The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-08-26; City Council; 14316; Condemnation of Property for Cassia Road- CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENLA BILL .I AB# 14: 316 MTG. 8/26/97 DEPT. ENG TITLE: AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DEPT. H/@ CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FOR CASSIA ROAD IN CITYATTY. bw CITY MGR. CONJUNCTION WITH CARLSBAD TRACT 93-03 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 9 9- 536 rights-of-way for Cassia Road west of El Camino Real. authorizing and directing the condemnation of road ITEM EXPLANATION: As a condition of Tentative Map CT 93-03, the developer is required to improve a portion of Cassia Road west of El Camino Real which is off-site to the project to provide adequate access to the project. Cassia Road is designed as a collector street per City of Carlsbad street design criteria. The alignment is fixed on the east and on the west by approved projects. Carlsbad tract 93-03 proposed an alignment that meets City standards and the alignment was approved by Planning Commission and by City Council. The owners of the off-site property necessary for the construction of Cassia Road, Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons, Co-trustees Under That Certain Revocable Declaration of Trust, Dated May 25, 1982 and Designated The Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons Revocable Trust were presented just compensation offers by the developer and rejected them. A final offer based upon an independent appraisal of the property was mailed to the owners on June 20, 1997. This offer was presented by the firm of Asaro, Keagy, Freeland and McKinley on behalf of the City. This offer was also rejected. The California Subdivision Map Act states that when a developer is required, as a condition of approval of a Tentative Map, to construct off-site improvements on property in which neither the developer nor the governmental agency has sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements, that the governmental entity must acquire the property, either through negotiations or condemnation proceedings, and if it does not so acquire the property, the condition for construction of the off-site improvements is conclusively deemed to be waived. The adoption of the resolution of necessity is required before the City can commence an eminent domain proceeding. In accordance with State law, the City has given proper notice of this public hearing to the owners of the subject property. The City is not required by law to consider the request of any person to be heard who did not submit a written request on or before July 31, 1997, nor the request of any person not an owner of the property whose name and address appear on the last equalized County Assessment Roll. Adoption of the Resolution of Necessity to Condemn requires a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of the City Council and conclusively establishes the findings contained therein. In Resolution No. 96-122 approving Tentative Map CT 93-03, the City Council acknowledged that additional road rights-of-way and roads were required for the development known as Poinsettia Hill. ’ Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 14 , ,? 16 FISCAL IMPACT: The full purchase price of the right-of-way, as well as all legal and court costs, will be paid for by the developer. EXHIBITS: 1. Location map. 2. Location map. 3. Offer of Just Compensation sent to Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons, Co-trustees Under That Certain Revocable Declaration of Trust, Dated May 25, 1982 and Designated The Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons Revocable Trust dated June 20, 1997, with summary appraisal and drawing of right-of-way attached. 4. 5. Notices of Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity. Resolution No. 9?-576 authorizing and directing the condemnation of certain real property interests in the City of CARLSBAD, State of California, and declaring the public necessity therefor. 2 LOCATION MA? PROJECT NAME NOTE: THERE ARE NO EXISTING BUILDINGS WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEDlCA TlON A REA. r-1 r I- CI .C) ri J 3 -1 4 CI o o LEGEND: INDICATES STREET PROJECT NAME ASARO. KEAGY, FREELAND d MCKINLEY ATTORNEYS AT UW CRANK L. ASARO COURTH CLOOR ROSCOE D. KCAOY RICHARD R. CRLLLANO STCVLN A. MCKINLCY. *ALSO AOMITTCD IN NCVAOA 3170 COURTH AVLNUC SAN OILOO. C4UCORNIA 92103 TLLLPHONL isini 2e7-2170 CACSIMILL 1619) -06 June 20,1997 Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons, Co-trustees Under That Certain Revocable Declaration of Trust, Dated May 25, 1982 and Designated The Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons Revocable Living Trust - 25709 Hillcrest Avenue Escondido, CA 92026 RE: Cassia Road Project Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bons: Our firm represents the City of Carlsbad regarding the acquisition of property from you for the construction of Cassia Road westerly from El Camino Real. The property interests sought to be acquired is depicted on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit A. The purpose of this letter is to present a written offer from the City of Carlsbad to purchase interests in 1.06 acres of your property, subject to the approval of the City Counsel of the City of Carlsbad. The purchase price offered is $36,000.00 which is based upon an independent appraisal of the property made by a qualified appraiser in San Diego County. The appraisal was based upon the fair market value of the property for its highest and best use. Attached hereto is an Appraisal Summary Statement setting forth the rights to be acquired and the value thereof as determined by the appraiser. ' .. ._ F:\WPDOCS\CR\MRSO\BONS.OFF (0612W97 8:47am) Exhibit 3 5 c (- (-- Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons Page 2 In addition to approval of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, the proposed acquisition would also be subject to obtaining title free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. If this offer is acceptable to you, please communicate with our office and we will make arrangements to open an escrow to handle this transaction. The City of Carlsbad has made every effort to establish a fair price for the required property and property interests. The appraiser's figures are the appraiser's opinion of fair market value which was determined after a personal inspection of your property. The appraisal takes into consideration the location of your property, its highest and best use, - considering required dedications and improvements, and other indicators of value. We would appreciate it if you would review the enclosed information and Offer to Purchase, and communicate with our office no later than 10 days from today's date. Should you require additional time in which to consider our offer, or if you desire to schedule a meeting to discuss this matter, please contact our office. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND & MCKINLEY n - RICHARD R. FREELAND RDK:crw Enclosure cc: Ron Ball Mindy Jacobs Sandra J. Brower F:\WPDOCSCRWRSO\BONS.OFF (06/20197 9:27am) b APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT Owners: Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons, Co-trustees under That Certain Revocable Declaration of Trust, Dated May 25, 1982 and Designated the Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons Revocable Living Trust PROJECT: Cassia Road PROPERTY LOCATION: West of El Camino Real - A continuation of Cassia Road westerly of its intersection with El Camino Real, Carlsbad, San Diego County, CA MAP-PAGE: 1127 E4 .- ASSESSOR PARCEL #: 21 5-020-21 SITE DATA: Dimensions: Irregular Area: 6.29 acres Zone: E-A; Exclusive agricultural General plan is RM - residential medium IMPROVEMENTS: Flower shop/greenhouse PRESENT USE: HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Future residential development Flower shop/greenhouse/open rear area with potted plants AREA TO BE ACQUIRED: Right of Way: Unconstrained 0.53 x 33% x $90,000 = Constrained 0.53 x 67% x $90,000 x 25% = $1 6,200 7,875 Subtotal I_ $24,075 F:\WPOOCS\CRW\RS0\80NS. OFF (0611 9197 8:31 am) 7 I- (-- r- Appraisal Summary Page 2 Slope Easement: Unconstrained 0.022 x $90,000 x 50% = Constrained 0.198 x $90,000 x 25% = Sub total Temporary Construction Easement: Nominal Net Severance Damages: Total Rounded SUMMARY OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS: Estimated Value of Larger Parcel Value of the Portion Sought Remainder as Part of Larger Parcel Remainder as Separate Parcel: Severance Damage: Special Benefits: $ 990 4,455 $5,445 $1,000 $5,200 $35,720 $36,000 $566 , 000 30,520 535,480 51 8,330 17,150 11,950 Estimate of Compensable Loss: Rounded F:\WPDOCS\CRIMRSO\BONS.OFF (OW19197 8:30arn) $35,720 $36,000 8 l+ LEGEND: 1-1 RIGHT OF WAY 0.53 ACRE 1-1 SLOPE AREA 0.22 ACRE k-1 TEMPORAW CONSTAUCTI~ 0.3 i ACRE AREA FRANU L. ASARO ROSCOC 0. KLAGY RICHARD R. CRCCLANO STCVCN A. MCKINLCY. 'ALSO AOMITTLD IN NCVAOA ASARO, KEAGY. FREELAND 6 MCKINLEY AmORNEYS AT LAW FOURTH FLOOR 3170 FOURTH AVLNUC SAN OICGO. CALIFORNIA 92103 RECEWED TLLLPHONL IOISI 297-3170 JUL 17 1997 rAcsiMii.z 161s) -6s ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY July 16, 1997 Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons, Co-trustees Under That Certain Revocable Declaration of Trust, Dated May 25, 1982 and Designated The Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons Revocable Living Trust 25709 Hillcrest Avenue Escondido, CA 92026 RE: Cassia Road Project Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bons: We have apparently reached an impasse in the negotiations relative to the acquisition of your property for the above-entitled project. It is necessary to resolve this matter as quickly as possible in a manner which is fair and equitable to both parties. The Superior Court of the County of San Diego provides an impartial agency to hear both sides of a controversy and to render decisions to resolve our differences which, in this case, involves an opinion of value. The procedure is called a "condemnation" or "the right of eminent domain." It is the recommendation of our firm that condemnation proceedings be instituted to settle our controversy. The City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing on August 26, 1997, at 6:OO p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Counsel Chambers located at F\WPDOCS\CRW\RSO\BONS.HRG (07i16197 &loam) 10 Exibit 4 Page 2 July 15, 1997 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California. I is the intent of the City of Carlsbad to consider at that time the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity to authorize the condemnation of your property for the Cassia Road Project. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235, each person whose property interests are to be acquired by eminent domain has the right to appear and be heard at the hearing. The City of Carlsbad will determine whether (a) the public interest and necesslty require the project; (b) the project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and (c) the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project. If you wish to speak either for or against the issues which are outlined above, you must file a written request within fifteen (15) days from the date of this letter. Failure to file a written request to appear and be heard in the ofice of the City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad within fifteen (15) days after the date this Notice is mailed will result in waiver of the right to appear and be heard at the aforementioned hearing. Your written request should be addressed to the following: City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Cassia Road Project August 26, 1997 Hearing Date Please feel free to call us should you have any questions. F:\WPOOCS\CRWRSO\BONS.HRG (07/15/97 10:04am) Page 3 July 15, 1997 Very truly yours, ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND & MCKINLEY - RICHARD R. FREELAND RRF:cMI . cc: Ronald R. Ball Lloyd Hubbs Mindy Jacobs Sandra J. Brower City Clerk F:\WPOOCS\CR\MRSO\BONS.HRG (07115197 10:Wam) , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 97-576 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE CASSIA ROAD WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY THEREOF. WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, California, proposes to improve Cassia Road west of 3 Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad, hereinafter referred to as “the project”; and WHEREAS, the project requires the acquisition of certain real property and real property nterests; and WHEREAS, the real property or interests therein are required for street and other )urposes and are required for the project; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad may exercise the right of eminent domain for the acquisition of real property or interests therein for street and other purposes pursuant to 2alifornia Government Code Sections 37350 and 37350.5; and 37353; and WHEREAS, the real property or interest therein sought to be acquired for the proposed iroject are located within the territorial limits of the City of Carlsbad; and WHEREAS, the real property or interests therein sought to be acquired are necessary for he proposed project; and WHEREAS, the plans for the project in the City of Carlsbad are on file with the City hgineer of the City of Carlsbad, California; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has established the amounts which it believes to be the ust compensation for the hereinafter described real property or interests therein sought to be icquired; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2, the City of Carlsbad has )ffered to the owners of said real property or interests therein, the full amount established as just :ompensation for said real property sought to be acquired; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, California, has provided said owners of said real woperty or interests therein a written statement and summary of the basis for the amount stablished as just compensation for the real property or interests sought to be acquired; and , , , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 - WHEREAS, a reasonable length of time has expired since the date of the offer to the owners of the real property or interests therein sought to be acquired, and the owners have failed to favorably respond to the offers of the amounts established by the City of Carlsbad as just compensation; and WHEREAS, the property and interests therein hereinafter described are being acquired for a compatible joint use pursuant to Section 1240.51 0 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 1996, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, Section 65402, found that, the proposed location, purpose, and extent of the project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 1996, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, found that: 1. The project is a subsequent development project as defined in Section 21083.