HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1998 0304 CC REG ITEM 11CCITY OF MOORPARY, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
o _199
AC , i 'd;1: .a rot- -' f
r} 'r e cp rr1r7-N ca lci l n
$y,
C = TY OF MOORPARK
ITEM-1 I • foo
Ill, -7455
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works
DATE: February 20, 1998 (CC Meeting: 3 -4 -98)
SUBJECT: Consider Tabling Project to Reconstruct the Everett Basin
Outlet Storm Drain
OVERVIEW
A. Project Location
The location of the Everett Detention Basin
Reconstruction Project is generally shown on
Exhibit shows the location of the following:
1) the proposed new drain line;
2) the existing drain line to be abandoned;
3) the Madrid property;
4) the Bridgeman property;
5) the detention basin; and,
6) the earthen dam.
B. Project Design
Outlet Drain Line
Exhibit 1. This
The City retained the services of ASL Consulting Engineers to
prepare the design for the drain line replacement project.
That design has been completed. An excerpt from the
improvement plans is attached as Exhibit 2.
The elements of proposed work include:
1) excavation, removal and replacement of the northerly 1001
of 18" diameter storm drain at or in the northerly toe of
slope of the detention basin;
2) abandonment of the existing drain line from a point just
south of the south toe of slope, southerly to the south
property line [Note: This drain line runs under an
existing residential structure and then dumps onto the
sidewalk];
3) construction of a new storm drain line within an existing
driveway;
4) construction of two manholes to provide better access for
future maintenance;
5) connection to an existing storm drain stub to the
driveway to the property, which was constructed as a part
of the Everett Street Asphalt Overlay project; and,
6) repair and /or replacement of existing private
improvements disturbed or damaged by the storm drain
project.
evrt x
00 0151 1
Everett Drain
March 4, 1998
Page 2
C. Project Cost Estimate
A summary of the total estimated cost for this combined project
is as follows:
Element Total ($)
Design 15,000
Construction (incl. contingency) 110,000
Right -of -Way Acquisition unkn.
Admin. & Inspection 15,000
Misc. & Contingency 10,000
Tota 1 ( not including right -of -way ) 150,000
1. It is believed that the earthen dam on the northerly portion of
the Madrid property and the outlet drain line which extends
southerly under the earthen dam and under an existing
residential structure to Everett Street, were constructed as a
state or federal public works project in the late 1920s or
early 1930s.
2. The watershed area which drains into this detention basin
covers a number of properties to the north and east of the
basin.
3. These drainage facilities were never conveyed to a public
agency. The majority of the detention basin is located on the
Bridgeman property. The inlet, the entire earthen dam and the
existing outlet drain line are located on the Madrid property.
4. The existing storm drain line running from the detention basin
to Everett Street has been blocked for a number of years.
Storm water is not conveyed to Everett Street. It accumulates
in the detention basin. The level of the water in the
detention basin gradually lowers as the water percolates into
the soil.
5. In 1995 the City undertook efforts to attempt to clear the
blockage and return these facilities to a functional state. A
temporary easement was obtained from the prior owner of the
Madrid property [Mendoza] to allow the City access to the rear
of the property.
ev t_x IN
00015 7
Everett Drain
March 4, 1998
Page 3
6. When the initial efforts were unsuccessful, a contractor was
retained to perform a T.V. inspection of the drain line to
determine the nature of the problem and the most cost effective
remedy. That investigation revealed that there is a blockage
in the existing storm drain line which can not be removed. The
blockage is approximately twenty -five feet south of the inlet.
7. Staff then recommended, and the City Council approved, a
project to design and construct a project to repair or replace
the inoperative storm drain line.
8. The design concept called for the removal of the blockage and
the realignment of the storm drain line. The existing drain
line now runs under a residential structure on the property and
dumps onto the sidewalk on the north side of Everett Street.
The new line was to run down the driveway and connect to a
"stubbed -out" storm drain line which was constructed in 1995 as
part of the Everett Street Overlay project.
9. Once the design was completed and the alignment was determined,
Easement Deeds were prepared which, when signed and recorded,
would convey these storm drainage facilities and the
responsibility for future repair and maintenance to the City.
10. The proposed easements on the Madrid property consist of a ten
feet (10' ) wide easement for the actual storm drain, plus a
"blanket" easement upon the entire remainder of the property to
allow the City and its contractors access to the storm drain
line for both initial construction as well as future
maintenance.
11. Although the inlet structure is located on the Madrid property,
the project would require the City's contractor to cross the
Bridgeman property to gain access to the work site. It was
necessary, therefore, for the City to obtain a permanent access
and maintenance easement across the Bridgeman property.
DISCUSSION
A. Mendoza
Until recently the Madrid property was owned by the Mendoza
family. Although the Mendozas were aware of the City's
project, staff deferred efforts to obtain the needed easements
from the Mendozas until after the easement across the Bridgeman
property had been obtained.
evrt_x
0 00. 117-S
Everett Drain
March 4, 1998
Page 4
B. Bridgeman
Discussions with Mr. Bridgeman regarding the project and the
easement required for same, were initiated in April of 1997.
Although initial efforts were unsuccessful, later discussions
seemed to indicate that Mr. Bridgeman was receptive to the
concept and intended to grant the City the required easement.
On this basis, staff initiated discussions with the new owner
of the Mendoza property, Mr. Madrid.
To date the City's efforts to obtain an easement from Mr.
Bridgeman have been unsuccessful.
C. Madrid Correspondence
As stated above, the Mendoza property was recently acquired by
Mr. Madrid. Staff has been in discussion with Mr. Madrid
regarding the required easements. Attached are copies of
correspondence between the City and Mr. Madrid on this matter,
which are listed as follows:
Date Description
12 -31 -97 Initial letter from the City
01 -12 -98 Initial response from Mr. Madrid
01 -28 -98 Response from City
02 -04 -98 Follow -up from Mr. Madrid
02 -05 -98 Response from City
D. Reauest from Madrid
The January 12, 1998, letter from Mr. Madrid cites a number of
concerns and includes a number of requests. A re -cap and
response to many of those concerns and requests is as follows:
1. Concerns expressed regarding the proposed blanket easement:
In the City's response letter, it was mentioned that staff
believed that it was possible to revise the language in the
"blanket" easement in a way which would adequately address
the concerns of the grantor.
2. Request that the City waive all City fees associated with
Mr. Madrid's plans to submit applications for the
subdivision of the property: In that the actual cost to
process such an application would not be known until after
the fact, approval of that request would obligate the City
to an unknown amount. Staff does not recommend agreement
with this requirement.
evrt_x
Everett Drain
March 4, 1998
Page 5
3. Request that the City grant conceptual approval of Mr.
Madrid's plans to construct additional residential
structures on the property: It would not seem to be
appropriate -- and would possibly be illegal -- for the City
to approve any land use entitlements prior to knowledge of
the full scope and impact of the proposed development.
Accordingly, staff does not recommend agreement with this
requirement.
4. Granting of Land Use Entitlements as Compensation for Right -
of -Way: It is the understanding of staff that it has been
the policy of the City to not co- mingle questions regarding
the future use of a property with any requirements of a City
capital improvement project. If compensation is determined
to be warranted for the acquisition of an easement required
for a public works capital improvement project, the amount
of such compensation is normally negotiated and resolved
separately. If necessary, the value of the easement is
determined via preparation of a property appraisal.
5. Statement that Mr. Madrid would not grant the required
easements if the easements or the project limited Mr.
Madrid's ability to maximize the development potential of
his property: Until these concerns are resolved to Mr.
Madrid's satisfaction, the City has no project. Mr. Madrid
has received a copy of the design and copies of the Deeds.
He is fully aware, therefore, of the scope the City's
project. It appears that Mr. Madrid is stating that the
City's plans are incompatible with his plans and that the
City's project will have to be re- designed.
E. Easement Ac uisition
The purpose and intent of the project was to repair and render
functional the Everett Detention Basin and outlet line and to
provide for the future maintenance of these storm drainage
facilities. These facilities accept storm water from a number
of private properties, as well as a public street, situated
within a watershed area located north and east of Wicks Road.
These facilities also protect a number of properties located
downstream of the detention basin.
The current owners [Madrid and Bridgeman] of the facilities
would also benefit by conveying these facilities to the City.
