Members are Councilmen Harper and Lawrason. This Committee was charged with the responsibility to review the proposals and make a - recommendation to the City Council . The Community Development Committee has reviewed all the proposals and met with the Director of Community Development on January 5, 1989. At the January 5th meeting the Committee elected to interview only two firms. There was also an interest to consider awarding one firm both contracts as there appeared to be an economy of scale involved. The Committee invited two firms to be interviewed the afternoon of January 13, 1989. Prior to the interviews the Director had requested each firm to be prepared to address the matter of combining both proposals. (R051529-6864 February 10, 1989 \` page 2 On January 13th each firm discussed with the Committee their proposal and method of approach in completing each RFP task. At the conclusion of the interviews each firm was requested to submit, in writing, a revised budget and timetable for a single contract to accomplish both the General Plan Update to the Circulation and Land Use Elements plus the Carlsberg Specific Plan. As of January 20, 1989 both firms had submitted their revised proposals. The revisions were forwarded to the Committee by staff with a request to meet with the Director the week of January 23rd. The Committee met with the Director on January 31, 1989 and discussed the revised proposals for the two firms being considered, one firm identified a savings of approximately $10,000. The other firm did not identify a dollar savings but shifted the cost savings into accomplishing more work for the same amount of money. At the conclusion of this meeting the Committee elected to recommend that one firm be awarded both work tasks under a separate contract for each. Also, their recommendation is to award the two tasks to Phillips Brandt Reddick (PBR). Proposal Review The following is a generalized summary of the proposals received for both the General Plan Update and the Carlsberg Specific Plan. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TO THE CIRCULATION & LAND USE ELEMENTS Project Costs Options Revised Timeframe PBR $132,000 $83,000 $149,000* Twelve months CBA $156,400 $32,000 $176,200* Eight months STA $213,990 $25,000 N/A Twelve months CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN Project Costs Revised Timeframe PBR $241,405 $234,405 Twelve months CBA $147,960 N/A Nine months STA $240,270 N/A Twelve months Planning Center $264,060 N/A Twelve months *Includes Traffic Model February 10, 1989 page 3 The firm of PBR was the lowest bidder on the General Plan proposal . However, PBR was one of the highest bidders for the Carlsberg Specific Plan. During the interviews the Committee determined that the low bid firms were proposing only a policy type of specific plan document. The RFP sent out by the City called for a detailed specific plan document and because of such, the costs are a reflection of it. Citizen Participation One of the critical elements within the General Plan Update or the Specific Plan is the level of citizen participation afforded residents throughout the process. General Plan Update The firm of PBR listed three program options in their proposal , they are as follows: 1. Small Workshops - To be held in addition to public hearings to present goal statements and review programs of the elements in preparation. Estimated 3-4 evenings or Saturday meetings. 2. Advisory Committee - A group of 10-15 community representatives meeting on a regular basis over the course of the program. 3. A Citizen Policy Conference - A two day conference, City and Consultant's Staff would complete an in-depth community reconnaissance. Potential elements include (a. ) door-to-door survey; (b. ) selection of a citizen committee with up to 50 members; (c. ) a two day committee conference; and (d. ) follow-up committee meetings. Inasmuch as the Planning Commission voiced an interest to monitor the update process it is the Committees' recommendation to promote the use of the small workshop process in the following format: That the Planning Commission hold separate evening public meetings 3-4 times during the update process. Have the Consultant provide status reports and present their draft goal statements for public and . Commission comments. At the conclusion of each of these separate Commission meetings the Consultant would summarize the public and Commission comments and present them to the City Council no later than one month from the Commission's meeting. Neither the Consultant nor the Commission would take further action until the Council reviewed past progress, comments and provided any necessary direction. February 10, 1989 • page 4 Although PBR listed the Advisory Committee within their proposal , their preference would be to use the evening workshops 3-4 times during the process. Staff would also support the use of workshops rather than a committee approach for both the General Plan Update and Specific Plan process. General Plan Fair Share Application Costs Inasmuch as there are a number of prospective applicants seeking General Plan Amendments there is a need to consider an equal distribution of the cost to prepare the General Plan Update. The total costs will be considered more than the consultant's proposal , as there is Planning and Engineering Staff time to consider plus general City Administrative costs. The Committee is recommending that the applicants seeking land use amendments collectively pay all costs associated with the update work program. In order that there be a reasonable fair share distribution of costs, the Committee recommends that costs be equated to the amount of traffic impact that a proposal would cause to the City. A formula can be created that uses an employment/resident basis and converts that into a traffic generation figure on a per acre fee ratio. With the Consultant cost for the update as $149,000 and an added 50% for City Staff time plus Administrative costs; the total cost to complete the update would be approximately $224,000. Computations for each of the GPA requests to determine the fair share costs based upon Staff' s formula were not available during the preparation of this report. Staff will have available at the Council ' s meeting of February 15th the results of the cost distribution for each General Plan Amendment request. The Committee suggests that the following scenario be used in conjunction with the process of collecting update fees, signing of contracts and when actual work will start: 1. Once the City Council approves the above, letters would be sent to all GPA proponents requesting, (a.) their fair share of costs based upon all 18 properties participating (could be recomputed if anyone withdrew their request); (b.) sign an agreement with the City acknowledging that there are no guarantees in the process for either the GPA or EIR and that cost are only estimates and may increase requiring additional deposits and other pertinent points; (c. ) complete an application and submit it with monies1)y the time specified. 2. While the monies, agreements and applications were being collected the City would obtain a signed contract with the Consultant firm. 3. When number 1 above is completed then a notice to proceed would be sent to the Consultant. February 10, 1989 page 5 RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. That the City Council accept the recommendation of the Community Development Committee and select the firm of Phillips Brandt Reddick to complete all Planning Services and Environmental Impact Reports for both the Update to the Circulation and Land Use Elements of the General Plan and Carlsberg Specific Plan under separate contracts and timeframes. 2. That the City Council direct Staff to enter into contract negotiations with Phillips Brandt Reddick for both the General Plan Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements and the Carlsberg Specific Plan. Both contracts to be returned on consent calendar as they are completed. 3. That the City Council accept the recommendation of the Committee as contained in this report regarding the level of citizen participation to be created for both the General Plan Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements and the Carlsberg Specific Plan; and 4. That the City Council determine that no work shall be preformed by Phillips Brandt Reddick until all deposits are made to the City to cover all costs associated with each of the proposed contracts. 5. That the City Council accept the Committee' s recommendation regarding a method by which a fair share payment may be made by those applicants seeking amendment changes to cover all costs associated with this General Plan Update program including City Staff and Administrative costs with the required response due 15 days after mailing by City. Attachment: List of interested parties requesting a General Plan Amendment Proposals from PBR, CBA and STA for General Plan Update Proposals from PBR, CBA and STA and the Planning Center for the Carlsberg Specific Plan RFP' s for General Plan Update and Carlsberg Specific Plan