HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-05 - AGENDA REPORTS - SC GIS (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: r H ' t and City Co ((cc�ilmembers
7'0/�FROM: Borg A. arava i Man ger
DATE: May 5, 1998
SUBJECT: INCREASED IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF SANTA CLARITA'S GIS IN
ORDER TO PLAN AND TO MONITOR DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council to receive report regarding staffs efforts to pursue a Development Monitoring
System (DMS) and to direct staff to increase layers and usage of its Geographical Information
System (GIS) and to return to Councilwith a budget item to be incorporated in fiscal year 98/99
for the first year of enhanced GIS program implementation.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this item is to advise the Council of the progress staff has made to date in order
to implement a DMS and to obtain the Council's support of staff to pursue this concept in order
to monitor development and to administer an infrastructure maintenance program.
At the request of the City Council in January, 1996, staff has explored the viability of creating
a DMS for the last two years. Studies have revealed that the implementation of a DMS would
be a costly endeavor that is difficult to manage with no achievement of a DMS guaranteed.
Further research has revealed that achieving a DMS requires a City-wide overhaul of integrated
information management. (See attached, DMS Summary Memo, for further evaluation of a
DMS.)
Based on information provided by the City's DMS consultant, a DMS would span jurisdictional
boundaries and necessitate the approval and the budgetary support of other agencies
responsible for conditioning development, including, but not limited to, Los Angeles County Fire
Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, California Department of Transportation,
and County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.
Staff recognizes that the City could make use of a better planning tool and meet the request of
the Council and the goals of interested citizens by incrementally increasing the use of our GIS,
which is currently in place on a limited scale featuring layers which include storm drains, catch
basins, manholes, zoning, roads, bridges, parcels, building footprints, and railroads. (Staff will
further elaborate on GIS during the oral presentation at the Study Session.)
I
ccss, 5.5-98
Page 2
GIS represents an instrument for staff to query, analyze, and map data in support of the
decision making and the planning process. Used efficiently, GIS technology provides a flexible
set of tools to perform the diverse functions of local government and can assist staff in digesting
an immense amount of information needed to perform its duties in a fair and sound manner.
In addition to other planning functions currently used by staff', such as the .California
Environmental Quality Act, mitigation monitoring programs, and conditions of approval, an
advanced GIS would further meet the spirit of a DMS by monitoring development and indicating
a proposed project's impacts in advance of its completion.
PROPOSAL
Staff proposes to start by adding layers based on the City's recently completed Infrastructure
Master Plan (IMP). (See attached, DMS Summary Memo, for further explanation of the IMP.)
If directed by Council to do so now and in June when staff returns with a further detailed
agenda item, staffs goal is to complete the associated tasks on the following timeline.
June, 2000 - Staff will have completed adding the needed layers from items in the IMP
and will be able to generate this information in map form for staff,
residents and other interested parties. Progress to this point may require
the hiring of a GIS Specialist to assist staff in managing the added layers.
June, 2002 - GIS will be accessible through the Intranet with additional layers
potentially created based on land use, permit acquisition, Public Works
maintenance, easements, and zip codes. As a result of these
advancements in the City's GIS, a well -experienced GIS manager will
likely be needed at this time to continue administering this program
effectively.
June, 2004 - GIS will be accessible through the Internet and through the City s web
site which will contain an automated permit and development processing
system allowing any person to review the status of an existing project and
providing for the application of the permit via computer use. This
capability will likely require the hiring of a full-time employee proficient
at creating and maintaining web sites. Additional layers could likely
include liquefaction, major ridgelines, school district boundaries, trees,
and tract maps.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action as determined by Council.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Funds for this expenditure in the amount of $50,000, have been budgeted in account #1210-8110
for fiscal year 98/99 and are subject to the Council approving the proposed budget in June.
ccss, 5.5-98
Page 3
These monies will pay for the first steps in increasing the GIS to be an improved tool for staff
to plan and to monitor development.
