Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0205 CC REG ITEM 11DITEM MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue kloorpark, California 93021 M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works DATE: September 10, 1991 (Council Meeting 9- 18 -91) (805) 529 -6864 ? ?A!<. CA_ }FCR1'A w C rs ry ? ►. R� r ..,. SUBJECT: Discussion of Available Options to Pursue the Possible Construction of Block Walls Along the Rear of Properties Located on Sherman Avenue [North Side of Los Angeles Ave East of Spring Rd] OVERVIEW This report discusses recent findings relative to consideration of a project to construct a new block wall on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue between Spring Road and Millard Street, along the rear property lines of residences on Sherman Avenue. Last September the City Council discussed available options to pursue in considering a possible project to construct the subject block wall. Prior to proceeding any further, the City Council suggested that the Public Works and Facilities Committee seek input from the residents and property owners on Sherman Avenue. DISCUSSION A. Sidewalk Project The construction of a sidewalk on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue between Spring Road and Millard Street was recently completed. A second phase of construction (now in the final stages of design) will provide new parkway irrigation and landscaping in this area. The implementation of this Phase of construction has been deferred until a decision is reached on the subject block wall. These improvements substantially altered previously existing conditions along this portion of the street. The mature landscaping which had provided some degree of screening in the past was removed. A walkway was provided for pedestrian traffic located only four feet from the rear wall of the adjacent properties. The level of activity in this area increased, while the degree of privacy and noise protection decreased. PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. BERNARDO M. PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY ROY E. TALLEY JR_ JOHN E WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councimember Councilmember Counc imemoer Block Wall February 5, 1992 Page 2 B. Existing Block Walls The existing block walls along the northerly edge of the project vary from property to property. Some are relatively short. The structural integrity of others is questionable. All of the walls are too short to provide the degree of privacy and noise buffering qualities desired by adjacent residents. As mentioned above, the question of considering a project to replace these block walls was considered by the City Council last September. The matter was referred to the Public Works and Facilities Committee. C. Field Meetings Last October the Public Works and Facilities Committee met with the residents and property owners along Sherman Avenue to discuss the "problem" and solicit input. Many options were discussed and questions raised. Subsequent to that meeting the Committee referred some of the more technical questions to the City Engineer for review and recommendations. The results of that analysis was discussed at a second field meeting with the residents on January 25. D. Suggested Design The City Engineer considered a broad range of concerns and suggestions about the project. These included: 1) the possibility of modifying the existing walls, 2) phased construction, 3) preservation of existing improvements, 4) property security, and more. Subsequent to a review of these concerns, it was recommended by staff that, if the project proceeds, the project design generally conform to the following outline: total replacement of the wall; a wall height of eight (8) feet on the sidewalk side of the wall; a wall height of eight (8) to twelve (12) feet on the property side of the wall; use pilasters or other limited form of aesthetic relief in the wall design; installation of temporary chainlink security fencing during construction; and, preservation, replacement or relocation of any existing hardscape or landscape improvements on private property. Attached is a sketch depicting the proposed wall design showing both an elevation and cross section. Block Wall February 5, 1992 Page 3 E. Project Limits There has been some question regarding the limits of the project. Initially the scope of the proposed project extended from Millard Street to the planter area at the corner of Los Angels Avenue and Spring Road. During the field meeting there was some discussion of the need or necessity to extend the project northerly along a portion of the west side of Spring Road. If the project proceeds, the exact limits of the proposed wall construction should be determined. F. Project Cost Estimate The proposed design would require the preparation of engineered design showing the structural elements required. It is anticipated that the cost of such a wall would be approximately $130 to $150 per linear foot. The anticipated cost per residential property is approximately $9,000. The total cost of a wall extending from Millard Street to Spring Road is anticipated to be between $150,000 to $200,000. G. Funding Alternatives 1. Caltrans: Ideally this noise buffer project should be funded by Caltrans. Knowing the funding constraints and project scheduling which usually accompanies Caltrans projects, it would appear that Caltrans is not a likely source of funding for this project. 2. Redevelopment: The block wall project would appear to meet the criteria to be given consideration as a Redevelopment Project. One of the objectives of Redevelopment is the abatement and /or prevention of factors contributing to urban blight. Such a wall would contribute to the enhancement and /or preservation of property values in the area. Although the Redevelopment Agency is not prepared to fund a project of this magnitude at this time, consideration could be given to the possibility of a loan from the City from the L. A. AOC Fund, Gas Tax Fund or General Fund. 3. Property Owner Participation: Another alternative would involve joint participation by the City /Redevelopment Agency and individual property owners. The portion of costs borne by the property owner could be financed in a number of ways including a low interest loan from the City or the establishment of some form of Assessment District. Block Wall February 5, 1992 Page 4 G. Funding Alternatives (cont) 4. L A AOC: The subject wall is to be construct upon, and will ultimately become a part of the private property adjacent to the State Highway. On the other hand, the block wall project is being constructed to mitigate problems associated with the Highway and will greatly improve streetscape aesthetics at this entrance to the City. There is some question as to the appropriateness of using L A AOC funds for this purpose. However, upon further review it has been determined that the Los Angeles Avenue Widening Project [West], partially funded by L A AOC funds, included the construction of a property block wall for the property at the northeast corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Shasta Avenue. 5. Gas Tax: The same arguments mentioned above apply to the use of Gas Tax funds. Staff is in the process of determining if the proposed project would be eligible for Gas Tax expenditures. 6. General Fund: It is not recommended that the General Fund be considered for this type of expenditure. H. Future Maintenance Prior to a decision to proceed with the construction of the project, it is suggested that the ownership of and future maintenance responsibility for the wall should be discussed. Consistent with similar wall on other arterial streets, it would be the recommendation of staff that, if the project proceeds, the property owners should be advised that they would be responsible for the future maintenance of the wall. The City would request, however, that the property owner sign a Release allowing the City to remove ,graffiti from the Street side of the wall, should the need arise. I. Construction Easements Construction efforts within the State right -of -way will require an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans. In addition, construction activities on private property will require receipt from each property owner, a signed Right -of -Entry or Construction Easement. One element of the job will be the preparation and execution of these latter documents. Block Wall February 5, 1992 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION If the City Council determines that the subject project should proceed, it is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Determine the limits of the project to be as shown on Exhibit 2. 2. Determine the funding source for the subject project. 3. Appropriate funds in the amount of $25,000 to cover costs for project design development. 4. Direct staff to proceed with the preparation a preliminary design and cost estimate for the project, including... a) preparation of all necessary Right -of -Entry Permits; and, b) a preliminary review by Caltrans. 5. Direct staff to obtain from all affect property owners; a) signed statements acknowledging future responsibility for the maintenance of the block wall; and, b) signed Right -of -Entry Permits allowing the City and its agents to enter upon the property to construct the project. 6. Direct staff to bring back before the City Council within sixty (60) days, the project preliminary design and cost estimate. vp \rpt \eherm_2 N w J �o 3 �J WALL AND PILASTER FINISH TO BE DETERMINED BY CITY OF MOORPARK D m r Z r -r� m = m 00 D 00 r O 0 ExN I BAT 1 (z .T t) / LOS ANGELE3 ttfififultalt • i 101 -� 23) wVEN -- i I 1 LL, r r' s N O - 1 co .. � ieq)' . .ael' i 125 �.- . � i O Y I isa0 e ele%- t tlM a saes- s sa oo• c ca oe Y a�i( I I►11.� • L s 31 I er + I•,� L 66 ® ® ® _ _ '� 3 32 f f a 4 4 46 4 44 4 42 ® r I • 7 • saa�• i iras• i ® d «• « ® C 7� 4 a 4 Q' ~ _ I ~® - <.T• ... 1Z -.� 0 I S+IERMAN . .wee d - c «« . .. « s aO- s seas• � cea.+ c ceav• c cane• s i »�- � I I ,` — � �"h�'Zi'c87- • sass• s s.r t it 1 = . , •— - -- - A AVENUES w 1 � 4O O O O a► a•S s as- f fao.' fe e p � �� Q e « — 29 S; F 3 14 6 6 1 16 1 17 1 18 ® Q D D3 Fzarr•� 1 i 2 20 2 21 1 1 22 2 23 2 24 - 2 225 i ® • •k27'� i 9 i i ® i $ I %. 22 47 N O -