HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-12; City Council; 7099-5; 1986 Public Facilities Fee Review & UpdateCT--9F CARLSBAD - AGEND ‘BILL f-C-4
DEPT. HD.,ciK&
1986 PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE (PFF) UPDATE
. CITY A-I-T-Y
ClTY MGi3.z
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1 Review and adopt the 1986 Public Facilities Fee Project List.
; ITEM EXPLANATION: I - -*------ I The summary of the Public Facilities Fee projects is as follows:
I’ 1982 1986
Fire Protection $ 3,400,000 $ 3,315,ooo General Government Facilities 6,500,OOO 7,400,000 Library 6,300,OOO 11,716,OOO Parks 42,700,OOO 41,793,070 Traffic Signals 5,800,OOO 4,610,OOO Arterial Streets 17,300,000 38,686,OOO
Total: $ 82,000,OOO $107,520,070 __Y_
When the City Council adopts the detailed Public Facilities Fee Project List, the next step is to calculate the Public Facilities Fee necessary in order to raise the $107.5-million. Research/ Analysis Group staff is now completing a study analyzing the buildout potential for Carlsbad, which incorporates the open space density reduction and the newly adopted General Plan density ranges.
EXHIBITS:
1. Public Facilities Fee Projects dated March 6, 1986.
.
.
March 6, 1986
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE PROJECTS
In 1982 the City Council adopted the current Public Facilities Fee Project list, totaling $82-million.
At its January 14, 1986 meeting, the City Council received a preliminary report giving recommendations for modification of the 1982 PFF Project list. During February, the staff reviewed and updated the projects on the original list and added new projects as instructed by the City Council. These public facilities fee projects are listed under Roman numeral I.
At its January 14, 1986 meeting, City Council also requested staff reports on two additional projects. These staff reports follow under Roman numeral II. One additional project has been suggested since the January 14 meeting. The staff report on this project follows under Roman numeral III.
I. Projects Recommended for Funding by Public Facilities Fees:
FIRE 1982 1986
1) Station I-5 & Poinsettia $ 525,000 $ 350,000
2) Calavera Hills 559,000 425,000 3) Ranch0 Santa Fe 355,000 590,000
4) Public Safety Center Phase III 1,961,OOO 1,950,000
TOTAL: $ 3,400,000 $ 3,315,ooo
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
1) Public Safety Center $ 6,500,000 $ 3,400,000
2) City Hall -O- 4,000,000
TOTAL: $ 6,500,OOO $ 7,400,000
LIBRARY (150,000 population)
1) Additional 95,000 sq.ft. of library (this will be adjusted to reflect any new estimated buildout population) $ 6,300,OOO s11,716,000
TOTAL: $ 6,3c)O,Oclr) $11,716,000
-l-
4
PARKS (150,000 population) 1982 1986
1) Special Use Areas additional 10.7 acres $ 2,280,OOO $ 1,037,900
2) Community Parks (no individual figures available for 1982) 29,720,ooo
it: Alga Norte
;
--- 3,531,ooo Calavera Hills --- 2,270,OOO
2 S.W. Quadrant
;
--- 4,695,OOO N.E. Quadrant --- 4,300,000
e. Cannon Lake 1 m-m 649,900 f. Non-determined sites ) -me 7,630,OOO
3) Macario Canyon 9,700,000 14,000,000 4) Leo Carrillo 1,000,000 2,000,000
5) Senior Citizens Center -O- 1,679,270
(These figures will be adjusted to reflect any new estimated buildout population.)
TOTAL : $ 42,700,OOO $ 41,793,070
TRAFFIC SIGNALS (53 intersections)
1) The complete listing of traffic signals to be funded by PFF is attached
TOTAL: $ 5,800,OOO $ 4,610,OOO
ARTERIAL STREETS
1) Tamarack Ave. (collector)
2 Adams to Highland I-5 to Carlsbad Blvd.
2) Carlsbad Blvd. median (major) Tamarack
3) Palomar Airport Rd. (PAR) (prime)
a. College to Paseo De1 Norte (Ecke) b. Intersection w/Carlsbad Blvd. realignment c. I-5 bridge widening d. Railroad bridge widening e. East of ECR, 2 lanes north side f. West of ECR, median
4) El Camino Real medians
$ 1,875,OOO $ 175,000 -O- 1,875,OOO
to Elm 750,000 1,140,000
2,500,OOO 2,000,000
1,375,ooo 2,100,000 -O- 3,600,OOO -O- 3,000,000 -O- 450,000 250,000 378,000
1,000,000 1,500,000
-2-
3
.
