HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-02; City Council; 7070-1; Request - Reimbursement - Tamarack AveT /".
CITY 3F CARLSBAD - AGENDA ALL
dB# 7070-1
UlTG. 11/2/82
DEPT. CA
TITLE: REQUEST TO CONSIDER A
REIMBURSEMENT FOR PORTION
OF TAMARACK AVENUE
DEPT. HD.-
CITY AITYLU'
CITY MOR.&
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept the proposed settlement outlined in the Item Explanation and direct the City Attorney to prepare the documents necessary to accomplish the settlement.
JTEM EXPLANATION
This request for reimbursement for the construction of Tamarack Avenue was originally scheduled for the Council's June 29, 1982 meeting. It was continued to allow for further discussions between the City, representatives of Mr. Ward and representatives of adjoining property owners. The City Manager requested that our office coordinate these discussions and represent the City's position. After several meetings no solution acceptable to all the parties has been achieved. Mr. Ward continues to demand reimbursement in an amount of $720,864. The adjoining property owners and the City staff are of the opinion that this figure cannot be justified. The adjoining property owners are Mrs. Robertson and Mrs. Kelley to the south, and Mr. Woodward to the north.
The City staff believes that Lake Calavera Hills is legally not entitled to any reimbursement primarily because the road is no larger than is necessary to serve the needs of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. This position has not changed since the matter was originally scheduled for Council. A copy of the original agenda bill is attached as Exhibit A. This position is joined in by representatives of the adjoining property owners. Copies of letters from their attorneys, Mr. Vetter and Mr. Hague, outlining their position is attached as Exhibit B. The original agenda bill refers to provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the Carlsbad Municipal Code dealing with reimbursement for oversizing subdivision improvements. Because Tamarack was imposed as a condition of the
Master Plan these provisions do not apply to this matter. A copy of the original agenda bill is attached as Exhibit A.
Despite its position that no reimbursement is required, the City has attempted to achieve a negotiated settlement to this dispute. A proposed settlement has been offered without prejudice to the City's
position or the position of the adjoining property owners. Representatives of the adjoining property owners have indicated that they would recommend acceptance of the settlement to the owners. The solution is outlined in the memorandum by the City Engineer dated October 4, 1982 attached as Exhibit C. Under this proposal Mr. Woodward would pay $95,007 and the Robertsons and Kelleys would pay $102,428, No discussion has occurred on the timing of the
payment or the manner of implementation. Those details would be worked out if Council accepted the proposal.
Page 2 of Agenda Bill 7070-1
This settlement is based on the assumption that there is some incidental benefit to the adjoining property owners from the existence of the road, even though the road is no bigger than necessary to serve the needs of Lake Calavera Hills alone. benefit to the adjoining owners has been determined to be one traffic lane plus curb, gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Ward's attorney,
Mr. Asaro, has stated that in his opinion the road is far in excess of the needs for Ward's development and therefore refuses to accept the settlement. The City staff disagrees with Mr. Asaro's figures and analysis.
The
Pursuant to the agreement entered into between Lake Calavera Hills and the City for resolution of the sewer plant controversy the Council is required to consider Mr. Ward's request and he is required to accept the Council's decision on the matter as final.
A copy of that section of the agreement is attached as Exhibit D.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - Agenda Bill No. 7070 and two exhibits to that agenda
Exhibit B - Letters from law firm of Feist, Vetter, Knauf and Loy. Exhibit C - Report by City Engineer dated October 4, 1982. Exhibit D - Copy of Section 7 of agreement between Lake Calavera
bill.
Hills and City of Carlsbad, dated January 20, 1981.
2
\B## 7070 TITLE: DEPT. HD.&&&
IEPT. ENG AVENUE CITY MGR.-
CITY ArrY REQUEST TO CONSIDER A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PORTIONS OF TAMARACK AT0 . .2!&$EL -
R ECOMM EN DE0 ACTION:
If Council sees no case for rejmbursement, instruct staff to file the request. 1.
2. If Council sees a case for reimbursement, direct staff to prepare an agreement and give staff guidance as to the extent of the reimbursement desi red.
..
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Mr. Roy Ward is requesting a reimbursement in the amount of $981,966.87 for what he feels is oversizing of Tamarack Avenue.
The staff report attached details the request, the facts involved and s t a f f re commen da t i on s .
A1 though the staff report gives several a1 ternatives for reimbursement, two important facts should be noted in considering them:
1. Full width improvements and land dedication of Tamarack Avenue concurrent with the first development were a requirement of the approved master pl an.
These full-width improvements are required by City Standards to handle the traffic that will be generated by the master plan area. 2.
FISCAL IFIPACT:
If the Council creates a reimbursement agreement, landowners or developers adjacent to Tamarack Avenue wit1 be required to pay an amount (depending on the scope of reimbursement) somewhere between $300,000 and $981,967. Mr. Ward will receive these funds less administrative costs retained by the City of approximately 5 - 10% of the reimbursement.
EXHIBITS :
A. Location Map B. Staff Report by City Engineer dated June 23, 1982 C. Letter from V’Frank Asaro dated May 7, ’E982 with attachments
D. Excerpt from Title 20 of Carlsbad Municipal Code.
EXHIBIT A
3
. -:
JUNE 23, 1982
i
TO : ASSISTANT SERVICES
FROM: C i ty Engineer
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO CONSIDER A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR
PORTIONS OF TAMARACK AVENUE
The firm of Asaro, Gattis & Sullivan has requested--on behalf of Mr. Roy Ward--
a reimbursement for what they feel is oversizing of Tamarack Avenue east of El Camino Real. Their case may be briefly summarized as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A full-width right-of-way was acquired and a full-width street constructed
at a cost to Mr. Ward of $1,742,787.87, per their cost sheet.
The conditions of the subdivision (CT76-12) required only a half-width
dedication of right-of-way and street construction which would have
cost $761,221.00, according to their estimate.
The half-width street would have been adequate to serve not only the
subdivision, but also the entire traffic demand of the master plan area,
according to a traffic study prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc.
The Subdivision Map Act provides that the subdivider shall be reimbursed for improvements in excess of those necessary to serve the 'I. . .
.r
I1 subdivision only. . . .-
A reimbursement in the amount of $981,966.87 is requested for the over-
sizing .
Staff has carefully reviewed the request.
considered when reviewing the request:
The following key facts should be
1. Full-width dedication of right-of-way and street construction were a
requirement of the Master Plan approved in 1974 and not just the
subdivision.
2. The Final Environmental Impact Report certified with a revision to the
Master Plan in 1978 noted that the developer proposed to construct
Tamarack Avenue full-width and this construction, therefore, is a
mitigation measure to reduce the impacts of the master plan area.
3. Although the conditions of improvement for the subdivision (CT76-12)
call 'for half-street improvements for most of Tamarack Avenue, full- street improvements were required from El Camino Real to La Portalada
Drive and full-width dedication was required.
4. Mr. Ward chose to construct full-width improvements and did not request
any reimbursement; a. at the time of master plan approval, b. at the
time of tentative map approval or, c. at the time of construction.
5. Mr. Ward's engineer has calculated the ultimate traffic from the master plan area on Tamarack Avenue to be 10,564 daily trips--very close to
the 10,000 daily trips estimated in the final EIR.
Page -2-
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
June 23, 1982
Two initial conclusions can be drawn from the facts presented above: First,
the City is under no obligation to reimburse Mr. Ward and the Council may
rightfully consider no reimbursement. Second, the City may impose reimbursement
for the part of the road that is larger than needed to serve the master plan
a rea.
If the Council sees no case for reimbursement, the discussion may end here and
the matter be filed. If the Council wishes to consider reimbursement, further
issues need to be presented.
With regard to oversizing for the.master plan area, Mr. Ward's engineer gives
calculations (which have not been checked in detail) to show that a half-street
could handle all the traffic generated by the master plan.
calculations are correct, the level of service provided (high level of congestion)
is unacceptable to staff. Further, street width requirements in Carlsbad are
not determined by calculating the capacity, but by City-Standards adopted by
the City Councll. These standards requi re that a secondary arterial (84-foot
right-of-way and 64-foot paved section) be provided when traffic volumes are
between 5,000 and 20,000 trips per day.
Tamarack Avenue is not larger than is required to serve the master plan area.
Assuming the
Therefore, according to City Standards,
It is legally questionable whether the City can reimburse Mr. Ward for any over-
x .- sizing with regard to the subdivision if the Council finds that the street is
needed to serve the master plan area. If Council finds that the street is over-
sized, reimbursement nay be considered. Although, it has generally been City
policy with regard to streets that the first developer in must pay for the
needed streets, the Code provides for reimbursement for oversizing in connection with assubdivision. Tamarack Avenue was required as a condition of a Haster Plan.
Chapter 20.16.041 of the Code provides that a subdivider may be required to
provide improvements with supplemental size and states: "€lowever, when such
suppZementaZ size, capacity or nwnber is solely for the benefit of property not &thin the subdivision, the City shall enter into m agreement with the subdi- vider to reimburse the subdivider for that port<on of the costs of swh improve- . ments eqmZ to the difference betueen the mount it would have cost the subdivider to CnstaZZ such improvements to seme subdivision only and the actual cost of such irnprovemsnts pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.''
Also, the Council provided in the approval of Specific Plan 180A and CT81-10
(Carlsbad Research' Center) with regard to a portion of College Boulevard:
"The devetoper. . may request in writing that the City take advantage of the provisions for reimbwsernent for major thoroughfares pursuant to the Subdivision
Map Act. developer ... .lt
instead of a half-width street.
The City wit1 use its best efforts to obtain reimbursement for the This condition applies to constructing a full-width street
EXHIBIT A
Page -3-
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
June 23, 1982
Three points should be made regarding the application of this Code section to
the Carlsbad Research Center.