Cumulative costs are speculative at this point, but additional costs will be incurred with the .
addition of needed staff, workstations, hardware, software, and up-to-date training. Staff will
return to the Council in June with an agenda item of a budget request to fund the effort to apply
additional layers to the GIS. Staff expects to present an agenda item annually for budgetary
approval for the proposed GIS advancements and to elaborate on the project's status.
ATTACHMENTS
DMS Summary Memo
GAC jes
sApbs\mnent\CISMI
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: George Caravalho, City Manager
FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager
DATE: January. 27, 1998
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF DMS RELATED ISSUES
Background
The City Council received a letter in January, 1996 from the Santa Clarita Organization for
Planning the Environment (SCOPE) requesting that the City implement a Development
Monitoring System (DMS) as called for in the City's General Plan.
The main General Plan policy supporting the creation of a DMS is Policy 1.4 of the Public
Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element which states "Using such records as described in
Policy 1.3, design and implement a DMS to evaluate the individual and cumulative impacts of
existing and proposed development on the service capacity of public services, facilities, and
utilities, and use the results from the DMS to mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements
and development requirements."
In the past two years the City has conducted an analysis of the County's DMS and determined
that its existing system would not be a benefit if utilized by the City staff in its existing format.
Secondly, a community meeting attended by 15 persons was held to obtain suggestions on
adjusting the program to better serve the City. Thirdly, staff has met a number of times to
discuss all related issues pertaining to a DMS. Finally, staff has contracted the services of the
firm of CH2MHILL and requested (see attached proposed statement of work) that the company
outline and summarize a scope of services to propose the goals, concepts, feasibility, and
implementation of such a program.
While the Los Angeles County has its own DMS, the City would attempt to create a
computerized development and mitigation monitoring program (also known as a DMS) which
will improve upon the County's DMS and will provide the needed flexibility when assessing a
new development's impacts to the area.
The City's Infrastructure Master Plan (IMP) will likely serve as a foundation for the
implementation and execution of a City DMS. The IMP was done by CH2MHILL and it is a
detailed analysis of existing and future deficiencies and estimates improvement costs of the
City's infrastructure elements which include, local streets, arterials, bridges, street lighting,
curb -gutter -sidewalks, median landscaping, traffic controls, pavement maintenance, transit
access, sewer systems, parks, and trails. The City's total infrastructure deficit at buildout has
been identified at $587 million. In other words, based on the IMP, if the City were to have full
buildout of all of its entire infrastructure elements as listed above and authorize subsequent
payment, it would leave the current operating budget in the hole for $587 million.
A fully operational computerized development and mitigation monitoring program has the
potential to provide staff with the tools to evaluate existing and proposed development impacts
and associated costs on infrastructure capacities, public services and facilities, and the
environment while monitoring annual growth within the City's jurisdiction in order to
coordinate development timing with phased infrastructure expansion.
The computerized mitigation monitoring program included in the project will trigger conditions
of approval to staff at programmed intervals allowing staff to verify that specific conditions have
been met by the applicant as required.
Los Angeles County DMS
The County DMS was instituted as a result of a lawsuit against the County in order to ensure
that infrastructure will be available to serve new development. It is used as a tool by County
planners to determine how to condition projects to pay for the infrastructure impacts associated
with each project. The DMS is used to assess infrastructure impacts upon six public services:
water, sewerage, schools, libraries, roads and fire. Of these infrastructure needs, sewerage,
libraries, roads and fire services are County -provided. While City residents receive services
addressed by the DMS, none of these services are provided by the City with the exception of
roadway development. The City sends copies of all large City projects to the County Regional
Planning Department for inclusion on the County DMS list of projects for use in determining
cumulative impacts upon these County services that also benefit City residents.
While not computerized, the County and the City both assess subdivision impacts upon park
facilities through Quimby Act standards that are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The City and
County share some Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts (BTDs) to pay for needed roadway
improvements. Additionally, the City and the County use the same Traffic Model to assess
project impacts and to determine mitigation measures. The City is also part of a joint
agreement with the Los Angeles County Fire Department to charge uniform fees to pay for
construction of fire facilities throughout the County, including facilities to serve Santa Clarita.
