HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 7, 1982 (25)COMMUNICATIONS City Clerk Reimche reported that a letter had been
received from Mrs. Frieda Hieb, 1021 W. Lockeford Street,
Lodi, requesting a rehearing on the Lockeford Street
Reconstruction - Ham Lane to California Street. A
staff report concerning the subject was presented for
Council's perusal. Mrs. Hieb was in the audience and
addressed the Council regarding the matter.
REHEARING RE Following discussion with questions being directed to
LOCKEFORD STREET Staff, Council, on motion of Councilman Katnich, McCarty
RECONSTRUCTION HAM second, scheduled a rehearing on Lockeford Street
LANE TO CALIFORNIA Reconstruction, Ham Lane to California Street for
STREET Wednesday, May 5, 1982 at 8:00 p.m. and directed the
City Clerk to do the required legal publications and
to notify the subject property owners.
-3-
V
G
r
VYy�
�Y
Fi
y -f ij�
F
♦ti
A
}S� �fjk�li''
.. ,��5
L :Z
�
�fw
' 1� i
yam'•'
vJY1��I
z
`Y•`±.��'it L� � �-.....: .. :aeE:aacawzcrx+. .yo ,. :.u:,::"a• .
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Public Works Department
TO: City Manager
City Council
FROM: Public Works Director
DATE: April 2, 1982
SUBJECT: Lockeford Street Reconstruction
Ham Lane to California Street
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
At the March 17 meeting. the City Council held a public hearing on the
Lockeford Street project. After the hearing, the Council adopted a project
which included no widening except at the California Street intersection, and
removed the parking on the north side of the street in order to provide
wider travel lanes meeting City standards.
The Council directed staff to inform the property owners of their decision
and explain the status of the parkway. A copy of that letter is attached.
Since then, we have received calls from three persons questioning the
decision. They tended to prefer that the street stay as is, but acknowledged
that the no parking was preferable to widening. They were told that if they
wished to pursue the matter, they should write a letter to the City Council
requesting reconsideration.
The enclosed letter was received on March 22. 1982, and requests a rehearing.
If a rehear'ig is granted, we ask that it be scheduled as soon as possible
so that we can proceed with preparation of the Flans and specifications so
the work can )A done this summer.
l/
J5hmen
L. Ronsko
Pc Works Director
t
JLR/RCP/eeh
CITY COUNCIL
IAMLS A MCC'ARTY. Mayor
RO131 R T G MURPHY. Mayor Pro Iern
RICHARD L HUGHES
WALTER KATNICH
IA.S-31S "' PINK IRTON, 1,
1
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL. 221 W1 ST PINE STRf E I
POST Of f is t BOX 320
LODI. CALIFORNIA 95241
(209) 334-5634
March 15, 1982
Dear Lockeford Street Property Owners & Residents:
SUBJECT: Improvement of Lockeford Street
Ham Lane to California Street
HINRY A GtAM. I,
Cdv Manager
AIICf M Rf IM01t
City Cirri,
RONALDM STtin
Cay Attorrwv
The reconstruction of Lockeford Street is budgeted In this year's Capital
Improvement Program and the work is scheduled for this summer.
The City Council at their last regular meeting on March 10, 1982, discussed
and made the following decisions on the reconstruction of Lockeford Street:
1. No widening of the street would take place with the exception
of 160 ft. on south side Just west of California Street where
the curb will be moved back to the sidewalk.
2. The existing curb and gutter and planter area will remain
as It presently exists.
3. The street pavement section will be reconstructed between
Ham Lane and California Street.
4. "No Parking" will be established on the north side of the
street east and west of Washington School where the narrow
street widths exist, and 160 ft. on :he south side west of
California.
The City Council also asked that we make the property owners and residents
aware that the existing curb and g.uLter parkway and sidewalk is within the
City's existing right-of-way. if the street has to be widened in the future
by removing the parkway, there will be no need for additional land acquisition
from the property otmners.
If you have any questions concerning the proposed improvement, please
contact Richard Prima, Associate Civil Engineer, by calling 334-5634,
Ext. 212.
Sincerely
Ja L. Ronskc,•
Pub is Works Director
cc: City Clerk
JLR/eeh
A,�-ez
r-
x
� ��. ft-� $���,bj;�GY.dI^.s.t�. �bf s`. �m��_" ._.z .,. at"_,:"`„�vr-G a"i> r..,=.E �...��'h`'... ,... a.,�.•...$.. _ � .s. .. ,. - rs'��•�_�.=Y �','.'i ..�S`�+i
!
��L? E'l�• e � ,cry/-�� �`
00
Cam-` a
PY
{ �V�.Q'�'L'i"'t': t�'1r1 � �.;. i �7 .I � VV? �-I�e"�../►'- ~J) t �' 'v -h i
wL
¢, ti
t j
PIE
�' �i^ if`1���jy� 'I � ala W. �.Ocicn-�or1o� �'� � ������,��• �:
t� .. .^'• sT �/ ��`V W /ZC ,1`. Y. YS.'N.- •'"��' �E"jv
AA
AT
,`X
w'
FF
� x c
• �.sjg r .
✓ �.3 D �, -t Ou�.�M
� qoo w
,Soa�, c
193
t
vj
i
- J
�-
/' .
f
Arifies &�rin&Cft�-
t R;
10�
ti
k
tJ
- ,�xa�wf"!�.aYwal9aYpYf6
r..w.,m...-�.-....�...,sm..T+..•......�..�...«..
. _...��._«_..-..-._�_—__..
'CITY COUNCIL'�
!'
�C � �'� 77
HENRY A. CLAVES. It
��w y
.
City Manager
Mayor
JAMEROBE
CITY. O F L O D
T,A.
ROBERT C. MURPHY, Mayor Pro Tem
MURPY.HY.
ALICE ht REtr`tCHE
RICHARD 1. HUGHES
City Clerk
CITY HALL. 321 WEST PINE STREET
WALTER KATNICH
POST OFFICE BOX 320
RONALD M. STEIN
JAMES W. PINKLRTON, Jr.
LODI. CALIFORNIA 95241
City Attorney
(209') 334-563.1
March 17, 1982
L. E. Sevy, P.E.
Chief, Traffic Branch.
Dept. of Transportation
P.O. Box 2048
Stockton, CA
'Dear Mr. Sevy:
Enclosed please find executed original and
duplicate of cooperative agreement no. 10-708
for the proposed signal modification project
at the intersection of West Lane/Hutchins
Street and State Route.12 (Kettleman Lane)
with certified copy of Resolution No. 82-21
approving the agreement.
Please return a fully executed copy of the
subject agreement to this office at your
earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
Al2ce M. ReAe
City Clerk
AR: dg
Enc.
I
E
RESOLUTION NO. 82-21
RESOLUTION APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
(10 -SJ -12-16.9/17.9) BETWEEN THE CITY OF LODI AND THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING THE
MODIFICATION OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT HUTCHINS STREET
AND KETTLEMAN LANE - 10203-287401
RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lodi
does hereby approve the cooperative agreement between the City
of Lodi and the California Department of Transportation
regarding the modification of the traffic signal at Hutchins
Street and Kettleman Lane (Highway 12), a copy of which is
attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", and thereby made a part
hereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Lodi does hereby authorize the Mayor.and City Clerk to
execute the subject agreement on behalf of the City.
Dated: March 10, 1982
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 82-21 was passed
and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi, in.
a regular meeting held March 10, 1982 by the following
vote:
Ayes: Councilmen - Hughes, Pinkerton, and McCarty
Noes: Councilmen - None
Absent: Councilmen - Katnich, Murphy
e&--
ALIC M. %RE CHB
City Clerk
^; "ORIGINAL"
EXHIBIT "A"
10 -SJ -12-16.9
10203 - 287701
Hutchins Street
District Agreement No. 10-708
THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO ON
is between the STATE OF CALIFORVIA, acting by and through its Department of
Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and
RECITALS
(1) STATE AND CITY contemplate installing traffic control signal'
system and safety lighting at the intersection of Hutchins Street with State
Highway Route 12, referred to herein as "PROJECT", and desire to specify the`
terms and conditions under which such system is to be installed, financed and
maintained.
H
-2-
SECTION I
STATE AGREES:
(1) To provide plans and specifications and all necessary construc-
tion engineering services for the PROJECT and to bear STATE'S share of the
expense thereof, as shown on Exhibit A, attached and made a part of this
agreement.
(2) To construct the PROJECT by contract in accordance with the
plans and specifications of STATE.
(3) To pay an amount equal to 50% of const-uction costs; but in no
event shall STATE'S total obligation for construction costs under this
agreement exceed the amount of $60,444; provided that STATE may, at itssole.
discretion, in writing, authorize a greater amount
(4) To maintain and operate the entire traffic control signal system
and safety lighting as installed and pay an amount, equal to 50% of the total
costs.
SECTION II
CITY AGREES:
(1) To deposit with STATE prior to award of a construction contract
for PROJECT, the amount of $52,560, which figure represents CITY'S estimated.
share of the expense of preparation of plans and specifications, construction
engineering, utility negotiation and inspection, and construction costs
required to complete PROJECT, as shown on Exhibit A. In no event shall CITY'S
total obligation for said costs under this agreement exceed the amount of
$60,444; provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in writing,. authorize
a greater amount.
(2) CITY'S share of the construction costs shall be an amount equal
to 50% of the actual cost for the entire PROJECT, as determined after
completion of work and upon final accounting of costs.
(3) CITY'S share of the expense of preparing plans and specifications, .
shall be an amount equal to 50% of the actual costs of preparing plans and
specifications for the entire PROJECT.
-3-
(4) CITY'S share of the expense of construction engineering shalt be an
amount equal to 50% of the actual costs of construction engineering for the entire
PROJECT.