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. The project is consistent with the previously approved CT 93-03, Poinsettia Hill project; 3. There was a Negative Declaration approved in connection with CT 93-03, Poinsettia Hill project; 4. The project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant in the prior Negative Declaration; and 5. None of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or Supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1245.235, the owners of the real property sought to be acquired whose names and addresses appear on the current equalized County Assessment Roll, have been sent a Notice of Intention to Adopt a Condemnation Resolution, and have been provided with an opportunity to appear and be heard on the matters referred to in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1240.030. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: P I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. 2. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. The proposed project is planned and located in a manner which will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. 3. The real property or interests therein, hereinafter described in this Resolution, are necessary for the proposed project. 4. 5. The proposed project is a matter of public necessity. The use of all and each and every part of said hereinafter described real property or interests therein for the use and purpose of the proposed project is a public use and a use authorized by law. 6. The public interest and necessity require that the real property or interests therein, hereinafter described in this Resolution, be taken. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by this City of Carlsbad, that the law firm of Asaro, Keagy, Freeland and McKinley, hereinafter referred to as “Special Counsel” be and is authorized, empowered, and directed, in the name of the City of Carlsbad, to acquire by donation, purchase, or condemnation, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California relating to eminent domain, the hereinafter described interest in real property; To prepare and prosecute in the name of the City of Carlsbad such suit or suits in the proper court having jurisdiction thereof as are necessary to condemn, take, and acquire said hereinafter described real property, or any part thereof, for the proposed project; To make an application to said court for an order determining the amounts of money to be deposited as security for the payment of the just compensation which will be made for the taking of the real property or any part thereof, or interests therein necessary for the proposed project and any damage incident thereto, and to make application to said court for an order permitting the City of Carlsbad to take immediate possession of and.to use said real property and part thereof, or interest therein, sought to be condemned for the proposed project; Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The real property and interests in real property referred to in this Resolution are situated in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and are more particularly described in Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 26th day of August , 1997 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, and Hall NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin 4TTEST: UETHA L. RAUtcNK L (SEAL) - t SECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, PLEASE MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, California 92008 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: EXEMPT The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s): Documentary transfer tax is $o.oO Exhibit 1 to Resolution 97-576 - Space above this line for Recorder's Use Assessor's Parcel No. 21 5-020-21 Proiect No. & Name PR 3.4.295 ( ) computed on full value of property conveyed, or ( ) computed on full value less value of liens and ( ) Unincorporated area: (x) City of Carlsbad, and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. . .- - -A GRANT DEED OF EASEMENT FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby GRANTS to City of Carlsbad, a Municipal Corporation the following described real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California: an easement for temporary .construction in conjunction with publ!c. street and. public utility purposes over, under, upon and across said real rope9 as described in Exhibit "A".consisting of one page, attached hereto and made a part hereof. kxhibit "9" consisting of one page IS attached for clarity only.) It is understood that said easement is temporary and shall terminate upon completion of construction of Cassia. DATED: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1 On before me, ~ ~~ (here insert name and title of officer), personally appeared I personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) idare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hishedtheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. (Name of Company) By: (Signature) Name: (Type or Print) Title: (Type or Print) By: (Signature) Name: (Type or Print) Title: (Type or Print) Signature N:\MASTERS\FORMS\GRNTDEED FRM Rev 1?5/14/55 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS P.R. 3.4.295 BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH RANGE 4 WEST SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL I COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE THEREOF, NORTH 00°33'26" EAST, 239.47 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 38'34'48 EAST, 28.52 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 29'4638" EAST, 23.43 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25'38'41" EAST, 10.47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH lO"38'12" EAST, 16.49 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56'10'32" EAST, 2.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'55'53" EAST, 5.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25'0900 EAST, 6.87 FEET: THENCE NORTH 36'04'39 EAST, 19.17 FEET: THENCE NORTH 40'04'00" EAST, 35.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36'11'35" EAST, 23.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47'51'10" EAST, 46.43 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59'26'18" EAST, 20.15 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 330.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 38O26'21" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF OOO5859" A DISTANCE OF 5.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45"53'55" EAST, 25.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53O2932" EAST, 21.57 FEET: THENCE NORTH 59'3930 EAST, 17.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 1188, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER DECEMBER 20,1972; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 89'32'48" WEST, 19.53 FEET: THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 53O42'08" WEST, 23.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45'53'55" PAGE 1 OF 3 :DA \\PCSERVER\MAPPING\LegaIs\l751\008 Poinsettia HilRA04.doc WO 1751-8 8/19/97 WEST, 25.66 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 58'05'54" WEST, 25.01 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47'51'10" WEST, 48.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36'11'35" WEST, 24.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 40"42'55" WEST, 45.41 FEET; THENCE NORTH 28"24'16" WEST, 36.77 FEET; THENCE NORTH 38'34'48, WEST, 41.58 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00'33'26" WEST, 15.84 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 0.068 ACRE MORE OR LESS. PARCEL 2 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE THEREOF, NORTH OOO33'26" EAST, 3.63 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 53'31'06" EAST, 21.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00'00'00" EAST, 8.52 FEET; THENCE NORTH 69"00'00" EAST, 6.29 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5OO23'29'' EAST, 47.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44'30'00" EAST, 28.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36'5910" EAST, 33.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27'34'26" EAST, 57.89 FEET; THENCE NORTH 31'47'14" EAST, 36.28 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14'22'18" EAST, 5.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41"1616' EAST, 37.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49'47'11" EAST, 41.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54'00'00" EAST, 27.43 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62"40'30" EAST, 41.96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 72'01'01" EAST, 29.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 75'23'52" EAST, 33.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 280.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 06°35'00" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02O02'46" A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 04O32'14" EAST, 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77'22'40" WEST, 41.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72'01'01" WEST, 28.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 62'40'30" WEST, 40.39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 54"OO'OO" WEST, 26.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49'47'11" WEST, 40.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 38917'27'' WEST, 37.96 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 31'47'14" WEST, 37.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27'34'26 WEST, 58.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH PAGE 2 OF 3 :DA \\PCSERVER\MAPPINGVegals\1751\008 Poinsettia HilM04.doc WO 1751-8 8119i97 , h 36"5910 WEST, 34.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44"30'00 WEST, 29.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50"4634" WEST, 50.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0O"OO'OO'' EAST, 6.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53'31'06l WEST, 19.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'32'48l WEST, 11.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 0.107 ACRE MORE OR LESS. -'-% $- IY- 4 g 1 - DANA MICHAEL SEG~IN L.S. 6215 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, INC. PAGE 3 OF 3 :DA \\PCSERVER\MAPPINGVegals\1751 u)o8 Poinsettia HilRA04.doc WO 1751-8 8/19/97 INDICATES TEMPORARY -13" 6- .p' .. q ob- . *e** -e. 22 .- 12 z\ \. CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT -1 N 89' 32 ' 48" W 11.82 ' FWJ QCCAL HUNSAKER & ASS0C"ATES SAN DIEW, INC. PLANNING - ENCINBXR'NG - SURVEYING 10179 HUEMUEXENS STME*' - SAN DIECO. CA 9821 (BIS) 668-1600 - FAX (81 )) 668-1414 4.xhibit 2 to Resolution 97-576 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, PLEASE MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, California 92008 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: EXEMPT - ~~~~ ~~ %ace above this line for Recorder’s Use The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s): Documentary transfer tax is $&QQ Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-020-21 Project No. & Name PR 3.4.295 ( ) computed on full value of property conveyed, or ( ) computed on full value less value of liens and ( ) Unincorporated area: (x) City of Carlsbad, and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. GRANT DEED OF EASEMENT FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby GRANTS to City of Carlsbad, a Municipal Corporation the following described real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California: an easement for public street and public utility urposes over, under, upon and across said real property as described in Exhibit “A consistin of two pages, attache B hereto and made a part hereof. (Exhibit “B” consisting of one page IS attached for clarity on a y.) DATED: STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) On before me, (here insert name and title of officer), personally appeared 9 personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helshelthey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies). and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Signature (Name of Company) By: (Signature) Name: (Type or Print) Title: (Tvpe or Print) By: (Signature) Name: (Type or Print) Title: (Type or Print) N:\MASTERS\FURMS\GRNTDEED.FRM Rev. 06/19/95 -- EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION P.R. 3.4.295 BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH RANGE 4 WEST SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING A STRIP OF LAND 50.00 FOOT WIDE LYING 20.00 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE THEREOF, NORTH 89"31'30" WEST, 188.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CUSP WITH A 300.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH OO"2830" WEST; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THOROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38"49'41" A DISTANCE OF 203.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 38"21'11" EAST, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEARS NORTH OO"33'26" EAST, 66.29 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE FROM THE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14'34'40" A DISTANCE OF 76.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 37"04'09" EAST, 100.98 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 300.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTFWL ANGLE OF 53'23'03" A DISTANCE OF 279.52 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 1188, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER DECEMBER 20, 1972; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89"32'48" EAST, 140.97 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF CASSIA ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED APRIL 12, 1996, DOCUMENT NUMBER 1996-0181733 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF TERMINUS. DA M.Vegals\l751\008 Poinsetba HilIL401 DOC PAGE 1 OF 2 WO 175 1-8 5/7/97 THE SIDELINES OF SAID 50.00 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND TO BE SHORTENED OR EXTENDED SO AS TO TERMINATE WESTERLY IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE NORTH WEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23, NORTHEASTERLY IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 1188 AND THE WEST LINE OF CASSIA ROAD PER SAID FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION. THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 0.524 ACRE MORE OR LESS. JOHN W. HILL, JR. HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, INC. L.S. 5669 . PAGE 2 OF 2 :DA M:Vegals\l751\008 Poinsettia HiII\AOl .DOC WO 1751-8 5/7/97 DEDICATION .PlAT - CIM OF CARLSBAD 4P P L1 CAN T : /PREPARED BY I PROJECT ~A.P.N.: 21 5-020-21 EXHIBIT "6" JESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING 1385 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE SUITE Ci07 ZAALSBAD. CA 92007 (6191 929-1600 PR.3.4.295 EXPIRES: 9/30/99 Zxhibit 3 to Resolution 97-576 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, PLEASE MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, California 92008 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: EXEMPT The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s): Documentary transfer tax is $&QQ Space above this line for Recorder's Use Assessor's Parcel No. 21 5-020-21 Project No. & Name ' PR 3.4.295 ( ) computed on full value of property conveyed, or ( ) computed on full value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. ( ) Unincorporated area: (x) City of Carlsbad, and GRANT DEED OF EASEMENT FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby GRANTS to City of Carlsbad. a Municipal Corporation DATED: STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1 On before me, (here insert name and title of officer), personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. (Name of Company) By: (Signature) Name: (Type or Print) Title: (Tvpe or Print) By: (Signature) Name: (Type or Print) Title: (Type or Print) Signature N :\MASTERS\FORMSGRNTDEED.FRM Rev 06119155 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SLOPE EASEMENTS P.R. 3.4.295 BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH RANGE 4 WEST SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE THEREOF, NORTH OOO33'26" EAST, 239.47 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 38'34'48" EAST, 28.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29'46'38 EAST, 23.43 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25'38'41" EAST, 10.47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10'38'12" EAST, 16.49 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56'10'32" EAST, 2.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'55'53" EAST, 5.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25'0900" EAST, 6.87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36'04'39' EAST, 19.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40'04'00' EAST, 35.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36'11'35 EAST, 23.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47'51'10" EAST, 46.43 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59'26'18 EAST, 20.15 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT "A", SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 330.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 38O26'21" WEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14O29'30" A DISTANCE OF 83.47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37"04'09" WEST, 100.98 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 270.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09O13'48" A DISTANCE OF 43.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH OO"33'26" EAST, 133.1 1 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAGE 1 OF 3 :DA \\PCSERVER\MAPPINGVegals\1751\008 Poinsettia Hill\AOJ.doc WC, !751-8 8/19/97 THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 0.095 ACRE MORE OR LESS. PARCEL 2 COMMENCING AT THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED POINT "A" IN PARCEL 1 SAID POINT BEING ON THE ARC OF A 330.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY; A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 38O2621" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00°58'59" A DISTANCE OF 5.66 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 45"53'55" EAST, 25.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53"29'32" EAST, 21.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59'3930" EAST, 17.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 1188, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER DECEMBER 20, 1972; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89"32'48" EAST, 15.18 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID 330.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 24°1000. WEST; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13O17'22" A DISTANCE OF 76.54 FEET TO THETRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 0.007 ACRE MORE OR LESS. ' PARCEL 3 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE THEREOF, NORTH OOO33'26" EAST, 3.63 FEET TO THETRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 53O31'06" EAST, 21.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH OO"OO'O0 EAST, 8.52 FEET; THENCE NORTH 69"OO'OO" EAST, 6.29 FEET; PAGE 2 OF 3 :DA \\PCSERVER\MAPPING~als\l751\008 Poinsettia HilRAO3.doc WO 1751-8 8/19/97 THENCE NORTH 50'23'29" EAST, 47.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44'30'00 EAST, 28.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36'59'10" EAST, 33.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27'34'26 EAST, 57.89 FEET; THENCE NORTH 31'47'14" EAST, 36.28 FEET; THENCE NORM 14°22'180 EAST, 5.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41°16'161 EAST, 37.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49'47'11" EAST, 41.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54'00'00 EAST, 27.43 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62'40'30'' EAST, 41.96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 72'01'01" EAST, 29.1 1 FEET; CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 280.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 06O35'00" WEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 46O20'51" A DISTANCE OF 226.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37O04'09" WEST, 100.98 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 320.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE 17O24'47" A DISTANCE OF 97.25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00'33'26" WEST, 37.46 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE NORTH 75'23'52" EAST, 33.17 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 0.151 ACRE MORE OR LESS. DANA MICHAEL SEWIN L.S. 6215 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, INC. PAGE 3 OF 3 :DA \!PCSERVER\MAPPINGbgals\l751\008 Poinsettia HilRAO3.doc WO 1751-8 8/79/97 c ~~~ 4 LEGEND: PARCEL 2 PM ,388 SHEET 1 OF 1 " INDICATES SLOPE EASEMENT R OF 9 'ilOQ88 RUNSAIYER & ASSOCIATES SAN DIEW, INC. ions HUENNEMS~ STREAT - su DIAEO. CA smzt (819) 668-4600 - FAX (81s) 668-1414 PLANNING - ENGINEERING - SURVEYTNG DEDlCATlON PLAT - CITY OF CARLSBAD APPLICANT : PREPARED BY PROJECT: A.P.N.: 21 5-020-21 EXHIBIT "6" SLOPE EASEMENT PR.3.4.295 WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING 2385 CAMINO VIOA ROBLE SUITE 6107 CARLSBAD. CA 92007 (619) 929-1600 EXPIRES 3/31 /98 I - LJNE D ATA - I BEARING I DISTANCE I .I I @ I N 59'39'30"E I 17.04 @ N ~~~~~~~~~E 21.57 (3) N 45'53'55"E 25.57 ~ @ rN 59'26'18"E I 20.15 0 N 47'51'lO'E 46.43 N 36°11'35"E 23.34 VI @ I N 25°09'00'E I 6.87 - cli) I N a9°55'53"w I 5.00 I v @ N 56'10'32'W 2.42 @ N. 25'38'41'W IO. 47 0 N 29'46'38"W 23.43 @ N 00'33'26.E 3.63 0 NORTH 8.52 VI @ 1 N 69°00'00"E I 6.29 ~ I N 1Oo38'12'W I 16.49 W N 89'32'48"W 15.10 I -I--- ! 26 August, 1997 Public Hearings 14. AB#l4.316 Condemnation of property for Cassia Road improvements. My name is Guy Moore, I reside at 6503 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, Ca..92009. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council; It is quite obvious if “Poinsettia Lane” was located in it‘s proper location, the “Cassia” acquisition would not be needed. In fact, to persist in it’s acquisition would be an abuse of the power of eminent domain. A August 20, 1997 Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad. CA 92009-1 576 I d AGENDAITEM# 1 1 , a Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk re: Cassia Road Condemnation Dear Mr. Hubbs: I would like to thank you again for your time to discuss the upcoming City Council hearing on August 26, 1997, regarding the condemnation of the right of way, slopes, and temporary construction easements for the extension of Cassia Road. I would like to summarize what I believe the facts are concerning the condemnation. 1) The alignment of Cassia Road has already been reviewed in depth at the public hearings before the City Council for the approval of Poinsettia Hill (1 992), the City’s Villa Lorna Apartment Project (1995-6), and the Aviara I11 (1 994) tentative map. Mr. Bons took part in those hearings both in public testimony and letters to the City Council. His input was taken into account when the Council approved the alignment as it is designed today. 2) The City was requested to condemn the first section of Cassia Road from the Bons after protracted negotiation failed. The alignment was very well known to Mr. Bons at that time. 3) The Cassia Road extension crosses a SDG&E 200’ wide easement for a 230 and 138 KV electric transmission lines at a right angle per design standard #19 of the Roads and Drainage section of SDG&E’s “Guide For Encroachment On Transmission Rights-of-way” manual. As you know, SDG&E retains the exclusive rights to deny any design of roads that cross their easements that do not meet their standards. Vertical and horizontal spacing requirements were also addressed by the Cassia Road alignment which took into account such requirements as the distance between existing towers and power lines (design standards for clearance #’s 1-1 1) . 4) The tentative maps of Poinsettia Hill and Aviara I11 are both conditioned to install the remaining portion of Cassia Road to Poinsettia Lane. Hillman Properties and Western Pacific Housing have already executed and recorded a cost reimbursement agreement in conjunction with the property owners (Sfregola, Reiter, Whitney, and Bowen) to the south of Cassia Road. Copies of the agreement are on file with the City Engineering Department. 5) Since the alignment of Cassia Road is almost entirely with in SDG&E’s easement, the Bons property is not preclude in any way from achieving a maximum future development yield. 6) Western Pacific has always negotiated in good faith with Mr. Bons and offered a fair market value for the right of way and easements. Our offer was based on an independent appraisal by the same appraiser the City used to assess the value of Cassia Road for the Villa Lorna project. However, the value will be ultimately set by the court in a hearing that Mr. Bons will be able to present his case for his valuation. 7) Cassia Road is an important linkage to the hture extension of Ambrosia Lane (under construction today) to provide access to the Aviara Oaks Elementary School and future City Park to be located at the intersection of Poinsettia and Ambrosia Lanes. 8) The timing of the extension of Cassia Road is CRITICAL for the relocation and hook up of major potable and reclaimed transmission water mains (which are being significantly upsized) that need to be coordinated with the construction of Poinsettia Hill and Aviara 111. Furthermore, the ability to grade and pave the Cassia Road extension prior to this winter will be the least inconvenience to the residents that live to the west of Cassia Road and El Camino Real. Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. encl.: Area Map Dedication Plat Exhibit SDG&E Encroachment Manual Letter from BUCG Utility Constant cc: Mayor Bud Lewis I / City Council Members Bob Wojcik, City of Carlsbad Clyde Wickham, City of Carlsbad Dick Freeland, Asaro, Keagy, Freeland & McKinney Jack Henthorn, Henthorn & Associates Glenn Van Peski, Hunsaker & Associates Greg Butsko, BUCG Utility Consulting Curt Noland, Hillman Properties LEGEND: 1.71 RIGHT OF WAY 0.53 ACRE lEj SLOPE AREA 0 .=3ACRE k-1 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION 0,/75ACRE AREA RU'VSAKER h ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO. INC. GUG 20 '97 02:31PM BUCG c P. 2 August 20,1997 Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Laa Palmas Drive Cdsbad, CA 92009-1576 RE: POINSETTIA HILL - CASSIA ROAD CROSSING Dear Mr. Hubbs: AS thc Utility Consultant for Western Pacific Housing and a previous employee of San Diego Gas & Electric for 23 years, the follovving summarizes my understanding and knowledge of the Cassia Road Crossing throughout the SDG&E trammission easement. John Hernandez, Property Management Representative with SDG&E's Transmission Depment, reviewed the aforesaid encroachment in depth and dctcrmined the Cassia Road alignment is within their guidelines. For example, to extend Cassia Road over the existing waterline easement would have caused a longitudinat encroachment which SDGLE prohibits and would have caused the relocation of existing steel towers and wood poles. Therefore, the street alignment 89 shown on City of Carlsbad improvement plans CT 93.03 is not only acceptable as shown, but is the preferred alignment by SDGtkE. Please call should you need Mer information or have any questions. Thank you, Sincerely, BUTSKO UTILITY CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Tom Perez Project Manager cc: Scot Sandsfrom - Western Pacific Housing 27393 ylvpr gurrP 162 %yvIA a' 92591 909.6'16.4030 PAX 909.676.2099 16885 w, nm-0 ~lwe sm 250 SIU mace a- 92127 619.676.pmo PAX 619.6763714 A I .. AlJG- 15- 1997 16 : 32 HIJNSRKER R RSSDC I RTES - The accompanying “Guide for Encroachment on Transmission Rights-of-way” is being furnished as an aid in reducing the impact of developer improvements on SDG&E’s transmission facilities. This guide is simply a tool for developers to use to help minimize conflicts. These guidelines may be supplemented with additional requirements for an individual area as SDG&E deems necessary to fulfill its function. The de velooer should bear in mind at ail tim that co-ce w ith the rem irements o f the QU ide will not mean dutomatic accentance hv sDG&EL GUIDE FOR mACWENT ON TRANSMlSaON RIGHTS OF WAY nELa2Ex PAGE 1. GENERAL. ...................... 1 2. POLICY. ....................... 1 3. USE OF GUIDE.................. 2 4. GRADING PERMISSION.. .......... 2 5. GRADING AND CtEARlllJCES ........ 3 6. ROADS AND DRAINAGE............ 4 7. FENCES AND OTHER STRUCTURES. .. 6 8. VEGETATION..... ............... 7 9. DOCUMENT PROCESSING FEES. ..... 9 APPENDIX 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ACCESS ROAD DETAILS-C~~TS. ......... -.TA-2459,SHl,~8V.B ACCESS ROAD DETAILS-DOWN DRAINS... ...... TA-2460,SH~,Rev.B ACCESS ROAD DETAILS-WERGY DISSIPATOR ... TA-t461,SHl,Rev.B ACCESS ROAD DETAILS-WATER BARS.*...-.-., TA=246ZISH1,Rev.B GROUNDING-GENERAL FENCE REQUIREMENTS.. ..TA-2501,SHl,Rev.B GROUNDING-HETALLIC STRUCTURES. .......... TA-2502,SHl,Rev.B GROUNDING-GATES AND FWCES .............. TA-2503,S~l,~ev.B GROUNDING-ELECTRIC FENCES. .............. TA-2504,SHl,Rev.B MAINTENANCE AND WORxfNG PADS ............ TA-3604,SH1=6,Rev.B ACCESS ROAD DETAILS-ROAD X-SECTIONS ..... 10232,SHl-6 QlJG-l?-199'; 16: 32 HUNSQKER & QSSOCIQTES - GUIDE FOR ENCRO ACHMT ON TRANSMlSgoN RICW TS-OF-WAY GENERAL Relocation of transmission facilities is a complex and costly undertaking. Engineering, special order material, right-of-vay documents, and construction lead times often exceed tvelve (12) months. In most cases, early planning vith SDGhE can provide alternatives to relocation. All costs are borne by the developer. It is SDGtE's desire to offer assistance in the early planning stages of a developer's project BO satisfactory solutions can be reached. For information or assistance, contact the Planning Department at the SDGhE Service Center nearest you. POLICY In an effort to optimize use of SDGCIE fee owed and easement rights-of-vay, SDGLE will examine proposed plans, evaluate the secondary uses, while insuring protection against encroachments that may be detrimental to SDGhE's present or future facilities. It is SDGhE's policy to relocate transmission facilities and rights-of-vay only when: 1. No practical alternatives exist; 2. The proposed right-of-vay alignment is equal to or better than the original right-of-vay; All replacement easements vi11 be documented on current forms. Current widths of easements for single structure are as follows: 69kV (wood) = 24' minimum 138kV (wood) = 24' minimum 138kV (steel lattice) - 100' nominal 230kV (steel lattice) = 100' nominal 500kV (steel lattice) = 200' nominal Undugrwad sy8tun8 8hall require a 20' wide 08m.1~0at 3. No rights-of-way from property owners other than the developer are required; The new alignment would allov ultimate development of the right-of-vay including full access to, from, and along; 4. -1- 5. All a. b. C. d. e. f. costs to be paid in advance to include: Actual cost of relocation of existing lines; Differential cost of future construction; Additional operating and maintenance cost for the theoretical life of the nevly constructed line. Line loss costs for the additional line length for the theoretical life of the facility; Federal and State tax' loaders; Collection of any incremental land values. This guide has been prepared as a tool to familiarize developers, engineering firms, and others with the general requirements of SDGhE as relating to proposed grading or improvements in most of SDGCE fee ovned and easement rights-of-way containing 69kV, 138kV, 230kV and 5oOkV transmission lines. There are some areas of SDGhE's rights-of-vay system that have unique requirements too elaborate to include as guidelines. individual case basis. All requests will be reviewed on an In order to reduce costs and time frames to the . developers, SDGCE Transmission Engineering section may release existing profile right-of-way data. f ollovinq the "Guidelines for Conf lfct Checks Procedure". Lead times of 6-8 weeks upon receipt of plans by SDGCE Transmission Section are normal. For information or assistance, contact the Planning Department at the SDGhE Service Center nearest you. For those projects vhich cannot be resolved within these guidelines, or vith in the conflict check procedure, please refer to the Planning Department in your service area for guidance on feasibility studies and potential relocations. Lead tfmes for relocations of 6 to 12 months upon receipt of plans by SDGLE Transmission Engineering Section are nonnal. This can be accomplished by It should be noted that-compliance vith these guidelines does not constitute permission to grade within SDGCE'e easements. Developers must submit grading plans (and geotechnical reports if applicable), rsigned and dated, prior to SDGLE approving any grading letter or right-of-way use agreement. It is required that all SDGhE facilities, existing structures, existing anchors, right-of-way boundaries and access roads be shown on submitted -2- plans. SDG6rE's Land Management Section are normal. Lead timer of 6 to 8 veeks after receipt of plans by It is the developer's sole responsibility to comply vith all rules, regulations, and orders of State, County, and local agencies having jurisdiction. For example, the California Department of Education has set minimum distance recommendations betveen 8ChOOl8 and transmission lines as part of its school site selection and approval guide. For further information about the guide, contact: The School Facilities Planning Division Coordinator, Department of Education, P.O. Box 944272, Sacramento, California 94244-2770, Telephone: (916) 322-1461. Also, location of developer6 improvements above ground and adjacent to SDGCE right-of-vay requires the developer to be in compliance vith CAL-OSHA and/or the rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction, General Order No. 95, CPUC, during their construction and maintenance of those facilities. Grading without permission can not be permitted within an SDGhE easement. Necessary actions, includlng legal, will be taken to stop activity and restore the right-of-way to its original condition at developers expense. GRADING conceptual drawings, tentative maps, layouts, preliminary and final grading plans should be prepared keeping in mind the following: 1. ?fininrum clearance from ground to any transmission voltage conductor of 69kV, 138kV and 230kV shall not less than 35 feet when the conductor is at aesiuned saq as shown on the SDGhE design profiles. For 500kV lanes, the minimum clearance shall not be be lese than 45 feet. Clearance shall not be calculated using "everyday" sag. There can be between 4 ft. to 30 ft. of sag differential betveen v8everydayam and "maximum design" sag6 2. Profile drawings submitted to SDGiE shall be drawn to a scale of: 100 feet horizontal and 20 feet vertical, or 200 feet horizontal and 40 feet vertical. 3. Any and all fill shall be engineered and placed to a minimum compaction of 90 percent maximum dry density as determined by ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) D1557, unless specified otherwise. SDCLE may require compaction tests to be performed at the developerus expense. -3- 6195581314 i-'. Wb. 35 4 4. Where there is the possibility of future structure8 being placed in the right-of-way, SDGLE may require compaction to a minimum of 95 percent maximum dry density. performed at the developer's expense. positions shall be provided with level maintenance/construction pad6 ae vel1 as vorking area6 as indicated by drawings TA-3604. single vood pole structure or anchor. multi-wood pole structure (H-frame, 3-pole, etc.) measured from any face of the structure. sDGCE may require compaction tests to be 5. -All existing structures and all future structure 6. No cut or fill will be alloved within 10 feet of any 7. No cut or fill vi11 be alloved within 15 feet of any 8. No cut or fill will be allowed within 20 feet of lattice steel StNCtUreG, measured from any face of the foundation. 9. No cut OF fill will be alloved within 30 feet of tubular steel poles, measured from any face of the foundation. 10. Any retaining walla and devices within 3 thes the distance specified In items 5 thru 8, will be considered as structurally integral to the transmission structure. All such devices will require SDGhE's civil/Structural Engineering section approval prior to SDGCE approval of developer's plans.) All grading within the right-of-way will be designed for a slope of 209: or less. will be selectively permitted for distances not to exceed 200 feet (linearly). 11. Graded slopes of Up to 2:l ROADS AND DRAINAGE complying vith the following requirements: Developers should ensure that adequate access is provided by 1. Access is required on a 24 hour basis to all SDGdrE facilities. 2. Through access, to and along the right-of-way, is required on a 24 hour basis for patrol, maintenance, and emergency vehicles. 3. All existing and proposed access will be shown on the grading/improvement plans. 4. All SDGCE structures shall be accesgible by way of an accees road with a usable road surface tvelve feet wide except in curve widening areas or turnarounds. 5. Maximum p~iS6lble road grade is fifteen percent for a maximum distance of 250 feet. 6. All road curves shall have a minimum radius of 85 feet measured at the centerline of the usable road surface. 7. The usable vidth of all roads shall be increased on curves by the distance shovn In the following table: Radius of Curvature Additional Road With 85'-100' 101'-150' 151'-200' 201 '-400 ' over 400' 6' 5' 4' 3' 2' 8. All dead-end or stub roads over 500 feet in length shall be provided vith a Y-type or circular type turnaround. 9. Inside edge of the curves shall be used as the control for establishing road grades. 10. The road shall be sloped to prevent ponding or damage from undirected vater flow and in accordance with draving 10232. 11. When the road is sloped away from the cut bank, the water shall be allowed to drain as sheet flow onto the downhill slope unobstructed by drainage swales or berms. When the road is sloped towards the cut bank, a drainage svale along the inside edge of the road shall be provided. Water bars shall also be provided across the road to direct vater into the drainage swale. (See draving TA-2462). 12. Brow ditches, swales, etc. should be avoided within the R/W except transverse to the R/W and then they shall provide heavy construction equipment access acro6s same . -5- RUI;-19-19"3': 16: 34 HUNSQKER S, QSSOCIQTES - b195581313 P. 113. 35 - 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 I 18. 19. 20. All anergy diseipators, standpipes, desaltation basins, etc. shall be designed to be external to SDCfE's right-of-way. At a minimum, these shall be designed to the requirements of drsvfng TA-2461. Drainage swales shall be emptied by means of a culvert to the down slope side of the road which then empties onto an energy dissigator or into a natural drainage vay. At a minimum, these shall be designed to the requirements of dravinq TA-2459. Water bare shall be open at the lover end to allow drainage and be placed at an approximate angle of 35 degree8 to the trandverse section of the road spaced as follows: Averacre Road Grade imum Smacinq 0-5 percent 5-10 percent 10-15 percent 600 feet 125 feet 00 feet All grading for the development must not cause ponding or possible vater eroeion within the easement. where subject to erotsion, roadvay banks and natural soil shall be protected by galvanized steel intakes (dip aprons) and down slope drains (troughs) (See drawing TA-2460). installed at drain outlets outside of the right-of-vay. Energy dissipators shall be Longitudinal encroachments of roads, sewer, water, gas, culverts, drainage culverts, etc., shall not be approved. All utility and street crossings shall be kept to a minimum and should be designed to cross the right-of-way at as close to ninety degrees as possible. Parallel encroachments will not be approved. All private roadvays within the right-of-vay or roadways used as access for SDGCE will be sized for heavy construction vehicular traffic (passable with a 100 ton crane). 1rn- 1. Fences may be allowed if properly grounded (see TA-2501, TA-2503, TA-2504). -6- Hl-ll2-1+1'397 15: 34 HUNSRKER 2. QSSOCIQTES - 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. VEGETATION Fences may be allowed if access to-and along right-of-vay is not obstructed. Fences may be alloved if access to individual structures are not obstructed. Temporary structures may be allowed within the right-of-way only vith written approval of Land Management after review by Tran6miEtSiOn Engineering, and If properly grounded (See TA-2402). No permanent structures will be alloved vithin the right-of-vay. Lighting standards shall not be designed to be within the right-of-vay. Fire hydrants shall not be designed to be within the right-of-vay. Belov ground manholes (sewer, water, CATV, etc.) shall not be designed to be within the right-of-vay. Gata8, will be required where access is obstructed. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. No trees shall be planted within 10 feet (horizontally) of any conductor or within vorkinq spaces and maintenance pads. Watering systems shall not spray directly onto energized conductors or structures. Vegetation shall not be planted such that it interferes vith access to SW&E structures. A working zone around any structure is required as indicated on TA-3604 and shall be kept clear of shrubs or other obstructions. Only low graving vegetation, i.e., less than IS feet in height at maturfty shall be used within the right-of-way. approved trees that comply vita this criteria: The following is a list of currently GlJG-19-1997 16: 35 HUNSRKER S, RSSOCIQTES F TECHNICALNAME GQMMQE bgemtroomia indica Crape myrtle Pinosporum "Mock Orange" Pittospomm "Desert Willow" Willow Pittospomm Japanese Black Pines Pittosuorum phiuvraeo ids Pims Thumberqll Malus Tr ee Crabapple Viburnum iauonia .. XYtOsoma_c;onPestum Pmnus "Krauter Vesuvius" LeDosuermum Detersonii Cassia mu- Photinia viIIosa -. Fucdwms Dn~~aiQa .I Ecalyptus torquata Heteromeles arbutifolia Gallistemon citrinus Ilex altacbis Wiu "I Erythrina crista-& Purple LeafPlum Tea Tree Senna Bell Fruited Mallee coral Gum Toyon haon Bottlebrush Evergreen Pear Wilson Holly Cockspur Cod Tree -8- b195581.114 P. 13/55 -4 PROCESSING ALL FEES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE 1. to Gr&J&k@rS - Permission to Grade Letter is provided to a developer of a private property granting permission to do grading or other improvements within our easement/right-of-way or fee-owed property. Permission to Grade Letters vi11 be issued once submitted plans have been reviewed and approved by Land Management, Transmission Engineering, Gas Engineering, and other parties; that may be appropriate. permission to grade letter is $250 to $1,000 depending upon the amount of work and time involved by SDG&E personnel to reviav and approve the request. The cost for issuing a 2. Consent 7,etters - This standard form letter is provided to a requestor granting permission for the u6e of SDGhE property or easements far minor Improvements after reviev and approval by Transmission Engineering, Land Hanagement, Gas Engineering, and other departments as appropriate. requestor is $250. 3. on L-etter Subdivision Map Act. recorded interest in the property being developed and we have no objection to the recordation of the map submitted by the requestor. 4. subd ivision an d Par cel Maa Siana tures with acceptable joint use language that does not require the subordination of SDG&E interest. The cost for subdivision/parcel map signatures is $250. The cost for a consent letter to the This letter is provided to developers in compliance with the The letter is required vhen we have a There is no charge for providing this letter. This is the reviev and signature on eubdivision/parcel maps -9- 6195581414 V'. :-I, 35 5. The fee is to cover SDGLE's future increased cost of operations caused by nev street crossings. This includes the. loss of easement rights, the cost of bridging required during overhead stringing operations, the cost for cutting, removal-and replacement of curbs, sidewalks and associated paving required for existing or future underground electric or gas repairs or installations. The fee for street crossings is a minimum of $S,OOO/per crossing. Consideration is given to the width, angle, and any unique design of the street crossing that may impact SDGtE's operations. 6. Joint Use Aar eements These agreements are for the joint use and occupancy of SDGhE easements by other utilities' facilities. These facilities generally include, but are not limited to, sever, water, roads, and phone systems. $250, depending upon reciprocal no-charge policies by those agencies requesting joint use agreements, the amount of work involved, and any concessions or betterments to the right-of-way that the agency is villinq to grant. This fee collection is at the discretion of the Land Management representative. The fee for joint use agreements is SO to 7. Use Aureements This agreement is to allow the-use of SDGCE rights-of-way by private individuals, generally the underlying or adjacent fee property ovner, for usee that are compatible vith our existing and proposed future facilities. The fee for this agreement is $300. 8. public Ututv Let ters This letter is generally requested by a property owner in compliance of a public agencies requirement. After determining that SDGhE has no facilities located in the public utility easement or any facilities we do have that are not in conflict with the proposed improvement as shovn on submitted maps, SDG&E vi11 Issue a letter stating we have no objection to the proposed construction of Me project. The cost for this letter is $100. 9. These letters grant permission to other parties to utilize in some temporary fashion SDGCE easements and property. The cost for this letter 1s $100. -10- HUG-19-1997 16:36 HUNSQKER 2. QSSOCIHTES - IO. mests for Xnformatlm There is no charge to title companies or other utility companies that reciprocate in kind vith the availability of information. For brokers or real estate salesmen, or other parties requesting information (title information) - the cost to them is $35 per hour with a one-hour finbum. 11. Ouitclaims Quitclaims are the relinquishment of an interest in a particular easement crossing property not owned by SDGLE. cost is $300 for the first quitclaim, and $125 for each additional quitclaim on the same project. submitted separately, as individual quitclaims, vi11 be charged at the rate of $30O/each. The Any requests that are Revised By: M. J. Turner Approved By: Approved By: Approved By: u/H R.6: Pederson, Supervisor Transmission Engineering - &&=dT W.P. Hsiao, Supervisor civi 11 structurr erinq /&4/9/ Keith L. Little, Supervisor Land Management -11- August 14, 1997 Richard R. Freeland Asaro, Keagy, Freeland & McKinley Attorneys At Law 3170 Fourth Avenue, Fourth Floor San Diego, CA 92130 RE: CASSIA ROAD CONDEMNATION Enclosed for your information is a copy of the written request from Gene Carl to speak at the hearing for the above-referenced matter. Assistant City Clerk Enc . .J - c: City Attorney City Engineer 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1 989 (61 9) 434-2808 @ FROM : LONE PINE NURSEUS Lone Pine Nurseries eugcne g. car1 1690 Via Caritiion San Marcos, 92069 (61 9) 471 -71 66 August 12, 1997 Richard R. Freeland Asaro, Keagy, Freeland & McKinley Attorneys At Law 3170 Fourth Avenue, Fourth Floor San Diego, CA 92130 RE: CASSIA ROAD COMDENMATION Enclosed for your information is a copy of the written request from Sandra J. Brower, of Sullivan, Wertz, McDade & Wallace, to speak at the hearing for the above-referenced matter. Ms. Brower represents the property owners, Anthony and Dicky Bons. Assistant City Clerk d- Enc . c: City Attorney City Engineer 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1 989 - (61 9) 434-2808 @ Sullivan Wertz McDade & uu A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SANDRA J. BROWER KEVIN A. CAHIU GEORGE BURKE HINMAN J. MICHAEL McDADE REBECCA MICHAEL JOHN S. MOOT ELAINE A. ROGERS BARRY J. SCHULTZ LEO SULLIVAN LlNA PITESA WAAGE BRUCE R. WALLACE JOHN ROSS WERTZ PAMELA LAWTON WILSON LAWYERS July 29, 1997 - Wallace 945 FOURTH AVENUE SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101 TELEPHONE (61 9) 233-1 888 FACSIMILE (61 9) 696-9476 OF COUNSEL EVAN S. RAVICH JANE A. WHITWORTH ADMINISTRATOR City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Cassia Road Project: Citv Council Hearinp Aupust 26,1997 Dear City Clerk: Please be advised that I represent the property owners Anthony and Dicky Bons, co- trustees, and that we intend to appear and be heard at the upcoming City Council hearing on August 26, 1997 at 6:OO p.m. in opposition to the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity to authorize condemnation of their property for the Cassia Road Project. We will be opposing the adoption of the Resolution on the grounds that the public interest and necessity do not require the project; the project is not planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and the property sought to be acquired is not necessary for the project. Specifically, the proposed alignment for Cassia Road bisects the Bons' property severing it in such a manner that it is left with an uneconomic remainder, impedes the ability to be further developed, and substantially reduces the value of the property. reasonable and less damaging alignments are available. Should Cassia Road in fact be necessary, other more Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, McDADE & WALLACE A Professional Corporation cc: Anthony and Dicky Bons Richard Freeland 35921 1LClerldsjb . I* - ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND & MCKINLEY ATTORNEYS AT UW CRANK L. ASARO COU~TCL CLOOR 1170 COURTCL AVCNUL SAN OICGO. WCORNIA 92103 ROSCOC 0. KLACZY RICblARO R. CRSLUNO STCVCN A. MCKINLCY. rcLcm+ouc iom +97-3110 CACSIMIU Wo) - .ALSO ADYIRCD IN NCVAOA NOTICE OF PUBllC HEARING TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY July 16, 1997 Anthony Bons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons, Co-trustees Under That Certain Revocable Declaration of Trust, Dated May 25, 1982 and Designated The Anthony Eons and Dicky Koorevaar Bons Revocable Living Trust 25709 Hillcrest Avenue Escondido, CA 92026 RE: Cassia Road Project Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bons: We have apparently reached an impasse in the negotiations relative to the acquisition of your property for the above-entitled pmject. It is necesszry to resolve this matter as quickly as possible in a manner which is fair and equitable to both parties. The Superior Court of the County of San Diego provides an impartial agency to hear both sides of a controversy and to render decisions to resolve our differences which, in this case, involves an opinion of value. The procedure is called a "condemnation" or "the right of eminent domain." It is the recommendation of our firm that condemnation proceedings be instituted to settle our controversy. The City of Carfsbad will hold a public hearing on August 26, 1997, at 6:OO p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Counsel Chambers located at . F\WPDOCS\CRMRSOWNS.HRG (07l16197 13:lOm) Page 2 July 15, 1997 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsb d. C lifornia. It is the intent of the Cit! of Carlsbad to consider at thattime the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity to authorize the condemnation of your property for the Cassia Road Project. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235, each person whose property interests are to be acquired by eminent domain has the right to appear and be heard at the hearing. The City of Carlsbad will determine whether (a) the public interest and necessity require the project; (b) the project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and (c) the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project. If you wish to speak either for or against the issues which are outlined above, you must file a written request within fifteen (1 5) days from the date of this letter. Failure to file a written request to appear and be heard in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad within fifteen (I 5) days after the date this Notice is mailed will result in waiver of the right to appear and be heard at the aforementioned hearing. Your written request should be addressed to the following: City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Cassia Road Project August 26, 1997 Hearing Date Please feel free to call us should you have any questions. F:WPOOCS\CR\MRS0\80NS.HRG (07llyO7 1QO4am) r , .* Page 3 July 15, 1997 Very truly yours, ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND & MCKINLEY .I RICHARD R. FREELAND RRF:cw . cc: Ronald R. Ball Lloyd Hubbs Mindy Jacobs Sandra J. Brower City Clerk F:\WPOOCs\C RIMRSO\BONS.HRG (07115197 1O:ooUn) August 29, 1997 Richard R. Freeland Asaro, Keagy, Freeland & McKinley Attorneys at Law 3170 Fourth Avenue, Fourth Floor San Diego, Ca 92103 RE: CASSIA ROAD CONDEMNATION The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of August 26, 1997, adopted Resolution No. 97-576, authorizing and directing the condemnation of certain real property interests for the Cassia Road project, west of El Camino Real. Enclosed per your request is a certified c6py of Resolution NO. 97-576. W Assistant City Clerk Enc . 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1 989 (61 9) 434-2808 @ b * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITY COUNCIL OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 26,1997 TRANSCRIPT OF AB#14,316 - CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY FOR CASSIA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. TRANSCRIBED BY: Carol A. Cruise 1517 Lucky Street Oceanside, California 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 f 27 28 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Present: Absent: Claude A. Lewis, Mayor Ramona Finnila, Mayor Pro Tem Julie Nygaard, Council Member Matt Hall, Council Member Ann Kulchin, Council Member , MAYOR LEWIS: Mr. Patchett. MR. PATCHETT: Yes, Mayor and Council Members. This Public Hearing tonight is to consider the condemnation of property necessary for road improvements. City Engineer Lloyd Hubbs will lead the staff presentation. MR. HUBBS: Thank you. Mayor Lewis, Members of the Council. As Mr. Patchett just indicated, this item is to authorize the condemnation of road and utility easements for the completion of Cassia Road, from it's current terminus at the boundary of the Villa Loma Affordable Housing Project over to Poinsettia Lane, and it is shown on the overhead. Here we have El Camino Real. Palomar Airport Road is to the north. Alga Road is to the south. The Villa Loma Project is located in the upper northeast quadrant. The road, Cassia Lane, is the road shown in this alignment. It currently extends to about this point here, provides main access into the Vilia Loma Project. The proposed condemnation will acquire land from this point over to the east boundary of the Poinsettia Hill subdivision and development project, which will continue the construction of the road on over across their frontage into Poinsettia Lane. Poinsettia Lane will then be constructed by the Aviara Phase Ill project, through their boundary and then will also connect to Ambrosia Lane which then proceeds south to Aviara Parkway, and about in this location is the Aviara Oaks School. So this is a missing piece of a critical link that will provide additional access from the Villa Loma community over to the Aviara Oaks School This action is for the Poinsettia Hill project, which is a condo project with 184 units. It was approved or March 22, 1994, and it had a condition that this connection be made off-site, to provide primary anc secondary access for that development. Under state law, if that land is not condemned for off-site, then that condition is no longer valid. A similar condition exists from the Aviara Phase Ill project, and likewise, if the City did not proceed with acquiring the necessary rights-of-way, then the condition would become void, and there would be no secondary access through Cassia Lane to those developments. They would only obtain access from Ambrosia, via Poinsettia Lane which would be a violation of the City's cul-de-sac standard which requires two access points to each development. This overhead shows the actual boundaries of the right-of-ways to be obtained through this action. It includes a .524 acres of road right-of-way which is the actual area occupied by the roadway extension and includes .25, about 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a quarter acre, of slope easements which are shown in the hashed area, and that is to occupy the fill that the road will sit upon and then an additional .175 acres of temporary construction easement to allow construction of the road. During the Public Hearing process for Poinsettia Hill project, Mr. Bons did raise the issue of alternative alignments to the proposed alignment that is shown here. His basic concern was to extend Cassia Lane directly across his properly and do the realignment over on the adjacent property. This was analyzed as part of the Public Hearing process at both the Planning Commission and the City Council when the project was approved. Both bodies found that the proposed alignment was the optimum public benefit, and approved the project with this alignment shown. Advantages to this alignment, I