Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1968-4786' ~ . ~ r ~ •. r ' " .May 3 , `l 9 6 8 RESOLUTION NO. 4786 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL POLICY RELATED TO THE RESPONSIBILITY AND FINANCING OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND THE CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Viita has heretofore adopted Ordinance No. 1032, relating to the control of drainage areas and watercourses, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that, in addition to the establishment of regulations thereby which were intended to protect persons and property against water damage and flood hazards, it is necessary to establish a policy to implement said ordinance and carry out said purpose and intent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT'RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that said Council does hereby establish the following drainage policy. PURPOSE. The purpose of this policy is to establish the responsibility na d criteria for the design and construction of storm drainage facilities, and the financing thereof, predicated on: 1. Protection of life and property of citizens; 2. Protection o.f City-owned improvements and facilities; 3. Protection of vehicular and pedestrian traffic from damage, hazards and unusual delays; 4. Elimination of unsightly and unsanitary ditches and ponds; 5. Reduction of maintenance costs of drainage facilities; 6. Availability and applicability of a variety of means of financing said drainage facilities. BACKGROUND. In order to protect both public and private property, the construction and improvement of drainage facilities to accommodate storm water runoff, it is necessary and essential to the health, safety and general welfare of the community that proper imple- mentation of the necessary program be established, which requires the establishment of the design criteria, the fixing of basic responsibility and provision for methods of financing. Design criteria are established by the Public Works Department, based on technical and scientific data, calculated to achieve the goals set forth in this policy. WYiile the basic responsibility for handling drainage problems rests with the property owners, the coordination and intergration of drainage facilities becomes a community responsibility, and is accepted as such. The imple- mentation of any overall drainage program is fundamentally dependent upon the resolution of the question of financing. While drainage pro- jects have constituted a small percentage of. the City's capital outlay expenditures in previous years, in the year 1967-68 such drainage pro- jects amount to forty percent (400) of said capital outlay expenditures. However, because of the magnitude of the problem, sole reliance upon annual appropriations from the Capital Outlay Fund is insufficient to meet the community demands. In addition, because the nature of benefit from such public works vary, the method of financing individual projects also differs. Therefore, the misunderstanding and uncertainty which has prolonged the inadequacy of drainage facilities except in new sub- divisions may be attributed to the absence of a clearly established policy pertaining to the financing of drainage facilities. TYPES OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES. Drainage facilities commonly include the following: -1- ' , • . `. _, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f 1. Storm Drain. A system of closed conduits connected by cleanouts, curb inlets, and other appurtenances. 2. Culvert. A pipe or rectangular box under a roadway and open on both ends. 3. Drainage Ditch. A ditch which is less than 8 feet wide on the bottom and constructed to carry storm runoff. 4. Drainage ChanneZ.A drainage channel which is constructed more than 8 feet wide on the bottom. 5_ Brow Ditch. A ditch constructed on the top of a cut or fill bank for the purpose of intercepting surface runoff. 6. Natural Ditch. A ditch (or channel) which has been created by natural storm runoff and erosion. 7. Drainage Swale. Avery wide and shallow depression which carries surface runoff. 8. Flood Control Channel. A channel constructed to prevent the flooding of land due to rising waters or waters which overflow their natural stream beds. DEFINITIONS: 1. Major Drainage Channel or System. A channel which drains an area in excess of 750 acres. 2. Lateral Drainage Channel or System. A channel which drains an area in excess of 100 acres but less than 750 acres and empties into a major channel. 3. Local Drainage Channel or System. A drainage system which collects local runoff from an area of less than 100 acres and transports water to a lateral or major system. 4. Drainage Channel or System. An open or closed conduit, improved or unimporved, designed for the purpose of collecting and transporting storm water runoff in such manner as to protect public and private property. 5. Drainage Structure. A catch basin, outlet, inlet, headwall, spillway, energy dissipator, junction box, cleanout box, diversion box, etc., in a drainage channel or system. 6. Design Storm. A storm of such magnitude which may be expected to occur once during a specified number of years and resulting in the maximum storm water runoff to be anticipated once during that specified number of years. DESIGN CRITERIA: 1. In general, all major drainage channels shall be designed to discharge a 50 year ultimate storm, without static head; lateral channels shall be designed to discharge a 10 year storm without static head at entrances and a 50 year ultimate storm utilizing available head without causing substantial damage to surrounding property; and local channels shall be designed to discharge a 10 year storm utilizing available head without causing substantial property damage, except that where a sump condition exists and excess runoff has no alternate route, special design shall be required for the protection of property. -2- . ;' ~ . * . ..~ . . 2. Open drainage channels shall be lined with gunite or Port- land Cement Concrete unless physical circumstances dictate a particular channel be constructed as a temporary channel. 