Loading...
2006-09-08 Washington-III, Ltd - Appeal Decision by PW Director for use of Alternate Materials & Installation80618 DECLARATION INDIO, CA 922y1 WASHINGTON III, LTD AVE. RECEIVED 2006 S EP 8 API 11 58 CITY OF LA Ol,'INTA September 8,2(kO�1Y CLER%'S OFFICE Mr. Tim, Jonasson Public Works Director/City Engineer Mr. Tor> Hartung Director) of Building & Safety Ms. June S. Greek City Clerk 760-775-7967 Phone 760-775-8329 Fax City of 4 Quinta 78-495�alle Tampico La Qui a, California 92253 RE: Appeal of Decision of Director of Public Works (on Behalf of the Building and Safety Department) and Appeal of the Decision of the City Manager Concerning La Quinta Staff Discretionary Policies Regarding I Suitabilir, of Alternate Materials and Methods of Installation for I Underground Retention Facility as applied to the Washington Park I Development To Whom It May Concern: Washington 1 i 1, Ltd has been attempting to resolve the La Quinta requirements for a passive `open bottom' on -site private underground retention chamber for receipt of on -site 6rm water for a number of months so they can proceed with the completion of their precise grading plans and obtain a permit accordingly. Instead, they have received conflicting, unsupported and inappropriate interpretations of policy which has not been reviewed or approved by the City Council. While this appeal is for the project, Washington Park, it focuses on issues of concern to the entire commercial development community within the City. Mr. Tarr sets forth all of the following grounds for appeal. The proposed 5 gauge multi -plate zinc coated structural steel passive retention facility is structurally sound and not subiect to collapse. Washington lll. Ltd. has submitted information regarding the multi -plate five gauge Linc coated structural steel open bottom passive retention chamber which they City of L4 Quinta Re: Appeal of Rejection of Retention Alternative September 8, 2006 Page 2 proposed) to use, but was told by the City — without any factual support — that it was subject to "collapse" and that, therefore, a concrete structure had to be used. City staff repeatedly failed to consider the engineering submittals from Contech, Inc. and Parsons Engineering regarding underground steel structures. 1 The requirement for a drywell system to obtain a 36 hour maximum retention i time is unnecessary and inappropriate given local vector control suggested � parameters. Washington 111, Ltd also raised concerns regarding the discretionary requirement for a 36 hour maximum retention time and a drywell system. The Director's requirement of a drywell system to achieve a 36 hour maximum retention time is purportedly based on a 36 hour time period imposed by cities in Arizona and purportedly required by Maricopa County ealth Department for vector control. There is no scientific basis suggesting that the 6 hour time period imposed by Arizona cities is necessary for vector control or other health reasons in the City of La Quinta. Please also note that the cities in Arizona have no iprohibition against use of alternate materials for retention chambers including zinc coated multi -plate structural steel. 3. Draft Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements dated June 29, 2006 The Engineering Standards utilized by the Public Works staff to condition underground retention basins in commercial centers are an abuse of administrative discretion and are without support on engineering or health and safety grounds. Specifically, Washington 111, Ltd challenges Engineering Standards as set out in the June 29, 2006, Draft Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements (which, although "draft" have been applied for over a year) as well as the discretionary administrative interpretations of such policies, including #97-03. The Director's rejection of the zinc coated structural steel system and requirement for the drywell system are based solely on adherence to particular building and construction standards set forth in a new draft Engineering Bulletin posted on June 29, 2006. We would respectfully submit that those particular building and construction standards should have been submitted for City Council and public review as an ordinance amending Title 8 of the City's Municipal Code. The particular standards and the Director's strict adherence to them are apparently intended solely to counter Washington 111, Ltc's alternative proposal and are without scientific support. The Director's strict adherence to particular draft Bulletin standards is even contrary) to the standards themselves. For example, the Bulletin expressly allows use of an "approved equal" to reinforced concrete vault style systems. Please note there is no minimum design service life criteria established for achieving an "or equal" status. Also, the Bulletin does not expressly require drywell systems except as needed to address 2 City of La Quinta Re: Appeal of Rejection of Retention Alternative September 8, 2006 Page 3 standing, stagnant water and vector control systems. For perforated systems, the Bulletin also exptessly states that drywell systems should be approached as an "at risk" design subject t6 Coachella Valley Water District approval. 6ontech, Inc. manufactures both the Department approved and installed concrete system (which does not adhere to a 36 hour draw down time standard) and the proposed steel system. During an August 3, 2006 meeting between the Director, City Manager and Washington 111, Ltd. representatives, a Contech representative verified that the proposed zinc coated structural steel system has a design service life equal to or greater than the Director' approved concrete system. In addition, a structural engineer from Parson's Engineering did an independent study of metal systems and found that the systems were structurally sound. In addition, the proposed product exceeds the minimum required design service life criteria for the product category established by the Army Corp of Engineers, the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). All of these agencies including the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) allow the proposed product and encourage diversity in choice of materials for engineering solutions. The Director does not have internal or independent structural engineering analysis that contradicts the conclusions of Parsons and Contech. Instead, the Director bases his decision upon the unfounded fear that the system could collapse and cause damage to property and life because the system will be located beneath a parking lot. The Director presents no analysis that the risk of collapse is significant for a steel structure or that the risk of collapse would be significantly lessened with a concrete structure. The Director presents no analysis of whether the significant additional cost for a concrete structure will provide iiany significant public safety benefits. After raising all of these issues, and repeatedly meeting with staff and the City Manager in an effort to resolve them, on August 29, 2006, Washington 111, Ltd's General) Partner, Mr. Tarr received a letter from Thomas Genovese, City Manager, advising Mr. Tarr of a decision by Tim Jonasson, Director of Public Works, to reject Mr. Tarr's proposed use of alternate materials and methods of installation for an underground retention facility. The Director's decision was made on behalf of the City's Department of Building and Safety pursuant to Section 8.70.100(B) of the City's Municipal Code. Washington 111, Ltd. hereby appeals that decision pursuant to La Quinta Municipal Code Section) 8.01.030(B). Mr. Genovese also rejected Washington 111, Ltd.'s request (and mischa�acterized the meeting regarding that request); because of that and the application City of La Quinta Re: Appeal of Rejection of Retention Alternative Septemb�r 8, 2006 Page 4 of discretionary Engineering Standards and policies, we also appeal alternatively pursuant'to La Quinta Municipal Code Section 2.04.100. Fpr the foregoing reasons, Washington 111, Ltd. respectfully requests a hearing before the appropriate City body to consider the merits of this appeal. The amount of the fee included here is the amount stated to us by the City Clerk's office. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, I � �CEh''�' Ja Tarr eneral Partner Washington 111, Ltd Enclosure: $175 Filing Fee Cc: McCormick, Kidman & Behrens City Council 0 Washington 111. Ltd 402-142464 gateRpfereDce•:}'77 77.?; 1's� „, ,"Gros;, . .. w`"nf Nee 09/08/2006 Filinq fee for Appeal $175.00 $0.00 $175.00 RECEIVE© 2006 SEP 8 Ail li 58 CITY OF LA GUI"dTA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Washington 111, Ltd. City National Bank' 80618 Declaration Avenue 9 Executive Circle Irvine, CA 92614 1&1606/1220 Indio, CA' 92201 Cheek Date Check Number Amount 09108/2006 _55690 1 "*$175.00*** \ "PAY Exactly One Huryldred Seventy Five Dollars And No Cents II VOID AFTER 180 DAYS TO THE City of La Quinto ORDER 78495 Calle Tampico OF La Quinta, CA $2253 1 SG�/ City of La Quinta, 78-495 Ca Ile Tampico, P.O. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92247 20�' DATE t� RECEIVEDIFROM I nr„ i n o c c 78495 CALLE TAMPICO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (760) 777-7000 FAX (760) 777-7101 TOO (760) 777-1227 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Date: To (recipient's name): To (recipient's organization): Recipient's) Fax Number: From: Operator: September 8, 2006 Kathy Jenson Rutan & Tucker 714-546-9035 Debbie Powell Operator's' Telephone Number: 760-777-7073 Total Number of Pages (including this cover page): 5 Comments: Washington 1 1 1, Ltd. Appeal. Kathy, they state the received oylr letter on August 29`h; our code states the appeal must be filed within ten days. (However, I'm not sure if that includes August 29", in which case, this would be late; or if it's 10 days after August 29`h, which would make it on time. Let me know. Thanks, and have a good weekend! '�\ o1-- � (G�3 Original dodument(s) will follow by: ❑ U.S. Mail ❑ Federal Express ❑ UPS ❑l Other L( Original will not follow ❑ Please call upon receipt ❑ For your approval/suggestions ❑ Plealse respond by The information mnnlamed inthis facmmde is confidential, is mtended onlyjar the use of the individual named above and its confidentialityis not waived by virtue t f this having been gent by facsimile if the person actually receiving this facstmde or any other reader of it is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, discnmmation, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited If you have received thi, communication In error, please,mmedmtely notes the operator named above by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via U.S. Portal Service. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504 P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1504 78-495 CALLS TAMPICO (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FAX (760) 777-7101 October 2, 2006 Mr. Jack Tarr Washington 111, LTD. 806 18 Declaration Avenue Indio, CA 92675 Re: Appeal of Decision of Director of Public Works (On Behalf of the Building and Safety Department) and Appeal of 'the Decision of the City Manager Concerning La Quinta Staff Discretionary Policies Regarding Suitability of Alternate Materials and Methods of Installation for Underground Retention Facility as applied to the Washington Park Development Deaf Mr. Tarr: Thank you for your letter dated September 8, 2006. City staff received a large amount of information about underground drainage facilities from your consultant engineer, Steve Speer, at a meeting held on September 22, 2006. A proposed design was submitted today by Mr. Speer which has been forwarded to the Building Department for review, at the conclusion of which a hearing will be scheduled for your appeal. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (76q,) 770-7042 or Ed Wimmer, Principal Engineer, at (760) 777-7088. Sincerely, R dimothy . Jon on Public Works Director/City Engineer TRJVEJW/cd c: Tom Genovese, City Manager Tom Hartung, Director of Building and Safety Deborah Powell, Acting City Clerk File C:\Documents and Settings\cdiaz\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK86\060928 Jack 3�`71 Tarr (Underground Retention Appeal First Reply5.doc ��A./-I