want to point out, that this dotted line right here and this dotted line right here, delineate a transmission easement from San Diego Gas & Electric. Most of the area that's being considered for acquisition falls within those SDG&E easements and cannot be developed for active uses. Any development in the transmission right-of-ways has to be approved by SDG&E, and they are subject to guidelines related to how and where the accesses are allowed to go through. One of those guidelines for the transmission placement requires that the roadway cross their easement as nearly to 90" as possible and as you can see, this is approximately a 90" crossing of the easement. Going direct11 across would be a longer crossing of the easement. In addition, concerns about the relationship tc towers and the sag of the line was a consideration in this location. So again, both the Planning Commission and the City Council approved this alignment as a part of the Poinsettia Hill project and alsc as part of Aviara Phase 111. What is before you tonight is an implementing part of those two approvals You are not hearing the subdivision design. That has already been determined. What you are rathei hearing is the issue to acquire, proceed with court proceedings to acquire that property. With that I wil turn it over to Mr. Freeland, who is our attorney in this matter, and he will explain to you a little bit abou the process. MR. Freeland: It is important that the issue, tonight, is not the compensation due tht property owner. That is something that ultimately would be decided by a court or, if possible, hopefull! through other negotiations during the pendency of an action, if an action is filed. The issues before thc Council, tonight, are three. #l. Whether the public interest and necessity required the project. #2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Whether the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, and whether the property, sought to be acquired, is necessary for the project. That would conclude my presentation. MAYOR LEWIS: Questions of staff? If none, then if we can open up to the public please. Anyone wishing to address the Council, if you’d come fonnrard. BILL EFFINGER: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Bill Effinger. I reside at 2502 Navarra, Unit #221, Carlsbad. We have an organized presentation and if I may, Mr. Bons would like to speak first. Thank you. TONY BONS: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I am Tony Bons. My address is 25709 Hillcrest Avenue in Escondido. My wife and I, we own the 6% acres on El Camino Real in Carlsbad. We have owned this property since 1971. We grow roses in the greenhouses there and trees on the west part of the property. Two and a half years ago, I came before this same Council because of condemnation. Because of condemnation of some of our land that was needed for Cassia Road. Now I’m here again to protest the taking of approximately 20% of our 6% acres. This time Western Pacific Housing, who is the Poinsettia Hill development, proposing the road Cassia to go through the western part of our property. I am here to protest the condemnation of the roads right-of-way for Cassia Road. I also protested this road alignment in 1994. There are others here present to assist me in this, and I would like to turn this over to Mr. Bill Effinger, Brian Regan, and Sandra Brower. Thank you foi letting me speak. If you have any question, 1’11 be glad to answer those. MAYOR LEWIS: BILL EFFINGER: Thank you Sir. Next, please. Your Honor, Council. We’re certainly not here to argue the planning that has gone on. What we are here for is to discuss a matter of equity. And, we have been in Serious negotiating conversations with the law firm that represents the City and Western Pacific for the last appmximatety thirty days, since we received the registered letter informing us that the City was going to proceed with condemnation proceedings. I have an interesting situation this evening, in that this is the first time. I have used the firm of Asaro and Keagy for years and years and years. They prepared, I think, every CC&R that I ever prepared, for all the projects that I was able to build here in San 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Diego County. So I find us on opposite . . . opposite sides, but, we have had very meaningful conversations for the last thirty days and we believe the issue of equity is resolvable. Our problem is that we are somewhat under the gun and probably the most recent experience that we could all look at in the matter of negotiation is the final settlement of the UPS situation. And, one of the main reasons I think the Federal Government didn’t step in, was, they didn’t want to tip the scales one way or the other. And our concern is that we are so close to resolving some issues and I know that the law firm of Asaro and Keagy is getting up to speed on some of these issues and we find that we have a great difference between what we have been given as an appraised value which is strange to us, in that it represents about 10% of what Mr. Bons was given two years ago on the same piece of property. Additionally, the computation of the land being taken is quite different than what we believe it actually is. We offered tonight, an alternative, not because we think the design is or should be changed at this late date, but to show you how the basis of inequity began. If you look at the map above you that’s on there right now, you find the “s” curve (I guess 1’11 refer to it) predominantly on the Bons’ property. Now, had that same configuration been drawn, but on the Western Pacific property, it would look exactly the same. The big difference is that instead of 20% of Mr. Bons’ property being taken and only 3.5% 01 Western Pacific’s property, it would have been different. That 3.5% of Western Pacific would have hurt them much less than it is hurting Mr. Bons. 20% of his property is a substantial amount. So all we’re saying is, because it’s 20% of his property, then certainly we must start talking at a negotiation point using that 20% figure and giving us an equitable solution. Its agreed that we are not here to discuss issues of appraisals and dollar amounts, but, we are here to say we think we’re probably . . . maybe si* days away from getting this resolved without having to go to court, without having to go through the condemnation proceeding, without dragging this Council and its staff, who have already worked long anc hard, and the gentlemen that appeared from Western Pacific - they would like to get started. We woulc like to see them get started but we also feel it is important for Mr. Bons. My involvement in this is. . I’ve sold Mr. Bons’ property. I’ve sold Mr. Bons’ property to a developer. That developer, too, wants to move forward. The issue here is, how much of Mr. Bons’ property is being taken and is Mr. Bons going to be treated fairly. We think we’re at a point where we can resolve that issue. So we’re not saying 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .27 28 redesign the road. We are saying that that can certainly be an issue if we go to court. We hope we don’t have to do that. We think we don’t have to do that. I met, as late as Friday morning, with Mr. Freeland, and we’ve had very friendly conversations. We’ve discussed the issues. He’s talked with his appraisers. We’ve talked to our engineers. I know that our engineers have spoken to the City Engineers and what we’re pleading for, this evening, is this Council to give us that negotiating time to resolve this without having to go to court. If we go to court, it costs everybody more money. The end result is time and money ill spent. I have brought this evening, to join me in our presentation, is our Engineer Brian Regan from Manitoo Engineering. He has prepared the alternative drawings, for argument only. We’re not here to suggest that you drop everything and redesign the project. We’re merely saying that these are issues that could have been addressed a long time ago and discussed. Why they weren’t - I have no idea. I didn’t meet Mr. Bons until about four months ago when he came to me and asked me if I was interested in helping him with this matter and selling his property. 1’11 be happy to answer any questions that you might have and we have Sandra Brower, attorney representing Mr. Bons, and also Brian Regan from Manitoo Engineering. MAYOR LEWIS: Mrs. Finnila. MRS. FINNIIA: sold Mr. Bons’ property already to a developer? MR. EFFINGER: MRS. FINNIIA: MR. EFFINGER: Yes. MRS. FINNILA: Mr. Effinger, did I understand you correctly when you said you have We are in escrow, yes. O.K., to a developer to do residential? Is that correct? OK, and I guess then you understand that the little “s” between those dotted lines is not developable. MR. EFFINGER: MRS. FINNIIA: easement, is not a developable piece of land. MR. EFFINGER: I beg your pardon? The little amount of land that‘s between those dotted lines, in the It’s usable. We have spoken to the San Diego Gas & Electric, noi only on this site, but others, and we know what it can be used for, we know it can be incorporated in OUI c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _- project. We know, also, it can’t be used for density. Our intention isn’t to use it for density, our intention is to use it for those things that we’re allowed to do. Parking - we can do that. Unoccupiable buildings such as storage units, trash units. All those things are usable and can help us in designing the project. It isn’t like it’s a discarded piece of property. MRS. FINNILA: O.K. And then my last question is, since time was something very critical to you . . . as I went back and read my packet, there was no letter from you, from four months ago, saying that you needed additional time or that . . . that even the property was sold. Did you send us a letter, at any given point, when you came aboard as a representative for Mr. Bons? MR. EFFINGER: We started talking through our Engineer and we needed to talk to . . . I think. . . I don’t know what our first conversation was, but we . . . as soon as we got on board, and I don’t know the exact date . . . but, maybe Mr. Bons can remember. MR. BONS: MR. EFFINGER: It was in early May. Yah, . . . is when we first started talking about the property and digging into the research and we looked at the letters, we attempted to contact Western Pacific, but fell that it was more important, because the issue had already gone down the road quite far, we needed legal representation. So, we first . . . the first law firm I called to represent us, was Asaro and Keagy, and I went down the line. I had five different law firms, all of whom I’ve worked with, and each of them had a conflict either with . . . through having worked with Cadsbad or Encinitas close by on some othei issues that are joint, and so we ended up finally finding another law firm that I’ve had experience with. That took some time. That took us almost a month to find an attorney to represent us. And, as soon as she got involved, she did write a letter to Western Pacific. MRS. FINNIIA: Thank you. MAYOR LEWIS: I just have one question following up on that . . . If I understanc correctly, you’ve been involved with them for four months. You are a developer, I assume. MR. EFFINGER: MAYOR LEWIS: MR. EFFINGER: I beg your pardon? You are a developer? I am a developer, but not on this project. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MAYOR LEWIS: MR. EFFINGER: Yes. MAYOR LEWIS: That‘s what. . . Are you a developer? All right then, then from your experience and during this time, you did not write the City of Carlsbad, nor Western Homes, to indicate that some type of a negotiation process. . MR. EFFINGER: But we did. Yes we did. The letter was written by Ms. Bons . . . Ms. Sandra Brower. MAYOR LEWIS: How long ago? MR. EFFINGER: Ahhh. . . probably. . . within three days of the time that she was engaged, which would have been . . . MAYOR LEWIS: MR. EFFINGER: . . . two weeks ago? No, no, no. That would have been. . . like about probably six-eight weeks ago, I would think. MAYOR LEWIS: MR. EFFINGER: So you’ve been in negotiations that long. We haven’t been in negotiations that long. I think our first meeting with Mr. Freeland was probably about five weeks ago. MAYOR LEWIS: Why is that? MR. EFFINGER: I guess it just took that long to get together. I . . . When we received the registered letter from the City, through Asaro and Keagy, is when the negotiations began. Up to that time we were attempting to negotiate with Western Pacific, but the negotiation was sort of a “fait accompli” - we’re going to give you $36,000. This is it - take it or leave it. That’s where Mr. Bons had been, I guess, for about as long as Western Pacific was involved. MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Any other questions of the gentleman? Alright, who else do you have, Sir? MR. EFFINGER: MAYOR LEWIS: MR. EFFINGER: I beg your pardon? Who else do you have? I have Brian Regan and. . . 1 think, probably at this point, unles$ < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h you have questions of a technical nature from Brian, I would ask Sandra Brower to come. MS. BROWER: Good evening. I am Sandra Brower. I am an attorney with Sullivan Wertz McDade and Wallace. Our office is 945 Fourth Avenue, in San Diego. As Mr. Freeland indicated to you earlier, the focus of this hearing is one of necessity. Your Council is to determine whether the property sought on the Bons property is for public necessity and that it is one that will cause the greatest public good and the least private injury. The way the road is designed, as Mr. Effinger indicated to you earlier, it is going to, in effect, take about 20% of that property. We have an engineer tonight. He has some drawings and he has done some studies as to other reasonable locations for this road than the one that is proposed. I don’t think that that issue was fully explored. It is true that there were hearings in regard to this subdivision map and that there were decisions made that the road alignment was a good solid alignment for the development of that project. But that doesn’t mean that that road alignment is the best alignment, if the City of Carlsbad has to condemn for it. And, that is what we are facing today. I understand that, from the City Engineer, that this alignment is dependent, in some way, on other developments in the area. . . the Aviara development. Again, we’re not saying that it isn’t a good alignment for those developments. What we’re saying is it is not a good alignment to avoid private injury of private property and why should a private property owner suffer more damage than those developers who are relying on that road for their development? Taking that into consideration, we do not believe that the alignment, as it is presently designed, is going to accomplish what it needs to accomplish for purposes of taking the private property for public use through the condemnation process. In evaluatinc this acquisition, or this taking, by the City, and the City‘s appraiser who has worked on this, has indicatec in it’s appraisal that this is going to be damaging to the remainder of the property. Specifically, the appraiser has said that the property will be left in an irregular shape and future development will, nc doubt, experience higher development costs. And that is what the developers in this area are pushing on the Bons. The appraiser, and everyone, agrees I believe that the highest and best use for thi5 property is future development of a residential nature. And cutting through the property in this way, even though most of that property is within the SDG&E easement, it does have significance . . . it does have some use . . . it does add to the ambiance of that residential subdivision. And for that to be cut away 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and eliminated is going to impact the future development of that property. It is going to unreasonably damage the remainder of that property and the Bons and their prospective purchaser will fight, if necessary, if they need to on those grounds. What we’re suggesting today is that the City, rather than to move ahead and condemn and file a Complaint in Eminent Domain, take a step back, take a look at what they are doing, look at this in terms of how it is affecting the private property and not all the good that it is going to do the developments that need it in order for them to process their plans. At the same time, as Mr. Effmger indicated, he would like more time to explore some of the valuation issues, also. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to respond to them. MAYOR LEWIS: MS. BROWER: MAYOR LEWIS: How long have you been working on this project, Ma’am? I believe it is about two and a half months. O.K. And you were not aware that this was the alignment that the City Council had adopted two and a half months ago? MS. BROWER: I was . . . and I have had some contact with the developer‘s representative who is here tonight. Yes, as soon as I was retained . . , MAYOR LEWIS: MS. BROWER: MAYOR LEWIS: MR. REGAN: What do you mean by “some contact”? Telephone conversations and letters. Any other questions? Alright, thank you Ma’am. Next please? Good evening Members of the Council. Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Brian Regan with the offices of Manitoo Engineering, 350 W. Ninth Avenue, Suite B, Escondido. I have the unique opportunity tonight, also, of. . . I’ve known Mr. Bons for quite some time. He’s become a friend, over the years, and I knew Tony when the City was acquiring the other portion of Cassia Way, across, for the affordable housing project and part of the struggle, tonight, and part of the. . . this whole issue of condemnation. Tony is not a developer. Mr. Bons is not a developer. Mr. Bons is a flower grower and he hasn’t asked me to say this, but, I’m going to say this because I know Tony. When it comes to dealing with the City and when it comes to dealing with the agencies, in terms of administrative or policies or takings of this nature, especially, he is no1 sophisticated. He doesn’t have the experience nor the where-with-all to the money, to defend himsell 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and to have constant representation when development occurs around him. So, every time I've run into Tony, up until now, it's been, "Brian, I'm having problems. This development going on near me . . I is there anything you can recommend . . , is there anything you can do?" So, when he came to me with regard to this issue, I recommended that he seek Counsel. I recommended that he contact a real estate agent to start to look at selling the property . . . to try to get some kind of appraisals because, from a property owner's side, when this occurs unto you, its a major, major involvement of cash to retain myself, to retain legal counsel, to retain real estate people, and to start looking at what is the other side trying to do to me? To start retaining appraisers. So, in defense of Tony, if any of this seems to be delayed, its really a major "gear-up" for an individual property owner to do something like this. Whereas the developer, up until now, has an entire staff that has been working on this, and they go from one propert)l to the next property. That's just my little intro. In terms of the alignment, I guess one of the things thai is before us tonight, is the discussion about whether it is an equitable alignment or not. There's B multitude of alignments, the way this road could work, without. . . with less of an impact to Mr. Bons property . , . and I"ve got a series of those, but, let's just go to the simple one that Bill Effinger talked about earlier. Let me just pass it across for the Council People. That alignment is as Bill Effinger described. What it would do is it would take the existing westerly terminus of Cassia and just project it straight ahead, along the common property line, somewhat splitting the responsibility between adjacent properties. As Lloyd mentioned, it would cross the SDG&E easement and it would not cross at a 90" crossing. However, SDG&Es policy is, we would like you to cross at as close to 90" as possible. What it would do. . . it would be disadvantageous to Western Housing. What it would do is it would take up more of their property and it may leave a portion of their property as a severed parcel, similar to the severed parcel that would be on Mr. Bons' property. The portion that would be the severed parcel would not be encumbered by an SDG&E easement, I agree. But, I think what we are talking about tonight, is whether somebody has the enjoyment of their property and what they might use their property for, from the private side. From the public side, yes, we couldn't build houses on it. From the public side, we couldn't put any kind of commercial institution, other than non-habitable housing and non-habitable structures. But, we could be looking at things similar to storage facilities or parking. The other thing thai 1; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 is on the property, right now, is there is an agricultural use on the property. So that by accelerating this along, that agricultural use would be lost. So, in terms of where there actually today is a higher value, there actually is an operation existing on the property that would be severed . . . the severed parcel would be precluded from any use. . . the reclamation of the water facility that they are using on it . . . the growing operation that is occumng under that portion, would be wiped out today. The other. . . I think the other issue that‘s at hand is whether or not, as Bill mentioned in the beginning, in terms of the negotiations on this. When Tony has been approached in the past on things like these, what happens . . . and the same thing here . . . 1 saw the initial letter come in and what happened was that it says here’s the deal. This is for you. Here’s the number we’re going to give you and we’re going to build a road across your property and we want you to give us credit for the road that you built across this property, so we’re going to subtract that from the amount that you get. Now this is a road that crosses his property - he can’t take frontage of units off it - it severs another half of his parcel and in addition, they are asking him to pay for this portion of this road. The other thing that happens with . . . once you’ve set the alignment of the road, the request is for 50 foot of right-of-way but it’s actually a 60 foot right-of-way road. So, ultimately what‘ll happen is by setting the 50, it commits Mr. Bons to giving an additional 10 in the future as well. So, the whole . . . the ultimate alignment and the ultimate picture isn’t set forth. I agree with Mr. Effinger. All we’re asking this evening is for. . . based on the drawing that I passed in front of you indicating that there is another alignment for this that would have less damage on Mr. Eons’ property, that that be considered in the negotiation process with Western Pacific Housing, understanding that Western Pacific Housing got the benefit of not having the severed parcel on their property. And I think . . . I agree with Mr. Bons and 1 agree with Bill Effinger and I agree with Lloyd Hubbs that, ultimately, this road will be connected and it will probably be connected in this alignment. The real question before you tonight is, is there . . . can we give enough time to the parties involved tc ~ork this negotiation out by asking for a continuance on this and not ask the Council not to take action on this, this evening. I’ve spoken with Mr. Hubbs . . . all the easement documents have been prepared and they are ready. I don’t this its ready for final pavement today, so I don’t think this delay would cause any construction delays. I think all this delay would do, or all this continuance would do, would be allou 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the parties involved, especially the private parties involved, Mr. Bons, time to work out this negotiation and to bring the equity into line in terms of how this road impacts Mr. Bons’ privately (negatively), as opposed to the public benefit and the private benefit it granted to Western Pacific Housing. Thank you. If you have any questions, I . . . MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. I want to make sure I understand your last couple statements. Are you saying that the existing. . . on that map up there. . . the existing way the road has been drawn . . . that it would be an acceptable situation if negotiations could be worked out, financially, with Mr. Bons? Is that what you’re telling me? MR. REGAN: Could you ask the question one more time because I think its an important question. MAYOR LEWIS: The existing example we have on the board . . . using . . . if we were to take that right there . . . consider that right there. Are you saying that that existing route would be acceptable to Mr. Bons’ if financial negotiations could be met to Mr. Bons? MR. REGAN: MAYOR LEWIS: I would defer that to Mr. Bons. Are you saying that. . . and the other comment I have down here is that you’re saying that that is not a reasonable safety approach to developing that road? Are you saying that the presentation you gave us is a much better and safer type of. . . MR. REGAN: No. I would say they are equally as safe. Its the same horizonta design, the same vertical design. Its just shifted . . . its just shifted. MAYOR LEWIS: MR. REGAN: If shifts one property to the other, is what you’re saying. It really shifts . . . what we’re doing is we’re shifting the burden onto Western Pacific Housing instead of shifting the burden onto Mr. Bons. It is equally as safe . . . equal design, same horizontal radius. That’s what I did. I just used the same design and just shifted it over. MAYOR LEWIS: MRS. FINNIIA: MR. REGAN: 1’11 be here. MAYOR LEWIS: Alright, anyone else? Questions? Do you have a question? I did and it left me. Just a minute. O.K. Alright. Next please? 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR. SANDSTROM: Thank you. Scot Sandstrom, Western Pacific Housing. I brought up this stack of documents for you to look at. There’s been a misrepresentation of the facts tonight. We have been negotiating with Mr. Bons. We’ve had four meetings at my office since February of this year. We have had one letter from Sandra Brower, his attorney, forty-five days ago, just stating that Mr. Bons was going to be out of town for two weeks, and to please give him a little more time to consider this offer. We have been painted that we offered $36,000, take it or leave it. I will read you an April 21st letter to Mr. Bons, in which we offered not only $36,000 based on a professional appraisal . . . the same appraiser that did the first section of Cassia for Villa Loma. . . but a $20,000 accommodation fee; 500 feet of chain link fence to enclose his nursery yard; 1100 feet of 6 foot wood fence to enclose his existing nurseries; two 12 foot gates to. . . for the SDG&E access, so he could have an enclosed yard that would also be fulfilling SDG&E’s requirements for access. This was back on April 21st. I have never heard from Bill Effinger. He has never called our office. We’ve never talked to him. He is the listing broker. That sign went up less than thirty days ago . . . and coincidentally, within a few days it sold. They have not been willing to release that information to confirm that. I’ve not seen any purchase agreement noi have I had any conversation with him or his attorney. And, in the one phone conversation I’ve had witF his attorney, I left it that I had given him four letters, continuing negotiation with Mr. Bons. . . and don7 let him deceive you, I know you won’t. He’s a very, very bright and intelligent person. He sells millions of dollars worth of roses over the phone, every day, and I found him to be very professional. We nevei had any conflict. I think it was a disagreement on the value, but again, we put a $56,000 cash offer or the table with an additional $15,000 in physical improvements to his property to voluntarily get thiz alignment. So to characterize that we were $36,000, take it or leave it, is just not factually correct. AI that information has been provided to the City and to the City Attorney. Let me take you back to 1992 I have Jack Henthom, tonight, who will speak. The previous owner, Dwight Spire, who mapped the property in 1993 will tell you that Brian Manitoo, his engineer, was involved in lengthy conversations witt City staff and Dwight Spire and I believe, at that time, O’Day, the Civil Engineer on the tentative map And again, those same arguments for alignment were brought up to the Council. I think Mr. Hubbs dic an excellent job explaining, physically, why that’s the best alignment. I don’t want to rehash that, I don’ 1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 think it needs to be. I think that‘s been chosen. So, tonight I would urge that the Council . . . that there would be needed time to negotiate is not going to be fruitful, As Mr. . . . the attorney, Mr. Freeland represented, you can go forward and the court date will be some time. By all means, if they come to the table. . . a reasonable offer. . . if they take our $56,000 offer, by all means, that’s still on the table. But I don’t believe, as you’ve heard tonight, that in one breath they say the alignment is O.K., and in another breath they say they don’t. In one breath they said that they contacted. . . and I have documentation that’s been provided to the City over and over and over, stating our case as we were asked, in writing, to no avail. I believe negotiations could be fruitful but only under the action of the court hearing and the condemnation tonight. That will be the only thing that will solve this in a timely manner. This road is very important for the linkage, as Mr. Hubbs stated, to the school for the kids that need to go from Cassia down to Aviara. We also have very important . . . two major water line relocations that would be made out of the existing road, existing water line access road, down into Cassia. The timing of those linkages to Aviara Ill’s connection in Poinsettia, is critical to the water district. Those are main transmission lines that service the tanks to the west, both the reclaimed 18 line and a potable 30“ line. So, further delays that suggest negotiations are going to be fruitful, without the action tonight, I do nol believe will be to the benefit of the public. MAYOR LEWIS: Questions? Mrs. Nygaard. MRS. NYGAARD: Mr. Sandstrom, you mentioned an enclosed yard. Is that on the north side of the property? MR. SANDSTROM: Yes, there . . . we would have enclosed both sides of the road or . . . if I could go to the aerial real quick. . . we had offered, in writing, to enclose where the chain linl fence, both sides of Cassia, with 12 foot gates on either side of the road so that SDG&E could continuc their access, as well as a 6 foot wood fence down the entire frontage of Cassia, which would be, thought, a visual enhancement and enhance his property. I find it funny that in one breath they say the: have a nursery operation and it’s going to affect that and next they’re going to develop. Well let me te you, as a private developer, coming before you with a Site Plan, that road would have been a conditio1 fully burdened with sewer, water, storm drain, grading, on that project that they say they sold, of whicl 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I 27 28 our company will be installing in short order. So, thank you. MAYOR LEWIS: Questions? Gentlemen. Mrs. Finnila. MRS. FINNILA: MAYOR LEWIS: I remembered my question for Mr. Regan. O.K. Then we’ll come back. Next please? No. We’ll wait and get everyone else and we’ll come back, Mr. Regan, to ask you questions. MR. MOORE: My name is Guy Moore and I reside at 6503 El Camino Real, Carlsbad. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. It is quite obvious if Poinsettia Lane was located in its proper location, the Cassia acquisition would not even be needed. And the fact persists that an acquisition would be an abuse of the power of eminent domain. If you were to put Poinsettia Lane where it was planned, by the County many years ago, and all of the pipelines that are buried in there now . . . and you’re going to have to destroy all those . . . and its just opened a whole can of worms to allow the shoving of Poinsettia Lane southerly. You have no environmental problems here. . .you’ve got a bundle of them down on the Hunt property, where you propose to put this thing. And, its just creating a whole bunch of gyrations like this to move that road down there. It never should have been moved in the first place. It never should have . . . and it was a public road and we called that to the City’s attention and got nowhere. So, that’s my only opinion is if you’d put the road in the right place, you wouldn’t have all this. MAYOR LEWIS: You keep mentioning the County of yesteryear. The County 01 yesteryear was one of the worst planning situations that this North County has had. If you talk to an) city which incorporated, you’ll find that County planning was so improper and so ineffective, that’s wh) when we became a professional city with professional staff, we started doing what we thought was bes for not only this area. You can go down and talk to Encinitas, you talk to Vista . . . any of those cities will tell you that the County planning was one of the most dismal type of operation we’ve had from the very beginning. MR. MOORE: This was done by Caltrans and by the County of San Diego anc the United States Federal Government. It nominated this as a federal aid secondary. They surveyec it and located it and there’s maps made of it. I’ve got all of that proof. I’ve submitted it to the City anc 1’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 they continue to ignore. MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Anymore questions of the gentlemen. Alright, thank you very much Mr. Moore. Anyone else please? MR. CARL: though I’m only the lessee on this parcel. Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council for allowing me to speak even MAYOR LEWIS: Your name Sir? I missed it. MR. CARL: Oh, I am sorry. Gene Carl, 6670 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, for twenty-four years. I am grateful that you allow me this time even though I am only the lessor. I would like to extend my opinion and that‘s all. That’s all I have a right for, I guess. Wouldn’t it be nice for you to consider, as King Solomon did, and split the difference in this situation? That‘s my only suggestion. I am looking for equitable consideration, naturally. What the developer is offering is less than half of what is being taken away from my operations. Remember that. Less than half of my income. That’s all Mr. Bons is going to be awarded through this condemnation. Thank you for your consideration. Any questions? MAYOR LEWIS: MR. HENTHORN: Any questions? Alright, thank you Sir. Next please? Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Council Members, my name is Jack Henthorn. My address is 5431 Avenida Encinas, Suite J, Carlsbad, and I am here this evening speaking on behalf of Western Pacific Housing, and I am kind of a remnant of this project. I’ve been with it since it’s inception back in the early 90’s and there were a number of meetings that were held during the pre-planning stage of this project as we processed through the City. And there were a number of discussions, both of the alignment and cost sharing related to this road. Subsequently, to those discussions, there were posturing agreements executed by three of the four parties affected by the road. Aviara, the Sfregola ownership, which is the SRWB parcel, and the Western Pacific Housing parcel relating to the cost sharing and the various obligations that we had. Mr. Bons was invited to participate in those discussions and invited to participate in the cost sharing and the design of the road. We discussed the design of the road with Mr. Regan, met with Mr. Bons on a number of different occasions while we were planning this site, during the period from 1992 to 1994. During that period of time, we also consulted with the City \ 18 4 Engineering Department and reviewed the various aspects of why the alignment needed to be where it was and presented those conclusions to the City Council when the City Council considered this project. Council conducted the hearing, took the testimony, and approved the alignment. Based on the in-put that was provided at that time. So we’re here tonight, simply asking you to take the action to culminate the discussions and the negotiations that have gone on over a period of time, and reaffirm the alignment of this road and allow the project to go fotward and be constructed. Thank you. MAYOR LEWIS: Questions? Alright, anyone else that has not spoken to the Council wish to address the Council? O.K. I believe you have one question, Mrs. Finnila? MRS. FINNIlA: Yes. Mr. Regan, I’m sorry for the inconvenience. I just wanted to ask what you thought might be a suitable time extension. MR. REGAN: I would say a minimum of sixty days and probably a maximum of ninety days. MRS. FINNILA: Thank you. MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Thank you. Is there anyone else that has not spoken to the Council wish to address this issue? O.K. Then 1’11 close the Public Hearing and any questions of staff? Mrs. Nygaard? MRS. NYGAARD: take from here to condemnation. Mr. Freeland, could you tell me how long the process is going tc MR. Freeland: If we filed the action tomorrow, we would be. . . it probably be unlikely thai we would get to trial within a year. It would probably be approximately one year before we could get to trial. So there is a considerable period between the filing of an action and getting to trial. MRS. NYGAARD: And during that period of time, is there an opportunity for negotiations to be going on? MR. Freeland: There is not only an opportunity, it is something that we typically encourage and try to do. We always are available to listen and try to resolve a matter prior to litigation, during the process. MRS. NYGAARD: Thank you. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MAYOR LEWIS: Mrs. Finnila? MRS. FINNILA: That was my question. I wanted to know if. . . if we did, indeed, file, if we could still negotiate and would Mr. Regan’s term of sixty to ninety days interfere at all. I think I answered No, it wouldn’t interfere. Is that correct? MR. Freeland: We can continue to negotiate up to trial and even during trial and that is not all that uncommon. So, there will be a lengthy period of time to continue negotiating prior to the trial in this matter. Yes, well beyond the sixty to ninety days. MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. MRS. FINNILA: O.K. MAYOR LEWIS: Any other questions? MRS. FINNILA: MR. BALL: I’m just concerned if Mr. Ball has any thoughts on this issue. No, not really. The negotiation process can proceed along in connection with and in conjunction with, the adoption of the Resolution. The action tonight, before the Council, is whether or not the right-of-way is necessary for the road project. And, the question of valuation, it’s the City’s obligation to pay the just compensation of the fair market value which can be determined through the court process or by voluntary negotiations. That’s running along, simultaneously, with that process, by the parties. MRS. FINNILA: Thank you. MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Mrs. Nygaard. MRS. NYGAARD: Mr. Ball, and the question of the alignment - that is not before us this evening, is it? MR. BALL: No, the question of the alignment actually is not before you in the sense that . . . what is before you is the findings that are laid out in the Resolution. There’s six findings which among those, is as Ms. Brower pointed out and Mr. Freeland pointed out, and also Mr. Hubbs did is that the road be located in a way that causes the least private injury and maximizes the public benefit MAYOR LEWIS: O.K. Mr. Hall? MR. HALL: Obviously this isn’t going to be an easy one, but, as we look a 2( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 what our charge is tonight, it’s whether or not we can make those six findings. And I can do that. I know there is a great deal of frustration over the economic question, but that‘s only going to be answered sometime between now and through the court process and that’s not something we’re going to be able to do tonight. We’ve talked, really, about this alignment - whether it fits best here or possibly somewhere else, and I think, through out staff briefings and what has happened in the past and when you actually look at the topography, and what the lay of the land is, and all things considered, I think the alignment is really in it’s best . . . best location, just to summarize on that question. But, to the point, I can make the six findings and I wish the people well, tonight, on their compensation. MAYOR LEWIS: Mrs. Nygaard. MRS. NYGAARD: Yes, I also can make the findings. I think it is very important that we move foward with this road. I think now that the third phase of Aviara is going through and Ambrosia will be through, it will present an opportunity for us to be able to get those children to school and I think its very important to the public good that they can get to school on a safe road. So, for me its . . . MAYOR LEWIS: Mrs. Finnila? MRS. FlNNlLA: Yes. If you look at the issue of the road alignment, and we’ve looked at it for a number of years, there’s a couple of points I would like to reiterate. And that is, whenever we put a brand new road through, and we have several properties in the area, we like to put the road on the property line between the properties for cost sharing purposes, because whoever goes first in the development, in an undeveloped area, has to bear the brunt of the costs for putting in the road. So if you look on both sides of the “S’s”, where you see the straight line, its right on the property line between the two pieces. Now we had the choice of where you put the “S” part . . . or where you have the part . . . we had a choice - do we cut off and put the “S” on Western Pacific’s land, which is developable land, or do we put it under an easement? By putting it under the easement, it is less of a problem because the land, as you heard tonight, is not developable under the easement except foi parking or storage shed, and so forth. So, it wasn’t . . . our decision was based on the less. . . lessei of the impact to the area and if Mr. Bons had gone first and developed his property as he is want to dc 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .- now, and the other places had not been there, then the situation might have been different. But, in development it is who comes first and who starts the process and that makes the difference. I think that the findings are true and accurate and I am prepared to go ahead with the condemnation. MAYOR LEWIS: Alright, may we have a motion please? MRS. FINNILA: Yes, I move adoption of Resolution No. 97-576, authorizing and directing the condemnation of road rights-of-way for Cassia Road west of El Camino Real. MRS. NYGAARD: Second. MAYOR LEWIS: Vote please. Note, the Council has approved Resolution NO. 97-576. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Aletha L. Rauts CERTIFICATION kranz, Cit Clerk of the City of Carlsbad, do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript, is a vehatim transcript of the August 26, 1997 hearing before the Carlsbad City Council concerning the item identified on the Agenda as Agenda Bill #14,316 - CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY FOR CASSIA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. DATE: 25 /777 ALETHA L. RAOTENKRANZ City Clerk 1 23