Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-20; City Council; 17181; Palomar Forum Proposal Findingsa, a, co W AB# 17,181 MTG. 5/20/03 a a, a E (d z TITLE: 4s PALOMAR FORUM (CT 99-06) PROPOSAL FINDINGS CITY ATTY. Ll DEPT. ENG id CITY MGR. a, SI u 4 td co 0 a 0 k a a RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review Palomar Forum developers’ proposal for compliance with the conditions of approval for the approved Tentative Map. I ITEM EXPLANATION: At the April 1, 2003 City Council meeting, Council considered a proposal by the developer of the Palomar Forum property for the financial guarantee for the construction of Faraday Avenue. Providing an adequate financial guarantee is a condition of the Tentative Map for the project. It was the developer’s desire that, if Council found the financial guarantee acceptable, the Final Map could be brought before Council for consideration. In addition to the Faraday Avenue financial guarantee, the developer proposed to delay construction of the required Melrose Drive improvements until directed by Council, in order to prevent the acceleration of a Growth Management traffic circulation failure along Palomar Airport Road. During Council discussions, the question was raised about whether the developer’s proposal for the construction of Melrose Drive was consistent with the conditions of approval, or if the map conditions would need to be revised. Staff was directed to review the issue and return to Council with a recommendation. After reviewing Council’s concern about the construction of Melrose Drive and the other conditions of approval, staff believes that Council needs to make three findings before the Final Map for this project can be approved. The three findings are: 1. 2. Proposed timing of Melrose Drive improvements are consistent with the Tentative Map conditions. The developer desires to move forward with its project, but understands that connecting Melrose Drive to Palomar Airport Road before Faraday Avenue is completed may cause adverse traffic impacts. The developer recommends allowing a longer time “window” than is normally allowed to construct the conditioned improvements. The standard time allowed is 18-24 months. The conditions of approval, which reference the Subdivision Map Act, state, “Improvements shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.” (emphasis added). Staff feels that specifying a time period of up to 5 years in the agreement would ensure conformance with the conditions of approval and allow flexibility in the timing of the construction of the required Faraday Avenue improvements. The agreement would allow the developer to complete this improvement sooner if directed by City Council. No map amendments wou Id be required. Developer’s proposal of Faraday Avenue financial guarantee is acceptable. The Tentative Map condition for the Forum project states that “Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, a financial guarantee for the construction, as specified in the appropriate agency permissions, of Faraday Avenue extension between Orion Way and Melrose Drive (emphasis added) shall be approved by the Carlsbad City Council.” The developer has offered to bond for their share of Faraday Avenue and to enter into an agreement that they will not oppose the formation of the CFD. The developer can agree to waive its right to oppose the formation of the CFD, but cannot be compelled to vote in favor of its formation. Forum’s share of the Faraday Avenue improvement costs is approximately 10%. So, Council would need to make the finding that the bond (or letter of credit) for 10% of the Faraday costs and the agreement to not protest the CFD formation provides a financial guarantee for the construction of Faraday Avenue. Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 17,181 3. Appropriate agency permissions have been obtained. The Tentative Map conditions for the Forum project state: “Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, a financial guarantee for the construction, as specified in the appropriate agency permissions (emphasis added), of Faraday Avenue extension between Orion Way and Melrose Drive shall be approved by the Carlsbad City Council.” As of the writing of this Agenda Bill, the City has still not received the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 404 Permit for the construction of Faraday Avenue. Processing of this permit required consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in what is known as the Section 7 consultation process. The Section 7 process has a 135-day statutory timeline which, according to the Service, is due to expire on May 9, 2003. Time extensions are allowed, so a firm date for the end of the Section 7 process is not definitive. To this point, the City has received no firm commitment from the Service that the Faraday Avenue improvements proposed are acceptable. Informal discussions with the Service, however, have indicated that the only concerns the Service has is with the Carlsbad Oaks North proposed industrial development, not the alignment or improvements proposed for Faraday Avenue. Staff will provide an update on the status of this issue if new information becomes available prior to the meeting. SUMMARY: Staff is seeking a determination from Council on the three required findings listed above. If these findings are made, staff would return with implementing documents and the Final Map for recordation. If Council does not make these findings, staff would recommend that the Final Map not be processed until all issues are resolved. FISCAL IMPACT: The acceptance of the Forum’s proposal carries with it some risks in terms of the timing and ultimate financing of the Faraday Avenue extension. The proposal provides for 10% of the cost of the Faraday Avenue extension. There is no guarantee that the additional 90% will be obtained. If the Carlsbad Oaks North property does not develop, there is no other identified funding source for the extension of Faraday Avenue. Traffic studies predict that if Melrose is completed prior to Faraday Avenue being extended, there is a high likelihood that a growth management failure will occur at the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. At that time, development in any area that impacts that intersection would need to stop until a financing plan was developed for the Faraday Avenue extension. Due to the expenditure limitations in the Municipal Code, the City’s general fund could not be used to pay for the road unless first approved by a vote of the citizens. EXHIBITS: 1. Agenda Bill 17,123 - Palomar Forum Financial Guarantee for Faraday/Melrose Finance District. 2. Letter Proposal for the Financing of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive. 3. Request for continuance to June 3, 2003. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Glenn Pruim, (760) 602-2407, gprui@ci.carlsbad.com \B# 17,123 TITLE: PALOMAR FORUM dTG. 4/01/03 FARADAYhlELROSE FINANCE DISTRICT )EFT. ENG FINANCIAL GUARANTEE FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION: - & CITY ATTY. Review Palomar Forum developers proposal for compliance with the requirements to provide a financial guarantee for Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive. ITEM EXPLANATION: Backarou nd The property owners for the areas known as the Palomar Forum (Forum), the Carlsbad Raceway (Raceway) and Carisbad Oaks Norin (“Oaks”) have requesied inat the City consider forming a Community Facilities District (CFD) to finance the following road segments, as well as other related improvements: 1. 2. 3. 4. The improvements to be financed and the proposed boundaries of the CFD are shown on the accompanying map (Exhibit 1). The estimated cost of the proposed CFD is $26.5 million dollars. Construction of Melrose Drive and Faraday Avenue combined is designed to relieve traffic congestion on Palomar Airport Road and on El Camino Real, as well as to reduce traffic on adjacent intersections surrounding these arterials. The construction of one of these roadways (Melrose or Faraday) without the other, would cause congestion and overcapacity of intersections due to regional and peak hour traffic. Each of these properties has conditions on their tentative maps and LFMPs that require them to build one or a portion of the roads and to provide a ”financial guarantee” for the construction of the other. Specifically, the Forum condition, as amended by City Council, reads: Faraday Avenue from terminus west of Melrose Drive to Orion Street Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to terminus at City of Vista boundary El Fuerte Street from Palomar Airport Road to Faraday Avenue Palomar Airport Road westbound widening from Vista to Melrose Drive “Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, a financial guarantee for the construction, as specified in the appropriate agency permissions, of Faraday Avenue extension between Orion Way and Melrose Drive shall be approved by the Carisbad City Council. The Oaks project is conditioned to build Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive with the financial mechanism providing for reimbursement beyond their proportionate share. The financial guarantee was anticipated to be the formation of an assessment district, CFD or other type of financing district. Each of these properties is at a different stage of development and, thus, has a different timeframe in which it will need to provide the “financial guarantee”. Forum has its approvals from the Resource Agencies and, with the exception of the financial guarantee, is ready to final its tentative map. Raceway also has its agency approvals and tentative map, but is still working on completing design and conditions of approval. The property owners would like to proceed with their development, but they are not as close to final map approval as Forum. 3 17,123 Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. The Oaks project is waiting for Resource Agency approvals. These approvals are for both the Oaks project, as well as for the construction of Faraday Avenue. It is expected that an answer from the Resource Agencies will be forthcoming sometime in the summer of 2003. The actual formation of the Community Facilities District would occur no sooner than three to four months after resource agency approvals which would place the district formation date sometime at the end of 2003 or early 2004. Council Policy 33, which governs the formation of financing districts, requires that the right-of-way for the roads to be financed must be dedicated or acquired prior to formation of the district. It also generally disallows the cost of the right-of-way to be financed through the district. This is to ensure that all significant costs are known at district formation. In most cases, road right-of-way is required to be dedicated as part of the map conditions for the development. in order to form the proposed CFD under Council policies, the right-of-way for the roads would need to be dedicated and all environmental permissions need to be received to the satisfaction of the City Council. At this time, the Oaks project has not dedicated the right-of-way for Faraday Avenue and the project has not received all of its environmental approvals. The property owner (Tchang) has indicated that they will not dedicate the right-of-way until they have final approvals for their project from the Resource Agencies. Thus, the formation of this CFD cannot occur under Council policies until the agency permits are received for the Oaks project, which is expected in Summer 2003. The Request The inability to form the CFD and, thus, financially guarantee the construction of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive has caused concern with the owner of the Forum property. He is ready to final his tentative map and only has the “financial guarantee” condition remaining to fulfill. He has told staff that it is costing him significant amounts of money each month that he has to hold up his project while waiting for the formation of the CFD. There is also a concern that if the agency permits are denied or the process is prolonged, this condition may push his project into bankruptcy. Thus, the Forum’s property owner is proposing an alternative plan as the “financial guarantee’’ required by their map conditions (see Exhibit 2) The following is a summary of their proposal. 1. Developers will dedicate the right-of-way for Melrose Drive (current map condition). 2. Developers will provide a bond for the full construction of Melrose Drive (current map condition). 3. Developers will rough grade Melrose Avenue at this time and complete construction within one year of the order to begin construction from Council. Developers will construct the 3‘ westbound lane on Palomar Airport Road along the southerly portion of the Forum property (current map condition). 4. 5. Developers will agree in writing to not oppose the formation of the CFD. 6. Developers will post a bond or security for their portion of the proposed CFD. 7. Developer will only develop the east half on their project in advance of the CFD formation. 17,123 Page 3 of Agenda Bill No. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages associated with Forum’s proposal. Staff has listed the more significant ones below. Advantages Palomar Airport Road widening can move forward relieving some of the congestion on Palomar Airport Road Construction of Melrose Drive is assured. Grading and partial improvements will expedite the eventual completion of this arterial. Some funding for Faraday may be secured. Staff would suggest that Forum’s share of Faraday Avenue construction cost should be bonded or paid at final map if they were to develop prior to the formation of the CFD. Disadvantaaes The proposal does not provide full funding for the construction of Faraday Avenue. The proposal provides no assurance that Oaks will ever enter into the CFD or build Faraday Avenue. If the Oaks does not develop and Melrose Drive is built, the traffic on Melrose Drive may cause a growth management failure at the intersection of Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road, effectively shutting down development in the area until Faraday Avenue is funded. Compliance with the conditions of approval may be subject to challenge by outside parties. The Raceway project would likely request similar treatment which could result in the early completion of Melrose Drive and acceleration of a potential growth management concern. SUMMARY: Staff is seeking a determination from Council on whether or not developers proposal satisfies the Council’s requirement to provide a financial guarantee for Faraday Avenue. If acceptable, staff would return with implementing documents and the final map for recordation. If Council has concern about this approach, staff would suggest that no final maps proceed until the appropriate financial mechanism has been approved consistent with City Policies. FISCAL IMPACT The request allows for the developer to record his subdivision and seek a return for his investment while waiting for The Raceway and the Oaks, as well as the CFD to be approved. There is no change in the fiscal impact to the City of Carlsbad by allowing the developer to proceed as proposed. In all cases, if the developments do not proceed, the financial burden of constructing the roads will fall upon the remaining developers and/or the City. EXHIBITS: 1. Location map including CFD boundary. 2. Proposal for the Financing of Faraday Avenue and Melrose. 4 -7 --- EXHIBIT 2 DAVIS PmMS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Date: March 20,2003 To: City of Carlsbad Council Members From: Lany Nelson, Partner RE: Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is twofold: first, to provide assurance to the City of Carlsbad that the Developer ( “Palomar Forum”) will fully cooperate in the formation of the Faraday Avenue and Melrose Avenue Community Facilities District (“District”) and, second, to request that the City of Carlsbad allow Palomar Forum to obtain land development permits in advance of the formation of the District. Additionally, in support of this request, included herein are a Brief Chronology of the Entitlement Process, Additional Facts Supporting the Request, Consequences to Palomar Forum of the Delay in the Formation of the District, Developer Deliveries to the City of Carlsbad and a Review of the Benefits to the City of Carlsbad. Proposal for the Financing of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Proposal At this time, Palomar Forum requests permission to complete the following work (Phase 1) prior to the actual formation of the Community Facilities District for Faraday Avenue and Melrose Avenue: e 0 Allow the final map recordation of CT 99-06. Rough grade the entire Palomar Forum site and all required off sites as required by our conditions of approval. Allow building permits for the east half of the property. If this proposal is approved, then Palomar Forum would provide the following: 0 The dedication of Melrose Avenue along the Palomar Forum frontage. e A bond for the construction of Melrose Avenue from Palomar Airport Road to the city boundary. A bond for the construction of Palomar Forums’ fair share of Faraday Avenue and other CFD improvements. The construction of the third lane of Palomar Airport Road along the southern property line of the Palomar Forum property. A written agreement that Palomar Forum will not oppose the formation of the CFD and that it will li..~lly participate in this CFD. 0 0 0 a Phase 1 would not include the actual construction of Melrose Avenue. This work would commence after district formation following a schedule as prescribed by the City of Carlsbad. Other work required by the Conditions of Approval that would be delayed include: completion of the open space lot to be located at the northwestern comer of the future intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose; and construction of Street C. Brief Chronolom of the Entitlement Process February 9,1999 October 17,2001 January 2002 February 2002 July 22,2002 September 25,2002 October 4,2002 Palomar Forum’s application for a tentative tract map and related applications is submitted to the City of Carlsbad. The City of Carlsbad approved the Tentative Parcel Map and Palomar Forum initiated the preparation of rough grading plans, street improvement plans and other plans necessary to satis@ the Conditions on the Approved Tentative Map. Palomar Forum entered into an agreement with the City and issued a check for $25,000 in order to commence District Formation. Palomar Forum (Larry Nelson and Bill Hofman) met individually with members of the City Council for the purpose of informing the Council Members that we would be ready to pull grading permits and street improvement permits in August 2002. Although staff informed us that the timing of the formation of the District should not be a problem, we had extreme concerns as to whether the District would be formed in time to allow us to start in August 2002. If a delay was to occur, we were told by the City Council members to review the issue with Staff and provide alternatives. At the District meeting on July 22,2002, we were provided a schedule by Staff, prepared by the City’s consultant, indicating that the new date for District formation was November 15,2002. We voiced our concern about the delay in formation and were told that November 15, was an outside date and something serious would have to come up for us not to make that date. After our monthly meeting was canceled by the City two days prior to the scheduled date of September 27,2002, we requested a special meeting to find out what was occurring. Palomar Forum met with Staff to discuss this issue and was informed that the District Formation for Faraday and Melrose would not occur until mid-February 2003. Additional Facts Supporting the Request RBF, the City’s traffic consultant, does not show the necessity of the FaradayMelrose build out until 2005. Palomar Forum has provided a traffic study (which at the time included Raceway) that indicated that it would not create a failure in the Growth Management Plan if allowed to commence development of the entire Palomar Forum property (this Request is for development of the easterly portion only), as long as Melrose was not connected to Vista. 0 If Palomar Forum is allowed to proceed and Melrose is not constructed by Palomar Forum, the City has access to Bond Proceeds that would normally be used to reimburse ' the developer, so there is no financial risk to the City. Consequences to Palomar Forum of Delay in Formation of the District The delay from August 15,2002 to February 15,2003 has triggered a considerable hardship due the $150,000 a month carrying cost of the Palomar Forum project, totaling approximately $1,050,000 in unnecessary cost over the duration of the six month delay. Additionally, the delay has forced the project into technical default with its financing source. Review of Beneflts to the City of Carlsbad The City of Carlsbad enjoys the following benefits as a result of immediately approving Palomar Forum's phasing plan: 1. An extra westbound lane on Palomar Airport Road from Business Center Drive to Melrose, to assist in minimizing existing traffic issues; 2. Prevention of any further circumstances akin to the Carlsbad Raceway. The Raceway property had to file for Bankruptcy protection largely due to the inordinate processing time of their parcel map; 3. Upfront dedication of the Melrose right-of-way; 4. Agreements with the developers to guarantee the completion of this necessary transportation element. Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. We look forward to getting started with Palomar Forum, a project that will improve traffic flow along Palomar Airport Road and assist in completing Melrose and Faraday. Please feel free to contact me or Bob Thiergartner at 949-752-2066. 4 Hofman Planning Memorandum Associates Planning Fiscal Analysis Environmental DATE: May 19,2003 TO: Mayor Lewis & Council Members FROM: Bill Hofman cc: Ray Patchet SU BJ ECT: Request for Continuance of the Palomar Forum Agenda Bill to the June 3,2003 City Council Meeting On behalf of Davis Partners, the owners of the Palomar Forum property, I am requesting a continuance of its proposal to the June 3,2003 City Council hearing. This continuance is being requested because two members of the City Council will not be in attendance and the decision that we are asking for should be considered by all five City Council members. This item was originally continued from the City Council April 1,2003 hearing and, due to nobody's fault, has been delayed to tonight's hearing. Because of this delay, we would like to get to the first available City Council hearing, which we understand is on June 3,2003. Thank you for your consideration of our request. 5900 Pasteur Court . Ste 150 . Carlsbad . CA . 92008 . 760-438-1465 . Fax 760-438-2443 Mayor and Council members Name 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad As you know, we I was here before you on April 1st and gave you a detailed presentation on our request and the reasons for our request. Since this is a continued item, I will not go through that same presentation. You are well aware of our dilemma and the prospect that the Palomar Forum project will end up in bankruptcy. Since April 1st, there have been even greater delays with the Carlsbad Oaks project. The US Fish and Wildlife Service requested and has received a 60 day extension to comment on the 404 Permit being sought by that project. This delays the formation of the district by an additional two months from where we thought we were in April. The earliest the district can form is next year sometime and that assumes that the Vista law suit is settled within a reasonable amount of time. My client simply cannot afford these further delays that are entirely out of his control. I would like to highlight the key issues that were presented to you about our request. The staff has provided you its risk assessment based on 5 different scenarios. The conclusion was that our request provided the highest risk to the city. What are missing entirely in this analysis are the risks to the city in the event that Palomar Forum goes into bankruptcy. What are these risks? If Palomar Forum is not allowed to go forward with its first phase then a likely scenario is: 1. Palomar Forum declares bankruptcy; 2. The Faraday CFD will be delayed by at least one year, possibly more if the Raceway or Carlsbad Oaks maps expire; 3. Without the district proceeding, there is no financial guarantee for Faraday Avenue and no means to build it; 4. The Melrose Avenue/Palomar Airport intersection is already failing at a level of service of E measured back in July of last year; 5. The city would be forced to declare a moratorium on development within the area including all of these projects and Bressi Ranch; This is precisely the risk the city wants to avoid based on the staff analysis. If Palomar Forum is allowed to go forward, then what are the real risks to the city? 1. Phase on of Palomar Forum would generate 2,834 trips to the circulation system which is a small fraction of the total; 2. Palomar Airport Road would be widened to three lanes in front of this project. This would eliminate a failing situation by raising the level of service standard from E to B at PAR/Melrose intersection. 3. Palomar Forum would commit to its fair share of all financial obligations and remain as an active participant of the CFD while all the remaining issues of the Carlsbad Oaks project are resolved. Are the consequences of allowing Palomar Forum to proceed with one half of its project really that bad? We believe keeping Palomar Forum alive is the best course of action for the city, even if it means that a strict interpretation of the growth management plan isn’t exactly met. The Growth Management Plan was developed to ensure that development provided the public facilities up front to ensure that there would be no failures when development occurs. Allowing Palomar Forum to proceed ensures that a failure is corrected and that a financial guarantee for Faraday Avenue is more likely to occur in a timely manner. We, therefore, our requesting that you make the findings that our financial guarantee is sufficient and that we be allowed to proceed forward with the first phase of our project. Thank you. Palomar ForumPalomar ForumResearch and Development ParkResearch and Development ParkA Project ofA Project ofDavis PartnersDavis PartnersLimited Liability CompanyLimited Liability Company Palomar ForumPalomar ForumRisks to City if Forum Risks to City if Forum notnotAllowed to ProceedAllowed to Proceed•Forum declares Bankruptcy•Faraday CFD Delayed by at least One Year•No Financial Guarantee for Faraday will occur and no means to build it•Melrose/PAR Intersection will continue to Fail•City forced to Declare a Moratorium Palomar ForumPalomar ForumRisks to City if Forum Risks to City if Forum notnotAllowed to ProceedAllowed to Proceed•Forum declares Bankruptcy•Faraday CFD Delayed by at least One Year•No Financial Guarantee for Faraday will occur and no means to build it•Melrose/PAR Intersection will continue to Fail•City forced to Declare a Moratorium Palomar ForumPalomar ForumRisks to City if Forum Risks to City if Forum notnotAllowed to ProceedAllowed to Proceed•Forum declares Bankruptcy•Faraday CFD Delayed by at least One Year•No Financial Guarantee for Faraday will occur and no means to build it•Melrose/PAR Intersection will continue to Fail•City forced to Declare a Moratorium Palomar ForumPalomar ForumRisks to City if Forum Risks to City if Forum notnotAllowed to ProceedAllowed to Proceed•Forum declares Bankruptcy•Faraday CFD Delayed by at least One Year•No Financial Guarantee for Faraday will occur and no means to build it•Melrose/PAR Intersection will continue to Fail•City forced to Declare a Moratorium Palomar ForumPalomar ForumRisks to City if Forum Risks to City if Forum notnotAllowed to ProceedAllowed to Proceed•Forum declares Bankruptcy•Faraday CFD Delayed by at least One Year•No Financial Guarantee for Faraday will occur and no means to build it•Melrose/PAR Intersection will continue to Fail•City forced to Declare a Moratorium Palomar ForumPalomar ForumRisks to City if Forum Risks to City if Forum notnotAllowed to ProceedAllowed to Proceed•Forum declares Bankruptcy•Faraday CFD Delayed by at least One Year•No Financial Guarantee for Faraday will occur and no means to build it•Melrose/PAR Intersection will continue to Fail•City forced to Declare a Moratorium Palomar ForumPalomar ForumRisks to City if Forum is Allowed to ProceedRisks to City if Forum is Allowed to Proceed•2,834 trips added to Circulation System•Palomar Airport Road widened to 3 Lanes. LOS raised from F to B•Commitment of Forum to Participate in District and Front its Fair Share of Financial Guarantee•If District doesn’t form, City still has Better Traffic Situation on Palomar Airport Road Palomar ForumPalomar ForumRisks to City if Forum is Allowed to ProceedRisks to City if Forum is Allowed to Proceed•2,834 trips added to Circulation System•Palomar Airport Road widened to 3 Lanes. LOS raised from F to B•Commitment of Forum to Participate in District and Front its Fair Share of Financial Guarantee•If District doesn’t form, City still has Better Traffic Situation on Palomar Airport Road Palomar ForumPalomar ForumRisks to City if Forum is Allowed to ProceedRisks to City if Forum is Allowed to Proceed•2,834 trips added to Circulation System•Palomar Airport Road widened to 3 Lanes. LOS raised from F to B•Commitment of Forum to Participate in District and Front its Fair Share of Financial Guarantee•If District doesn’t form, City still has Better Traffic Situation on Palomar Airport Road Palomar ForumPalomar ForumCapacity Increase by Addition of PAR LaneCapacity Increase by Addition of PAR Lane•Capacity of Palomar Airport Road is increased by 10,000 ADT•The additional traffic generated by this phase of Forum is 2,834 ADT•The westbound AM peak intersection capacity of PAR and Melrose increases from a Level of Service E to B. Palomar ForumPalomar ForumRisks to City if Forum is Allowed to ProceedRisks to City if Forum is Allowed to Proceed•2,834 trips added to Circulation System•Palomar Airport Road widened to 3 Lanes. LOS raised from F to B•Commitment of Forum to Participate in District and Front its Fair Share of Financial Guarantee•If District doesn’t form, City still has Better Traffic Situation on Palomar Airport Road Palomar ForumPalomar ForumRisks to City if Forum is Allowed to ProceedRisks to City if Forum is Allowed to Proceed•2,834 trips added to Circulation System•Palomar Airport Road widened to 3 Lanes. LOS raised from F to B•Commitment of Forum to Participate in District and Front its Fair Share of Financial Guarantee•If District doesn’t form, City still has Better Traffic Situation on Palomar Airport Road Palomar ForumPalomar ForumObligations with First PhaseObligations with First Phase•Dedication of and bonding for Melrose Drive•Construction of Melrose Drive within one year of Council direction•Construction of 3rdWestbound lane on Palomar Airport Road•Written agreement not to oppose formation of CFD•Bond for Forum’s full share of CFD•No development other than east half until CFD formed Palomar ForumPalomar ForumResearch and Development ParkResearch and Development ParkA Project ofA Project ofDavis PartnersDavis PartnersLimited Liability CompanyLimited Liability Company Palomar ForumPalomar ForumCFD Costs vs. Staff RecommendationCFD Costs vs. Staff Recommendation8,954,8432,562,264Total4,000,0001,458,576Faraday Avenue4,954,843 1,103,688Melrose AvenueStaff RecommendationForum Obligation with CFDImprovement Rancho Santa FeRancho Santa FePrePre--Payment AgreementsPayment Agreements2,834Palomar ForumFirst Phase11,6201162Total4550455Arroyo 1&2CT 88-031310131GreystoneCT 85-154740474CentexCT 90-4/CT 85-10CT 89-181020102Cal PacificCT85-9ADTUnitsDeveloperProject PALOMAR FORUMProposal FindingsJune 3, 2003 Conditions of ApprovalƒConstruct a third westbound lane along Palomar Airport RoadƒConstruct Melrose Drive to Prime Arterial standards from Palomar Airport Road to Vista city limitƒProvide a financial guarantee for the construction of Faraday Avenue improvements Palomar Forum ProposalƒRecord Final Map of CT 99-06ƒRough grade entire property and required off-site improvementsƒDedicate right-of-way for Melrose DriveƒPost bonds and agree to construct Melrose Drive improvementsƒPost bond for Forum’s fair share of Faraday Avenue improvements Palomar Forum Proposal (cont.)ƒConstruct third westbound lane of PARƒAllow building permits for east half of propertyƒAgree not to oppose formation of the CFDƒDelay actual construction of Melrose Drive until directed by Council Required FindingsƒProposed timing of Melrose Drive improvements are consistent with the Tentative Map conditionsƒForum’s proposal for Faraday Avenue financial guarantee is acceptableƒAppropriate agency permissions for the construction of Faraday Avenue have been obtained Required FindingsƒProposed timing of Melrose Drive improvements are consistent with the Tentative Map conditionsƒForum’s proposal for Faraday Avenue financial guarantee is acceptableƒAppropriate agency permissions for the construction of Faraday Avenue have been obtained Tentative Map ConditionƒForum Facility Improvements:“Improvements shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.” Required FindingsƒProposed timing of Melrose Drive improvements are consistent with the Tentative Map conditionsƒForum’s proposal for Faraday Avenue financial guarantee is acceptableƒAppropriate agency permissions for the construction of Faraday Avenue have been obtained Tentative Map ConditionƒForum Facility Financing:“Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, a financial guaranteefor the construction, as specified in the appropriate agency permissions, of Faraday Avenue extension between Orion Way and Melrose Drive shall be approved by the Carlsbad City Council.” Local Facilities Management PlanƒZone 18 Facility Financing:“If the (Community Facilities District) is not formed, then an alternative financial mechanism equivalent to a (CFD) or an Improvement Agreement may be proposed. Any financial guarantee proposed must be approved by the Carlsbad City Council.” Financing of Public ImprovementsƒRight-of-way Requirement:“Prior to formation, any required environmental review and environmental certification must be completed, land use entitlement approvals must be obtained, and right-of-way must be dedicated or an irrevocable offer to dedicate must be received by the City.” Required FindingsƒProposed timing of Melrose Drive improvements are consistent with the Tentative Map conditionsƒForum’s proposal for Faraday Avenue financial guarantee is acceptableƒAppropriate agency permissions for the construction of Faraday Avenue have been obtained Tentative Map ConditionƒForum Environmental Permissions:“Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, a financial guarantee for the construction, as specified in the appropriate agency permissions, of Faraday Avenue extension between Orion Way and Melrose Drive shall be approved by the Carlsbad City Council.” Traffic ConsiderationsƒGrowth Management Plan requires City to monitor traffic conditions throughout Cityƒ2003 Annual State of Effectiveness Report identified a traffic circulation failure at the intersection of PAR and Melrose DriveƒTraffic models project failure along fully-improved PAR within 3-5 yearsƒWithout third lane on PAR or Faraday Avenue improvements, an interim project may be required to address traffic concerns