Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1983/08/30 Item 13 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 13 Meeting Date 8/30/83 ITEM TITLE: Resolution //37g Adopting Council Policy for City OFH/ Participation in 1911 Block Act Program Proceedings SUBMITTED BY: City Engineer (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x ) REVIEWED BY: City Manager( At the Council meeting of August 2, 1983, Engineering staff presented a policy for City particpation in 1911 Block Act Program proceedings. Due to several concerns brought up during this meeting, Council directed staff to return with a revised policy that: 1 . Addressed rear lot (double frontage lots) City assistance. 2. Considered "point of diminishing returns" when establishing City assistance/responsibility. In addition to these two issues, Council asked and requested staff to research answers to several equally important questions affecting policy implementation. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the policy (Exihibit 1 attached) for City participation in 1911 Block Act Program proceedings. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Background For the past two years, Engineering staff has been working on a program to complete the construction of missing improvements along the City' s public streets. In 1981, staff compiled a list of all (1030) properties found lacking public improvements, the type of improvements missing and their estimated construction costs (see Table A & B summarizing the inventory) . A report on the inventory of missing improvements was presented to Council at its regular meeting of September 1, 1981 . This report identified 105 properties (out of the 1030 parcels missing improvements) as candidates for inclusion in City initiated 1911 Block Act Districts. Use of the 1911 Block Act process to finance the construction of the missing improvements was recommended because: 1 . It can be initiated by Council with or without property owner petitions. 2. It allows financial flexibility to both City and property owner. 3. It has been a financial tool used in the past by the City. Page 2, Item 13 Meeting Date 8/30/83 On November 19, 1981, and at Council direction, staff prepared criteria for establishing priorities when installing improvements via the 1911 Block Act procedures. First priority was given to properties with missing improvements located: 1 . On streets next to schools. 2. On streets with high traffic volume which are travelled by students from home to school. Six properties meeting this criteria were grouped together in what is now known as the 1911 Block Act, Phase XVI Program. At Council ' s direction, however, and because it is near the main post office, the property located at 745 Third Avenue was added to the program (see list below) . Property Location Improvements Required 904 Fourth Avenue Sidewalk only 458-470 "L" Street Sidewalk only 454 "L" Street Sidewalk only 1395 First Avenue Curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, sidewalk ramp 914 & 916 Fourth Avenue Curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, and driveway 1382 Hilltop Drive Curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, and driveway 745 Third Avenue Curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, and driveway Subsequently, staff prepared construction plans and cost estimates for the installation of the missing improvements adjacent to these seven properties. On February 8, 1983, a report was presented to Council on this work and authorization was requested to proceed with the formation of the district. At Council ' s direction, Engineering staff met with the property owners to explain the process, the plans and the options available to them in installing their missing improvements. On May 17, 1983, by Resolution 11233, Council authorized the mailing and posting of notices to construct the improvements and setting a public hearing on the matter. The public hearing was held on June 21, 1983, at which time two property owners raised their objections (financial in nature) . Council directed staff to prepare a policy for City participation in 1911 Block Act proceedings and to meet with the two property owners and try to resolve their concerns. Prior to the public hearing, and in accordance with the 1911 Block Act procedure, a notice to install improvements was mailed to each property owner. The owners had up to 60 days to install their improvements after which time all properties that remained unimproved are to be improved via a common contract let by the City. The costs of the improvements would, in turn, be assessed against the properties improved. At the public hearing, the two property owners requested the City to contribute in the cost of their improvement requirements. Their request, prompted Council to direct staff to g-- 11 67 3 Page 3, Item 13 Meeting Date 8/30/83 prepare a policy. This policy was presented to Council on August 2, 1983, for its adoption. Council , however, directed staff to return with an amended version. Since the notice to construct was delivered, two of the property owners have installed their public improvements (458-470 "L" Street and 454 "L" Street) . Thus, the proposed policy would only apply to the remaining five parcels. Policy Evaluation The proposed policy (see Exhibit 1) recognizes that: 1 . corner lot owners have a bigger expense than non-corner lot owners would have when installing public improvements, 2. corner lot owners get additional benefit from having frontage on two streets, and 3. double frontage lot owners get minimal benefit from having frontage on two streets. In most cases, these properties are located such that there is no access from the rear frontage, thus diminishing the owner' s incentive to install the missing improvements along their rear lot frontage. 