Loading...
CC - 10-20-87 - Joint MeetingAPPROVED CITY OF ROS-1,1EAD DAT '/D 4 MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING y ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL (ADJOURNED REGULAR & ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SPECIAL MEETING) OCTOBER 20, 1987 This Joint Meeting was called to order by Mayor Cleveland at 7:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman McDonald. The Invocation was delivered by Councilman Taylor. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers/Agencymembers (hereinafter referred to as Councilman) Imperial (entered Chambers at 7:25 p.m.), McDonald, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chairman (hereinafter referred to as Mayor Pro Tem) Bruesch, and Mayor/Chairman (hereinafter referred to as Mayor) Cleveland I. STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - POLICIES AND GUIDELINES A. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITON POLICY Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that this meeting had come about as a result of questions raised by the Council and some citizens as to what policy is followed when property is acquired for street improvement projects. On non-assessment street projects, the existing City policy on right-of-way acquisition is to ask owners to dedicate the necessary land, in exchange for which the City or the Agency bears the total cost of the street reconstruction and/or widening improvements. If any owners do not choose to dedicate, they must be paid fair market value. A problem may arise when it is discovered that some have dedicated and some have been paid. To avoid this problem in future projects, the Council may wish to change the policy by paying for the right-of-way at the onset of the project and bypassing dedication. It is possible that this change in policy could save the City money by reducing the costs of negotiating for the rights-of-way. Councilman Taylor stated that while most property owners in the past have been satisfied with the City policy on acquisition, there seems to be dissatisfaction with this policy, now. A change in policy is needed. This change will mean that owners will be paid for their land and then will be charged for the improvments being made. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch requested clarification of the terms "with improvements" and "without improvements." Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, explained that an assessment project is one where there are no existing improvements on the street; a non-assessment project is one where there are improvements in place. A homeowner is not charged for the replacement of these existing improvements if they were installed according to the Code in effect at the time they were done. It is possible to have a "mixed" street; some properties with improvements and some without. At the time of a general street improvement project the entire street must be made to conform to standard requirements. This could mean that it is not wide enough for safety reasons, and must be improved. Councilman McDonald asked if people who were paid for their right-of-way were charged for their improvments. Mr. Tripepi stated that they were assessed at the conclusion of the project, and that those who had dedicated their land usually ended up owing nothing more; while those who are paid would possibly end up owing more for improvements than they were paid for the right-of-way. CM/RRA 10-20-87 Page #1 Councilman Taylor stated that no matter what the City tries to do, some people will not be satisfied. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR to approve the recommendation and adopt as policy the paying for the right-of-way at the onset of the project. Before vote could result, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch requested figures on the number of instances that had necessitated the use of eminent domain proceedings over the past few years. John Maulding, City Engineer, stated the figure was around 2%. Councilman Imperial expressed reservations over the fact that condemnation proceedings may become necessary if this new policy is adopted. Councilman Taylor stated that there should not be many serious problems, as almost 95% of the streets in the City have been improved. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked that the vote be delayed to allow persons from the audience to speak on this issue. There being no objection, the vote was delayed for this purpose. 1. Jim smith, 3038 N. Prospect, wanted to be sure that no one was going to be penalized if this new policy is adopted, and Councilman Taylor stated that all property owners will be treated equally. 2. Leroy Young, 7533 E. Garvey, expressed concerns over the way the property had been acquired in the past, and wanted to be sure all will be treated equally, and wants to be kept informed on future projects. 3. Rusty Burrell, 3152 N. Evelyn, stated that the City should purchase all rights-of-way before beginning any projects. Mr. Burrell was referring specifically to the corner cut-offs concerning his property. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that Mr. Burrell's situation came about because the handicapped-ramp requirement had been changed and this necessitated the City having to go back and correct projects that had been completed prior to the ramp requirement change. 4. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del mar, asked if owners will still be allowed to dedicate instead of being paid for the land, and Councilman Taylor stated that all will be paid and then be charged for the improvements. Councilman Imperial felt the city should leave well enough alone; the current policy has worked fairly for the majority of property owners for a number of years. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch stated that all right-of-way estimates should be made in writing, and not given verbally. Councilman Imperial stated that all owners on a specific project should be notified by certified mail to be sure all are aware of what is going on. 5. Margaret Clark, 3109 N. Prospect, asked why some improvements are free to owners while others have to pay. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that some projects are done with CDBG money and owners cannot be assessed for the improvements. CM/RRA 10-20-87 Page #2 Councilman Taylor agreed that this might not be a fair situation, but there is not enough money available to do all the streets for free. What money there is, is used as fairly as possible. Ms. Clark wanted to be sure that homeowners are given all their options in order to make a reasonable decision, and told they could be paid instead of dedicating. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated the opinion that human nature had played a role in this problem; the owners were told of their options. The Council must do what is best for the City and that may not be a popular decision. 6. Cleo Young, 7533 E. Garvey, agrees with current policy and does not want it changed, in regard to dedication. 7. Leona Pennington, 3030 Prospect, wanted information on the plans for Prospect between Garvey and Whitmore. Norm Rubel, Deputy City Engineer, stated that this is a widening project to increase the street width from 30 feet to 36 feet, curb-to-curb. This is a CDBG project. The existing trees will be left where.they are. 8. Toni Fabela, 3055 N. Prospect, presented a petition from her neighbors on Prospect in opposition to the proposed street widening project. There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for the vote, stating a yes vote was to approve the recommendation to adopt as policy the paying for the right-of-way at the onset of the project, and a no vote would be to continue with the existing policy. Vote resulted: AYES: Councilmembers McDonald, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Cleveland NOES: Councilman Imperial Councilman Imperial asked that his no vote reflect that while he has no problem with paying the people for their land, he feels that this will be establishing a bad policy. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch requested that the record show that staff must address the situation of communication; that forms used to notify the owners be amended to include all information necessary to making their decisions. At this point, Mayor Cleveland called for a five-minute recess and the meeting was reconvened accordingly. B. STREET DESIGN Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, listed the current minimum requirements for street width (36 feet); sidewalk width (5 feet), adjacent to the curb; the curb return radius (25 feet); and the single state standard handicapped ramp. Staff's recommendation is that the City continue with these standards. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch requested confirmation that all wheelchairs could have clearance with a five-foot sidewalk. John Maulding, City Engineer, stated that a four-foot width could accomodate a wheelchair, and to be eligible for gas-tax monies, the State has set a 40-foot minimum street width requirement (40-feet being from property line to property line). CM/RRA 10-20-87 Page #3 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD, that the City continue the 36-foot minimum width street; the 5-foot sidewalk width, adjacent to the curb; the 25-foot minimum curb return radius; and the single state standard handicapped ramp at intersections. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch requested that an amendment be made that if the majority of the owners on the street do not want a project done, their wishes will be taken into consideration when the project is brought before the Council. Councilman McDonald stated that this was a policy-making meeting, and that the owner's wishes should be heard at the time of an individual project and not be part of the general policy on street design. Councilman Imperial stated that all owners should be notified by certified mail as to the exact plans and expense for the project. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch agreed and asked that the notification process be added to the motion. 1. Rusty Burrell, 3152 N. Evelyn, asked that when space allows, the parkways be left alone so that the sidewalks can be level instead of dipping down at the driveway aprons. Councilman Taylor stated that there should be no problem with that request, and it would be decided on a street-by-street basis. Mr. Taylor asked that item #2 be amended to state "on new construction projects" and on reconstruction projects the parkway will be left alone when possible. 2. Holly Knapp, 8367 E. Whitmore, expressed concerns that wider streets would encourage increased speeds, and stated that owners on her street would prefer parking restrictions to widening of the street. Councilman Imperial stated that the Council is obligated to consider the desires of the majority of the owners, when possible; but there is also an obligation to the welfare of the entire City. 3. Henry Gebhart, 2703 Pine, wants to be sure the policy will be written clearly, and apply to all, equally. 4. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, cited problems with the quality of materials used in sidewalk construction. Councilman Imperial stated that the low bid should be looked at for the quality of materials that will be used in the future. There being no further discussion, the aforementioned motion was SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, with the addition that the owners of record be notified by certified mail, and flyers sent to the residents with the details of the planned project, and to consider leaving existing parkways when possible. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL VOTE ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. POLE LOCATION The location of utility poles and hydrants in sidewalks poses another problem for the handicapped. A 36-inch clearance is required by the State Handicapped Standards. It is recommended that a 12-inch utility pole/hydrant distance to the curb be adopted by the Council instead of the existing 18-inch distance. Councilman Imperial requested that any deviation from the 12-inch requirement be subject to the approval of the Council. CM/RRA 10-20-87 Page #4 a Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch questioned the placement of the fire hydrants, so as to allow maximum parking spaces on a street. John Maulding, City Engineer, stated that the hydrant placement is at the discretion of the Fire Department, but the suggestion will be taken into consideration whenever possible. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD to accept the recommendation with the addition that any deviation from the 12-inch standard be subject to approval by the Council. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL VOTE ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch queried the possiblity of a neighborhood being able to assess themselves to allow for undergrounding of the utilities. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that a group from the neighborhood should be able to set up a meeting with the utility company to discuss this possibility. However, this is a very expensive undertaking. Councilman Taylor requested that a memo be prepared by staff, presenting all the costs and the procedures necessary. D. STREET TREES Trees must be taken into consideration when an improvement project is contemplated. The current City policy is to replace any trees that must be removed when the owner requests it. These replacement trees are of a variety to minimize the damage to sidewalks and streets. The recommendation is that the City continue with the present policy. Councilman McDonald requested that the recommendation be amended to read that the City offer a tree rather than waiting for the owner to ask for one. There being no objection, the recommendation was so amended. 1. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, wanted to be sure that trees will be planted that will not damage sidewalks or streets. 2. Leroy Young read a statement from James Thomas voicing objections to the widening of the streets. There being no further discussion, it was MOVED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH to continue with the existing City policy on street trees as amended. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL VOTE ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned to October 27, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. APPROVED: Respectfully submitted: AA~L gv~ AYOR C' y Clerk CM/RRA 10-20-87 Page #5