Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/09/04 Item 10a 4 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item -i'r--- 10a Meeting Date 6/5/84 9/4/84 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving an agreement with Robinhood Point Homeowners Association for the dedication of private streets to public streets SUBMITTED BY: City Engineer VI (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x ) REVIEWED BY: City Manager I, At the meeting of April 10, 1984, Council directed staff to return with an agreement and report for the City to 1 ) take over the maintenance of private streets; 2) modify the requirement that all cul-de-sac trees and islands be removed; and 3) allow the sale of the RV lot. RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: At the meeting of January 10, 1984, Council received a report (attached) from the department heads of Public Works Operations, Planning, Engineering, and Parks and Recreation discussing the request from the Homeowners Association to accept the dedication and maintenance of the private streets and allow a reduction in the landscaping requirements to reduce the heavy burden that those open space areas were causing on the homeowners. That report discussed several issues including the landscaping problem, the problems that the trees both in the center islands and along the private streets could cause, the precedent that the action would have on the City by taking over private streets for public responsibility with the understanding that there were 22 other such developments in the City with private streets. In that report staff recommended approval of the phased-in natural landscaping of the common areas but did not recommend accepting the private streets for maintenance. The Council decision at that meeting was to allow the phased-in natural landscaping of the slopes and to accept maintenance of the streets through an agreement with the homeowners association when each individual street was brought up to acceptable City standards by removing the center island and replacing with pavement and by removing the other trees that were or could cause problems along the side of the road. At the meeting of April 10, staff returned to Council with a report concerning another request by Point Robinhood Homeowners Association 1 ) to not require continued use of the RV lot since it was not used; 2) that the Council not require removal of the islands in the center of the cul-de-sacs and also the removal of those trees. The Homeowners Association did agree to remove any of the offending trees that either are causing problems or are expected to cause problems in the future and to replace them with trees acceptable to the City. • Page 2, Item k8-- 10a Meeting Dated 9/4/84 The staff recommendation at that time was to deny the request unless the Council decided to change its policy direction of January 10, 1984. The staff also recommended that if the streets are to be maintained by the City that they be dedicated and accepted as public streets. At the meeting, Council voted to refer this matter to staff and asked them to prepare whatever the appropriate documents would be to allow deletion of the requirement for the RV storage lot in the Robinhood Subdivision and to stipulate the inclusion of a provision whereby the City would become a party of the CC&R's as it relates to the enforcement of the storage of RV's on the private streets. Councilman Moore indicated his concerns to have the staff consider the following: 1 . Commitment from the Homeowners Association for removal of the trees which disturbed the pavement. 2. Replacement of the trees. 3. Streets disrupted by pavement to be repaired according to City standards prior to the dedication of the streets. 4. Homeowners Association to make a commitment to clean those hammerhead streets that cannot be cleaned by City equipment. 5. The hold harmless agreements regarding the lack of sufficient sweeping because of the hammerhead streets. 6. Homeowners correct damage caused by the planters as they are allowed to remain. 7. The chip sealing versus slurry seal costs and liabilities. Council then voted to refer Mr. Moore 's questions to staff to have it come back with the agreement at the time it is supposed to come back. Issues to discuss in the report are as follows: 1 . Should the City accept the private streets without requiring removal of the center islands? 2. Should the City become a party of the CC&R's as it relates to the enforcement of the storage on the private streets? 3. If the City accepts the streets with the center island trees, should they be replaced? 4. Should the City require damaged pavement to be repaired according to City standards prior to dedication of the streets and what extent of damages are there now? Page 3, Item -it- 10a Meeting Dated 9/04/84 5. Should the Homeowners Association be required to commit to clean or sweep the cul-de-sac streets that cannot be cleaned by City equipment? 6. Can an agreement be prepared to hold the City harmless concerning any accidents that may be caused by substandard design of the cul-de-sacs? 7. What are the costs to both the City if they take over maintenance or the Homeowners Association if they don't take over maintenance for both chip sealing versus slurry sealing? 8. What are the City's liabilities? 1 . Should the City accept the private streets without requiring removal of the center islands? The main concerns the City staff had with those trees remaining were: a. Of getting heavy equipment into the hammerhead areas. b. Although any cul-de-sac in the City requires some handwork in the chip sealing program, these cul-de-sacs would require more handwork in order to reach those areas not reachable by heavy equipment. The Homeowners Association received proposals from three contractors to chip seal these cul-de-sacs with the trees in them. Their prices were quite competitive and, in fact, total cost to chip seal the 41 cul-de-sacs was approximately 9.25¢ per square foot or $26,640. The City 's direct cost for chip sealing, which includes direct labor cost, equipment, and materials but does not include overhead cost, and equipment ownership cost, is approximately 4.3¢ per square foot. Mr. McBreen indicated that on a square footage basis, the center trees affected only about 10% of the total paved area that would be chip sealed. Because of increased labor, it is estimated that the added cost for the handwork would be double that amount for areas where equipment couldn't easily be used. 10% of the total area is approximately 28,800 sq. ft. or additional cost of $1 ,240. The trees, therefore, do not appear to be a significant factor in added cost. 2. Should the City be part of the CC&R's in order to enforce parking of RV vehicles? The homeowners have stated in the agreement Condition No. 5. "The homeowners will conduct a vote of the homeowners as provided in the CC&R's, Article 6, Section 4, to amend the CC&R's to allow the City to enforce the parking restrictions on recreational vehicles found in Section 12. The amendment shall provide that these sections may not be further amended without the consent of the City. The homeowners shall record this amendment with the Office of the San Diego County Recorder." Therefore, that item has been satisfactorily addressed. Page 4, Item 10a Meeting Dated 9/4/84 3. If the City accepts the streets with the center island trees, should they be replaced? Since many of the current trees in the center islands of the cul -de-sacs have a history of causing pavement problems, the Homeowners Association should be required to replace those trees as directed by the City Engineer with acceptable trees. The Homeowners Association has agreed to this as outlined in Statement 4 of the agreement. 