The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0516 CC REG ITEM 11IMOORPARK ITEM PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. STEVEN KUENY P Mayor A4, G i City Manager SCOTT MONTGOMERY F/� %� CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tem City Attorney ELOISE BROWN PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Councilmember Director of CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. oq� Community Development Councilmember R. DENNIS DELZEIT BERNARDO M. PEREZ City Engineer Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE LILLIAN KELLERMAN Chief of Police City Clerk RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards„ Director of Community Development DATE: May 7, 1990 (CC meeting of 5/16/90) SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY Background The City Council at their March 7, 1990 meeting directed staff to begin a Sphere of Influence Study that would roughly match the boundaries of Waterworks District: No. 1,. At that time the Council was interested in having the results of this study presented to them no later 90 days from Marcli 7, 1990. On April 4, 1990 staff presentee to the Council a draft Scope of Work for a Sphere of Influence Study to be sent out to selected planning consultants in a Request:. for Proposal (RFP) . On April 20, 1990 the RFP was sent out to six consultant firms (including PBR) . The RFP was both mailed and FAXEI;. Also, a phone call was made to each firm advising them of a :;t ;.art, t..i_rre frame to complete their proposal. The RFP required that all replies, be submitted by 5:00 p.m. May 7, 1990. Of the six consultants cc:::)ntracted only PBR provided a reply to the City's RFP. A copy of I :I :t; PBR, proposal has been provided under separate cover. Discussion The Phillips Brandt Reddick (PBR, proposal differs from the City's RFP in several ways. First, PEiR's proposal does not include a "Plan of Services." It is their )pinion. that one is not necessary to process a Sphere change through LA.FCO. PBR cites the fact that a "Plan for Services" is detailed and costly item which is not necessary to achieve a Sphere ante= ridment:, Second, the PBR proposal 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 The Honorable City Council (CC meeting of 5/16/90) May 7, 1990 Page 2 suggests the inclusion of this Sphere of Influence Study to be made a part of the ongoing General Plan Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements. PBR states that "the Scope of Work ", schedule and budget herein are contingent upon concurrent modification to the present General Plan Update Scope of Work. Third, the PBR proposal does not identify the project area, but includes that it will cover the City and its logical Sphere area. The City's RFP listed the general 5oundar ies of Waterworks District No. 1. The PBR proposal does identify the need to prepare an EIR for the Sphere of Influence Study identified in the RFP. However, it is their recommendation to expand the existing General Plan Update EIR. to include the Sphere of Influences Study area. City staff made no previous environmental finding,, 1,ut did request an opinion in the RFP. There is an optional phase titled Capitai Improvements Plan (CIP). However, there is no cost estimate given by PBR in their reply. Also, they would rely upon the City Engineer to provide the programmatic and cost, element of .he CI" . The PBR staff assigned to the project are general the same as those assigned to the General Plan Update contract. The firm of Austin - Faust Associates has been includ( : -J as a subcontractor. The total cost associated with 11BR's proposal to accomplish the Sphere of Influence Study is $38 „90 .. This does not include any changes, additions or modificatic.ris necessary to the General Plan Update process and contract. The time proposed by PBR is found on page 18 of the attached proposal. packet, From start to submittal to LAFCO is four months. It is unclear to staff at this time, how this will be accomplished inasmuc;s as the General Plan Update will still be in process. Also, the proposal does not state how the Sphere of Influence Study wil iff.ect. the General Plan Update process. At present staff is attempting t :o set a meeting between PBR and Councilmembers (Lawrason and Harper.) who previously met with PBR concerning their General Plan tJpd,, -tte contract. We anticipate that a meeting vi,1 oe field prior to the May 16 meeting with any additional report and recommendations to be presented to the Council by the (” )mmit:tee at that meeting. Recommendation Direct staff a deemed appropriate pr7May9.a