HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-07; City Council; ; Public hearing on TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27CA Review _RMC_
Meeting Date: June 7, 2022
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Hossein Ajideh, Engineering Manager
hossein.ajideh@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2756
Subject:
Districts:
Public hearing on TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of
Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27
All
Recommended Action
Hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street
Improvement Program of Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27 for inclusion in the
2023 San Diego Association of Governments Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
Executive Summary
To use county TransNet1 funds for local transportation projects, cities and other SANDAG
member agencies must approve their programs of projects every two years. These programs
are then incorporated into the regional list of TransNet projects which include proposed
highway, arterial roadway, transit and bikeway projects for the entire county.
In addition to projects using TransNet funds, each agency’s program of projects must also
include transportation projects that are regionally significant and increase transportation
capacity, regardless of their funding sources.
To obtain the TransNet funding for Carlsbad projects, the City Council is required to hold a
public hearing to consider and approve the Carlsbad Program of Projects. The signed resolution
in Exhibit 1 approving the Carlsbad program is due to SANDAG by July 1, 2022. The city’s
program will then be incorporated into SANDAG’s 2023 regional program and submitted to the
state for approval.
Staff recommend approval of the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of
Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27 for inclusion in the 2023 update of the
TransNet Program of Projects for the entire county.
Discussion
Background
SANDAG, acting as the Regional Transportation Commission, is required by state and federal
laws to develop and adopt an updated regional program every two years. This is a multiyear list
1 TransNet is a countywide transportation sales tax first approved by county voters in 1987.
June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 1 of 13
of projects submitted by cities and other jurisdictions in the county identifying transportation
projects that are eligible to use the sales tax funds generated through TransNet.
In addition to the federal and state requirements, the San Diego Transportation Improvement
Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan2 requires that SANDAG prepare a five-year TransNet
Program of Projects, also every two years.
Each member agency of SANDAG that wants to spend TransNet and/or certain federal or state
funds must approve its own program of projects every two years. In addition to the projects
using those funding sources, the program must include projects that will increase
transportation capacity, regardless of their funding sources. The federal Metropolitan Planning
and Air Quality Conformity Regulations also require inclusion of all capacity-increasing road
projects for air quality emissions modeling and analysis.
The City Council approved the city’s 2020 TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of
Projects on June 2, 2020, which covered fiscal years through 2024-25. The City Council also
approved an amendment to the city’s 2020 program of projects on May 11, 2021.
This year’s update
As part of the 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program development process, staff have
identified several transportation projects that need either additional TransNet funding or a
change of schedule of TransNet funding allocations. These changes require holding a public
hearing and a resolution of the City Council before they can be submitted to SANDAG for
inclusion in the 2023 regional program.
The SANDAG Board of Directors, acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation
Commission, approves the TransNet Program of Projects as an element of the 2023 regional
program update. The 2023 TransNet Program of Projects is scheduled for consideration by the
SANDAG board on Sept. 23, 2022.
Carlsbad’s proposed Program of Projects
The proposed Carlsbad Program for2022-23 through 2026-27, which is shown in Exhibit 1,
Attachment A, includes projects with the following funding sources:
• Federal funds – administered by the California Department of Transportation
• TransNet Local Street Improvement Funds – administered by SANDAG
• Local funds from the city’s funds, including traffic impact fees and gas tax
• Local funds from developers
Federal funds included in the program are from the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users High Priority Project Funds that were repurposed
for the El Camino Real widening project from Cassia Road to Camino Vida Roble.
TransNet local funds are programmed for a variety of projects, including Americans with
Disabilities Act improvements, various roadway improvements, pavement management
program, traffic signal improvements and roadway lighting projects.
2 The TransNet Extension Ordinance, approved by San Diego County voters in 2004, extended the initial San Diego
Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance (Proposition A, 1987) for a 40-year period commencing on April
1, 2008.
June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 2 of 13
The city’s program of projects also includes various capacity-increasing roadway projects along
regionally significant arterial roadways, regardless of the funding source. Some of these
projects are funded by city funds such as traffic impact fees or funding from adjacent private
development.
The program may be amended as needed on a quarterly basis during the two-year period.
These amendments must go through SANDAG’s amendment procedures for approval.
Funding requirements
The TransNet Extension Ordinance places certain requirements on local jurisdictions regarding
the use of TransNet funds:
• No more than 30% of cumulative TransNet revenues shall be spent on local street and
road maintenance projects.
• All new projects or major reconstruction projects funded by TransNet revenues shall
accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists. Any deviation from this requirement
shall be clearly noticed as part of that local jurisdiction’s public hearing process.
• The required minimum annual level of local discretionary funds to be spent on streets
and roads will be met throughout the five-year period consistent with the most recent
Maintenance of Effort Requirements adopted by SANDAG.
• Local jurisdictions must collect an amount equivalent to $2,688.21, plus all applicable
annual increases, from the private sector for each newly constructed residential housing
unit in that jurisdiction, unless exempted under the TransNet Extension Ordinance, and
shall contribute these funds to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement
Program.
• Local jurisdictions must establish a separate Transportation Improvement Account for
TransNet revenues with the interest earned spent only for those purposes for which the
funds were allocated.
• Each project of $250,000 or more will be clearly designated during construction with
TransNet project funding identification signs.
Options
Staff provide the following options for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Adopt a resolution approving the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program
of Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27
Pros
• The identified transportation projects will receive the necessary TransNet
funding to continue into the design phase or construction phase
Cons
• None identified
2. Do not adopt a resolution approving the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement
Program of Projects for 2022-23 through 2026-27
Pros
• None identified
June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 3 of 13
Cons
• Those projects in need of TransNet funding to continue into design or
construction phases will not receive the necessary funding
• Staff would need to address the decrease in funding from the referenced
projects
• Potential delay in completing transportation projects in need of additional
funding
Staff recommend Option 1 for the City Council’s approval.
Fiscal Analysis
Inclusion in SANDAG’s regional program is not a guarantee that projects will receive the stated
funding. The amounts shown in Attachment A to the Resolution, Exhibit 1, are the best
available estimates of project costs and anticipated funding. The city is not obligated to proceed
with the projects included in the city’s Program of Projects if funding falls short or is not
available.
Next Steps
Upon approval by the City Council, staff will submit the city’s program of projects and signed
resolution to SANDAG for inclusion in the 2023 regional program by the due date of July 1,
2022.
The 2023 regional program is expected to be adopted by the SANDAG board on Sept. 23, 2022,
and is anticipated to receive federal approval on Dec. 16, 2022.
Environmental Evaluation
The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act under Guidelines Section 15276(a), which states that the act does not apply to the
development or adoption of a regional transportation improvement program. However,
individual projects developed in accordance with such programs shall remain subject to the act.
Public Notification
Public notification of this item was published in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, and
because this item is a public hearing, notice was published 10 days before the scheduled
meeting date.
Exhibit
1. City Council resolution
June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 4 of 13
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-128
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CARLSBAD TRANSNET LOCAL STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022-23
THROUGH 2026-27 FOR INCLUSION IN THE 2023 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION
OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, on Nov. 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego
Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, or TransNet Extension
Ordinance, which has been amended from time to time in accordance with the applicable amendment
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension Ordinance provides that the San Diego Association of
Governments, or SAN DAG, acting as the Regional Transportation Commission, shall approve every two
years a multi-year program of projects submitted by local jurisdictions identifying those transportation
projects eligible to use transportation sales tax (i.e., TransNet) funds; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad was provided with an estimate of annual TransNet local street
improvement revenues for fiscal years, or FYs, 2022-23 through 2026-27; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has held a noticed Public Hearing with an agenda item that
clearly identified the proposed list of projects prior to approval of the projects by its authorized
legislative body, which is the City Council, in accordance with Section S(A) of the TransNet Extension
Ordinance and Rule 7 of SAN DAG Board Policy No. 31.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1.That the above recitations are true and correct.
2.That pursuant to Section 2(()(1) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of
Carlsbad certifies that no more than 30% of its cumulative revenues shall be spent on
local street and road maintenance-related projects, or that its expenditures are
consistent with the most recent TransNet Extension Ordinance requirements adopted
by SANDAG.
3.That pursuant to Section 4(E)(3) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of
Carlsbad certifies that all new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by
June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 5 of 13
TransNet revenues shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, and that any
exception to this requirement permitted under the Ordinance and proposed shall be
clearly noticed as part of the City of Carlsbad's public hearing process.
4.That pursuant to Section 8 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Carlsbad
certifies that the required minimum annual level of local discretionary funds to be
expended for street and road purposes will be met throughout the five-year period
consistent with the most recent Maintenance of Effort Requirements adopted by
SANDAG.
5.That pursuant to Section 9A of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Carlsbad
certifies that it will exact an amount equivalent to $2,688.21, plus all applicable annual
increases, from the private sector for each newly constructed residential housing unit in
that jurisdiction, unless exempted under the TransNet Extension Ordinance, and shall
contribute such exactions to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement
Program, or RTCIP.
6.That pursuant to Section 13 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Carlsbad
certifies that it has established a separate Transportation Improvement Account for
TransNet revenues with interest earned expended only for those purposes for which the
funds were allocated.
7.That pursuant to Section 18 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Carlsbad
certifies that each project of $250,000 or more will be clearly designated during
construction with TransNet project funding identification signs.
8.That the City of Carlsbad does hereby certify that all other applicable provisions of the
TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 31 have been met.
9.That, pursuant to SANDAG Board Policy No. 31, Rule 15, the City of Carlsbad agrees to
indemnify, hold harmless, and defend SANDAG, the San Diego County Regional
Transportation Commission, and all officers and employees thereof against all causes of
action or claims related to the City of Carlsbad's TransNet funded projects.
10. That the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for fiscal
years 2022-23 to 2026-27 attached to this Resolution as Attachment A is hereby
June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 6 of 13
' 1
f •
approved for inclusion in the 2023 SANDAG Regional Transportation Improvement
Program.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 7th day of June, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Norby.
None.
Hall (on CB52, CB62), Blackburn (on CB13)*
*Hall and Blackburn absent on projects listed above due to a conflict of interest
MATT1:&!l!IL
FAVIOLA MEDINA, City Clerk Services Ma
(SEAL)
June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 7 of 13
lli
Attachment A 1June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 8 of 13----2023 TransNet Program of Projects FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 ---------- ----------in '000s ------City of CARLSBAD CIP# -I I --RTIP ID Project Trtle Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY2S FY26 FY27 TOTAl (8048 IEI Camino Real and Cannon Intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon Rd, along the ~,~I Road northbound side of El Camino Real just south of Cannon Rd, re-I stripe to provide three through lanes, add a separate ped/bike I bridge structure on the northbound side of El Camino Real over Agua Hedionda Creek TransNet 151 6042 -$1,701 TronsNet -151: CR I 1.ocal Funds $2,6721 l I TOTAL s2,612J $1,701 so so $01 $0 $4,373 --l --f Project Desaiption , ----RTIPID I Project Trtle PRIOR EXPEND.I FY23 FY24 FY2S FY26 FY27 TOTAL CBU I College Boulevard Reach A College Boulevard from Badger lane to Cannon Rd, construct a new segment of College Blvd to provide roadway with raised l median, bike lanes and sidewalks/trails I TransNet 151 so 3636 I TN LSI CarryOver $2171 $983 $1,205 ---TransNet -151: CR Local Funds $430! $1,283 $1,500 $1,500 $24,087 $28,800 --T -t TOTAL $6471 S~271 I-so $1,500 -$1,500 $24,087 $30,005 -----RTIPID I Project Title -1Pro_LectD~cription____ __ _ _ _.___ PRIOR EXPEND., FY23 I FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL --I ~ CB13 !Poinsettia Lane Reach E Poinsettia Lane from Cassia Drive to Skimmer Court (.3 miles) in Carlsbad, construct new 4-lane roadway with median, bike ___ 11anes, and sidewalks/trails TransNet 151 $0 3922 ~ ---------TransNet -151: CR ---+= Local Funds $14,081, $14,081 Complete I TOTAL $14,081 so I $0 FY25 sol 2° so $14,081 -I ' I Project Title -----RTIPIO Project Desaiption PRIOR EXPEND., FY23 FY24 FY26 FY27 TOTAL -----!Pavement Management -CB20 On various streets throughout the City, pavement overlay 1 I Overlay inch or greater and mi.sce.lt.aneous roadway section repair-5 $18,9421 I ' TransNet 151 ,,.,,._ ~ ,.,~ "·"" Sl,650 $25,042 6001 --I --TN 151 Carryover $0 -TronsNet -LSI: CR --r Local Funds $17,3991 S2,SOO I St,350 $1,350 S1,3501 $1,350 $25,299 ---' I TOTAL $36,3411 s2,soo: $2,500 $3,0001 $3,000 S3,000 $50,341 I I RTIPID I Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND., FY23 FY24 FY2S I FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB21 !Pavement Management -Slurry Along various roadways, construct/apply street sealing and I I --,Seal/Fog Seal construct minor roadway pavement section repairs TransNet 151 I so 6001 Tra~ -LSI: Mafnt Local Funds sz,ooo I $2,000 $2,0001 $2,000' sz.0001 $10,00~ ' SZ.0001 "110,000 -TOTAL $01 S2,000 $2,000: $2,000 $2,0001
2June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 9 of 131_R_TI_P-'ID;___,_P'--roject Title ____ _ CB22 .Avenida Encinas Coastal Rail Trail and Pedestrian Improvements TransNet -LSI: CR ------RTlPID C831 ProjectTrtle El Camino Real Widening -La Costa Ave to Arenal Road TronsNet -LSI: CR 2023 TransNet Program of Projects FY 2022-23 to FY 202S:-27 -----i-n '000s City of CARLSBAD-Project Description jPortion of Coastal Rail Trail and connect to the existing trail 'along Avenida Encinas. Improvements include expansion of lblcycle facilities to buffered bike lanes, new sidewalks and pedestrian ramps, enhanced Intersection treatments, traffic calming with road diet at select locations, and wldening to accommodate multi-modal transportation fea1ures TranstletLW PRIOR EXPEND~23 ~-------------------Stare Gran~----"$-'2+--_il. 774 __ ___::cLoca=I Funds $222 $4,956 TOTAL $22~ $6,730 Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FYZ3 Transf-lel LSI FY24 $0 FY24 Along El Camino Real from 700 feet north of La Costa Ave to Arena I Rd, widening along the southbound side of the roadway 10 provide three travel lanes, sidewalk, and a bike jlane Lo<al Funds, $711-, --$2--:-539 $6,010 OP# =--1-----:=____,_ -.--1 FY25 FYZ6 FY27 TOTAl $0~ $1,776 $5,178 $0 $0 I __ .;cSO.:..-_..:.c$6,9S4 r FY25 t,Y2_6_--, ___ FYZ_7 ___ T_O_T_A_L __ _ I $9,2: I -J ~-6051 I $0 $0 sol $9,260 RTIPID CB32 TOTAL,______ ~ $2,539 L_ $6,010 ProjectTJtle ---~rojectDesaiption --=i--==-I PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 -FY-2-4------+----FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL EI Camino Real Widening -Resttfpe from Poinsettia Lane to Cinnabar Way and widen El Poinsettia Lane to Camino Vida Camino Real from Cinnabar Way to Camino Vida Roble, along Roble the northbound/east side of the roadway to provide three travel lanes, sidewalk, and a bike lane TransNet -LSI: CR RTIP ID CB34 ProjectTrtle , Palomar Alrport Road and Paseo Oel Norte Right Tum Lane Project Description Palomar Airport Rd from 1-5 to Paseo Del Norte, widening along eastbound Palomar Airport Rd to provide a dedicated TransNet LSI TN LSI CarryOver $442 $2,713 FED Earmark $302 $1,138 TOTAL $744 $3,851 I PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 $3.~f-6072 ~ ,-$1,44() -$0 $07--$0 $0 $4,595 FY24 FY25 FY26 FV27 TOTAL $8~ 6044 TronsNet -LSI: CR dght turn lane to southbound Paseo Del Norte TN l51 CarryOVer __ $830L_ l Local Funds ____ .:.$-=-28:::5'---------------~----------=;_;:_--= $285 Complete __iol_ $0 ~ $1,115 RTIP ID CB35 Project Title _ Palomar Airport Road and Paseo Del Norte Left Turn Lane TransNet -LSI: CR -+--TOTAL, $1,1~ Project Description __j talomar A1rport Rd from l·S to Paseo Del Norte lengthen the left tum pocket along eastbound Palomar Airport Road to northbound Paseo Del Norte TN ~ Carry(Jver Local funds TOTAL PRIOR EXPEND. $235 $124 $359 $0 FY23 FY24 $0 $0 -; I FY25 FY26 FV27 TOTAL 1 -+ $2351 6043 $124 Complete $0 $0 $0 $0 $359
3June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 10 of 132023 TransNet Program of Projects FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 in 'OOOs ---City of CARLSBAD OP# RTIP ID Project Title _Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAl C836 cartsbad Boulevard Study realignment of C3rlsbad Blvd induding the relocation of Realignment the southbound lanes of cartsbad Blvd to the east and the !construction of complete street and multi use trail improvements along the coastal corridor TransNet LSI $0 6031 TronsNet -LSI: CR TN LSI carryOver $3,000 $250 $1,000 $4,250 l TOTAL $3,000 $250 $1,000 ~t $0 so $4,250 RTIPID Projectrrtle Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB37 El camino Real and College Blvd Improve El Camino Real along the southbound approach to Intersection Improvements the intersection with College Blvd. to provide three thru lanes and a signal controlled right turn lane TransNet LSI so 6071 TronsNet • LSI: CR local Funds $1,02.1 $1,021 Complete -+-TOTAL $1,021 so $0 _so __ so_ so Sl,02.1 _,___ RTIP ID Projectrrtle Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL OP# --f eonstruct ADA Improvements per the Oty of carlsbad C843 ADA Improvements Transition Plan for Publk Rights-of-way TN LSI carryover $1,788 $1,367 _$175 $715 $175 ~15 $4,935 6049 Tron.Nee -LSI: CR Local Funds $0 TOTAL $1,788 $1,367 $175 _1715 smL $715 -$4"'9~ RTIP ID Projectrrtle Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL C844 Traffic Signal • RAMS City of Carlsbad annual operations and maintenance cost share for the Regional Arterial Management System, (RAMS) TransNet LSI $105 $105 Complete TronsNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $0 -.---TOT~j $105 _$0 sot $0 $0 so $105 ----T .. -RTIP ID Projectrrtle P~ject Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB4S cartsbad Boulevard and Reconfigure the intersection and the approaches to the Tamarack Ave Pedestrian intersection and provide enhanced facilities for pedestrians, Improvement Project (part of transit users and bicyclists; (Bike, Ped, and Neighborhood lump sum V17) Safety Program) SANDAG approved TransNet/ATP swap on Oct 23, 2015 TransNet BPNS 5116 $938 t-$1,054 6058 TOA-Blcydes S84 $84 Tron.sNet • LSI: CR Local funds $547 $1,029 $700 $2,2761 TOTAL $747 $1,967 so $700 $0 $0 $3,414 RTlPID Projectrrtle I Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL C846 Terramar Area Complete Street Construct complete street improvements l11cluding the Improvements reconfiguration of the curbline and the, addition of medians, pedestrian crossings and parkwav improvements TN LSI carryOver $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 6054 TronsNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $1,439 $8,661 $2,800 SU,900 TOTAL $1-,439 $9,6611 $3,800 $01 $0 $0 $14,900
4June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 11 of 132023 TransNet Program of Projects FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 in '000s City of CARLSBAD CIP# RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB47 Carlsbad Village Drive and Provide mid-block pedestrian crossing improvements and Grand Avenue Improvements sidewalk/parkway improvements at the approaches to the railroad track crossings TransNet LSI $1,320 $1,320 n/a TransNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,320 $1,320 RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB48 Chestnut Avenue Complete Complete street improvements including sidewalk Street Improvements Valley improvements and traffic calming features such as bulb outs Street to 1-5 and medians TransNet LSI $1,080 $1,080 TN LSI Carryover $0 n/a -TransNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $1,080 $0 $0 $1,080 RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB49 Kelly Drive and Park Drive Complete street improvements including new curblines, Complete Street Improvements sidewalk and multi use trail improvements and traffic calming features such as bulb outs and medians TN LSI Carryover $703 $3,972 $4,675 6075 TransNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $1 $1,214 $1,215 TOTAL $704 $5,186 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,890 RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB50 Valley Street Road Diet and On Valley St, north of Chestnut, reconfigure to a complete Traffic Calming street with high visibility crosswalks, mid-block bulbouts, bike lanes, and parking in select areas TN LSI Carryover $1,645 $1,645 n/a TransNet -LSI: CR Other Subtotal $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,645 $0 $1,645 RTIPID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB51 Coordinated Traffic Signal Construct fiber optic communications upgrades and install Program traffic measuring systems and adaptive signal control systems to implement adpative traffic signal control along these roadways TransNet LSI $855 $855 6326 TN LSI Carryover $1,787 $1,787 TransNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $811 $862 $1,673 TOTAL $3,453 $862 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,315 RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB52 Carlsbad Village and Barrio At eight intersection locations in the Village and Barrio, Traffic Circles construct traffic circles at key intersections to calm traffic TN LSI Carryover $612 $413 $1,025 4015 TransNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $148 $4,586 $4,734 TOTAL $7601 $4,999 I $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,759
5June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 12 of 132023 TransNet Program of Projects FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 in '000s City of CARLSBAD CIP# RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB53 Carlsbad Blvd. Pedestrian Install pedestrian roadway lighting Roadway Lighting TN LSI Carryover $65 $1,260 $1,325 6068 TransNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $0 TOTAL $65 $1,260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,325 RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB54 State Street Improvements at Widen the roadway to accommodate additional on street Northwest Corner with Grand parking, close driveway access and reconstruction of the Avenue parkway to conform with the new curbline TransNet LSI $325 $325 TN LSI Carryover $0 6082 TransNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $325 $0 $325 RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB55 Christiansen Avenue Construct new curbline, sidewalk and parkway improvements Improvements TransNet LSI $310 $310 TN LSI Carryover $0 n/a TransNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $310 $0 $310 -----RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CIP# CB56 Chestnut Avenue Complete Prepare a project study report to identify the scope of work Street Improvements -1-5 to for construction of complete street improvements including the Railroad traffic calming and pedestrian improvements TransNet LSI $85 $85 TN LSI Carryover $0 6069 TransNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $85 $0 $0 $0 $85 RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB58 Street Light Bulb Replacement Replace light bulbs with LED bulbs Program TransNet LSI $445 $445 6062 TN LSI Carryover $850 $700 $700 $630 $2,880 TransNet -LSI: Maint Local Funds $320 $320 -TOTAL $1,615 $700 $700 $630 $0 $0 $3,645 -RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB59 El Camino Real Widening -Along El Camino Real from Sunnycreek to Jackspar, widen Sunny Creek to Jackspar along the southbound side of the roadway to provide three travel lanes, sidewalk, and a bike lane TransNet LSI $2,484 $2,484 6094 TransNet -LSI: CR TN LSI Carryover $411 $2,115 $2,526 TOTALI $4111 $4,599 I $al $01 $al $0 $5,010
6June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 13 of 132023 TransNet Program of Projects FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 in '000s City of CARLSBAD CIP# RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB60 Melrose Drive and Palomar Widen southbound Melrose Drive to provide an additional Airport Road Improvements through lane TransNet LSI $0 6034 -TransNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $154 $757 $911 -TOTAL $154 $757 $0 $0 $0 $0 $911 RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB61 Palomar Airport Road and Widen southbound College Blvd to add an additional through College Blvd Improvements lane TransNet LSI $0 6028 TransNet -LSI: CR Local Funds $487 $808 $1,295 TOTAL $487 $808 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,295 -RTIPID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB62 Barrio Lighting Program Conduct lighting assessment, design, public outreach, and construct streetlights and pedestrian lighting in the Barrio neighborhood TransNet LSI $1,280 $1,280 $1,030 $3,590 4013 ---TN LSI Carryover $0 ----Local Funds $268 $1,192 $1,460 TOTAL $268 $2,472 $1,280 $1,030 $0 $0 $5,050 --RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB63 Valley and Magnolia Complete Construct sidewalks, bike paths, green street features and Streets underground overhead utilities TransNet LSI $0 6019 ---TN LSI Carryover $1,200 $1,200 --Local Funds $430 $3,106 $1,000 $4,536 TOTAL $4301 $4,3061 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,736 ------Projected TransNet -LSI Revenue (02/2022 Rev) I I I $3,887 I $4,031 I $4,149 $4,275 I $4,403 $20,745 Programmed TransNet LSI $3,764 $2,515 $3,760 $2,285 $2,970 $15,294 -Programmed TransNet LSI Carry Over $15,978 $2,875 $1,345 $1,820 $715 $22,733 Total TransNet Programmed I $19,742 $5,390 $5,105 $4,105 I $3,685 $38,027
All Receive'" Agenda Item # &
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
DateJ.e/ iP};J;)o. ~CC ~
CM .....--ACM ....--UCM (3)..:::;::
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Lance Schulte < meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net>
Sunday, June 5, 2022 12:07 PM
Council Internet Email; City Clerk
info@peopleforponto.com; Boyle, Carrie@Coastal; 'Prahler, Erin@Coastal'; Ross,
Toni@Coastal; Linda Culp
Subject: public input for 6-7-22 #8 Carlsbad Council agenda item -proposed Transnet funding
requests -So. Carlsbad Blvd Relocation -Public input to Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth
Management Committee & CCC -Parks & Unconstrained-Useable Open Space facilities
2001 ERA Finanicnal Analysis of Carlsbad_Blvd_Realingment-1_.pdf; 2022-June General
Comparative cost-benifits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park -Part 1 of
2.pdf; City's PCH area map w numbered notes of Constraints - 2 of 2.pdf; Sea Level Rise
and Carlsbad DLCP-LUPA planned loss of OS at Ponto -2022.pdf
Attachments:
Dear City Council:
It is requested that the City Council use the $4.25 million to simply build the missing sidewalks along the 2.3 miles of PCH
after conducting a citizen-based design review.
You should read the attached City of Carlsbad's 2001 Study of PCH Relocation Feasibility and funding sources. As the
City has known since 2001, and also unofficially knew well before 2001, the ability to obtain 'other tax-payer' funds to
pay for PCH Relocation are minimal.
Your staff report says the City plans to spend $4.25 million of tax-payer money to continue Studying PCH
Relocation. This is on top of the money already spent by the City for the two (2) 2002 PCH Relocation Studies, and the
2013 PCH Relocation Design and Constraints Analysis. It is not known how much Carlsbad tax-payer money was spent
already on the 2001 and 2013 PCH Studies. But for the $4.25 million requested in the Staff report for addition studies,
we could actually build the needed sidewalks for the 2.3 miles of PCH based on City costs (see attached 2022-June
Comparative Cost-Benefit of completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park). The City Council should be using tax-payer
funds wisely to actually build the needed sidewalks, not more studies to rehash what was known in 2001.
Following are some summary excerpts from the City's 2001 ERA Financial Analysis of PCH Relocation. Council should
read the 2001 Study as only Mayor Hall and Council Member Norby are familiar with the 2001 Study:
p. 1: 'I. INTRODUCTION
The Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study is an analysis of alternative scenarios for realigning Carlsbad
Boulevard away from the coast bluff edge and, in the process, creating opportunities for commercial, recreation,
and open space uses. One of the study's objectives is to explore ways to generate revenue from useable public
land created, including potential land sale or lease opportunities, and using this revenue to help offset the cost
of realigning the road.'
p. 2: 'URS Corporation and the City of Carlsbad have identified four alternative land use scenarios for a realigned
Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed realignment creates 4-6 new surplus land areas resulting 5-7 potential parcels
(see the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study -Phase I and Phase II for more details regarding these
alignments and surplus land areas). The consultant team prepared hypothetical development programs for each
alternative. These hypothetical development programs are not recommendations; rather, they were devised to
test the potential financial impact of the following alternative approaches towards reuse of the surplus land that
is created with the road realignment. They were also designed to serve as a starting point for discussion of
preferred uses and to allow the decision-makers to select and combine the elements from each alternative that
1
they find most desirable. Finally, these scenarios serve as starting points for discussions with State Parks, which
is critical for the pivotal Manzano parcel.
• Alternative 1 tests the financial impacts of a parks and open space scheme. It assumes that no major
commercial development occurs and that the surplus parcels are used for parking, community facilities, parks,
open space, and camping (concessionaire}, as shown in Table 1. ... '
p. 3: [see Table 1 below documenting only 4-acres of Park created with PCH Relocation. Table 1 lists all the
"Surplus Area', most of which are small narrow slivers that have little more utility than the existing PCH right-of-
way has currently with simply Completing PCH by adding missing/needed pedestrian improvements.] Please
compare the 2001 data with the attached 2022-June Gen. Comparative Cost-Benefits of Completing PCH-PCH
Modification-Ponto Park 1 of 2, City PCH map w number notes of constraints 2 of 2].
r ·J r · 1 C=:J r.-J c...J LJ CJ c ·-1 c-:J L...J c --1 r· 1 c..J
Tabie 1: OEVELOPM'ENIT PROO.RAM SC.E.H.ARIOS · A.llcmaW·e 1 · P4illt5' ;111d Open Spa~;
SurplltS Afl!;!I!
Units 2 $ 4 5 6)
A.Gn!a e, 20.a 5.1 10.1 1:;t 7 2 .3 -·· -
Dev~l~pable Oo~~al
c.arr,pgrovn(l 2.8
I' l•bli,; park.l'>g Ul CH~ 1.5 0.9
C 00',muni"iy faelily D.il 0.1 (]_ 1
Ac1lwi::iark~ 4.0
Or,ien:!.ir,r1CC· 15.0 4,4 10.1 9.3 1.-4
Commerclal Uses
C ornmeroia~Rera:~ s.l
Commerc1e1-Res1aurants $.P.
om~ l;J.
Tiir•u:: S.""cil"e Room&
Full Ser,1ce t-'lotei Rooms
Eile,:ulir\'e ~e,(,1ing Hotel ~oom~
C:a1111p!froun~
Prim.iii•,"!! :;ii,;,:;; Siles -<1$
R.Vi;tte~ Sale~ :il;I c Ct11111C11 faeo1ntes :i.ooo
Pu lblio;; ?'arkl2!i!
F.-es S~o~ 1<10 21)0 136
cornrnunliy IFatilftv
V i~or Ce!>lGI" s.t 2.500 :J.OOD
R8t{~~ tJumti,;,r 1
A.cllve ll-,tirk Facllllles
A-dl,-e Parks ;;ert:.$ 4.0
0~ $pac;,ei f'ar.illliaoi;
open ~,;ai::o ai::res 15,0 44 10.1 9.3 1:,4
sour.:e: URS; Wall;;u;:e. Roberts & TooO:,; and Etcno 1t1i~ R~~earch P.~ocia.les
2
p. 9: 'QUALIFICATIONS
While it appears that alternatives 3 and 4 generate enough revenue to cover development costs, the findings at
this preliminary planning stage of analysis are qualified, as follows:
• The cost estimates are based on gross cost factors and need to be refined as project design becomes more
specific.
• The cost estimates do not include any extraordinary off-site costs, such as for environmental or traffic
mitigation.
• Some of the parcels identified for potential development, particularly those west of the alignment, may be
vulnerable to long term erosion problems; therefore, their stability needs to be verified.'
p. 14 'CONCLUSION
Both the SAN DAG representative and the CalTrans Local Assistance Program representative noted that most
road or highway realignments are done to facilitate development. Policymakers are aware of this and generally
design funding programs in a way that encourages the private sector to pay for as much of the project costs as
possible. Programs are also designed to encourage municipalities to utilize funds from their share of the gas tax,
TransNet, and even the General Fund and Community Development Block Grants before turning to State and
Federal funds. Finally, due to the limited funds available, all funding sources give priority to projects of a regional
significance over those of local importance."
The City's 2001 PCH Relocation Feasibility Study concluded there was limited availability for non-Carlsbad funding,
particularly if tax-payer funding is used to reduce PCH roadway capacity, and particularly when other much more tax-
payer efficient means to provide missing sidewalks in PCH. See the attached 2022-June Gen. Comparative Cost-Benefits
of Completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park 1 of 2 file. It uses City of Carlsbad data. See also the City's PCH area
map w number notes of constraints 2 of 2 file that like the City's 2001 Study confirms minimal added utility from 2.3
miles of PCH Relocation, particularly for a tax-payer cost of $60 to 85 million or $37 to 26 million per mile where other
tax-payer transportation needs are far greater.
As your 6-7-22 staff report says,
• "In addition to projects using TransNet funds, each agency's program of projects must also include transportation
projects that are regionally significant and increase transportation capacity, regardless of their funding sources."
• "Each member agency of SAN DAG that wants to spend TransNet and/or certain federal or state funds must approve
its own program of projects every two years. In addition to the projects using those funding sources, the program
must include projects that will increase transportation capacity, regardless of their funding sources.
Again the City's 2.3 mile PCH Relocation Proposal does not "increase transportation capacity", but proposes to reduces
capacity by 50%. Adding needed pedestrian sidewalks will increase "pedestrian capacity' but adding most all the missing
sidewalks can easily and cost-effectively be done within the Existing PCH configuration right-of-way. The City has had
over 35-years to simply add sidewalks to PCH in South Carlsbad but has not added them for over 35 -years.
• "Fiscal Analysis: Inclusion in SANDAG's regional program is not a guarantee that projects will receive the stated
funding. The amounts shown in Attachment A to the Resolution, Exhibit 1, are the best available estimates of project
costs and anticipated funding. The city is not obligated to proceed with the projects included in the city's Program of
Projects if funding falls short or is not available.
There is no City obligation to proceed with simply and cost-effectively adding any needed PCH sidewalks; nor for
proceeding with an any potential PCH Relocation modification.
However for the $4.25 million in tax-payer money staff wants to allocate to re-Study PCH Relocation, instead the City
Council could actually build the missing sidewalks within he existing PCH Configuration right-of-way and after 35+ years
3
Carlsbad Citizens could be provided the missing sidewalks. That would save tax-payers $85 to 60 million and assure
Carlsbad gets the sidewalk funded.
It is requested that the City Council use the $4.25 million to simply build the missing sidewalks along the 2.3 miles of PCH
after conducting a citizen-based design review.
The City Council could then use the $85 to 60 million saved by not Relocating PCH and instead use it to buy the much
needed Ponto Park and actually provide more and much better Park land.
Thank you,
Lance Schulte
---------------·-·---~-----
From: Lance Schulte [mailto:meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 1:21 PM
To: 'Eric.lardy@carlsbadca.gov'; council@carlsbadca.gov; 'City Clerk'; 'Kyle Lancaster'; Carrie Boyle
(carrie.boyle@coastal.ca.gov); 'Prahler, Erin@Coastal'; Ross, Toni@Coastal (Toni.Ross@coastal.ca.gov); Don Neu
(Dneu@ci.carlsbad.ca.us)
Cc: 'info@peopleforponto.com'
Subject: Public input to Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee & CCC -Parks & Unconstrained-Useable
Open Space facilities
Dear Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Carlsbad Council and Parks and Planning Commissions, & CA
Coastal Commission:
The Committee is tasked with recommending to the Council proposed changes to City Park and City
Unconstrained/Useable Open Space Standards within the Growth Management Program Update.
Because Carlsbad is quickly running out of vacant land, the Committee's recommendations are critical for very obvious
reasons. The Committee will be recommending (for all future generations) the final methods to supply Citizen desired
Parks and Unconstrained/Useable Open Space. It is important the Committee wisely represent the interests of those
future generations. The Park and Open Space supply solutions for future generations will amend Carlsbad's updated
2015 General Plan and the "as of 2013" Local Coastal Program.
Since 2017 many People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens have overwhelming expressed their need and desire for:
1. Fairness, and a true adequately sized and dimensioned Ponto Park to address City Park Master Plan
documented "lack of Park Service and Park Inequity" in this area, and
2. Correcting the City's documented 30-acre shortfall in required Unconstrained and Useable Open Space in the
Ponto area, and
3. Correcting the City's planned loss of 32+ acres of Coastal Open Space at Ponto (the State Campground and
Beach) first documented in 2017 and thus not a part of the City's General Plan & Growth Management
Program.
Since 2017, over 5,000 Carlsbad Citizen and visitor petitions have been sent to the City & Coastal Commission expressing
the desire and need of both Citizens and visitors to have these Parks and Open Space issues addressed . The Council has
been narrowing deferring addressing these issues and noted waiting for the Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management
Committee to consider both the data and Citizen and visitor desires.
Attached are 5 data files sent to the City by Carlsbad People for Ponto. The data files were sent as comments to the
City's proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment that seeks to change Carlsbad's 2013 LCP with the outdated
2015 General Plan, Carlsbad's Park Master Plan Update process, and the Growth Management Program that your
4
Committee will be making recommendations to change. People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens conducted over 50 official
Carlsbad Public Records Requests to compile this data. We provide these data files in preparation of your June 23rd
meeting.
1. Coastal Recreation and comparative Park data: Summary data on supply/demand/distribution-fairness of City
Parks in Carlsbad, unflattering comparative data on how much parkland and where Carlsbad provides Parks
relative to Encinitas and Oceanside and national averages, documents Carlsbad's Park Master Plan mapping
Park distribution unfairness at Ponto, and documenting that many Carlsbad's Park acres are Unusable for
people because they are constrained habitat land protected from human use/intrusion.
2. Sea Level Rise & Carlsbad planned loss of Open Space at Ponto: A) Summary data on how sea level rise (SLR)
will remove Open Space at Ponto. B) City GIS maps/data that shows 30-aceres of required
Unconstrained/Useable Open Space was not provided at Ponto (Zone 9) by using false exemptions while similar
and adjacent Local Facility Management Zones (19 & 22) provided their required Unconstrained/Useable Open
Space. C) City maps and data tables documenting the both loss of Open Space at Ponto from SLR and the
missing Growth Management Open Space at Ponto.
3. Updated 2022-June Comparative Cost-Benefits of PCH Modification and Ponto Park: A) Summary City data
comparing the Citizen and tax-payer Cost-Benefit of Park and Useable Open Space alternatives at Ponto. The
data file initially compared cost-benefits of the 11-acre Ponto Planning Area F and pre-2022 City Cost
data. However in May 2022 the City updated its PCH Relocation costs, and a willing seller of 14.3 acres of
adjacent land (Ponto Planning Area G, H, and I; aka Kam Sang) was listed for sale. B) The Kam Sang list price of
$2.7 million per acre or a bit more than the $2.4 to $1.4 million per acre price of recent Ponto land sales noted
in the file but are close . C) The City's updated PCH Relocation Costs are similar. The Cost-Benefit Comparison
still shows purchasing Ponto Park land is still a better value for Carlsbad Citizens, and saves tax-payers
money. The Comparison references a City map and data showing sea level rise impact areas, and the City's PCH
Relocation environmental and design constraints.
4. Citizens' City Budget Ponto Park need-requests: A) Summary data and verbatim documentation of Carlsbad
Citizens requests to budget to address the need for Ponto Park, and Open Space issues at Ponto. B) The volume
of Citizen input on Ponto Park and Open Space, and the actual verbatim Carlsbad Citizen comments should be
considered. C) In addition since 2017 when Carlsbad Citizen first became aware of several Ponto Planning
Mistakes by the City:
a. false Growth Management Unconstrained/Useable Open Space 'Standard exemption' at Ponto
b. failure in the 2010 Ponto Vision Plan that is the basis for the 2015 General Plan Update, and the failure
of the 2015 General Plan Update to follow the 1996 Local Coastal Program Land Use Policy for Planning
Area F that required the City to consider and document the need for Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public
Park) and Low-cost Visitor Accommodation land use prior to proposing a change in the Non-residential
Reserve land use policy. Failing to fully disclose the Coastal Commission's rejection of the Ponto Vision
Plan in 2010 because of these reasons, and not disclosing 2016, 2017 and 2022 directions to the City ..
c. SW Quadrant Park deficits going back to 2012
d. Not considering 2017 Sea Level Rise Impact Report that shows the loss of 32+ acres of high-priority
Coastal Open Space land uses at Ponto.
e. As a corollary example, the City has additional history in collaborating with developers to skirt
standards and allow development without developers providing their required public facilities -the
Rosalena HOA Trail segment of the Batiquitos Lagoon Bluff-top trail at Ponto is a classic example. This
example resulted in delaying construction of the public trail by over 35-years and ended up costing
about 75 Carlsbad homeowners over $1 million in additional costs. It almost resulted in no trail being
built and City and/or developer pocketing money meant to pay for the trail. This scenario could happen
a far larger scale and cost if Ponto developers are not required to provide the missing 30acres of
required Useable Open Space at Ponto
Carlsbad People for Ponto Citizens have asked the City to provide the Citizen input since 2017 for all things Ponto
related. Reviewing the public record of 5,000+ citizen communications since 2017 reveals only maybe a dozen (mostly
5
0
0
0
G
D
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
■MM Economics Resear-ch Associates
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Development Scenarios .................................................................................................................. 2
III. Land and Fiscal Value Estimates ................................................................................................... 7
IV. Other Potential Sources for Funding Realignment Costs ............................................................. 11
Appendix ................................................................................................................................................... 15
D
D
0
D
D
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
D
0
GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this study reflect the most
accurate and timely infonnation possible, and they are believed to be reliable. This study is based on
estimates, assumptions and other infonnation reviewed and evaluated by Economics Research Associates
from its consultations with the client and the client's representatives and within its general knowledge of
the industry. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the client, the client's agent and
representatives or any other data source used in preparing or presenting this study.
This report is based on information that was current as of October 2001 or as noted in the report, and
Economics Research Associates has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date.
No warranty or representation is made by Economics Research Associates that any of the projected values
or results contained in this study will actually be achieved.
Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name of
"Economics Research Associates" in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of
Economics Research Associates. No abstracting, excerpting or summarization of this study may be made
without first obtaining the prior written consent of Economics Research Associates. This report is not to
be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities or other similar purpose where it
may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the client without first obtaining the prior
written consent of Economics Research Associates. This study may not be used for purposes other than
that for which it is prepared or for which prior written consent has first been obtained from Economics
Research Associates.
This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions
and considerations.
D
D
D
D
0
0
D
D
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
■=i;M
Economics Resear-ch Associates
I. INTRODUCTION
The Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study is an analysis of alternative scenarios for realigning Carlsbad
Boulevard away from the coast bluff edge and, in the process, creating opportunities for commercial, recreation,
and open space uses. One of the study's objectives is to explore ways to generate revenue from useable public
land created, including potential land sale or lease opportunities, and using this revenue to help offset the cost of
realigning the road.
