RES 69011 - Laserfiche WebLink

TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ~[EMORANDUM CITY MANAGER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WOPd<S M~rch 6, 1967 Suggested Policy Establishing Davelop~ ~tlgations of Maoor Storm Drain Channels. for Crossings Crossings of channels that can ba accomplished by pipe or box culverts shall be the responsibility of the abutting property owners, up to~ the extent of the re- quirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. In the case of a major thoroughfare, therefore, the surrounding'developments would be responsible for the entire length of pipe or box culve?t required and for that width of roadway normally required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The City would pick up the cost for the central portions of the roadway within the lines established as City's respon- sibility by the Subdivision Ordinance. Crossings of major channels requiring bridges would not be the responsibility of the abutting property owners, except that they shall contribute their share of the estimated cos~ of an equivalen~ road, assuming that ~here were no channels. The City would assume the cost of the s~ructure and the cost of th~_central per,ions of the roadway as established by the Subdivision Ordinance. *Example one. A residential street crossinj the Plsasanton Danal from the Hansen Ranch to the Meadow Farms Development. The first property to develop would pay to the City one-half of the estimated cost of con- ~tructing the box culvert and the roadway a~ross the right-of-way for the Pleasanton C%nal. The second property owner then would construc~ the em:ire crossing and would receive from the City the funds previously ~oll'ected. Example two/ The extension of Valley AveJue crossi, ng the Del Valle from the Hansen F,.anch to Bernal Avenu_~. As the property on each side of the Da! Valle develo?sd, the dave!o~ers would pay re the City .their share of the cost of an mquivalent roadway across ~he drainageTright-of-way, assu~ir.g there was no drain~zg~ channel. Since this is a~major thoroughfare, the ~evelopers of the Ean~an Ranch would pay for an e~uivalent roadw~zv s~znnln one-h~!f of the D'~l Val!a within the limits, of roadway width 7rcs~ri~a~f by the SubJivision Ordinance. The City w~uld pay for thc brifge structure antl th~ r~:'~ai~fer of ~he roadway. Example thre-:. ';ice:~in~ of an ezisting roadway ag~ross an existin~ drain?ge cbanne! ~ith no caza~e in ~he drai~lage channel and.where the c::istinj crossing, is 'b~l pipe or box culvert, In this da~e. the ab~tt~n,~ n .... ,, o,,aaro :.ou~d pa} ~or the to~=l extenszon ol th{.pipe or culvert and zn equiva}ent cost for extending or widening th~ roadway in accordance with the Sub~.visfon O=dinance. The City ~ould them~ pay the additional costs for widening the road.~. ~