Loading...
2005 Washington-III, Ltd - MOU Hydrology ReportMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into this 3rd day of May, 2005, by and between Washington 111, LTD, a California Limited Partnership ("Developer"), and the City of La Quinta, California, a California Municipal Corporation ("City"). WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen between Developer and City relating to certain hydrology issues associated with the Washington Park development; AND WHEREAS, Developer appealed certain action of the Public Works Department to the La Quinta City Council, which commenced a public hearing on the appeal on April 19, 2005, which hearing was continued to May 3, 2005; AND WHEREAS, representatives of Developer and City have met in an attempt to resolve the appeal and did reach a tentative resolution subject to formal approval by way of this MOU; AND WHEREAS, the purpose of this MOU is to outline the negotiated points. Now, therefore, the parties agree as follows: City agrees that the hydrology reports for Mass Grading, subsequent amendments and for Phases 1 & 2 prepared by PCA for Developer contains City - approved concepts. Developer agrees that the preliminary drainage concepts contained in the report for the Phase 3 area of the development require additional refinement pursuant to paragraph 4 that will be addressed by Developer as part of the plan check process for the already submitted construction improvement plans for Phase 3. Specifically, the City and Developer agree to the following concepts contained in the report and its accompanying hydrology map: a. The size of the drainage tributary area that Developer is responsible for retaining drainage on its site is approximately 65.1 acres including the volume capacity of the retention basins as set forth in the reports referenced in Paragraph 1, and does not include the tributary area known as the Champion Motors site. b. Hydraulic and storm drain plans for Phase 1 & 2 which includes Highway 111, Washington Street and Avenue 47 and all related offsite tributary areas, including hydrologic and hydraulic concepts, offsite inlet structure types, locations, assumptions and methodologies, as they pertain to Phases 1 & 2 and adjacent streets except as set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 6, below, setting forth the need for additional inlets. Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 2. City and Developer agree that currently the Champion Motors site drains to Simon Drive which subsequently drains onto Washington Street with the flow running south in the east gutter of Washington Street adjacent to the Washington Park development site. The City and Developer further agree that it is desirable to redirect the Champion Motors current storm drainage to an existing underground storm drain system to convey that drainage northerly to the Whitewater Channel, or alternatively, if the Champion Motors site is redeveloped by a third party, to require as a condition of development, retention of all nuisance water and the 100-year storm for its tributary drainage area (to the centerline of adjacent public streets) onsite. However, until the City or a third party constructs a connection to the existing underground storm drain to affect redirection of that flow, or that flow is retained onsite, Developer agrees to accept the Champion Motors drainage flow (i.e. storm flows, not nuisance flows resulting from business operations on the Champion Motors site) provided that in doing so Developer is not required to oversize any of its drainage facilities, either temporarily or permanently, to accommodate that temporary drainage condition. Thus, excess drainage that is routed to the retention basins on the Developer site will be allowed to flow offsite when the retention capacity of the basins is exceeded. 3. If the Champion Motors site is not reconfigured to retain all nuisance water and the 100-year storm for its tributary drainage area (to the centerline of adjacent public streets) onsite, City agrees to facilitate the design and construction, without cost to Developer, of a drainage connection to an existing underground storm drain located in Washington Street from an appropriate point on Simon Drive that affects redirection of the Champion Motors drainage from its current drainage route northerly to the Whitewater Channel. Either the onsite retention basin or the drainage connection will be constructed within 60 months of signing this Memorandum. 4. Developer agrees to install, at its cost, a drainage inlet and connecting surface parkway drain in the east curb of Washington Street located north of the first bus stop. The inlet will be built at the time of construction of Phase 3B of Washington Park. The inlet will be sized for Developer's related tributary water for the 20- year storm event pursuant to the amended hydrology report as referenced in Paragraph 1 of this MOU. The drainage will flow from Washington Street via a parkway drain under the meandering sidewalk on Washington Street to the Washington Park parking lot where it will flow in the parking lot curb and gutter to a catch basin that then directs the flow to Retention Basin No. 4 via an underground storm drain pipe. To accomplish retention of the revised tributary area associated with Retention Basin No. 4 (i.e. tributary area that was formerly intended for Retention Basin No. 5) the City agrees that Developer may modify the retention basin to accommodate a water depth exceeding five feet plus one foot of freeboard as measured at the overflow location, provided the square footage of the original retention basin footprint is not decreased. Page 2 of 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 5. Developer agrees that all retention basins, except for Retention Basin No. 4, will be designed and constructed per Engineering Bulletin 97-03 or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer as required by the Conditions of Approval. City acknowledges that it has approved as an equal solution to Item # 6 of Engineering Bulletin 97-03 the drywell solution for Washington Park based on the letter of opinion issued by Sladden Engineering on Jan 14, 2005. 6. Developer agrees to install, at its cost, an additional inlet in the east curb of Washington Street immediately north of the intersection of Avenue 47 and Washington Street, to intercept related flows generated from a 100 year storm event and divert water through an open swale at approximately a 45 degree angle to an outlet in Avenue 47 and to continue its path of surface drainage as set forth in the (PCA - Phase 1 & 2) Hydrology Study. Construction of this surface inlet would occur at the sooner of (a) construction of Phase 4 of Washington Park, or (b) completion of the connection with the underground storm drain in Washington Street north of Simon Drive. 7. Developer agrees that use of cantilevered buildings or equivalent structures as contemplated and set forth in the (PCA - Phase 1 & 2) Hydrology Study will be subject to the approval of the City Building & Safety Department and City Public Works Director. 8. City agrees that all references to Developer will be deemed to include its successors in interest to all or any part of Washington Park, provided use of the Washington Park site remains as currently approved in Specific Plan 89-011, Amendment #4. 9. City and Developer agree that the primary cause for any delays in the processing of improvement plans was a result of a disagreement regarding the drainage requirements regarding the Washington 111 development site. Now that the City and Developer have resolved the drainage aspects that were in disagreement, it is understood all future processing of improvement plans will proceed per standard City processing policies. Improvement plans submitted by Developer will be returned with plan check comments (if any) for revision in less than ten (10) working days. 10. It is agreed that Map 32683-2 is scheduled for final approval at the May 3, 2005 City Council Agenda. It is also agreed that provided an agreement is reached on the Items set forth in this MOU at the May 3, 2005 City Council meeting that the City Engineer will schedule Map 32683-1 & 3 for the May 17,2005 City Council meeting. 11. If all parties execute the MOU at or before the May 3, 2005 City Council meeting, Developer shall withdraw its appeal. Page 3 of 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF LA QUINTA: homas P. Genovese, City Manager Date ATTEST: 6PI�S—G- reek, City City of La Quinta DEVELOPER: Approved as to Form: M. Kath6rine Jenson, Attorney City of La Quinta —'� Date WASHINGTON 111, LTD., a California limited partnership By: Old Anchor Inc., a California Corporation Its: General Partner 01 By: Jack Idham Its: President .- - - o s- Date: Page 4 of 4 80618 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