HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-20; City Council; 8300; Elm AV extensionCITY-'*F CARLSBAD - AGENDP -'LL
\B# STo0
dTG. 8/20/85
IEPT. CM
TITLE
ELM AVENUE EXTENSION
DEPT. HD.
CITY AI"
CITY MGR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Consider developer proposal and direct staff to take appropriate action on the extension of Elm Avenue from Donna Drive to El Camino Real.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On April 25, 1984 Council approved CT 84-20 and SDP 84-3.
The project proposes to build 195 apartment units on a
9.6 acre parcel (19.7 du/ac) and 73 single family residential
lots (2.0 du/ac) on 26.0 acres. The 19.7 density was justified
because the project will provide a needed link in the city
circulation system via Elm Avenue.
Conditions approved for CT 84-20 include:
36. Full street grading, 28 foot paved section, storm drains
and appurtenances thereto, full right-of-way and slope
easements to secondary arterial standards for Elm Avenue
from its' existing terminus east of Donna Drive to the
westerly line of the development shall be bonded for prior to appproval of the final map and installed at a time as deemed necessary by the City Engineer, however,
these improvements must be installed prior to occupancy
of the 121st unit.
36.a. Prior to approval of the final map the City Council may approve an alternative plan to provide for the financing of the dedication and improvement of Elm Avenue. The City Council will consider any proposals from the developer in that regard. Alternatives may include but are not limited to, an assessment district, or major thoroughfare
reimbursement district. In making their decision on an
alternative financing plan the City Council may modify the
requirements of Condition No. 36 without further public
hearings. If alternative arrangements satisfactory to the City Council for the financing of Elm Avenue are not approved and completed prior to final map approval then the developer shall comply with the requirements of Condition No. 36.
AGENDA BILL NO. fby Ob
8/20/85
Page 2
HISTORY:
On June 12, 1984 Council appropriated $587,000 to extend Elm Avenue from Donna Drive to El Camino Real. The reasons for that action were based upon a need to provide additional
east-west streets through the area. One prime motivation was
the opposition of Tamarack residents to widening Tamarack.
The City Engineer in November 1983 commenced studies to acquire
right-of-way and to build Elm as a priority project. with property owners revealed that a voluntary dedication of Elm Avenue right-of-way could not be obtained. Engineering
studies also revealed that archaeological and geologic
conditions on the Elm Avenue slope would make the road
project much more expensive than originally estimated
(correct estimates exceed $1 million if the City were to
undertake the project alone.)
In April 1984 a developer (Alanda) applied for zoning approval
to develop land along El Camino Real north and south of the
Elm Avenue extension. When the project was approved by Council
a condition was imposed requiring developer to build Elm
Avenue as a half street from Donna Drive to the project site
(condition 36 CT 84-20).
Meetings
At the Council meeting June 5, 1984, a new condition (36a)
was added at the request of the developer.
allows developer to request Council to modify Condition 36
if Council consents to alternative financing for Elm Avenue.
This condition (36a) was specifically designed to allow
negotiations between city and property owners relative to a
cost sharing agreement or assessment district.
recognized then that the property owners had not worked out
details with city on right-of-way for construction of Elm Avenue and that further negotiations were necessary.
The new condition
It was
In the past year the Alanda project has been sold to a new developer, MultiTech Properties, Inc. The new developer has
had numerous meetings with city staff and other owners and has
been unable to consummate agreements to allow developer to proceed.
A key problem is that owners of land along Elm Avenue are unwilling to dedicate street right-of-way. To solve that
problem the developer has had appraisals made and is now
asking the city to use the power of eminent domain to acquire
the right-of-way.
a
AGENDA BILL NO. 830 o
8/20/85
Page 3
In addition, the developer is asking Council to consider creating an assessment district to spread the cost of Elm Avenue to other benefitted properties or negotiate a cost
sharing agreement between the city and the developer.