4. the City' s desire to have missing street improvements installed in locations considered important for safety of the public. The policy, therefore, provides considerable City participation as an incentive for property owner participation. The City, in addition to contributing all engineering, inspection and administrative expenses would contribute the following: A. Non-Corner Lots It shall be the City' s responsibility to overlay or reconstruct the roadway travelway adjacent to non-corner lots when the travelway is already improved and needs an overlay or reconstruction to accommodate drainage or traffic safety requirements. B. Corner Lots For the purposes of this policy, the corner lot front lot line shall be defined to be the shorter of the two adjacent street lot lines. In the case of a non-rectangular corner lot, the front lot line shall be the average width of the lot. (See Figure 2, Exhibit 1) . It shall be the City' s responsibility to: 1 . Install curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement ( if non-existent) adjacent to 1/2 the corner lot' s side street frontage. 2. Overlay or reconstruct the side and frontage street' s travelway when needed to accommodate drainage or traffic safety requirements. A-- 0373 Page 4, Item 13 Meeting Date 8/30/83 3. In the event that there are improvements along the corner' s side property frontage already existing, these improvements shall be credited to the City if they need not be removed to accommodate the improvements to be installed. C. Dual Frontage Lots It shall be the City' s responsibility to: 1 . Install curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement ( if non-existent) adjacent to the entire lot' s rear street frontage. 2. Overlay or reconstruct the lot' s rear street travelway when needed to accommodate drainage or traffic safety purposes. For purposes of this policy, dual frontage lots shall be a lot having frontage on two parallel or approximately parallel streets, none of which is an "alley" . City participation in this program shall be limited to developed parcels that cannot be split into lots or building sites. Policy Applicability It should be noted, however, that Engineering staff proposes that this City participation policy be applicable only to developed residential lots located within the incorporated area on the date of its adoption by the City Council. Improvement of City undeveloped areas is, historically accomplished through the subdivision and/or building permit process. Improvement of City developed and/or undeveloped commercial and industrial areas is believed to be the sole responsibility of the property owner. Fixing the applicability date for this policy is believed to be in the City' s interest. Future annexation of large, unimproved areas to the City will require special consideration. City contribution ( if any) for the installation of missing improvements should be addressed when such areas request to be annexed. This policy retains Council ' s control on the amount the City is to spend in the installation of street improvements via the 1911 Block Act Process. The policy requires that Engineering staff prepare a list of projects each year prior to submission of the budget to Council for consideration. In addition, of the 1030 parcels missing improvements, only 105 were found to be eligible for the 1911 Block Act Program proceedings. 38 of the 105 parcels are corner lots. Seven of the remaining 67 parcels have dual frontage (4 on East "J" Street, east of Dennis Avenue and 3 on Broadway south of "I" Street) . City Participation Justification City participation in 1911 Block Act Program proceedings to the extent proposed in the attached policy is believed appropriate because: 1 . In corner lots, the property owner is required to improve two street frontages. In many cases, this owner does not have access to the property via the side frontage. The owners benefits are, therefore, diminished to the point that no improvements are built. By participating in the Page 5, Item 13 Meeting Date 8/30/83 improvement of the corner lot' s side frontage, the City attempts to encourage property owner' s interest in the installation of the missing improvements. 2. The improvement of corner lots is important to the general public. Corner lot improvements are essential in providing safer pedestrian and vehicular movements through the intersection. In addition, these improvements allow drainage improvements to function during the rainy season. 