HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 0605 CC REG ITEM 10FAGENDA REPORT
C = TY OF MOORPARK
TO: The Honorable City Council
Moorpark Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Work
DATE: May 20, 1996 (Council Meeting 6 -5 -96)
(j O
30S- 4(14�6 a')
N�� MW
SUBJECT: Consider a Project to Construct Storm Drain Improvements
on Park Lane South of Los Angeles Avenue
DISCUSSION
A. Background
Park Lane south of Los Angeles Avenue is a "stub" street
approximately two hundred feet (2001) long. The design for this
street, which was constructed prior to the City's incorporation,
allows surface drainage on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue
immediately east and west of the intersection, to flow south
onto Park Lane. There are no storm drain improvements south of
the "stub" street to convey this surface drainage south to the
arroyo. As a result, the "stub" street, and the private
property to the south, experience flooding during the slightest
rain event.
B. Design Options
The ultimate solution to these drainage problems is the
construction of a storm drain in the future Park Lane (south)
right -of -way, from a point south of Los Angeles Avenue,
southerly to the arroyo. It has always been assumed that these
improvements would be constructed by the developers of the
properties in this area. This and another more short term
solution is discussed in more detail as follows:
Option 11: Both the 1987 Central City Master Drainage Study
and the 1995 City of Moorpark Master Drainage Study identify
the need for the construction of the Park Lane Drain. The
conceptual design for that facility calls for the
construction of a 33" diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)
extending from a point south of Los Angeles Avenue to the
Arroyo Simi. The estimated cost of construction is $337,000.
With design and construction engineering, it is estimated
that the total project cost would be approximately $425,000.
This does not include right -of -way acquisition.
Drainage: Park Lane South
June 1996
Page 2
As stated above, the implementation of this project would
normally wait until it could be constructed by the developers
of the vacant properties in this area. The City could
attempt to facilitate earlier implementation by fostering the
formation of an improvement assessment district to generate
the funds required. This district could sell bonds to
generate the capital required, or if available, the City or
the MRA could advance the money to be repaid by future
assessments upon the properties benefitted.
option 12: A less expensive and more short term solution to
a portion of the problem would be the construction of a storm
drain from a point south of Los Angeles Avenue, northerly to
an existing storm drain on the north side of Los Angeles
Avenue. Preliminary investigations indicate that catch
basins could be constructed on Park Lane south of the
intersection and a storm drain line could be extended
northerly from those catch basins to this existing storm
drain. This is only a limited solution in that the project
would only serve that portion of Park Lane north of the catch
basins. The future extension of Park Lane would require the
conveyance of surface drainage south of the proposed new
catch basins, southerly to the arroyo. It is possible that
the future storm drain to extend south could be "down- sized"
as the result of the diversion of storm flows northerly by
the above described facility.
It is anticipated that it will be necessary to resolve a
number of utility conflicts to construct this facility. This
factor, combined with the fact that the majority of the work
will be within Caltrans right -of -way, is expected to cause
design and construction costs to be higher than what would be
typical of such project.
A preliminary estimate of project costs is as follows:
Design 10,000
Construction 55,000
Admin. / Insp. 10,000
$75,000
Drainage: Park Lane South
June 1996
Page 3
C. Summary
The decision being presented to the City Council and the MRA for
consideration, is whether or not to proceed with Option #2 at
this time or to wait until Option #1 is implemented at some
undetermined point in the future via the development of the
property. It is the recommendation of staff that the Option #2
be approved.
D. Funding
In the event Option #2 is approved, it will be necessary to
appropriate funds and approve a Budget amendment for this
project.
RECOMMENDATION (Roll Call Vote by MRA)
It is recommended that the City Council and the Moorpark
Redevelopment Agency take the following actions:
1. City Council: Approve the subject project described as Option
#2 in this report.
2. Moorpark Redevelopment Agency: Approve an appropriation of
funds from the proceeds of the 1993 Tax Allocation Bond Issue
and an amendment to the FY 1995/96 Budget (01.170.903) in the
amount of $75,000 to fund the subject project, and direct that
said funding be carried over to the FY 1996/97 Budget.
rpt \park_so
W025fa