It was the view of staff that those benefits constituted ample
compensation for the easements required. It was the intent of
staff, therefore, that the easements be conveyed to the City at
no cost.
evrt x
Everett Drain
March 4, 1998
Page 6
The funding source for the construction of the project is a
federal grant [CDBG funds]. Staff has recently been advised
that whenever federal monies are used for construction, any
right -of -way costs (even if funded by other sources) must be
expended in accordance with Federal guidelines pertaining to
property acquisition. The efforts required to comply with
these regulations would require the City to secure the services
of a Right -of -Way Agent experienced in these types of
acquisitions.
F. CDBG Funding: Schedule
As stated above, this project is partially funded by federal
CDBG funds. That program requires that approved projects be
constructed and that authorized CDBG monies be expended in a
timely manner. The time frame established for the expenditure
of CDBG funds for the subject project was the current calendar
year. The difficulties encountered in acquiring the needed
easements make it impossible for staff to meet this schedule.
It is the intent of staff, therefore, to redirect these CDBG
funds to other projects -- including the Casey Road widening
project.
G. Summary
Mr. Madrid has requested certain compensation and has stated
certain concerns about possible negative impacts which might be
caused by the City's proposed project. Also, it now appears
that the acquisition of the easements will no longer be
"friendly ", thus requiring the City to abide by federal right -
of -way acquisition guidelines and incur the additional costs
related thereto. For these reasons staff recommends that the
City table this project. It would appear that the most prudent
course of action at this time would be to defer further efforts
to implement this project until after Mr. Madrid's plans for
development are fully known. It would also appear to be
prudent for the City to first know the full scope and nature of
all of the Conditions of Approval for said development
(particularly those pertaining to the manner in which the
developer will be required to address the existing drainage
facilities) prior to finalizing the requirements for the City's
project.
Staff recommends that City Council table the subject project to
reconstruct the Everett Basin Outlet Drain line.
evrt_x
0 OV -31
i nN-IV
O
A
c�
N
A
N
O
..............
4J
�4�.J1�
O
N
3
OG
S
p
04
A
0
N
M
O
ro
UI
N
04
N
N
O
A
'o
-,A
�
X
M
�
N
i nN-IV
x
w Fl-
v
F''•
(t
STA 4 +18.38 I
REMOVE EXIST INLET
CONSTRUCT NEW
INLET PER DETAIL -
PARCEL 13
1`
STA 2 +43.70 PARCEL 14 CC 1
REMOVE AND INSTALL 5' DIA
REPLACE DRIVEWAY STA 1 +63.71 MANHOLE #1
BEGIN ROPE PIPE
EXIST 10' STA 2 +19.71 10' WIDE
CONCRETE END ROPE PIPE EASEM T
DRIVEWAY
x
- sx CO C Al
x
uXa s � IN �
3 JZo
uy. Sin N Ux i` \
C r INSTALL 177.60 LF ux ` RECONSTRUCT
18" STORM DRAIN o - LIMITS OF EXIST 18" zg 26.13 LF OF
fTl - - x -- - - - - - - - - - - -� a SD TO REMAIN 18" RCP SD
J SW CORNER
LOT 16
PARCEL STA 3 +91.25
N 15 INSTALL CONCRETE STA 2 +90.10 APPROXIMATE LOCATION
INSTALL CONCRETE PLUG PER DETAIL INSTALL 5' DIA OF INTERIOR DEBRIS
• 1 PLUG PER DETAIL 2 MANHOLE #2 REMOVE AND CLEAN
e 1 e AS REQUIRED
d EXIST 18" SD
ABANDON IN PLACE
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
December 31, 1997
Michael Madrid
4213 Tecolote Court
Moorpark, CA 93021
Re: Everett Detention Basin
Outlet Storm Drain Line
Easements
Dear Mr. Madrid,
Per our discussion, enclosed are the original deeds required for
the subject project. Please sign these documents in the presence
of a notary public at your earliest convenience and return.them to
the undersigned. It is my hope to take this matter to the City
Council in late January in order to avoid loosing the federal
funding approved for the project. Your cooperation will be
appreciated.
Per our discussion, it is my understanding that you will be
conferring with your engineer to determine the scope and nature of
your plans to apply to the City for approval of a lot line
adjustment to split the property, as well as a related application
for approval of plans to construct certain additional structures on
these "to -be- divided" properties. To clarify our prior
discussions, in order to be approved, those proposals must meet all
City standards and requirements and must be reviewed by and be
approved by the various City staff, Commissions, City Council, etc.
as required by City codes. It is my further understanding that you
and your engineer intend to devise a development scheme compatible
with the restriction posed by the enclosed easements.