3. In non-corner lots, the installation of missing improvements is considered important because they provide many benefits to the community. These include: a. Drainage control . b. Ease of sweeping streets. c. Prevents pavement failure near the edges of the travelway. d. Provides a visual continuity to the driver of a motor vehicle. e. Separates pedestrians from vehicular traffic. f. Provides safe on-street parking. 4. In dual (double) frontage lots, the property owner has paid for the improvement of the property' s main street access. In the seven such lots most likely to be improved via the 1911 Block Act process, the owners do not have access via their rear frontage. Thus, there is little or no incentive to the owner to install the missing improvements. Unfortunately, often the reconstruction or overlay of the through traffic lanes is necessary to accommodate the construction of the missing improvements. Since the through lanes are existing and could be assumed to have been constructed by the original developer, requiring the property owner to overlay or rebuild an already constructed improvement, staff believes, is an excessive burden. Thus, staff recommends that the City contribute to the reconstruction or overlay of the through traffic lanes as an incentive for property owner participation in the 1911 Block Act proceedings. Presuming Council approval of the proposed policy, Engineering staff estimates the City participation cost (excluding contingencies, engineering and administration expenses) for the 1911 Block Act, Phase XVI Program to be about $14,600. The City' s contributions as well as th owner' s estimated expense is listed below: CITY' S OWNER'S TOTAL ADDRESS OWNER SHARE EXPENSE COST a. 745 Third Ave. Mrs. Elizabeth Lee $ 3,400 $ 3,500 $ 6,900 b. 1395 First Ave. Mr. Don C. Hibi *9,100 **9,450 18,550 c. 904 Fourth Ave. Ernest F. Roberson, T.R. 1,000 1,000 2,000 d. 1382 Hilltop Dr. Amador Zendejas 500 6,800 7,300 e. 914 & 916 Fourth Ave. Betty L. Padelford 600 5,900 6,500 $14,600 $26,650 $41 ,250 * ($7,250 for Quintard Street and $1 ,850 for First Avenue) **($4,250 for Quintard Street and $5,200 for First Avenue) 1� 1173 Page 6, Item 13 Meeting Date 8/30/83 Additional Information At the August 2, 1983, Council meeting, staff was directed to bring back additional information regarding the proposed policy. Specifically, Council was interested in a breakdown of the costs associated with the curb, gutter and sidewalk work necessary for the property owned by Mr. Hibi at the corner of First Avenue and Quintard Street. We have prepared a detailed cost estimate showing each item of work for Mr. Hibi ' s First Avenue street frontage as well as for his Quintard Street frontage. This cost estimate is attached for Council information (Exhibit No. 2) . It should be noted, however, that Mr. Hibi ' s lot can, in theory, be split into two parcels. The lot is large enough (95.4 feet wide by 105 feet long) to permit the creation of two legal sized lots. To do so, however, Mr. Hibi would need to relocate his house in order to create the required building setbacks. We consider the probabililty of Mr. Hibi relocating his house to permit the lot split to be minimal , however. Finally, Council requested that we detail further information regarding the method of financing the proposed 1911 Block Act, including the monthly and yearly payments to be made by the property owner. The cost to the individual property owner depends on: 1) City participation approved by Council , and 2) final construction cost. We investigated the cost to Mr. Hibi presuming that Council approves the proposed policy and that our cost estimate is close to the actual construction cost. We chose Mr. Hibi ' s parcel since it is the most expensive to improve of the seven included in the program. Mr. Hibi ' s estimated construction cost is $9,450 ($4,250 for the Quintard Street improvements and $5,200 for the First Avenue improvements) . Mr. Hibi ' s first year cost will be about 17% of the total construction cost (7% interest and 10% principal amount) . The first year cost for all parcels, in fact, is 17% of their individual construction expense. For Mr. , Hibi , the first year cost would be about $1 ,606 or $133.88 per month. This will be Mr. Hibi ' s largest annual expense since each year his principal is lowered by 10%. His lowest annual cost would be about $1,011 or $84.26 per month. Exhibit 3 shows a rough annual (and monthly) improvement cost to a property owner installing improvements costing $10,000. The cost to other property owners is estimated to be related in direct proportion as their respective improvement cost is to $10,000. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to the City associated with policy implementation will vary each year depending on the number of parcels included by Council on that year' s Block Act Program. The cost to the City for this year' s program is estimated to be about $14,600 (construction only) . Engineering and administration p d oeexceed 25%will ofbthentotaladdition program' s the constructionconstruction costcost (with Full expected not Cost Recovery) . RS:fp WPC 0621E ' 7 by the City Council of Chula Vista, California Dated R'/f..37