HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-29; City Council; 7070; Reimbursement Agreement: Tamarack Ave--
REQUEST TO CONSIDER A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PORTIONS OF TAMARACK
\B# TITLE:
UTG..A&&L
JEPT. ENG AVENUE
I
;' _'
DEPT. HD.&$!&
CITY MGR.-
CITY AlTY
hl co m rl
w 0
.8 4J
B B
0 c,
2 0 F 0 a
z a 0 0
d
PA 1 h cir' )F CARLSBAD - AGEND, ALL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. If Council sees no case for reimbursement, instruct staff to file
the request.
2. If Council sees a case for reimbursement, direct staff to prepare
an agreement and give staff guidance as to the extent of the
reimbursement desi red.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Mr. Roy Ward is requesting a reimbursement in the amount of $981,966.87 for what he feels is oversizing of Tamarack Avenue.
The staff report attached details the request, the facts involved and staff recommendations .
A1 though the staff report gives several a1 ternatives for reimbursement, two important facts should be noted in considering them:
1. Full width improvements and land dedication of Tamarack Avenue concurrent with the first development were a requirement of the approved master pl an.
2. These full-width improvements are required by City Standards to handle the traffic that will be generated by the master plan area.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the Council creates a reimbursement agreement, landowners or developers
adjacent to Tamarack Avenue will be required to pay an amount (depending
on the scope of reimbursement) somewhere between $300,000 and $981,967.
Mr. Ward will receive these funds less administrative costs retained by
the City of approximately 5 - 10% of the reimbursement.
EXHIBITS :
A. Location Map B. Staff Report by City Engineer dated June 23, 1982 C. Letter from V'Frank Asaro dated May 7, 1982 with attachments
D. Excerpt from Title 20 of Carlsbad Municipal Code.
..
I
JUNE 23, 1982
TO : ASSISTANT SERVICES
FROM: City Engineer
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO CONSIDER A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR
PORTIONS OF TAMARACK AVENUE
The firm of Asaro, Gattis E Sullivan has requested--on behalf of Mr. Roy Ward--
a reimbursement for what they feel is oversizing of Tamarack Avenue east of
El Camino Real. Their case may be briefly summarized as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A full-width right-of-way was acquired and a full-width street constructed
at a cost to Mr. Ward of $1,742,787.87, per their cost sheet.
The conditions of the subdivision (CT76-12) required only a half-width
dedication of right-of-way and street construction which would have
cost $761,221 .OO, according to their estimate.
The half-width street would have been adequate to serve not only the
subdivision, but also the entire traffic demand of the master plan area,
according to a trafflc study prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc.
The Subdivision Map Act provides that the subdivider shall be reimbursed
for improvements in excess of those necessary to serve the 'I. . . subdivision only. . . I1
A reimbursement in the amount of $981,966.87 is requested for the over-
sizing.
Staff has carefully reviewed the request.
considered when reviewing the request:
The following key facts should be
1. Full-width dedication of right-of-way and street construction were a
requirement of the Master Plan approved in 1974 and not just the
subdivision.
2. The Final Environmental Impact Report certified with a revision to the
Master Plan in 1978 noted that the developer proposed to construct
Tamarack Avenue full-width and this construction, therefore, is a
mitigation measure to reduce the impacts of the master plan area.
Although the conditions of improvement for the subdivision (CT76-12)
call for half-street improvements for most of Tamarack Avenue, full-
street improvements were required from El Camino Real to La Portalada
Drive and full-width dedication was required.
3.
4. Mr. Ward chose to construct full-width improvements and did not request
any reimbursement; a. at the time of master plan approval, b. at the
time of tentative map approval or, c. at the time of construction.
5. Mr. Ward's engineer has calculated the ultimate traffic from the master
plan area on Tamarack Avenue to be 10,564 daily trips--very close to
the 10,000 daily trips estimated in the final EIR.
' EXHIBIT 6
,.-
Page -2-
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
June 23, 1982
Two initial conclusions can be drawn from the facts presented above: First,
the City is under no obligation to reimburse Mr. Ward and the Council may
rightfully consider no reimbursement. Second, the City may impose reimbursement
for the part of the road that is larger than needed to serve the master plan
a rea.
If the Council sees no case for reimbursement, the discussion may end here and
the matter be filed. If the Council wishes to consider reimbursement, further
issues need to be presented.
With regard to oversizing for the,master plan area, Mr. Ward's engineer gives
calculations (which have not been checked in detail) to show that a half-street
could handle all the traffic generated by the master plan. Assuming the
calculations are correct, the level of service provided (high level of congestion)
is unacceptable to staff. Further, street width requirements in Carlsbad are
not determined by calculating the capacity, but by City Standards adopted by
the City Councll . These standards requi re that a secondary arterial (84-foot
rlght-of-way and 64-foot paved section) be provided when traffic volumes are
between 5,000 and 20,000 trips per day.
Tamarack Avenue is not larger than is required to serve the master plan area.
Therefore, according to City Standards,
It is legally questionable whether the City can reimburse Mr. Ward for any over-
sizing with regard to the subdivision if the Council finds that the street is
needed to serve the master plan area. If Council finds that the street is over-
sized, reimbursement may be considered. Although, it has generally been City
policy with regard to streets that the first developer in must pay for the
needed streets, the Code provides for reimbursement for oversizing in connection with a subdivision. Tamarack Avenue was required as a condition of a Master Plan.
Chapter 20.16.041 of the Code provides that a subdivider may be required to
provide improvements with supplemental size and states: "However, when such
supplemental size, capacity or number 2 solely for the benefit of property not within the subdivision, the City shalt enter into an agreement with the subdi- vider to reimburse the subdivider for that portion of the costs of such improve- ments equal to the difference between the mount it would have cost the subdivider to CnstaZZ such improvements to servile subdivision only and the actual cost of such <mprovemen.ts pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act."
Also, the Council provided in the approval of Specific Plan 180A and CT81-10
(Carlsbad Research Center) with regard to a portion of College Boulevard: "The devetoper. . , may request in writing that the City take advantage of the provisions for reimbwsement for major thoroughfares pwsuant to the Subdivision Map Act. The City will use its best efforts to obtain reimbursement for the devetoper. . ." This condition applies to constructing a full-width street
instead of a half-width street.
Page -3-
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
June 23, 1982
Three points should be made regarding the application of this Code section to
the Carlsbad Research Center.
1. The reimbursement is in conjunction with a subdivision, not a master plan.
2. Council determined that a half street was sufficient to serve the
subdivision.
3. The request to consider reimbursement was made as part of the approval
of the subdivision.
Staff requests direction from Council on the scope of reimbursement to be pursued
should they wish to proceed with reimbursement.
available:
There are several alternatives
1. Grant Mr. Ward his request as presented.
2. Grant reimbursement based on the difference between full and half-street
from El Camino Real to the end and including both right-of-way acquisition
costs and improvement costs.
3. Grant reimbursement based on the difference between full and half street
from La Portalada Drive to the east end including street improvement
costs only in reimbursement.
Alternative 1. above is not recommended because Mr. Ward has included many items
in his request (for example: manholes, terrace drains, access road to sewer
plant, landscaping. . .)'that have no relation whatever with the street. His
list is basically a summary of total costs. In order for staff to check the
figures and verify the actual expense, we would require from Mr. Ward a detailed
breakdown of costs including the unit costs used and a copy of all receipts for
payment for these costs.
Alternative 2. is not consistent with the condition of the subdivision which
required full-street improvements from El Camino Real to La Portalada Drive for
traffic safety and also required that the right-of-way be dedicated in full.
Realistically, there are always items required in building a half street that
make it cost more than one-half the full-street costs. Therefore, it should be
expected that the reimbursement amount for this alternative would be less than
half a full-street requirement.
Alternatlve 3. would be consistent with what was oversized relative to the
subdivision requirements. Only the street construction costs from La Portalada
Drive to the east end would be considered. No right-of-way costs would,be
reimbursible. Under this alternative; the reimbursement amount would be very
roughly in the neighborhood of $300,000.
Page -4-
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
June 23, 1982
Staff estimates that we could prepare the cost estimates and determine a
reasonable reimbursement amount within two weeks from the time we obtain
detailed costs from Mr. Ward. It should be noted that any money returned
to Mr. Ward would be less administrative costs incurred by the City. We
estimate this retention to be approximately 5 - 10% of the reimbursement
amount .
Any reimbursement granted would be paid by adjacent property owners.
Woodward Companies has just received a tentative map approval for a subdi-
vision on the north side of Tamarack Avenue. They have indicated a willing-
ness to pay a reimbursement not to exceed the cost of half-street improvements.
Mrs. Virginia Robertson, an adjacent property owner, has indicated through
her attorney, Mr, Henry Hague, that she will oppose any reimbursement. Her
view is that Mr. Ward would be taking from her what he was required to pay in
the first place.
The
SUMMARY :
1. The Council has no obligation to grant any reimbursement.
2. All improvements were required as condltions of the Master Plan.
3. No reimbursement was requested at the tlme the conditions were imposed.
4, Reimbursement will be opposed by adjacent property owners.
5. If reimbursement is granted, staff recommends Alternative 3. Staff
also recommends Mr, Ward be required to furnish information needed by
staff and staff be directed to determine the reimbursement amount.
RHA : mmt
Attachment: Chyanological Summary
InilARACK AVENUE REQUIREMENTS AND ACTIONS
May 7, 1974 Council adopted Resolution No. 3407 approving master plan MP-150 (Lake Calavera Hills) containing the condition: the developer shaZZ constrmct at his expense the extension of Kelly Drive or Tammack Avenue from El Camino Real to the subject property in a manner accept-
ab2e to the City Engineer.
ffAs part of the first phase of construction,
August 4, 1977 Counci 1 adopted Resolution 5145 approving tentative map CT76-12 (142 lots) containing a condition requiring the dedication of Tamarack Avenue 84 feet wide and the improve- ment based on 42 feet wide.
September 19, 1978 Final Environmental Impact Report No. 403 for the Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan notes that "The applicant has proposed the off-site construction of Tamarack Avenue to connect E2 Canrino Real with the project site." The report also estimates the project - generated traffic on Tamarack Avenue to be 10,000 vehicles per day. with a right-of-way width of 84 feet would be required to handle that volume according to City Standards.)
~ ~ ~__ ~ -~ ~-
(A secondary arterial
October 12, 1978 Planning Commission minutes indicate that "full improvement of Elm and Tamarack. . . with Phase I." Roy Ward requests the following condition: (from the County) to approve and maintain the improvements' of Tammack Avenue between El Camino Real and the project site.
"The City shaZZ seek the authority
There is no record of Mr, Ward objecting to full improve- ments or requesting reimbursement.
Fiovember 14, 1978 Staff memo recommends full street improvements to be done by the subdivider when the first development that will use the street is constructed.
May 18, 1981 Roy Ward requests the City set up a reimbursement agreement for Tamarack Avenue.
July 27, 1981 The City Manager responds to the request that Mr. Ward: 1. provide evidence that the improvements are in excess of the developer's need; and 2. provide data to show what the actual cost of Tamarack Avenue is and what the cost of any oversizing is.
May 7, 1982 A request for reimbursement is sent to the City by the law firm of Asaro, Gattis 81 Sullivan which includes traffic and cost data.
V'FRANK ASARO
RICHARD E. QATTlS
VINCENT E. SULLIVAN
H. ROBERT RElN6CHRElEER
JAMES A. MANGIONE
DCNOTC8 A CROCCS8IONAL COBCORATION
-
LAW owiccm
ASARO, GATTIS & SULLIVAN
AN ASSOCIATION INCLUDINO PROCCSSIONAL CORPORATIONS
41s SROOKES AVENUE
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 02103 -
AREA CODE 714
P-5-0101 OR 235-4500
Hay 7, 1982
Office of the City Manager City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Frank Aleshire
Re: Pending Request for Tamarack Ave. Reimbursement
Gentlemen:
We are assisting Lake Calavera Hills Associates and Mr. Roy Ward in connection with the further processing of their pending request for reimbursement for the oversizing of Tamarack Avenue. For easy reference, we are appending a copy of Mr. Aleshire's letter of July 27, 1981, together with a copy of Mr. Ward's letter of March 16, 1982.
Pursuant to your suggestion that traffic engineering data be submitted, we are appending hereto a copy of the report, dated April 28, 1982, by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc., engineering and planning specialists in the field of transportation and traffic. Also, pursuant to your suggestion that costs be submitted, we are attaching a cost sheet for Tamarack Avenue offsite, as built (84 feet of right of way with 62 feet paved width). The as built costs are in the amount of $1,354,457.19, together with land condemnation award costs of $335,000.00 and severance award of $4,500, plus condeinnation legal expenses
of an additional $48,834.68, or a total of $1,742,787.87.
Because of ongoing condemnation proceedings and the continuing construction of Tamarack Avenue, offsite, it has only been
within the past few months with the conclusion of the condem- nation proceedings and the completion of Tamarack Avenue, and the awaiting of final costs and other bills and statements,
together with the Report of Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc., that we have been able to accumulate these actual costs and data.
EXHIBIT C
P Office of the City Manager
Page Two May 7, 1982
In addition, we are attaching the cost estimate sheet of Tamarack Avenue, as originally contemplated, with a reduced
width of 32' paving on a right of way of 42'. This shows that the original contemplated cost was $557,243.50, plus a con-
demnation award estimate of $167,750 (Fifty percent of the full width right of way condemnation award), and attorneys'
fees for same in the amount of $36,228.00 (3/4ths of attorneys' fees necessary for the entire condemnation), aggregating a
total of $761,221.00.
The report of Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. reveals that the originally contemplated 32' paved roadway would have adequately
served not only tentative map CT76-12 of 138 units (the only
subdivision presently existing within said Calavera Hills
master plan), but it would have been adequate to serve the
build-out of the entire Calavera Hills master plan of 3,452 dwelling units. Thus, everything in excess of a 32' wide paved
road or a 42' right of way is an oversizing.
The difference in cost to the developer by reason of the
oversizing is $981,966.87. Request for reimbursement in that amount is hereby made. owners who will make use of Tamarack Avenue for future develop- ments are presently requesting annexation to the City of Carlsbad.
What conditions, if any, the City of Carlsbad will impose in connection with the annexation issue may be influenced by this request for reimbursement,
Me understand that certain property
When analyzing the Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. report, it should
be noted that four alternatives of traffic demands for Tamarack Avenue were addressed. They are:
(1) 138 single family dwelling units, tentative
(2) 500 units (250 single; 250 multi-family),
Map CT76-12 "The Subdivision Only";
as limited without access from Elm or College
Avenues, which occurrence is not presently existent;
(3) 2,704 units (1,758 single; 1,172 multi-family) so limited pursuant to sewage agreement with the City of Carlsbad;
(4) 3,452 units (2,072 single; 1,308 multi-family)
as per master plan.
As is shown by the Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. report, a 32' wide paved Tamarack Avenue on a 42' right of way, rather than
,f-
c Office of the City Manager Page Three
May 7, 1982
a 62' paved roadway on an 84' right of way would have adequately
served any of the above alternatives. aware, Government Code Section 66486 provides that the subdivider shall be reimbursed for that portion of the cost of improvements
which exceeds that necessary to serve the "...subdivision only...". Thus, any sizing of Tamarack Avenue which exceeds that necessary to service 138 units, (the only presently approved subdivision within the master plan) would be reimbursable. In the present case, however, not only is Tamarack, as built, far greater in
size than necessary for alternative #1 (138 units), it is even twice as wide as is necessary for alternati-ve #4, which of
course, encompasses 3,452 units, the entire master plan for Calavera Hills.
Even so, as you may be
It is obvious that when approving the master plan, the City
was looking to the development of Tamarack Avenue as a future major thoroughfare in order to complete a traffic circulation pattern for the entire city region adjacent to the master plan
area. It was necessary, therefore, to require the developer to condemn a right of way approximately twice as wide as what would otherwise have been required. The developer, thus paid
$340,026, together with $48,830.68 condemnation legal expense,
to accomplish that requirement (we estimate that entire cost was about 50% more than what would have been otherwise necessary).
The paving of a width of 62' was required for the reasons that: the conditions of approval required utilities, drainage channels, 10-foot water main, two major sewer lines to be
placed within the 84' right of way. In addition, after approval of a normal residential section for the Tamarack roadbed per the tentative map, the City in the field increased the "R"
rating requirements to that of a major thoroughfare (but otherwise not necessary for the development's needs), and condition #37 of the City Council Ordinance No. 9517 approving
the Master Plan, required the developer to reimburse the City for all costs necessary to repair any structural damage to subgrade, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and/or pavements within the right of way or associate drainage easement, to serve an
area much greater than "subdivision only."
On behalf of my client, we certainly appreciate your careful consideration of this request. If there are any questions,. please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours ,
ASARO, GATTIS & SULLIVAN
V'FRANK ASARO
VFA/dbm Enclosures
July 27, 1981
Roy Ward Lake Calavera Hills
1207 Elm Avenue,'Suite D
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
5 E LEPHONE: pin) 433.5551
. TWARACK REIMBURSEMENT
4
On May 18, 1981 you requestGd the city to set up a reimbursement
agreement for the cost of right-of-way and improvements in Tamarack
Avenue east of El Camino Real, The purpose of this letter is to
summarize the city staff posit&on.
Enclosed is a detailed memo prepared for me by the City Attorney which addresses the issues raised by you and covered in your
attorney's letter of May 28, The key points are these:
1, City and Government Codes do authorize the City
Council to form a reimbursement district,
.
2, The amount of the reimbursement is that cost in
excess of developer's need,
The requirements for the Calavera' Bills deveiopment were originally spelled out in Planning Commission
Resolution KO. 1050 and Council Resolution No. 3407
' which approved MP-150 for a 3,452 unit development on 808 acres. Tamarack Avenue was required to be
64 feet of pavement on 84 feet of right-of-way, The City Engineer found that 42 feet of pavement would be required for Phase I of the development,
**
3 ,
4, In order to grant reimbursement the City Council must determine:
a) that the knprovement is exceSs to developer's need;
b) what the actual cost of the excess improvement is.
At this time the staff does not have any evidence to justify
a reimbursement, Our assumption, based on the record, is that
42 feet of pavement on an 84 foot right of way is needed to serve
Calavera alone, The burden of proof is on you to show how the
road improvement exceeds your actual need.
March 16, 1982
Mr. Frank Aleshire City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Re: Pending request for Tamarack Avenue reimbursement.
Dear Frank:
Fol1owing up on our conversations of the past few months on the pending request for reimbursement for the oversjzing of Tamarack Avenue to conform with the City's circulation plan you will recall that you asked us for accurate costs and additional traffic data as soon as it was available.
'
(Your letter July 28, 1981).
Tamarack Avenue improvements are now completed and accurate costs are available including field charges required by the City.
The condemnation proceedin being carried forward for the right of way in the County area 9 Robertson property) by Calavera Hills on behalf of the City was finalized in February, 1982 and all the costs of that action are finalized.
The engineering firm of Basmaciyan-Darnel1 , Inc. is available to consult on traffic matters as appropriate.
I expect to have for you shortly the detail necessary to begin the process of the reimbursement consideration.
Very truly yours,
I General Partner
RJW/rh j
3088 Pi0 Pic0 Dr., Suite 201 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (714) 729-4912 LAKE CALAVERA HILLS 4321 Birch Street 0 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 (714) 549-2988
.- .
July 27, 19Gl .
Roy Ward
Page 2
I would suggest that you submit traffic engineering data to show what your actual need is in' terms of street improvements,
In addition, we need to know the actual cost of Tamarack im-
provement.
the traffic data if you wish,
The City Engineer can assist you in developing
-1f you will send me that information, I will place it before
the Council for action.
Please call if you have any questions.
FRANK ALESHIRE city Manager
FA: gb
I
..
.
' k I' ..
4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1
April 28, 1982
I*
ljllSMAClYAN-DARNELL, IAC.
Newport Beach, California 92660 (71 4) 549-9940
Mr. V. Frank Asaro Asaro and Associates 411 Brookes Avenue San Diego, California
Dear Mr. Asaro:
In accordance with your authorization Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc.
has prepared this traffic analysis to assist you in documenting Calavera Hills actual need for the Tamarack Avenue improvements required and constructed as part of Tentative Map (CT 76-12). Our understanding is that you are requesting that we review the various conditions of approval for this development, estimate project-related traffic from various development phases and determine the Tamarack Avenue roadway width needed to accommodate the development.
The following discusses PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC, ROADWAY CAPACITY and SIJMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC
Project Description
The Calavera Hills development is located in the southeasterly portion of the City of Carlsbad. showing the general location of the project site. HILLS MASTER PLAN approved by the City of Carlsbad on December 28,
1978 permitted a maximum of 3,452 dwelling units on 808 acres. Then on January 14, 1980 a sewage agreement between the City of Carlsbad and Lake Calavera Hills restricted the project to a maximum of 2,704 dwelling units.
Figure 1 is a vicinity map
The CALAVERA
The conditions of approval' of the Calavera Hills Master Plan approved by Council Resolution No. 3407 stipulates that as part of
the first phase of construction, the developer shall construct
Kelly Drive of Tamarack Avenue from El Camino Real. In addition to this condition the development is limited to a maximum of 500 dwelling units taking access via Tamarack without another access
being constructed.
Mr, V. Frank Asaro April 28, 1982
Page Two
For purposes of this analysis we have identified four levels of development for Calavera Hills to be analyzed. These alternatives
range from the initial development of 138 single family dwelling units to full development of the 3,452 dwelling units contained in
the Calavera Hills Master Plan. A description of the four develop- ment alternatives follows:
Development Alternative 1 - This alternative represents the existing 138 single family dwelling units constructed off Tamarack Avenue conforming to Tentative Map (CT 76-12).
Development Alternative 2 - This alternative represents the development of 500 dwelling units taking access from
Tamarack Avenue or a combination of Tamarack Avenue and Elm Avenue. A review of the approved Master Plan indicates
that a mix of single family and multi-family residential development could occur, Therefore we have assumed that
the 500 dwelling units consists of 250 single family and
250 multi-family dwelling units.
Development Alternative 3 - This alternative consists of
build out of the Calavera Hills Master Plan to a maximum of 2,704 dwelling units per sewage agreement with the
City of Carlsbad. To assess traffic impacts properly
we have estimated 1,758 single family dwelling units and
1172 multi-family dwelling units will be constructed.
Development Alternative 4 - Similar to Alternative 3, however the build out of Calavera Hills Master Plan at 3,452 dwelling units is expected, The composition of development is estimated at 2,072 single family and 1,308 multi-family dwelling units.
Each of these alternatives will be addressed in the following
sections of this report.
Trip Generation
Trip making characteristics of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area has been estimated using trip generation data from San Diego Traffic Generators published by the San Diego Association-of Governments and Trip Generation An Informational Report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. we have established two single family categories. The categories are single family detached and multi-family, category includes condominiums, townhomes, cluster homes and apartments.
in this analysis.
For purposes of this analysis
The multi-family
Table 1 summarizes the trip generation rates utilized
Mr. V. Frank Asaso
April 28, 1982 Page Three
Table 1
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Land Use
Average Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Traffic (AWDT) % of AWDT % of AWDT
Single Family Detached 10.0 T.E./D.U. 9.0% 10.0%
Multi-Family 8.0 T.E./D.U. 7.6%
T.E. = Trip Ends
D.U. = Dwelling Units
Source: San Diego Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers
9.6%
Apply the trip generation rates listed in Table 1 to the four Development Alternatives provides an estimate of traffic generated to/from the project site. in Table 2.
The results of this analysis is depicted
I
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip making to and from the project site is a function of the spatial orientation of trip making and the road system serving the development, Figures 2 thru 5 depicted the roadway network anti- cipated for Development Alternatives 1 thru 4 respectively. Also
shown on these figures is the expected trip distribution chara- cteristics for each alternative. Application of the trip distri- bution characteristics to the anticipated trip.making results in
an estimate of the Calavera Hills traffic expected to result for
the particular development assumption.
analysis are also depicted on Figures 2 thru 4.
The impact of project-related traffic on Tamarack Avenue east of Sierra Korena can be identified by reviewing Figures 2 thru 4 for
each development alternative.
Calavera Hills traffic on this portion of Tamarack Avenue. ,A review of Table 3 shows that Alternative 1 has the least amount
of daily traffic. Alternatives 3 and 4 reach 9,784 and 10,564 daily vehicles respectively.
The results of these
Table 3 provides a summary of
Alternative 2 is 4,500 vehicles per day and
000 000 InOlo
cv(u-=r 5-h
Mr. V. Frank Asaro
April 28, 1982
Page Four
UJ a c w
fv
0 d A m E-r
0 m m
rl
-
"I "I
h 43.1
k a, c, Pi 4
.4J
.
,.
rc4 .. Mr. V. Frank Asarc
April 28, 1982
Page Five
The project-related traffic summarized in Table 3 provide the basis for calculating the roadway needs to accommodate these demands. . _--
Table 3
SUMMARY OF LAKE CALAVERA HILLS
TRAFFIC ON TAMARACK AVENUE
EASTERLY OF SIERRA MORENA
LAKE CALAVERA HILLS
TRAFFIC ON TAMARACK
(2-WAY VEHICLE TRIP ENDS)
Developnent Alternative 1
Development Aqternative I 2
Development Alternative 3
Development Alternative 4
Daily
1,380
4,500
9,784
'10,564
AM -
124
377
803
931
PM -
138
442
930
1,077
Tamarack Avenge Roadway Capacity
To determi.ne the Tamarack Avenue roadway width needed to accommodate
Calavera Hills development we calculated the roadway capacity based on the following conditions:
Eighty-four foot street section improved with a forty- two foot half street section. This provides 32 feet of
pavinc; and an improvement parkway. it is assumed that the roadway section adjacent to the centerline is graded and no obstructions are within 6 feet
of the edge of pavement.
For this alternative
I
i
Mr. V. Frank Asaro April 28, 1982 Page 'Six
The capacity of the roadway can be calculated utilizing the methods contained in the Highway Research Board Special Report 87, Highway Capacity Manual 1965 published by the National
Academcy of Sciences.
Based on these calculations, we have concluded that the 42 foot half width roadway can accommodate 1,286 vehicles per hour at Level of Service D operating condtions. A copy of the capacity calculations and a description of Level of Service is contained
in Attachment A.
The ability of Tamarack Avenue to accommodate Calavera Hills traffic loads can be examined by comparing the AM and PM peak hour traffic load for each Development Alternative to the available capacity.
The results of this analysis is contained in Table 4.
Table 4
COMPARISON OF TAMARACK HALF-WIDTH ROADWAY CAPACITY TO PROJECT RELATED DEMANDS
Calavera Hills Project- Related Two-way Traffic Development on Tamarack Avenue east Alternative on Sierra Morena
1
2
3
4
A rev
AM
II
PM
124 138
377 442
803 930
931 1,077
(a) LOS "D" Capacity
Tamarack Avenue Two-way Roadway Capacity (a)
1,286
ew of Table 4 shows that a 42 foot wide .,alf width Tamarack
Avenue roadway can accommodate each of the development alterna-
tives without exceeding the available Level of Service D capacity.
I
,-
Mr. V. Frank Asaro April 28, 1982 Page Seven
.? i
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.AND CONCLUSIONS
- The development of Calavera Hills Master Plan is expected to generate daily vehicle trip ends for Development Alternative A, 1,380, 4,500, 9,784, 10,564 daily vehicle
strip ends respectively for Development Alternatives C thru D.
- Development Alternatives 1. and 2 represent a portion of Phase 1 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan and Alternatives
3 and 4 represent two build out conditions corresponding to Master Plan approvals and subsequent agreements with the City of Carlsbad.
- Condition 6 of Tentative Map (CT 76-12) requiring Tamarack Avenue to be constructed as a half width roadway (42 feet)
with a 32 foot roadbed can accommodate the initial phases of development as well as ultimate build out of Calavera Hills and the remaining roadways within the project.
- The two way capacity of a half width'Tamarack roadway is 1286 vehicles per hour.
I trust the information contained in this report will assist you in securing a reimbursement agreement from the City of Carlsbad.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INCc
Bill E. Darnell, P.E.
ddf
I
BASMACIYAN-DARN ELL, INC.
4262 Campus Drive, Suite 8-1
Newport Beach. California 92660
(714) 549-9940
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
i
*r 0 e Y
N
2 3 u H Erc
U b !
m
2 3 W H 14
W Q a 1
N N \ h h \ x X
I.
5. n - 5AsMAClYAN - DARNELL, INC. *.
C
c
s\/
c .--
e -
d
c
sv =
sv =
. ._ . .. %. LAKE CALAVERA HILLS ASWATES - .TAMARACK NE. CONSTRUC, AND CONDEMNATION COSTS g Verifiable by Contract, Invoice and Payments --
3
-TOTAL ......... -.
-
TAMARACK AVENUE
Cas s Cons t ruc ti on Access Road to S.P.
Traffic Signal -.
j 'i. !1
1
2
3
I
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
za
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
38
39
40
33 2j82 15 I I
36 1 :lo
- . .1 bo 0 io0
I.; ! 1 .1.7;1 93. 92
Ii
Manholes .... ___.
4 -- - -__ _- I-___- - --- Storm ._ Drain
Terrace Drain ,
I t-- Extras (1) - ____
Extras (2) ____________- .. -
...
...
- - __ __ _i-_ I Palomar Grading -& Paving ___ I .
Road Section
.......... - ........ ___ ... - ...... - __ .. Padi fic Engineers .... .... _*__.
Street lights (55) . - - - -_ _ - -
- - -. . - -- - -_ - - -. - _
H. & D. Construction
Curbs, Gutters & Sidewalks- __ __ I 68j819p30
. __ __ . I ____ __.____- Plan Check, City Inspection
. -. -. ..
... _.
...
.. ~
. .~ .
....
Irvine Soils ... -. .... - .. - . - - ............. ....... - ___
.. ...... __ __
Raising line
.... .......
-I_- - --.______ i -*- __I----__
.. * a, LAKE CALAVERA HILLS ASWUATES ,---%
Q
t
3
.w
2 2. 3 d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
I
TAMARACK AVE. CONSTRUC.- AND CONDEMNATION COSTS
_____.- Verifiable bv Contract, Invoice and Pavments ' _IIF=.T--__ - 1
... .... -.. . __ .. ........... . __ .. -
M. McDowell , Grading -
City Road Signs, Striping - Traffic light
Landscape
'L
- -t 1' Bonds/Fees - - .--
I
I Water System __ -_._
I t- -- Trees , etc,- ._ - __ - -- - --. - .. Construction Specialists __ -_ ;
Guard rail _- - - __r i !
1 Pay r ol 7 /E ng i neer i ng / I n
A1 location (W.W.T. &
Construction Interest (thru
+-- Subtotal Direct Const.. -Costs
I I- Administration 115%) -. _A
..... -. . ..... .- .... ...
. - ....... -. ......... -. .. ___ ...
.- .... -. ..... .....
I .- Total Construction I lI Condemnation (R.O.W.)
Land (Court Settlement) - . - . - __ - Severance Payment
Sanlo Aerial Photo .. - 1 11 Legal Fees - - __ - --- . -
li
....... . 4 ... /I Total AI 1 Costs- Tamarack Avenue t
'4 . ..... . ................ _____.__-____I_._. -+
Page 2
>' .
1
i-l
I_ s a.
-,
:0.16,041--20.16.043 +,
C’
I (;
[€%CERPT FROM TlTLE 20 OF CITY CODE J
20.16.041 Supplemental improvements--Required. (a) The
subdivider may be required to install improvements for the benefit of the subdivision which may contain supplemental size,
capacity or number for the benefit of property not within the subdivision as a condition precedent to the approval of a sub- division or parcel map and thereafter to dedicate such improve- ments to the public. However, when such supplemental size,
capacity or number is solely for the benefit of property not within the subdivision, the city shall enter into an agreement
with the subdivider to reimburse the subdivider for that portion of the cost of such improvements equal to the difference between the amount it would have cost the subdivider to install such improvements to serve the subdivision only and the actual cost of such improvements pursuant to the provisions of the Sub- division Map Act. The city council shall determine the method for pay-
ment of the costs required by a reimbursement agreement which may include but is not limited to the establishment and main- tenance of local benefit districts for the levy collection of such charge or costs from the property benefited, (Ord.
9521 §14(part) , 1979).
(b)
20.16.042 SupplemPntal improvements--Reimbursement agreement--Funding procedures. (a) No charge, area of benefit or local benefit district shall be established unless and until a public hearing is held thereon by the city council and the
city council finds that the fee or charge and the area of bene- fit or local benefit district is reasonably related to the cost
of such supplemental improvements and the actual ultimate beneficiaries thereof. In addition to the notice required by Section 66451.3 of the Government Code, written notice of the hearing shall be
given to the subdivider and to those who own property within the proposed area of benefit as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll, and the potential users of the supplemental
improvements insofar as they can be ascertained at the time.
Such notices shall be mailed by the city clerk at least ten days prior to the date established for the hearing.
9521 514 (part), 1979).
(b)
(Ord.
20.16.043 Supplemental improvements--Drainage, sewerage, bridges and major thoroughfares. local drainage or sanitary sewer plan or map as required for
If the city has adopted a
the imposition of fees therefor, or has established an area
of benefit for bridges or major thoroughfares as provided in Chapter 20.08 of this title, the city may impose a reasonable
charge on property within the area benefited and may provide for the collection of said charge as set forth in Chapter 20;08
or Chapter 20.09. The city may enter into reimbursement agree- ments with a subdivider who constructs said facilities, bridges or thoroughfares and the charges collected by the city therefor
may be utilized to reimburse the subdivider. 1981; Ord. 9521 514(part), 1979). (Ord. 9602 S14,
336-1 (Carlsbad 12/81) EXHIBIT D