Environmental review is another important and state -mandated tool used assessing the future
impacts of development and in identifying methods to reduce those impacts. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be
prepared for projects resulting in significant environmental impacts. Under the County
development review process, a developer, with the agreement of the Department of Regional
Planning, contracts directly with an EIR consultant to provide an assessment of a major
2
development. Since the project EIR is the main document for identifying environmental impacts
and the methods to mitigate them, the presence of a DMS may give balance and credit to the
EIR document that may otherwise be suspect. More importantly, the EIR addresses a project's
cumulative impact and requires mitigations whereas a DMS tracks impacts to services and
infrastructure.
The County development monitoring process allows for planning at a distance and for planning
a large service area. Compared to the County, the City has a relatively small planning area.
It is this size and distance aspect that provides a fundamental difference between the character
of regional planning in the County and local planning in the City.
The Function of a City DMS
Simply put, a DMS is a formula. In order to adequately implement a DMS, reasonable
assumptions will have to be made and information will have to be obtained. For the purposes
of this study, assume that the City of Santa Clarita will maintain a population at a build out of
270,000 persons.
In order to create the formula, each of the components listed below will require its own
completed Master Plan, or at minimum, a Conceptual Planning Guide before applying DMS so
that the staff and the program can fully predict a new development's potential impact. Also,
an economic analysis and forecast of the City, its residents, land use, potential construction
costs, and a projected buildout date would be needed for the formula.
The components of a DMS could include, but are not limited to, the following:
Primary Services
1.
Roads
2.
Parks
3.
Libraries
4.
Sewers
5.
Water
Secondary Services
1.
Schools
2.
Transit
3.
Fire
4.
Police
5.
Public Facilities
6.
Drainage
Periphery Services
1. Social Services
2. Federal Services
3. Trails
4. Misc. State Agencies
5. Court Systems
6. Airports
Once all of above data is compiled the process would consist of the following steps:
1. Applicant submits project to the City
2. Staff breaks down project based on project cost, size, units, and land use
3. Information is fed into formula
4. DMS responds with impacts to service components and with a per unit cost to be
assessed to the developer for each impacted component
County projects which potentially impact the City could also be fed into a City DMS, but there
is no guarantee that any impacts would be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City.
In identifying the collective components of a DMS it is reasonable to presume that staff, Council,
3
and members of the community may have different perspectives on what a DMS does, what it
is, and how it works. Further, all interested parties should have a consensus and an
understanding of the end result and desired goal of a DMS. The formation of a DMS will
necessitate input from the County, other affected agencies, and the general public in an effort
to have dialogue about the DMS's components, utility benefit, adaptability, successes, and
liabilities.
City Development Review Process
The City does not have a formal computerized DMS, but rather has a development review
process whereby each development application is reviewed individually and conditioned on a
case-by-case basis. Each site is visited by planners upon receipt of an application and prior to
determining project impacts. Each project is reviewed for compliance with City codes and with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As part of the development review process,
the City sends copies of development proposals to local service providers including water
purveyors, the trash collectors, the Sanitation District, the Sheriffs Department, the Fire
Department, the Gas Company, the school districts, and others. Comments from these outside
agencies are included in the drafting of project mitigation measures and conditions of approval.
Unlike the County, City planners hire consultants directly to produce EIRs and identify
mitigation measures. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval are added so that each
development "pays as it goes" in order to mitigate development impacts: upon the public
infrastructure. Since the Santa Clarita Valley has an infrastructure deficit and by law, (in the
absence of a development agreement) a developer can only be required to pay to mitigate his
own impact, neither the City's case-by-case tailored approach to development review nor the
County's computer formula approach will be able to "fix" the infrastructure deficit of the Valley.