The for
The
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
real issue for Council to resolve is how should the costs
Elm Avenue extension be split?
following factors bear on the issue:
Developer was required tograde full street improve-
ments and pave 28 feet wide.
Construction Cost = $497,000 (Condition 36)
Right-of-way acquisition cost is appraised at
$156,000 not including court costs. (For the two
parcels Jandro & Sarkaria)
There are four property owners other than the developer
involved in the project (see map attached).
The city owned reservoir site is one of the four
properties. Does Council believe city should pay for
street improvements on city property?
One owner, CRC, is obligated to install half street
improvements under a previous development approval.
Estimated cost of full street improvements would add $116,000 to the $487,000 cost.
Water District needs to install a water line in Elm
Avenue to provide proper circulation. Cost would be
$75,000 if done with developer or $150,000 if district
had to acquire easements and do work separately.
There is a city wide benefit from the Elm Avenue extension - it will provide more direct freeway and
beach access to areas east of El Camino Real, and it
will relieve traffic on Chestnut and Tamarack.
City has $587,000 in CIP budget for Elm Avenue
construction.
3
AGENDA BILL NO. f3 00
8/20/85
Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated
a.
b.
C.
costs for the project are:
Right-of-way, full grading, 28 ft. pavement =
$672,000
Right-of-way, full grading, 64 ft. pavement =
$788,000
Pro rata share of full street cost on each property is:
City 218 ft. $102,000
Sarkaria 372 ft. $240,000*
Jandro 460 ft. $327,000*
CRC 250 ft. $119,000
TOTAL 1,300 ft. $788,000
*Includes cost of right-of-way.
EXHIBITS :
1. Ownership map.
2. Zoning map.
3. MultiTech proposal, dated 7/1/85
4. Engineering analysis, dated 8/7/85
SARKARIA
L. I
EXHIBIT #2 -
SDP 84-3(A)
FUTURE ELM AVE
- EXHIBIT #3
-III =I=maI I iiiuuiww (619) 455-1900 5820 Miramar Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121
II I I I111 I I I I I I I1 I111 II l111l11111111111111111111ll PROPERTIES INC.
July 1 , 1985
Mr. Frank Aleshire
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Rising Glen Project (C.T. 83-20)
Dear Mr. Aleshire:
We are the owners and developers of C.T. 83-20, Rising Glen Subdivision, to
consist of 73 10,000 sq. ft. minimum size single-family home sites, and a
site for a 195-unit apartment complex.
Conditions 36 and 36(a) of our Tentative Map require us to assume certain
responsibilities for the construction of Elm Avenue, both within our sub-
division, and external to the subdivision (offsite), between our western subdivision boundary and Donna Drive.
two parcels of privately owned property, which will have to be purchased or
acquired by condemnation.
Condition 36 of the Tentative Map requires bonding for the offsite Elm Avenue
improvements before recording of the Final Map; Condition 36(a) allows the
developer to submit any proposal for consideration of the City Council for the financing of dedication and improvements of the offsite portion of Elm
Avenue, and gives the City Council the authority to modify the requirements
of Condition 36 without further public hearing.
Most of the offsite portion is across
The current City budget, as Project #3177, has an allocation of $586,379 for
the extension of Elm Avenue, from Donna Drive to El Camino Real, a distance of 1300 feet.
We propose the following financing plan for the construction of Elm Avenue:
(a) The City acquires the Sarkaria property, appraised at $57,645, at its
cost, and the Jandro property, appraised at $98,377, at its cost, thus completing
the acquisition of all right-of-way needed for the street, and pays for these
acquisitions.
Improvement of the offsite portion of Elm Avenue (per Grading and
Improvement Plans filed with the City Engineering Department on December 19, 1984) be financed as follows:
(b)
(1) The City of Carlsbad shall pay for those improvements associated
with the lineal footage of the water tank site.