(5) To reimburse STATE for CITY'S proportionate share of the cost of
maintenance and operation of said traffic control signal systems and safety
lighting, such share to be an amount equal to 50% of the total cost.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
(1) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this agreement are
subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation
of resources by the California Transportation Commission.
(2) STATE shall not award a contract for the work until after receipt
of CITY'S.depos-it required in Section II(i). -
(3) Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof shall be
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or
omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this agreement. It is also agreed that,
pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4 CITY shall fully indemnify and hold
STATE harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government
Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
CITY under this agreement.
(4) Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof shall be
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or
omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction not delegated to CITY under this agreement. It is also agreed that,
pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4 STATE shall fully indemnify and hold .
CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code
Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything. done or omitted to be done by STATE
under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to
CITY under this agreement.
-4-
(5) Should any portion of the PROJECT be financed with Federal funds or
State gas tax funds all applicable procedures and policies relating to the use of
such funds shall apply notwithstanding other provisions of this agreement.
(6) After opening of bids CITY'S esti-mate of cost will be revised based
on actual bid prices. CITY'S required deposit under Section II(i) above will be
increased or decreased to match said revised estimate. If deposit increase or
decrease is less than $1,000 no refund or demand for additional deposit will be
made until final accounting.
(7) After opening bids for the PROJECT and if bids indicate a cost
overrun of no more than 15% of the estimate will occur. STATE may award the
contract.
(8)If, upon opening of bids, it is found that a cost overrun exceeding
.15% of the estimate will occur, STATE and CITY shall endeavor to agree upon an
alternative course of action.
(9) Prior to advertising for bids for the PROJECT, CITY may terminate
this agreement in writing, provided that CITY pays STATE for all costs incurred
by STATE.
(10)If termination of this agreement is by mutual agreement, STATE will
bear 50% and CITY will bear 50% of all costs incurred prior to termination.
(11) Upon completion of all work under this agreement, ownership and
title to all materials, equipment and appurtenances installed will be jointly
shared in the ratio of 50% STATE and 50% CITY.
(12) If existing public and/or private utilities conflict with the
construction of the PROJECT, STATE will make all necessary arrangements with
the owners of such utilities for their protection, relocation or removal.
STATE will inspect the protection, relocation or removal of such utilities. If
there are costs of such protection, relocation or removal which the STATE and -
CITY must legally pay, STATE and CITY will share in the cost of said
protection, relocation or removal in the amount of 50% STATE and 50% CITY.
°
-5- j
(13) The cost of any engineering or maintenance referred to herein
shall include all direct and indirect costs (functional and administrative
overhead assessment) attributable to such work, applied in accordance with
STATE'S standard accounting procedures. However, STATE'S share is accounted
for in a statewide account and is not shown separately on each project's cost
breakdown.
(14) That. this agreement shall terminate upon completion and accep—
tance of PROJECT by STATE and CITY or on June 1, 1984, whichever is earlier in
time; however, the ownership and maintenance clauses shall remain in effect
until terminated, in writing,. by mutual agreement.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
ADRIANA GIANTURCO
Director of Transportation
ay
District rec or
-6-
10 -SJ -12-16.9
10203 - 287401
On State Route 12 at
Hutchins Street
District Agreement No. 10-708
EXHIBIT "A"
Distribution of Cost
ITEM OF COST
STATE
CITY
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
Preparing Plans and
Spec if scat ions
$ 5,950
S 51950
$111900
(includes Direct and
Indirect Overhead)
Construction
$39,500
$39,500
$79,000
Construction Engineering
$ 7,110
$ 7,110
$14,220
(includes Direct and
Indirect Overhead)
TOTALS
$52,560
$52,560
$105,120
Agenda item "i" - "Hutchins Street Alley (between Lee and
Hutchins and Walnut and Lodi Avenue) was introduced by City
Attorney Stein. City Attorney Stein apprised the Council that
in approximately September, 1978, Maurice Ray purchased the
lot on the South side of the alley from the Lodi Unified School
District and in January 1979, the City Council filed notice
of intent to abandon the alley at Mr. Ray's behest. Mr. Ray
intended to build an office builidnd on his parcel. In February,
1979, the abandonment was denied by the Council because of Mr.
Campbell's objections. In March 1979, Mr. Ray offered to rent a
portion of the alley and the Council authorized a quiet title
suit to obtain the property on the north side of the alley. Said
q paid for by Mr. Ray. Attached hereto s
quiet title action was to be
are copies of the Council Minutes of March 21, 1979. Since March
of 1979, the City Public Works Department and the City Attorne •sWN
�•;. <.
office have attempted to work out an agreement between the property
owners on the north side of the alleyfor the deeding of the aIle;`-
9 y >
as it was constructed. Unfortunately, the City has reached.
somewhat of an impasse and at this time is interested in direction
from the Council as to the parsuing of the quiet title action. '
s
C (t y y
.. �tY 1. G,�1 Y .y qty}�A•` �'T ,L�' v �••+i{,t; - �-.
,y, +
t 1 - Sa`�
r ri.Y'
fhc: