The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-04-03; City Council; 10568; Request for Conformance Determination Meadowlandsb *I MEADOWLANDS Staff recommends CouncCXnd that CT 85-19 has failed to meet Condition 58 financing of Rancho Santa Fe Road and fails to meet conditions of approval ai all final map recordation. ITEM EXPLANATION: 2; z .?I l-l *rl E dh .rl a) CT 85-19 Meadowlands is a 112 lot subdivision located within Growth Manage 6 on the northeast corner of Mehose Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Red developer for CT 85-19 is nearing completion of the final plans, maps and necessary to proceed to hal map recordation. The project will meet all COI approval except Condition 58 relative to the financing of Rancho Santa Fe Roa Mehose Drive and La Costa Avenue. Condition 58 reads as follows: u ..a hG hu 24 O2 22 uo aG E2 2h uu 0 wa .rl $4 a)w " The City Council has determined that in order to accommodate the trz on Rancho Santa Fe Road, the developer of projects in this area musl responsible for the improvement of Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Cc Avenue to the existing Mehose Drive intersection. Prior to final I approval, the developer shall submit a proposal satisfactory to the ' Council for such improvements. The proposal shall be based on independent traffic analysis accomplished to the satisfaction of the ' Engineer. The proposal shall include a time schedule and financing I for the improvements which may include an assessment district, develc financing, or some alternative acceptable to the City Council. construction and improvements must be assured either by confirmatio the assessment district, secured subdivision improvement agreement otherwise guaranteed to the satisfaction of the City Council prior to f uo w Ul a0 a)=1 2z TI u .H 22 ma (da) 3 -2 ha) u ul-l (d *rl map approval." E2 giS 00 L)u ala al3 In the attached letter, Reilly Homes delineates a number of reasons why thi project should be considered to comply with this condition. Although the final financing plan for Rancho Santa Fe Road has not bee adopted, a Resolution of Intention is in preparation and conditions within Loci Management Plans for Zone 11 and 12 assure that such a plan will be appi to significant development occurring within the area. CT 85-19 is one of two developments within Zone 6 which has a condition re1 financing of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Other Zone 6 development within closc to this project has been allowed to proceed with no contribution to the finan rnm \\ md 11 d'Ln .. 2 z 6 8 4 A z 3 5 f e 0 PAGE TWO OF AB# /Q Jdf The Meadowlands tract is also unique in that it is located at the terminus of t! improvement. Construction of a valuable link of the total road segmer constructed with this project alleviating existing operational problems. In analyzing the cost of intersection improvements in comparison to the totd 1 Rancho Santa Fe program, it would appear that this project would contribute its proportionate share to the total project. CONCLUSION Although a number of steps have been taken towards the formulation of an P District for Rancho Santa Fe Road, the District has not yet been confirmed. St therefore recommend recordation of this subdivision. FISCAL IMPACXS: Construction of the project would produce significant special fee revenues from Estimated revenues are as follows: Facilities Management Fee (Zone 6) $ 34,720 Public Facilities Fees Assume $200,00O/unit $ 784,000 Bridge and Thoroughfare Fees $ 59,360 Traffic Impact Fees $ 75,040 Park-in-Lieu Fees 112 @ $983/Unit $ 110.096 Total $1,063,216 Failure to record the map will retard these revenue flows. EXHIBITS: 1. Vicinity Map. 2. Location Map. 3. Reilly Homes Letters of November 30, 1989 and October 10, 1988. c a a VI C I N ITY MAP CITY OF OCEANSIDE I DRAWING NUMBER CT8519LM PRoJECT NAME M EADOW LAN DS CT 85-19 / PUD 87 - M~AOOWL~~ Rlght-turm-In antsy onl CmMTlA !)lAtQT 0 e _-- __ - HELLY I-;,: I HOMES % California Limited Partnership DLC 05 1389 November 30, 1989 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Avenue Carlsbad, California 92009 Re: CT85-19/PUD87 - Meadowlands - request for consideration of condition No. 58 regarding Rancho Santa Fe Road. Dear Lloyd! I am writing this letter to request a finding by the City of Carlsbad that Condition No. 58 of the above described map, has been satisfied. As contained in the approved resolution, the condition reads as follows: 58. *'The City Council has determined that in order to accommodate the traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road, the developer of projects in this area must be responsiblc for the improvement of Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to the existing Melrose Drive intersection. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall submit a proposal satisfactory to the City Council for such improvements. The proposal shall be based on an independent traffic analysis accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer The proposal shall include a time schedule and financinq plan for the improvements which may include an assessment district, developer financing, or some alternative acceptable to the City Council. The construction and improvements must be assured either confirmation of the assessment district, secured subdivision improvement agreement, or otherwise guaranteed to the satisfaction of the City Council prior to final map approval." 10 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, California 92714 (714) 851-1646 FAX (714) 851- m m Please find outlined below the reasons that I think support the concept that the intent, if not the letter, of the condition can be satisfied with respect to this project. 1. This map was approved in 1985, prior to the development of the growth management plan. attaching this condition to all maps in the eastern portion of La Costa. I believe the condition was applied in this manner to insure that the master developer, BCE Development came forward with a comprehensive plan to finance and construct the remaining incomplete portions of Rancho Sant Fe Road. As it turned out the City's concern about Rancho Santa Fe Road and other major infrastructure elsewhere in the City led directly to the development of the Growth Management Plan. Now, nearly five years later, the City ha a comprehensive plan to insure that major infrastructure is in place commensurate with need. requires that no projects in growth management zones 11 an 12 can be built until the finance plan for the zones is approved and guaranteed. Consequently, the insurance sought by the City when it imposed condition 58 on this map has been provided by the Growth Management Plans for Zones 11 and 12. At that time the city was Current City policy 2. This property is located within Zone 6 of the City's Growtl- Management plan. Only one other project in zone 6 ADP 84- 8A, is subject to the condition. Zone 6 allows other property owners to proceed with development at this time, (given the appropriate approvals). Infrastructure contributions are made via the payment of fees at either final map recordation or building permit. 3. The project size (112 units) will not have a significant effect upon the level of service of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The current road system is below capacity- This project will not cause it to be over utilized. 4. The project will construct significant improvements to Melrose Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road, and the intersection between the two. These improvements will significantly improve the level of service at the intersection. The project plans require approximately $1,100,000 worth of improvements which should be included in the 1913-15 assessment or Mello Roos district which will ultimately construct the balance of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Conversations to date with PDC, confirm that these costs have been included in the Zone 11 and 12 estimate of the cost to complete Rancho Santa Fe Road. It is our intent to build the improvements pursuant to assessment district specifications and sell them to the assessment district upon completion. In any event, this project woulc bear an appropriate share of the costs. If it joins the m rn assessment district the lots will share in the assessments. On the other hand, if there is no assessment district or these improvements are excluded the project will have contributed its fair share of Rancho Santa Fe Road by constructing the improvements in the first place. In summary, we believe that the City of Carlsbad can and should deem that condition #58 is satisfied by the projects required contributions to the Rancho Santa Fe Road project. Furthermore, the City has all the additional insurance it needs for the remainder of Rancho Santa Fe Road in the growth management plans for Zones 11 and 12. I hereby request that you determine staffs position with respect to this letter and as soon as possible forward the matter to the City Council for a determination. Please contact me if you have any questions or need further assistance. Vice President Development WAC;ctr Encls. cc: Bill Hoffman Dan Howse .. e r) RIELLY H I HOMES A Glilanu Limiird Rnnrrhp October 10, 1988 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Avenue Carlsbad, California 92009 Re: Ct 85-19/PUD 87 - Meadowlands - Condition R58 Dear Lloyd: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of September 26, 1988 and my previous letter on this subject, I am writing this letter to outline the noted projects fair share of improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road. I will reference several key documents which are attached. I Basis for Sharing: The draft of the "Facilities Financing Plan for Local Facilities Management Zones 11 and 12" presents the basis for sharing in Section I11 (pages 15-19). the costs based on average daily trips per project. It is suggested that each residential unit would generate 10 ADT. Therefore, with respect to this project the total ADT would be 112 x 10 or 1,120 ADT's. Per table five (5) on page 17 the total zone 11 and 12 adjusted ADT's without the project is 46,060. Therefore, including the Meadowlands, the adjusted ADT's would be 47,180 ADT's. Meadowlands share should be a fraction, the numerator of which is its ADT's (1,120) and the denominator of which is the total adjusted ADT's (47,180) or 1120/47180 or ,02374 of the total project costs. The proposed method is to share - - The I1 A. Project Costs: Project construction costs are outlined in section IIC (page 13) of the FFP for zones 11 and 12. Table three (page 14) outlines the details of the total construction cost: Item one of that table outlines the costs of Rancho Santa Fe Road to be $18,387,000 in escalated dollars. Meadowlands should only share in Rancho Santa Fe costs because condition 58 only refers to Rancho Santa Fe Road. Further, the other proposed improvements are so remote from Meadowlands that the need for those facilities is not connected with the development of Meadowlands. 4350 Yon Karma. Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 851-1646 0 W m. uoya HUDDS October 10, 191 Page 2 .. I1 B, Administrative Cost s : Section I1 C 2 (pages 13 and 14) of the FFP indicates that the total project costs are 39.7 million. Although the plan does not directly state the administrative costs I am assuming that they are the difference between the total project costs (39,7000,000) and the $9,133,000. The Rancho Santa Fe portion of those administrative costs can be determined by multiplying the total administrative costs by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Rancho Santa Fe construction costs (18,387,000) and the denominator of which is the total construction costs (30,567,000) OK $9,133,000 times 18,387,000/30,567,000 = $5,493,783. w total construction costs (30,567,000) or 111 Calculation of Meadowlands Share of Costs: By multiplying Meadowlands percentage share (Item I above) .02374 times the sum of the Rancho Santa Fe construction and administrative costs (18,387,000 + 5,493,783) Meadowlands portion of the total costs can be determined. Therefore, Meadowlands' share of costs is .02374 times (18,387,000 + 5,493,78311 $566,930. IV costs to construct Rancho Santa Fe/Melrose - Intersection: The Meadowlands has included a portion of the Rancho Santa Fe improvement project on its improvement plans. I have attached a map showing those improvements. I have estimated follows : A. Design the costs of those improvements, They are as Engineering Off ice $ 45,000 Field 20,000 Soils 8,000 Utility 4,000 Landscape Architecture 10,000 B. Construction Intersection $ 655,835 Per Church Engineering estimate dated 9/9/88. Utility Relocation 17 1,500 Per Paul Moote & Associates letter dated 10/4/88 .. 0 0 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs October 10, 1988 Page 3 Landscaping 119,132 Per The Collaborative West estimate dated 10/3/88. - C. Total Cost $1,033,467 Based on the above, it appears that the improvements involved in Homes) exceed the projects fair share of Rancho Santa Fe Road project costs. We believe that the analysis provides additional support to the proposals presented in my previous letter. In any event, I will be calling soon to follow up and coordinate our efforts with respect to condition 58 and its potential effect on the processing of our improvement plans and final map. “‘LH/Y/# Sincerely, W. A. 01 n I I Vice President the Rancho Santa Fe - Melrose intersection (installed by Rielly - WAC : cp cc: Walter Brown e m- Paul A. Moote 8t Associates, Inc. u CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS -__-- --- _. - - I -- - October 4, 1988 _--- - - File No. 187-OOIU - REILLY HOMES 4350 Von Karman Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: Chuck Colton Subject: Meadowlands Project Carlsbad Underground Utilities Dear Chuck: The following estimate of charges apply to undergrounding the existing SDG&E and Pac Bell facilities at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Santa Fe Road. Pac Bell underground 2 - 900 pair cables, approx. 800 ft. 16,000 Splice both cable 15,000 3 manholes @ 5500 cash 16.500 Total 47,500 SDG&E Underground 16KV lines including substructure 130/ft. x 800 ft lQLQQ!2 Grand Total 151,500 ClAC Tax 20.000 Grand Total 171,500 This figure includes first pole south of proposed intersection to the last pole north of improvements. If you have any questions, please contact me. YiL G& Mike Robinett 187-001 U.003 (714) 751-5557 FAX(714 57 E-?>K~;," 3.~. 3*,ve BJI!:.~; 152E Sarl?a by2 Caii'ornia 92705-5429 W Thc bluxmth west inc. - 21VQ -'c,a- Des~oq a"'-- dsca3f Af:-jr-tJre 43jj 3e Pia"-. iapa '2 c4 3263 -14 i-; 22 " 39 '?E 1935 x October 3, 1988 Mr. Chuck Colton Rielly Homes 4350 Von Karman Suite 140 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Dear Chuck, Enclosed, find our estimate of costs for the intersection landscaping. As you know, I've been talking with different members the limits of work and have received little input. Today I plan to talk with Dennis to see if we can meet with Clyde Wickham to tie down the city requirements. For the purposes of our estimate, we have made the following assumptions: A. R.O.W. landscaping will be per city criteria, including Calypso - Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe Intersectior of the city staff to get a definitive answer to trees, shrubs and groundcover. B. The slope planting will be container trees and shrubs with flatted groundcover and permanent irrigation. C. The additional flat area will be hydroseed with temporary irrigation. D. The island and median adjacent to the left turn pocket will not be landscaped. E. All area estimates by us are to daylight line. F. Estimates based on Church Engineering Plan dated August 29, 1988. landscaping. G. Costs assume power and meters in place at time of Mr. Chuck Col 0 1 0 October 3, 1988 Page 2 ft* w*borauvr Wert InC The city may require more or less intensive landscapinq within the R.O.W. with the city for reducing the area of R.O.W. planting and lower your costs for these improvements. If you have any questions or require further information, please don't hesitate to give us a call. Yours truly, THE COLLABORATIVE WEST, INC. However, we can, I think, make a case .. m* Paul Logue Haden, A.S.L.A. Principal PLH/lc enclosure 0 W Tk C d b bo n tiv e WSI InC. Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe Intersection Estimate of Potential Landscape Costs - Area Sq. Sq. Ft, Descrbtion Feet Price Sub-total R.O.W. Planting 32,400 $2.25 $ 72,900 Slope Planting 12,750 $1.65 21,037 Flat Area 16,900 85 14,365 Sub-total $108,302 10% Contingency 10,830 Total $119,132 8018.0! '( 619) 237-0722 9-9-e TR/ll! CmcB mGINEEIING,*dC. e COST OPINION RANCHO SANTA FE RD, AND MELROSE AVE. INTERSECTION FOR MEADOWLANDS SUBDIVISION (CT 85-19) ITEM QTY. UNIT UNIT COST MOW GRADING 1,000 CY 1.15 $ 1,150.1 IMPORT 5,000 CY 3.00 15,000.1 MRTBWORK SURIACE IHPROVEHENTS AC PAVING 6"AC/6"AB 134,100 SF 1.50 201,150.1 TYPE "G-2" CURB & GUTTER 984 LP 5.30 5,215.1 TYPE "8-2" MEDIAN CURB 1,800 LF 4.70 8,460.1 6" AC BERM 2,750 LF 3.00 8,250 .I SIDEWALK 4,920 SF 1.40 6,888. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS 6 EA 118.00 708. 58,000. 2,000. TEXTURED CONCRETE 14,500 SF STREET LIGHT 1 EA TRAFFIC SIGNAL 1 EA 100,000.00 100,000. FIRE HYDRANT 2 EA 2 , 500.00 5,000. LOO 2,000.00 STORM DRAIN 18" RCP 150 EP 38.00 5,700. 42" RCP 95 EF 8O.OO 7,600. CURB INLETS 2 EA 2,500.00 5,000. GUNNITE DITCH (D-75) 575 LF 38.00 21 , 850. WING TYPE HEADWALL 1 EA 1 , 200 .oo 1,200. DEMO MEDIAN CURB 800 LF 4.00 3,200. DEMO MEDIAN 3,000 SF 1.00 3,000. DEMO AC PAVING 71,000 SF 1.00 71,000. DEMO CURB &I GUTTER 580 LP 4.00 2,320. REMOVE HEADWALL 1 EA 300.00 300. RELOCATE ST. LIGUT 2 EA 2,500.00 5,000. ADJUST M.H. COVER 3 EA 500.00 1,500. LOWER 14" WATER LINE 560 LF 35.00 19,600. LOWER 3" GAS LINE 560 LF 20.00 11 , 200. SUBTOTAL : $ 570,291. 151 CONTINGENCIES: 85 , 544. TOTAL : $655,835. \ - REMOVAL C RELOCATION NOTES : 1. COST OPINION DOES NOT INCLUDE COSTS ASSOCIATED W1 2. QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY AND BASED ON EXHIBIT DA'I FRANCHISE UTILITY RELOCATION. 8-19-88. 