3. Runoff quantities to be accommodated in the design of all structures shall be as set forth in or derived from the report prepared by Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and Smith which is titled "A Special Study of Storm Drain Facilities" and is on file in the office of the Director of Public Works. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES. Construction Responsibility; Generally. As stated herein, the basic responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of drainage facilities is that of the property owner through whose property the natural drainage channel runs and who requires the improvement of said facilities for the protection of his property interest. However, the City does have a general responsibility to insure the proper construction, maintenance and improvement of drainage facilities to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the City as a whole. The delinea- tion herein of the various situations wherein it is attempted to establish responsibility for the construction of several types of drainage facilities should not be construed as fixing the respective financial obligations of the City or the property owner, or establishing the sources of funds for said construction, unless such obligation or sources are specified herein. 1. Major Channels. The responsibility for the cost of the design and construction of the most economical design of major channels and structures shall rest with the City as a whole and shall be constructed as funds allow in order of priority, based upon need for property protection as determined by the Director of Public Works subject to the approval of the City Council, and upon the desire of property owners involved to effect other improvements which in turn necessitate the construction of major channels and structures. In the event that the property owners desire a system in- volving greater expense than that which is approved by the Director of Public Works as being adequate and appropriate under the circumstances to resolve the drainage problem in accordance with design standards, they shall be required to contribute the difference in the cost as estimated by the Director of Public Works. In the case of new subdivisions, the basic responsibility for the cost of design and construction of major channels and structures shall be borne by the subdivider exclusively in those cases where the subdivision comprises a substantial portion of the drainage basin involved. In those cases where the subdivision through which a major channel will run comprises a relatively minor portion of the total drain- age basin, the City may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the subdivider to provide for reimbursement by the subsequent subdividers of land which are shown to benefit from the construction of the major channel. The basis of said benefit shall be determined by the Director of Public Works. In some instances the City itself may participate in the construction of major channels and structures within subdivisions based upon a division of benefits inuring to the subdivision and to the City as a whole. In the event that the City is unable to participate in con- struction at the request of property owners involved, the minimum requirement shall be that the property owners shall bear all cost of construction of temporary facilities for the ultimate design at all street crossings and may, at their option, bear the cost for permanent construction of -3- .? .. .•~ _ ,.: the entire system. The City shall, upon request of the property owners, enter into a contract to reimburse the property owners for the cost of all permanent facilities constructed at their expense, provided that funds are made available through a general obligation bond issue for construction of such major channel within a period of 10 years from the date of contract. The amount to be re- imbursed shall be based upon the estimate of the Director of Public Works, and shall be without interest. 2. Lateral Channels. The responsibility for the cost of design and construction of lateral channels and structures may be shared equally by the City and property owners in- volved. The City may initiate special assessment improve- ment districts for construction of lateral channels when funds are available to share the cost with property owners. The City, if funds are available and when requested by property owners, may participate in construction of lateral channels by contributing up to one-half of the cost as estimated by the Director of Public Works. If City funds are not available, and the property owners wish to proceed, they may do so at their own expense and no reimbursement will be made by the City. 3. Local Channels. All costs involved in design and construc- tion of local channels and structures, including structures in a major or lateral channel serving a local system, shall be borne entirely by property owners desiring the improve- ments, provided, however, that the City may participate in said costs in an amount not to exceed fifty percent (50%) if the particular improvement constitutes a project eligible for cooperative financing as outlined in Section 6 of the Policy for Financing entitled "Cooperative Drainage Projects" POLICY FOR FINANCING VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF DRAINAGE PROJECTS. There are six basic categories of drainage projects classified according to the suggested method of financing. These categories and the financing policy applicable to each are as follows: 1. Flood Control Projects. Projects such as the Sweetwater Valley Flood Control Channel are major works involving the expenditure of many thousands and millions of dollars. These projects are ordinarily designed and constructed with federal funds through the assistance of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The federal government usually pays for all costs except rights-of-way, relocation and reconstruction of utilities. These latter costs are paid by the City with reimbursement by the State of California, Department of Water Resources. Flood control projects are initiated by governmental action through the City Council, the State of California, and the Congress and the Executive Branch of the United States Government. Priority for con- struction is determined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Some of the federal and state financed flood control pro- jects will be partially justified because of land enhance- ment and, in these instances, the federal government may require the City to pay a portion of these enhancement benefits. These funds may be obtained by assessment of the land subject to inundation, or from City funds. 