. .
.- -
ARTERIAL STREETS Continued 1982 1986
5) Cannon Road (major)
ba: I-5 to Faraday (Ecke) $ 3,750,ooo $ 5,640,OOO Bridge east of El Camino Real 250,000 378,000
6) Jefferson St. widening I-5 to Marron 1,000,000 1,500,000 7) Poinsettia (major) a. I-5 bridge widening -O- 2,300,OOO b. Railroad bridge widening -O- 900,000
8) La Costa Blvd., I-5 to ECR (major) -O- 8,000,OOO 9) Faraday, Cannon to Koll property (collector) -O- 2,750,OOO 10) Miscellaneous 750,000 1,000,000 11) Carlsbad Blvd., Tamarack to PAR, incl.bridge 3,750,ooo -O-
TOTAL: $ 17,250,OOO $38,686,000
The following two projects have not been included in the above costs for the reasons stated below:
1. Scenic Corridor Funding - No specific cost estimates can readily be obtained. The special street lights are the responsibility of adjacent developers, the bus benches of North County Transit and/or developer, street signs the developer. Those portions of the corridor previously approved can be brought to scenic corridor standards when the median is constructed.
2. Beach Area Improvements - Parking/Access. Specific pro- jects have not been completely identified at this time. Staff is proposing that when the beach area and parking consultant's report is completed, an appropriate estimate can be developed.
-3-
%
II. City Council requested further information on the following projects.
1. State 78 Freeway Wideninq $ 1,000,000
Because of daily congestion and accidents, (and occasional flooding) this project has a high priority with Caltrans. It is the subject of a coordinated promotional effort by the North County Transportation Coalition, which includes interested membership from the five affected cities, the County, State and other agencies.
Of the five cities, Carlsbad is probably the least affected by traffic conditions on 78 Freeway. Nevertheless, traffic through the present interchanges at Jefferson and at El Camino Real directly affects the Carlsbad street system, as would a proposed future interchange at Ranch0 De1 Oro. The City of Carlsbad also has a strong economic interest in 78 Freeway because of El Camino Real Plaza, and other proposed future commercial activity adjacent to, and to be served by, the freeway.
It is important that the City be prepared to contribute local "seed money" into a widening of Highway 78. It is not likely that Caltrans will be able to justify spending only State money for the project in spite of its priority status. Ac- cordingly, it is recommended that the City of Carlsbad remain active on the "78 Team" and be prepared to contribute to the freeway widening, and to construction of an interchange at Ranch0 De1 Oro, in accordance with a funding formula which represents a combination of technical, social, financial and political benefits.
2. Olivenhain/Leucadia Boulevard Extension $ 5,870,OOO
The placement of a major interchange on I-5 freeway at Leucadia Boulevard was not an accident, and was not intended just to serve the "beach community". For years, master plans have shown a Leucadia Boulevard connection between El Camino Real and I-5 freeway with no less than a major arterial classification. Yet, the connection is politically and tech- nically controversial. The property offering the most logical alignment for the connection has been excluded from the area proposed to be incorporated as a new city. It will thus remain under jurisdiction of San Diego County.
It is believed that an alignment is possible which would not be objectionable to property owners in the area. But it is not likely that the missing section of roadway could be built as a by-product of development. Thus, the needed right-of-way will have to be negotiated (or condemned), and the street built from capital improvement funds.
-4-
5--
Who might do that? The County? NO! Too expensive, too controversial, and too little County benefit. The new City "X1'? NO! It's not in their territory, and new cities operate on a shoestring for many years. So, who is left? The City of Carlsbad. And why should we do it? Because it is needed to complete the local circulation network. With- out it, we will suffer increasing congestion, delay and accidents on the other streets which must carry that traffic. Such streets include Encinitas Boulevard (in new City "X"), El Camino Real, La Costa Avenue, Poinsettia Lane and Cannon Drive.