0 w RIELLY m-1 HOMES 4 (nlifornia Lirniid RrrnrrBhip - September 7, 1988 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Avenue Carlsbad, California 92009 Subject: CT 85-19/PUD 87 - Meadowlands - Request for Consideration of Condition No. 58 regarding Rancho Santa Fe Road. Dear Lloyd: We are writing this letter to request a finding that, Condition No 58 of the above described tentative map, has been satisfied. Ai contained in the approved resolution, it reads as follows: 58. "The City Council has determined that in order to accommodatc the traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road, the developer oj projects in this area must be responsible for the improvemenl of Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to the existin! Melrose Drive intersection. Prior to final map approval, thc developer shall submit a proposal satisfactory to the City Council for such improvements. The proposal shall be base on an independent traffic analysis accomplished to th satisfaction of the City Engineer. The proposal shal include a time schedule and financing plan for th improvements which may include an assessment district developer financing, or some alternative acceptable to th City Council. The construction and improvements must b assured either by confirmation of the assessment district secured subdivision improvement agreement, or otherwis guaranteed to the satisfaction of the City Council prior 1 final map approval. " As you are aware, this condition was applied to several tentative mal in the general area along Rancho Santa Fe Road. We believe that th: map received condition a58 as a result of a shotgun approach by tl city designed to create as much leverage as possible to insure tl construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Without the Growth Managemel Ordinance, now in place, no organized plan was available to solve tl Rancho Santa Fe problem. Since the time of approval of this projec several events have taken place affecting the improvement of Ranc Santa Fe Road and its relationship to this tentative map: 4350 \on Kaman, Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 851-1646 m e September 7, 1988 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs Page 2 1. The Growth Management Ordinance was adopted requiring that specific zone plans address traffic deficiencies created bj - a particular zone. 2, The Local Fisiiity Management Plw for Zonq 11 md Li were adopted addressing the improvement of Rancho Santa Fc Road. 3. The formation of a Mello Roos District is underway for Zone: 11 and 12. It will provide funding for Rancho Santa Fe Roac improvements. 4. The property in question is no longer owned by the majorit: land owner in zones 11 and 12, and the current owner is not , company affiliated with that owner. The Meadowlands project is located within Zone 6. The improvement o Rancho Santa Fe Road is not a requirement of any other tentative map within Zone 6 or the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan. It is requirement of the Zone 11 and 12-plans and will be provided for, a mentioned, above. In light of the past events and the current statu of Zone 11 and 12 financing plan, we believe that the Meadowland project should not be burdened by condition 58. Other reasons t support this position are: 1. As part of Zone 6, the Meadowlands project should have th same requirements of all other properties of Zone 6. Thes requirements do not include the improvement of Rancho Sant Fe Road. 2. The project size (112 units = 1120 ADT) will not create an significant change to the level of service of Rancho Santa F Road. 3. Improvements to the Rancho Santa Fe and Melrose Avenu intersection by this project will substantially improve th level of service for this intersection. Given the above, we hope that you find that Condition no. 58 has bee reasonably satisfied. Although the letter of the condition may not k precisely met, the city now possesses all the tools, ie: the growt management ordinance, to insure that Rancho Santa Fe road is built c a timely basis. In light of the current ownership we can see r additional leverage available to the City of Carlsbad as a result c condition H58. Moreover, our inability to record the final mz deprives the City of a commitment on our part to construct the Ranc Santa Fe - Melrose intersection. 9 m -. September 7, 1988 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs Page3 . In the event you agree with our proposal, we suggest you forward youi recommendation to the City Council as required by the conditions ol approval. Please information concerning this matter. call me if you have any questions or if you need any additiona: WAC 2 cp