Lynne V. Villalobos District 11, SR-76 San Diego County Mike - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

lynne v villalobos
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Lynne V. Villalobos District 11, SR-76 San Diego County Mike - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Lynne V. Villalobos District 11, SR-76 San Diego County Mike Whiteside Assistant Chief Engineer Caltrans Project Location Project Location 2 Project Location 3 Project Background Nov 2010 Department contacted property owners Request


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Lynne V. Villalobos

District 11, SR-76 San Diego County

Mike Whiteside Assistant Chief Engineer Caltrans

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Project Location

Project Location

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Project Location

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Project Background

ROUTE 76

N

Nov 2010 Department contacted property owners Request permission to enter March 2011 Project team meets w/ Villalobos Discuss project:

  • Alternatives
  • Impacts
  • Acquisitions

Stated “no qualms” w/ project Sept 2011 Villalobos purchases subject parcel ESA Villalobos calls to request:

  • Realignment work take

place south of SR-76

  • No impacts to her

properties north of SR-76

Villalobos Residence & Properties North of SR-76 4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5 Villalobos Property

N

ESA

Project Background

ROUTE 76

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Purpose and Need

To reduce number & severity

  • f accidents on SR-76.

Summary of Accidents

1/1/05 to 12/31/09

35 total (over 4 x avg) 4 fatalities (over 19 x avg) 19 injuries Causes are speeding and failure to yield

Project Background

Alternatives

  • No Build
  • Realign & signalize
  • Realign & roundabout

Safety Project

7

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Recent research of roundabouts in the United States identified crash reductions of approximately 35.4% for all crashes and 75.8% for injury crashes when an intersection was converted from a signal or stop control to a roundabout.

Project Background

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program

8

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

N

Proposed Improvements

LEGEND

Proposed Right of Way Existing Right of Way

Project Impact

Villalobos Property

Signalize Alt.

ESA

Villalobos Residence & Properties North of SR-76

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Villalobos Property

9

N

Project Impact

Roundabout Alt.

ESA

Villalobos Residence & Properties North of SR-76

Proposed Improvements

LEGEND

Proposed Right of Way Existing Right of Way

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

N

Project Impact

Villalobos Property

ESA

Proposed Improvements

LEGEND

Proposed Right of Way Existing Right of Way

Roundabout Alt.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Related to the findings of the Commission:

11

Contacts w/ Owner:

  • Mail/Email 27
  • Phone

29

  • Meetings

11 Two issues outstanding besides compensation:

  • Use of roundabout
  • Need for parcel
slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

The property owner contends:

A roundabout is dangerous, useless, and wastes taxpayers money. A signalized intersection is better.

Department response:

Safety project Roundabouts reduce accident number & severity

  • 35.4% reduction all crashes
  • 75.8% reduction for injury crashes

Roundabout best meets purpose and need Cost difference ~11%

Related to the findings of the Commission: The project is planned and located in a manner most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

The property owner contends:

The Department’s project could be designed to avoid this parcel. Move the project west to avoid parcel

Department response:

Both alternatives require full acquisition Options west limited to by:

  • Environmentally Sensitive Area/cultural resources
  • Yuima Creek & Bridge

Other alternatives require 1-3 acres more property

Related to the findings of the Commission: That the property sought to be condemned is necessary for the project

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Related to the findings of the Commission:

An offer of just compensation has been made

Offer October 2015 Revised May 2016 Negotiations ongoing

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Summary

1.The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. 2.This project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. 3.The property sought to be condemned is necessary for the proposed project. 4.An offer of compensation has been made.

15