This Phase II report is a preliminary evaluation of each scenario's financial implications. The Phase I report,
presented in April 1999, evaluated the market context in which development may take place. Some of the key
rent and market assumptions presented in this report are based on the 1999 research, adjusted for inflation. A
market analysis update has not taken place since 1999. The values presented here are preliminary estimates for
planning purposes only, and should not be interpreted as valuations or appraisals since they are based on
conceptual development programs, gross preliminary development cost factors, and two-year old market
research. Valuations or appraisals will require greater due diligence regarding current market conditions, more
specific development and site planning programs, and more detailed cost estimates.
PROJECT No. 14158 INTRODUCTION 1
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
••@.t
Economics Research Associates
II. DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
URS Corporation and the City of Carlsbad have identified four alternative land use scenarios for a realigned
Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed realignment creates 4-6 new surplus land areas resulting 5-7 potential
parcels (see the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study -Phase I and Phase II for more details regarding these
alignments and surplus land areas). The consultant team prepared hypothetical development programs for each
alternative. These hypothetical development programs are not recommendations; rather, they were devised to
test the potential financial impact of the following alternative approaches towards reuse of the surplus land that
is created with the road realignment. They were also designed to serve as a starting point for discussion of
preferred uses and to allow the decision-makers to select and combine the elements from each alternative that
they find most desirable. Finally, these scenarios serve as starting points for discussions with State Parks, which
is critical for the pivotal Manzano parcel.
• Alternative 1 tests the financial impacts of a parks and open space scheme. It assumes that no major
commercial development occurs and that the surplus parcels are used for parking, community facilities,
parks, open space, and camping (concessionaire), as shown in Table 1.
• Alternative 2 tests the financial impacts of a predominately parks and open space scheme, with limited
commercial development. It assumes that a time-share and executive meeting hotel is built on a small
portion of Surplus Area 1, and that the rest of Surplus Area 1 and all of the other parcels are used for
parking, community facilities, parks, or open space, as shown in Table 2.
• Alternative 3, as shown in Table 3, tests the financial impacts of a significant commercial development
scheme. It assumes significant commercial development on almost half of Surplus Areas 1 (specialty
retail, restaurants, and office) and 3 (hotel), and all of Surplus Areas 2 (time-share), 6A (time-share),
and 68 (office), as shown in Table 3. More than half of Surplus Area 1 is used as park space and more
than half of Surplus Area 3 remains open space. Parcels 4 and 5 provide parking and open space.
• Alternative 4 tests the financial impacts of a significant commercial development scheme for a majority
of Surplus Area l (specialty retail, restaurants, time-share, and executive meeting hotel), with a
neighborhood park on the remaining portion of Surplus Area l, as shown in Table 4. Parcels 2, 3, and
6A remain open space, and 4, 5, and 6B contain public parking and open space.
PROJECT NO. "14158 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS 2
c::-=:J CJ CJ CJ c.=J ~ c-=i CJ c=J CJ C:J C..::J c:_J c=J C__J C__J c=i CJ ~
Table 1: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCENARIOS · Alternative 1 -Parks and Open Space
Surplus Area:
Units 1 2 3 4 5 GA 6B
Acreage 20.8 5.1 10.1 13.7 2.3 0.5 2.0
Developable Commercial
Campground 2.8
Public parking 1.0 0.6 1.5 0.9 0.6
Community facility 0.8 0.1 0.1
Active parks 4.0
Open space 15.0 4.4 10.1 9.3 1.4 0.5 1.4
Commercial Uses
Commercial-Retail s.f
Commercial-Restaurants s.f.
Office s.f.
Time Share Rooms
Full Service Hotel Rooms
Executive Meeting Hotel Rooms
Campground
Primitive sites Sites 45
RV sites Sites 50
Common facilities 3,000
Public Parking
Free Spaces 140 50 200 135 90
Community Facility
Visitor Center s.f. 2,500 3,000
Restrooms Number 1
Active Park Facilities
Active Parks acres 4.0
Open Space Facilities
Open Space acres -15.0 4.4 10.1 9.3 1.4 0.5 1.4
Source: URS; Wallace, Roberts & Todd; and Economics Research Associates
[__] [__.=J ~ C_::J L_J [_____=J L__] [___J c=J C_J c::J C_J C_J c.J C_J c:J LJ LJ c:J
Table 2: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCENARIOS -Alternative 2
Surplus Area:,
Units 1 2 3 4 5 6A 6B
Acreage 20.8 5.1 10.1 13.7 2.3 0.5 2.0
Oevelopable Commercial I 5.0
Campground
Public parking 2.6 6.9 3.2 1.2 0.1 0.6
Community facility 0.1 0.4
Active parks 1.6 1.6 0.5 1.4
Open space 15.8 0.9 1.6 10.4 0.2 0.4
Commercial Uses
Commercial-Retail s.f
Commercial-Restaurants s.f.
Office s.f.
Time Share Rooms 100
Full Service Hotel Rooms
Executive Meeting Hotel Rooms 150
Campground
Primitive sites Sites
RV sites Sites
Common facilities
Public Parking
Free Spaces 150 870 520 176 10 90
Community Facility
Visitor Center s.f. 19,600
Restrooms Number 1 3 2 1
Active Park Facilities
Active Parks acres 1.6 1.6 0.5 1.4
Open Space Facilities
Open Space acres 15.8 0.9 1.6 10.4 0.2 0.4
Source: URS; Wallace, Roberts & Todd; and Economics Research Associates
C:J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=::i CJ c=J CJ CJ c=J CJ c=i CJ CJ CJ CJ c::::J
Table 3: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCENARIOS -Alternative 3
Surplus Area:
Units 1 2 3 4 5 6A 6B
Acreage• 20.8 5.1 10.1
Developable Commercial I 10.0 5.1 4.3
Campground
Public parking
Community facility
Active parks I 10.8
Open space 5.8
0.5 2.0
0.5
i
Commercial Uses
Commercial-Retail s.f 40,000
Commercial-Restaurants s.f. 40,000
Office s.f. 80,000 15,000
Time Share Rooms 150 30
Full Service Hotel Rooms 300
Executive Meeting Hotel Rooms
Campground
Primitive sites Sites
RV sites Sites
Common facilities
Public Parking
Free Spaces
Community Facility
Visitor Center s.f.
Restrooms Number
Active Park Facilities
Active Parks acres 10.8
Open Space Facilities
Open Space acres 5.8
*Acreages may not equal total due to rounding
Source: URS; Wallace, Roberts & Todd; and Economics Research Associates
c:J CJ CJ c=i c=i CJ CJ CJ
Table 4: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCENARIOS -Alternative 4
Acreag_e*
Developable Commercial
Campground
Public parking
Community facility
Active parks
Open space
Commercial Uses
Commercial-Retail
Commercial-Restaurants
Office
Time Share
Full Service Hotel
Executive Meeting Hotel
Campground
Primitive sites
RV sites
Common facilities
Public Parking_
Free
Community Facility
Visitor Center
Restrooms
Active Park Facilities
Active Parks
Open Space Facilities
Open Space
Surplus Area:
Units 1
s.f
s.f.
s.f.
Rooms
Rooms
Rooms
Sites
Sites
Spaces
s.f.
Number
acres
acres
20.8
15.0
5.8
45,000
45,000
150
150
5.8
*Acreages may not equal total due to rounding
c::J
2
Source: URS; Wallace, Roberts & Todd; and Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ CJ c:J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
3 4 5 6A 6B
0
0
0
0
D
D
D
D
0
0
0
D
D
0
0
0
D
0
D
i=lil4
Economics Research Associates
Ill. LAND AND FISCAL VALUE ESTIMATES
ERA estimated the approximate residual land value and the capitalized value of the estimated fiscal revenue
associated with each of the alternative alignments and development scenarios. The estimates are very
preliminary since they are based on hypothetical development programs without architectural designs, rent
assumptions based on 1999 research (updated to 2001 values), preliminary site capacity and site planning
analysis, and gross development cost estimates for buildings and site development. The detailed analyses for
each alternative are presented in Appendix A. These estimates, which are not appraisals, will need to be revised
as development programs become more specific, and they do not form the basis for a financial offering, bond, or
prospectus without additional planning, engineering, cost estimating, and due diligence.
The residual land value estimates translate into the potential revenue generated from commercial land sales, or
the capitalized values of leases, of surplus land areas created by the road realignment. These estimates are
preliminary approximations of what a developer might be willing to pay for the land in order to obtain a
reasonable rate of return on total capital (debt and equity capital). In order to be conservative, no real
appreciation was assumed; in other words, rents only rise with inflation. Some developers may speculate that
rents will rise faster than inflation, which would result in higher values than estimated in this report. The fiscal
revenue translates into the capitalized value of the potential fiscal resources to the City and Redevelopment
Agency that could help finance some of the Carlsbad Boulevard realignment costs.
The total revenue from commercial land sales (or leases) and the capitalized value of fiscal revenue was
compared to URS Corporation's preliminary estimate of road realignment costs ($18.8 million), and Wallace,
Roberts, and Todd's preliminary estimates of possible public parking, parks, open space, and community facility
costs ($8.5-12.1 million). While road realignment costs are required to produce the surplus parcels, costs to
develop the open space are flexible. The estimates provided assume maximum improvements to the open space.
As shown in Table 5, Alternative 1, the least commercial scenario, generates very limited revenue, only $ 1.1
million in commercial land value, and over $0.2 million in the capitalized value of fiscal revenue, for a total of
almost $1.3 million. Other sources would have to fund over $17 .5 million in road construction costs, and $9 .0
million in public facility, parks, and open space costs, or the amount of improvements would have to be reduced.
PROJECT No. 1415B LAND AND FISCAL VALUE ESTIMATES 7
~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~
Table 5: PRELIMINARY REVENUE/COST COMPARISON (Year 2001 Dollars)
Alternatives
1 2 3 4
Revenues From Commercial Land Sales $ 1,131,000 $ 9,219,000 $ 28,155,000 $ 19,465,000
Capitalized Value of Fiscal Revenues to City & RDA $ 217,000 $ 10,849,000 $ 24,743,000 $ 16,429,000
Total Potential Revenues $ 1;348,000 $ 20,068,000 $ 52,898,000 $ 35,894,000
Less: Road Construction Costs $ 18,800,000 $ 18,800,000 $ 18,800,000 $ 18,800,000
Net Revenues <Deficit> After Road Construction Costs $ (17,452,000) $ 1,268,000 $ 34,098,000 $ 17,094,000
Less: Public Parking, Parks, Open Space, and Facilities $ 8,999,580 $ 12,062,589 $ 8,496,734 $ 9,358,925
Net Revenues <Deficit> After Public Costs $ (26,451,580) $ (10,794,589) $ 25,601,266 $ 7,735,075
Source: Economics Research Associates; URS; Wallace, Roberts & Todd
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
0
0
D
D
D
D
0
■:j;t+t
Economics Research Associates
Alternative 2 generates over $9.2 million in commercial land value, and $10.8 million in fiscal revenue, for a
total of $20.1 million. This amount is enough to cover the $18.8 million in road realignment costs, but not
enough to cover the estimated $12.1 million in potential public facility, parks, and open space costs. Other
sources would have to fund approximately $10.8 million in public facility, parks, and open space costs, or the
amount or type of improvements would have to be reduced.
Alternative 3, the most commercial scenario, generates an estimated $28.2 million in revenues from commercial
land value, and $24.7 million in capitalized fiscal revenue, for a total of $52.9 million. This amount is
substantially more than enough to cover the $18.8 million in road realignment costs, and $8.5 million in public
facility, parks, and open space costs.
Alternative 4 generates an estimated $19 .5 million in commercial land value, and $16.4 million in capitalized
fiscal revenue, for a total of $35.9 million, which is more than enough to cover the $18.8 million in road
realignment costs, and $9.4 million in public facility, parks, and open space costs.
QUALi FiCA TTONS
While it appears that alternatives 3 and 4 generate enough revenue to cover development costs, the findings at
this preliminary planning stage of analysis are qualified, as follows:
• The cost estimates are based on gross cost factors and need to be refined as project design becomes
more specific.
• The cost estimates do not include any extraordinary off-site costs, such as for environmental or
traffic mitigation.
• Some of the parcels identified for potential development, particularly those west of the alignment,
may be vulnerable to long term erosion problems; therefore, their stability needs to be verified.
PROJECT No. 141 SB LAND AND FISCAL VALUE ESTIMATES
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
0
D
•1;14
Economics Research Associa1:es
• A significant share of value and fiscal revenue in scenarios 2, 3, and 4 is attributable to hotels,
which in 1999 demonstrated only average performance, especially among moderately priced hotels.
Also, a new hotel has been developed since 1999. While the parcels identified for potential hotel
development are competitive because of the views they offer, hotel development and financing are
relatively risky.
• WRT has determined that the hypothetical development programs can fit on the parcels, and URS
Corporation has initially determined that the circulation system can accommodate the development.
However, there could be difficult site planning issues with some of the parcels that would limit their
development potential to less than what is assumed in this analysis.
• The development cost estimates for the commercial development scenarios, for the most part, do not
assume structured parking. If structured parking is required, development costs could be greater
which would diminish residual land values unless higher rents are achievable.
• Most of the value is generated on Surplus Area I, which is owned by the State of California. The
City or Redevelopment Agency would not realize the value of Surplus Area 1 unless the State trades
the parcel to the City or Agency for other considerations. Therefore, the City or Agency may not
be able to apply proceeds from the value of Surplus Area 1 to road realignment and public facility
costs. Nevertheless, under Alternative 3, the capitalized value of the fiscal revenue alone might be
sufficient to cover road construction costs and a portion of public facility costs. The capitalized
value of fiscal revenue under Alternative 4 comes close to covering road construction costs, but is
not sufficient to cover other public facility costs.
• Competitive market conditions could change which would affect the market potential of the
development programs assumed in the scenarios analyzed in this report. The estimated values are
based on the hypothetical development programs for each parcel. If development programs change,
the values will change.
PROJECT No. 1415B LAND AND FISCAL VALUE ESTIMATES 10
D
D
D
0
0
0
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
•=ltf-1
Economics Resear-ch Associates
IV.' OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING REALIGNMENT
COSTS
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and State of California Transportation Department (CalTrans)
are the traditional sources of funds for capital improvements to highways. For example, the Federal government
offers approximately 70 different transportation-funding programs. The majority of these funds are made
available for disbursement to regional entities such as SANDAG, while a small portion is made available
directly to municipalities.
FUNDS AVAILABLE DIRECTLY TO MUNICIPALITIES
The Ca!Trans Local Assistance Program (LAP) is responsible for helping municipalities located in Ca!Trans
District 11 identify which Federal and State funding programs for which they are eligible and guiding them
through the application process. Each program is specifically tailored for a given need, and has very strict
eligibility requirements. One such specialized program funds "Intelligent Transportation Systems". Funds are
available to projects that integrate new technology (computer-related) with the road/highway project to improve
traffic flow. Because this program is new, eligibility requirements are not yet well defined.
There is no program specifically for road or highway realignment. Moreover, it is estimated that for every 10
applicants to each of the programs above, only the most urgent project is funded, leaving 90 percent of the
applications unsuccessful. Given the level of competition for funds, if the City of Carlsbad finds that portions of
the road may fall into one or more of the eligible categories, the application should present as compelling a case
as possible. In any case, once a specific construction plan has been determined, a representative from the City
of Carlsbad should meet with a representative from the Local Assistance Program to discuss the program in
detail and determine whether or not portions of the project are eligible for Federal or State aid.
Finally, another option is direct funding from special state legislative action.
REGIONAL FUNDS
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) administers the apportionment of funds from the
larger, more general State and Federal transportation funding programs. The most likely source of funding for a
project such as the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard is the Regional Arterial Projects section of the Surface
Transportation Projects.
PROJECT No. 1415B OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING REALIGNMENT COSTS
11
0
D
0
D
D
D
0
□
D
0
0
D
0
0
D
D
Q
0
D
■#i,t+t
Economics Research Associates
For a project to receive an apportionment from SANDAG, it must be included in the Regional Transportation
Improvement Plan (RTIP). The City of Carlsbad is an active participant on the CTEC committee, the body that
periodically updates the RTIP. However, it is important to note that the current RTIP (2000-2004) provides
only $153 million towards projects estimated to cost nearly $392 million. Also; the current RTIP specifically
states that "local governments will obtain private developer financing for those on-and off-site roadway and
transit improvement necessary to accommodate the increased travel generated by private development."
The major source of Federal transportation funds administered by SANDAG is the Transportation Equity Act
for the 2 I st Century (TEA-21 ). In addition to highway and surface road construction and improvements, TEA-
21 is a source of funds for driver safety initiatives, transit programs, rail projects, and transportation research.
TEA-21 was established in 1998 and funded through 2003, thus funding levels beyond that time are unknown.
The Surface Transportation Program (STP) is the section of TEA-21 relevant to the realignment of Carlsbad
Boulevard. One STP program, Transportation Enhancement Activities Program, funds highway enhancement
activities over and above mitigation, standard landscaping and other permit requirements for a normal
transportation project. Project eligibility categories under the Transportation Enhancement Program which may
be applicable to the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard are: 1) Scenic or historic highway programs; 2)
Landscaping and other scenic beautification; 3) Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to
highway runoff.
Currently, all TEA-21 funds, including STP, have been assigned to projects (detailed in SANDAG's 2000
Regional Transportation Improvement Plan); however, SANDAG continues to pursue additional discretionary
funding available through TEA-21 on an annual basis.
In 1987, San Diego voters passed Proposition A, which authorized a one-half percent sales tax increase
dedicated for transportation improvements. The first $1 million in annual TransNet revenue is set aside for
bicycle-related projects and the remainder is divided equally between highway, public transit and local street
and road projects. Highway projects are approved for funding by SANDAG, CalTrans, the San Diego
Metropolitan Transit Development Board, and the North San Diego County Transit Development Board. Local
street and road projects are approved for funding by the city councils of the 18 cities and the County Board of
Supervisors. The Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment project is a potential candidate project. TransNet funds
have been programmed through 2004, and the measure will expire in 2008.
PROJECT No. 14158 OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING REALIGNMENT COSTS
12
0
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
0
D
0
0
0
D
u
0
0
1:j;l4
Economics Research Associates
LOCAL SOURCES
Local sources include developer financed road improvements, transportation impact fees, tax increment
financing in redevelopment project areas, infrastructure financing districts, assessment districts, Community
Facilities Districts, General Obligation Bonds, and the General Fund.
To the extent that the realignment also increases road capacity that is required to mitigate the impacts of new
development, developer financed road improvements or impact fees may apply. If the road realignment simply
moves the road without enhancing capacity for future local developments, however, the nexus may not be strong
enough for developer funding or impact fees to apply. Alternatively, the City may negotiate voluntary
contributions to road realignment costs through development agreements on larger land development projects in
the vicinity of Carlsbad Boulevard that require City discretionary approval.
Since the proposed Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment project is within a newly adopted redevelopment project
area, the City's Redevelopment Agency may use tax increment to finance some of the realignment costs. Tax
increment financing does not result in higher tax rates; rather, the incremental gain in property tax revenues is
directed toward certain improvements within a redevelopment project area. To the extent that the realignment
creates parcels that are commercially developed, the realignment project will be directly responsible for the tax
increment generated by those commercial developments. Because tax increment will not be generated until the
parcels are developed with commercial uses, there may be a cash flow financing issue to overcome to fund the
realignment costs that will occur in advance of tax increment.
Another type of property tax increment financing is the Infrastructure Financing District (IFD). It also is based
on the incremental gain in property taxes rather than an increase in tax rates. The City of Carlsbad was one of
the first jurisdictions in California to form an IFD. Unlike tax increment in redevelopment project areas, an
IFDs do not have to be located in redevelopment project areas and, therefore, do not have to address blight or
meet the "predominately urbanized" test of redevelopment law. The public facility that is financed must serve
the community at large. However, unlike a redevelopment project area that can be formed by Council action, an
IFD must be approved by two-thirds of the voters if 12 or more registered voters reside in the district.
Otherwise, two-thirds of the property owners within the district must vote to approve the district. The affected
taxing agencies must also approve the district and tax increment sharing must be negotiated.
PROJECT No. 1·4158 OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING REALIGNMENT COSTS
13
G
0
0
C
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
•#itt+i
Economics Research Associates
Properties that benefit from the realignment may be assessed for a portion of the cost through a benefit
assessment district, such as the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. The assessments may be pledged to
support debt service on bonds, issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. The formation process must
establish the scope of improvements, identify the benefiting parcels, and determine an equitable allocation of
costs. Property owners vote for or against formation of an assessment district at a public hearing. Some of the
benefiting properties that are owned by the State may not be assessed.
A Community Facilities District, commonly known as a Mello-Roos district, is a special tax that can be based
on a formula that has a less strict benefit allocation. However, a Community Facilities District requires two-
thirds voter approval of voters residing within the district. If there are fewer than twelve registered voters in the
district, the qualified electors are defined as owners ofland within the district, with each owner allowed one vote
per acre.
General Obligation Bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the City, are the most secure and lowest cost
form of debt financing. However, it would require two-thirds voter approval among Carlsbad's electorate,
which may be difficult for the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment project unless it is perceived as a project that
has citywide benefits.
Finally, the General Fund may be used to fund a portion ofroad improvements through the Capital Improvement
Plan, either as direct allocations, or as annual lease payments on Certificates of Participation. Fiscal revenue
from development on surplus parcels could help augment the G~neral Fund, especially if a hotel or specialty
retail is developed, to enable the City to use General Fund monies for some of the road realignment and other
public facility costs.