I am looking forward to the receipt of the signed documents. If
you should have any questions, please give me a call.
Yours truly,
Kenn C. bert
Director of Public Works
cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager
Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development
pv \ev t9
PATRICK HUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ CHRISTOPHER EVANS DEBBIE RODGERS TEASLEY JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
000:1611.
01/12/1998 11:27 8188416668 CA REPUBLICAN PARTY PAGE 01
UCalifornia Republican Party
N�7t 1903 'West Magnolia Blvd. • Burbank, California 91506 • (818 ) 841 -5210
DATE:
FAX TRANSMITTAL
C'-I f ICI
TO:
z;- mil
FAX NUMBER: C pOS � 5Zi -8z`7V
FROM:��
NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW:
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE PAGES PROPERLY, PLEASE LET ME KNOW
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT (818) 841 -5210 THANK YOU.
THIS TELECOPY IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL, OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY
CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF
THE READER OF THIS TELECOPY ,IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR
DELIVERING THE TELECOPY TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL TELECOPY TO
ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
COMMENTS:
000161171
JAN 12 198 11:38 6188416668 PAGE.01
01/12/1998 11:27 8188416668 CA REPUBLICAN PARTY PAGE 02
January 12, 1998
Mr. Kenneth Gilbert
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
Thank you for your promptness and attention to the proposed storm drain line on my
property at 141 and 151 Everett Street.
After receiving advice by legal and engineering counsel, I have been strongly advised not
to grant permission for a perpetual blanket easement . Both sources suggested this type of
easement is neither standard nor necessary. I am more than willing to sign such an
easement if it is limited to the duration of the construction of the project. Any request
beyond this will assuredly affect the value of the property and leaves me unwilling to grant
such an easement at this time.
As to the second deed for valuable consideration requesting a perpetual easement to
perform work on the proposed storm drain, I have been advised that the following is fair
and am prepared to grant under the following circumstances:
1) In lieu of financial remuneration I will grant the City of Moorpark the perpetual
easement in the event the City is willing to waive the fees associated with subdivision.
Those fees are listed below:
a) $258 for a traffic computer model,
b) $2464 for an environmental study,
c)$2666 for a parcel map,
d) $67 per lot,
The total amount for City fees is $5122. There may also be some reimbursement for these
fees if not all of the monies are required to complete the project.
2) Written verification that the City of Moorpark is willing to accept the proposed
developments "in concept" for the construction of new units on said property, so long as
the proposal meets city requirements and standards, and does not encroach on the
restrictions set forth by the easement.
OO C311:
JAN 12 '98 11:39 8188416668 PAGE.02
01/12/1998 11:27 8188416668 CA REPUBLICAN PARTY PAGE 03
In the event that the proposed easement limits my ability to develop the property due to
space considerations, proximity to the slope at the rear of the property, or in any way
imposes significant increases in fiunancial resources to complete my intended objectives Z
will decline the granting of the easement. Preliminary research by my engineer assures me
this is not likely the case. I; will be picking up a preliminary draft from his offices tonight
and will be in a better position to discuss this after seeing his conclusions.
I thank you again for your time and interest in this project and am certain we can come to
a workable mutual agreement that satisfies the city's needs.
Most cordially,
Mike Madrid
1000167
JAN 17 ° 9A 11:7q fat faAd1 rlArlp Pdrl a7
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
January 28, 1998
Michael Madrid
4213 Tecolote Court
Moorpark, CA 93021
Re: Everett Detention Basin
Outlet Storm Drain Line
Reconstruction Project
Dear Mr. Madrid,
This is in response to your letter of January 12, 1998, and our subsequent
telephone conversation regarding the project. Of particular concern to you was
the broad nature of the wording of the blanket access easement to be granted to
the City. As I discussed with you on the telephone, I believe that the wording
of the blanket access easement can be revised to achieve the City's needs yet
protecting your property and its improvements. If you are able to conclude that
your reservations are restricted to only these issues, please give me a call so
that we can discuss revised language.
We also discussed my concerns regarding your request for compensation and other
considerations in exchange for the easements the City requires for this project.
I cannot recommend to the City Council that the City agree with any of those
terms and conditions. It is my intent, therefore, to take this matter to the
City Council in early March with a request that the City Council reject your
offer and table the subject project.
Let me also take this opportunity to memorialize our prior discussions wherein
it was explained to you that the existing storm drainage facilities located on
your property, which include an inlet device north of the earthen dam, the
earthen dam itself and the outlet drain line, are private facilities. The
ownership, maintenance and liability for these facilities are the responsibility
of you the property owner.
By copy of this letter I am also advising Mr. Bridgeman of the changed status of
this project. Please call if you have any questions.
9
Yours t-7�
+,
Kenneth C. Gilbert
Director of Public Works
cc: Honorable City Council
Steve Kueny, City Manager
Cheryl Kane, City Attorney
Gerald Bridgeman
pw \ev tl0
PATRICK HUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ CHRISTOPHER EVANS DEBBIE RODGERS TEASLEY JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember 77Coun�cilmember
00 p 161
10`39dd 0000000 LO:ZT 86, VO 93d
pem California republican Party
1903 West Magnolia Blvd, • Burbank, California 91506 • (818) 841 -5210
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO: Mit • WCV A�
FIRM: Cyr w Malmft'x-
FAX NUMBER: CEOs) -C�Zj — 8-,77,
FROM: M19
NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW:
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE PAGES PROPERLY, PLEASE LET ME KNOW
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT (818) 841 -5210 THANK YOU.
THE READER OF THIS TELECOPY IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR
DELIVERING THE TELECOPY TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL TELECOPY TO
ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
COMMENTS: RW56, CZ -m (�P�ZsTir;5 PA2,fie-,-
00GI(:'!�
GJ % % %%I
F I
February 12, 1998
Kenneth C. Gilbert
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Dear Mr. Gilbert,
bZ:TT b0 H3
Thank you for your letter of January 23, 1998. As we discussed, I do have reservations
about the blanket easement wording and would be much more amenable to language
permitting access for temporary periods when maintenance is required and limited only to
that area which is reasonably affected by the storm drain.
It is also unfortunate that you feel you can not recommend that the City Council proceed
with the project under the other terms and conditions I have requested. Although I
understand that the ownership, maintenance, and liability are wholly mine as the property
owner, it should also be clear that so is the affected value of the property which may occur
as a result of the granting of an easement. I will reiterate that all counsel I have received
have agreed that this is not an unreasonable request.
I am also surprised that the City is so quick to drop a project it seems to have invested
much time and resources in, especially considering the project is being paid for by federal
monies. During our previous conversation I requested information on how much the City
had spent so far on this project. Although you suggested that the amount was in excess of
$15,000.00 I have yet to receive that documentation. I respectfully request that
information once again. In light of the fact that you expect to recommend against this
project in March, I hope to receive the information in a timely manner that will allow me
to address my concerns about this project and its handling with members of the City
Council.
Mr. Bridgeman contacted me last night regarding his experiences with the City on this and
other matters. He was made aware of my involvement by copy of your letter. I will
continue to keep him informed of our correspondence by copy on my end as well. I look
forward to your response and information regarding the project soon.
Most Cordially,
J
ael Ma r
cc: Honorable City Council
Steve Kueny, City Manager
Cheryl Kane, City Attorney
Gerald Bridgeman
0061L s C1
MOORPARK
fay Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
February 5, 1998
Michael Madrid
4213 Tecolote Court
Moorpark, CA 93021
Re: Everett Detention Basin
Outlet Storm Drain Line
Reconstruction Project
Dear Mr. Madrid,���
This is in response to your letter of February 1998. Please be advised that
the City has expended approximately $15,000 on the design for this project.
However, the total cost estimate for the City to proceed with the construction
of the project is approximately $150,000. That estimate is based on zero costs
for the required easements.
As stated to you in prior correspondence, I am not prepared to recommend to the
City Council approval of any compensation or the waiver of any land development
fees in exchange for the required easements. In my opinion, the inherent
benefits of the project to your property is ample compensation. Accordingly, it
is my intent to place an item before the City Council at their March 4th meeting,
requesting that no further action be taken to implement this project.
Yours 1 ,
At-
Kenneth C. Gilbert
Director of Public Works
cc: Honorable City Council
Steve Kueny, City Manager
Cheryl Kane, City Attorney
Gerald Bridgeman
pw \evrtll
PATRICK HUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ CHRISTOPHER EVANS DEBBIE RODGERS TEASLEY JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember ��Councilmember