HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 5, 2004 I-04AGENDA ITEM 1404
• CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
• inn
AGENDA TITLE: Adopt Resolution Approving City Participation in Ham Lane Fence
Construction (Cardinal Street to 1,100 Feet South of Cardinal Street) and
Appropriating Funds ($1,000)
MEETING DATE: May 5, 2004
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt a resolution approving an appropriation
of $1,000 to help two property owners on Sunset Drive pay for the
construction of a new block wall along Ham Lane.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In the fall of 1990, property owners on Sunset Drive south of
Cardinal Street asked Council for City participation in the
construction of a new block wall along Ham Lane in the street
right-of-way. Their existing fences were in a state of disrepair and
increased traffic on Ham Lane was creating additional noise in their backyards.
At the June 5, 1991, City Council meeting, a second petition was signed by the owners and presented to
the Council. This petition offered to contribute $8,550 towards a new fence. At that time, the estimated
cost for the entire project was $90,000. Council recommended that the fence project be included in the
next Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list for consideration. On November 20, 1991, owners returned
to Council requesting a special allocation because the CIP list had not been completed and several
fences were in need of major repair work. Council again determined that it would consider the Ham Lane
fence project as part of the CIP program when it was presented to Council.
The Ham Lane fence project was part of the proposed 1993194 CIP list, but this project was not included
in the adopted CIP program.
In May 1996, the Sunset Drive owners submitted another request to Council asking that the City review
its records to find out whether the City had required the developer to install a more substantial fence as
part of the subdivision improvements. In November 1996, Public Works Director Jack Ronsko wrote a
memo to the City Manager and the City Council explaining that a meeting had been held with several of
the Sunset Drive owners and agreement was reached on the following items: The City would pay for
landscaping and irrigation between the fence and the Ham Lane sidewalk; the fence height would be
eight feet as measured from the Ham Lane side of the fence; and the City would design the fence and
pay for the difference in cost between regular block and split -face block. This agreement was based on
discussions held at the November 12, 1996 City Council shirtsleeve session.
On November 12, 1997, Public Works Director Ronsko wrote a letter to Ms. Suzanne Brodehl
(1121 South Sunset Drive) reiterating the items agreed to in November 1996 and also adding the
following three items: The City would pay for the demolition of the existing fence; the City would waive
APPROVED:
Flynn, City Managef
HamLaneFence Partici paiion_doc 4/27/2004
Adopt Resolution Approving City Participation in Ham Lane Fence Construction (Cardinal Street to
1,100 Feet South of Cardinal Street) and Appropriating Funds ($1,000)
May 5, 2004
Page 2
any building or plan check fee requirements involved in the fence construction; and the City would apply
the same degree of participation should individual owners wish to construct a block wall instead of
constructing a continuous wall along the full 1,000 lineal feet of Ham Lane. A copy of Mr. Ronsko's
November 12, 1997 letter is attached as Exhibit A.
At this time, there are now two owners (1239 South Sunset Drive and 1251 South Sunset Drive) who
wish to construct a block wall along Ham Lane within their property. The estimated cost to demolish the
existing fence and upgrade to split -face block is $500 per lot. The total cost for a new block wall on each
property is approximately $4,500 per lot. No landscaping between the wail and the sidewalk is included
in this proposal, although the width is only about 18 inches.
While the City's current financial situation is not as strong as it was in 1997, staff is recommending that
Street Maintenance funds be used to pay for the demolition of the existing fence and the increased cost
to upgrade to split -face block. The 1997 letter from Mr. Ronsko suggested the use of Measure K funds to
pay for this project. This year's budget does not have Measure K funds available for additional projects,
so staff is now recommending the use of Street Maintenance funds. As future owners decide to build a
block wall along Ham Lane, staff will return to Council with a recommendation regarding a funding
source.
FUNDING: Street Maintenance (105031.7352) $1,000
r
Vicky McAthie, Finance Director
4 L11_+442
Richard C. Prima, Jr.
Public Works Director
Prepared by Wesley Fujitani, Senior Civil Engineer
RCP/WKF/pmt
Attachment
cc: Community Development Director
Streets Superintendent
Assistant Street Superintendent
Management Analyst Areida
HamLaneFencePar icipation.doc 4/2712004
CITY COUNCIL
PHILLIP A. PENNINO, Mayor
JACK A. SIEGLOCK
Mayor Pro Tempore
KEITH LAND
STEPHEN J. MANN
DAVID P• WARNER
Exhibit A
H. DIXON FLYNN
CITY OF LODI
ALICE M.
Cit.
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006 RANDALL A. H O'S
Ci;; A••
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241.1910
(209) 333.6706
FAX (20)) 333.6710
November 12, 1997
Ms. Suzanne Brodehl
1 121 S. Sunset Drive
Lodi, CA 9240
SUBJECT: Ham Lane Block Wali
I am in receipt of your letter of November 4, 1997, in reference to the Ham Lane block wall.