Thus, while it seems unfair that Carlsbad be forced to spend highway money outside of its jurisdiction, it is recommended that the project be included in Carlsbad's highway program for full funding, with the possibility of some small con- tributory funding by the County of San Diego and City "X".
-5-
III. An additional project for City Council consideration is a bridge across San Marcos Creek.
Until recently, a passable roadway existed across San Marcos Creek in the La Costa area. There was a ford at the creek, which connected Alfil Way (and the north La Costa/Alga Road area) with Gibraltar Street (and the south La Costa/La Costa Avenue area). If the crossing were to be reinstated as an all-weather crossing, it would require a permanent bridge to be constructed. As such, it would have the potential of attracting a substantial volume of traffic off the two arter- ial streets which do cross the creek, and which form the "detour" for the subject crossing. Those two streets are El Camino Real and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue. Assuming that the crossing were built as a collector street, there would be benefits and disbenefits.
The primary benefits are that it would eliminate a good deal of out-of-direction mileage for traffic generating in the heart of the north La Costa area wanting to go generally south, and for traffic in the south La Costa area wanting to go generally north. It would keep such traffic off part of El Camino Real and part of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, both of which have some capacity problems today. Without doing a complex focused generation - distribution - assignment study, it is not possible to predict what such impacts might be, but a reduction of 5,000 to 10,000 daily vehicles seems reasonable. The principal disbenefit, however, is that those 5,000 to 10,000 daily vehicles would then be on a "new" street system which impacts an existing residential area. Streets such as Alicante and El Fuerte (secondary arterials), and Alfil.Way and Gibraltar (local streets) would experience substantial traffic increases. Generally, when a "bypass" is added to a previously planned street network that did not include it, the distant neighbors like it and appreciate it, while the close-in neighbors detest the new source of traffic, noise and air pollution.
Unquestionably, if a bridge were built, it would be used. However, it would be a very expensive undertaking to build a bridge across such a wide and deep canyon. The project cannot be recommended without first obtaining an in-depth cost/benefit study, as well as some strong indications of support from the immediate vicinity, and the La Costa area as a whole.
-6-
7
A
TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO BE FUNDED BY PFF:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Traffic Siqnals
Adams & Tamarack
Alga & El Fuerte
Arena1 & El Camino Real
Arena1 & Manzanita
Avenida Encinas & Cannon
Avenida Encinas & Carlsbad Blvd.
Camino Vida Roble & Palomar Airport Road
8. Cannon & Carlsbad Blvd.
9. Cannon & College
10. Cannon & El Camino Real
11. Cannon & Interstate 5
12. Cannon & Faraday
13. Cannon & Paseo de1 Norte
14. Carlsbad Blvd. & State Street
15. Carrillo & El Camino Real
16. Carrillo & El Fuerte
17. Carrillo & Melrose
18. College & Poinsettia
19. College & El Camino Real
20. College & Elm
21. College & Faraday
22. College & Palomar Airport Road
23. El Camino Real & Elm
24. El Camino Real & Faraday
25. El Camino Real & Kelly
26. El Camino Real & La Costa
27. El Camino Real & Mission Estancia
28. El Fuerte & Palomar Airport Road
29. Elm & Jefferson St.
30. Elm & Madison
31. Elm & Monroe
Estimated 1986 cost
$ 80,000
85,000
85,000
60,000
60,000
65,000
60,000
65,000
90,000
90,000
120,000
65,000
65,000
60,000
85,000
80,000
65,000
65,000
90,000
65,000
65,000
65,000
85,000
65,000
65,000
85,000
65,000
85,000
80,000
80,000
85,000
100% II
II
I,
II
1,
-l-
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
*All
Traffic Signals
Elm & Roosevelt
Elm & Tamarack
Grand & Jefferson St.
Grand & Roosevelt
Highland & Tamarack
I-5 & Tamarack
I-5 & Palomar Airport Rd.
I-5 & Poinsettia
Jefferson & Tamarack
Kelly & Palomar Airport Rd.
La Costa & Melrose
La Costa & Mission Estancia
Lagoon & Poinsettia
Faraday & Melrose
Ranch0 Santa Fe & Calle Barcelona
Manzanita & Poinsettia
Melrose & Palomar Airport Rd.
Melrose & Ranch0 Santa Fe Rd. (two intersections)
Mission Estancia & Ranch0 Santa Fe (two intersections)
Olivenhain & Ranch0 Santa Fe Rd.
Paseo de1 Norte & Poinsettia
Elm Avenue (5 signals) State to Harding - interconnect
Estimated 1986 cost
$ 80,000
65,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
120,000
120,000
120,000
80,000
65,000
65,000
65,000
65,000
65,000
85,000
65,000
90,000
120,000
Rd. 120,000
65,000
65,000
115,000
$ 4,200,OOO
100%
II
II
II
II
50%
It
11
100% II
II
II
II
II
I,
11
II
II
50%
100%
projects from 1976 estimated in 1982 have been updated to 1986 using a 25.7% construction cost accelerator based on ENR LA rate of 4550 (l-l-82) versus 5720 (Est. 7-l-86) plus a 20% contingency has been built in.
-2-
9
. .
. .
Other Intersections Possibly Requiring Signalization:
1. Camino de Las Ondas b Paseo de1 Norte $ 65,000
2. Camino Vida Roble & Yarrow 65,000
3. Carlsbad & Pine - ocean 85,000
4. College & Lake Calaveras entrance 65,000
5. Elm & Highland 65,000
6. Garfield & Tamarack 65,000
50%
$ 410,000
-3-
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
POST OFFICE BOX 1605 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 729-5924
DOUGLAS A. YAVANIAN
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
March 12, 1986
Mayor Mary Casler
and Council Members
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Agenda Item No. 3, Public Facilities Fee
Dear Mayor Casler and Council Members:
One of the items under consideration under Agenda Item No. 3 calls for the expenditure of $4,000,000 for the expansion of City
Hall.
The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce would urge the Council not
to proceed with such an expansion of the existing facility, but instead make an immediate decision to design and build a new City Hall/Administration Center on the City-owned land adjacent to the existing Safety Center near McClellan Airport.
This single decision would (a) once again bring all City
departments (except for Redevelopment) together at the same loca- tion, and (b) it would place City Hall nearer to the geographic center of the City, where by its very presence it would help pull the community together. Such a decision would also afford solutions to several other seemingly unrelated issues by quickly
and naturally bringing them into focus. These other areas of
concern include the much-needed expansion of the Library, the provision of an adequate senior citizen center within the down town area/ and the retention of the existing community center
for community wide uses.
Another major concern previously voiced by the Chamber is the increase in traffic congestion on Elm Ave. at Pio Pica which will become significantly worse with the connection of Elm Ave. to El Camino Real. Movement of City Hall to the heart of the
City would do much to alleviate the traffic bottleneck on Elm Ave., and make the extension of Elm to El Camino Real a workable solution for east-west traffic flow.
Mayor Mary Casler and Council Members
Page 2 March 12, 1986
Although utilization of the existing City Hall complex and
related city service facilities could be structured in a variety
of ways) the following is presented as a possible way of
utilizing the existing physical plant:
1. Convert the Council Chambers into a joint meeting/ conference/performance facility for the Library, seniors and the community in general:
2. Convert the east wing of City Hall (which presently
houses the City Manager, Clerk and Attorney) into library uses.
3. Convert the west wing (which presently houses Building,
Engineering and Police Departments) into a senior citizen’s
center with eating facilities, meeting roomsI etc. Incidentally, this would put the seniors directly across the street from the
community garden.
4. The Harding Center could then be made available as a downtown community center for other public service uses.
Because of the numerous alternatives to the specific uses
mentioned above, we have refrained from further detail, but we
would welcome the opportunity to sit down with members of the
Council or City staff to explore the most beneficial solution for
all.
We do urge you, however, to decide as quickly as possible to implement the basic concept of our proposal -- the building of a new City Hall in the heart of the City, and providing the
existing facilities to our City's seniors and to the library.
Very truly yoursl
Stephen M. L'Heureux
President
SML:ck