Often, the City and the applicant will enter into a development agreement. This provides an
opportunity for staff to negotiate mitigations above and beyond what an EIR would require and
beyond what infrastructure impacts a DMS would reveal. Regardless of the presence of a DMS,
the City and County will only be able to solve the infrastructure deficit through public and
private cooperation and investment, not merely through developer exactions.
Pros and Cons to the City Development Process
The advantage to the City development process is that it allows flexibility in mitigating impacts.
Emphasis may be placed on the infrastructure issues of greatest local concern with the case-by-
case approach. City planners and Planning Commissioners are familiar with the Santa Clarita
Valley and sites proposed for development which is a decided advantage over County planners,
particularly in determining local development impacts. This present City development
processing system provides the ability to individually assess relative infrastructure impacts, and
it has allowed the City to obtain mitigation far above that gained by the County. Furthermore,
the City is required by the CEQA process to reduce a project's potential impact to a level of less
than significant. Currently the City has more stringent development standards and approves
lower densities than the County. A possible drawback is that since the City provides few
infrastructure components, the impact on the services not provided by the City is supplied by
the actual provider and the City has little means to verify the information.
0
Pros and Cons of the County Development Monitoring System (DMS)
The advantage of a computerized DMS and mitigation monitoring program is that it has the
potential to provide staff with the tools to evaluate existing and proposed development impacts
and associated costs on infrastructure capacities, public services and facilities, and the
environment while monitoring annual growth within the City's jurisdiction in order to
coordinate development timing with phased infrastructure expansion. It would also allow the
impacts to infrastructure to be specifically measured and quantified with each project.
However, a project of this complexity and enormity does not come without potential liabilities
and questions. The concern with a computerized DMS is that, once implemented, the results
become both the minimum and the maximum obligation. There is little room for flexibility.
While this may be adequate for smaller development projects, limiting the scope for discretion
may reduce the ability of the City to obtain the levels of mitigation the City has received in the
past on larger scale projects. This process puts the City at a disadvantage in the negotiation
process with developers as limits are set, and therefore, staff will be obligated to only ask from
the developer in mitigation that which was determined by the DMS. There is also a reduction
in the case by case analysis of each project as a DMS cannot feasibly factor in a project which,
for example, contains a recreational lake and has homes abutting a river. Finally, the results
provided by a DMS are not always completely nor necessarily enforceable.
Another drawback to consider is that the County DMS is a proven battleground for legal
challenges on behalf of slow -growth organizations as well as developers. Should the City
institute a DMS, a similar City liability would exist. Can the City legally and fairly make new
development and residents pay for new needed services and infrastructure such as roads, parks
and schools when many needed improvements are not strictly a result of new development?
Understandably, a given percentage of the local population total is a result of growth and
regeneration from the current, existing population while the remainder of the population is a
result of migration/new residents.
An additional concern is the way the County writes conditions of approval based upon DMS
information. Conditions are often written to apply to a project only in the case that a fund
would be created. As an example, "Developer agrees to pay his fair share if a library district is
created." This often results in no mitigation whatsoever. Whereas the EIR. process requires
mitigation, the DMS does not as it simply tracks impacts to infrastructure.
Cost is another. factor in the maintenance of a DMS. The City of San Jose has earmarked
approximately $10 million up front for a DMS proposal similar to, but significantly more
intense, than the one proposed by Santa Clarita staff. In addition to software and hardware,
there is the data gathering and long-term maintenance and staff training aspect of the DMS.
Furthermore, the compiling and up-to-date of Master Plans and Planning Guides would need
to be monitored. Once installed, it would be incumbent upon the City to keep an up-to-date
DMS to avoid a challenge on its accuracy. This could potentially pose a long-term financial
burden to the City.
5
Comparatively, the funds required for the cost of an EIR are reimbursed by the developer or
project applicant. The cost to implement and maintain a DMS would likely have to be paid for
by the City. Although concrete data is unattainable at this time, it is estimated that the
quantitative costs to implement such a DMS for Santa Clarita could reach into the millions of
dollars within two to four years of project implementation. This amount includes required
funds for defining and creating a system in addition to reflecting other initial, maintenance,
training, and annual costs.
