HomeMy WebLinkAbout78-101 - Amendment to Specific Plan SP-78-02, Implementation of Street "A"RESOLUTION NO. 78-101
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT
TO SPECIFIC PLAN SP -78-02 FOR IMPLEMENTATION
TECHNIQUES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET "A",
EXTENSION OF RANDOLPH AVENUE BETWEEN BAKER
STREET AND PAULARINO AVENUE.
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Costa Mesa City Council
an amendment to Specific Plan SP -78-02 to consider alternatives and
implementation techniques for the construction of Street "A", extension
of Randolph Avenue between Baker Street and Paularino Avenue, as shown
in Option III of the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission has referred said
amendment to the Specific Plan to the City Council with no recommenda-
tion; and
WHEREAS, public hearing on the adoption of said amendment to the
Specific Plan has been duly held and conducted by the Costa Mesa City
Council on the 18th day of September, 1978; and
WHEREAS, this City Council, after hearing all the evidence, deems
it to be in the best interest of the City that said amendment to the
Specific Plan be approved, ratified, and adopted as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Costa Mesa that said Specific Plan SP -78-02 is amended by the adoption
of Implementation Alternative 5, City construction of street in ex-
change for voluntary dedication, all as shown in the document entitled
Implementation Plan and Precise Alignment, SP -78-02, June, 1978.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of September, 1978.
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Cos Mesa Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and
foregoing Resolution No. 78-101 was duly and regularly passed and
adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on
the 18th day of September, 1978.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 19th day of September, 1978.
City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of e
City Council of the City of Costa sa
2!
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 78-101
Page 1
22
SP -78-02
IMPLEMUnATION PIAN AND PRECISE ALIGWENP
I. RNPRODUMON
Specific Plan SP -78-02 was prepared by the City of Costa Mesa Planning
Department at the direction of the City Council. The primary purpose
of this Plan was to formalize a set of lard use policies to guide the
future development of approximately 18 acres of land located between
Baker Street and Paularino Avenue and Bristol Street and Jeffrey Drive
(Map 1). Such policies were developed to meet the specific development
concerns (traffic volumes on Baker Street and multiple ownership of re-
latively deep parcels) of this area. The policies recommended for adop-
tion included additional site development standards, zoning incentives
and circulation alternatives. One of the major policies which was adopted
related to the need to construct an additional through street to connect
Paularino Avenue and Baker Street. The focus of this plan will be to
review various mechanisms available to effectuate the construction of
this street.
On June 5, 1978, the City Council adopted Specific Plan SP -78-02 with
modifications. These modifications deleted references of the R9 and
PDR -HD zones as density incentives. On a second motion, the Council
also directed the Public Services and Planning Departments to initiate
processing of a precise alignment to Street A. This Implementation Plan r
will be presented as an amendment to SP -78-02 and will be processed con-
currently with the precise alignment plan for the through street.
II. PRECISE ALIGN1ENf
The precise alignment for Street A prepared by the Department of Engin
eering Services is illustrated on Map 2. Under this plan, Randolph
Avenue would be extended in a northerly direction from Baker Street for
a distance of approximately 360 feet. Once it reaches the rear property
line of the Baker Street parcels, the roadway curves in a westerly direc-
tion
irertion (using the property lines as the centerline of the street) for approxi-
mately 560 feet. At the rear of Fire Station 2, the roadway curves
north to intersect with Paularino Avenue at Platte Drive. Approximately
69,000 square feet of right-of-way will be required to construct the
street as proposed.
Because of the largely underdeveloped nature of the study area, the pro-
posed alignmentwillonly adversely impact the current use of one parcel.
As noted on Map 3, the alignment requires the removal of the structures
occupied by a restaurant, fabric shop, contractor's office and carpet
shop located at 750 Baker Street. Minor modifications to those areas
used for outdoor and nursery storage will also be required.
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 78-101
Page 2
i
i
i
732tNr7Y
ORlVE
Q
YeuoM.sJavE
oien�
nATTE
DONE
BPI
gt2uuE
W
CEN7Uar
P" Cz
USE
0
co
380. 33'
`
i72. So'
J
N
�°o
N
[tn
37Z. So'
I
o
372.So'
36 2. So'
�0
H
4
s
N
O
�-
379.5o'
372. So'
Zn
N
N !?
W
W
p
CO
372. So'
N
�y
36z. so'
04
Q
41
o
"
N
Z
3G2 so'
N
a j
372. So'
c
o
Lm
S
~
g
372. So'
372.S -o'
37q. So'
372 So'
`
O
zo 200
/Z
MAP
1
"7802
EXISTING ZONING
&
gt2uuE
W
CEN7Uar
P" Cz
USE
0
co
2
Q
Q
PLATTE
DOvE
I
I
I
I
u
2�oocpH
.iVEh'UE
CENRI,Ey
RLAC-
� 100 ?oo
n
SP -78-02
MAP 2
W
K
� W
U h O !cc IX 0 F
ex
h N G 0 C
i W ¢ ~
U Z p 4
IL e
®0000
Ja
Sp.78-02 MAP 3
0
Estimated construction costs of Street Aare approximately $183,000. This
estimate includes a 10% contingency ($16,500) and 5% miscellaneous costs
($8,000). In addition, sidewalks and driveway approaches will cost an
estimated $34,000. Land acquisition costs are estimated at $6 to $7
per square foot for a total of $370,000 to $430,000.
The Costs for the property owners could be increased through the use
of an assessment district (because of additional administrative, legal
and engineering costs) and decreased if portions of the right-of-way are
dedicated by the adjacent property owners.
III. IMPLF3M=ATION ALTERNATIVES
A variety of implementation techniques are presented in this section of
the plan. These alternatives can be grouped into two primary categories
based upon the specific vehicle used to fund the necessary improvements.
The first group relies on the use of an assessment district and various
improvement acts to acquire, construct and allocate the costs of this
project while the second group relies on a joint effort on behalf of
City and the affected property owners. Advantages and disadvantages of
each group are presented below.
A. ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
Several improvement and assessment district acts have been enacted by
the State Legislature which enable cities to acquire land, construct public
improvements, and provide funding for such projects. Two acts, The Im-
provement Act of 1911 and the Municipal Iirprovement Act of 1913, are
broad in scope and both have been used by the City for street purposes.
Also pertinent is the Street Opening Act of 1903 which is more limited
in its application. These acts, along with appropriate bond acts to
fund their implementation, are presented in the following subsections:
1. Improvement Act of 1911
This act is the more frequently used of the two improvement acts
discussed in this section. It permits the acquisition of property
and construction of improvements. This act has been employed in
Costa Mesa for land acquisition and street construction for both
Merrimac Way and Joann Street.
The first step in proceeding under the 1911 Act is the Council's
direction to the City Engineer to prepare construction plans, speci-
fications, and a detailed cost estimate. A substantial amount of this
work has already been completed. Council may then adopt a resolution
approving the plans and specifications and a resolution of intention
which describes the project, district, and bonding arrangements.
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 78-101
Page 6
27
A public bearing must then be held to Consider protests to the project.
If property owners of a majority of the land area in the district
protest, the Council may adopt a resolution overruling the protest
by a four/fifths vote. After a resolution ordering the work to be
done is adopted, the right-of-way is acquired, bids are invited and
a Contract is awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
A provision is made in the 1911 Act for the issuance of assessment
bonds. After the work is satisfactorily completed, an apportion-
ment of the Costs is prepared. A hearing is required so that dis-
satisfied property owners may protest the assessment on his property
or the method of apportionment. Council may make adjustments which
it feels are equitable. Bonds are then issued for all unpaid assess-
ments.
2. Municipal Improvement Act of 1913
The 1913 Act is unlike the 1911 Act in certain procedural aspects.
While the inprovements which can be done under the 1911 Act can also
be done with the 1913 Act, the specified acquisitions are more limited.
Thus costs relating to the relocation of businesses may not be author-
ized. Also, it does not contain its own provisions for funding. This
Act has been used in Costa Mesa to form drainage districts and can
also be used for providing streets. The Council initiates the pro-
ceedings by a Resolution of Intention which is similar to the reso-
lution for a 1911 Act project but requires an engineer's report.
Included in the engineer's report is an assessment roll based on an
estimate of costs. The project, its Cost, and the amounts of indiv-
idual assessments are considered at a public hearing at which City
Council may adjust the assessments. In order to avoid a situation
in which the actual costs do not coincide with the engineer's esti-
mate, Construction bids may be invited prior to the public hearing.
An adjusted assessment roll is then prepared to represent the amount
of the actual bids. After confirmation of the assessments, property
owners are given thirty (30) days to pay their portions. Bonds are
sold to represent all unpaid assessments. The contract for the work
is not awarded until the bonds are sold. Thus, unlike the 1911
Act, the property owners know, their assessments and are assessed for
this amount prior to construction.
The 1913 Act does not specify its own procedures for the issuance of
bonds. Thus, bonding may be handled under the procedures established
in the 1911 Act. An alternative would be to use the proceedings
specified in the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. The primary differ-
ence between the 1911 and 1915 Act procedures is that the 1915 Act
Bonds are issued against the district as a whole rather than the
individual properties. Also, bonds issued pursuant to the 1915 Act
may not bear interest in excess of 7 percent.
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 78-101
Page 7
2h
3. Street Opening Pct of 1903
The Street Opening Act of 1903 permits acquisition of land for street
purposes. It does not allow for construction costs. This Act is
infrequently used and has not been employed in Costa Mesa. Under
1903 Pct procedures, the amount of condemnation awards are offset
against the amount of assessment. Unpaid assessments are paid by the
issuance of bonds under the procedures of the 1911 Act.
The City could employ this act to acquire land for a pilot road
(to be discussed in a following Section). However, this acquisition
could be accomplished through the 1911 and 1913 Acts as well.
B. CITY/PROPERTY OWNER PARTICIPATION
Three alternativeswill bepresented below whichinvolve the participation
and coordination of the City and private development interests outside of
the legal framework of the improvement acts. Because of the wide range
in acquisition and construction responsibilities, the distribution of total
improvement costs will vary with each alternative. Where possible, the
distribution of private and public costs will be assessed.
4. "Pilot Road"
Under this alternative, the City would only acquire enough right-of-
way to construct an approximately 20 to 25 feet wide access road
along the proposed alignment. This would be a temporary road which
would require completion to City standards by adjacent developers.
By using this alternative, the costs to the City would be higher than
in other options since the City would assume financial responsibil-
ity for the pilot road. Actual right-of-way acquisition would be re-
duced from approximately 62,000 (7,000 square feet of fire station
property not included) to approximately 25,000 square feet. Construction
costs could be reduced depending upon the quality of roadbed provided
for the temporary access road.
A primary advantage of this alternative is that it provides for the
immediate use of Street A. Partial completion along the entire align-
ment allows individual developers to use the street while only being
responsible for the full improvement for their frontage. A disad-
vantage, however, stems from the possible piecemeal completion of
the full right-of-way.
5. Dedication
This alternative includes two possible arrangements regarding dedi-
cation and improvement responsibilities. First, the City could offer
the property owners the option of their dedication of the necessary
right-of-way in exchange for the City's construction of the street.
This approach would have advantages for property owners and the City.
The street could be constructed at one time, avoiding the piecemeal
approach. The property's value will increase since the street will
be totally improved. Under normal circumstances, a potential devel-
oper would be required to dedicate and improve the street. This
savings, coupled with possible density incentives, should theoreti-
cally increase property values.
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 78-101
Page 8
i
i
I
I
In addition, this approach would not require "out-of-pocket" expenses
for present property owners. If a property owner does not dedicate,
there are two options. First, when the property is developed, both
dedication and improvement will be required. Second, the City could
utilize the improvement act approach which could result in higher
costs tothe property wnerdue to extra legal and engineering costs.
In this instance, the City would not pay for street improvements.
The advantages to the City stem from the time savings and benefit of
completing the street at one time.
It is also suggested that the City consider R3 zoning for lot 2,
and for lots 15 and 16 (if combined), due to the greater impacts
of the street alignment on these parcels. Following is a compari-
son of the number of units which could be built on these parcels
given the two zoning alternatives.
R2 Zoning R3 Zoning
Lot Without Street With Street
2 26 units 28 units
15, 16 25 units 26 units
6. City Project
This alternative implementation scheme was presented in Specific Plan
SP -78-02. Conceptually, this alternative is similar to the use of
an improvement act without the actual formation of an assessment dis-
trict. Initially, the City would fund the necessary improvements and
right-of-way costs tobereimbursed try property owners as their parcels
are redeveloped. The costs of this alternative world be similar
to the estimate noted in Section II.
The advantages of this alternative (immediate construction of Street
A, elimination of assessment district burdens and even distribution
of costs)where identified in Section IV (B) of Specific Plan SP -78-02.
A disadvantage may become apparent if individual property owners chal-
lenge the acquisition of their property during the eminent domain
proceedings.
The method of assessing and collecting costs of the street were detailed
in Specific Plan SP -78-02 (Page 4).
IV. RECDWENDATICKS
Staff Recommends Implementation 5 (Dedication in exchange for City improve-
ment) and R3 zoning for Parcels 2, 16, and the residual of 15 if 15 and
16 are combined.
Exhibit for
Resolution No. 78-101
Page 9
2a