Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-08-07; City Council; 2105; La Costa Vale Unit 2 & 3..' . THE. CITY OF CARLSFAD, CALIFORLIA Date Auq. 7, 1973 - .Agenda Bi 11 "0. 2lh.r I__ Referred To: 90 Subject: . Submitted By La Costa Vale Unit #2 & 3 (CT 72-20) City Engineer Requirement for Traffic Signal at La Costa Ave. and El Camino Real . I_ Statement of the Matter' The developer has objected to the requirement to install a traffic signal at the subject intersection and proposes as an alternative (see Exhibit "A") that the City enter into an agreement with the County to pay for 4 of the $44,000 signal and that La Costa Land Co. would loan the City the $22,000 at 7% interest for 5 years. A. letter from La Costa Land Co. dated July 16, 1973 B. memorandum from City Engineer dated July 19, 1973 C. Memorandum from Acting City Engineer dated July 30, 1973 Staff Recormendations That the City not Et a precedent by paying for any portion of the subject traffic signal, and that, should the developer deposit $22,000, that the City staff be directed to prepare a cooperative agreement with the County for the design and construction of the subject traffic signal. . ,* AB No. Date: Auq. 7, 1973 .. City Mana yer's Recommendation .- ',At rece'nt meetings with La Costa officials the matter of a traffic signal at the intersection of El, Camino Real and La Costa Avenue has-been under discussion. La Costa officials feel-that the traffic signal should be paid for one-half by the County and the balance by the City of Carlsbad, It was indicated at these meetings that the matter would be placed on the next agenda. It is the staff recommendation that the City not set a precedent by payipgLrfog any portion of the subject traffic light, and should the developer deposit $22,000, the.City staff be directed to'prepare a Cooperative Agr.eement with the County for the design and construction of the subject traffic signal. 'The City Manager' supports the'recornmendation of his staff on thts matter. .* .- Council Action 8-8-73 It.was agreed that no action be ta.ken on this matter at this time. The City Manager and City Engineer were charged with the task of preparing a policy for installation of signals in the City of Carlsbad, and that the policy be presented for the-council's consideration on September 18, 1973. July 16, 1973 Mr. Glenn McComas, Vice Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Your letter of June 15 -- TRAFFIC SIGNAL -- El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue Dear Mr. McComas, We have studied the subject outlined above and, as a result of our recent meeting, we suggest the following solution: We pursue with you the installation of the signal and accept the offer of one- half (%) of the financial responsibility from the County. The balance of the moneys needed to complete the job would be advanced by La Costa Land Company, and the City of Carlsbad would agree to reimburse that money over a period of five (5) years, in full, and bearing an interest rate of seven percent (7%). This agreement would not be precedent-setting but rather would be a solution of a problem that has been created by the total county community. Other signals will be required in the future on properties that border or include La Costa Land Company holdings. Currently La Costa Land Company is working with your engineer, Mr. Hunter Cook, to rea- lize an equitable solution. Our present thinking would include the installation of conduit at future signal locations, with the install- ation of the signal device to be made some years in the future and financed through gas tax income. The conduit mentioned above would be the responsibility of the La Costa Land Company wherever such signal is totally surrounded by land owned by La Costa Land Company. We are eager to cooperate and meet with your staff at their request. Very truly yours, -- President LA COS'J$ LAND COMPANY IR/tc cc: City Council ity Manager ity Attorney i Public Works Director Rick Engineering EXHIBIT "A" July 19, 1973 * TO ; City Manager FRO21 : City Engineer SUDJECT: Traffic signals in La Costa I have just received a copy of afletter from Irv Eloaton to Glenn McComas dated July 16, 1973 on the subject. The Council at a recent Council meeting very specifically stated that La Costa would pay for the traffic signal at El Cmino Real itnd La Costa Ave. I can see no reason why the citizens of t?m City of Carlsbad should be burdened with the cost of this signal. Certainly, they should not be burdened with, the cost of interest over 5 years. La Costa has obligations for three other signals in the La Costa area, as conditions of tentative maps. Mr. Roston apparently wishers to substitute thra installation of conduit for the installa- tion of the entire traffic signal. This is extremely desirable Eorthe developer, but would have disastrous effects upon the public funds available for road work. There is a very inmediate need for the City to adopt a public improvement cost sharing policy. Until this is adopted, it is iny recommendation that the City take a hard line where the use of public funds is considered and require the developer to install signals where they are needed to support traffic generated by the development. This would include signals on existing highways occasioned by new streets created by a development. give the development of a draft public improvement policy top priority among the staff items in the Engineering Division. f plan to Hunter To Cook EXHIBIT "B" MEMORANDUM July 30, 1973 TO : City Manager FROM : Acting City Engineer SUBJECT: Traffic Signal - La Costa Avenue at El Camino Real There is a basic philosophical question that underlies the request of La Costa Land Company that the City (and County) construct a traffic control signal at the subject intersection. HOW TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS EVER GET BUILT? Other similar questions include: 1. What are reasonable requirements for new developments? 2. Should the general public help finance a portion of the costs of new development, if the general public will benefit in some way from the new improvements? 3. Should the developer help finance a portion of the costs of existing improvements if the developer's customers will benefit in some way from the existing improvements? (school, traffic circulation, sewer, water, park systems come to mind.) From the developers standpoint, he objects to an "add-on" or "hook up" charge based on anticipated increased use. From an existing citizen's viewpoint, he objects to the new developments that get a "free ride" on services that the existing citizen has paid in part for. If sewer plant capacity is available to a new developer because sewer bonds have been paid by the existing citizens, then those citizens feel that they have been required to pay more than their fair share based on usage. Taking a horseback look at traffic signals, the City has 9 signals in operation (and one to be constructed shortly). Roughly, 10 signals for 17,000 people, or one signal per 550 occupied dwelling units. The existing signals are paid for. La Costa's Master Plan is for approximately 12,000 units (say 11,000) plus a regional shopping center. One signal per 550 units would indicate that in the La Costa area there may be a need for about 20 signalized intersections. In fact, the Master Plan shows 12 locations where 4 lane and 6 lane streets intersect. There is no question that these intersections (along with at least 2 at the shopping center) will require signalization. While a "King Solomon" solution is not readily available to determine funding of these improvements, a long range solution may be some form of Traffic Circulation Assessment District whereby the City would participate to the extent that gas tax, sales tax and property tax were generated within the benefitting area. New legislation would be needed for such a system. EXHIBIT "C" I. _- City Manager Traffic Signal-La Costa Ave. & El Camino Real Page 2 In the owrld of 1973, however, the recently annexed La Costa area has contributed little to the gas tax coming to the City (distribution of funds is heavily weighted by population). do As a matter of fact, what with prior commitments (County cooperative project on El Camino Real, City agreement to share cost of Poinsettia bridge at AT&SF) coupled with the need for traffic circulation in other areas (Tamarack, Elm, Chestnut, Carlsbad Boulevard at Agua Hedionda bridge, and others) there are no funds available for City participation in the subject signal. I recommend that the City continue to require the developer to construct traffic signals as conditions of development as we have done with several other developers and as the County is now doing. TCF/de