Other DMS Concerns
Would a City DMS solve a perceived problem of new development impacting existing
infrastructure? In the case of the Santa Clarita Valley, it is not potential new development
within the City that is of greatest concern, but rather the great potential that exists in the
County. The vast majority of developable land is located in, and under the control of, the
County of Los Angeles. How does the City fairly and accurately assess County developments
for their impacts on the City?
Where the County DMS has been unable to adequately address infrastructure impacts, imposing
a like City DMS on the limited developable area in the City is not likely to obtain different
results. A DMS may also have the potential to assess developers with a cost prohibitive
amount of requirements. This could lead to litigation, or to the applicant choosing to build in
unincorporated areas, and also could put the City at a disadvantage in negotiating for
mitigations.
City General Plan Implementation
Another aspect of the SCOPE letter is the charge that the City has not been implementing its
twenty year General Plan. Over a million dollars has been spent so far on determining the
long-term City infrastructure needs. This includes the completing of the City's Long Range
Financial Plan, a Transit Master Plan, and an Infrastructure Master Plan. A Parks Master Plan
including a Trails Element has been completed and was adopted by the City Council in
December 1995.
Other activities undertaken to assess infrastructure needs include the Joint City -County Traffic
Model for the Santa Clarita Valley. The City Stormwater Utility has created a geographic
information system (GIS) to map the City. The Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) is also developing a GIS for regional planning implementation that will be compatible
with the City's system and will eventually improve regional cooperation in planning. All of the
former activities are included as implementation policies and features of the City's General
Plan.. These activities are also the necessary first step toward assessing existing and future
infrastructure needs in the City.
Survey
To obtain a broader view of DMS staff has conducted a survey (see attached) of area service
31
providers and has compiled responses which shows that, in general, the providers do not
support a City DMS.
Summary
The City may opt to run its DMS separately from the County if it wishes. to set different
standards. For example, staff may disagree with an assumption concerning the amount of water
consumption attributable to a single family home, or staff could disagree as to an acceptable
level of traffic congestion. Staff may want to create districts in the City, whereby different
standards apply.
A review of the various agencies' methods of conditioning of a project shows that sewer, water, and fire impacts
are mitigated by LA County Planning conditions in the same manner as the City does so, regardless of the
existence of a DMS.
The City's largest project, Porta Bella, would have been conditioned for improvements and fees by the same
agencies with or without a DMS. The developer offered a fire station site which was rejected by the Fire
Department although the City will acquire the site as part of the development agreement. In the area of libraries,
the County would have charged no fee since the area was zoned for urban use and the library isn't considered to
be urban expansion.
In the area of schools, both jurisdictions rely on large developers to negotiate with the districts. The exactions
acquired for road hnprovements emanate from a premise that traffic mitigation must be complete. It is not
possible to determine which road improvements would have been required by the County. The City did very well
in exacting full traffic mitigation, but it isn't evident how a DMS might have changed this result.
It appears that a DMS system is one tool to monitor development and to plan infrastructure. It further appears
that vital information needs to be compiled and maintained and that the greatest benefit to be derived is
supportive data from the DMS which justifies fair share exactions to fund needed public facilities as identified
in the adopted IMP.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that any combination of the following actions be considered:
1. Conduct additional meetings with members of the community. to further define and
identify the scope of a City DMS. Public participation in identifying these issues will
identify options for future policy development and actions.
2. Prepare an assessment of the vacant land available in the City for development. This
study should identify City land availability based upon existing zoning. The purpose of
this study is to have baseline data by which to analyze the build -out potential within the
City. This baseline data would also be a critical link for identifying the potential for new
development impacts upon City infrastructure.
3. Study the City's IMP and evaluate existing and potential infrastructure deficits and
7
needs.
4. Determine which additional services, if any, should be added to the data. This includes a determination
whether the City will collect fees for library construction and whether the City will be in the business of
providing libraries.
5. Have staff meet with Council at a study session in April to give staff direction as to what services should
be included in a City DMS and to have Council, if it so desires, earmark funds for the hiring of a
consultant to develop a City DMS.
KP:JES:lep
pbs\current\ dmssum.je s
Attachments
cd\current\dmssum.jes
SERVICE PROVIDER INTERVIEWS
Representatives from each of the service providers encompassed by the County DMS have been interviewed to
gain insight of the process. Other potential service providers who may be candidates for a DMS have also had
representatives interviewed.
The sewer districts created their own DMS, even calling it by the same name, and have been using it for about
five years. They make information available to the County DMS, but for their own DMS they only plug in data
when a property is proposed for annexation. This occurs after any subdivision or zoning approvals and only if
the project is likely to be built.
The Fire Department relies on a fee of 18 cents per square foot of construction in the Santa Clarita Valley to fund
future stations. The money being collected presently will finance a new fire station in Stevenson Ranch to replace
the temporary station behind Camping World. The Fire Department does not rely on the DMS for its planning.
The school districts fill out a form once a year and mail it to the County DMS, to provide information on the costs
of providing schools, per student. The superintendents feel that they are now doing better with the big developers.
They want the City to continue to ensure that developers must satisfy district needs, to the satisfaction of the
districts, regardless of whether the City operates a DMS. Comments included a need to update multiple -family
generation factors (students per dwelling unit) and having a DMS which gets a minimum fee with the
understanding that the developers and district will negotiate upwards from that base rate.
County planners are disappointed in the monitoring of schools under the DMS in that schools in this region are
not maximizing their capacity with year-round attendance. Therefore.they are not providing true figures for
existing facility capacity.
The water companies provide annual information for the DMS. They are concerned that the DMS isn't updated
to show current capacity, given CLWA's additional purchases of capacity in recent years. They feel most of the
master planning for water is performed by the CLWA. Their major concern isn't for capacity, but for knowing
when and how large projects will be phased so they can plan the infrastructure to avoid redoing or upsizing
repeatedly. They presently communicate directly with developers for this information. They don't believe the
County's population projections are accurate, since the population isn't rising as fast as originally predicted. They
also need a later horizon year than 2010. They are hoping to all agree on a statement as to their existing
capacities soon.
A library fee is presently being assessed on projects at building permit issuance. It is $336 per residential unit,
collected only in the unincorporated area and only on projects considered to be urban expansion, such as those
which require a plan amendment.
In the area of roads, the County Department of Public Works makes recommendations whether traffic is being
fully mitigated on a proposed project, after reviewing traffic studies. County plarmers state that there is no
underlying assumption that Bridge and Thoroughfare fees fully mitigate, and often improvements are required
at time of occupancy.
The Sheriffs Department may wish to be part of a DMS, but mostly wish to be involved in seeing all proposed
projects. Former Captain (Quinn) would make any results known to us if the Sheriff devises a formula for costs
of providing services as generated by land uses. County planners thought the Sheriff may have had an interest
in researching this. However, a recent budget process may have curbed a previous interest.
The facilities chairman for the Arts Council would like to see DMS include the arts, possibly for new facilities
or art in public places.
County planners see many projects approved but never built. They suggested that a DMS analysis could be done
on approved and recorded projects, maybe as a separate set of statistics. Presently they compute the impacts on
a total of all approved, recorded, and pending projects, and this skews the results toward a greater level of impact.
Jim Kushner was appointed by the court to referee the land use case which resulted in a
computer program for the DMS. His hope was that the service providers would be prompted
to get involved in planning for their infrastructure through the DMS.
He retains neutrality by accepting no clients, but readily answers questions about the DMS.
He was disappointed that the County did not adopt a capital improvements plan. He feels that
an infrastructure plan complements a DMS, so real goals can be set and monitored. A developer
then will know what his "fair share" is and what his fees will pay for.