CONCLUSION
Both the SANDAG representative and the CalTrans Local Assistance Program representative noted that most
road or highway realignments are done to facilitate development. Policymakers are aware of this and generally
design funding programs in a way that encourages the private sector to pay for as much of the project costs as
possible. Programs are also designed to encourage municipalities to utilize funds from their share of the gas tax,
TransNet, and even the General Fund and Community Development Block Grants before turning to State and
Federal funds. Finally, due to the limited funds available, all funding sources give priority to projects of a
regional significance over those of local importance.
PROJECT No. 14158 OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING REALIGNMENT COSTS
14
0
0
Q
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
■eb;M
Economics Research Associates
Table 3.A.11 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment -Alternative 3, Parcel 6A, Land Use Scenario A; Time Share
Table 3.A.12, 13 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment -Alternative 3, Parcel 6B, Land Use Scenario A; Office
Operating Statement
Table 4.A. l Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment -Alternative 3, Parcel 6B, Land Use Scenario A; Proforma Cash
Flow -Prelimimiry Residual Land Value
Table 4.A.2 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment -Alternative 4, Parcel 1, Land Use Scenario A; Fiscal Revenues
Table 4.A.3, 4, 5 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment -Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A; Executive
Meeting Hotel Operating Statement
Table 4.A.6, 7 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment
Retail/Commercial Operating Statement
Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A;
Table 4.A.8 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment-Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A; Time Share
PROJECT No. 1415B APPENDIX 16
CJ CJ c=J ~ CJ C:J CJ c:J c=J c::J
Table I.A. I
CARLSBAD.BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternative I, Land Use Scenario A
PROFORMA CASH FLOW -PRELIMINARY RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
(BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
2003 2004
Yr. 2001 l'clltl YeaL2
Inflation Factor 3% Value I 1.06 1.09
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Net Sources of Funds By l,and Use
RV -Concessionaire (0.79)
2005
Yw:...l
1.13
(0.82)
Sub-total $ $ (0.79) $ (0.82) $
Net Cash Flow After Developer Costs Is Is (0.8!1 s (0.8)1 s
Net ecescot ~alue A[ter Del'.clO.P.a...CDl1.s
Net Present Value@ 14.0% Sl.20 _million, Yr. 2003 dollars
Source: Economics Research Associates
2006 2007
l'l:a.cA Y=:.5
1.16 1.19
0.37 0.38
0.37 $ 0.38 $
0.41 $ 0.41 s
C::J
2008
.Year..li
1.23
0.42
0.42 $
o.4 Is
CJ CJ c=J CJ c;;i C) CJ CJ
02-Oct-0I
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
YllL1 ~ .fiac.2 Yes.ill haul fi.atl2 Yeru:.13 fu.r:.H 1'lltl5
1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I
0.43 0.44 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.53 5.40
0.43 $ 0.44 $ 0.46 $ 0.47 $ 0.49 $ 0.50 $ 0.52 $ 0.53 $ 5.40
o.4 Is o.4 Is o.s Is o.51 s o.5 Is o.51 s o.s Is o.5 I s 5.4 I
CJ CJ CJ CJ C] CJ ~ CJ t=J CJ 0 CJ c=J c=i c=J CJ 0 CJ CJ
Table 1.A.2
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT· Alternative 1, Land Use Scenario A
FISCAL REVENUES
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
futl l'Hr..l l'.£a.t..3. filL4 Ynr..5 l'.ilr..6 Yw:.1 Tou:.8 Yi:ar..2 YilI:..10 fur..ll Tuu..12 fur...ll .Y.u.r..1A Yw:..1.5
Inflation Factor 3% I 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I
PROPERTY TAXES Expressed In Millions of US Dollars
Land..llm
RV $ $ $ $ s 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ O.o4 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04
City's Share 4. 75% of Property Taxes $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 s 0.00 s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
RDA 's Non-housing Share 60.00% of Property Ta.es $ $ $ $ $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0,02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0,02 $ 0.02
Expressed In MIiiions or US Dollars
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
Full Service Hotel $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s $
Transient Occupancy Tax@ 10.00% of Room Revenue s $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s
Gross Fiscal Operating Income From TOT & Tl s s s s s 0.02 s 0.02 s 0.02 s 0.02 s 0.02 s 0.02 s 0.82 $ 0.02 s O.OJ s 0.03 s O.OJ
SALES TAX REVENUE
Food & Beverage & 50% of Other Hotel Revt:nues $ s $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00
Total Sales Tax Revenue $ s s s 0,00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
TOTAL FISCAL REVENUE
Property Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 0.02 s 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 s 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 s 0.03
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s $ $ $ $ $
Sales Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Total Fiscal Revenue $ s s s 0.00 $ 0.02 s 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.oJ $ 0.03 $ 0,03
Sources u[ Eunds
FISCAL REVENUE $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.oJ $ 0,03 $ 0.oJ s 0.oJ $ 0,03 $ 0,03 $ 0.oJ
Reversion @ 7% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.47
Total Sources of Funds $ $ s $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 0.oJ $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 s 0.03 $ 0.03 s 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.50
NET CASH FLOW Is Is Is Is o.oo Is 0.02 Is O.OJ I$ O.OJ Is 0.031 S o.o3 Is 0.031 S 0.031 $ O.OJ I$ o.o3 Is 0.03 ! S o.5o I
Net Present Value@ 10% $0.2J million Yr. 2003 dollars
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ 0 CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ 0 CJ CJ
Table I.A.3
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Altornallvo I, Parcel 4, Land Use Scenario A
RV Concessionaire Operating Stalement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yr. 2001 Value ~ futl Y.w:..l Ycau filu:.S Yw:1i Yw:..1 Yu.r..8 Yi:a.r..2 fu.r..l.ll Yur..ll fuill Yil.c..13. Y.oar..li fur.J.S
Assumptions -In nation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 134 1.38 1.43 1.47 I.SI 1.56 1.60
Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Numhcr of I{\' S11a(·t·s 50 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Total Potential Number of nights 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250
Average Annual Occupancy Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0%
Avg. Daily RV Ra1e /I $ 40 42 44 45 46 48 49 51 52 54 55 57 59 61 62 64
Nnmhcr or Primitive Spaces 45 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Total Potential Number of nights 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250
Average Annual Occupancy Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0%
Avg. Daily RV Rale /I $ 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 JI 32
Operating Revenues Expressed In MIiiions of US Dollars Expressed In Millions of US Dollars
Space Rental·Revenues $ $ s $ 0.68 $ 0.76 $ 0.83 $ 0.86 $ 0.88 $ 0.91 $ 0.93 $ 0.96 $ 0.99 $ 1.02 $ 1.05 $ 1.08
As% of Room Revenues
Food & Beverage 20% 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22
Other Revenues JO% 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.27 0,28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33
Sublotal (Non-Room Revenues) 50% S s $ s 0.34 $ 0.38 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.44 s 0.45 $ 0.47 s 0.48 s 0.50 s 0.51 $ 0.53 s 0.54
Gross Revenues s s s $ 1.02 s 1.14 s 1.25 s 1.28 s 1.32 s 1.36 s 1.40 $ 1.44 s 1.49 s 1.53 s 1.58 s 1.63
Depactmeolal Cosls & Expenses As % of Departmental Revenues
Spaces 25% 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.2) 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.27
Food & Beverage 75% 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0. 13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16
Other Departments 50% 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0,14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0,15 0.16 0.16
Total Departmental Expenses(% of Gross Revenues) 37% S $ $ $ 0.37 $ 0.42 $ 0.46 $ 0.47 $ 0.48 $ 0.50 $ 0.51 s 0.53 $ 0.55 $ 0.56 s 0.58 $ 0.60
Gross Operating Revenues 63% $ $ s s 0.64 $ 0.72 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.84 $ 0.86 $ 0.89 $ 0.91 $ 0.94 s 0,97 $ 1.00 s 1.03
Notes:
/ I Rate, after discounts, per occupied room.
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ CJ D CJ D CJ CJ CJ C) CJ CJ CJ C.:=J CJ CJ 0 CJ CJ
Table 1.A.4
CARLSBAll ROULEVARD REAI.IGNl\·tENT-AUernath·e 1, Parcel 4, Lund Use Scenario A
RV Operating Statement
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Yr. 2001 Value fur...l har..l Yea.c..1 Yuu fur..S fiau Yw:..1 fiatJ! Year..2 Yt:ar...lJl Yn.r...11 Yuill Yoar..U Ym:.M YuLlS
Expressed in Millions of US Dollars Expressed In Millions of US Dollars
Gross OprcaCing Revenues 0.79 0.81 0.84 0.86 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 I.OJ
lludistlibuled Operating E1peoses
As % of Revenue
Administrative & General 5.0% S $ s $ 0.05 $ 0.06 s 0.06 s 0.06 s 0.D7 s 0.07 $ 0.07 $ O.D7 s O.Q7 $ 0.08 s 0.08 $ 0.08
Management Fee 2.0% 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.0) 0.Q) O.DJ 0.0) O.oJ 0.0) 0.Q) O.QJ 0.0)
Sales & Marketing 5.0% 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 O.D7 O.Q7 O.D7 O.D7 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08
Energy Costs 6.0% 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10
Repairs & Maintenance 4.0% 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 . 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 O.D7
Total 22.0% S $ $ $ 0.22 $ 0.25 $ 0.27 s 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.)0 $ 0.31 $ 0.32 $ 0.)) $ 0.)4 $ 0.35 s 0.36
Gross Qpenting Profit 41.3% $ $ $ $ 0.42 $ 0.47 $ 0.51 $ 0.53 $ 0.55 $ 0.56 $ 0.58 $ 0.60 s 0.61 $ 0,63 $ 0.65 $ 0,67
El:u:d E1p1:ases &. Capital Costs
Property Taxes (based on 1% of prior year capitalized value) fommla 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Incentive Fee 2.0% 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Insurance 1.0% 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.GI 0.01 0.01 o.oz 0.02 0.02
Capital Reserve 2.0% o.oz 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 O.QJ O.oJ 0.0~ O.oJ O.oJ O.oJ 0.0)
Total 5.0% 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.10 $ 0.IO $ 0.IO s 0.11 $ 0.11 s 0.11 s 0.12 s 0.12 $ 0.12
NET OPERA TING INCOME (ex. depr., Interest & tax) 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.55
Source: Economics Research Associates
C) CJ CJ CJ CJ D CJ CJ CJ C) CJ CJ
Table I.A.5
CARLSBAIJ BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternatl,·e I, Parcel 4, Land Use Scenario A
(BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
RV Operating S1atement
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Yr. 2001 Value ::w.rJ. Xur.l fur..J. Y=.A l.'u.t.S Yw:..li Yw:..1
Sources of Fund5 Expressed in Millions of US Dollars
Net Operating I n<:ome 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.43
Reversion @ 11.0%
Less Cost of Sales @ 3.0%
Net Sales Proceeds
Total Sources of Funds 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.43
Development Costs
Inflation Assumptions I 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 I. 19 1.23 1.27
Number of Spaces 95 48 48
Development Costs -Annual % 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0.0%
Development Costs per space /1 $ 15,263 0.79 0.82
Total Development Costs $ $ 0.79 s 0.82 $ s s s
NET CASH FLOW (before financing & taxes) 0.79 0.82 0.37 o.38 0.42 0.43
Cumulative Cash Flow 0.79 1.61) (1.24) (0.86) (0.44) (0.01)
Nel Present Value@ 14.0% Sl.20 million 2003 dollars
Notes:
/ I New development costs include direct costs, ofT-sile & on-site costs, indirect costs, and developer profit.
/2 Included in development cost per space
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ CJ CJ C) CJ CJ
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
l'ea.t...8 Yu.rJ! YfatlO fuI..l..l fu.r.ll Ye.aLU futl4 Ycaill
Expressed in Millions of US Dollars
s 0.44 $ 0.46 s 0.47 s 0.49 $ 0.50 s 0.52 s 0.53 $ 0.55
5.00
0.15
s $ s $ s s s $ 4.85
s 0.44 $ 0.46 $ 0.47 $ 0.49 $ 0.50 $ 0.52 s 0.53 $ 5.40
I.JO 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 t
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
$ $ s s s $
0.44 0.46 0.47 0.49 o.so O.S2 0.53 S.40
0.44 0.90 1.37 1.8S 2.36 2.87 3.41 8.80
C) CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=i
Table 2.A.I
CARI,SBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT -Allcrnath·c 2, Land Use Scenario A
PROFORMA CASH FLOW -PRELIMINARY RESIDUAL LAND Y ALUE
(BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
2003 2004 2005
Yr. 2001 Yl:ar...l Yllr..l .fillr..J
lnnation Factor 3% Value I 1.06 1.09 1.13
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Net Snncres of Funds By I.and Ilse
Executive Mtg. Hotel Nel Cash Flow (I 1.06) (11.40)
Time Share pI.54)
2006
YcaU
1.16
2.82
9,24
CJ CJ
2007 2008
Tul.r..S filu:Ji
1.19 1.23
2.84 2.93
(2.72) 9.81
CJ CJ c:J CJ CJ c:) c=i
02-Oct-01
2009 20IO 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
l'.w:.1 Ye.aLll Year..2 ~ .Yur.ll fuI:..l.2 Yw:.13. fi.lu:.lA fur_.15
1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I
3.02 3.11 3.21 3.31 3.41 3.52 3.63 3.74 41.24
IO.IO 10.40 1.07
Sub-total $ $ (I 1.06) $ (22.93) $ 12.06 $ 0.12 $ 12.74 $ 13.12 $ 13.52 $ 4.28 $ 3.31 s 3.41 $ 3.52 $ 3.63 $ 3.74 $ 41.24
Net Cash Flow After Developer Costs Is I s (I t.1)1 s (22.9)1 s 12.1 Is 0.1 Is 12.1 Is 13.1 Is 13.S IS 4.3 Is 3.31 s 3.4 1 $ 3.s Is 3.61 $ 3.71 $ 41.2 j
Ne& eces1:nt l::'.:alue A.Dec De1:elopec Costs
Net Present Value@ 14.0% $9.78 million US dollars
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=J c=J c:::=J D CJ
Table 2.A.2
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Allcrnatlvc 2, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A
FISCAL REVENUES
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
~ fuu l'.caL1 ~ l:'.t.&LS fi.a.r..!i fia.t..1 Yur..ll Year..2 XutlQ l'.lltlJ. ~ YlltiJ Ylltl!I Tolr.1.5
Inflation Factor 3% I 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.2) 1.27 1.)0 1.34 1.38 1.4) 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.601
PROPERTY TAXES Expressed In MIiiions or US Dollars
Lanll....l.Lm
Executive Mtg. Hotel $ $ $ $ $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.)0 $ 0.)0 $ 0.)1 $ 0.)2 $ 0.)2 s 0.)) $ 0.)4 $ 0.)4
Time Share $ $ $ $ $ 0.11 $ 0.22 $ 0.)4 $ 0.46 $ 0.59 $ 0.62 $ 0.6) $ 0.64 $ 0.65 $ 0.67 $ 0.68
Total Property Tax Increment $ $ $ $ $ 0.39 $ 0.51 $ 0.63 $ 0.76 s 0.90 $ 0.93 $ 0.95 $ 0.96 $. 0.98 $ 1.00 $ 1.02
City's Share 4, 75% or Property Taxes $ $ $ $ $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0,03 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05
RDA's Non-housing Share 60.00% or Property Taxes $ $ $ $ $ 0.2) $ 0.)0 $ 0.38 $ 0.46 $ 0.54 $ 0.56 $ 0.57 $ 0.58 $ 0.59 $ 0.60 $ 0.61
Expressed In Millions or US Dollars
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
Executive Mtg. Hotel $ $ $ $ 5.57 $ 6.18 $ 6.36 $ 6.55 $ 6.75 $ 6.95 $ 7.16 $ 7.38 $ 7.60 $ 7.8) s 8,06 $ 8.30
Transient Occupancy Tax @ 10.00% of Room Revenue $ $ $ s 0.56 $ 0.62 $ 0.64 $ 0.66 $ 0.68 $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 s 0.81 $ 0.83
Gross Fiscal Operating Income From TOT & Tl s s s s 0.56 s 0.87 $ 0.96 $ 1.06 s 1.17 s 1.28 $ 1.32 s 1.35 $ 1.38 s 1.42 s 1.46 s 1.49
SALES TAX REVENUE
Food & Beverage & 50% of Other Hotel Revenues $ $ $ s 0.03 s 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04
Total Sales Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04
TOTAL FISCAL REVENUE
Property Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ s 0.25 $ 0.33 $ 0.41 $ 0.49 $ 0.58 $ 0.60 $ 0.61 $ 0.62 s 0.64 $ 0.65 $ 0.66
Transienl Occupancy Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.56 $ 0.62 $ 0.64 $ 0.66 s 0.68 $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 $ 0.81 $ 0.83
Sales Tax Revenue $ $ s $ 0.03 s 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0,03 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04 s 0.04
Total Fiscal Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.59 $ 0,90 $ 1.00 $ 1.10 $ 1.20 $ 1.31 $ 1.35 $ 1.39 s 1.42 $ 1.46 $ 1.50 $ 1.54
Sam:1:1::s o[ Enods
FISCAL OPERA TING INCOME $ $ $ $ 0.59 $ 0.90 $ 1.00 $ 1.10 $ 1.20 $ 1.31 $ 1.35 $ 1.39 $ 1.42 $ 1.46 $ 1.50 s 1.54
Reversion@ 7% $ s s $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 23.64
Total Sources of Funds $ $ s s 0.59 $ 0.90 $ 1.00 s 1.10 s 1.20 $ 1.31 $ 1.35 $ 1.39 $ 1.42 $ 1.46 $ 1.50 $ 25.18
NET CASH FLOW Is Is Is Is o.s9 Is o.9o Is 1.00 Is 1.10 Is 1.20 Is 1.31 I s 1.3s I s 1.39 Is 1.42 Is 1.46 I s I.SO I S 25.18 I
Net Present Value @l IO¾ Sil.SI million 2003 dollars
Source: Economics Research Associales
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c:::J CJ CJ CJ c:::J CJ CJ CJ CJ C:=J CJ
Table 2.A.3
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternnth·e 2, Parcel I, Lnnd Use Scenorio A
ExecutiH Ml't!ling Hotel Operating Stalement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yr. 2001 Value Y£Jl1'...l :ua.c.l Tou:.l Y.oau fuJ.:..S l'ul:.6 l'.w:1 ~ Xu.r.2 l:'.wJJl YtllL.ll Yw:..ll ~ Yw:..li l'.<ar..lS
Assumptions
lnnation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60
Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
llotl'I -Exec. C:our. Ctr. :\'umhcr of Rooms 150 0 0 0 150 150 150 150 150 ISO 150 150 ISO 150 150 150
Total Potenlial Number of Room nights 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750 S4,750 S4,7SO 54,750 S4,750 S4,750 S4,7SO 54.750
Average Annual Occupancy Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 65.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0%
Avg. Daily Rm. Rate Hotel 2 /1 $ 135 143 148 152 157 161 166 171 176 181 187 192 198 204 210 217
Operolinr Revenues Expressed In Millions or US Dollan Expressed In Millions or US Dollars
Room Revenues s $ s $ 5.57 $ 6.18 s 6.36 $ 6.55 s 6.75 $ 6.95 $ 7.16 $ 7.)8 $ 7.60 $ 7.8) $ 8.06 $ 8.30
As% of Room Revenues
Food & Beverage 45% 2.5] 2. 78 2.86 2.95 3.04 3.13 3.22 3.32 3.42 3.52 3.63 3.74
Other Revenues 15% 0.84 0.93 0.95 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.07 I.I I 1.14 1.17 1.21 1.25
Subtotal (Non-Room Revenues) 60% $ $ $ s 3.34 $ 3.71 s 3.82 s 3.93 $ 4.05 s 4.17 s 4.30 $ 4.43 $ 4.56 s 4.70 $ 4.84 s 4.98
Gross Revenues $ $ $ $ 8.91 $ 9.88 S 10.18 S 10.49 S 10.80 S 11.13 S 11.46 S 11.80 $ 12.16 S 12.52 S 12.90 s 13.28
D.tp_artmen1al Costs & Expenses As% of Departmental Revenues
Rooms 25% 1.39 1.54 1.59 1.64 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.84 1.90 1.96 2.02 2.08
Food & Beverage 75% 1.88 2.09 2.15 2.21 2.28 2.35 2.42 2.49 2.56 2.64 2.72 2.80
Other Departments 50% 0.42 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.5 1 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.60 0.62
Total Departmental Expenses(% of Gross Revenues) 41% $ s $ $ 3.69 $ 4.09 s 4.22 s 4.34 $ 4.47 $ 4.61 $ 4.74 s 4.89 $ 5.03 s 5.18 s 5.34 s 5.50
Gross Openllng Revenues 59% $ s $ $ 5.22 $ 5.79 $ 5.97 $ 6.14 s 6.33 $ 6.52 s 6.71 s 6.92 s 7.12 s 7.34 s 7.56 s 7.78
Notes:
/I Rate, after discounts, per occupied room.