1. The reimbursement is in conjunction with a subdivision, not a master plan.
2. Council determined that a half street was sufficient to serve the
subd i vi s ion.
3. The request to consider reimbursement was made as part of the approval
of the subdivision.
Staff requests direction from Council on the scope of reimbursement to be pursued
should they wish to proceed with reimbursement.
available:
There are several alternatives
1. Grant Mr. Ward his request as presented.
2. Grant reimbursement based on the difference between full and half-street
from El Camino Real to the end and including both right-of-way acquisition
costs and improvement costs.
. .- 3. Grant reimbursement based on the difference between full and half street -
from La Portalada Drive to the east end including street improvement
costs only in reimbursement.
Alternative 1. above is not recommended because Mr. Ward has included many items
in his request (for example: manholes, terrace drains, access road to sewer
plant, landscaping. . .) that have no relation whatever with the street. His
list is basically a summary of total costs. In order for staff to check the
figures and verify the actual expense, we would require from Mr. Ward a detailed
breakdown of costs including the hit costs used and a copy of all receipts for
payment for these costs.
Alternative 2. is not consistent with the condition of the subdivision which
required full-street improvements from El Camino Real to La Portalada Drive for
traffic safety and also required that the right-of-way be dedicated in full.
Realistically, there are always items required in building a half street that
make it cost more than one-half the full-street costs. Therefore, it should be
expected that the reimbursement amount for this alternative would be less than
half a full-street requirement.
Alternative 3. would be consistent with what was oversized relative to the
subdivision requirements. Only the street construction costs from La Portalada
Drive to the east end would be considered. No right-of-way costs would be
reimbursible. Under this alternative; the reimbursement amount would be very
roughly in the neighborhood of $300,000.
J
P
Page -4-
ASS I STANT
June 23,
CITY MANAGER/DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
982
Staff est mates that we could prepare the cost estimates and determine a
reasonable reimbursement amount within two weeks from the time we obtain
detailed costs from Mr. Ward.
to Mr. Ward would be less administrative costs incurred by the City. We
estimate this retention to be approximately 5 - 10%; of the reimbursement
amount .
It should be noted that any money returned
Any reimbursement granted would be paid by adjacent property owners.
Woodward Companies has just received a tentative map approval for a subdi-
vision on the north side of Tamarack Avenue. They have indicated a willing-
ness to pay a reimbursement not to exceed the cost of half+street improvements.
The
Mrs. Virginia Robertson, an adjacent property owner, has indicated through
her attorney, Mr. Henry Hague, that she will oppose any reimbursement. Her
view is that Mr. Ward would be taking from her what he was required to pay in
the f i rst place.
SUMMARY:
! 1. The Council has no obligation to grant any reimbursement.
2. All improvements were required as conditions of the Master Plan.
3. No reimbursement was requested at the time the conditions were imposed.
4.
5. If reimbursement is granted, staff recommends Alternative 3. Staff
Reimbursement will be opposed by adjacent property owners.
also recommends Mr, Ward be required to furnish information needed by
staff and staff be directed to determine the reimbursement amount.
RHA : mmt
Attachment : Ch ronol og i ca 1 Summa ry
EXHIBIT Ir
** 8
"\ /4
-i, .:ARACK AVENUE REQUIREMENTS AND ' ,<IONS
- CHRONOI OGICAI SUMMARY
May 7, 1974
August 4; ' 1977
___-_ -
September 19, 1978
! October 12, : 1978
November 14, 1978
May 18, 1981
July 27, 1981
May 7, 1982
Council adopted Resolution No. 3407 approving master plan MP-150 (Lake Calavera Hills) containing the condition: the deveZoper shalZ construct at his expense the extension of Kelly Drive or Pamurack Avenue from Ei!
Cumin0 Rea2 to the subject property in a manner accept- able to the City Ehgineer.''
ltAs part of the first phase of construction,
Counci 1 adopted Resolution 5145 approving tentative map CT76-12 (142 lots) containing a condition requiring the dedication of Tamarack Avenue 84 feet wide and the improve- ment based on 42 feet wide.
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 403 for the Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan notes that ?!The appZicmt has
proposed the off-site construction of Tamarack Avenue to connect El Camino Rea2 with the project site." The report also estimates the project-generated traffic on Tamarack Avenue to be 10,000 vehicles per day. with a right-of-way width of 84 feet would be required to handle that vol ume according to City Standards. )
-- - - ---. __ __ -
(A secondary arterial
-
Planning Commission minutes indicate that "full improvement of Elm and Tamarack. . . with Phase I." Roy Nard requests the following condition: (from the County) to approve and maintain the improvements' of Tammack Avenue betueen El Camino Real and the project site. 'I
"The city shaZ1 seek the authority
There is no record of Mr, Ward objecting to full improve- ments or requesting reimbursement.
Staff memo recommends full street improvements to be done by the subdivider when the first development that will use the street is constructed.
Roy Ward requests the City set up a reimbursement agreement far Tamarack Avenue.
The City Manager responds to the request that Mr. Ward: 1. provide evidence that the improvements are in excess of the developer's need; and 2. provide data to show what the actual cost of Tamarack Avenue is and what the cost of any oversiting is.
A request for reimbursement is sent to the City by the law firm of Asaro, Gattis & Sullivan which includes traffic and cost data.
. . . . EXHIBIT A 9 - _-
t
RAYMOND F. FEIST
PJORMAN L. VETTER
JOHN I. LOY
RAYMOND F. FEIST, JR.
ALAN H. 8URSON
GERRY L. CURTIS
HENRY R. HAGUE
LAW OFFICES
FEIST, VETTER. KNAUF AND LOY
810 MISSION AVENUE, SUITE 300
POST OFFICE SOX 240
OCEANSIDE. CALIFORNlA 92054
August 3, 1982
Dan Hentschke Assistant City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Hentschke:
Re: Lake Calavera Hills Request for Reimbursement
,
Per your telephone request of today, enclosed herewith is a copy of our letter to Mr. Aleshire, dated March 26, 1982.
To expand somewhat on our client's position concerning
the reimbursement request, we offer the following. Resolution No. 6122 unanimously adopted by the City Council on March 18, 1980 makes a specific finding that the acquisition, construc- tion and completion of the Tamarack Avenue extension improve-
ments were all required to serve the Lake Calavera Hills master planned area. That unanimous finding by the City Council was reiterated in the condemnation complaint filed by the City and signed by Mr. Ward's attorney, Ronald W. Rouse. We frankly cannot conceive that the City Council could have
been in error and that in actuality all of the improvements were not in fact required. To go one step further, in our handling of the condemnation action on behalf of our clients we relied upon the correctness of the Resolution of Necessity.
As you will recall, that action was ultimately settled prior to trial. Our reliance on the Resolution was a material con-
sideration in that settlement. could not now legally take an entirely inconsistent position
and determine that there was oversizing of the improvements.
This would seem particularly true in view of our client's
reliance on the City's original finding that all of the
improvements were required to serve the Lake Calavera Hills
master planned area.
It would seem that the City
."- e.
-2-
I trust that the above adequately outlines our position in the matter. If you have any questions at all, please
don't hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
FAST, VETTER,]KNAUF AND LOY /& orman L. Y- Vetter
Encl
cc: Mrs. Virginia Robertson
i
May 26, 1982
Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager - City of Carlabad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Nr. Aleshire:
Our office represents 7
.
irgin,a Robertson and Elsie M.
The proceeding involved the taking Kelly in an eminent domain proceeding recently completed by the City of Carlsbad. of an easement over our clients' property for the extension
of Tamarack Avenue east of El Camino Real, and to provide access to a Sewage Treatment and Reclamation Facility and .the Lake Calavera Hills master planned area. The Final
Order of Condemnation was recorded in this matter on -" b. February 11, 1982.
4
It has recently come to our attention that the developer of the Calavera Hills master planned area has requested reim-
bursement from the City for his construction of the required
improvements, in accordance with Government Code Section
66486 and City Ordinance Section 20.16.041. It is our under- standing that the size and'capacity of these required improve-
ments were baeed solely upon the needs of the property included
within the Lake Calavera Hills master planned area.
reimbursement agreement the City may reach with the developer
would impact Mrs. Robertson and Mrs. Kelly under the funding
procedures provided by Ordinance 20r16.042, we would greatly
appreciate being informed of any developments in this regard.
We would also appreciate receiving copies of any correspondence
regarding this request for reimbursement so that we may have the opportunity of responding thereto.
As any
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Very truly yoursp
FEIST, VETTER, KNUAF AND LOY .
Henry R. Hague
C.C. Virginia Robertson EXHIBIT B 12
RAYMOPID F. FFIST
NORI*I,\N L. VCTTEH
.JOHN I. LOY
C7AYl\r.DND F. FEIST. JR
ALAN ti. RURSON
GERRY L. CURTIS
HENRY R. ~JAGUE
LAW OiFlCES
FEIST, VETTEI',. KNAUF AND LO':
810 MISSION AVENUE. SUITE 300
POST OrFlCE BOX ZAO
OCEANS! DE, CALIFORN !A 92054
October. 19, 1982
Daniel S. Hentschlce
Assistant City Attorney
City of Carlsba.8
13.00 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008 c
near Dan:
Reference : Tamarack Road Reimbursement
Thank you for your letter of October 1.3, 1982, and the copy
of the Cit.y Engineer's report eontaj.n!ing the suggested reimburse- ment amounts on the Tamarack Avenue extention. Before discussing
t.he report with our clients, 1 did want to correct one statement
in -the report regarding the ownership of the affected property.
On page one, paragraph one, the report states that "the south is enti.rely in the ownership of Robertson. I' On, this ownership basis, reimbursement on the south side of Tamarack is calculated at $31-82 per front foot for 4120 front fee-t of Tamarack Avenue owned by the Rohertsoiis - Pursuant; to the settlement of the City's Eminent Dorr,ain case, hcwever , Virginia Robertson and Elsie 1-7. Kelly exe-
cuted a Quit.clain Deed to Lake Calavera Hills Associates of part
of their property frontiag on Tamarack Avenue extension. This d-eedecl part is the triangular are2 between Tamarack Avenue on the north and the Lake GaLavera. Hills Master Plan Area on the east and south, including approximately 900 frontage feet on the eastern end
of Tamarack Averriie. Thus, the Robertson ownership on the south
side of Tamarack is approximately 3220 frontage feet and not 4120 feet. At $31.8:. per front foot, their reimbursement amount, based upon the City Engineer's figures r' should be $102,428 e 20 I
I enclose a copy of the Settlement Agreement and Judgment in the Eminent Domain action for your records. The Quitclaim Deed showing the property transfer to Lake Calavera E-Iills Association
is Exhibit "B" to the Settlement Agreement. Thank you again for
your efforts in furtherance of an amicable and fair settlement of
this matter. Very truly yours,
FEIST, VETTER, KNAUF AND LOY
C.C. V'Frank Asaro
Robert Ladwiy
OCTOBER 4, 1982
TO : ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
FROM : City Engineer
SUBJECT: TAMARACK AVENUE REIMBURSEMENT PROPOSAL-ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1. UNIT PRICES AND FRONT FOOTAGE
From the tentative map for CT 81-48, Tamarack Pointe (Woodward) the total
front footage for all ltoff-site't Tamarack Avenue was determined to be
4120 feet for both the north and south sides.
the proposed subdivision. (Woodward). 1
ship of Robertson.
The street pavement was completed in August 1981. Unit prices used are from
the 1981 "Estimate for Checking Subdivisions'' which may be higher than
actual construction costs. The structural section given is that recommended
by Woodward-Clyde Consultants and used in the Tamarack Avenue construction.
The north is entirely within
The south is entirely in the owner-
Stuctural section cost:
41" asphal t concrete @ $1 .07/s. f.
9" lime-treated base @ .6l/s. f .*
*not known--assurne'd to be 75% of aggregate base
$2.41/s.f. x 6 feet wide = $14.46/front foot
8" aggregate base @ .73/s.f.
$2.41
Sidewalk cost:
4" P.C.C. sidewalk 5' wide $T.75/s.f. x 5 = $8.75/front foot
Curb and gutter cost:
$8.60/f ront foot
2. REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNTS
North side:! '
Reimbursement includes curb and gutter and a 6' width of pavement and
base (half of a 12' lane). No sidewalk has been constructed.
pavement and base: $14.46
curb and gutter: 8.60
vf ron t foot
$23.06 x 4120 feet = $95,007
REIMBURSEMENT--NORTH SIDE $95,007
EXHIBIT C )f
Page -2-
TOTAL RE I MBURSEMENT $226,064
L
South side:
Reimbursement includes a 5' wide sidewalk in addition to curb and gutter
and a 6' width of pavement and base.
pavement and base: $14.46
curb and gutter: 8.60
si dewa 1 k: 8.75 -$31.8f/f ron t foot
$31.81'~ 4120 feet = $131,057
3. "R-VALUE" AND STREET STRUCTURAL SECT I ON
.- .- Some discussion has been made using the term "R-value" and claiming that
Tamarack Avenue was built with a thicker section than was required. This
is inaccurate. The thickness was required due to the exceptionally poor
soils underlying the roadway. The R-value is a measurement of the soil's
resistance or strength to traffic loads based on the traffic index (T.I.)
for the classification of the road.
According to soils tests performed on Tamarack Avenue, the R-value ranged
from 12 to 18 generally, with one spot being 38,
on 18" of aggregate base.
using lime treatment to reduce cost and this was approved by the City
Engineer.
would have required an R-value ofzgreater,
reference.
This required 4" asphalt
The soils consultants recommended an alternative
For a comparison, the minimum section of 4" a.c. over 6" a.b.
A chart is attached for
4. LEVEL OF SERVICE
The term "level of service" is used by traffic engineers to describe the
amount of traffic on a street relative to its capacity. Descriptions from
two different sources are attached and are summarized below:
Level Of Service Description
A free flow - no delay
B stable flow - slight delay
C stable flow - acceptable delay
D approaching unstable flow - tolerable delay
E unstable flow - congestion; intolerable delay
F far.ced flow - jammed; stoppages of long duration
Page -3-
i
The City of Carlsbad had developed its street standards using a level of
service of C which is the recommended ideal design standard. The con-
sultant for Roy Ward who claimed that a 32' wide pavement was sufficient
used a level of service of D.
RICHARD ALLEN
RHA: mmt
attachments: 1. Drawing of Tamarack Avenue
2. Street Structural Section
ice (2 pages) 3. Levels of Ser
C: Assistant City Manager/Deve opmental Services - w/attachments _.,. 6.:
I
!
1
r j
t
i
I
.. . -.
Level of
Service
h
It
F
APPENDLX iJ
1,EVKl. 01; SKKV lCls DWCR I t''L'1t)NS
II
TRAFFIC QUALITY
Operating speeds beginning to be affected
by other traCfic; between one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles
which wait through more than one signal
cycle during peak traffic periods.
Operating speeds and maneuverability closely
controlled by other traffic; between 11 and
30 percent of the signal cycles have one or
more vehicles which wait through more than
one signal cycle during peak traffic periods;
.gccormncndcd. idcat design standard.
To 1 c*ral I c U~L- rii L f 11g spc-cds ; 32 t.0 70 p*i-ccnt
01' LIIC s fgi~ 1 cyc Lcs I1;tvc- OIIC' or ni1)rt.n vclric Ics
which wait rlirough inore than unc slgnd cycle
during peak traffic periods; often used as ! ' design standard in urban areas( Nfl tt4 CARlJkB,
C;lp;lc:ity; t:tw III~JX~~UIII triiri' LC VOI WI~C ;III itltcr-
HCCL ioii t:ilii acclitil~~l~~di~lc; rcstrlcicd :ipccdS;
71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have
one or more vehicles which wait through
more than one signal cycle during peak
traffic periods.
Long queues of traffic;
of long duration; traffic volume and traffic
speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be
I.ess than the voluiiie wtiicli occurs at 1,cveJ of
Sei-vicu E.
unstable flow; stoppage:
7.
Nominal. Range
of ICU (a) I
..
0.Uo' - 0.60
0.60 - 0.70
0.70 - 0.80
O.!)O - I .oo
3
Not Neaningf ul,
EXHIBIT C
VI- 18
Level of Service
TABLE VI-17 - LEVELS GF SERVICE FOR URBAN AND SUDUtBAN
ARTERJAL STREETS
I Traffic Flow Conditions (Typical Approximations, Not Rigid Criteria)
Likely Loada Avg.a Over-
Factor Speed (mph) Factor k- 1 r Description all Travel
Level of Service
Free flow I. 130 0.0 SO. 70 A (relatively)
Traffic Flow Conditions
(Approximations, Not Rigid Criteria)
Average
(mph) Description Overall Speed .
5 0.60
(0.80) *
Stable flow . (slight delay) 3 z 25 so. 1 SO. 80 I 0.70
(0.85)
"c-43 -Stable flow-+* 2: 20 i 0.3 5 0.85 5 0.80
D ._- Approaching unstable flows 2 15 50.7 I 5 0.90 5 0.90
. .*A (acceptable iielay) c (0.90) 1
(to1 er able delay) (0.95)
Unstable flow Approx. 51.0 (0.85 I 0.95 51.00 ' . EC (congestion; intolerable delay) 15 typicaI)d
Forced flow
(jammed) F <I 15 (Not (Not (Not meaningful) meaningful) meaning&
a. Operating speed and v/c ratio are independent measures of level of service; both limits
should be satisfied in any determination of levels, with due consideration given to the fact that they are largely rationalizations. Load factor, a measure of individual intersectionlevel
of service, can be used as a supplemental criterion where necessary.
considerable variation is possible.
'
b. This is the peak-hour factor commonly associated with the specified conditions; in practiceg
c. Values in parenthesis refer to near-perfect progression.
d. Load factor of 1.0 is infrequently found, even under capacity operation, due to inherent
e. Capacity. f. Demand volume/capacity ratio may well exceed 1.00, indicating overloading.
fluctuations in traffic flow. 8
<
TABLE VI-18 - LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR DOWNTOWN STREETS
A
B
Free flow (relatively; some stops will occur)
Stable flow (delays not unreasonable)
L 25
220 .
C Stable flow (delays significant but acceptable) . . . 2 15
D Approaching unstable flow (delays tolerable} 2 10
Ea Unstable flow (congestion not due to backaps ahead) Below 10 ,. but moving ' .
F Forced flow (jammed) Stop and Go
~ - ~__ ~ ~~ -
a. Level E for the downtown street as a whole cannot be considered as capacity; capacity aC3 is governed by that of controlling intersections or other interruptions. EXHl8lT C
particular, shall have no obligation'to-complete the EDL Line
nor the water reclamation facilities; provided, however, that
this release shall not release Developer from liability for fees
or charges, if any, for water reclamation facilities which are
. uniformly applied to all. property owners within the City or
within the drainage basin,
SECTION 7 : COMPLETION OF TAMAR~CK AVEMUE 'RIGHT-OF-WAY
ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT
II_
Anything contained herein to the contrary
notwithstanding, Developer shall remain responsible for
completing the acquisition or' Tamarack Avenue right-of-way as
shown on Exhibit "B" attachid hereto and Imide a part hereof by
. .- --
Developer's claim for reimbursement from other property
owners adjoining Tamarack Avenue shall be presented to the City
Council to be resolved by it and its decision shall be final.