10
January.9,1998
133160.0 W.Al
Mr. Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager
City of Santa Clarita
Department of Planning and Building Services
23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196
Dear Mr. Lambert:
Subject: Computerized Development and Mitigation Monitoring Program Contract
Services
CH2M HILL is pleased to provide this letter proposal in response to a November 24,1997
request from Mr. Jason Smisko of the City of Santa Clarita (City) for a scope of services
related to establishing the preliminary goals, concepts, feasibility, and suggested approach
to developing a computerized Development and Mitigation Monitoring System (DNLS).
Provosal Background and Understanding
On September 29, 1997, CH2M HILL submitted a proposal to provide the City with
technical information management services related to preparation of a computerized DMS
for infrastructure facilities capital cost planning. This proposal was prepared in response to
a September 2,1997 Request for Proposal (RFP). Subsequent to this submittal and following r
an interview with the City's designated selection panel, CH2M HILL was chosen by the
City to undertake the proposed DMS development efforts, pending and contingent upon
City Council budget approval
It is our understanding that, in lieu of proceeding at this time with the execution of the
Professional Services Agreement provided to CH2M HILL by the City on November 17,
1997 for these DMS services, the City has requested CH2M HILL to submit a revised scope
of work (SOW) for undertaking certain limited and preliminary actions related to these
services. This correspondence provides the revised SOW requested.
CKM FULL
su t 20U
�....
Sant Ana, CA
C H2M H I LL
92107
+
Tel T14.429.20W
FIs 774.129.2050
January.9,1998
133160.0 W.Al
Mr. Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager
City of Santa Clarita
Department of Planning and Building Services
23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196
Dear Mr. Lambert:
Subject: Computerized Development and Mitigation Monitoring Program Contract
Services
CH2M HILL is pleased to provide this letter proposal in response to a November 24,1997
request from Mr. Jason Smisko of the City of Santa Clarita (City) for a scope of services
related to establishing the preliminary goals, concepts, feasibility, and suggested approach
to developing a computerized Development and Mitigation Monitoring System (DNLS).
Provosal Background and Understanding
On September 29, 1997, CH2M HILL submitted a proposal to provide the City with
technical information management services related to preparation of a computerized DMS
for infrastructure facilities capital cost planning. This proposal was prepared in response to
a September 2,1997 Request for Proposal (RFP). Subsequent to this submittal and following r
an interview with the City's designated selection panel, CH2M HILL was chosen by the
City to undertake the proposed DMS development efforts, pending and contingent upon
City Council budget approval
It is our understanding that, in lieu of proceeding at this time with the execution of the
Professional Services Agreement provided to CH2M HILL by the City on November 17,
1997 for these DMS services, the City has requested CH2M HILL to submit a revised scope
of work (SOW) for undertaking certain limited and preliminary actions related to these
services. This correspondence provides the revised SOW requested.
Mr. Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager
Page 2
January 9, 1998
133160.OW 41
Scope and Approach
CI-r?'VI HILL will structure and conduct the various work efforts associated with this project
according to the following tasks:
Task I - DMS Survey/Workshop
Task 2 - Technical Memorandum/Project Management activities
Task 1- DMS Survey/Workshop
Following contract execution, the CH2M HILL project team shall develop and submit to the
City, for distribution to appropriate City staff and selected community members, up to 30
copies of a survey questionnaire that will be designed to elicit feedback on the desired
utility, features, capabilities, and components to be included in a Santa Clarita DMS. As
part of Task 1, CH—IM HILL also shall investigate the approachtakenby a limited number of
other California cities that are currently using some sort of permit tracking or development
monitoring system
CH2M HILL's Jim McKibben will present a one -day seminar on "On-line Planning" to a
maximum of 30 City staff. This is a seminar that has been presented at several national
conferences such as the AW WA Computer Conference and contains much of the material
presented in courses taught at the University of California at Riverside Extension and
California State University in Long Beach. This workshop will define the concept of "On-
line
Online Planning" and discuss how various information technologies such, as Geographic
Information Svstems, modeling, data. warehousing, and document management systems
can be integrated into a single automated planning system. The survey questionnaire will
be distributed at this seminar.
Following receipt of the completed survey questionnaires from the City, two (2) senior
members of the CH2M HILL project team aim McKibben and Joe Gautsch) shall conduct
and lead a one -day workshop with City staff and select members of the community to
establish the goals, concepts, feasibility, and implementation of Santa Quita's proposed
computerized DIVIS. The workshop will be structured and conducted to include proactive
involvement among workshop participants for the purpose of investigating ideas, including
development and finalization of a DMS component "wish list," of functions that should be
included in a DMS.
Task 2 - Technical Memorandum/Project Management Activities
Following completion of Task 1, CH2M HILL will prepare and provide to the City five (5)
copies of a written memorandum documenting and detailing the following:
• A conceptual description of Santa Clarita's preferred DMS program for
subsequent summarization by City staff to City Council;
Mr. Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager
Page.3
January 9,1998
133160.OW.A1
• An initial range of developmental and annual maintenance cost estimates and
schedule for development of the preferred DMS 1;
• An explanation of how the conceptual DMS would relate to and integrate
elements of the Infrastructure Master Plan;
• A brief summary of the approach taken by other cities currently using
computerized permit tracking or development monitoring systems; and
• A ON5 conceptual development plan
Proiect Costs
CH2NI HILL will undertake this SOW on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita for the not-to-
exceed
otto-
exceed price of 510,000 noted in the City's November 24, 1997 correspondence, subject to
the assumptions listed below.
Assumptions and Limitations
This proposed SOW specifies and is limited to the work efforts and deliverables delineated
above. In addition, the level of effort and associated costs specified within this SOW are
subject to the following assumptions:
1. The City shall provide access to all pertinent and relevant information and processes
2. Knowledgeable City and agency personnel are available to provide accurate and
detailed information in a timely manner
3. Essential environmental and engineering documents are readily available
4. The City shall be responsible for distributing the DMS survey forms to appropriate
staff and community members, as well as compiling the completed surveys and
providing them to CH2M HILL prior to conduct of the workshops
5. The City shall be responsible for identifying, selecting, and notifying staff and
community members who will be involved in the workshops, as well as hosting the
workshops
6. A single draft of the Task 2 Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted to City
staff
7. The level of effort and associated costs for this SOW specifically do not include the
following:
a) Development/design of a prototype GIS/DVS system
I Oudng a January 7,1997 telephone wmersatlah with CH2M HILL. Mr. Jason Smisko d the CM/ requested Matwe Pmvid• a pnfnehary estt m of
the ranged Mese oasts. Please note that a matistic admate of such oosts wia requtre add*rlW infamdon of the type m be developed under Task 1
and, consequently, cannot to provided at Mis time.
Mr. Jeffrey Lan*ert~ Planning Manager
Page 4
January 9, 1998
133160.OW.A1
b) Development, discussion, or description of more than one DMS program
option
c) Technical evaluation of the City's current hardware and network capabilities
to support development of the DMS program
d) Examination of the proposed DMS program's ability to respond to Los
Angeles County monitoring, impacts to the City from County projects, and
expected growth from within the City
Additional tasks, meetings, deliverable review drafts and copies, and issues analysis are
considered to be beyond the present scope of work. Should additional services be required,
CH2M HILL is prepared to undertake these services at the City's direction, and will revise the
proposed scope and fee accordingly.
We believe that CH2>vf HILL is uniquely qualified to undertake this important project. We
Iook forward to discussing this exciting opportunity in further detail with you..
Sincerely,
CH2-M HILL
Robert O. Price
Project Manager
cc: J. Salgaonkar/SCO
J. Iv1cKibben/SCO
J. Gautsch/SCO
SCO/DOCUMENTI
ill