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ CJ CJ c:::J c=i CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=J C:=J c:=J CJ CJ CJ CJ
Table 2,A.4
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Allernative 2, Parcel 1, Land Use Sc('nario A
Executive Meeting Hotel Operating Statement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yr. 2001 Value fiar..1 Tou:..l YuL.l ~ YlaL5 l'.u.r..6 fuL1 l:'.caL.l! Yur..2 fiaLl!l Y<ar..11 fiar..12 fiaLU Yu.ill l'.u.c.l.S
Expressed In Million5 of US Dollan Expre5sed in Millions or US Dollan
Go>ss Operating Revenues 5.97 6.14 6.33 6.52 6.71 6,92 7.12 7.34 7.56 7.78
l!udisttibuted Qpenting Expenses
As % of Revenue
Administrative & General 5.0% $ $ $ $ 0.45 $ 0.49 $ 0.51 s 0.52 s 0.54 $ 0.56 $ 0.57 $ 0.59 s 0.61 $ 0.63 s 0.64 s 0.66
Management Fee 2.0% 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27
Sales & Marketing 5.0% 0.45 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.64 0.66
Energy Costs 6.0% 0.53 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.80
Repairs & Maintenance 4.0% 0.36 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.53
Total 22.0% $ $ s $ 1.96 $ 2.17 $ 2.24 $ 2.3 I $ 2.38 $ 2.45 $ 2.52 $ 2.60 s 2.67 $ 2.75 $ 2.84 $ 2.92
Gross Operating Profit 36.6% S $ $ s 3.26 $ 3.62 s 3.73 $ 3.84 $ 3.95 s 4.07 $ 4.19 $ 4.32 $ 4.45 $ 4.58 $ 4.72 $ 4.86
Ei:ud E1pensu & Cauitol Costs
Property Taxes fommla 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0,30 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.34
Incentive Fee 2.0% 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27
Insurance 1.0% 0.09 0.10 O.IO 0.10 0.1 I 0,11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13
Capital Reserve 2.0% 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 o .. i4 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27
Total 5.0% 0.45 0.78 0.80 0.82 $ 0.84 $ 0,86 $ 0.88 $ 0.91 $ 0.93 $ 0.96 $ 0.98 $ 1.01
NET OPERA TING INCOME (ex. depr., Interest & tax) 2.82 2.84 2.93 3.02 3.11 3.21 3.31 3.41 3.S2 3.63 3.74 3.85
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ CJ c=J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ C=:J CJ CJ CJ c:J CJ CJ CJ CJ
Table 2.A.6
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternative 2, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A
Time Share
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20!0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yr. 2001 Value filu:J. .Yolll:..l l'.ilr..l fia.t.A Y<ar...5 l'.eal:Ji l.'.ea.r.1 Y.t.u..11 fiar..2 Year..J.11 XllL.11 Yoai:..ll fuLlJ. Yw:.ll Yw:...lS
Assumptions
Innation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60
Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ti111e Share (Number of Hrwms) 100 0 0 0 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Total Number of Intervals Available 2,550 2,550 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5.100 5,100 5,100 5,100
Total Number of Intervals Sold Per Year 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 100
Cumulative Intervals Sold 1,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 5,000 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100
Interval Sales Price $ 18,500 s 19.627 $20,215 $20,822 $21,447 $22,090 $22,753 $23,435 $24,138 $24,862 S25.608 $26,377 $27,168 $27,983 S28,822 $ 29,687
Sales Revenues Expressed in Millions of US Dollan Expressed in MIiiions of US Dollars
Annual Sales Volume s $ $ $ 21.45 $ 22.09 $ 22.75 S 23.44 S 24.14 $ 2.49 $ $ $ $ $ s
Cumulative Sales Volume 21.45 43.54 66.29 89.72 I 13.86 I 16.35 116.35 116.35 I 16.35 116.35 I 16.35 I 16.35
Cost of Sales Per Room
Product Cost (excluding land coSI) /I $ 205,000 11.54 12.24
Gross Profit Before Land Costs s $ $(11.54) S 21.45 s 9.85 S 22.75 S 23.44 $ 24.14 $ 2.49 s s $ s s
Cumulative Profit Before Land Costs (11.54) 9.91 19.76 42.51 65.95 90.09 92.57 92.57 92.57 92.57 92.57 92.57 92.57
Costs & Expenses/2 As% of Annual Gross Sales
Commissions 22.0% $ $ $ $ 4.72 $ 4.86 $ 5.01 s 5.16 s 5.31 $ 0.55 $ s s $ s $
Marketing 22.0% 4.72 4.86 5.01 5.16 5.3 I 0.55
Sales Overhead 5.0% 1.07 1.10 1.14 1.17 1.21 0.12
Administration 7.0% 1.50 1.55 1.59 1.64 1.69 0.17
Acct./Legal/Counsulting 0.5% 0.1 I 0.11 0.1 I 0.12 0.12 0.01
Depreciation 0.3% 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 O.Q7 0.01
Other 0.1% 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00
Total Cost & Expenses(% of Annual Gross Sales) 56.9% $ s s $ 12.20 S 12.57 $ 12.95 $ 13.33 $ 13. 73 $ 1.41 s s $ s s $
~et Uu£1opmeot ~tofit (I 11ssl $ $ $(11.54) S 9.24 $ (2.72) S 9.81 S 10.10 $ 10.40 s 1.07 s $ $ $ s s
Cumulative Cash Flow $ $ $(11.54) $ (2.29) $ (5.01) $ 4.80 $ 14.90 S 25.30 $ 26.37 $ 26.37 $ 26.37 $ 26.37 $ 26.37 S 26.37 $ 26.37
Net Present Value@ 15.0% S8.09 million 2003 dollars
Notes:
/I Development costs include allocated share of onsite/offsite costs.
/2 Selling and marking expenses only. Operating expenses are covcre<l 100% by annual fees.
Source: RCI Consulting, Inc.; and Economics Research Associates
C:J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=i c=J CJ
Table 3.A.I
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternati.-e 3, Land Use Scenario A
PROFORMA CASH FLOW -PRELIMINARY RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
(BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
2003 2004 2005
Yr. 2001 Yl:ac..l fu.r.l filu:..J.
Inflation Factor 3% Value I 1.06 1.09 I. 13
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Net Sources of Funds By I and Use
Commercial Retail Cash Flow (2.95) (3.04)
Office I (9.90)
Time Share (17.30)
Full Service Hotel (20.49) (21.10)
Time Share 6A (6.92)
Office 6B !1.71)
2006
1'll.r.A
1.16
1.74
1.59
9.24
5.55
6.93
0.30
Sub-total $ $ (23.44) $ (59.99) $ 25.36
CJ
2007
Yllc..S
1.19
2.13
1.84
9.52
5.60
7.43
0.36
$ 26.89 s
Net Cash Flow After Developer Costs Is I s !23.4)1 s i6o.oll s 25.4 Is 26.9 Is
~el fce:seot Yahu~ A£tet lb:1::eloper Costs
Net Present Value_@_ 14.0% $29.87 million 2003 dollars
CJ CJ c=i CJ c=i CJ CJ CJ CJ
02-Oct-01
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
fiJu:..fi Y£.III:..1 Yw:JI Yl:a.r..2 ~ l'.ellLll fur.ll Yc.a.r..13 fu.t..14 Year..15
1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I
2.20 2.26 2.33 2.40 2.47 2.55 2.62 2.70 2.78 30.38
2.00 2.06 2. 13 2.19 2.25 2.32 2.39 2.46 2.54 27.97
(9.10) 10.10 10.40 10.72 I 1.04
5.77 5.95 6.14 6.33 6.52 6.72 6.93 7.15 7.37 81.27
0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 5.24
1.25 S 20.77 $ 21.39 $ 22.04 S 22.71 $ 12.03 $ 12.40 $ 12.77 $ 13.16 $ 144.86
1.21 s 20.8 Is 21.4 ! S 22.0 I s 22.1 I $ 12.0 Is 12.4 ! S 12.8 Is 13.21 s 144.9 !
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=i CJ CJ
Table 3.A.2
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Allernalive 3, Land Use Scenario A
FISCAL REVENUES
2003 2004 200S 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201S 2016 2017
fiatl Yw:..2 Year..3. fuc.A YeJu:.S .Yc.aLJi .Yt:aJ:..1 Yw:...11 Ycad Yar..1Jl Yutl1 l'.il.c..l.2 .Yca.r..lJ l'.'.car..14 Yutl5
Jnnation Factor 3% I 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.5 1 1.56 160 I
PROPERTY TAXES Expressed In Millions or US Dollars
Lllllll..1J.w
Commercial Retail $ $ s s $ 0.20 s 0.21 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 s 0.23 $ 0.23 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.25
Office I s $ $ $ $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.21 s 0.21 $ 0.22 s 0.22 $ 0.23 s 0.23 $ 0.23
Time Share2 $ s $ $ $ 0.11 $ 0.22 $ 0.34 s 0.46 $ 0.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.87 s 0.89 $ 0.91 s 0.92 s 0.94
Full-Service Hotel $ $ s s s 0.55 $ 0.57 $ 0.58 $ 0.59 s 0.60 $ 0.61 $ 0.62 s 0.64 $ 0.65 s 0.66 $ 0.68
Time Share 6A s s $ $ s 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 s 0.09 s 0.09 s 0.10 $ 0.10 s 0.10 s 0.10 s 0.10 $ 0.11
Office 68 $ s $ s s 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04
Total Property Tax Increment $ $ $ s s 1.17 $ 1.32 $ 1.46 $ 1.60 $ 1.76 $ 1.92 $ 2.08 $ 2.12 $ 2.17 $ 2.21 $ 2.25
City's Share 4.75% of Property Taxes $ s $ $ $ 0.06 s 0.06 s 0.07 s 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.09 s 0.10 s 0.10 s 0.10 s 0.10 $ 0.11
RD A's Non-housing Share 60.00% of Proper1y Taxes s $ $ $ s 0.70 $ 0.79 $ 0.87 s 0.96 s 1.05 $ 1.15 s 1.25 $ 1.27 $ 1.30 s 1.33 $ 1.35
Expressed In Millions of US Dollars
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
Full Service Hotel $ $ $ $ 10.31 $ 11.44 $ 11.78 S 12.14 $ 12.50 $ 12.88 $ 13.26 $ 13.66 $ 14.07 S 14.49 $ 14.93 $ 15.38
Transient Occupancy Tax@ 10.00% or Room Revenue $ s $ $ 1.03 $ 1.14 $ 1.18 $ 1.21 s 1.25 $ 1.29 $ 1.33 s 1.37 $ 1.41 s 1.45 $ 1.49 $ 1.54
Gross Fiscal Operating Income From TOT & Tl s s s s 1.03 s 1.90 s 2.03 s 2.16 s 2.29 s 2.42 s 2.57 s 2.71 s 2.78 s 2.8S s 2.92 s 3.00
SALES TAX REVENUE
Retail Commercial s s $ $ 0.23 s 0.28 s 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.31 s 0.32 $ 0.33 s 0.34 $ 0.35 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 s 0.38
Food & Beverage & 50% of Other Hotel Revenues s s $ $ 0.07 s 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.09 s 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.10 s 0.10 $ 0.11
Total Sales Tax Revenue $ s $ $ 0.30 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 $ 0.39 $ 0.40 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.45 $ 0.46 $ 0.47 $ 0.49
TOT A.L FISCAL REVENUE
Property Tax Revenue $ s $ s s 0.76 $ 0.85 s 0.94 $ 1.04 $ 1.14 $ 1.24 s 1.35 s 1.38 $ 1.40 $ 1.43 s 1.46
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue s s $ $ 1.03 $ 1.14 $ 1.18 s 1.21 $ 1.25 s 1.29 $ 1.33 ·s 1.37 s 1.41 $ 1.45 $ 1.49 $ 1.54
Sales Tax Revenue s s s s 0.30 $ 0.36 s 0.37 s 0.39 s 0.40 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 s 0.45 s 0.46 $ 0.47 $ 0.49
Total Fiscal Revenue $ s $ $ 1.34 $ 2.26 $ 2.40 $ 2.54 s 2.69 $ 2.83 $ 2.99 $ 3.15 s 3.23 $ 3.31 $ 3.40 s 3.49
Sa11tcts a[ Enods
FISCAL REVENUE $ s $ $ 1.34 $ 2.26 $ 2.40 $ 2.54 $ 2.69 $ 2.83 $ 2.99 $ 3.15 s 3.23 s 3.3 I $ 3.40 s 3.49
Reversion@ 7% s s $ $ s s s s $ s s s $ $ $ 53.62
Total Sources of funds s s $ $ 1.34 s 2.26 $ 2.40 $ 2.54 s 2.69 $ 2.83 $ 2.99 $ 3.15 s 3.23 s 3.31 $ 3.40 $ 57.11
NET CASH FLOW Is -Is Is -Is 1.34 I$ 2.26 Is 2.40 I s 2.54 ! S 2.69 ! S 2.83 I s 2.99 Is 3.15 ! S J.23 ! S 3.31 Is 3.40 Is s1.11 I
Net Present Value@ 10% S26.2S million 2003 dollars
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=J CJ CJ c=i CJ c=i CJ CJ c=i CJ
Table 3.A.3
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT· Alternative 3, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A
Retail/Commercial: Operating Statement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
futl Yl:Ju:.l fiu..J. Yta.r.A .Yi:JlLS l'cll.t...6 ~ .huJI Ytar..2 l'.l:lu:...lll. Yu.c..11 ~ YcaLll fu.c..11 YllL.l.S
Inflation Factor 3% 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60
Rental Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cumulative Gross Lcasablc Area
Comml·n·inl Retail 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Restauranls 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
To1al 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 ·
Occupancy Rate
Commercial l!c•tuil 0% 0% 0% 80% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
Rl'sfaunrnts 0% 0% 0% 80% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
Average NNN Base Rent Per s. f. Per Y r/1 US$
( :011111,crcial Rt•lail $ 20.00 21.22 21.85 22.51 23.19 23.88 24.60 25.34 26.10 26.88 27.68 28.52 29.37 30.25 31.16 32.09
l{estaurnnts $ 30.00 31.83 32.78 33.77 34,78 35.82 36.90 38.00 39.14 40.32 41.53 42.77 44.06 45.38 46.74 48.14
Average Gross Sales Per Square Foot Per Year US$
Co1111m.•rcial Rt•lail $ 250.00 265 273 281 290 299 307 317 326 336 346 356 367 378 389 401
Restllurants $ 375.00 398 410 422 435 448 461 475 489 504 519 535 551 567 584 602
Expressed in MIilions or US Dollars Expressed In Millions or US Dollars
Operating Revenues
Base Rent Revenue $ $ $ $ 1.85 $ 2.27 $ 2.34 $ 2.41 $ 2.48 $ 2.55 $ 2.63 $ 2.71 $ 2.79 $ 2.87 $ 2.96 $ 3.05
Gross Revenues $ $ $ $ 1.85 $ 2.27 $ 2.34 $ 2.41 $ 2.48 $ 2.55 $ 2.63 $ 2.71 $ 2.79 $ 2.87 $ 2.96 $ 3.05
Operating Expenses % of Rev.
Administrative & General 4.0% $ $ $ $ 0.07 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.12 $ 0.12
Sales & Marketing 2.0% 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Total 6.0% $ $ $ $ 0.11 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.15 $ 0.15 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 $ 0.18
NET OPERATING INCOME (ex. depr., interest & tax) $ $ $ $ 1.74 $ 2.13 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.33 $ 2.40 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 $ 2.62 $ 2.70 S 2.78 S 2.87
Notes:
/I Triple-net rent where tenant pays for pro-rata share of common area charges, insurance, property taxes, and utilities in addition to base rent. No rent for tenant improvements; tenants pay for improvements.
Source: Economics Research Associates
c:=J c::::::J c::::::J C=:J c::::::J c::::J c::::::J CJ c::::::J c::::J C3 CJ c:=J CJ c=J CJ CJ c=J CJ
Table 3.A.4
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT -Alternative 3, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A
Retail/Commercial: Operating Statement
2003 2004 zoos 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
:hlll:.l Ycat..l fia.r..3. YH.L.4 YcllL!i filu:..6 YllL1 fuLll fi.ar.2. Ytlu:..lJl l'nc...11 Yl:B.r..ll l:n.r..1.1 l:.'.l:Ju:..H 1D.t..!S
Suuc..::e:i o( Euods Expressed in Millions or US Dollars Expressed in Millions of US Dollars
Net Operating Income $ $ $ $ 1.74 $ 2.13 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.33 $ 2.40 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 $ 2.62 $ 2.70 $ 2.78 $ 2.87
Reversion@ 10.0% $28.66
Less Cost of Sales@ 4.0% $ 1.15
Net Sale Proceeds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $27.51
Total Sources of Funds $ $ $ $ 1.74 $ 2.13 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.33 $ 2.40 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 $ 2.62 $ 2.70 $ 2.78 $30.38
DcYclopmeot Costs
Gross Leasable Area (s.f.) 80,000 40,000 40,000
Inflation Assumptions I 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I
Comnu:rcial Rct:iil 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Restaurants 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
New Development Costs/2 $ 135.00 per sf $ $ 2.95 $ 3.04 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -$
Total Development Costs 2.95 3.04
NET CASH FLOW (before financing & taxes) 2.9S 3.04 1.74 2.13 2.20 2.26 2.33 2.40 2.47 2.55 2.62 2.70 2.78 30.38
CUMULATIVE CASH FLOW 2.95 5.99 4.25 2.11 0.08 2.35 4.68 7.08 9.55 12.10 14.72 17.42 20.20 50.S8
Residual Land Value= Net Present Value@ 14.0% SS.28 million 2003 dollars
Notes:
/1 New development costs, include direct costs, indirect costs, and developer profit.
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ c=i c=J c=i c=J c=i c.:J c=i
Table 3.A.5
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGN1'-1ENT-Alternati\'e 3, Parcel 11 Land Use ~cenario A
Office Operating Statement
lnnation Factor
Rental Escalation
()nice
Total Cl.!\
Average Annual Occupancy Rate
Occupied Space
A,•ernge NNN Rent Per s.f.. Per Year
New
Yr. 2001 Va\!!!:_
3%
0%
80,000
80,000
22.80
2003 2004
Y<a.r.1 fiu.l
1.06 1.09
1.00 1.00
0% 0%
$ 24.19 $ 24.91
c:J
2005 2006
'.uat..l Ytau
1.13 1.16
1.00 1.00
80,000
80,000
0% 80%
64,000
$ 25.66 S 26.43
CJ C=:J c=i
2007 2008 2009 2010
fu.t..S fiacii Y£u.1 l.'£.u..ll
1.19 1.23 1.27 I.JO
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
90% 95% 95% 95%
72,000 76,000 76,000 76,000
s 27.22 $ 28.04 $ 28.88 $ 29.75
c=i CJ C:::J CJ [=3
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 . 2016 2017
Y.atl YtatlJI l'.'.nill Y.u..12 Yw:.U l:'.ll.r..14 Ync..15
1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
80,000 80,000 80.000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
76,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 76.000
$ 30.64 $ 31.56 s 32.51 s 33.48 s 34.49 $ 35.52 $ )6.59
Expressed In MIiiions or US Dollan Expressed In MUHons of US Dollars
Gross Revenues
Operating Expenses
Administralive & General
Sales & Marketing
Total
NET OPERATING INCOME (ex. depr., Interest & tax)
Notes:
% of Rev.
4.0%
s s s 1.69 s 1.96
0.07 0.08
s 2.1) s 2.20 $ 2.26
0.09 0.09 0.09
2.0% V.VJ VoV"'T U.V"'T V ,V-, V,VJ n n, nn, nn, nn.t n n<
6.0% 0.10 $ 0.12 s 0.13 s O.IJ $ 0.14
$ s 1.59 s 1.84 s 2.00 s 2.06 s 2.13
s 2.3) s 2.40 $ 2.47
0.09 0.10 0.10
n n< 0.05 0.05
s 0.14 s 0.14 $ 0.15
s 2.19 s 2.25 s 2.32
/I Triple.net renl where tenant pays for pro~rata share of common area charges, insurance, property taxes, and utilities in addition 10 base rent. No rent for tenant improvements; tenants pay for improvements.
Source: Economics Research Associates
$ 2.54 $ 2.62 s 2.70 s 2.78
O.IO 0.10 0.11 0.11
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06
$ 0.15 s 0.16 s 0.16 $ 0.17
s 2.39 s 2.46 s 2.54 s 2.61
CJ c=J
CJ c=J c=i c=J c=J CJ c:=i c::J c=J CJ c::J CJ c::=:J c=i CJ c:::J c=i c=i CJ
Table 3.A.7
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternative 3, Parcel 2, Land Use Scennrio A
Time Share
2003 2004 200S 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201S 2016 2017
Yr. 200 I Value YllLl Ytu..l l'.e.u..l Yw:..i fiac..S. fiatJi l'.lld Xw:.B ~ l'.eatl.11 l'..eac..ll Xtatll Yen.ll l'.w:.M YtaLl5
Assumptions
Inflation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.5 1 1.56 1.60
Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i\umhcr or Hooms 150 0 0 0 75 75 75 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Total Number of Intervals Available 3,825 3,825 3,825 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650
Total Number of Intervals Sold Per Year 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1,000
Cumulative Intervals Sold 1,000 2,000 3.000 4.000 5,000 6,000 7,000 650 650 650 650 650
Interval Sales Price $ 18,500 $ 19,627 $20,215 $20,822 $21,447 $22,090 S22,753 $23,435 $24,138 $24,862 $25,608 $26,377 $27,168 $27,983 $28,822 $ 29.687
Sales Revenues Expressed In Millions or US Dollars Expressed in Millions or US Dollars
Annual Sales Volume $ s $ $ 21.45 S 22.09 $ 22.75 $ 23.44 $ 24.14 $ 24.86 S 25.61 s $ s $
Cumulative Sales Volume 21.45 43.54 66.29 89.72 I 13.86 138.73 164.33 164.33 164.33 164.33 164.33 164.33
Cost of Sales Per Room
Product Cost (excluding land cost) /I s 205,000 17.30 18.9 1
Gross Profit Before Land Costs $ s $(17.30) S 21.45 $ 22.09 s 3.84 $ 23.44 $ 24.14 S 24.86 S 25.61 $ $ $ s $
Cumulative Profit Before Land Costs (17.30) 4.14 26.23 30.08 53.51 77.65 102.51 128.12 128.12 128.12 128.12 128.12 128.12
Cosh & Expeoses/2 As% of Annual Gross Sales
Commissions 22.0% S s s s 4.72 $ 4.86 s 5.01 $ 5.16 s 5.31 $ 5.47 s 5.63 s $ $ s
Marketing 22.0% 4.72 4.86 5.01 5.16 5.31 5.41 5.63
Sales Overhead 5.0% 1.07 I.IO 1.14 1.17 1.21 1.24 1.28
Administration 7.0% 1.50 1.55 1.59 1.64 1.69 1.74 1.79
Acct./Legal/Counsulting 0.5% 0.11 0,1 I 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13
Depreciation 0.3% 0.06 0.D7 0.07 O.Q7 0.07 0.07 0.08
Other 0.1% 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0,02 0.03
Total Cost & Expenses (% of Annual Gross Sales) 56.9% S s $ $ 12.20 S 12.57 S 12.95 $ 13.33 $ 13.73 $ 14.15 $ 14.57 $ $ s $ $
!Sel Duclopmeot ecom (I ass) $ $ $(17.30) $ 9.24 $ 9.52 S (9.10) $ IO.IO $ I 0.40 $ l0.72 $ I 1.04 $ $ s $ $
Cumulative Cash Flow $ s S (17.30) S (8.06) $ 1.46 $ (7.64) S 2.46 S 12.86 $ 23.58 $ 34.61 $ 34.61 S 34.61 $ 34.61 $ 34.61 $ 34.61
Net Pl"esent Value@ 15.0% 57.68 million 2003 dollars
Noles:
/1 Development costs include allocated share of onsite/ofTsite costs.
/2 Selling and marking expenses only. Operating expenses are covered 100% by annual fees.
Source: RCI Consulting, Inc.; and Economics Research Associates
CJ c::J c::=i c=J CJ CJ ~ c=i
Table 3.A.8
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternative 3, Parcel 3, Land Use Scenario A
Full Service Hotel
2003
Yr. 2001 Value fiar..l
AssumptiOns
Inflation Factor 3% 1.06
Real Escalation 0% 1.00
llPlJ 1.5 (llotd 2 -E.Hl". C1mf. Cir.) Numhl•r of Rooms 300 0
Total Potential Number of Room nights
Average Annual Occupancy Rate 0.0%
Avg. Daily Rm. Rate Hotel 2 /1 $ 125 133
Operating Revenues
Room Revenues $
As % of Room Revenues
Food & Beverage 55%
Other Revenues 30%
Subtotal (Non-Room Revenues) 85% $
Gross Revenues $
D .. epa.rJmental Co:sts & Expenses As % of Departmental Revenues
Rooms 25%
Food & Beverage 75%
Other Departments 50%
Total Departmental Expenses(% of Gross Revenues) 44% S
Gross Operating Revenues 56% $
Notes:
/ I Rate, aller discounts, per occupied room.
Source: Economics Research Associates
$
$
$
$
$
CJ [ 7 c=J CJ
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
fiar...2 l'.£al:..J. fiar.A fi.a.r..S Yo.ar.11 Yw:J:
1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27
1.00 1.00 1.00 I.DO 1.00 1.00
0 0 300 300 300 300
109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500
0.0% 0.0% 65.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0%
137 141 145 149 154 158
Expressed In MIiiions of US Dollan
s S 10.31 S 11.44 S 11.78 S 12.14
5.67 6.29 6.48 6.68
3.09 3.43 3.54 3.64
$ $ 8.77 $ 9.72 $ 10.02 $ 10.32
$ S 19.08 $ 21.16 $ 21.80 S 22.45
2.58 2.86 2.95 3.03
4.25 4.72 4.86 5.01
1.55 1.72 1.77 1.82
$ $ 8.38 $ 9.30 s 9.57 $ 9.86
$ $ 10.70 $ 11.87 $ 12.23 $ 12.59
c:J c:=J C=:J C:=J CJ c=J CJ
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
l:'.ea.cJ! Yi:.u..2 Ycatl1I har..11 l'.w:..12. fiatl.1 l:'..oa.c..li l'.il.c..1.5.
1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 I.SI 1.56 1.60
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 I 09,500 109,500 109,500 109.500
70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0%
163 168 173 178 184 189 195 201
Expressed in MIiiions of US Dollan
$ 12.50 S 12.88 $ 13.26 $ 13.66 S 14.07 $ 14.49 $ 14.93 $ 15.38
6.88 7.08 7.29 7.51 7.74 7.97 8.21 8.46
3.75 3.86 3.98 4.10 4.22 4.35 4.48 4.61
$ 10.63 $ 10.94 $ 11.27 $ 11.61 $ 11.96 $ 12.32 $ 12.69 . S 13.07
$ 23.13 $ 23.82 $ 24.54 $ 25.27 $ 26.03 $ 26.81 $ 27.62 $ 28.44
3.13 3.22 3.32 3.42 3.52 3.62 3.73 3.84
5.16 5.31 5.47 5.63 5.80 5.98 6.16 6.34
1.88 1.93 1.99 2.05 2.11 2.17 2.24 2.31
$ 10.16 $ 10.46 $ 10.78 $ 11.10 $ 11.43 $ 11.78 $ 12.13 $ 12.49
$ 12.97 $ 13.36 $ 13.76 $ 14.17 S 14.60 S 15.04 $ 15.49 $ 15.95
CJ D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
Tnblc 3.A.9
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT. Alternati\'e 3. Parcel 3, Land Use Scenario A
Full Service Hotel
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20!0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yr. 2001 Value l'.w:.l l'..w:..l fuc.l .fiau Xtar..S ~ Yw:.1 fiar.ll YrllL2 l'.liLlll l'.w:.ll fur.ll fur..ll Yw:.li l'.w:.L5
Expr-essed in Millions or US Dollars E:11:pressed ln Millions or US Dollars
Gross Qper.ating Revenues 12.23 12.59 12.97 13.36 13.76 14.17 14.60 15.04 15.49 15.95
I lodisldbu&ed QpccaUog Expenses
As% of Revenue
Administrative & General 5.0% S s $ s 0.95 s 1.06 $ 1.09 s 1.12 $ 1.16 s 1.19 $ 1.23 $ 1.26 s 1.30 s 1.34 $ 1.38 s 1.42
Management Fee 2.0% 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57
Sales & Marketing 5.0% 0.95 1.06 1.09 1.12 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.26 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.42
Energy Costs 6.0% 1.14 1.27 1.3 I 1.35 1.39 1.43 1.47 1.52 1.56 1.61 1.66 1.71
Repairs & Maintenance 4.0% 0.76 0.85 0,87 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.07 1.10 1.14
Total 22.0% $ $ s $ 4.20 $ 4.66 s 4.80 s 4.94 s 5.09 $ 5.24 s 5.40 s 5.56 $ 5.73 $ 5.90 $ 6.08 s 6.26
Gross Operating_fmfit 34.1% $ $ $ $ 6.50 s 7.21 s 7.43 s 7.65 $ 7.88 s 8.12 s 8.36 s 8.61 $ 8.87 $ 9.14 $ 9.41 $ 9.69
Ein:d Euu:oses & Cagital Casts
Property Taxes (based on I% of prior year capitalized value) fommla 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.68
Incentive Fee 2.0% 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57
Insurance 1.0% 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.28
Capital Reserve 2.0% 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57·
Total 5.0% 0.95 1.61 1.66 1.70 s 1.75 $ 1.79 s 1.84 $ 1.89 s 1.94 $ 1.99 $ 2.04 s 2.10
NET OPERA TING INCOME (ex. depr., lnlerest & tax) 5.55 5.60 5.77 5.95 6.14 6.33 6.52 6.72 6.93 7.15 7.37 7.60
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ c::J c=J CJ CJ c.::J CJ CJ CJ c::J CJ CJ CJ c:=i c=J c=i CJ CJ
Table 3.A.11
CARLSBAD BOULEY ARD REALIGNMENT -Alternati,·e 3, Parcel 6A, Land Use Scenario A
Time Share
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yr. 2001 Value Tou:..l Y<llL2 fiu..J Yciu:.A Yl:a.L5 Y<B.r..6 fillL1 Y.ear..11 fillL2 Ycac.JJl Yu.c..l.l YllLU YeJu:JJ Y<.al:J.!I Y<aLLS
Assumptions
Inflation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60
Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Time Shal'c Honms 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Total Number of Intervals Available 1,530 1.530 1,530 1,530 1,530 1.530 1,530 1.530 1.530 1,530 1,53(1 1,530
Total Number of Intervals Sold Per Year 750 780
Cumulative Intervals Sold 750 1.530 1.530 1.530 1,530 1,530 1,530 1,530 1.530 1.530 I .530 1.530
Interval Sales Price $ 18,500 s 19,627 $20.215 $20.822 $21,447 $22,090 S22,753 $23,435 $24, I 38 $24.862 $25.608 $26,377 $27.168 $27,983 $28,822 $ 29,687
Sales Revenues Expressed in MIiiions of US Dollar,; Expressed In Millions or US Dollars
Annual Sales Volume $ s $ $ 16.08 $ 17.23 $ s s $ $ $ s $ $
Cumulative Sales Volume 16.08 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32
Cost of Snles Per Room
Product Cost (excluding land cost) /I $ 205,000 6.92
Gross Profit Before Land Costs $ $ $ (6.92) $ 16.08 S 17.23 $ $ $ $ s s s s $ $
Cumulative Profit Before Land Costs (6.92) 9.16 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39
Coses & E1penses'2 As% of Annual Gross Sales
Commissions 22.0% $ $ $ $ 3.54 $ 3.79 $ $ $ $ $
Marketing 22.0% 3.54 3.79
Sales Overhead 5.0% 0.80 0.86
Administration 7.0% 1.13 1.21
Acct./Legal/Counsulting 0.5% 0.08 0.09
Depreciation 0.3% 0.05 0.05
Other 0.1% 0,02 0.02
Total Cost & Expenses(% of Annual Gross Sales) 56.9% $ $ $ $ 9.15 $ 9.80 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Nn.J!J?velopment Profit (l◄oss) 43% $ $ S (6.92) S 6.93 $ 7.43 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Cumulative Cash Flow $ $ S (6.92) $ 0.01 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44
Net Present Value@ 15.0% $3. IO million 2003 dollars
Notes:
/I Development costs include allocated share of onsite/ofTsite costs.
/2 Selling and marking expenses only. Operating expenses are covered 100% by annual fees.
Source: RCI Consulting, Inc.; and Economics Research Associates
c=J CJ CJ CJ CJ c::::J c=i
Tnbk3.A.12
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALICNr\lENT • Alll'rnalin J, Parcel 6B, Land UJe Scl'nario A
ornce Operating Stal<"mcnl
CJ CJ c:::J CJ CJ C=:J CJ CJ c:J
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yr.2001Va~ l:'.uL1 Yui:..2 Yw:.J hu:..4 .l:'.w:..5 YurJi l:'.u.t.1 Yur..B Yu.tl l:'.uL.1.11 Yw:..ll }'.nr..1.2 l:'.uLll :k'.nLL4 hu..l5
InO:uion Factor
Rental Escalation
()flin·
Tu1111c;1.,\
Average Annual Occupancy Rate
Occupied Space
A veragc NNN Rcnl Per s.f.. Per Y car
New
3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 l.lfi 1.19 1.23 1.27 I.JO 1.)4 1.38
0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.DO 1.00 I.DO 1.00 I.DO 1.00
15,000 15,000 15,000 15.000 15.000 15,000 15 000 15.000
15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
0% 0% 0% RO% 95% Q5% 95% 95% 95% 95%
12,000 14,250 14,250 14,150 14,250 14,250 14.250
22,80 5 24.19 S 2<.91 $ 25.66 $ 26.4) $ 27.22 S 2R,O<I S 28.R8 S 29.75 $ J0.64 S Jl.56
E1pressed In Mllllon1 of US Dollars
1.4] 1.47 l.51 1.56
1.00 I.DO I.DO 1.00
15,000 15 000 15 000 15,000
15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
95"1,, 95"!., 95% 95%
14,250 14,250 14.250 14,250
32.5 I $ 3J.4R S JH9 S 35.52
E1prened In MIiiion, of US Dollars
GroSI Revenues S 0.)2 S 0.)9 S 0.40 0.4 I S 0,42 S 0.44 S 0.45 S 0.46 S 0.48 S 0.49 S 0.51
f)pcratinli,l t·1pensrs
Administrative & General
Sales & Marketing
Total
NET OPERATING INCOME (n. dtpr., lnterl!st & ta:x)
Noles:
%ofRev.
4.0%
2.0%
6.0% S
0.01
0.01
S 0.02
S 0.30
0.02 0.02
0,01 O.DI
s 0.02 s 0.02
$ 0J6 s O.J8
0.02 0.02 0.02 0,02 0,02
0.01 0,01 0.01 0,01 O.o!
s 0.02 s O.oJ s 0,0) s 0.03 s 0.03
s 0.39 $ 0.40 s 0.41 $ 0.42 s 0,44
/I Triple-net renl where tenant pays for pro-rata share of common area charges, insurance, property taxes, and utilities in addition to base rent. No rent for tenant improvements; tenants pay for improvements.
Source: Economics Research Associates
Tahlc J.A.IJ
CARI.SHAD ROUI.F.VARD REALIGNMENT. Allem.etlve 3, P■ rccl 69, L■nd Use Scenario A
(IIEFOI\E TAXES & FINANCING)
OfnC"e Operatin~ Staccmenl
0.02 0,02 0.02
O.ol 0.01 0.0]
s 0.03 s 0.03 s 0.03
s 0.45 s 0.◄6 s 0.48
s
s
1.60
1.00
15/X){)
15,000
95%
14,150
36.59
0.52
0.02
0.01
O.QJ
0.49
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yr. 2001 Value l:'.uL1 Yui:..2 Yw:.J l'.uu fuL5 YurJi Ytat:.2 Yur..B Yu.tl l:'.uL.1.11 Yw:..ll }'.nr..1.2 l'.w:..ll :k'.nLL4 Yuill
Sourer, or Funcls E:1preued In MIiiions of US Doll■n Expressed In Mllllons of US Dollan
NC"C Operating Income s s s s O.JO s 0.36 s 0.38 s 0.39 s 0.40 s 0.41 s 0.42 s 0.44 s 0.45 s 0,46 s 0.48 s 0.49
Reversion@ 10.0% 4.90
Less Cost of Sales @ 3.0% 0.15
Net Sale Proceeds s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s 4.75
Tolal Sources of Funds s s. s s 0.30 s 0.36 s 0.38 $ 0.39 s 0.40 s 0.41 s 0,42 s 0.44 s 0.45 s 0.46 s 0.48 s 5.24
Drvrlnpmcnt Cous
lnn:1.1ion Assumptions 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 l.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.4) 1.47 1..51 1.56 1.60
Gross Lcasablc Area New 15,000 15,000 15,000 ll,000 15,000 15.000 15,000 15,000 1.5,000 15.000 15,000 15,000 ll.000
Development Costs Annual % New O¾ 0% 100% 0%
New Developmcnl Costs S 101.44 per sf s s s 1.71
Total Dcvelopmenl Costs s s s 1.71
NET CASH FLOW (before financing & lases) 1.71 0.30 0J6 0.38 0J9 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 5.24
CUMULATIVE CASH FLOW 1.71 1.41 I.OS 0.67 0.29 0.11 O.Sl 0,94 1.38 1.83 2.29 2.77 8.01
Rrsldual Land Value-Ne1 Presrnl Value_@ 14.00/U Sl.01 million 2003 dollars
Noles:
II
New devclopmcnl costs include din:cl costs, indirect costs, 11,nd developer profit.
Source: Economics Research Associa1es
c:=i c=i CJ
CJ CJ c::::J c=J ~ c:J CJ CJ CJ
Table 4.A.I
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A
PROFORMA CASH FLOW -PRELIMINARY RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
(BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
2003 2004 2005
Yr. 2001 fu.r...l fiai:.Z .Yw:..J
Inflation Factor 3% Value I 1.06 1.09 1.13
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Net Sources or Funds By Land Use
Executive Mtg. Hotel Net Cash Flow (I 1.06) (11.40)
Commercial Retail Cash Flow (3.32) (3.42)
Time Share p7.30)
2006
l'.w:.A
1.16
2.82
1.96
9.24
c:J CJ
2007 2008
l'llr...S TolrJi
1.19 1.23
2.84 2.93
2.40 2.47
9.52 (9.10)
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=i C=1
02-Oct-0I
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yw:..1 fin..ll Yw:...2 fur...1ll fu.r...ll fuLl2 fur..1.1 fuill ~
1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 I.SI 1.56 1.60 I
3.02 3.12 3.21 3.31 3.42 3.52 3.63 3.74 41.27
2.55 2.62 2.70 2.78 2.86 2.95 3.o4 3.13 34.18
10.10 I 0.40 10.72 11.04 7.39
Sub-total $ $ (14.38) $ (32.12) $ 14.02 $ 14.76 $ (3.70) $ 15.67 $ 16.14 $ 16.63 $ 17.13 $ 13.67 $ 6.47 $ 6.67 $ 6.87 $ 75.45
Net Cash Flow Arter Developer Costs Is I s i14.4ll s p2.1il s 14.o Is 14.8 1 $ l3·7ll $ 1s.1 Is 16.1 Is 16.61 s 11.1 I s 13.71 s 6.s Is 6.71 $ 6.9 Is 1s.s I
~et ensent Yalue ACter Del'.'.eloper Costs
Net Present Value.@_ 14.0% SZ0.65 million 2003 dollars
CJ
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=i CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
Table 4.A.2
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A
FISCAL REVENUES
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Xw:..l fiar.l i'.J:ar...1 l'ca.t.j l:'.c.aL5 Yw:.Ji Yn.r..1 Yw:..l! Yw:..2 Yllr._1.J) Yill:..11 fur..12 Yrn:..lJ. fu.t..1.4 l'.'.ear:..15
lnnation Factor 3% I 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I
PROPERTY TAXES Expressed In Millions of US Dollars
Larul.l.L=
Executive Mtg. Hotel $ $ $ $ $ 0.28 $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.30 $ 0.31 $ 0.31 $ 0.32 $ 0.33 $ 0.33 $ 0.34
Commercial Retail $ $ $ $ $ 0.23 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.25 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 0.27 $ 0.27 $ 0.28 $ 0.28
Time Share $ $ $ $ $ 0.11 $ 0.22 $ 0.34 $ 0.46 $ 0.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.87 $ 0.97 $ 0.99 $ 1.01 $ 1.03
Total Property Tax Increment $ $ $ $ $ 0.62 $ 0.74 $ 0.87 $ 1.00 $ I.IS $ 1.29 $ 1.45 $ 1.56 $ 1.59 $ 1.62 $ 1.66
City's Share 4. 75% of Property Taxes $ $ $ $ $ 0.03 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.06 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.08
RDA 's Non-housing Share 60.00% of Property Taxes $ $ $ $ $ 0.37 $ 0.44 $ 0.52 $ 0.60 $ 0.69 $ 0.78 $ 0.87 $ 0.94 $ 0.96 $ 0.97 $ 0.99
Expressed In Millions or US Dollars
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
Executive Mtg. Hotel $ $ $ $ 5.57 $ 6.18 $ 6.36 $ 6.55 $ 6.75 $ 6.95 $ 7.16 $ 7.38 $ 7 .. 60 $ 7.83 $ 8.06 $ 8.30
Transient Occupancy Tax @ 10.00o/o or Room Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.56 $ 0.62 $ 0,64 $ 0.66 $ 0,68 $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 $ 0.81 $ 0.83
Gross Fiscal Operating Income From TOT & Tl s s s s 0,56 s 1.02 s 1.12 s 1.22 s 1.33 s 1.44 s 1.55 s 1.67 s 1.77 s 1.81 s 1.86 s 1.90
SALES TAX REVENUE
Retail Commercial $ $ $ $ 0,26 $ 0.32 $ 0.33 $ 0.34 $ 0.35 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 $ 0.38 $ 0.39 $ 0.40 $ 0.42 $ 0.43
Food & Beverage & 50% of Other Hotel Revenues $ $ $ $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0,04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04
Total Sales Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.29 $ 0.35 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 $ 0.38 $ 0.40 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.45 $ 0.46 $ 0.47
TOTAL FISCAL REVENUE
Property Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 0.40 $ 0.48 $ 0.56 $ 0.65 $ 0.74 $ 0.84 $ 0.94 $ 1.01 $ 1.03 $ 1.05 $ 1.07
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.56 $ 0.62 $ 0.64 $ 0.66 $ 0.68 $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 0,74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 $ 0.81 $ 0.83
Sales Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.29 $ 0,35 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 s 0.38 $ 0.40 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.45 $ 0.46 $ 0.47
Total Fiscal Revenue Available for Fiscal Operating Costs $ $ $ $ 0.85 $ 1.37 $ 1.48 $ 1.59 $ 1.71 $ 1.83 $ 1.96 $ 2.09 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.32 $ 2.38
Saucccs o[ Euuds
FISCAL OPERA TING INCOME $ $ $ $ 0.85 $ 1.37 $ 1.48 $ 1.59 s 1.71 $ 1.83 $ 1.96 $ 2.09 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 s 2.32 $ 2.38
Reversion@ 7% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s $ $ $ $ $ 36.54
Total Sources of Funds $ $ $ $ 0.85 $ 1.37 $ 1.48 $ 1.59 $ 1.71 $ 1.83 $ 1.96 $ 2.09 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.32 $ 38.92
NET CASH FLOW Is Is Is Is 0.85 rs 1.37IS us Is 1.59 Is 1.11 Is 1.831 s 1.96 Is 2,091 $ 2.20 Is 2.26 IS 2.32 I s 38.92 I
Net Present Value@ 10% Sl7.43 million 2003 dollars
Source: Economics Research Associates
c:J CJ c=J CJ CJ CJ c=i CJ c=J c:J c:J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
Table 4.A.3
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A
Executi\·e Meeting Hotel Operating Statement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yr. 2001 Value Tou:.1 YeJu:.2 fur_J Yl,ar_;( fur.5 YucJi Yeu:.1 l.'.w:JI Year...2 Yl:iu.:..lJI fiaLll l'.oaLll Y.w:..l3 YfaLli fuL1S
Assumptions
Innation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60
Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
llo1d Rooms 150 0 0 0 150 150 150 150 150 I 50 150 150 150 150 150 150
Total Potential Numhcr of Room nights 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750 54.750 54,750 54.750 54.750 54,750 54,750
Average Annual Occupancy Rate 0.0% 0.0%, 0.0% 65.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0%
Avg. Daily Rm. Rate Hotel 2 /1 $ 135 143 148 152 157 161 166 171 176 181 187 192 198 204 210 217
Operating Revenues Expressed ln Millions or US Dollars Expressed In Millions of US Dollars
Room Revenues $ $ $ $ 5.57 $ 6.18 $ 6.36 $ 6.55 $ 6.75 $ 6.95 $ 7.16 $ 7.38 $ 7.60 $ 7.83 $ 8.06 $ 8.30
As % of Room Revenues
Food & Beverage 45% 2.51 2.78 2.86 2.95 3.04 3.13 3.22 3.32 3.42 3.52 3.63 J.74
Other Revenues 15% 0.84 0.93 0.95 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.07 I.II 1.14 1.17 1.21 1.25
Subtotal (Non-Room Revenues) 60% $ $ $ $ 3.34 $ 3.71 $ J.82 $ 3.93 $ 4.05 . S 4.17 $ 4.30 $ 4.43 $ 4.56 $ 4.70 $ 4.84 $ 4.98
Gross Revenues s $ $ $ 8.91 $ 9.88 $ 10.18 S 10.49 $ 10.80 $ 11.13 S I 1.46 $ 11.80 $ 12.16 $ 12.52 $ 12,90 $ 13.28
~epatlmeotal CoSl5 & E1p1:oscs As% of Departmental Revenues
Rooms 25% 1.39 1.54 1.59 1.64 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.84 1.90 1.96 2.02 2.08
Food & Beverage 75% 1.88 2.09 2.15 2.21 2.28 2.35 2.42 2.49 2.56 2.64 2.72 2.80
Other Departments 50% 0.42 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.60 0.62
Total Departmental Expenses(% of Gross Revenues) 41% $ $ $ $ 3.69 $ 4.09 $ 4.22 $ 4.34 $ 4.47 $ 4.61 $ 4.74 $ 4.89 $ 5.03 $ 5.18 $ 5.34 $ 5.50
Gro55 Operating Revenues 59% S $ $ $ 5.22 $ 5.79 $ 5.97 $ 6.14 $ 6.33 $ 6.52 $ 6.71 $ 6.92 $ 7.12 $ 7.34 $ 7.56 $ 7.78
Notes:
/I Rate, after discounts, per occupied room.
Source: Economics Research Associates
c:::J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c:::J CJ CJ CJ CJ c:::J CJ CJ CJ CJ
Table 4.A.4
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternati\'e 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A
E11:eeurin Meeting Hotel Operating Statement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yr. 2001 Value YeaLl har..l fia.c..J. fillLi fia.c..S firu filll:.1 lDJ:..11 fuL2 l:'.J:JtLUl ::ua.c..11 fillLll l'.ell..lJ ~ :t'ur.1.5
Expressed Jn Millions of US Dollars Exprened in Millions of US Dollars
G.coss Operating Revenues S.97 6.14 6.33 6.52 .6.71 6.92 7.12 7.34 7.56 7.78
llodistcibuted 0111:ratlng Expenses
As % of Revenue
Administrative & General 5.0% $ s $ $ 0.45 $ 0.49 $ 0.51 s 0.52 $ 0.54 s 0.56 $ 0.57 $ 0.59 s 0,61 $ 0.63 $ 0.64 s 0.66
Management Fee 2.0% 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27
Sales & Marketing 5.0% 0.45 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.63 0,64 0.66
Energy Costs 6.0% 0.53 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.6S 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.7S 0.77 0.80
Repairs & Maintenance 4.0% 0,36 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.53
Total 22.0% $ s s $ 1.96 s 2.17 s 2.24 $ 2.31 $ 2.38 $ 2.45" $ 2.52 $ 2.60 $ 2.67 $ 2.75 $ 2.84 $ 2.92
Gross Operating Profit 36.6% $ s s $ 3.26 s 3.62 $ 3,73 $ 3.84 $ 3.95 $ 4.07 $ 4.19 $ 4.32 $ 4.45 $ 4.58 s 4.72 s 4.86
Elxed Euu:o5es & Capital Costs
Property Taxes fom1Ula 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34
Incentive Fee 2.0% 0,18 0,20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27
Insurance 1.0% 0.09 0.10 0,10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.1 t 0.12 0.12 0. 13 0.13 0.13
Capital Reserve 2.0% 0, 18 0,20 0,20 0.21 0.22 0,22 0.23 0.24 0,24 0,25 0.26 0.27
Total 5.0% 0.45 0.78 0.79 0.81 $ 0.84 s 0.86 $ 0.88 $ 0.90 s 0.93 $ 0.95 s 0.98 $ 1.00
NET OPERATING INCOME (ex. depr., interest & tu) 2.82 2.84 2.93 3.02 3.12 3.21 3.31 3.42 3.52 3.63 3.74 3.86
Source: Economics Research Assoc'iates
c=J CJ c=J CJ c=i c=i c=i c=i CJ C:J CJ CJ c=J CJ c=J CJ CJ CJ CJ
Table 4.A.6
CARLSBAD BOULEY ARD REALIGNMENT -Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A
Retail/Commercial: Operating Statement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
fur..1 YeJu:..2 fia.u Ye.a.c.A Yea.u ~ ~ YilL8 fiw:.2 filu:..lll fiatll Yl:aLll Yll.t..13. Yllr...li Yu..c..15
lnnation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60
Rental Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cumulative Gross Leasable Area
Commercial Retail 45,000 45,000 45 ,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45.000 45,000
Restaurants 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45.000 45,000 45,000 45,000
Total 90,000 90,000 90,000 90.000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
Occupancy Rate
Commercial l~elail 0% 0% 0% 80% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
lh-slaurants 0% 0% 0% 80% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
Average NNN Base Rent Per s. f. Per Yr/ I US$
Commercial R.t•taH $ 20.00 21.22 21.85 22.51 23.19 23.88 24.60 25.34 26.10 26.88 27.68 28.52 29.37 30.25 31.16 3_2.09
Restaurants $ 30.00 31.83 32.78 33.77 34.78 35.82 36.90 38.00 39.14 40.32 41.53 42.77 44.06 45.38 46.74 48.14
Average Gross Sales Per Square Foot Per Year US$
Cnmml'rcial R~tail $ 250.00 265 273 281 290 299 307 317 326 336 346 356 367 378 389 401
Rl'!lifaurants $ 375.00 398 410 422 435 448 461 475 489 504 519 535 551 567 584 602
Expressed in Millions or US Dollars Expressed in Millions or US Dollars
Operating Revenues
Base Rent Revenue $ $ $ $ 2.09 $ 2.55 $ 2.63 s 2.71 $ 2.79 $ 2.87 $ 2.96 $ 3.05 $ 3.14 $ 3.23 $ 3.33 $ 3.43
Gross Revenues $ $ $ $ 2.09 $ 2.,55 $ 2.63 $ 2.71 $ 2.79 $ 2.87 $ 2.96 s 3.05 $ 3.14 $ 3.23 $ 3.33 $ 3.43
Operating Expenses % of Rev.
Administrative & General 4.0% $ $ $ $ 0.08 $ 0.10 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 $ 0.13 $ 0.13 $ 0.13 $ 0.14
Sales & Marketing 2.0% 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 O.o7 0.07
Total 6.0% $ $ $ $ 0.13 $ 0.15 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.21
NET OPERATING INCOME (ex. depr., interest & tax) s $ $ $ 1.96 $ 2.40 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 s 2.62 s 2.70 $ 2.78 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 3.04 $ J.13 S 3.22
Notes:
/ I Triple-net rent where tenant pays for pro-rata share of common area charges, insurance, property taxes, and utilities in addition to base rent. No rent for tenant improvements; tenants pay for improvements.
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ c=J CJ c:J CJ c:J c:::J
Table 4.A.8
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A
Time Share
2003 2004
Yr. 2001 Value ~ Y£.u:..2
Assumptions
Inflation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09
Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00
Time Share (:'\'umhcr or nooms) 150 0 0
Total Number of Intervals Available
Total Number of Intervals Sold Per Y car
Cumulative Intervals Sold
Interval Sales Price s 18,500 $ 19,627 $20.215
Sales Revenues
Annual Sales Volume $ $
Cumula1ive Sales Volume
Cost of Sales Per Room
Product Cost ( excluding land cost) II $ 205,000
Gross Profit Before Land Costs $ $
Cumulative Profit Before Land Costs
Costs & Expeoses/2 As% of Annual Gross Sales
Commissions 22.0% $ $
Marketing 22.0%
Sales Overhead 5.0%
Administration 7.0%
Acct./Legal/Counsultinj! 0.5%
Depreciation 0.3%
Other 0.1%
Total Cosl & Expenses(% of Annual Gross Sales) 56.9% $ $
~i:1 Denlupmeol tcafil ([.ass) 43% S $
Cumulative Cash Flow $ $
c:J CJ CJ c=i
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
YeaLl Yu.LI. l'.l:a.c..S. l:'.£aL6 fiar..1 l:'.ilt..B
1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 75 75 75 150 150
3,825 3,825 3,825 7.650 7,650
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
$20,822 $21,447 $22,090 $22,753 $23,435 $24,138
Expressed In Millions of US Dollars
$ $ 21.45 $ 22.09 $ 22.75 $ 23.44 $ 24.14
21.45 43.54 66.29 89.72 113.86
17.30 18.91
$ ( 17.30) $ 21.45 $ 22.09 s 3.84 s 23.44 $ 24.14
(17.30) 4.14 26.23 30.08 53.51 77.65
$ $ 4.72 s 4.86 s 5.01 s 5.16 s 5.31
4.72 4.86 5.01 5.16 5.3 I
1.07 1.10 1.14 1.17 1.21
I.SO 1.55 1.59 1.64 1.69
0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12
0.06 0.07 0.07 0.o7 0.07
0.02 O.Q2 0.02 0.02 O.Q2
s $ 12.20 S 12.57 $ 12.95 S 13.33 $ 13.73
$(17.30) $ 9.24 $ 9.52 $ (9.10) S 10.10 S 10.40
$ ( 17.30) $ (8.06) $ 1.46 S (7.64) S 2.46 S 12.86
Net Present Value@ 15.0% S9.27 million 2003 dollars
Notes:
/ I Development costs include allocated share of onsite/offsilc costs.
/2 Selling and marking expenses only. Operating expenses are covered 100% by annual fees.
Source: RCI Consulting, Inc.; and Economics Research Associates
c:J CJ [_=:J CJ CJ CJ CJ
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
l:'.tJU:..2 Y.o.atlll Yw:...ll fiaL.12 l'.'.ea.cJ.J Yea.t..14 Yil.r..1.5.
1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
150 150 150 150 150 150 ISO
7,650 7,650 7.650 7.650 7,650 7,650 7,650
1,000 1,000 650
6,000 7,000 7.650 7,650 7.650 7,650 7,650
$24,862 $25,608 $26,377 $27,168 $27,983 $28,822 $ 29.687
Expressed In Millions or US Dollars
$ 24.86 S 25.61 S 17.14 $ $ $
138.73 164.33 181.48 181.48 181.48 181.48 181.48
$ 24.86 S 25.61 $ 17.14 $ s $
102.51 128.12 145.26 145.26 145.26 145.26 145.26
$ 5.47 $ 5.63 $ 3.77 $ s s $
5.47 5.63 3.77
1.24 1.28 0.86
1.74 1.79 1.20
0.12 0.13 0.09
0.07 0.08 0.05
0.02 0.03 0.02
$ 14.15 $ 14.57 s 9.76 s $ $ $
$ 10.72 $ I 1.04 $ 7.39 $ $ $
S 23.58 S 34.61 S 42.00 S 42.00 S 42.00 $ 42.00 $ 42.00
2022-June General Comparative tax-payer Costs/Benefits of Completing PCH, PCH Modification, and
14.3 acre Ponto Park to address planned loss of 30+ acres of Coastal Open Space Land Use at
Ponto/WestBL/South Carlsbad: Part 1 of 2
Key points regarding tax-payer Cost/Benefit comparison :
City Park Fairness: Ponto/Coastal South Carlsbad has ZERO Parks and ZERO Park acres v. 10 Coastal Parks
totaling 37 acres in North Carlsbad. South Carlsbad is home to 62% of Carlsbad citizens and the City major
visitor industries, and they have no Coastal Park. North Carlsbad is home to 38% of Carlsbad citizens have the
entire City's Coastal Parks. The City also falsely allowed Ponto Developers to NOT provide the required 15%
unconstrained Growth Management Open Space required by other adjacent developers in Carlsbad .
Consequently Ponto is already developed at a density 35% higher than the rest of City.
What is missing from South PCH: The only missing components of a Carlsbad Livable (Complete) Street are
adequate Coastal sidewalks/pedestrian paths. Better safer protected bike paths for the volume of bike traffic on
a higher-speed roadway are highly desired. Both these missing features can be cost-efficiently provided in the
existing PCH configuration. The City had over 35-years to provide the missing sidewalks on PCH and should have
added sidewalks years ago.
Generalized Costs: Costs initially came from publicly stated costs by Mayor Hall in a 2019 at Meet the Mayor
Realtor luncheon at Hilton Garden Inn, the City's 2001 PCH Feasibility Analysis for PCH Relocation, the earlier
$13 million per mile cost for the simpler .85 mile City CIP #6054 PCH Modification Project at Terramar, general
City cost data from official public records requests, and vacant Ponto land costs of $1.4 to $2.4 million per acre
from recent recorded land sales at Ponto.
In May, 2022 the City released an updated cost increase for the .85 mile Terramar PCH Modification of $22.4
million per mile; and an updated cost of between $85 -$60 million for the 2.3 mile South PCH Relocation
Proposal that comes to $40 to 26.1 million per mile. Kam Sang listed their 14.3 acre vacant site at Ponto for sale
for $2.7 million per acre in May. The Kam Sang list price is a bit higher that recent Ponto land costs, but the Kam
Sang site is of significantly higher quality being adjacent to Batiquitos Lagoon, and with 270 degree lagoon and
ocean views.
Generalized Benefits: The number of acres and the quality and usability of each of those acres, and the number
of new added beach parking for each of the known Option's define each Option's benefits. There may be other
unknown Options that have different benefits. The City's 2001 PCH Relocation Feasibility Analysis's highest Park
and Open Space Option (2001 ERA Financial Analysis "Alternative 1-parks and open space scheme") only made
possible a 4-acre Active Park north of Palomar Airport Road in North Carlsbad. The City's 2013 PCH Relocation
Concept design eliminated that 4-acre Active Park and only showed a few small open space areas with picnic
tables. Any PCH Modification benefits are limited by existing PCH constraints. See attached Part 2: City PCH map
with numbered notes on various existing environmental and land use constraints from the City's 2013 PCH
Modification Design.
PCH Modification limitations: Most critically PCH Modification does NOT add any new City land. Rearranging
existing PCH land may add some usability beyond the usability of existing parkway areas along PCH. However
significant land in PCH right-of-way is already constrained by habitat, slopes, and water quality detention basins.
Past City Studies in 2001 and 2013 showed relatively modest changes in useable acreage from major PCH
Modifications. Forever removing 2-travel lanes (over 50% of PCH capacity due to removing passing ability) will
2022-June General Comparative cost-benefits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park -part 1 Page 1 of 5
create Terra mar like traffic congestion, but could repurpose that City pavement for open space. Any net usable
land in the PCH median will be relativity narrow and may be modest once all constraints are accounted for. PCH
Modification should be accurately compared with the existing usable and open space parkway areas in the
existing PCH configuration and Ponto Park situation. See attached Part 2: City PCH map with numbered notes on
various existing land use constraints from the City's 2013 PCH Modification Design .
Four (4) Comparative tax-payer Cost/Benefits:
.1. Completing PCH & adding missing sidewalk/path and additional public parking and bike safety:
4 vehicle lanes and 2 bike lanes 177 parking spaces currently exist along South Carlsbad Blvd
The only missing component of "Complete/Livable Street" is a pedestrian sidewalk/path on about 70% of PCH
Total Cost to provide missing sidewalks per City data = $3-5 million (based on path width)
Costs for desirable safety upgrade to existing bike lanes are not known
Cost to add more Beach parking on City owned abandoned PCH North and South of Poinsettia ranges from:
• 273 additional spaces=$ 0.76 million
• 546 additional spaces=$ 1.1 million
• Plus an estimated $1.5 million for 2 signalized intersection upgrades for full 4-way access
• Cost per parking space is estimated at $19,275 to $13,899 per additional parking space
Total cost:$ 3.8 to 6.1 million to provide missing sidewalk/path and add more parking+ unknown amount for
any desired upgrades to existing bike lanes
2. '2013 2.3 mile PCH Modification Proposal' [AECOM 11/26/2013 Alternative Development Meeting)
Total Cost is $75 million per Mayor Matt Hall, but updated by City to $85-60 Million or $40-26.1 million per mile.
The costs appear consistent with 20-years of cost inflation of the basic (unmitigated environmental and traffic)
2001 costs of $26.5 to 37.3 million (in 2001 dollars) identified by the City's 2001 Feasibility Analysis by ERA. The
City's 2001 ERA Analysis indicated fully mitigated costs will be higher.
Total $85 to 60 million PCH Modification cost comes to:
$ 21 to 6 million per acre to reuse existing City land into narrow open space areas (from portions of city
roadway)
$872,093 per additional parking space
• 86 additional parking spaces created= 263 replacement spaces -177 existing spaces removed
• Includes multi-use pathway (sidewalk) within primarily native/natural landscaping.
• Possible 50% reduction in vehicle lanes (from 4 to 2 lanes) with corresponding traffic congestion like at
Terramar. Not clear if Citizens and tax-payers will approve spending $85 -60 million to double traffic
congestion.
• Includes about 4 -10 acres for possible narrow passive Park area identified in City's 2001 PCH Modification
Feasibility Analysis by ERA. However City's 2013 PCH Modification (AECOM) plans look like smaller acreage
is provided.
• Does not purchase any new City land (only reconfigures existing City land) so requires Carlsbad Citizens to
vote to expend funds per Proposition H, and as noted in the City's 2001 Feasibility Analysis likely will not
qualify for regional, State or Federal tax-payer funding.
• 2013 PCH Modification proposal could not/did not consider and map City's 2017 sea level rise data to show
what areas would be lost due to sea level rise and account for any added cost and issues.
2022-June General Comparative cost-benefits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park-part 1 Page2of5
~ 14.3 acre Ponto Coastal Park
Total Cost: $52.3 million that includes $38 million (full list price) to purchase 14.3 acres plus $1 million per
acre to landscape/irrigate like the recent development cost for Buena Vista Reservoir Park (aka Poinsettia 61).
$ 3.7 million per acre is the cost for buying 14.3 acres of New City land and developing a true City Park.
Ponto Park purchase:
is $3.7 million per New Added Park Acre v. $21 to $6 million per acre to NOT buy new land but simply
repurposed existing City land in PCH,
Saves tax-payers $17.3 million to $2.3 million per acre,
Saves tax-payers $32.7 to $7.7 million, and
Provides up to 278% to 43% more Parkland than the 2.3 mile 'PCH Modification option'
• Includes adding 14.3-acres of new and viable parkland similar to (but twice as large) as Carlsbad's Holiday
Park. Site includes habitat and habitat connection to Batiquitos Lagoon, and lagoon and ocean view tails
that connect to the ocean and eventually east along Batiquitos Lagoon to El Camino Real.
• Since an Open Space land purchase per Proposition C acquisition voters exempted such purchases from
Proposition H. NCA already recommended vacant Ponto land be considered for City purchase as Open
Space per the City's obligations under a lawsuit settlement.