7
Page Two
July 1 , 1985
Mr. Frank Aleshire
(2) The City will exercise its rights under the lien contract from
Community Resource Corporation, thus resulting in either construction of that
portion of the road or a commitment from the lien obligee to pay us for the
prorata portion of the street improvements.
(3) For the portion of the road through the Sarkaria and Jandro
properties, to the extent legally feasible, and to the extent that there is
benefit to these properties, a reimbursement agreement shall be obtained which
would commit the owners of these properties to pay for their prorata portion
of the road when these properties are developed.
would run in favor of the City which would advance these funds until the reim- bursement is made. To the extent that it is determined that one or both of
these properties do not benefit from the construction of the Elm Avenue exten-
sion, which only appears to be a probability for the Jandro property, the City
and Mu1 titech Properties will share 50-50 in this unreimbursable cost.
The reimbursement agreement
We believe that our proposal represents an equitable means of financing these improvements, which are clearly in the category of providing a community benefit
beyond the service requirements of the project.
and/or implementation needed to complete the project.
I look forward to discussions
HK/hc
...
August 7, 1985
EXHIBIT #4
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Principal Civil Engineer
Municipal Projects Division
ELM AVENUE EXTENSION - DEVELOPER REQUEST FOR CITY PARTICIPATION
BACKGROUND: This discussion concerns a 1/4 mile section of Elm
Avenue between the end of the existing street at Donna Drive and
the proposed development west of El Camino Real known as Carlsbad
Tract 83-20, Rising Glen. There are four adjacent property
owners:
1. City of Carlsbad - site of water tank
2. Sarkaria - will gain substantial benefit
3. CommunityResources- conditioned to build half street
4. Jandro - will probably not benefit from Elm
The developer of the Rising Glen project, Multitech Properties,
Inc., is conditioned to construct full-width grading, 28-feet of
pavement and provide right-of-way. However, per condition 36A of
the tentative map, Council may consider any alternative plan.
The City has appropriated $586,379.00 in the 1984-85 C.I.P. for
Elm Avenue extension (28 feet wide).
DEVELOPER',S PROPOSAL: The developer has submitted a cost esti-
mate for this section of $497,000.00 which covers his construc-
tion and design cost for the full grading and 28-feet of paving
(Chart A). His proposal for a cost sharing is:
PROPERTY X SHARE COST PAID BY CITY -
Jandro 35.5 $ 176,435 $ 88,217
Community Resource 19.3 $ 95,921
Sarkaria 28.5 $ 141,645 145,645
Carlsbad Water 16.7 $ 82,999 $ 82,999
Construction Cost 100.0 $ 497,000 $ 312,861
Right-of-way Cost $ 175,000 $ 175,000
TOTAL COST $_ 672,000 $ 487.861<
City Manager
Elm Avenue Extension
August 7, 1985 Page: 2
The developer proposes to pay $88,218 which is one-half the
Jandro portion.
ANALYSIS: City staff has reviewed the developer's cost estimate
and proposal and has discussed a possible assessment district
with the City's assessment engineer. The following has been
determined:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The developer's cost estimates are reasonable.
The developer's proposed percentage split is a reasonable
breakdown by parcel.
The Community Resources property is a development conditioned
to put in half-width Elm Avenue. The City has an improvement
agreement and letter of credit on file.
The Jandro property may not benefit from the improvements.
The Sarkaria property will have substantial benefit but City
policy is that he cannot be conditioned to pay or reimburse
the City because no development is underway.
The developer's proposed cost of $497,000.00 provides for
only 28-feet of paving. Completion of a full-width street
will add only $116,000.00. Staff strongly recommends that
the City provide the additional funds for a full-width
street.
If an assessment district were considered, developer's
conditions would be included so Multitech Properties
requirements would not be reduced.
An assessment district would add approximately 30%
($180,000.00) and 6+ months to the project. The only reason
to consider this would be to assess costs to the Sarkaria
property. Property owners may protest a district thereby
blocking its formation.