4. Should the City require damaged pavement to be repaired according to City standards prior to dedication of the streets and what extent of damages are there now? The Homeowners Association in that same agreement, Statement No. 8, has agreed to correct future pavement damage that would result from existing planters. They have also agreed to remove the trees along the cul-de-sac that could cause pavement damage. At this point of inspection there are only 2 or 3 places in the entire subdivision which show a minimal amount of pavement damage, and homeowners have agreed to repair those sections. 5. Should the Homeowners Association be required to commit to clean or sweep the cul-de-sac streets that cannot be cleaned by City equipment? The City's current street sweeping equipment cannot maneuver the sharp turns in the hammerhead areas of the streets. Even if the City goes to contract for street sweeping, it is unlikely that the contractor's equipment would be able to do that. Therefore, the homeowners have stated in the agreement that they agree to clean that section of the hammerhead streets that the street sweeper cannot access. 6. Can an agreement be prepared to hold the City harmless concerning any accidents that may be caused by substandard design of the cul-de-sacs? One of the concerns that the staff had with the trees in the middle of cul-de-sacs was due to their unusual design and the fact that joint and several liability is still a law in California. If those trees or the unusual design of the cul-de-sacs could be construed by a jury to contribute 1% to a fault in an accident, the City's liability could be increased. Staff believes, however, that this item has been addressed in Condition No. 7 of the enclosed agreement whereby the property owners will hold the City harmless for any accidents whereby cleanliness of the street or the substandard design of the street, such as the narrow width, the hammerhead cul-de-sacs, or the trees located in the center of the cul-de-sacs could be construed to contribute to that accident. They also agreed to keep a current certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured for an amount not below $2 million per accident and maintain that certificate on file at the City Clerk's office at all times. Staff, therefore, believes that this concern has been addressed. Page 5, Item"'" l0a Meeting Dated 9/4/84 7. What are the costs to both the City if they take over maintenance or the Homeowners Association if they don't take over maintenance for both chip sealing versus slurry sealing? Since the City will not be providing street sweeping services in the cul-de-sac, street sweeping costs will not be experienced. The other major costs that we believe will be experience would be chip sealing and/or slurry sealing the cul -de-sacs on a regular basis. Currently, we estimate the streets would need to be chip sealed every 20 years or slurry sealed every 10 years. The cost to the homeowner, based upon bids received, for chip sealing every 20 years is approximately $26,640 if done by a private contractor, or divided by the 291 homes in the development would amount to an annual average cost of $4.58 per year. If the homeowners chose to slurry seal , assuming a 10-year life, the cost per homeowner on an annual basis would be $4.95 per year. The direct cost to the City for chip sealing would be relatively the same whether done by contract or City forces. In addition to the items discussed above, the agreement provides that: 1 . The Association will conduct a vote of the homeowners as provided in the CC&R's and will record with the San Diego County Recorder an instrument agreeing to dedication signed by 2/3rds or more of the owners. 2. The Association will hold the City harmless against potential claims arising from surface treatment materials being tracked into dwellings following resurfacing operations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The original staff recommendation to deny the request to maintain the streets is still valid. This is based on the following points: (1 ) The substandard design of the streets, including center island trees; (2) Precedent setting implications for other developments in the City with private streets; (3) Added City cost to maintain an additional 41 streets; (4) The realization that the average annual cost to each howmeowner for chip sealing or slurry sealing streets is under $5.00 per year. Basically, it is concluded that the issues with major cost implications to the Association have been adequately addressed, i .e. , the approval of the phased-in natural landscaping of the common areas and the direction by the City Council that continued use of the RV lot is not required. When reviewing the responsibility for maintaining the streets, it turns out to be a minor cost responsibility for either the City or the Association. Since the Association has the current responsibility for maintaining these private streets, the burden of proof for shifting that responsibility to the City should rest on the Association. Since the annual per-owner cost for Page 6, Item 10a Meeting Dated 9/4/84 maintaining the private streets appears to be minimal , there does not seem to be an economic hardship imposed upon the Association which would justify shifting that responsibility from the Association to the City. Therefore, it is recommended that the Association continue maintenance of the private streets. If, however, the City Council does not agree with that recommendation and wishes to pursue a policy of the City maintaining these private streets, then staff believes that the agreement adequately addresses staff and Council concerns. J PL:n r/E Y-023 WPC 1033E C:L 4 _ /gam. �' C�: Chula vt`;$ > i )f ? � Dated l _ e �� _._