• Ponto Park's cost savings over '2.3 mile PCH Modification'= $32.7 to 7.7 million
• Ponto Park's+ adding missing sidewalks cost savings over 'PCH Modification'= $28.7 to 2.7 million
• Ponto Park's+ adding missing sidewalks+ 273 additional parking spaces cost savings over "PCH
Modification' = $28 to 2 million
• Ponto Park's+ adding missing sidewalks+ 546 additional parking spaces cost savings over 1/PCH
Modification'= $27.6 to 1.6 million
4. Combining both #1-PCH Completion and #3-Ponto Park:
Combining #1 and #3 creates at cost effective and more beneficial Coastal Park-Coastal Parking-Completes
Streets solution. This solution actually adds 14.3-acres of New City land for a needed Park, provides for a
Complete PCH without increasing traffic congestion, does not forever congest PCH travel if future PCH traffic
increases, adds comparatively more beach parking, and preserves PCH land and provides the City with
Coastal land use and sea level rise planning flexibility to address future needs by not forever committing the
City's PCH land to a Final solution. See map on page 4 showing land use synergy of combining #1 and #3.
$27.6 to 1:6 million in tax-payer cost savings are estimated from combining #1 & #3 compared to the
estimated $85 -60 million PCH Modification of 2.3 miles. Combining #1 and #3 provides all the PCH
Modification features, added beach parking benefits, and Adds 14.3 acres of New City land for parks,
provides the City 100% of the flexibility it will need to address sea level rise, and do so for a reduced cost
to tax-payers. Page 5 shows the synergistic beach parking and Ponto Park relationship. The new 14.3 acre
Kam Sang Ponto Park site is just south of the 11-acre Planning Area F site and between Avenida Encinas and
Batiquitos Lagoon.
a. Ponto Park's location allows it to use the 337-610 parking spaces created by #1 above (177 existing+
273 to 546 new parking spaces). The 337-610 parking spaces will allow Ponto Park to effectively
host Carlsbad's special community events.
b. Acquiring Ponto Park's 14.3-acres provides both the City and State of CA with important future land
use options to address the Sea Level Rise and Coastal Erosion (SLR) planned by the City. These
options are created by leaving the exiting South Carlsbad Blvd right-of-way substantially the same
(except for adding needed sidewalks and using the existing Old paved roadway for parking) thus
allowing future upland relocation of the Campground. If $85 to $60 million is spent on #2 the
2022-June General Comparative cost-benefits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park-part 1 Page3of5
likelihood this very expensive City expenditure would never be abandoned by the City to allow
relocation ofthe Campground.
c. Carlsbad' 2017 Sea Level Rise study shows SLR will eliminate½ of the State Campground -a high-
priority Coastal land use under the CA Coastal Act. The CA Coastal Act calls for "upland" relocation
of high-priority Coastal land uses due to SLR impacts. Ponto Park could also provide for "upland"
relocation of the State Campground.
Part 2 of this Comparative analysis is a separate 2-page map and data file. This Part 2 file consists of the City's
PCH map of a reduced one lane in each direction (greater than 50% roadway capacity reduction) PCH
configuration that maximizes potential 'excess right-of-way'. That map has numbered notes to marking
locations of PCH environmental and design constraints from the City's 2013 PCH Relocation design, maps the
City's 2017 Sea Level Rise Impact Areas, and for reference outlines the easterly 6.5 acre portion of the 11-acre
Planning Area F site for acreage comparison purposes.
2022-June General Comparative cost-benefits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park-part 1 Page 4 of 5
City's PCH Modification Proposal Area Map with notes on usability Constraints and Issues: P4P Input 2 of2
The City's map below is marked with the following numbered list of Area Constraints and Issues. The Constraints are from the City's 2013 PCH
Modification designs, the City's older 2017 Sea Level Rise Impact Study, and on-site observations. The Constraints will limit any fundamental
change to the existing PCH landscape. For instance existing slope and habitat area will remain or have to be relocated which will limit the use of any
excess land area from PCH Modification. These Constraints will then reduce from 62 acres the actual number of unconstrained and acres that are
actually useable and can be used for different uses than currently exist.
1. Loss of the last section of Old "Historic 101" design, ambiance, and openness. Will it be replaced with typical urban arterial design?
2. Freshwater habitat
3. Sewer pumping facility
4. City's 2013 PCH plan for RESTORED RIPARIAN HABITAT
5. Sea Level Rise 2 meter Impact Area
6. City's 2013 PCH plan for BIO SWALE AND RESTORED RIPARIAN HABITAT
7. Existing beach parking to be retained
8. Least Tern habitat
9. Major storm water detention basin
10. Water
11. Slopes will likely need retaining walls to move road inland closer to proposed Kam Sang Resort
12. Endangered Species Habitat
13. City's 2013 PCH plan for COASTAL SAGE SCRUB RESTORATION
14. City's 2013 PCHplan for NATIVE GRASSLAND RESTORATION
15. City's 2013 PCH plan for BIO SWALE AND RESTORED RIPARIAN HABITAT
16. Eliminating access road for homes/businesses south of Cape Rey Resort. Who pays to replace?
17. Removes Cape Rey Resort developer required GMP Open Space for this LFMP. This GMP Open Space will have to be replaced. Who Pays?
18. City's 2013 PCH plan for L.I.D. BASIN/ BIO SWALE
19. City left several acres vacant for 20+ years. This area can cost-effectively provide 200-500 more parking spaces w/o any PCH relocation.
20. Unusual jog in roadway. Is this viable?
21. City's 2013 PCH plan for RESTORED NATIVE LANDSCAPE
22. Habitat & need to provide major storm water quality detention basin before discharging urban and creek runoff into ocean.
23. Slopes will likely need retaining walls to move road inland closer to mobile home community.
24. Steep unusable slopes needed for Palomar Airport Road overpass over railroad corridor.
For a Cost/Benefit reference point, the City's PCH Modification at Terramar (CIP project #6054 from Cannon to Manzano) that is less constrained
and simpler than South Carlsbad is projected to cost around $13 million per mile. Vacant primarily unconstrained land sale costs at Ponto are
documented at around $1 .4 to $2.4 million per acre. Honest Cost/Benefit of these two options should be a public tax-payer discussion.
Page1of2
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto
Introduction:
Carlsbad first documented Sea Level Rise (SLR) and associated increases in coastal erosion in a
December 2017 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (2017 SLR Assessment). Prior planning activities
(2010 Ponto Vision Plan -rejected by CA Coastal Commission, and 2015 General Plan Update) did not
consider SLR and how SLR would impact Coastal Open Space Land Use & CA Coastal Act 'High-Priority'
Coastal Open Space Land Uses at Ponto. The 2017 SLR Assessment shows Open Space land and Open
Space Land Uses are almost exclusively impacted by SLR at Ponto & South Coastal Carlsbad. The 2017
SLF Assessment also shows significant LOSS of Open Space land acreage and Land Uses. Most all
impacted Open Space Land Uses are CA Coastal Act "High-Priority Coastal Land Uses" -Coastal
Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and Low-Cost Visitor Accommodations. Existing Ponto Open Space Land
Uses are already very congested (non-existent/narrow beach) and have very high, almost exclusionary,
occupancy rates (Campground) due to existing population/visitor demands. Future population/visitor
increases will make this demand situation worst. The significant permanent LOSS of existing Coastal
Open Space land and Coastal Open Space Land Use (and land) due to SLR reduces existing supply and
compounds Open Space congestion elsewhere. Prior Ponto planning did not consider, nor plan, for
significant SLR and current/future "High-Priority" Coastal Open Space Land Use demands.
Open Space and City Park demand at Ponto:
Open Space at Ponto is primarily 'Constrained' as defined by the City's Growth Management Program
(GMP), and cannot be counted in meeting the City's minimal 15% 'Unconstrained' GMP Open Space
Standard. Per the GMP Open Space Standard, the developers of Ponto should have provided in their
developments at least 30-acres of additional 'Unconstrained' GMP Open Space at Ponto. City GIS
mapping data confirm 30-acres of GMP Standard Open Space is missing at Ponto (Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 9).
The City of Carlsbad GIS Map on page 2 shows locations of Open Spaces at Ponto. This map and its
corresponding tax parcel-based data file document Ponto's non-compliance with the GMP Open Space
Standard. A summary of that City GIS data file is also on page 2. The City said Ponto's non-compliance
with the GMP Open Space Standard was 'justified' by the City 'exempting' compliance with the
Standard. The City 'justified' this 'exemption' for reasons that do not appear correct based on the City's
GIS map and data on page 2, and by a review of 1986 aerial photography that shows most of Ponto as
vacant land. The City in the Citywide Facilities Improvement Plan (CFIP) said 1) Ponto was already
developed in 1986, or 2) Ponto in 1986 already provided 15% of the 'Unconstrained' land as GMP
Standard Open Space. Both these 'justifications' for Ponto 'exemption' in the CFIP were not correct.
The legality of the City 'exempting' Ponto developers from the GMP Open Space Standard is subject to
current litigation.
The City proposes to continue to exempt future Ponto developers from providing the missing 30-acres of
minimally required GMP Open Space, even though a change in Ponto Planning Area Fland use from the
current 'Non-Residential Reserve" Land Use requires comprehensive Amendment of the Local Facilitates
Management Plan Zone 9 to account for a land use change. City exemption is subject of litigation.
Ponto (west of 1-5 and South of Poinsettia Lane) currently has 1,025 homes that per Carlsbad's minimal
Park Standard demand an 8-acre City Park. There is no City Park at Ponto. Coastal Southwest Carlsbad
has an over 6.5 acre Park deficit that is being met 6-miles away in NW Carlsbad. Ponto is in the middle
of 6-miles of Coastline without a City Coastal Park west of the rail corridor.
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 1 of 7
Sea Level Rise impacts on Open Space and Open Space Land Use Planning at Ponto:
The City's 2015 General Plan Update did not factor in the impacts of Sea Level Rise (SLR) on Ponto's
Open Space land. In December 2017 the City conducted the first Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
Assessment https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?Blob1D=33958. The 2017 SLR
Assessment is an initial baseline analysis, but it shows significant SLR impacts on Ponto Open Space.
More follow-up analysis is being conducted to incorporate newer knowledge on SLR projections and
coastal land erosion accelerated by SLR. Follow-up analysis may likely show SLR impacts occurring
sooner and more extreme.
Troublingly the 2017 SLR Assessment shows SLR actually significantly reducing or eliminating Open
Space land at Ponto. SLR is projected to only impact and eliminate Open Space lands and Open Space
Land Use at Ponto. The loss of Ponto Open Space land and Land Use being at the State Campground,
Beaches, and Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline. The losses of these Open Space lands and land uses would
progress over time, and be a permanent loss. The 2017 SLR Assessment provides two time frames near-
term 2050 that match with the Carlsbad General Plan, and the longer-term 'the next General Plan
Update' time frame of 2100. One can think of these timeframes as the lifetimes of our children and
their children (2050), and the lifetimes of our Grandchildren and their children (2100). SLR impact on
Coastal Land Use and Coastal Land Use planning is a perpetual (permanent) impact that carries over
from one Local Coastal Program (LCP) and City General Plan (GP) to the next Updated LCP and GP.
Following (within quotation marks) are excerpts from Carlsbad's 2017 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
Assessment:
[Italicized text within brackets] is added data based on review of aerial photo maps in the Assessment.
"Planning Zone 3 consists of the Southern Shoreline Planning Area and the Batiquitos Lagoon. Assets
within this zone are vulnerable to inundation, coastal flooding and bluff erosion in both planning
horizons (2050 and 2100). A summary of the vulnerability assessment rating is provided in Table 5. A
discussion of the vulnerability and risk assessment is also provided for each asset category.
5.3.1. Beaches
Approximately 14 acres of beach area is projected to be impacted by inundation/erosion in 2050 ....
Beaches in this planning area are backed by unarmored coastal bluffs. Sand derived from the natural
erosion of the bluff as sea levels rise may be adequate to sustain beach widths, thus, beaches in this
reach were assumed to have a moderate adaptive capacity. The overall vulnerability rating for beaches
is moderate for 2050.
Vulnerability is rated moderate for the 2100 horizon due to the significant amount of erosion expected
as the beaches are squeezed between rising sea levels and bluffs. Assuming the bluffs are unarmored in
the future, sand derived from bluff erosion may sustain some level of beaches in this planning
area. A complete loss of beaches poses a high risk to the city as the natural barrier from storm waves is
lost as well as a reduction in beach access, recreation and the economic benefits the beaches provide.
5.3.3. State Parks
A majority of the South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds (separated into
four parcels) were determined to be exposed to bluff erosion by the 2050 sea level rise scenario
(moderate exposure). This resource is considered to have a high sensitivity since bluff erosion
could significantly impair usage of the facilities. Though economic impacts to the physical structures
within South Carlsbad State Beach would be relatively low, the loss of this park would be significant
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 3 of7
since adequate space for the park to move inland is not available (low adaptive capacity). State
parks was assigned a high vulnerability in the 2050 planning horizon. State park facilities are recognized
as important assets to the city in terms of economic and recreation value as well as providing low-cost
visitor serving amenities. This vulnerability poses a high risk to coastal access, recreation, and
tourism opportunities in this planning area.
In 2100, bluff erosion of South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds become
more severe and the South Ponto State Beach day-use area becomes exposed to coastal flooding
during extreme events. The sensitivity of the South Ponto day-use area is low because impacts to usage
will be temporary and no major damage to facilities would be anticipated. Vulnerability and risk to State
Parks remains high by 2100 due to the impacts to South Carlsbad State Beach in combination
with flooding impacts to South Ponto.
Table 5: Planning Zone 3 Vulnerability Assessment Summary [condensed & notated]:
Asset
Category
Beaches
Public Access
State Parks
{Campground -
Low-cost Visitor
Accommodations]
Transportation
(Road, Bike,
Pedestrian)
Environmentally
Sensitive
Lands
Horizon
[time] Hazard Type
2050
2100
2050
Inundation/Erosion, Flooding
Inundation/Erosion, Flooding
Inundation, Flooding
2100 Inundation, Flooding
2050 Flooding, Bluff Erosion
2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion
2050 Bluff Erosion
2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion
2050 Inundation, Flooding
2100 Inundation, Flooding
Impacted Assets
14 acres (erosion)
54 acres (erosion)
6 access points
4,791 feet of trails
10 access points
14,049 feet of trails
Vulnerability
Rating
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
4 parcels [<18 Acres] High
4 parcels [>18 Acres] High
[loss of over 50% of
the campground &
its Low-cost Visitor
Accommodations,
See Figure 5.)
1,383 linear feet
11,280 linear feet
572 acres
606 acres
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 4 of7
In 2020 NCA recommended the City acquire Ponto Planning Area Fas Open Space. The status of City
processing that recommendation is unclear. However the Lawsuit Settlement Agreement and NCA's
recommendation to the City should also be considered in the required Existing LCP analysis.
Summary:
Tragically Carlsbad's' Draft Local Coastal Program -Land Use Plan Amendment (DLCP-LUPA) is actually
planning to both SIGNIFICATLY REDUCE Coastal Open Space acreage, and to eliminate 'High-Priority
Coastal Open Space Land Uses at Ponto due to SLR;
The Existing LCP requirements for Ponto Planning Area F to analyze the deficit of Coastal Open Space
Land Use should factor in the currently planned LOSS of both Coastal Open Space acreage and Coastal
Open Space Land Uses at Ponto due to SLR. As a long-range Coastal Land Use Plan this required LCP
analysis needs to also consider the concurrent future increases in both population and visitor demand
for those LOST Coastal Open Space acres and Coastal Open Space Land Uses.
It is very troubling that demand for these CA Coastal Act 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space Land Uses is
increasing at the same time the current (near/at capacity) supply of these CA Coastal Act 'High-Priority'
Coastal Open Space Land Uses is significantly decreasing due to SLR. Instead of planning for long-term
sustainability of these CA Coastal Act 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space Land Uses for future
generations there appears to be a plan to use SLR and inappropriate (lower-priority residential) Coastal
Land Use planning to forever remove those CA Coastal Act 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space Land Uses
from Ponto. CA Coastal Act Policies to address these issues should be thoroughly considered.
2021-2 proposed Draft Local Coastal Program -Land Use Plan Amendment (DLCP-LUPA) will likely result
in City and CA Coastal Commission making updates to the 2015 General Plan, based on the existing
Ponto Planning Area F LCP -LUP Policy requirements, Ponto Open Space issues, high-priority Coastal
Land Use needs, and SLR issues not addressed in the 2015 General Plan.
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 7 of7
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN 1h0:t the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold
a publ.ic hearing at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Cal-
ifornia, at S p.m. on Tues., June 7, 2022, to consider appro,-ing the Carlsbad TransNet
Local S!Net lmprove.me111 Pro&nm of Projects for Oscal years: 2022-23 through 2026-27
for inclusion in the 2023 San Diego Association o( Covemments (SANDAC) Regional
Transporl'adoo Improvement Program (RTIP). The Carlsbad Program of Projects con-
sists of the following:
El Camino Real Widening Project from Poinsettia Lane to Cantino Vida Roble
Al.'Cruda Encinas Coastal Rail Trail and Pedestrian lmprovemcncs
ADA Improvement Progni,m
Adaptive Traffic Siana! Pro&ram
Carlsbad Blvd. llJld Tamarack Avenue Improvements
Carlsbad Blvd. Pedenrian Roadway Lighting-North of Tamarack A,·enue
Carlsbad Blvd. Realignment
Carlsbad Village and Barrio Trame Circles
Carlsbad Village Drive and Crand Avenue Improvemenls
Chesmut Avenue Complete Street Impro,•ements-Valley Sa-eet to 1-S
Chestnut Avenue Complete Street Improvements• I-5 to the Railroad
Chrisl.ianun A,•enue lmprm:e.menu
College Boulevard Reach A
Kelly Drh·e and Park Drh,e Improve.menu
Pavement Management Program (overlay and slurry/fog seal)
State Street Improvements at Grand Avenue
Street Light BuJb Replacement Program
Terramar Area Coastal lmpro,'f!ments
Valley Street Road Diet and 'ftafflc Calming
El Camino Real Widening • Sunny Creek to Jackspar
Barrio Lighting Program
Valley and Magnolia Complete Struts
El Camino Real and Cannon Rd
El Camino Real Widening-La Costa Ave to Arena)
Palomar Airport Rd and College Blvd lmpro,·ements
Melrose Dr and Palomar Airport Rd Improvements
The details of the funding changes are included in Attachment A to the resolution for
this agenda item. The sraff re.po.rt and resolution will be available on or a£tcr Fri., June
3, 2022.
Those persons wishing to speak on this item arc cordially invited to auend the pub-
lic hearing. If you have any questions. please cnntact Hossein Ajldeh in the Public
Works Department at 442-339-2756 or boneio aiidch@carh;badca KO\' The meeting can
be ,ricwcd onlinc at bun:rUw»:w carlsbadca eaxl<:itv·halllmccrinKl:IPCDdll or on the
City's cable channel. ln addition, "'ritten comments may be submitted to the Chy
Council at or prior to the hearing via U.S. Mail to the attention of Office of lhe City
Clerk. 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, or via email to~ -If you challenge the Carlsbad TnmsNet Local Street lmprovcmeot Program of Projects
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else ra.ised at
the public hearing described in ibis nodce or in written correspondence delivered to
the City of Carlsbad, Attn: Chy Clttrk's Office. 1200 carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
CA 92008, at or prior 10 the public hearing.
PUBLISH: MAY 27, 2022
CITY OF CARLSBAD CJTY COUNCIi~
0S/2712022 CN 26595
3 Col X 7,5''
22.50" X $15
$337.50
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council
Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 5 p.m. on Tues., June 7, 2022, to consider
approving the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 through
2026-27 for inclusion in the 2023 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP). The Carlsbad Program of Projects consists of the following:
• El Camino Real Widening Project from Poinsettia Lane to Camino Vida Roble
• Avenida Encinas Coastal Rail Trail and Pedestrian Improvements
• ADA Improvement Program
• Adaptive Traffic Signal Program
• Carlsbad Blvd. and Tamarack Avenue Improvements
• Carlsbad Blvd. Pedestrian Roadway Lighting -North of Tamarack Avenue
• Carlsbad Blvd. Realignment
• Carlsbad Village and Barrio Traffic Circles
• Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue Improvements
• Chestnut Avenue Complete Street Improvements -Valley Street to 1-5
• Chestnut Avenue Complete Street Improvements -1-5 to the Railroad
• Christiansen Avenue Improvements
• College Boulevard Reach A
• Kelly Drive and Park Drive Improvements
• Pavement Management Program (overlay and slurry/fog seal)
• State Street Improvements at Grand Avenue
• Street Light Bulb Replacement Program
• Terramar Area Coastal Improvements
• Valley Street Road Diet and Traffic Calming
• El Camino Real Widening -Sunny Creek to Jackspar
• Barrio Lighting Program
• Valley and Magnolia Complete Streets
• El Camino Real and Cannon Rd
• El Camino Real Widening -La Costa Ave to Arena I
• Palomar Airport Rd and College Blvd Improvements
• Melrose Dr and Palomar Airport Rd Improvements
The details of the funding changes are included in Attachment A to the resolution for this agenda item. The staff
report and resolution will be available on or after Fri., June 3, 2022.
Those persons wishing to speak on this item are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any
questions, please contact Hosse in Ajideh in the Public Works Department at 442-339-2756 or
hossein.ajideh@carlsbadca.gov. The meeting ca n be viewed online at https://www.carlsbadca.gov/city-
hall/meetings-agendas or on the City's cable channel. In addition, written comments may be submitted to the
City Council at or prior to the hearing via U.S. Mail to the attention of Office of the City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, or via email to clerk@carlsbadca.gov.
If you cha llenge the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or
in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
PUBLISH: MAY 27, 2022
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL