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