22 • October 10 - 23, 2014 • The Log
thelog.com
cants to the Request for Proposal,” the Grand Jury stated in its report. In response, Giancola stated in the
past dozen years agreements with the project management firm were updat- ed or modified and the invoicing reflected such changes. “Invoicing for this project has been going on for 12 years. During this time, the agreement with the project management firm has changed based on direction from the county at any given point in time through the Board of Supervisors,” Giancola wrote in his responses. “Invoicing format has been modified over the years based on the type of agreement structure and based on invoicing requirements and project needs set by the county at the time.” Another point of disagreement: whether standardized minutes of weekly meetings held with harbor management were properly docu- mented.
The Grand Jury reported the
Revitalization From page 7
Spawned from a county-created task force, the Revitalization Plan was adopted by both the Board of Supervisors and the Dana Point City Council in 2006. County officials, according to the Grand Jury, anticipat- ed Dana Point Harbor to have emerged “as a thriving recreational, boating and retail activity center” by 2020, complete with “ a new commer- cial core, complementing Dana Wharf … [and] planned Festival Plaza serv- ing as a gathering place for boaters, shoppers, tourists, and transient boaters.” Bates, who represents Dana Point
on the Orange County Board of Supervisors, said at the Sept. 16 meet- ing the process is a major reason for the project being delayed. “I would like to compliment the
Grand Jury on taking issue with the processing time at the Coastal Commission. Many people have issue with the length of time it takes to get their projects through,” Bates said. “[The] private sector finds an inordi- nate amount of costs are levied upon projects they are building because of the processing time. If you look at the
Artist renderings show how the Dana Point Harbor Marina (bottom) and Festival Plaza (top) would look like if current plans are ultimately realized. The new marina would be reconfigured and/or reconstructed, according to county offi- cials, to allow for updated docks and renovated facilities. The Festival Plaza would be an open space adjacent to the marina and a direct view of the harbor.
costs over the years, much of it was because it had to be referred back through the Coastal Commission for various amendments.” Bates, who is termed out of office
this year, added she hoped a ribbon- cutting or groundbreaking would take place during her successor’s tenure. One of those possible successors,
Laguna Niguel Councilmember Robert Ming, said the time is now to finally move forward with the Revitalization Plan.
“The Revitalization Plan has been a long time in the making and has seen a lot of input from the community. I think we are at the point now where we have a solid plan and need to make progress,” Ming said. He added two concerns remain: getting the project financed and possi- ble regulatory challenges. Any regula- tory challenges from the public means the Coastal Commission would again become involved with the process. In his responses to the Grand Jury
Report, Giancola stated his office has already implemented a few of the panel’s suggestions, including the scheduling of an annual audit, main- taining records of meeting minutes, monitoring agreements and the implementation of their terms, and establishing of guidelines for con- struction contract competition. Giancola also disagreed with the
Grand Jury’s finding that historical invoices submitted by the hired proj- ect management firm lacked specifici- ty. The Grand Jury stated it was diffi- cult to track what work was completed and for how much money. “Although the contract for the proj- ect management company has been in effect since 2003, the Grand Jury has been unable to unearth the original bids and oral responses of the appli-
weekly harbor management meetings were not properly documented with standardized minutes, a finding Giancola challenged. “In an effort to determine a documented timeline for the Revitalization Project, a critical pathway and minutes of the weekly meetings were request- ed. The Grand Jury was advised that minutes of the weekly meetings are not recorded and/or documented,” the Grand Jury found in its report. “No one can aptly ascertain what has transpired during any of the weekly meetings without any written documentation. Therefore, transparency is lost.” Harbor officials followed
proper protocols in conducting its meetings with stakeholders and oth- ers, Giancola replied. “Regular team meetings are held by
OC Dana Point Harbor with the Dana Point Shipyard (quarterly), the harbor operators (bi-weekly), as well as the project management company and design/engineering consultants (weekly). The proceedings of these meetings are documented on a consis- tent basis,” Giancola stated, adding he also disagreed with the Grand Jury’s finding that oversight lacked in other areas such as tracking deliverables and auditing. With respect to the Grand Jury’s
recommendation he assign Orange County Public Works to oversee the Revitalization Plan’s construction phases, Giancola responded “the rec- ommendation requires further analy- sis.”
When the Grand Jury suggested
both Giancola and Dana Point Harbor Director Brad Gross do a cost analysis of the efficiency of having two marina management companies, the Orange County CEO responded the recom- mendation would be implemented in the future. “Prior to the expiration of the cur- rent Dana Point Marina Company
See REVITALIZATION page 23
Images courtesy Dana Point Harbor/
ocdph.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56