Agenda Section Other Business
Agenda Item #
Report # 97-
Staff Report
Council Meeting Date:
REPORT PREPARED BY: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER
SIGNATURE:___________________________________
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM THE SANDYLAND COVE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION FOR ACCESS TO ASH AVE. FOR EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND EMERGENCY ACCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR SEAWALL RETROFIT
I. Background:
This Background section is going to be quite lengthy as it is important for the Council to have a clear understanding of the recent events which have resulted in this item being placed before the Council for discussion.
Three weeks ago, the President of the Sandyland Cove Homeowner’s Association contacted Public Works Director Bob Nisbet to request a meeting of myself, the City engineer and members of the Association to discuss the details of the Association’s seawall reconstruction project. At the September 3, 1997 meeting, they requested use of Ash Ave. for transport of ten thousand tons of boulders on large trucks, transport of these boulders onto the City beach and onto their seawall. They also requested use of the newly acquired Caldwell property for a staging site to stockpile 3-6 tons of boulders at a time until they were needed to move to the seawall.
The Association believed that the Agreement they entered into with the Coastal Commission (as part of their mitigation of the Commission’s charge that they had unlawfully constructed the seawall) entitled them to Ash Avenue access to stage and complete their project. In their words, the Agreement’s "intent was an understanding that the City would extend cooperation to help them complete their seawall." The Agreement, in fact, does not obligate the City in any way to the use of the Caldwell site or the Ash Avenue beach access. The Agreement states that the Association has two years from February, 1996 to reconstruct the seawall, commencing only after Labor day and not working between Memorial and Labor Day (summer season).
During the meeting, the Association claimed that the Ash Avenue beach access was the only viable access as their roads or bridge could not handle the weights without substantial retrofitting, reconstruction and timing delays.
Staff explained to them that no contact had been made between City staff and their contractor or any member of their Association which indicated any details of their seawall construction schedule, specifics of the construction process, including any request that the Caldwell site would be needed for any "staging" area. Earlier in the year, Don Crocker called Bob Nisbet and indicated that they would be moving forward with their seawall project in accordance with their coastal permit. At that time, he did indicate that they would ‘like" to use the Ash Avenue beach and requested City cooperation. However, no timing details or specifics in regards to staging was discussed. At the meeting, staff noted that the City has proceeded with its Ash Avenue Improvement Project (street end improvements plus the bathroom/storage facility) and the multi-agency sponsored Marsh Restoration Project. The timeline for those projects had been made public many months ago, with public meetings, notices and coverage in the local and Santa Barbara papers. It was a well known fact that the City was moving forward with its projects and the specific timelines. At no time during the many months of public meetings did the Association contact the City with a request for access to the Ash Ave. beach area and/or use of the Caldwell site or any particulars regarding their specific plans for their seawall reconstruction.
It was further explained that the timing of their seawall reconstruction was in direct conflict with City projects and that the staging of them was questionable. We also shared with them our concerns regarding public safety and well-being at having large transport trucks dumping large boulders from heights in excess of 10 feet onto property adjacent to residential properties. The noise and vibrations would be unbearable. Throughout the meeting, the Association representative reiterated that the Sandyland Cove homeowners had far more investment in their project that the City had in a "bathroom" and that their need was also far more immediate in light of the potential impacts of the El Nino.
Since staff did not have a copy of the Agreement with the Coastal Commission and wanted time to respond to their request to find a plausible way to "stage" the different projects, staff agreed to review their request, talk to our project contractors as well as the local residents to determine if, in fact, there was a way to accommodate all parties.
Staff did talk to our project contractors as well as the neighbors. It was determined that prolonging our Ash Ave. improvements would result in a rebid of the project as the contractor was not agreeable to a 3-5 month delay. Matt Roberts met with approximately 12 of the area neighbors who were strongly opposed to additional truck traffic and equally opposed to boulders being "dumped" from trucks onto property across from their homes.
Another meeting was held on September 10 with the Association representatives, their attorney, City Staff and the City attorney. Staff conveyed to them that the staging of their project would put our project in jeopardy in regards to timing and cost. Timing of their project would also impede the City’s construction of the winter berm. It was noted that had they come to the City several months ago, we could have planned for the three projects (Ash Ave., Marsh and the Seawall) together. Informing the City of the specifics of their plans and their need for City cooperation at such a late time made it impossible to meet their requests.
Mr. Crocker, former President of their Association, was very strong in the presentation of his belief that the Association’s contribution of $500,000 toward the acquisition of the Caldwell property (thereby making it possible to proceed with the Marsh Restoration Project) was linked most directly to their understanding that that site would be available to them for the staging of their project. Staff continued to encourage them to pursue their options – options which did not place all the undesirable impacts onto City residents or property. Staff was then told by the current Association President that the Sandyland Cove homeowners were "wealthy and influential" and that the City "would be sued for millions of dollars" if there were losses to homes due to their inability to reconstruct their seawall. They were reminded that their inability to reconstruct their seawall was not determined by the City’s actions, but rather by their own inactions. The City was, in no way, liable for their homes or any damage done to their homes due to any storm or consequence thereof.
The Association representatives then proposed to "buy out" the City’s contract for the Ash Ave. projects and pay for any costs of delay, rebidding of the project and "other" related costs. They were told that this would have to be a Council policy decision and that it could be considered at the next Council meeting. They pressed for a special meeting. Staff indicated that a special meeting time and purpose could be proposed to the Council and it would be up to them to decide if they wanted to have such a meeting, if at all possible with their schedules. The meeting ended.
A short time later while staff was conferring with the City attorney, Mr. Crocker requested to speak with me. He informed me that the Association representatives had decided to access and stage their seawall from the street within the Sandyland Cove area and use a vacant lot at the most westerly end of the beach for the staging and storage area. However, he requested that the City grant them permission to mobilize and demobilize some equipment via Ash Ave. beach area and work cooperatively in the event of an emergency. He was asked to put his request in writing. He has done so and that letter is attached.
II. Critical Issues:
Also, the City has moved up the date for the construction of the winter berm to the week of October 13. Any breach of that berm for emergency access could jeopardize the integrity of the berm as well as the street project and safety of nearby homes.
3. Emergency Access to Ash – the contractor’s letter states that access to Ash is needed in the event of storm conditions or medical emergency. Why? Are they assuming the end of Ash Ave. would be sparred the consequences of any winter storm and the access they’ve been using for the reconstruction has been hit abnormally hard. In regards to access for "inspectors and city officials, that will occur. City officials can already and easily access City property for inspections.
III. Impact / Implications:
A. Policy:
Staff has presented this for Council discussion to provide a policy direction to staff in regards to the request for "mobilization and demobilization" areas as well as emergency access to Ash. It has always been the City’s policy to first protect City residents, their property and City property and then to assist outlying areas as we can and to the degree that were have resources.
B. Financial:
Any event that would result in delays to the City’s projects, the Ash Ave. improvements or the winter berm, would result in a financial burden to the City and to area residents.
C. Economic:
N/A
D. Legal:
The City is under no legal obligation to provide access to the beach area via Ash Ave. nor is the City under any legal obligation to allow a mobilization or demobilization area on City property. Transport of equipment via City streets is an obligation unless it can be shown that such would be a detriment to the streets or affected areas. The City engineer has determined that all the streets that would be needed for transport to Ash Ave. are sufficient for heavy loads and represent no foreseeable problems.
IV. action options:
V. Attachments:
September 17, 1997 letter from J.F. Crocker, including the letter from Associated Pacific Constructors, Inc.
VI. Principal parties expected at meeting:
Not known at this time.
Recommendation: