Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-13; City Council; CS; Conference regarding pending litigationCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL AB# cs MTG. 10/13/09 " DEPT. CA CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING 1 ITI^ATI^RILI 1 loA 1 IUIM DEPT. HEAD CITY ATTY. ^^. CITY MGR. to— RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council, by motion, authorize a closed session to discuss pending litigation as follows: City of Carlsbad v. Carlsbad Unified School District pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a). DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Ron Ball 760-434-2891 FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED D DENIED D CONTINUED D WITHDRAWN D CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN COUNCIL DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF ON THE MATTER D D Owners' Association, Inc. 5200 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California 92010-7118 Phone: (760) 438-0333 Fax: (760) 438-1808 Honorable City Council members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 &OCT 1 3 "^i CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Oct. 13,2009 Dear Council: dm Re: CUSD CEQUA Lawsuit settlement This afternoon we understand you will be briefed by your staff concerning a proposed settlement agreement with CUSD in the above matter. Up until now your staff has been supportive of our position, but not knowing the details of the proposed settlement, we want you to hear directly from us what our issues and concerns are. As you know the future extension of College Blvd (reach A) severs 11.6 acres of our land identified as Parcel #4. Working with David Bentley, we hope to "develop" a portion of that land to accommodate approximately 100 residential units and after all expenses, earn a modest profit for our association treasury. We use the term "modesfwith more hope than assurance. There are no housing units assigned to this parcel and the only way we can get units is if they are "affordable". The current process requires the land owner in effect, to give the land to an affordable contractor, who finances construction with tax free bonds, turns it over to the City Housing Authority who then rents the units to qualified tenants. The land owner gets the Affordable Housing unit credits, which he then hopes to sell to some future developers who need them. A long slow process. "No quick bucks for a greedy developers here'Mts important you bear this in mind as there is no margin available for payment of costs related to public streets that need to be built in the immediate area. In order to accomplish this "development" we need legal access to a public street as defined by City code. Cannon Road, reach 4A is that street. CUSD needs it as well to access their land for a much larger "development". It is imperative that CUSD be not only required to build it to City standards, but to give us legal access, signalize the access points and pay all frontage costs. Furthermore they should be required to complete the Cannon/College intersection, signalized it and pay all those costs as well. We also believe CUSD should pay their fair share of College, reach A. The school traffic will have a direct impact and like all other "developers" they need to pay for those impacts. Speaking of traffic impacts, if the school opens before College reach A is completed, the traffic on El Camino Real at our front entrance will be intolerable. Finally, we strongly believe CUSD should be required to pay the legal costs we have incurred in this CEQUA suit. This could all have been avoided if CUSD had acted responsively. We have been in meetings since early 2008. CUSD has been well aware of our issues. They choose to move forward ignoring all parties, including yourselves, and in effect wasting taxpayer money on legal fees. Arrogance, that we have not encountered elsewhere in al^our dealings since becoming an owners association in 1998. lotiating Committee City Council letter Cont'd: cc: Barbara Bevis, President Russ Kohl, Vice President Jim Waltrip, committee member Kathy Griffith, Manager Sue Loftin, legal counsel Page 2 7449 MAGELLAN STREET * CARLSBAD, CA 92011 760-476-9572 * 760-809-5216 BENTLEYoWING October 13,2009 The Honorable Mayor & City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 c: AGENDA ITEM # CJoSfcd <S&SSidn Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk RE:City of Carlsbad v. Carlsbad Unified School District; Proposed Settlement Dear Mayor and City Council Members: It has come to our attention that the City Council will consider a settlement of its CEQA dispute with CUSD in closed session today. While we support the timely resolution of this matter, we believe it is important that any settlement include the following assurances to protect the environment and the neighborhood by ensuring safe and adequate road improvements. • CUSD shall be responsible for the construction and dedication of Cannon Road 4A as a public street, including intersection improvements to Cannon and College and sufficient legal and physical access to support a proposed affordable housing project on the RCOA Parcel 4 property. • CUSD's Cannon Road improvements shall include traffic signals at the Cannon/College intersection and at the intersection serving the school and the RCOA Parcel 4 project. • CUSD shall be responsible for a fair-share contribution to College Blvd. Reach A, either by constructing said road and receiving reimbursements from subsequent developments, or by payment to the party that ultimately builds College Reach A. • Zone 15 properties shall have no obligation to design, construct, finance or pay for those public facilities, or any portion thereof, that are or become the responsibility of CUSD. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, David M. Bentley, President Bentley-Wing Properties, Inc. LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN October 1,2009 engineers Mr. David M. Bentley Bentley-Wing Properties, Inc. 7449 Magellan Street Carlsbad, CA 92011 LLG Reference: 3-06-1636-2 Subject: Peer Review of the High School at College and Cannon Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Bentley As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by KOA Corporation for the High School at College and Cannon project (dated August 2009) within the Carlsbad Unified School District. This work effort focused on the review of key traffic data, methodologies, and assumptions; and represents a good faith effort to ensure the accuracy of the analysis and reasonableness of the findings. The following comments were generated from our review. Incomplete Study Area The traffic study analyzed fifteen (15) intersections, based on the SANTEC/ ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies. These guidelines suggest using "50 peak hour trips" for determining the scope and form a good basis for the study area. It is also standard practice to include additional intersections that could be potentially impacted by the project. In this case, the intersection of Cannon Road / Faraday Avenue was not analyzed despite a considerable assignment of project traffic (11%) and a Level of Service approaching the City's LOS D threshold (based on traffic studies completed in the area). Also, the report fails to analyze the proposed project driveways. Three (3) driveways along Cannon Road are proposed as part of the project. This analysis is critical to ensure efficient flow of traffic entering and exiting the project, particularly with the introduction of future conflicting traffic associated with the extension of Cannon Road. The project's impacts may be understated since these intersections were not analyzed. Forecast Model Cannot Be Validated The report remains silent on which cumulative projects were included in the forecast Model. A list of cumulative projects included in the Model are necessary to determine if the appropriate ambient background traffic was accounted for. Recent traffic studies indicate numerous cumulative projects in the area. N-M636V2003-2009 Work>lepon1P«r Review Sep 0»gh school pttr review- Stp ZOOS.docx Engineers & Planners Traffic Transportation Parking Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8880 T 858.300.8810 f wwwJgengheers.com Pasadena Costa Mesa San Diego Las Vegas Philip M. Linscott, PE (UM-axw JockM. Breenspan, PEdtet) PsuW Wilkinson, P£ John P. Keating, PE David S.Sh8nder.PE JohnA.Boiiman.PE Clare M. Look-Jaeger, PE Richard E, Burette, PE KeilD.Mabarry.PE Mr. David M. Bentley October 1,2009 Page 2 Furthermore, the report does not indicate the near-term forecast Model year (i.e. 2010 or 2015) and therefore cannot be validated against the opening day of the project scheduled for 2013. In order to accurately account for background traffic, the forecast Model year is required to account for the opening day time period. The forecast Model cannot be validated due to incomplete information. Incomplete Near-Term and Long-Term Volumes Referring to Figure 5-7 of the report, the near-term volumes at the intersection of Cannon Road and the project driveway is incomplete. The report only shows traffic associated with the project and omits any background traffic. Background traffic associated with Cannon Road extension is expected (i.e. eastbound and westbound through traffic). Also, background traffic associated with the proposed RCOA multi- family project is also expected. This project is located directly across the High School and proposed to take access from the same driveway / Cannon Road. Similarly, Figures 5-6, 6-6, 6-7, 7-6, and 7-7 of the report shows incomplete volumes. Incomplete near-term volumes may understate the project's impacts. Long-Term Volumes Less than Near-Term Referring to Figures 6-5 and 7-5, the long-term volumes along College Boulevard between Cannon Road and Red Bluff Place are lower than the near-term volumes. Such negative growth cannot be substantiated and does not seem reasonable. Underrepresented traffic volumes may understate the project's impacts. Traffic Operations Improve with Project Traffic Referring to Tables 4-2, 5-2, 6-2, and 7-2, intersection operations improved with the addition of project traffic at some locations. In certain cases, the addition of project traffic improved operations by 3.9 seconds. Such a trend cannot be substantiated and does not seem reasonable. Operations are expected to degrade with the addition of traffic. The analysis appears to be incomplete and may understate the project's impacts. Inadequate Site Access Review The project proposes three (3) driveways, however only discusses one of these driveways. It is also unclear from the text or the site plan which of these driveways are referred to as the "main" driveway. Also, none of these driveways were formally analyzed. If the driveway serving the drop-off area is the "main" driveway, signalizing only this driveway will not provide adequate project access. It appears that the "main" driveway only serves the school buses, with no direct access to the student/faculty parking lots provided. The student/faculty is expected to generate the most traffic, yet are provided with the least driveway capacity (with right-in/out restrictions). The current site access scheme does not appear to be adequate. // is critical that all project driveways be reviewed and full movements explored to ensure adequate access. N:U 63 512003-2009 WorltopaWea Rtww Sep WJigh school peer rettttv- Se]> 200».docx Mr. David M. Bentley October 1,2009 Page 3 Furthermore, the site plan shows the proposed future alignment of Cannon Road in the proximity of project driveway. The interim and ultimate conditions should exhibit roadway improvement compatibility/feasibility. No Stadium Parking Review The High School project proposes a stadium. This land use generates heavy traffic volumes and requires additional parking during special events. There is no discussion in the traffic study as to how the overflow parking will be accommodated either on- site or off-site. Overflow parking often impacts the neighboring community. Furthermore, no discussion of the proposed parking supply for project as a whole is provided. Adequacy of parking requirements cannot be determined due to incomplete information, No Site/Parking Connectivity A brief review of the site plan indicates that the three access points are isolated from each other and do not have any connectivity. Connectivity of parking fields enables good site circulation and prevents drivers from using the public roads to navigate the site. The report also does not provide any discussion of on-site circulation. The site plan does not demonstrate good on-site circulation. Lack of Direct Impact Disclosure Chapter 9 of the report indicates three (3) cumulative impacts associated with Phase 1 of the project. These impacts include College Boulevard and El Camino Real, Cannon Road and El Camino Real, and College Boulevard between Cannon Road and El Camino Real. These impacts should be disclosed as direct impacts, since they are associated with near-term opening day. Only horizon year conditions are associated with cumulative impacts. The mitigation for these impacts would also need to be revised. Direct impacts are not fully disclosed in the traffic study. Inadequate/Non-Conforming Mitigation Package Per Chapter 9 of the report, the project is calculated to have direct impacts at two (2) intersections along El Camino Real. The project assumes these impacts will be partially mitigated by the proposed College Boulevard widening improvements. The project proposes to provide only a "fairshare" towards these improvements at these locations. In accordance with the California's Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), direct impacts shall be mitigated by providing physical improvements with 100% cost participation by the project. No information supporting the fair-share calculations for cumulative impacts is provided. Hence, it is difficult to verify the validity of these percentages. As described above, some of the forecast volumes were under estimated, which will affect the fair-share calculations. Due to incomplete information fair-share calculations cannot be validated. The project proposes a change in the ultimate classification of the College Boulevard between Cannon Road and El Camino Real from a Major Road to a Six-Lane facility. N:\1636ttOOS-2009 Woric'rcpxWur Review Stp WJugh school p«r revitw- Stp 200».dott Mr. David M. Bentley October 1,2009 Page 4 The traffic study should discuss on if the project triggered this impact and is responsible for this improvement. This change in the ultimate classification requires the project to do a General Plan Amendment. The traffic study proposes mitigation measures but does not provide post-mitigation analysis. Hence, it is difficult to predict if the proposed mitigation measures will sufficiently improve the impacted locations to a pre-project level. The proposed mitigation measures cannot be validated due to the lack of post-mitigation analysis. Based on our review a more appropriate mitigation / improvement package would include (but not limited to) the following: 1. Since 100% of project accesses Cannon Road, it is recommended that the project provide at least half-width improvements to Cannon Road (ultimate condition) along the project frontage. 2. Adequate driveway operations shall be insured and monitored by the City for both near-term and long-term conditions. 3. Since 47-48% of the project proposes to utilize the new section of College Boulevard between Cannon Road and £1 Camino Real and a direct impact is calculated (see "Lack of Direct Impact Disclosure" discussion), it is recommended that the project provide improvements along this roadway to a level of "not significant" at 100% cost participation. 4. Since 100% of the project traffic will access the planned' intersection of College Boulevard/Cannon Road, a traffic signal should be installed. The project shall pay a fair-share contribution to the installation of this signal. 5. All internal roadways should be built to the City of Carlsbad's standards. LLG has completed a peer review of the traffic impact study for the High School at College and Cannon within the Carlsbad Unified School District. Overall, we conclude the traffic study does not adequately or fully disclose the project's impacts. Sincerely, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers cc: File Robert C. Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group, Inc. N:U63«200S-2009 Woit'KpttWeer Review Sep WAigb school peer review- Sq> 2009.docx