I understand that Rad Barham, Community Development Director, and Wes Fujitani,
Senior Civil Engineer, met with the Sunset Drive property owners on August 7, 1997, and provided
the property owners with a number of alternatives on how to proceed as a group or individually. I
understand that the ways the City could participate in this project were also outlined.
The City has confirmed that Measure K funds can be used for this type of project. However, if the
funds are used for a block wall, the same funds cannot be used for maintenance of City streets, It
was my understanding, from past Council actions, that Council did not want to take on the full
responsibilities of the wall construction. i'':1y understanding of the City's participation is as foiiows:
A City will pay for upgrading of the wallifrom a standard block to a split -face block wall.
• City will pay for demolition of existing fence.
• City will be responsible for installing the sprinkler system and landscaping on the
street side of the wall and any required hard surfacing between the wall and the
existing sidewalk.
• If all of the Sunset Drive homeowners were not in favor of moving ahead with the
wall, the City would allow individuals to construct the City -designed wall fronting only
their property. The City's participation would be the same as above.
• The City would waive any building or plan check fee requirements involved in the
fence construction.
Since Mayor Pennino's name was mentioned in your letter, I am sending him a copy of this letter
and your letter of November 4, 1997.
1 am sorry but I do not know how else City staff can help you in this matter. If you have some
specific requests,,-G,?ould be Nappy to discuss them with you.
Tack L) Ronsko
Publicf/orks Director
cc: Mayor Pennino
Community Development Director
Senior Ci it Et,gineer
bcc: Cit C�er
HA�ILNWAL, oc \
I1!
11- ten to a 2 10 1*] r4com Z 9A
WHEREAS, in the fail of 1990, property owners on Sunset Drive south of Cardinal
Street asked Council for City participation in the construction of a new block wall along Ham
Lane in the street right-of-way, as their existing fences were in a state of disrepair and
increased traffic on Ham Lane was creating additional noise in their backyards; and
WHEREAS, at the June 5, 1991, City Council meeting, a second petition was signed by
the owners and presented to the Council offering to contribute $8,550 toward a new fence. At
that time, the estimated cost for the entire project was $90,000. Council recommended that the
fence project be included in the next Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list for consideration;
and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 1991, owners returned to Council requesting a special
allocation because the CIP list had not been completed and several fences were in need of
major repair work. Council again determined that it would consider the Ham Lane fence project
as part of the CIP program when it was presented to Council; and
WHEREAS, the Ham Lane fence project was part of the proposed 1993-94 CIP list, but
this project was not included in the adopted CIP program due to lack of available funds; and
WHEREAS, in November 1996, Public Works Director Jack Ronsko wrote a memo to
the City Manager and the City Council explaining that a meeting had been held with several of
the Sunset Drive owners and agreement was reached on the following items,
1 The City would pay for landscaping and irrigation between the fence and the
Ham Lane sidewalk; the fence height would be eight feet as measured from the
Ham Lane side of the fence; and
2) The City would design the fence and pay for the difference in cost between
regular block and split -face block. This agreement was based on discussions
held at the November 12, 1996, City Council shirtsleeve session.
WHEREAS, on November 12, 1997, Public Works Director Ronsko wrote a letter to
Ms. Suzanne Brodehl (1121 South Sunset Drive) reiterating the items agreed to in November
1996 and also adding the following three items:
1) The City would pay for the demolition of the existing fence; and
2) The City would waive any building or plan check fee requirements involved in the
fence construction; and
3) The City would apply the same degree of participation should individual owners
wish to construct a block wall instead of constructing a continuous wall along the
full 1,000 lineal feet of Ham Lane.
WHEREAS, at the present time two property owners located at 1239 and 1251 South
Sunset Drive wish to construct a block wall along Ham Lane within their property; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost to demolish the existing fence and upgrade to split -face
block is $500 per lot; and
WHEREAS, the total cost for a new block wall on each property is approximately $4,500
per lot, and does not include landscaping between the wall and the sidewalk; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that Street Maintenance funds be used to pay for the
demolition of the existing fence and the increased cost to upgrade to split -face block since no
Measure K funds are currently available; and
WHEREAS, as future owners decide to build a block wall along Ham Lane, staff will
return to Council with a recommendation regarding City participation and a funding source.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby approve
City participation in the Ham Lane Fence Construction Project, from Cardinal Street to 1,100
feet south of Cardinal Street as outlined below:
1) City to contribute $500 per lot to demolish the existing fence and upgrade to split -
face block;
2) City will waive building permit fees for the project; and
3) The funds will be paid to the property owners upon satisfactory completion of the
project as evidenced by a final building permit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funds in the amount of $1,000 be appropriated from
Street Maintenance for this project.
Dated: May 5, 2004
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2004-92 was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held May 5, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, Land, and
Mayor Hansen
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk