Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 1987-06 #B I • June 10 , 1987 MEMORANDUM To : Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Fom: Development Services Department Subject : Department of Water and Power Site Interim Use BACKGROUND At its regular meeting of May 26 , 1987 , the City Council considered the potential license of the southerly portion of the DWP property , and subsequently referred this item to the June 15 , 1987 Redevelopment Agency meeting . The DWP Advisory Committee has reviewed the potential use of the site and submitted a list of recommendations to the Council for the May 26 , 1987 meeting . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Agency accept the recommendations of the DWP Advisory Committee and direct staff to formulate a license for Agency approval that covers the southerly portion of the DWP property at First Street and Ocean Avenue . DISCUSSION The Council discussion of the potential license has centered on two issues : 1 ) the recommendation of the Advisory Committee plus funding considerations and; 2) potential safety concerns in regard to the clean-up of the site and a passive park use . 1 . The eight recommendations of the Advisory Committee have been enclosed for Agency consideration . A letter was sent to the DWP which basically outlined the Committee ' s recommendations and a response has been received . This response by DWP has also been attached with this report . Basically , DWP has offered a potential license on a portion of the property located southerly of the Ocean Avenue right-of-way . This represents , according to the letter from the DWP , the maximum amount of land available at this time . This amount of land corresponds with staff' s original recommendation , and is within economic parameters for a passive use park and bikeway connection from Ocean to the San Gabriel bikepath . AGENDA ifs DWP Interim Use Page 2 The Advisory Committee strongly recommended that the City seek to acquire the 70 percent open space portion identified in the DWP Specific Plan , and use an incremental approach to improve this land . At this time , DWP is not offering a license on the full open space area , but the area they are offering is within the fiscal ability of the City . As additional funding becomes available , the City can seek to license more area, up to the 70 percent allowable . Staff has presented this scenario to DWP staff members , and although they did not commit to expanding the area , they did not reject the idea . If it is the Agency' s determination , staff will continue as funding becomes available , to further expand the license area . The Advisory Committee also recommended that Redevelopment Agency funds be utilized for improvements to the open space areas under license . In this case , the Redevelopment Agency can assume the costs to improve the open space area , and reimburse the general fund in the upcoming fiscal year . Although the General Fund should be able to absorb the limited costs for improvements , this action will assure that the costs are ultimately absorbed by the appropriate agency to pay for these costs . 2 . Some concerns have been raised by community members and the Council regarding the safety of the site as a passive park use. During the clean-up and regrading of the property , asbestos has been found and removed in accordance with a County clean-up plan . The main issue is whether any asbestos may remain , and if this may pose any safety hazard to people using the park or living in the area . Before addressing this issue , staff will present some background on the clean-up of the site . The City has neither any authority nor responsibility for the planning or implementation of the clean-up plan ; this authority has totally rested with the County of Orange . Since the discovery occurred in August , staff has periodically contacted County staff to check on the progress of the clean-up , and estimated completion dates . In each instance , County staff reported that the plan was followed diligently , with complete cooperation from DWP personnel . In every instance of asbestos discovery , the affected areas have been completely cleaned . DWP Interim Use Page 3 In considering its determination of the DWP property , the Agency will want to consider the total picture of the site as presented by County personnel . Given this information , the Agency can choose the most prudent course to protect the public from any exposure . a . The County will certify that all known areas have been cleaned and that the site meets State of California standards . Neither the County , City , or State can certify that the site is 100 percent free of all asbestos . b . Given the information from the plant removal in the 1960 ' s , there were seven known voids that were supposed to be filled with fill dirt , but were filled instead with rubble . All seven areas were excavated and cleaned . The most recent discovery was one of the seven areas , and contained more rubble under clean soil . This area was completely cleaned . According to County staff , there are no other logical areas where rubble would occur ; these seven areas were the only locations where a void would exist , such as foundation , turbine bay or boiler bay . The County feels that the percentage chance of running into more rubble is very low . c . Given the current clean-up effort , the County feels that the only chance of contacting more rubble would occur when development takes place and extensive grading is done . d . The area under consideration for license is the southerly portion of the property , which includes the Ocean Avenue right-of-way and areas to the south . No foundations exist in this area and no rubble was found . The only void in this area was the cooling water outlet channel , which contained no rubble and was crushed in place and filled with fill dirt . It is conclusive to state that no trace of asbestos was located in this area during the clean-up , and due to the circumstances ( no voids , channel filled) no asbestos will be found . A staff member of the County will be at Monday ' s Agency meeting , and should be able to answer questions related to the DWP property . Given staff' s discussions with County representatives , it is our feeling that at least the area in question for license ( 2 . 2 acres) should be suitable for a park use , and the public health , safety and general welfare should be protected . DWP Interim Use Page 4 Even though staff makes this recommendation , there is also no reason that the City should even remotely accept any liability that belongs solely with DWP. Therefore , the license should state clearly that any liability arising from asbestos is solely the responsibility of DWP , and the City assumes no liability in regard to asbestos . EMKpv APO 1 A - award M. Knigh 1 Director of Development "ervices NOTED AND APPROVED : Bob Nelson City Manager . Depar e�ir of ter �d Power ( 1i ) the City of LosAngeles TOM BRADLEY Commission Mayor RICK J CARUSO.President JACK W.LEENEY. Vice President PAUL H. LANE,General Manager and Chief Engineer ANGEL M.ECHEVARRIA NORMAN E.NICHOLS,Assistant General Manager-Power CAROL WHEELER DUANE L.GEORGESON,Assistant General Manager- Water WALTER A.ZELMAN DANIEL W. WATERS,Assistant General Manager-External Affairs JUDITH K.DAVISON.Secretary NORMAN J. POWERS.Chief Financial Officer June 1, 1987 DWP File P-52115 Mr. Edward M. Knight Director of Development Services City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Dear Mr. Knight: Proposed License of Department of Water and Power Site This is in response to your letter of May 28 , 1987 in which you have asked questions regarding the possible license of a portion of our land in Seal Beach. The area potentially available for license is that portion of the site lying southerly of Ocean Avenue. Minor deviations from this line may be considered, but additional acreage will not be added. The longest cancellation period which can be given in a license without approval by ordinance is 90 days. A 90-day cancellation period will be acceptable. A lease will not be given at this time. A condition of any license granted to the City of Seal Beach would be assumption of all liability for the use of the licensed area and indemnification of the City of Los Angeles against all losses or claims arising from the licensed use. We have placed no deadline on your request; however, as Mr. Ted L. McGillis has previously informed you, on completion of our grading activities, we shall proceed to restore the perimeter fencing and treat the site for dust control purposes. Should your request be made prior to our fence work, we would enclose the site along the northerly line of Ocean Avenue. However, if your request is delayed until after we have fenced the entire site, a condition of the license would require that you reconstruct the fence at the boundary of the licensed area at your expense. 111 North Hope Street,Los Angeles,California❑Mailing address:Box 111,Los Angeles 90051 Telephone:(213)481-4211 Cable address:DEWAPOLA 4 Mr. Edward M. Knight - 2 - June 1, 1987 Should you, your committee or the Seal Beach City Council have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. McGillis at (213) 481-5932 . Very truly yours, LEE MOUSSAFIR7t Chief Real Estate Officer TLM:lr . May 26, 1987 To: Seal Beach City Council From: DWP Property Advisory Committee Subiect: Recommendations For Interim Use of DWP Property For Park Purposes 1 . a. The committee strongly recommends that the city seek to lease or licence the full 70% for park purposes as called for in the specific plan. b. That an incremental approach to park development of the site be used, working towards full development of the 70% park as funds become available. 2. That the committee favors a lease over a license, with a term of 7 - 10 years. 3. If a licence is the only possible approach, that it have an expiration date no less than 90 days. 4. DWP shall retain all underlying liability whether leased or licenced. 5. That the city seek all sources of funding for development and maintenance, specifically excluding the use of General City Funds. Redevlopment Agency funds should be seriously considered as the property lies within agency boundaries. 6. The Riverfront Redevelopment Agency should be the licensing or leasing agent of the 70% DWP park property rather than having the City of Seal Beach be the contracting body. 7. That the City seek funds from the Coastal Conservancy to help develop the site. 8. That the City seek to renew the County grant for development of the site. / R \!\ • Z J N. L I " p ( p O h I•I1:1I _ J 1 1 •� it \'4 0 t s.,.. 4 • \ I h i,F z 1 •• .., . '4 _ I (V y� I : 1 -\ ':?. .., ,,, 7,-). ` 1 6 h 11 () le sl, r) Li., A, Dc tki :,.. t A U.1 a a 4, v~i t 11 ck `I `'' °' I - `'1 ac w . I I ti 14; e h �" 1 z h h 13., � I ,D. 0■ 1 I a W II�I�z h of b > b q 1 I 3 l Q `? . _ t r'.11. ''').i.:31 a m p.),.:, W a }.� � 4 �y , g \ .,.?;\, ! ;;.'■' r � ) v.icy l ,� 1 1' '"d Y 11 1 f b p \ {` I I IQ O(a I C 9 �x I . 1 nQ �" 1 N + I 0 6� I h ,} �' I - 1111:. `E V 1 N 1 I �JIk = + la q p wci in '-- i lilk"\ r s, ham- '" �` �; • �}£ it' h _� a 1 �� .,.._ • .....la‘"--lb44!3"A fiA:::1 i I : _ .... , . s: i ..,.. , ......,•,.. ,..../. ". tr:04,>3), .. spilaitallr-1/47--a---0,7---..----,.... ; uk ! (1\ r. fr. 1.2 t'aiovitemaa'.::: Q a ���lu��b,�� I ti t1 !/QNH p>v, I,,,, 0;1, II* NIII)Vale - • 7 I� — 1. : L saar mat.7/v Aorv3d 1 1 Kair....._ l.k:t: ( IN —.--. -,;-.-—— 1 \ 5- ,r ,. , .0..›, . t- A Z a' 61 d� \':' '.: 'i8 J WWI VN . 1 .. i 10°x, • telly ; Side, gip•q0� •Q�•®0. Q u C:t • •••,s..a I Illmi .,:,)o� b. g IP _ CO... • •• •G •. mo era 1 II it V I it 111. ..: t ..., 0 o'kii i . 1 git . I i 1 k U. li 1 • \ ti: .... v li I.; NZ, • ,,,IPI!4 1...L 14. i N �N3/lo► IV03X I ., '''.\till:1\031\a ' 111/411: . 414' -' .. 04. Wm. Oik • • © O%. Ain 4. i 11.--1 13 '""" O '1100W ZXHIBIT 'A"a May 18 , 1987 MEMORANDUM To : DWP Advisory Committee TFom : Ed Knight , Director of Development Services Subject : Department of Water and Power Site Interim Use BACKGROUND At the meeting of May 13 , 1987 , the Department of Water and Power Advisory Committee held further discussions regarding the potential license of the southerly portion of the old power plant site . At this meeting , additional concerns were raised regarding this potential license . These included : 1 . specific legal differences between a license and a lease ; 2 . hypothetical terms of a license; 3 . potential for Redevelopment Agency funds ; 4 . specific clarification of SB 821 funds ; 5 . specific clarification of gas tax funds ; 6 . written records of interagency communications ; 7 . additional contacts with sources of potential funds ; DISCUSSION The first area of discussion involves a clarification of the scope and authority of the DWP Advisory Committee , or for that matter , any advisory group appointed by the City . As an advisory group to the City Council , it has neither the authority to direct staff or the City Attorney , nor expend City funds without the authority of the City Council . In regard to the DWP site , its specific task would be to review a precise development plan and offer recommendations to the City Council . Although a specific development plan is not being considered at this time , the City Council felt it was appropriate for the committee to review the potential license on the DWP property . At its first meeting , the committee raised prudent issues which , after review with the City Manager , staff endeavored to provide direction for committee consideration . The second meeting has DWP Interim Use Page 2 resulted in additional issues which require redirecting staff priorities and direct costs resulting from input from the City Attorney . Prior to completing the requested Items , staff will have to receive direction from the City Council approving an allocation of funds for a written opinion by the City Attorney . The Committee must keep in mind that the Department of Development Services has a limited staff , with Council projects and priorities laid out months in advance . The research. provided to the DWP Committee has delayed some of these Council projects . Staff will not devote more time to the one item under Committee consideration without informing the Council that other priorities will fall further behind . Most of the items identified by the Committee require extensive research and writing , and are not crucial to the issue at hand . Therefore , staff will only provide additional input as Council directs , and as existing resources permit . PROJECT PARAMETERS At this time , the Department of Water and Power is presenting the potential of a license on a portion of the DWP property . This offer is informal , and according to DWP property management , encompasses approximately 50% - 60% of the southerly site area . The terms and conditions of this license will be subject to negotiation , with final review and approval by the City Council . DWP is not offering a lease on the property at this time . This does not preclude the City from asking for a lease on the property , but the viability of this concept cannot be determined and defined until specific negotiations . Staff cannot pursue negotiations until the City Council provides a direction and base to work towards . Staff' s recommendation to the City Council was an incremental approach based on fiscal constraints and specific objectives that can be accomplished . 'The Committee has sought to identify other potential funding sources to increase the size and scope of the area . These fiscal concerns will be presented to the City Council , who , as the aa \propriate body , must balance the allocation of limited resources over the entire community . Staff has identified internal and external funding sources that may serve the project site . External sources ( such as Federal Grants , State Funds , etc . ) are not easily discernable , and have a time line that extends well beycrn.d the decision point for this proposal . If any committee members are enthusiastic about researching these areas , staff would be very appreciative of any information that could be obtained . DWP representatives have contacted staff , and are anxious to know the direction the community wants to seek regarding this DWP Interim Use Page 3 proposal . In order to proceed to the next step , staff needs some direction from the Council regarding negotiating parameters . The potential concerns and recommendations of the committee have been enclosed for committee consideration . RECOMMENDATION Upon concurrence from the DWP Advisory Committee , the following recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council . 1 . To seek a license or lease from DWP for the largest portion of land obtainable , up to the 70% open space allocation identified in the specific plan . Staff recommends that if the entire amount of land is not fiscally possible , that an incremental approach be used that permits the City to license/ lease more land at a later date , as dollars become available . 2 . That the committee favors a lease over a license , with a term of 7 - 10 years . 3 . If a license is the only possible approach , that it have an expiration date greater than 30 days . 4 . That the use of Redevelopment funds be explored for possible use . That the City seek funding sources wherever available . 5 . Although not applicable to this offer , that the City seek to renew the County grant for development of the site . 6 . That the City seek funds from the Coastal Conservancy to help in development of the site . EMKpv Attachment May 13 , 1987 MEMORANDUM To : Department of Water and Power Advisory Committee _Tom : Department of Development Services Subject : Department of Water and Power Site Interim Use BACKGROUND On Monday , May 4 , 1987 , the Department of Water and Power Advisory Committee held a special meeting to discuss an offer by the D .W. P . to license the southerly portion of the old power plant site . The purpose for obtaining the license would be to allow interim use of the site as open space and a pedestrian/ bicycle pathway . At the conclusion of the May 4 meeting , the Committee adjourned to May 13 , 1987 , requesting that staff provide copies of the Specific Plan and answers to a number of questions . This memo will provide the additional information requested by the Committee . DISCUSSION For background information , the D .W . P. Advisory Committee requested that staff provide members with copies of the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan . The plan is enclosed in this information packet . The Committee also presented staff with a list of questions to be addressed . These are outlined below , with responses . 1 . Would the Department of Water and Power put the offer to license in writing? * Department of Water and Power staff will not make a written offer to license at this time . * Offer to license considered informal at present . * Only 80%-90% certainty that upper- level D . W. P. management will authorize offer to license. * DWP management originally indicated that possibly all of the indicated open space area could be licensed for use by the City . Further discussions with DWP staff show that the offer has been reduced to 50%- 60% of the site that could be available . DWP Interim Use Page 2 2 . Would the City Attorney review the difference between a lease and a license? * The City Attorney was unavailable to make written comments . * A license is a grant of privilege , usually without payment or security required . * A lease is an agreement on value exchanged . 3 . What is the status of the $ 500 ,000 allocated by the County for: the DWP site? * Original agreement between City and Orange County Harbors , Beaches and Parks District was for $450 ,000 . * Expenditures for environmental documentation totaled $15 ,000 of the $450 ,000 . * Agreement required City to acquire the site at no expense to the District , with title vesting in the City free and clear of any liens or encumbrances which would preclude development in accordance with Specific Plan . ( See attached ) * Agreement , as amended , required : a . Detailed plans and actions for the project by July 1 , 1984 . b . Substantial completion of the improvements by July 1 , 1985 . c . Full accounting of all monies spent by January 1 , 1986 . * District budget and five-year capital plan do not include funds for D . W. P . site . 4 . What funds are available from the Coastal Conservancy? * Agreement between City and Coastal Conservancy , to expire on June 30 , 1987 , provides $20 ,000 for DWP site . * Purpose of funds is to obtain consultant services to assist in securing a hotel developer for DWP site . 1 . _ DWP Interim Use Page 3 * Approximately $ 5 ,600 of the $20 ,000 has been spent to date . 5 . How much money in Quimby funds is available for DWP park development? * Quimby accounts show $66 ,000 available for parks . * Requests for Quimby expenditures in FY 1987-88 total $90 ,000 to be used to improve safety of the Zoeter School site . 6 . Are Quimby funds still available from the development of the condominiums at the southwest corner of 1st Street and Marina? * Quimby funds of $66 ,000 include contributions from condominiums at southwest corner of 1st Street and Marina . 7 . Are State funds available tb develop the bike path? * S. B. 821 monies received annually by City may be used for bicycle path development . * City receives $6 ,000 annually . * S . B. 821 funds presently devoted to sidewalk repairs . 8 . Are gas tax monies available for the site development? * Gas taxes are not available for bike path improvements . 9 . Is military assistance available to develop the site? * Staff unable to determine . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Committee receive and file the information presented herein . The Committee should make further recommendations to Council regarding the offer to license the DWP site , as deemed appropriate . Pamela G . a ker ward H. Knight- Administrative Aide Director of Development Services