2. Subdivision Projects. These are storm drains and other drainage facilities installed in connection with new sub- divisions. When a property is subdivided, the subdivider is required to accept the surrounding drainage as it enters his property and convey it in appropriate facilities across -4- ~: ~~ his property to a suitable discharge, which may necessitate the acquisition of easements and construction of off-site drainage facilities. The cost of these projects will be paid by the subdivider. In addition, the City may require, by ordinance, the payment of a fee as a condition of the approval of a final subdivision map, for purposes of de- fraying the actual or estimated costs of constructing planned drainage facilities for the removal of surface and storm waters from local or neighborhood drainage areas, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11543.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act. 3. Capital Improvement Projects. These are drainage facilities which will benefit either the entire City or a very large community. Such projects are initiated by recommendation of the Director of Public Works and given a priority for construction subject to the approval of the City Council. Projects of this nature will be financed by the City, either from the Capital Outlay Fund or from Gas Tax funds. Projects which are involved with the Select System of Streets are eligible for financing, in whole or in part, by Gas Tax money. 4. Assessment Projects. These are projects which benefit only a local community and which are constructed under 1911 Act or 1913 Act improvement proceedings. Such projects are initiated by a petition from the owners of 600 of the property within the area to be benefitted. Because of the nature of such projects, the assessment district will pay all costs and the district will include only that property which will receive direct benefit. 5. Assessment Projects with Citz~ Participation. These are projects which, in addition to benefitting a local community, also include work which is of general benefit to an exten- sive area. Such projects are constructed under either 1911 Act or 1913 Act improvement proceedings but with the City participating in the cost. The extent of City participation will be limited to that portion of the project of general benefit to the City as a whole and usually will not exceed 50~ of the total cost, although the exact amount for any project will vary, depending upon the relative benefit and the responsibilities involved. City costs will be financed from the Capital Outlay Fund or from Gas Tax funds as appropriate. Projects may be initiated either by petition of those property owners affected or by the City Council based upon the recommendations of the Director of Public Works. Capital Improvement Projects included in the City's Capital Improvement Program but with relatively low priorities if reclassified as assessment projects with City participa- tion, may be advanced in the program and given priority over other Capital Improvement Projects. 6. Cooperative Drainage Projects. A cooperative drainage pro- ject is one in which the City shares the total cost of the installation with the property owner. The percentage of participation shall be based upon an estimate of the respective benefits derived by the City and the property owner prepared by the Director of Public Works, and the City's participation shall be limited to 50% of the total cost of the most economical design. The purpose is to assist in the development of older areas which were sub- divided without the construction of adequate drainage facilities, thereby reducing maintenance costs to the City. -5- The City's share of the cost of such projects will be financed from the Capital Outlay Fund or Gas Tax funds as approp~~iate. Drainage facilities connected with new subdivisions are not eligible for cooperative financing unless the drain involved is one which has been previously classified as a Capital Improvement Project, and included in the City's Capital Improvement Program, and funds have been budgeted but not expended therefor. (a) Projects are eligible for cooperative financing if they meet any of the following conditions: (1) Will accept drainage off improved City streets or other public rights-of-way; (2) Will accept drainage from large partially developed areas and the property on which the drain is to be con- structed is already subdivided; (3) The drainage facility to be installed will benefit the City by eliminating a maintenance problem and/or a public hazard. (b) Projects do not qualify for cooperative financing under the following conditions: (1) The facility is intended to provide a culvert under an unimproved street; (2) Drainage work contemplated is incompatible with the overall drainage plan for the area. Presented by ', , , .... ~ f,,.. Lane Co le, Director zsf Public Works Approved as to form by r% eo ge D. indberg, Ci Attor ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 11th day of June 1968 , by the following vote, to-wit: AYES : Councilmen McAllister, Sylvester, Hamilton. Scott NAYES: Councilmen None ABSENT: Councilmen McCorquodale Mayor/ f the City o Chula Vista ,, pro tem ATTEST ,, i ;' .<_ .,_ ~ ,. t_ t:.d :_' c~_ . ~~ J / ~.~City Cler STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. , and that tYie same has not been amended or repealed. DATED _ -6- City Cler