Right-of-way is required from Sarkaria and Jandro. Neither
has responded to Multitech's offer to discuss negotiations to
purchase land. City condemnation will probably be required.
City Manager
Elm Avenue Extension
August 7, 1985 Page: 3
STAFF PROPOSAL: The developer has offered to pay half of the
~ro-rata share of the costs of construction on the Jandro
property because that property will probably not benefit from Elm
Avenue. However, because City policy prevents the future
reimbursement by Sarkaria for improvements, it is a reasonable
solution that the Multitech Properties share the cost of this
property with the City as well. Additionally, right-of-way
should be shared, not just construction. This would reduce the
City cost by $158,322 and add it to the developer.
Additionally, staff feels it is very cost effective to add
$116,000 to the total cost and complete Elm Avenue full-width.
This would be paid for entirely by the City.
The above plan includes - full width street. The City would pay
for all the design, grading and paving costs along its frontage.
Community Resources would pay for its half-street obligation
along its frontage. The City and Multitech Properties would
split all costs (design, full width construction, fees and
right-of-way acquisition) for the two properties not obligated to
participate. The City would use its power of eminent domain to
make the acquisition if necessary.
CONCLUSION:
There are five alternatives under consideration. These are
listed with their cost to the City and Multitech Properties:
ALTERNATIVE CITY COST MULTITECH COST
1. Multitech build per -0- $672,000
condition
2. City build per C.1.P $586,379" -0-
3. Multitech Proposal $487,862 $ 88,218
4. Staff Proposal (half-width) $329,539 $246,540
5. Staff Proposal (full-width) $445,539 $246,540
* Budgeted amount. Actual cost probably more due to
extensive grading requirements.
The first two alternatives place all the burden on either the
City or the developer. The developer says he cannot afford the
high off-site costs so this alternative will not happen. The
developer's offer also places too much burden on the City. The
City Manager
Elm Avenue Extension
August 7, 1985 Page: 4
staff proposal reasonably divides the costs in a logical manner
and spreads them more evenly. The existing agreement to improve
with Community Resources will be called in and that developer
required to pay his share as well. Multitech Properties could be
paid either a fixed dollar amount or a percentage of actual
costs. The former method is recommended because it will save
significant record keeping and because it is a known quantity.
Additionally the City could save the developer $14,000.00 in
bonding requirements and up to $21,000.00 in erosion control
deposit by deleting these requirements. The City would have
adequate guarantees because no money would be paid to the
developer until the work was completed and accepted.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The City commit itself to contribute $445,539.00 to the Elm
Avenue extension project.
2. The City initiate action to acquire the necessary right-of-
way and pay for it.
3. The City contact Community Resources/Glendale Federal and
collect $95,921.00 (or alternative calculation of their
obligation) and pay to Multitech Properties upon completion
of Elm Avenue.
4. The City subtract right-of-way acquisition costs from the
$445,539.00 and pay the balance to Multitech Properties upon
the acceptance of the Notice of Completion for Elm Avenue by
the City Council. A mi&- ,*
R~HARD H. ALLEN JR.
RHA:lch
Attachment: Chart A - Cost Estimate
CHART A
ELM AVENUE EXTENSION
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Street Improvements (half width)
Drainage Improvements
Grading; Retaining Walls
Landscape and Irrigation
Design and Consultant Services
Supervision, City Plan Check and
Inspection Fees, Insurance
SUBTOTAL
Add for full width street improvements
TOTAL
RIGHT-OF-WAY COST ESTIMATE
Sarkaria Property
Jandro Property
SUBTOTAL + Acquisition Cost
TOTAL
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$ 99,000.00
$ 40,000.00 $ 247,000.00
$ 48,000.00 $ 36,000.00
$ 27,000.00
$ 497,000.00
$ 116,000~.00
$ 613,000.00
$ 58,000.00
$ 98,000.00
$ 156,000.00
$ 19,000.00
$ 175,000.00~
$ 788.000.00
RHA
8/7/85