That matter is not a part of this agreement,
this reference, and for the inprovement of sanw,
.I
SECTION 8: CREDIT FOR PAST EXPENDITURES
In consideration of the construction and transfer of
the Completed Facilities, Developer shall receive a credit with
City in an amount equal to the audited and agreed upon costs
incurred by Developer to date, including construction interest,
'2 in completing the facilities, in an amount of -$27&59r-B-5F, $2,866,778.00 +$,,
pJ This credit will be available to be drawn
pay sewer connection fees for development
UPOR by Developer to
within the Master Plan
Area. EXHIBIT
.. -1 P- ' .f
NOVEMBER 2, 1982
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Assistant City Manager/Developmental Services
H.O.T. COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE
Attached is a report prepared by the city engineer and land use planning manager responding to the questions presented to the city by the Hands Off Tamarack Committee. detail to allow you and the council to respond to any questions that may
be posed.
The answers are comprehensive and in enough
I have asked the engineer to come up with some additional information
which will be furnished to you when available. to how they came up with the square footage price for land to be acquired and whether or not that price includes severance damages. I have also asked him to give me further detail on the estimate he used of $60,000 per structure, should we need to condemn in order to acquire rights-of-way.
Emphasis should be made that the right-of-way from Carlsbad Boulevard to Jefferson Street is intended to be 80 feet, not 102 feet erroneously published in some recent documents. Also, that most of this land, or at least a significant portion of it, will probably be acquired in the next four or five years as a result of single-family homes in this area re- developing into apartments, consistent with the general plan land use designation.
That information relates
If ou have any additional questions, please Jet me know. 25 \L-
RONALD A. BECKMAN
RAB : pa b
Attachment
', . .* ,-
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED,
0 ST 2 G E82
DATE : October 26, 1982
TO: Assistant City Manager/Developmental
FROM: City Engineer $8- w Land Use Planning Manager
CITY OF CARLSBAD Developmental Seryices
Services
SUBJECT: Response to "Questions to Carlsbad City Council From
H.O.T. Committee, September 28, 1982."
1. What are the City's projections for the date that Carlsbad will reach a population of 160,000 persons?
Most recent estimate is 2030.
2. When and where do you plan to put in fire and police
stations to service these new people and new areas?
A total of six fire stations are projected to be in operation at build out. These will be located as follows:
Station 1 City Hall
Station 2 Costa Del Mar/El Camino Real Station 3 Lake Calavera Hills Station 4 Vicinity of 1-5 and Palomar Airport Road
Station 5 El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road Station 6 Vicinity of Rancho Santa Fe/La Costa Avenue
The exact timing of the placement of the new fire facilities
will depend on demand created by new development. The
City's Public Facilities Management System (PFMS) is designed to monitor the need and timing of these new facilities and to make sure that they are constructed when
they are needed.
The police station at City Hall will be relocated to an expanded facility at the proposed City Operations Center by 1985 which is located near the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road.
3. When and where do you expect to turn other streets into secondary arterials to service these new areas?
Generally, new arterial streets will be constructed concurrent with adjacent development in new areas. Since the question says "turn other streets into secondary arterials" it is presumed that the questions refers to widening or revising existing streets in developed areas.
Tamarack Avenue is the only secondary arterial existing in a residential area that will be widened. Portions of Hillside Drive and Park Drive are collector streets that will also need to be widened.
4. YOU have said you want citizen input, where is your citizen
input for these vast new developments? By what methods?
When? What has been the extent, percent, and effect of citizen input in the past? What is it at this juncture? Are you open to today's input?
The City of Carlsbad holds public hearings before any major decisions are made on new developments. Town meetings are also held when it is particularly important to hear from citizens. Each year, a town meeting is held before the annual Capital Improvement budget is adopted. Citizens are invited to attend and speak.
Regular City Council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of each month, at 6 p.m., in Council Chambers. These meetings are open to the public and citizens may speak before Council at that time. Notification of the specific public hearing items to be considered by the Council is published in the newspaper ten days prior to the meeting. In addition, for public hearings on new development, ten days notification is also provided directly
to the property owners located within 300 feet from the boundaries of the proposed development.
Elected city officials and city staff members are always available to talk with citizens. City commissioners, boards and committees are made up of citizens. The City administration wants to know how it can better serve its citizens and avenues are available for citizens to provide input.
When the CityIs Land Use Plan and Circulation Plan were adopted, extensive public hearings were held at both the Planning Commission and City Council level. When the present Land Use Plan was adopted in 1974 a twelve-member citizens advisory committee was involved in the
preparation.
5. What procedure does the city use to inform new residents of these plans? Has the City considered sending out vital data to new residents with new water service hookups?
The mechanisms explained above (question 4) are also used to keep new residents informed. In addition, a quarterly newsletter is sent to all residents in the City. This newsletter contains information on all major capital improvement programs proposed in the city.
-2-
6. How much money has the City already spent on the detailed
plans for the proposed widening and improvements of Tamarack Avenue? How much is anticipated to be spent in the future on planning and construction?
Approximately $17,000 was spent for a geometric design study
of Tamarack Avenue by Moble, Perry and Associates in 1977.
$50,000 has been spent for contract plans which have been completed. Construction cost is currently estimated to be $1.2 million. Right-of-way acquisition costs are estimated to be $1.5 million, however, it is not anticipated that this amount will be spent. Construction- the portion of Tamarack Avenue west of the freeway is not planned within the next 3-5 years and much acquisition will be a requirement of development.
7. Who authorized expenditure of these funds for planning? Why will funds for improvements not be taken from state gasoline tax funds, if this is a street or major improvement?
The geometric design study cost of about $17,000 was authorized by the City Council on April 20, 1976 by Resolution No. 3883. The City Council authorized the $50,000 for plans on May 5, 1981 by Resolution No. 6511. All gas tax funds in the City have been committed to street maintenance where they cover only about one-third of those costs.
8. If present plans are adopted, how many houses on Tamarack Avenue will then violate the city's 20-foot setback ordinance? Is this not a violation of your own codes?
Which homes will be nonconforming? Does the City possess special rights that the citizen does not?
36 houses and 5 garages will encroach into front setback areas, although 9 of these houses and 3 garages already encroach. Per Chapter 21.48 of the Zoning Ordinance this is not a violation of City codes in that the structure would be considered legally nonconforming. These homes could be expanded as long as the expansion did not exceed the limits of the existing nonconformity.
What is your estimate of the total cost of this condemnation?
9. How many houses in the proposed route will be condemned?
Property needs to be condemned only if negotiations with a property owner break down. If land acquisition begins immediately, 58,478 square feet of land would be required at a cost of $1.5 million (assuming an average cost of $25 per square foot). Land dedication will be required from a total of 58 parcels. Of these, 31 will dedicate a width of 10
feet or less, 11 will dedicate between 10 and 20 feet and 16
will dedicate 20 feet. The minimum width of dedication is 2 feet, the maximum is 20 feet.
-3-
The actual number of houses that must be purchased is unknown since it depends on negotiations with owners. If we
assume that all houses that would have less than a 20-foot setback from the new right-of-way line caused by the widening would be acquired, this would amount to 36 houses and 5 garages. At a cost of $60,000 per structure, this would cost about $2.0 million. This is probably too high, since purchase of all these houses may not be necessary and no appraisals have been done to establish actual costs.
Included in the above, 9 houses and 3 garages are already nonconforming (less than 20-foot setback).
All of the land west of the railroad is designated in the general plan for 20-30 units per acre. As this area
redevelops, dedications will be taken and old houses will be replaced by new developments at no cost to the City. It is not possible to predict a rate of development, however, approximately one-half the frontage along Tamarack Avenue from Carlsbad Boulevard to 1-5 may eventually redevelop.
10. Does your total cost estimate at present consider the difference between present values and the probably reduced values of the property upon culmination of your plans?
Yes, severance damages would be included.
11. Does your total cost estimates include the cost of the large number of legal actions that most assuredly will be instituted if these plans are completed? Source of these funds?
No. The costs assume fair negotiating and compensation. Source of funds has not been determined. Federal aid-urban is a possibility; the public facilities fee is another possibility.
12. If per chance Tamarack Avenue absolutely could not be widened, what would be your back-up or alternate plan?
Consideration would be given to widening the pavement within the existing right-of-way. This may result in the loss of some or all of the parking west of the freeway, loss of a center turn lane, loss of bicycle lanes or a combination of the above. It should be noted that no new alternative streets are possible as the area is largely already built
UP
13. In our discussion to date, we have been told that the City wants only two lanes at present, but the planning seems to
indicate proposals for four lanes of traffic. Is the City
planning two or four lanes of traffic on Tamarack Avenue?
Four lanes of traffic are planned from Adams Street to Highland Drive. Four lanes already exist from Jefferson
-4-
Street to Adams S-reet (except for one shor trip on the
remainder of Tamarack Avenue west of El Camino Real.
north side near Adams). Two lanes are plan f ed for the
15. We have been told that the traffic count at Highland and
Tamarack Avenue will soon reach a daily count of 14,000 vehicles. Of this number, what percentage will include heavy busses and trucks which would utilize the proposed secondary arterial?
The traffic count stated will not be reached “soon” but rather at buildout of the City. The precise number of trucks and busses is not known, but the street is not a truck route and serves only residential areas (except for
the immediate area near the freeway). Truck counts will be very low, perhaps 5% from the freeway to Adams Street and 2% east of Adams Street.
MJH/RA/ar
10/26/82
-5-