The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-02-19; City Council; 11041; FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FUNDING RANCHO DEL ORO/HIGHWAY 78 INTERCHANGEc t u !-l 0 a a, h a, 5 a a, rl *rl 4-1 4 d 2 'ti V 0 U 4 cn 1 cn 4 \ el .. 2 2 b 4 d " 5 0 " Glm UF CARLSBAP - AGENY BILL -/" . -I 'G AB# /!,@$I TITLE: DEPl C\TY CITY FEASIBTLIT-Y STUDY FOR FUNDING MTG. 2/19/91 I RANCHO DEL ORO/HIGIKWAY 78 INTERCHANGE DEPT. ENG:MP RECOMMENDED ACTION! File the report entitled "Feasibility Study for Funding Rancho Oro/Highway 78 Interchangeg1 dated December 31, 1990 , preparec NBS/Lowry . ITEM EXPLANATION: In 1984, the City Council adopted a revised Circulation Elemen the General Plan which added the Rancho del Oro interchang< Highway 78. One proviso stated by the Council at that time that no City funds would be used for the interchange. On October 13, 1987 at the request of a developer, Council appr a consultant agreement with NBS/Lowry to determine if an assess district to pay for the Rancho del Oro interchange was feasi The study, paid for by the developer, determined an area of ben and estimated the cost of the interchange and Rancho del Oro St to be $20,500,000. The study determined that an assess district was & feasible because the assessments required on small amount of undeveloped land would be very high, On October 9, 1990, the City Council approved an agreement NBS/Lowry to revise the existing Bridge and Thoroughfare Ben District. Included within the scope of work was the tasE prepare a feasibility study of a Bridge and Thoroughfare Dist for the Rancho del Oro/Highway 78 interchange. The feasibi study, which has now been completed, used a cost estimate for project of $25,900,000. This number was obtained from CALTR Project Study Report dated November 1990. The study found that, using SANDAG data, 64.3% of the trips from/to the City of Oceanside while only 35.7% of the trips from/to the City of Carlsbad. This information was used as a b for determining the percentage of the interchange cost tc included in the proposed Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee. In o words, only 35.7% of the cost of the interchange was use( estimating a potential Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee in Carlsba The feasibility study found that a Bridge and Thoroughfare Dist for the Rancho del Oro interchange was not feasible. Not only the estimated cost increased, but the undeveloped prop benefitted (Zone 25) is less, resulting in an excessively high The estimated fee per average daily trip for industrial commercial property would be $342 for the Rancho del interchange. By way of comparison, the fee for all t interchanges on Interstate 5 if calculated on the same basis w be only $61 per trip for industrial or commercial property. actual fee for the Interstate 5 interchanges is currently u review and will be different because financing and inflation c have not been considered in any of the above calculations. should also be noted that the City of Oceanside has takt I a * rc Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. /!,64/ position of having a minimal contribution to the Rancho del ( interchange. This is at odds with the SANDAG data showing tl Oceanside generates 64.3% of the traffic. Finally, it should also be pointed out that in 1989 when the SAN Highway 78 Corridor Technical Committee met to develop a projl list for Corridor funds, staff submitted the Rancho del interchange as a candidate project. It did not rate high enough receive any funding. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that Council not proceed with a Bridge Thoroughfare Fee. The issue will be further studied in conjunct with the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 25. EXHIBITS : 1. Location map. 2. Feasibility Study for Funding Rancho del Oro/Highway Interchange on file with the City Clerk. v L LOCATION MAP L AI- ww LEGEND .. il . . . . . . . f . .......... .. ....... .......... . . . . . . . . . .......... .......... ......... FUTURE CONSTRUTION . . . . . . . . . .......... I PROJECT NAME PROJECT+ E RANCHO DEL OROIHIGHWAY 78 INTERCHANGE a I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 CITY OF CARLBBAD FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FUNDING RANCHO DEL OR0 I HIGHWAY 78 INTERCHANGE December 31, 1990 NBS/Lowry Project No. A68-015.033 Prepared by: NBS/LOWRY INCORPORATED Engineers & Planners San Diego, California I I 1 I I II I V Method of Fee Apportionment .......... v I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER DESCRIPTION PAGE NO I Introduction and Background .......... I I1 Map of Exterior Boundaries of Benefitted Properties I1 I11 Estimate of Cost of Improvements ....... I11 .......... IV Financing Alternatives ............ IV VI Conclusions and Recommendations ........ VI i I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On October 11, 1990, the City of Carlsbad entered into an Agreeme with NBS/Lowry Incorporated to prepare a Feasibility Study for Bridge & Thoroughfare District to fund an interchange at Rancho I: Oro Drive and State Highway 78. Previously in 1988, an assessment district had been considered f this project. NBS/Lowry Incorporated prepared the Feasibili Study for the Proposed Assessment District. The analysis of tk study indicated that there was not sufficient land to be assess and that the assessments were unacceptably high. Furthermore, tF project did not rank high enough to receive any Highway 78 corric funds. Without a contribution from the Highway 78 Corridor Fur or from the city's of Oceanside or Carlsbad, the assessmc district did not appear to be feasible. In November of 1990 Caltrans prepared a project study report f the Rancho Del Oro Drive Interchange. This report identifies t recommended type of interchange and estimated costs for t interchange. These costs are shown in Chapter I11 and used as basis for this Feasibility Study. CHAPTER I - 1 I 1 i I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I i I CHAPTER I1 3 MAP OF EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES 1 OF BENEFITTED PROPERTIES According to the City of Carlsbad's Local Facility Manageme Plans, only Zone 25 will be required to participate in 1 construction of the Rancho Del Oro Drive Interchange with High1 78. A vicinity map of Zone 25 and the exterior boundaries for Z( 25 (shown as Exhibit rrA1l) are included herewith. CHAPTER I1 - 1 t 1 ls I l I I I I 1 I 1 B 1 1 I 1 1 I VICINITY HAP PROJECT LOCATION ..-..-... CHAPTER I1 - 2 I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 n 1 4z- I 1 I CHAPTER I1 - 3 m 1 1 CHAPTER I11 I ESTIMATE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENTS The following cost estimate for the Interchange improvements from the Project Study Report dated November, 1990 prepared by tl State of California, Department of Transportation (CALTRAN: District 11. INTERCHANGE ONLY (INCL. EAST BOUND AUX LANE): i. I I I I 1 E 1 1 B 1 I 1 I Construction $11.9 million ( R/W (Acquisition) 3.1 million ( Utility Relocation 1.8 million Engineering (Inc. R/W Overhead) 3.5 million Sub Total $20.3 million RANCHO DEL OR0 DRIVE FROM INTERCHANGE TO VISTA WAY: Construction $ 0.3 million R/W (Acquisition) 0.0 million ( Engineering 0.1 million Sub Total $ 0.4 million RANCHO DEL OR0 DRIVE FROM MARRON ROAD TO INTERCHANGE: Construction $ 4.2 million R/W (Acquisition) 0.0 million ( Engineering 1.0 million 1 Sub Total $ 5.2 million TOTAL PROJECT COST $25.9 million Notes: (1) Approximately $500,000 is included in the interchange construction cost as environmental mitigation for adapting replacement land into suitable wetland. Cost for the acquisition of 6.6 acres of replacement land required as mitigation for impacts to the wetland area located south of the freeway are included in the right of way costs for the Interchange. (3) R/W required for extensions of Rancho Del Oro will be (2) I dedicated. CHAPTER I11 - 1 31 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I t I I I The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has prepared map dated June 23, 1990 titled "Carlsbad Transportation Mode 2,010 Land Use Assumptions, With 2,010 Network Assumption Calibrated Trip Rates from SR78 Study''. This map shows the averac daily trips north and south of Highway 78 on Rancho Del Oro Dri- as follows: ADT on Rancho Del Oro Drive ADT south of Highway 78 north of Highway 78 41,800 trips 64.3% on Rancho Del Oro Road 23,200 trips 35.7% Total 65,000 100 % The above percentages maybe used as an indication of t contribution towards the cost of the Interchange by the city's Oceanside and Carlsbad. Oceanside would be responsible for 64. of the cost and Carlsbad would be responsible for 35.7% of t cost. Therefore, the resulting costs associated with each ci would be as follows: Oceanside Interchange Only $20.3 million X 64.3% = $13.05 milli Rancho Del Oro Drive 0.40 milli north from Interchange to Vista Way Sub Total $13.45 milli Carlsbad Interchange Only $20.3 million X 35.7% = $ 7.25 milli Rancho Del Oro Drive 5.20 milli I Sub total $12.45 milli Total Project Cost $25.9 milli south from Interchange to Marron Road CHAPTER I11 - 2 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I CHAPTER IV FINANCING ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives are available for financing this project including any one or a combination of the following fundir sources : Mello Roos Community Facilities District, Assessment District, Development Fees (such as Bridge and Thoroughfare District), and contributions from the State of California, other cities, gas tax or sales tax. CHAPTER IV - 1 I I I II I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I II I CHAPTER V METHOD OF FEE APPORTIONMENT Any of the financing alternatives mentioned in the previous chaptc could use a similar method of fee apportionment based on averac daily trips generated from the benefitted properties. Each type of development or land use will create a specific numb6 of !Itrip generations" in a given 24 hour day. The definition of trip is provided following the table shown below. Total tr: generations can be predicted based upon the city's Local Facilii Management Plan for Zone 25 or subsequent planning on benefittc properties in order to determine the ultimate developmenl Commercial uses often generate trips in conjunction with anothc trip and may be considered double counting. Therefore, tr. generations from land uses other than residential may be reduced. computing the fee for those land uses. However, for the purposc of this study, no residential use is anticipated and therefore q uses. Dividing the total daily trip generation into the dollars to 1 raised and needed for construction produces the fee per tr. generation to be collected. The fee for trip generation, i hereinafter established, for the various land uses shall be applic to the estimated week day vehicle trip generation rate i established in the following table: I is anticipated that all trips will be generated from commerci, Estimated Weekday Vehicle Land Use Trip Generation Rate Agriculture (Open Space) 2/acre Airports Come rc ia 1 12/acre, 100/flight General Aviation 4/acre, 2/flight, 6/based He 1 iports Car Wash 600/site Gasoline 750/station, 13O/pump Repair & Sales (Dealer) 60/1000 sq.ft., 400/acre, aircraft 10 0 /acre Automobile 60/service stall CHAPTER V - 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I i Estimated Weekday Vehicle Land Use Trip Generation Rate Banking Walk-in Bank 200/1000 sq.ft. Savings b Loan 60/1000 sq.ft. w /Drive-Thru 300 (150 one-way)/lane w/Drive-Thru 100 (50 one-way) /lane Cemeteries 5/acre Church (or Synagogue) 30/1000 sq.ft., 60/acre (triple rates for Sunday, or days of assembly) Commercial/Retail Centers Regional Shopping Center 50/1000 sq.ft., 500/acre (More than 30 acres, more than 300,000 sq.ft., w/ usually 2+ major stores) (10-30 acres, 100,000- 300,000 sq.ft. w/usually 1 major store and detached restaurant) (Less than 10 acres, less than 100,000 sq.ft. w/usually grocery store & drug store) (also strip commercial) Grocery Store 150/1000 sq.ft., 1500/acre Convenience Market 500/1000 sq.ft, Discount 40/1000 sq.ft. Furniture Store 6/1000 sq.ft., 100/acre Lumber/Hardware Store 30/1000 sq.ft., 300/acre Community Shopping Center 70/1000 sq.ft., 700/acre Neighborhood Shopping Center 120/1000 sq.ft., 1200/acre Commercial Shops 40/1000 sq.ft., 400/acre Education University (4 years) 2.5/studentf 100/acre Junior College (2 years) 1.5/studentf 80/acre High School 1.5/studentf 50/acre I Elementary/Junior High l.O/student, 30/acre Hospitals General 20/bed, 20/1000 sq.ft., 200/i Convalescent/Nursing 3 /bed Industrial Commercial Included/ Business Park 16/1000 sq.ft., 200/acre No Commercial IO/IOOO sq.ft., 12O/acre I Manufacturing 4/1000 sq.ft., 40/acre CHAPTER V - 2 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I Estimated Weekday Vehicle Land Use Trip Generation Rate Industrial (Continued) Warehousing 6/1000 sq.ft., 60/acre Storage 3/1000 sq.ft., 0.3/vault, Science Research & Development 8/1000 sq.ft., 80/acre Library 40/1000 sq.ft., 400/acre Lodging Hotel 50/acre I (w/convention facilities/ commercial) lO/room, 300/acre Motel lO/room, 200/acre Re sort Ho te 1 lO/room, 100/acre Military 2.5/military F, civilian Off ices personnel Standard Commercial Office 20/1000 sq.ft., 300/acre (less than 100,000 sq.ft.) Large (high-rise) Commercial Office (more than 100,000 sq.ft.1 17/1000 sq.ft., 600/acre Medical 90/1000 sq.ft., 800/acre City (developed) 50/acre Regional (undeveloped) 5/acre (double rates Neighborhood 5/acre for weekend) Amusement (Theme) 80/acre, 130/acre (summer Government (Civic Center) 30/1000 sq,ft. Parks only) Recreation Beach, Ocean or Bay 600/1000 fet. shoreline, 60/( Beach, Lake (fresh water) 50/1000 fet. shoreline, 5/ac Bowling Center 3 0 /lane Campground 6/campsite Golf Course 8/acre, 400/course Marinas $/berth Racquetball/Health Club 40/1000 sq.ft., 300/acre, Tennis Courts 30/court Sports Facilities 40 /court Outdoor Stadium 50/acre, 0.2/seat Indoor Arena 30/acre, O.l/seat Racetrack 40/acre, O.G/seat I Theaters (multiplex) 80/1000 sq.ft., 1.8/seat CHAPTER V - 3 I I I I I I I I I I I 1: I I 1 I 1 I Estimated Weekday Vehicle Land Use Trip Generation Rate Residential Single Family Detached lO/dwelling unit Condominium 8/dwelling unit Apartments 6/dwelling unit Mobile Home 5/dwelling unit Retirement Community 5/dwelling unit (average 4 DU/acre) (or any multifamily units less than 30 DU/acre) (or any multifamily units more than 30/DU/acre) I Rural Estate 15/dwelling unit Restaurants Quality 100/1000 sq.ft. Sit down, high turnover 300/1000 sq.ft. Fast Food (w/drive-thru) 600/1000 sq.ft. Bus Depot 25/1000 sq.ft. Truck Terminal 10/1000 sq.ft., 60/acre Transportation Facilities I1Trip1l means an arrival at or a departure from a project by a motor vehicle averaged over a one day period (12:Ol pm to 11:59 F as determined according to the table of trip generation sho above. In using this table, the square footage of the buildin structure or use shall include all interior floor area of building or a structure, and all usable ground area of a u without a structure, except any designated open space area. Whe the table establishes traffic generation for a project on the bas of square footage, acreage, or some other unit, the un a project has more than one use, the number of trips shall calculated by adding together all the trips generated by each us For uses not listed in the table, the trips shall be calculated the City Engineer. establishing the greatest number of trips shall be utilized. Wh CHAPTER V - 4 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I The total number of average daily trips generated by the benefitt properties are estimated as follows: I Weekday Total Developable Trips Averac Land Use Area (Ac.) per Acre Daily Trj Commercial 87.19 300 (1) 26 , 155 Industrial 85.18 Net 120(2) 10,222 Total 36,375 Notes: (1) The 300 trips per acre is estimated to be a weighted average of several land uses including commercial shops or strip commercial, standard commercial office and hotel. (2) The 120 trips per acre is estimated for industrial use with no commercial (see trip generation rate table I above) e The resultant proposed fee would then be as follows: $12.45 million + 36,379 trips = $342.23/daily trip The above fee does not include any financing costs or inflatj costs if the project is delayed. CHAPTER V - 5 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 CEIAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The resultant fee of $342.23 per daily trip does not appear to financially feasible. For example, a commercial land use with trip generation rate of 300 trips per acre would amount to a co of $102,669 per acre. Likewise, an industrial land use with a tr generation rate of 120 trips per acre would amount to a fee I $41,068 per acre. The proposed fee for Bridge & Thoroughfare Benefit District No. is estimated at $61 per daily trip. Therefore, the fee for t Rancho Del Oro Interchange is 5.6 times as high. The Proposed Assessment District for this project which w considered in 1988, estimated a cost of $249.37 per trip f similar improvements. This cost was not considered to be feasib at that time. Since the current fee is $92.86 ($342.23 - $249.3 per daily trip higher than the proposed assessment district cos the fee does not appear to be feasible. It is recommended that the City of Carlsbad seek addition contributions for this project from other sources in order to low the local costs. CHAPTER VI - 1