HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1544) 0 Q
AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
AND
ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
June 14, 1999
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. REVIEW OF 1999 ANNUAL WATER UTILITY REPORT
2. PROPOSED LA CANADA DRIVE EXTENSION
ADJOURNMENT
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify
Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk, at 297-2591.
POSTED: 6/9/99
4:30 p.m.
lh
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE:June 14, 1999
STUDY SESSION
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR&COUNCIL
FROM: David G. Hook,P.E.
Water Utility Director
SUBJECT: Water Utility Commission 1999 Annual Report
SUMMARY: The Oro Valley Water Utility Commission (Commission) was established in 1996. The Commission's
function is to act as an official advisory body to the Town Council on the utility's capital improvements program planning
and rate structure formulation. Pursuant to the \Vater Code, the Commission must render its Annual Report to the Town
Council with their recommendations for the upcoming year.
The 1999 Annual Report contains recommendations for fiscal year 1999/00 on the following topics:
• Water Rates
• Preferred Financial Scenario
• Alternate Financial Scenarios
• Master Planning Reports
• Oro Valley Water Improvement District#1
• Tucson Water System within Oro Valley
A copy of the Executive Summary has been attached for quick reference.
In preparation of the Annual Report, the Commission's finance subcommittee spent considerable time analyzing financial
r
scenarios prepared by a rate consultant,Mr. Ron Kozoman. Mr. Kozoman will be present at the study session to explain and
answer questions pertaining to the proposed rate structures. The Annual Report contains a "Preferred Financial Scenario"
that would increase revenue by 4.25% for fiscal year 1999/00. Based on the analysis of 5-year projected expenses and
required revenue the Commission recommended the following: 1) The Commodity Rate for OVWU customers is
recommended to not change from its current rate of$1.73 per each 1,000 gallons;however, after a designated threshold it is
recommended that a second tier be established at $1.85 per 1,000 gallons to encourage water conservation. 2) The Monthly
Base Rate and the Tier 1 Commodity Rate for the OVWID customers is recommended to remain unchanged from its present
IVDWID rate. 3) The Monthly Base Rate for OVWU customers is recommended to increase between $0.96/month and
$82/month, depending on the meter size. Customers with a 5/8"x3/4" meter would realize a $0.96/month change under
this proposal. The Commission's "Preferred Financial Scenario" meets the financial criteria defined in the Annual Report.
We respectfully request that Mayor& Council accept the 1999 Annual Report. Tables on the preferred increases have been
attached for quick reference.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Executive Summary of the 1999 Water Utility Commission Annual Report.
• Table for Non-City customers.
• Table for City customers.
• Table for OV#1 customers.
• Table for Wholesale customers.
FISCAL IMPACT: It is the intent of staff to work toward a budget where revenues and expenses are balanced and
meet appropriate financial criteria while operating an enterprise fund without receiving outside subsidies.
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Oro Valley Water Utility Commission respectfully recommends
J
approval of the recommendations presented in their 1999 Annual Report and further recommends Town Council provide
staff with direction to implement those recommendations.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff concurs with the Commission in recommending approval of the recommendations as presented in their 1999 Annual
Report and directing staff to implement the recommendations.
4 \
150t. • .-r Utility Direc or
OP/ t
Town Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
WATER UTILITY COMMISSION
ANNUAL REPORT
APRIL 1999
INTRODUCTION
In October, 1996 the Oro Valley Town Council (Mayor and Council) formed the Oro
Valley Water Utility Commission (Commission) to act as the official advisory body to
the Mayor and Council regarding water related issues. The functions and duties of the
seven member commission include reviewing and developing recommendations for
water revenue requirements, water rate and fee structures, and water system capital
improvement planning. The Commission is required to prepare an annual report to the
Council regarding its recommendations. This 1999 report is the Commission's third
Annual Report. It includes recommendations related to establishing a conservation
program, service area expansion and reductions, debt financing, regulatory
requirements, revenue requirements, system operations and maintenance
requirements, debt service requirements, a five year capital improvements plan, rate
adjustments and alternative water supply strategies.
This Executive Summary contains a briefing on the implementation of the
recommendations presented in the 1998 Annual Report. It also contains a briefing on
new recommendations specific to water issues facing the Town in FY 1999/2000 and
beyond. Explanations and financial analyses that are more detailed may be found in
the body of the report and the Appendices. The main body of the report presents
details related to the Commission's preferred scenario. For comparison purposes, a
section describing other alternatives is presented at the end of the report.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1998 REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
• Water Rates: The rates recommended by the Commission were adopted in
October 1998 by Mayor and Council.
• Departmental Structure: The departmental structure recommended by the
Commission was approved by the Mayor and Council with the adoption of the
budget for FY 1998/99 and with related changes to the Water Code.
- 1 -
• Alternative Water Resources: The Commission and the Mayor and Council
have given preferred status to the Ina Road Reclamation System being proposed
by Pima County. Efforts on this and other options have resulted in continued
progress towards the objective of expediting the delivery of a renewable water
supply to the Town.
• Master Planning Reports: The Master Plan for the potable water system is well
underway and expected to be complete by mid-1999. The scope of work for the
renewable water system master plan is under development with plan completion
scheduled for FY 1999/00.
• Oro Valley Water Improvement District #1: The recommendations of the
Commission and the OV #1 Task Force to assume management of the Oro Valley
Water Improvement District #1 (OVWID #1) were accepted by the Mayor and
Council as well as the MDWID Board of Directors. Staff efforts to have the OVWU
serving the customers of the OVWID #1 are on schedule for 7-1-99.
• Tucson Water System within Oro Valley: Discussions have continued
between the staff of both utilities on this matter. Status reports and discussion with
the Commission on possible recommendations to the Mayor and Council are
expected in FY 1999/00.
NEW RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY 1999/00
• Water Rates, Revenue Requirements, O&M and Debt Service Requirements
and the 5-Year CIP: Based on the analysis of 5-year projected expenses and
required revenue detailed in the body of the report and the appendices, the
Commission recommends the following rate structure:
> A second rate tier be established for conservation purposes.
> The Monthly Base Rate and the Tier 1 Commodity Rate for the OVWID
customers is recommended to remain unchanged from its present MDWID rate.
> The Monthly Base Rate for OVWU customers is recommended to increase
between $0.96/month and $82/month, depending on the meter size and
customer category. Customers with a 5/8"x3/4" meter would realize a
$0.96/month change under this proposal.
> The Tier 1 Commodity Rate for wholesale customers is recommended to
increase to $1.55 per each 1000 gallons after the first 1000 gallons.
> The Tier 1 Commodity Rate for other OVWU customers is recommended to not
change from its current rate of $1.73 per each 1000 gallons after the first 1000
gallons.
- 2 -
> The Tier 2 (conservation) Commodity Rate for OVWU and OVWID #1
customers is recommended to be $1.67 per each 1000 gallons after the
threshold point for wholesale customers and $1.85 per each 1000 gallons after
the threshold point for other OVWU customers.
• Alternative Water Resources: Given the importance to the residents of Oro
Valley of addressing alternative water resource issues and given the progress
made in the last year, the Commission recommends that efforts on the same three
points presented in the 1998 Annual Report be reiterated and expanded as follows:
(1) the phased in use of reclaimed water to irrigate golf courses be expedited, (2)
the Town continue joint alternative water resource planning with neighboring
jurisdictions and other water resource agencies to take advantage of economies of
scale; and (3) purchase incentive priced CAP water while it is available for
accumulating long term storage credits.
• Master Planning Reports: The Commission recommends that the Town create
a Master Plan Report for Alternative Water Resources, separate from the report
currently being formulated for the domestic system.
• Oro Valley Water Improvement District#1: The Commission recommends that
the Council complete the consolidation of management begun in the current FY
with a focus on equalizing the level of service to all OVWU customers.
• Tucson Water System within Oro Valley: The Commission recommends that
the Town Council continue to pursue analyzing the acquisition of the delivery and
production system currently serving residents of the Town who are customers of
Tucson Water.
• Conservation: The Commission recommends that policy statements regarding
conservation be developed as a part of the FY 1999/00 Commission work plan and
forwarded to Mayor and Council for consideration.
• Service Area: The Commission recommends that policy statements regarding
service area expansion and reduction be developed as a part of the FY 1999/00
Commission work plan and forwarded to Mayor and Council for consideration.
• Debt Financing: The Commission recommends that capital projects continue to
be financed on a pay as you go approach, except when service area acquisition
requires service level equalization.
• C.A.P. Water: The Commission recommends that policy statements be
developed regarding the purchase and use of C.A.P. water as a part of the FY
1999/00 Commission work plan and forwarded to Mayor and Council.
• Human Resource Management: The Commission recommends that the Mayor
- 3 -
and Council support the periodic review of departmental structure and position
classification in order to keep sufficient and qualified personnel on staff to prevent
the degradation of current service levels.
• Service Fees and Charges: The Commission recommends that the various
service fees and charges be reviewed and updated as a part of the FY 1999/00
work plan and forwarded to Mayor and Council for consideration.
• Annual Report Due Date: The Commission recommends that the due date for
delivery of the Commission's Annual Report be established as May 1 of each year
and expects to return soon to Mayor and Council with the proposed changes to the
Water Code for consideration.
• Emergency Services Strategic Plan: The Commission recommends that the
impact of the forthcoming strategic plan on the OVWU be evaluated in terms of
level of service, implementation cost and cost allocation.
• Water Quality: The Commission recommends that water quality continue to
receive high priority, with staff empowered to be proactive on issues that may affect
water quality.
• Water Supply: The Commission recommends that water supply continue to
receive high priority, with staff empowered to be proactive on issues that may affect
water supply.
• Line Extensions: The Commission recommends that the Water Code be
updated as a part of the FY 1999/00 Commission work plan to eliminate annual
refunds to signatories of line extension agreements, with the proposed changes to
the Water Code forwarded to Mayor and Council for consideration.
• Regulatory: The Commission recommends that policy statements be developed
regarding the regulatory environment in which the OVWU operates as a part of the
FY 1999/00 Commission work plan and forwarded to Mayor and Council for
consideration.
• Wholesale Customers: The Commission recommends that this customer rate
class undergo an annual rate review, as is the case with all other customer classes.
The Oro Valley Water Utility Commission is proud to serve the Mayor and Council and
customers of the Town of Oro Valley. We are pleased to present our Annual Report to
the Mayor and Council for consideration. While much has been accomplished in the
past year, the Commission looks forward to direction from Mayor and Council
regarding those items mentioned in the Executive Summary and detailed in the Report.
We thank the Mayor and Council for their consideration, direction and guidance.
- 4 -
PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
NON-CITY CUSTOMERS
PROPOSED PROPOSED
METER CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED CURRENT COMMODITY COMMODITY
SIZE BASE RATE BASE RATE INCREASE COMMODITY TIER 1 TIER 2
PER 1,000 GALS. PER 1,000 GALS. PER 1,000 GALS.
_
5/8 X 3/4 9.85 10.81 0.96 1.73 1.73 1.85
1 24.70 27.10 2.40 1.73 1.73 1 1.85
1.5 49.40 54.19 4.79 1.73 1.73 1.85
2 79.00 86.66 7.66 1.73 1.73 1.85
3 158.00 173.33 15.33 1.73 1.73 1.85
4 250.00 274.25 24.25 1.73 1.73 1.85
6 500.00 548.50 48.50 1.73 1.73 1.85
8 850.00 932.45 82.45 1,73 1.73 1.85
THE BASE RATE INCLUDES 1,000 GALLONS OF WATER
TIER 1 COMMODITY RATE CHARGED ON 0 -10,000 GALLONS
TIER 2 (conservation) COMMODITY RATE CHARGED ON USAGE OVER 10,000 GALLONS
TIER 2 THRESHOLD POINT FOR THIS METER SIZE DERIVED BY MULTIPLYING AVERAGE
USAGE BY 125%
PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
"CITY" CUSTOMERS
PROPOSED PROPOSED
METER CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED CURRENT COMMODITY COMMODITY
SIZE BASE RATE BASE RATE INCREASE COMMODITY TIER 1 TIER 2
PER 1,000 GALS. PER 1,000 GALS. PER 1,000 GALS.
5/8 X 3/4 7.90 9.35 1.45 1.73 1.73 1.85
1 19.70 23.40 3.70 1.73 1.73 1.85
1.5 39.95 47.07 7.12 1.73 1.73 1.85
2 63.00 74.83 11.83 1.73 1.73 1.85
3 127.80 150.57 _ 22.77 1.73 1.73 1.85
4 200.74 237.50 36.76 1.73 1.73 1.85
6 401.48 475.00 73.52 1.73 ' 1.73 1.85
8 N/A N/A N/A 1.73 1.73 1.85
THE CURRENT BASE RATE INCLUDES 1,000 GALLONS OF WATER
TIER 1 COMMODITY RATE CHARGED ON 0 - 10,000 GALLONS
TIER 2 (conservation) COMMODITY RATE CHARGED ON USAGE OVER 10,000 GALLONS
TIER 2 THRESHOLD POINT FOR THIS METER SIZE DERIVED BY MULTIPLYING AVERAGE
USAGE BY 125%
PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
OV#1 CUSTOMERS
METER CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
SIZE BASE RATE BASE RATE INCREASE COMMODITY COMMODITY INCREASE
PER 1,000 GALS. PER 1,000 GALS. PER 1,000 GALS.
5/8 X 3/4 10.22 10.22 0 1.85 1.85 0
1 25.55 25.55 0 1.85 1.85 0
1.5 51.10 51.10 0 1.85 1.85 0
2 81.76 81.76 0 1.85 1.85 0
3 163.52 163.52 _ 0 1.85 1.85 0
4 255.50 255.50 0 1.85 1.85 0
6 511.00 511.00 0 1.85 1.85 0
8 N/A N/A N/A 1.85 1.85 0
THE BASE RATE INCLUDES 2,000 GALLONS OF WATER
PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS
T PROPOSED PROPOSED
METER CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSED CURRENT COMMODITY COMMODITY
SIZE BASE RATE BASE RATE INCREASE COMMODITY TIER 1 TIER 2
PER 1,000 GALS. PER 1,000 GALS. PER 1,000 GALS.
6 500.00 548.50 48.50 1.45 1.55 1.67
THE BASE RATE INCLUDES 1,000 GALLONS OF WATER
TIER 1 COMMODITY RATE CHARGED ON 0 - 1,800,000 GALLONS
TIER 2 (conservation) COMMODITY RATE CHARGED ON USAGE OVER 1,800,000 GALLONS
TIER 2 THRESHOLD POINT FOR THIS METER SIZE DERIVED BY MULTIPLYING AVERAGE
USAGE BY 125%
ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: COUNCILMEMBER WAYNE BRYANT
VIA: CHUCK SWEET, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: DAVID G. HOOK, WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR
DATE: 6-11-99
SUBJECT: WATER UTILITY COMMISSION'S 1999 ANNUAL REPORT
REVIEW COMMENTS BY L. MONRAD, DATED 5-12-99
CC: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
WATER UTILITY COMMISSION MEMBERS
SHIRLEY SENG, WATER ADMINISTRATOR
As per your request, please find attached the Oro Valley Water Utility's (OVWU's)
response to the above referenced review comments received by the OVWU on 5-17-
99 via fax.
For ease of reference and reading clarity, each of the review comments has been
retyped. The OVWU's response follows each comment. Many of the 35 numbered
review comments contained multiple comments or questions. While we have tried to
be concise in our response, at times the response is lengthy in order to provide all
relevant information.
As always, please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions that you
may have on this matter.
OVWU RESPONSE TO
1999 ANNUAL REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS
BY L. MONRAD DATED 5-12-99
& RECEIVED 5-17-99 VIA FAX:
Review Comment #1: What are the contract terms for Ron Kozoman, CPA,
consultant? How was he selected? How much is being paid for his services? (This
was for a "cost of services study and rate analysis"— see report page 21.)
OVWU Response:
Mr. Kozoman's services have been provided on an hourly basis. Mr. Kozoman was
selected because of his extensive background in water utility rate analysis throughout
Arizona and was paid approximately $14,000 for his services in preparation of the
Water Utility Commission's (Commission) 1999 Annual Report (Report), with his time
charged at $110.00 per hour.
Additionally, Mr. Kozoman brings with him a historical perspective of the OVWU,
having assisted with previous Annual Reports as well as having worked with both the
Canada Hills Water Company (CHWCo) and the Rancho Vistoso Water Company
(RVWCo) prior to the Town's acquisition of those systems. A more detailed listing of
Mr. Kozoman's experience can be provided upon request.
As you may be aware, the Town's Standard Operating Procedure #2, Section I states
that "Unless required by the Council, the bidding and vendor quotation requirements
of this SOP shall not apply to professional services. Such services shall include, but
not be limited to the following: medical, legal, engineering, architectural, financial and
similar services."
Review Comment#2: Index of Appendices, Item E. Why are the terms "Non-
City"and "City"being used vs. "Town"?
OVWU Response:
The terms "City" and "Non-City" are used to distinguish between two groups of
customers with different rates.
The terms evolved under private ownership of the water utility. The Arizona
Corporation Commission would not allow the Foothills Water Co. (predecessor to the
CHWCo) to increase the rates of the customers purchased by the Foothills Water
Company (FHWCo) from the City of Tucson to equal that of new FHWCo customers.
As a result, FWCo and its successor, CHWCo, referred to that rate class as "City".
All other rates/customers were referred to as "Non-City".
At the time the Town acquired the CHWCo, discussions with the residents who had
the "City" rate lead to a commitment by Mayor and Council to equalize the rates over
a 4-year period rather than impose 'rate shock' in the first year of Town ownership of
the system. Thus, this rate class has continued to receive separate distinction. FY
1999/00 is the last year for the need for this distinction. "City" and "Non-City" rates
are scheduled to be equalized in FY 2000/01.
Review Comment #3: What period does the report cover? Forecast is for 7-1-99
thru 6-30-00. Operations report is for thru
OVWU Response:
The forecasts and projections are for this coming fiscal year (FY 99/00) while review
of the operations is for the current fiscal year (FY 98/99).
Review Comment #4: What is the cost per connection for acquisition of Tucson
Water System within Oro Valley? Will Oro Valley also acquire Tucson water wells
within Oro Valley? 700 customers.
OVWU Response:
No determination has been made by Mayor and Council regarding a specific value for
any or all of the Tucson Water system within Oro Valley.
Further analysis by staff, with reports to Mayor and Council, will lead to such a
determination and negotiated offers for purchase. To date, there have only been
discussions between the staff of both utilities regarding the system infrastructure and
operations. Budgetary allowances have been made, as contingency/reserve, should
the Mayor and Council have the opportunity to consider acquiring the Tucson Water
system within Oro Valley.
Review Comment #5: How does service area expansion accommodate
annexations?
OVWU Response:
Any area within the Town Limits, including the recently annexed area west of La
Cholla, is considered to be within the Town's water utility service area. The only
exception to this rule is where specific service area rights held by other water
providers predated the Town's apparent right to serve the area or where the Mayor
and Council has specifically given that right to others. A more detailed explanation of
the hierarchy of service area rights is available upon request.
Review Comment #6: Why doesn't the Town of Oro Valley divest the
Countryside system to Town of Marana?
OVWU Response:
No direction has been given by Mayor and Council regarding performing an
evaluation of the possible divestiture of the Countryside system from the OVWU.
At the time of acquisition of the system from the CHWCo, the Mayor and Council
heard residents of the area express concerns regarding representation and level of
service that were lacking under private ownership. That input, being similar to input
from Town citizens, lead to a commitment by the Mayor and Council to not `under-
serve' those residents just because they are not a part of, or contiguous to, Oro
Valley.
Review Comment #7: What is the status of the Kai Farms Agreement? The
report is silent on this contract. Why?
OVWU Response:
This information was not highlighted in the Report but was expected to be addressed
in the upcoming C.A.P. water work plan activity described on page 11.
The agreement with Kai Farms to accept the Town's C.A.P. water for irrigation
is in-tact. Between January and April 1999, Kai Farms took 2000 acre feet
purposes
of CAP water on behalf of the Town. In return, the Town receives $5.00 per acre foot
(from Kai) and long term storage credits from the ADWR.
Review Comment #8: Report recommends "No new debt permitted for capital
projects. Construct on a 'Pay as you go' basis". How is this attainable when
operations are in the red? "Pay as you go"approach has not been followed to date.
OVWU Response:
Replacement of existing capital is attainable on a 'pay as you go' basis because the
utility funds depreciation through revenues, using that accumulating cash to pay for
improvements. Construction of new capital is attainable on a 'pay as you go' basis
through the controlled use of development impact fees so that development pays for
itself.
The Report recommendation regarding the 'pay as you go' concept identifies one
allowable exception — for equalization of service levels when service area is added to
the system. This was the case in 1996 when $1,000,000.00 was included in the
original bond issuance for plant upgrades in the CHWCo system. This is also the
case with the 1999 bond issuance related to the Oro Valley Water Improvement
District #1. In both cases, the water sales revenue stream was sufficient to sustain
the additional debt service.
The 'pay as you go' concept as recommended has been followed to date with a
single exception. The only exception since 1996, involved the Commercial
Readiness Program where the OVWU borrowed funds from the General Fund. This
loan is being repaid through the collection of development impact fees.
For more details regarding "operations in the red", see response #14 below.
For more details regarding funding depreciation to pay for improvements, see
response #27 below.
Review Comment #9: Annual Report Due Date: It does not make sense to
prepare Annual Reports which do not relate to current fiscal year operations.
Consider Annual Report due date to correspond with Town's Annual Audit Report for
year ending 30 June and being due by 30 September of each year. Budget
considerations should be handled independent of an Annual Report. i.e. Budget cycle
could use the previous year Annual Report for guidance.
OVWU Response:
End of FY financial reporting is already included in the Town's annual audited report.
Article 15-4-5 of the Town Code requires that the Water Utility Commission render an
annual report to the Mayor and Council. This report is to include, at a minimum, a
review of the proposed CIP, recommendations for annual and 5 year CIP budget, a
review of the annual revenue requirements and recommendations regarding rate
adjustments. Given this charge, it is appropriate to have the Commission's annual
report coincide with the Town's budget process as opposed to the audit process after
the end of FY operations.
Review Comment #10: System Security: Has the OVWU properly considered
system security and threats analysis?
OVWU Response:
The OVWU has met ADEQ requirements with regard to secure fencing, gates and
locks at the water plant sites.
In addition, a phased program of telemetry system installation has begun, giving staff
increased monitoring capabilities and early warning alarms when operational
problems occur.
Additionally, the OVWU has prepared emergency operations plans for reference in
the case of extreme event occurrence.
Review Comment #11: Is La Cholla Airpark in the Town of Oro Valley?
OVWU Response:
La Cholla Air Park does not lie within the existing Oro Valley Town Limits.
Review Comment #12: Are there other service areas not in the Town of Oro
Valley?
OVWU Response:
Yes. The Countryside service area is not within Town limits. Additionally, the Allied
Signal plant is a customer but outside the Town limits.
Prior to the recent annexations in the La Cholla/Naranja, there was a service area
associated with the old CHWCo service area that was outside the Town limits.
Review Comment #13: Revenue projection increase is 19%. Personnel projection
increase is 40%. How can this be justified?Additional staff should be curtailed.
OVWU Response:
Caution in interpreting the quoted percentages must be exercised as percentages
can be misleading. Utilize all information available. Justification for additional staff is
included in the Report as well as in the OVWU's FY 99/00 budget request. The
decision to add staff or curtail staff growth should depend on the level of service the
Mayor and Council desires to provide to the ratepayers. Understanding the impacts
of new staff or no new staff on service levels is essential to that decision making
process.
Review Comment#14: Projected short fall for `99/'00 is $292,000. Where are the
funds coming from to cover this deficit?
OVWU Response:
The "shortfall" referred to above appears to have been derived from data on page 15
of the Report. The determination of `excess' or `shortfalls' is not that simple. To
obtain an accurate financial portrait, one must use generally accepted government
accounting principles. Please review the data in Appendix F, the Estimated Income
Statement and the Estimated Statement of Cash Flows to ascertain the net income,
retained earnings and change in cash balance.
The enterprise fund is estimated to have a negative net income of $292,487 for FY
98/99; however, the utility is projected to have a positive net income of $89,005 for
FY 99/00.
A negative net income that occurs in any given year is `covered' by retained earnings
fromp revious years. A negative cash flow in any give year is 'covered' by cash
balances from previous years.
The table below provides a historical summary of the OVWU's enterprise fund
financial status at the end of each FY (values are rounded to the nearest $1000):
$X 1000 FY 95/96 FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 * FY 99/00 **
Net Income $150 $328 $215 ($293) $89
Retained Earnings $150 $478 $693 $400 $489
Cash Flow $1946 $1665 $471 ($476) ($1979)
Cash Balance $1946 $3611 $4082 $3606 $1627
* = Estimated Actual **= Projected
Review Comment #15: Shortfall for `98/'99 was $210,000. Increases in shortfall is
39%.
OVWU Response:
Refer to response #14 above regarding interpretation of financial data. Caution in
interpreting the quoted percentages must be exercised as percentages can be
misleading. Utilize all information available. See summary table above for relevant
financial data.
Review Comment #16: Note comments regarding inaccurate projected revenues
and expenses due to the timing of this report. See 9. above for resolution of this
problem.
OVWU Response:
Refer to response #9 above.
Review Comment #17: The content of this report has a lot of extraneous
rambling.
OVWU Response:
Insufficient detail given to provide response.
Review Comment #18: Has previous disinfection of the water system been
performedproperly?
How is it possible to go from $50,000 to $130,000 per year for
this item?
OVWU Response:
The utility currently performs "batch chlorination" at specific sites during different
times of theyear. This form of disinfection is performed in accordance with ADEQ
regulations.
With pp
regard to Appendix B, Line item 4, wellhead disinfection has been included in
g
the 5-year CIP program ram as a result of the tentative schedule by EPA to mandate
disinfection of all groundwater by November 2000. This will involve the installation of
chlorine injection equipment at the wellhead for 'continuous system disinfection'.
EPA and ADEQ regulations will be strictly adhered to.
Review Comment #19: Personnel Cost for `98/'99 is $709,000. Number of
employees as of 6/30/99 is 19.
$709,000 = $37,316 Per Employee (Avg.)
19 Or
$17.87/Hr Average Wage Rate.
OVWU Response:
The calculation above is not an `average wage rate' but the `average cost per
p
employee er hour'. The $709,000 referred to as "personnel costs" includes:
J
ro
,
salaries/wa es 'ected overtime, group insurance, social security and medicare,
g projected
retirement contributions, unemployment and workers compensation.
Review Comment #20: Personnel Cost for `99100 is $994,000. Number of
employees as of 6/30/00 is 25.
$994,000 = $39,760 Per Employee (Avg.)
25 Or
$19.04/Hr Average Wage Rate.
The average increase is 6.6%. This exceeds good practice. (Report indicates 5%
increase for cola and merit.) 6.6% is 32% higher than 5%.
OVWU Response:
Refer to response #19 above regarding `wage' vs. `cost'. The reference to `5%' in the
report is describing the allowances made for future years in the 5-year projection
analysis. Caution in interpreting the quoted percentages must be exercised as
percentages can be misleading. Utilize all information available.
In addition to the cost components described in response #19 above, the personnel
costs for FY 99/00 contained in the Report include estimates for COLA & merit
increases as well as estimates of compensation adjustments related to a
classification maintenance review currently underway by Human Resources.
Review Comment#21: Does this report include Debt Service for the currently
awardedlro'ects and bonds issued? If not, how would this affect the financial
p
portions of the report?
OVWU Response:
The Report includes debt service for bonds issued for acquisition of the private
utilities as well as debt service related to the general fund loan to the impact fee fund
described in response #8 above. In anticipation of the management transfer of the
p
OVWID #1 system to the OVWU, debt service has also been included in the Report
for the bonds related to OVWID #1.
Review Comment#22: Water rates should be the same for all residents of The
Town of Oro Valley. ("Phase —In" duly noted.) (Also see item 2. Above Re: "City —
"Non-City"discussion.) (Also appendix `E'.)
OVWU Response:
Theghase-in agreement for the "city rate" customers will be honored. Rate
p
equalization is planned for FY 00/01.
Review Comment #23: Note that "typical" Town of Oro Valley residential
customer pays 15%± more then a City of Tucson residential customer.
OVWU Response:
Caution in interpreting the quoted percentages must be exercised as percentages
can be misleading. Utilize all information available. The difference noted is primarily
due to the fact that Tucson Water has a substantially lower monthly base rate than
the OVWU. Staff can not explain the design of Tucson's rate structure or its
appropriateness relative to the various customers classes.
Review Comment #24: How can Retained Earnings be positive when expenses
(including Debt Service) have and will exceed revenue?
OVWU Response:
Financial criteria used for evaluation requires retained earnings to always be positive
as ag
rotection against the development of a poor financial condition for the OVWU.
p
Retained earnings is the cumulative value of net income since inception of the
OVWU. The OVWU has experienced only 1 year of negative net income, thus a
positive retained earnings value. Refer to response #14 and #15 for more detail.
Review Comment #25: Report (P.22) references "Cash Payments" for proposed
capital expenditures. This does not square with bonding being issued?
OVWU Response:
The "cash payments" and "cash balance" referred to on page 22 includes bond funds
available for improvements as well as funds received from water sales.
Review Comment#26: What is the source of the $3,608,000 cash balances on
P.22? Is this residual bond funds? (lt is obviously not excess of Revenues over
Expenses.)
OVWU Response:
Generally, the cash balance of $3,608,000 is revenues in excess of expenses. It is
definitely not residual bond funds.
For the most part, this value represents accumulated depreciation that has been
'expensed' on the income statement each year but not actually spent as cash each
year as shown on the cash flow statement.
See response # 14 and #27 for more detail.
Review Comment #27: How do you fund new plant construction with
depreciation? (P. 23. Scenario was discarded.)
OVWU Response:
Depreciation is not a cash payment, but a representation of the loss in plant value
p (wear
due to aging and tear, etc.). To maintain system value and service levels, the
plant must be replaced as it wears out. To pay for these improvements, revenue is
collected from water sales annually and spent as needed on replacement
improvements.
Review Comment #28: Saying that "The utility does not run at a loss for more
than two consecutive years" does not make it a fact. ("Scenario A"assumptions.)
OVWU Response:
When reviewing projections based on assumptions, one should be aware that the
projections cannot be construed as facts, but rather taken in the context for which
they were prepared — forecasting, planning, projecting, etc. The financial criteria
used for evaluation allows no more than 2 consecutive years of negative net income
as ap rotection against the development of a poor financial condition for the OVWU.
Projections in Scenario A indicate that if 1) the proposed annual rate increases are
implemented, 2) growth and usage meet projections and 3) expenditures meet
projections, then the utility will not run at a loss for more than 2 consecutive years.
The use of assumptions is necessary to make any projections for future years.
Review Comment #29: O&M increase from '99' to '00' is 19.7%. `Scenario A'
assumption indicates 5%. How does this square with the analysis?
OVWU Response:
Caution in interpreting the quoted percentages must be exercised as percentages
can be misleading. Utilize all information available. When projecting O&M costs
from FY to FY, staff used a general allowance of 5%. However, included in FY 99/00
(and other future FY's) are known O&M cost increases and decreases that are
unique and must be considered in addition to the general allowance (i.e.: power for
new plant added, maintenance costs for OVWID, increased CAP costs).
Review Comment#30: O&M in projections for assumption A is $1,383,357 vs.
$1,688,000 on P.15. This is a difference of$304,643. How does this square with the
picture being presented?
OVWU Response:
O&M costs identified in the Preferred Financial Scenario A (Appendix A) have
separated C.A.P. costs from other O&M costs. This was done to identify the
increased costs of C.A.P. water that the utility is unable to control.
3 357 (O&M) + $305,000 (C.A.P.) = $1,688,357. (This figure was rounded to
$1,38
$1,688,000 for use on page 15.)
Review Comment#31: With the above apparent discrepancies, this reviewer
suspects that the total report should be subject to more careful scrutiny.
OVWU Response:
The referenced "apparent discrepancies" have been addressed. Further clarifications
can beprovided if additional questions exist. The utility has no objection to additional
scrutiny.
Review Comment#32: Why spend OVWU funds for 'out of town' systems? i.e.
Countryside. See item 6. above. Reservoir is $368,800 in 5 year CIP for 2001-2002.
ry
(How many �customers are in Countryside?) Booster upgrade is $200,000 in '99-'00.
} This totals $765,800 for out-of-town system. (Probably exceeds total value of service
••: area system.)
for reservoir, Telemetry is more! Land $80,000 $12,000 and Generator
$105,000.
This needs review and discussion.
OVWU Response:
There are approximately 1,975 customers in this service area. These customers pay
water rates that fund annual depreciation. That cash will pay for most of the
improvements noted above. The balance is expected to be funded by development
activity through the payment of impact fees.
As discussed in response #6, the Mayor and Council heard residents of the area
concerns
express regarding representation and level of service at the time of
p
acquisition from the system from the CHWCo. That input, being similar to input from
Town citizens, lead to a commitment by the Mayor and Council to not 'under-serve'
those residents just because they are not a part of, or contiguous to, Oro Valley.
It has been the approach of staff that all customers of the OVWU — whether in the
Town Limits or not — deserve to have adequate water supply, fire flow, water
pressure and a reliable source of quality water.
Review Comment #33: Well water elevations have remained basically unchanged
over past ten years. Good News!
OVWU Response:
No response required.
Review Comment #34: Appendix F Income Statement indicates Budget for `98-
'99 loss = $7,485. Actual loss = $292,847 (Projected).
Biggest `Bust'in overrun of 0 & M. by$457,607 (Projected).
OVWU Response:
Were it not for the 1-time, unbudgeted payment of $410,000 to pay a legal
judgement, the estimated actual net income for FY 98/99 would have been positive (-
$292,847 + $410,000 = $117,153).
Expensing this unbudgeted payment as an O&M cost was the single largest
contributor to the `bust' referenced above. A portion of the overrun is related to the
Commercial Readiness Program. Modifications to the program were authorized mid-
year by Mayor and Council. Were it not for these 2 items, there would have been no
overrun for estimated actual O&M for FY 98/99.
Review Comment #35: What are the Town's current liabilities regarding CAP
water and litigation with the City of Tucson? Report is lacking any comment on this
item.
OVWU Response:
Any pending litigation with the City of Tucson does not yet require Commission
involvement, thus the lack of comment.
Recent litigation with the City of Tucson involving the OVWID #1 has been settled. A
separate report prepared by the OV#1 Task Force addresses the OVWID #1 related
issues in detail. Thus, the Commission approached the OVWID #1 as a whole
package without need to address any issue in great detail.
As a result of the settlement, the Town now has ownership and control of an
additional 642 acre-feet of C.A.P. water. With the transfer of management of the
OVWID #1 system to the OVWU, the Town expects to sell bonds to prepay the
obligation to the City of Tucson rather than make annual payments as structured in
the settlement.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: June 14, 1999
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: William A. Jansen, P.E.,Town Engineer
SUBJECT: Proposed La Canada Drive Extension
BACKGROUND:
The Town began the planning process for the extension of La Canada Drive from Tangerine
Road to Moore Road in May 1998. Since that time, the Town's planning consultant has
developed a Transportation Action Plan that was presented at a public meeting on
September 24, 1998 and December 9, 1998. At a Town Council Study Session held on
November 30, 1998, the consultant presented to Mayor and Council a recommendation on
three (3) alternative alignments for the road extension.
The purpose of this Study Session is for the consultant to present the recommended
alignment on the La Canada extension and to obtain input from Mayor and Council prior to
formal submission of the report and recommendations for approval at a regularly scheduled
meeting of the Town Council.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft La Canada Drive Extension Location Report.
SUGGESTED MOTION: None required.
Town Engineer
Ai
if
AA r�,
Town ager
Draft
Town of Oro Valley
La Canada Drive Extension, Tangerine Road to Moore Road
Location Report
For Internal Review Only
Prepared for Town of Oro Valley
Prepared by Curtis Lueck & Associates
DJA Engineering, Inc.
RECON Consultants, Inc.
Hydro-Science Engineering Southwest, Inc.
February 8, 1999
1. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Study
Growth in Oro Valley continues to generate additional traffic on already-congested
arterial roadway corridors. Rancho Vistoso, a master-planned community located in
northern Oro Valley, is gradually being built out, resulting in increased traffic and
congestion along the First Avenue and Oracle Road corridors. There are currently only
two access points to Rancho Vistoso: Rancho Vistoso Boulevard at Tangerine Road,
and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard at Oracle Road.
Previous Oro Valley planning studies show that an alternative route is necessary to help
relieve traffic demands on these corridors. The Town of Oro Valley originally perceived
the need for an alternative travel corridor in 1994 during subregional planning studies,
including a traffic impact analysis performed for Rancho Vistoso. Also, as part of Focus
2020: Town of Oro Valley General Plan, which was completed in July 1996, an
alternative roadway connection to Rancho Vistoso was identified as a key element in
meeting the travel needs of the growing Rancho Vistoso community.
The proposed extension of La Canada Drive from Tangerine Road to Moore Road
would provide this alternative access to Rancho Vistoso in northern Oro Valley, and is
the subject of this Location Report. This Location Report for the La Canada Drive
extension has been prepared generally following the guidance of the Pima County
Community Participation and Mitigation Ordinance (No. 1992-69).1 As a first step in the
development of the Location Report, a Transportation Action Plan, or TAP, was
prepared in September 1998 and is described in further detail in the following sections
of this report. The TAP provides a summary of the major social, environmental, and
design considerations that were evaluated as part of the study.
This Location Report, based on the TAP and on a comparative study of reasonable
alternative alignments, provides a recommended final roadway alignment for the
extension of La Canada Drive from Tangerine Road to Moore Road. The Location
Report includes a general overview of anticipated environmental, community,
transportation, and other impacts for each alignment.
The report has been prepared with citizen and stakeholder input, and addresses in
particular the following aspects of the study: 1) the proposed project is a completely
new roadway on a new alignment; 2) the project may have significant right-of-way
needs and property impacts along the selected alignment(the Town of Oro Valley
currently owns no right-of-way along the alternative alignments); and 3) there are
significant alignment choices to be made between the identified project termination
points based on traffic operations, cost, and community impacts.
1 The Town of Oro Valley does not have an ordinance governing roadway development, and so the County policy is
being followed in this project.
1
Upon completion and approval of the Location Report, the Town of Oro Valley will
hold a public hearing to determine the selected right-of-way alignment. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Town may approve any of the alternative
alignments studied in the Location Report or may order the preparation of a new
Location Report.
Study Area
The study area for the La Canada Drive extension is located along the northwest edge
of Oro Valley between Tangerine Road and Moore Road, a distance of one mile. The
study area is bounded approximately 1/4 mile to the west and 3/4 mile to the east of the
unimproved La Canada Drive/King Air Drive, and 1/3 mile to the north of Moore Road
and 1/3 mile to the south of Tangerine Road. The area consists primarily of private land
within both Oro Valley and unincorporated Pima County. The study area for the La
Canada Drive extension is presented in Exhibit 1. Area views of the study area are
presented in Exhibit 2.
Recommendation of Transportation Action Plan
A Transportation Action Plan for the La Canada Drive extension was completed in
September 1998. The purpose of the TAP is to define the project limits and to describe
the major design features and general corridor area for the proposed improvement.
The La Canada Drive Transportation Action Plan recommended that a Location Report
be prepared to identify a final right-of-way alignment as the next step in the
development of the project. The TAP indicated that the selection of a final alignment
should be based on a comparative study of reasonable alternative alignments.
Exhibit 1
Study Area
-".!.--;•=c7i9-----F1_,,, -0..7"..1::' ,....._'•v,,.-,,,,..„.c,4-1,81-4,.--4.1,,jeig: z,.474-:. ..;*f-#........,,. ii --., e.
'tz
. �+t • �{ . , -' • :, .' ► . lhir
':w r7r .• �/ } '• . y� a : �~ {
i.-:-:ii4to:_1-„,,zq ' '. . :!;_':-.F.-1--.:,:Z,-:.-.,-Aq*--z-,, -.,-A.&-i.r.-. 7:7,,,,,.,-;'!,;>,,-*-.:4-2,1-71. .. .4:
4,1
.:A1,!,'�,.. t- s , �r4-:jj•• r a .I.Y„� • � ,,.. et,�v••" lity.-, , 0,,,v
'. ,1T .a� w�, -Npro..i..,,,,,..,;-...,:ii........: ,.......tN: .., %ern.- r �f
ic
�'•:r,,,k •�� ;,...•o.�� �•s..``.���� '�1:�;�4'fs'i►`�,,.-4:,..,,-,... r,',,7��v_ kg...fai.
� 5��� = .. ' ":y�,�.�t�`i
•
•• �: �� .1 �. •�•�,�•�t+^ �y�}`..jp['`J�., »rir!�-.•`.�j�: , ,'• 't+•/r_'�YK .+i.•:�"-
r!-� 4...,.. _ .�,r-=11=F A .r1:151:--*'-..!: ;i'z•-'' a-C4J.. Jam_=i • t �1�" .? e=i,
•
i-,:-.,`,-14,7
,'• *••, •.' ' �. ae.l,• �y'� ""-iO''t�=ar►-- •r+.�•%j►.$ `�`t-..••L-;- _s+ '.‘,;E: 1'S ?:7"`y:�R`_..
•
,,. 'wy„, „ .a .,rw. 4r r ,.tv,r�` � �=i •� T:•r,.,, <'7.,',1-4,4--
, •+F' '^ -E-:� ~'i
•) V- .rte" �; •L. C � •,..•
J, .rr•.
•
.•.t t h. ' !!r;`_? rlX1 ,� .•.i'N`s•r'-"''•r_t�.=-T,.-•4:2-,7
yM - __"a }� :.F.'•'1 y ".•,:-•:-..4<4:-
- .
. f•`L •ti. T.;$ ••7►. • - ,. _ 4.2,jtr,,-,.,,7rny. r-1..`.., '•.iJ ....y.,: L - -,-
_r• �• !•Y,�' j•t�4t4.`tom.��• e_.;i_yi..sre�9t r.•a i"���.•r•'L^�•�"`'�,� 'q t ��• S^ '�r *`��: a
r.f•
. ...w t �-
_ i za� .r Sly,..•-C•-�-Z��;►�_.r•, .__a. .f- t�,� ya.�1,,�r,..+_�;"�
� ...''—' *--•- TV-4i-.1%-i,"et,•. ,��1""!--,1-.0*.,' .:-.:-•..... .• ,a :‘!`...t.",t-V-40 w ',
i,�.. '.�.�.a..,1/I•r.:A v i's'.-,,,,Y t .:;.•_•R�Ir• �' --, • F, '�;... ✓ ( ♦ 177 .�',,V' ,-
to �:•','a4-h='`••� r �t t c. . c, ��1.}-iSt- l'Y .- -..,:' S t _.. »J "�• �( .--.%
:•,.. 'j
�- 't•�(��i�•PrP" t�`tai _+rlZ'.�t ii:+%•��S�.r ;�..�i y•• 'o' +�..:,T..� `i j� .:
y-y� li --"X'�i1,�► i�ry i .. -+ «,..,.--a,'�- .'.*-4 ',,`,; ,� .}+�:,`".,•*-4 2,-' .'tri•'':.,„
•'?��}� • p 'mac.. �.�;.: } t)is •..5•• -=_,,••••• ,::4.,..:-4,,..•w . {, _ t:•
�•. .,..:••r'.:• ri..1 _ .-37�4.a/�Y�-.*47..•Y'.�� ''4'• •;-,`+�,C K.:-.4,-,-,..,,.....-
'.ty-_y►c.:. ---V7-4--",:f
--1 -",:fT _,••%•r..f:.r -•'1 ''+_-f-.-4_e
�'N�:.II�'.' • r,'�AZ r •
• r-•,,... • .-�y'!.;2;*t�;k'' ,` ,..•i•-••7'ai•.'r_ .511 •••• .'.t1 r a -:'.f.�,
i r.,.4 aly■►� f,e, ,....��, i. 'i:r•.4' �!< ---C .•'r•,•'..-i.r .:=.j p :.''14'S.j a tl - �rfi•Y•}-• .''''
-_,.:1,..4,47.Ai•• •N �+...e•�t-,'/W..� ,C,. • s -!'-••..u-:..sWii•, - _ --.7•-•x....-;;;;
; •,4...:
� 1 Kr i '>ri'-a•.%rr..i ,,•.,. , lt'::�!',i'.jj,1/a,t�/, S,-A { . , •
,..4k '�,...',-.,4,
�' `,t 4"r 1.�''�,,r„i�'> ,•, 2�''-etaT.' L Ri`.i' '..:;,•,:.-;'..:1"
„,:$1•:'.;, ..;••ya inlyS.7�Y '
ait _ r•'�y�:�`.,N ,A}r�(K�� S�w•, •;4,1..-t.,'.47, 1,1,,. .,..i•;4,.. '�'1P� .+���:°�-'`.,+a;� '...� •�,f'.���, ,�.-•�`.}i �j•�
•r� mo.: `' .7^uit '!4i . ,•, ..4 ,. �/ Xq,i_ �. te t. ”._,�,
J
l� 1t'-%sy�:�'s�,ar• `,C�-t•. • � _r�'-'_ s •. _r�•a l� }� s'r �"
,�s.'�tr =_=t,-.e i se...a..>�.,�=:.'i�./i�'`•,f.{. ,+»" ,QR�'.,�-•r„?rjt�tf+ ,`t¢�•-'.�'i�!.''- r: ��,,r.:i �'r�:,:�"•'• � ,A
i.
ti
F .s••,..tw�vL'••a py a�`1..•.:,:5 ,Y�:+- �yS�•.:�'J,�'� .-/"�.�qt/�' 1-•-5,-,7"'W'• :,t. _.�. �r r'`f,•rt� :N..,
,�. j,.;O' -'.-:•- art .•'R_� ,�i-L3: r.��•'�Z•Y.�+ � ) �,• '.• -` 1`�"+NC r}•_ a;flag
A C+[e r�1:
�{en �,,.. .:.r-7'• t C!` • /i }• t.r C .♦" -_ d�,,,:t ,-i4' ,,,- ��=-1,..7,7.
1 t`• • :yi!,!�'�'ri.:r11r ati:,r.3•r f�r.�i�� .�•t• A i'�,,,,�. .�1: y,`'•y:t�'_"i•„ .'��.. _�����y:,..1r;,-.�`T4�
• ,�� -%!��•� •.�'�'i`��r�"""meq;••�.r 'r=i"�,:�ti;',J� - - '�a_ z'4.. ftr��K�a�'ia t`.}�.'��-� ±�
-. . •. yF...i_.- r,' � �. LL '1�F. :�iT,Kt...„ •`=r'�yet•rldl,r•• "S.'•'f'kit'••r
..
.L.:,..,.. .,z,.,,14.,,..ii.„0„.....
.. 7'"` •-k.-
{' �����'^'t'r .. ,,ni-'•a,`� ate_7e.�i. tr,-�► ���,,..s7..�•�..
`�,057„.. . ,.....,,,_.,4„. „,..„,� " .. .j „ `�-•_,•. .�r't'�r� .•r�� '.li�T�:3�1 •,[�''�J•� .�r��.}}}1�� ?if t��C-.;1�'�.�J y..
.,44,.. . . ..,,,..Tw„----.___,..
�.•+F .. 1}"�`r / ; 1_ :.,:_. _,....,.5..„.„. .........,
.. < N:R _ . P,�..t�•_"'•--C'F-�`1 L 'ail T.'!�*^.�� '�_. ice.N.ri..'
,,,,,,,,„_„:„Tiz:
•
.- • .�F' ' /•Yk_.,.y�. ,fi,r { F--.....--.-4.113---,.14,5.1
2'f•.. i'-4,A - ..P.,°.-/`.- ,-..t• :;. srt'l ;;43r; ; xr#; or=-•y. tY`'•1
2
Transportation ,mction Plan Public Open House
The final Transportation Action Plan and invitations to a public open house were sent to
more than 620 area citizens and stakeholders for informational purposes and to seek
input. The public open house was held on September 24, 1998 at the Oro Valley Town
Hail. Background information and preliminary findings on the project were displayed
and handed out, and Town of Oro Valley staff and project team staff were available to
answer questions about the study. The public meeting was in an open format, with a
brief presentation on the project and discussion of potential impacts on area properties.
The project team explained that preliminary alignment alternatives would be developed
and evaluated in the next phase of the project, and that the team would work with area
property owners in this process.
Proposed Improvement
As described in the TAP, the proposed interim cross-section is a two-lane paved
roadway with paved shoulders. The extension is planned to be built in phases, with
initial construction of the two-lane roadway coinciding with advanced acquisition of
adequate right-of-way to accommodate a future four-lane roadway. When warranted by
traffic conditions, La Canada is planned to be widened to a four-lane divided cross-
section with raised median, landscaping, multiuse lanes for bicycles and emergency
parking, sidewalks or multiuse paths, utility corridor, curb and gutter, drainage facilities,
and a traffic signal at the intersection of La Canada and Tangerine Road. This phasing
concept is very similar to the portion of River Road from La Canada Drive to La Cholla
Boulevard, which is scheduled to be widened to four lanes by Pima County within the
near future.
Justification of Project
Based on previous travel demand modeling by the Town of Oro Valley, traffic on First
Avenue and Oracle Road will increase to the point that the roads and intersections
cannot be widened within the available right-of-way to adequately handle future traffic
volumes. For instance, portions of First Avenue would need to be widened to 6-8 lanes,
and Oracle Road to 8 lanes. Construction of the La Canada Drive extension was
shown to divert more than 10,000 vehicles per day from the two corridors, resulting in
more manageable future volumes.2 Existing and projected traffic volumes in the
immediate vicinity of the study area are shown in Exhibit 3. Traffic volumes projected
for the La Canada Drive extension will primarily result from 3,336 projected dwelling
units and resort hotel and golf course planned for construction in Rancho Vistoso
directly north of the La Canada Drive Extension.3
Advance project planning and preliminary design for the La Canada Drive extension is
included in the Oro Valley Transportation Improvement Program. The La Canada
extension will provide additional travel opportunities for residents of northwest Oro
Valley and will further develop the Oro Valley roadway network. The extension will
reduce traffic on the overloaded First Avenue and Oracle Road corridors and improve
safety, and will include facilities for alternate mode usage.
2 Additional information is available in the documentation for the Oro Valley Travel Demand Model, also by CLA.
3 Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development Plan,revised July 10,1996.
4
• --.- : • -
• • '- • ••. :,....•• ..... . ; , ,„.
•—-• ---- - — - ......,,...,..,...:...:.:.::.... .. .............
:::.,...,. ..!!..p,,,,,,,5..7...:,rz?..:is:;:.57VArt7. ..-Ai !..',:;i•-iiiffizNI];:.:•::. -„,....,............,....... . .. ..,..,. .... ....,..,.. -.: :::::..::I::-:::-:-:: 2., ........:•.i...,..::-,.:......, : ... ..:.....
....-,.',.iii,jiitli.r.::.',....: •'-•'-.:,-,., :;::•ri;;.'rktte::-RIVA. Ii.:::',.1.,.,..:::.•:...:,':..::••;•:'.;;.4i.-..;.--,010**V-,--::,. .:::-...;.:-.::',.....:::,i...-.-........,•.;.:..;. • . , ..•,,..:...:i .:. :.. .. . . .. . . .. . . .
•'7C.'•'.1'.••%:ifil,...:1,::',.:i.',‘"•:,'":.5*,::•,.•,',7,•..';•?i;lki.,;•.44.54.q,f44,...gf.'-i.p.,::;;•',.7,••:;•:•:!!*.•;':•:••:':::‘,.s• ' ••:::.....-••'•••:'....'"::•.::•• ' ...-:..;.,. . ... . . . . .. . ... • ...; :Ill......A
•... i•s.,....,,,,..:..v..,;;..,.4,::-„.,-.,,,,s,,•=...v,,:f,,,,-:'.•,'.::.=4;,.:..,:,.,; ..,. ;,-.:.:-..,;-.::-....,:.....:-....;-•-. ..' . . . .. . ... . . . .. • . . -.= ' -: = - - -
-;---.':js,; :....•.,..'4.',07%---::-9-1's-...ttilif41/..i...;:,:;;,:ii;•'..;:-V•''',.;:.-- ;.:,.:H,:,:'::-,-.;•-•:;;.-:2'.... . ...•:'...,-,...i.,:-..::•,....:-..,.:;.......;.-„,...:::.-.'....:-::-..:--;-:---;:.-..:.:-..-i'..,:: . . -; ;•• .. . . . . . .
•• ; , -..'
---.,....,....,..i!4-,,:ii:4'....,::::ii:-.*:*;.;-1i..*.*Y- T4344-rrn.t.:;;71:i.'...V74.Rit:ftl!;ZO.F.: :: :: ::.:a ..::::.---.:::-.--...- :....:::-.:!;;:,..-...,....,:-;-,:.,:ii:ii:.;..,;-..::.:::::::::-:. ...:.........-:.-.....:..-.-...;-....i.-- -‘......:.....-...,:t,.:::::.....•.- - ...-. ..: ''.• I ij
...:.:-„,. .:•.K!i.k..Ti.;.;;',',It.i.cll.g;J*.flAttittiiic,..4:4:ii.',4,1:- ..,.....:Z:zi:I.x.'ir.-1.P.4.,E-.• ,'A',:,;.;.',-,!:'.:*...'.-;:........:/-:-::-....-....,:....:::::!:.,.:•::::,:::.,:::-:,,.... .:,:::;,.::::;;:',:e.;•'::•;;; ;;:;.::-.-...,::.... ....:::.•:........1.:•. ."-::....='...::-.-ivi.-.....-.:.;:.....,..,.;.'...:!...:....:.*:,-.......::. ,,-,.':its'i...9 1.1
:::,,T,t,•.7...ctOg,42:14.115:,.,:a;.•,,...ekti'4',:::, ,,,•;•44•49.6i.04,-,.,-ii.tiff.,..ai..i..47:;•.:;37,?!.?:',1'..f2;'.•.•:,:.'....::::';'...:....;.::....•:1;•••:`,.!4'.;',E::...:7:.--,,s;,:.:,•:;:,Z0.;!4:,;i:;,-!::;!,::•''...).,':-':--:::".r•--::-:•-•::" .:..''''''..-'... - -,-,. • MI I....'g 1 I 0 CA
:''''''::::.:',Y,F#4.0:41 ' ':Ii71:'17'n741.441,1i4.7:tal#0,f4"itAbria"..6,;'••':',...4'.:.''''',''''''''.•' ' ......•.. '. ... .,...,...„.•I...,,,,,-,1•7,4751:pird,WV.,;AV.13.R.V.rZ-Zsf.',A;;; "... .•.. 1--... ..Ai,:._,,,.
::.-4 ,k:s.w...i.,,,t•Ilf,ite,IM,.., ,,,,,,,St.%,,,\';ftt. --''''''-. '' - , ,,,,,....,,,„,,,,,,,,,,trzt.., 'T.A.7. 1it.,?i,7-777M,., 7:,:Mp-•-•*e,.7^',1:;•.4^;;:; :1-,.:',7/,';'.•;.!a g rt;',.:744.,.,.IS......#‘,r,..,,,ark..;•C.1.:'.!;,•: ..- ...Z 1 28 i
1
...1z-,f,:44,41-qz,.,,,,_ .. ie.F...,.. ._:_..2.7,i ,=7, ./-e;,,i:4,...-.1,.,,,i,:-.',.2.1..... ..-:., ....;.4;sre.-vPi32 .s•in,t.:10ii:i71-..,,f,,,T. efir,..;,:zi,y,.,fe-?.-4-th-ois.o.K..1,:',.....i,.INP.
:.-2,4,-....e--01-4--t1;..,;fi 7'.4--,4---".--.17-cii.:-;;;.44.144,-4..-4:4,;:.;4..??....ziw,../.7,..vit.....1;..-tt:.;-4.:c.f..;i:----.-v..ttrzii-AI....,43P'aizc...‘-'*.-..t..;.;-=-,.%.-t.,..:.2?.-4:11.17.2.,•47,z4...,....,./...,.r—...- . ,:,,.-....,.....,,,e. ,,...:-.-..,(el
. .-.7..;.r,'" rsiz-' '16e).Z.)Fraglit.t4ttria.:.7316.41 .:.::
4..`, . rytAti--,.,4r, ,'•er'. ,..* 4:els)! ,.. ..!..7.4;...4.-41..„,_.„.;,„,,,,,e;-,,, e-,---i,,......,..-. , 8•
;, :;Air:_"*:-.1`&41„,-fi,.:43-`4..-':14._2;-*kit..-'11;774-A-4..t.4,44:74,N•a;2.. ''•••- ,..:,%-l-r- 'ri.'•-''..'1:;$,._ 4, .. .,,,..,4447-` .'t::-,r,...4.e.tf-t4'.'S.:3.47;.;,';;.%.*'•. ',I.4.!.;.1 ..1.....;:.. 1 5
. '.-:',:iiAi§:40:4•'.'..'.".,*.•• .." •::::.3.4'?a1A0f-Lt-'7'..4..!..I.4: 5,;ii.L.' ,..4:'4,297;14 :4 ' -....1('',1:,'''''''..,:: iijkt,-"ii,,,,-.5** 7'7'.•. g...gtt ;:-:•••.::;..-... 1.. 33*
...r
p;;-.2v.g,,,fs-ar-..7:-.,,,-,0;;;,:z.-,7.---4/74i--....e,w,--,,, • - -,--§744,..,A....,..?....,,,,,,,,,tr,p4T,.„--,.1,4:..,,,.-.„,..,:atIA,i,._.„4:,,,,g, ::;:.;:::.:: 1 s
::....:,,4-,e*„A-vgv::....,4,-.:0)......a,:.,s:.-,-;:::-.. --.---,-:.-i,` `A.:1.1 4.:4-Vir/EZii-e.''k--§,•;,i, ..,,,,Its..**A.=.,:-.41.it3P....it. ..,b0,,t,,,,:,,,,,Tufir‘'f61.e.3,.!7.0P-,isc- -,,.:•. .:::.: . k
d 1
_.-i:,..-------,---. ...-,,y4fiz.,..-:,- ' .- te....•-.- ----..,..-3ssofwv.z4-...A4,. 'w •!''''.1:'.6-.7..;,..a7in•-',- -• Pet:', ,N•"-,V—ert.5.0-1 '• - ,
.::::',-kiti7.4..iiiii.,,,,-g 1,, -..-,. • --. 4•• •":-..,`4\ - . --,,---. -- ''•••••%77•••?'",X,:ai,,,l--'..":1.4.4'• •.".,,;,.1,4„:•,.r.',,..),,iLfif.j,:._ Van 0e,,,,,,..it : .
.... it".41. -17;''S'-‘ '''4.4"t'il':..-4-6'. .''- '4151- a7:1-7W-7%.'-11.1'11. ...t.1.7''''' :' -....•rii.44,tr.".:kl.''-Z473,14.11:\t%*,-g l'... 1.0-2--iNali.:-.4 ••'..• I
Ailk.414 ..
'.!?*i.•:;...ii-frvdtr:444- -.,.,:tivfii-•,:%;-.,i_.4,0,1*,;',_,-1- .. '.,:._•,;;44:4'2,41.1.,41ii;4 ..:7":/ .._,___.t.1.. !". .,4g.'..;:kiig i -''•%pf..14:,0,4:-T.--6-':'4•4,-(E-4, t.:311."tg,Ff.-4: e:::.. .. ,.'.-:.: I
-Ef.gi,p,it•--.5'.7..fre-4,-irit,,,..z..-..i„.,..4.i• %V.".. • •'-•.,,,,,,,-",,, A.tipl ,:70--•-••••'..`‘,..:Fift*iii. ':•;..,A-J .1.K.' ---)ttlti.41.45 ,_!...,4-,4;.:`,W4;•,;ii-o-,..:::VIt,,..1!",...4 ..:::::.::::::... 1
g.,-.'"'.'••7.— , --r,:-.x. v . , -..,,, --;4-,-.,-/.9,..e..-.0.••,,-4.,;:.,4 4,, ,-,. -ni c-7.,,.,, ':.'.'04,4,1,4t7d...7,42;#.:,,.-..,,,,.;,.,.c..„...,,,t;14,4.4.:.i,F,4,,,,41:-.i 17,,,,,...-,,,,...t.5,,,,ti...t,t,..',... :, '..4.r., ..:::•
....'f•tiittV:dr4-2.4.V.44012,7--en.-,-' - ,e,:„,\•,`, .,„ ••••"'"",'••iciry.'•••:..-,:..,4.:1"...1.- '-..:,;,..:),.... .L4.7,41,-e.:•:`f.Z411.,. ...`".1:4revi„, ',_ :".".."-'.;.:N1/4-:ag-ir4417,1,1.4:1.;.*-4PIA-r•rt....•.::• 1
.....;.7.4tilkt.,i,,..4.14:4 ••,. 4,1Y-:...14.13.,,V.... , -.:-,,,ff'•4`...... -.:...•c•,...., .4.6,.'57 .."te(7,:i'...4,70;;P.,•''',Z-1:r''',..41.:47"' '-i147'rsc.....k-t.,:.•reql......tow(4,''....s':.'444.43 ,1 . . .
:',41it'0::':;t2.4'.'4P.V.1'..,,,!'"•41'......4,S.;.;-v .-4*"....-'hap, . .'....,:41-..i'.''',t'•• '' 'it' •""tptkil).-q,, Actio.r..1A.'-' ''''4:41.:'..-/.'"i..4.74..1M-',,,341.c,,,t,',.'" •-••••,:-Q-'1'''F'''14.440.-,- V,:- '17*.''''.1jk-."4:rti-, ,f1,!;7"::'g4::-.'..,;•11 pi.,:°41:47' •--. ''. ..
.1•'4g74•1:714191-ig5:"•VP 7*27'.11,:liAt.'RgirXi.**4' fl.*:21-'•W:,4;t4'.._,A,J;.''''',.:t144-1•11,.: _.1,41i,W•77.!..64(-44. 4?1•41;-: .1.;-;,f..,,APie`te:4-fg :.-,.'14, ..:. !
i
•.:,.---P.'1..t7.,"4.74:,,:i.. -4;tatiP ._ ,„...1,r-79,sX*.igl ,.,•••'...-7*,-,:j.::: 7,0./.--'1,e;4;4:;.kr,".414:14,tiajt:Sq.:r;:0•4:; " ,-;,.1 ill.+1 ,-..__AsE'-,:;+;;;'"eki:.tr".-1111,:,.Illitc."''i-,-,A, 4, *rirlii'l ..i:.:::.: 1' •
---:'..:tt,'.:.2., .4.4titkii! , .A-4‘roiapi-_,,,Atar.,_.;,,..:7... ,', ; ,,...s. „-,..?"•':.:7i..4.:-;;•!...,',.4.Z-4,ir,',:lteilr,;;.;:4:,--K.;*-7;.:,-t.ut.:Ali 1,1,,,, Nr„*.-,1;-1,';4142'S.:,,,. .*"7. .01:43k1N1141;'474;41 :.:::::::- • i .:
, ',,,..„"•-'34,-.m,..1••-,,,•„. .fo,..44.v.-44„,:.7,:a-..-- *-,1,..e.i-..,$,!,:,,,,•,,,,,,,,,,,-?:.,',,,,,,...,,,;.--*44,..-1,1,,,,,,,i.-ivz M....477,,-,,,4.4-te4a.. e....4t 7ia_. ''''''11 ..-.. .• i. .
:',',.f(...-:,;";-11;''..,W.tf.4-5t:1 A,A.,4 '..',--, '..... ( : '.7.,, 61'.,--..'.,..,44:°•-: :,'"':-.b,i1-.VT5e7;•?1,t'el...-1 ,;.,.'r'.7 ,.iii -,..,: e0e... ,..?,.-4'Inf414',,,1/2.4•!.ffir4; 4--,i.i .-1.:.:--': ,'•...-- ' •
4o,
.... .T...i.ok.k.,-;-44:.•.4.4..s. ...., . ..,;107.,..,N.•5.. .. g.--.' -'4,i.,,t-,..:-.,,!:*..,:c3tz-0;i.;',. -,,Errili.F..;,:,;-„ct..1.,,,,,, ,,,,:::,.:4,:, .,,,.. .t.,.k.ses -,.1-,$,r..4 iaA.,:laiiirov-i'4,:ii';',il . 1.
..,-,::: ..41,„„,..,:xf..2.---...t. . ,..,..:,..k-,, ,...9,1. .,:&,,,,:frk.,:..s,:.:,,,,:%_, ;;;,...;,,,,,,,-;,:::4,t,-.,ji4:4,i;;;,', n\f*-8... .-::: 44.-t-.', ,',/,‘ '''.:C.i.t tyr;.4.i,-;;IV,574,;:i)• •,li...4.1K-k-.'414,44,,,'ii,,,,,t-:*:_vi.,i,.41,•-':,- F,,,,,Z.1 •.• I
.:::::.1.74::::i*Iii 4.141,•':44747;,,,,-..,,,,,::_*:.;,•.,...:''::4711,,stiri;,:',;(;',7`,:'....,t,14:*.a,;r4,.4:::.: ...1 '.1''17,S-A'-.':::1:14,'*••*--: 5.iX.V::;,1t4.1(1AN' i.,..;'*;.• -•4411.;,: 715-;:'"-7'• ''''''.7ii
r
-A
:, .F.4.1,,,,..-;.1....,,,,,_-..t,,r4„.v,livil.,2„... .,,:i,_-..L.:.,.-4,...„.,-
I:•
-,:-.7i..7-i,:k:I.z4;:.4',4,..7.,•,,,:u...,.-...,147.*:, :icli,,,,•7.z.4; ,,,,;S:q.,--43,,,, filif..,-,-,7sj2z.ft.14.2t ••;,..,-i;•;.;:;Z;;;,:f,..,,%?* .1.... !..-..:-.*pti:''.--..7....;',-4,--;:.-0;:kViirzli,:',. •:4:v_;.,::-::.ilF!.„,4-^Z ': i
i::.,,,,g,u-A.2....-_,,„•,,-,,,,,..-....,• , :-,......_,...,,•,4%,..,,Q,,4:,,,,,b,,,z,_,,,...,--v,,,,,...-„,„1,‘„,,,,,.,,,43,,, _ 1 7,,,:,,., ...s:.._.0,5 fr,..,4'`-',,,...... c t'.-•-'• •.',,,,' .,.'•-....,'etia.47.40..t.-ct."1.-"--,,...'--.-,*,
-;•.,,,-.7,!5:51ilif.41*f.,.:,)7---'.., „ ..., ...,,,,,,..7,11.:4:1,04,-,:kt ',4efa.:'""4'.7,7R.,,, ,,.144,iiVVyz:,,,,/• ..,-...V..;?'!...,;‘,K,•,-2- 17,...,.::,. -,,e,'.:-.",4,,,....• ,_. : :,--4,..,,,,I,,,r...4,4*••:`.%,:!..../6 ' , . 1
... ,,,,, ,,, ,. .., ._, ., a.7,7,,,, „,..7, _ ,, 2,,,,,,e_tePC.n.;,1„,..,,,,,i41., „,,,,....,,..!,,„., .„..zi ,1,;•-,,,,,,,,...., - - il• ., 4.7:r...,eni,..-......s. i
-•-•:.,.:(70.4 -.4f '7_,..;'Y'Z'R.N..r,, 44.:''' ,-';',#tlittir43741f,.1- 7,:,•1‘;':'11,-,,,',;,41.,..17z-r`14.'",tk,-*.' th.4.14z-t-.4.,;N Ot.°0 I 14Xt-"''''-cUt;at'141?.',.*,7'..,,'''Z '.4-tIr".?.• k.-7)1 k't..t...s. •
.....e.,. .:i.,,,t9.4t,...,,...\A,••••ii',"'-.7,0:4':;,., 1, s-' .tf:-4i,, •-• ",- ,:i.v-'4, ./i..:•,..•-••-mrivi.;4,-,;74,v,,,:i'?.',.-..1.--:utf-it,",151,4*.-iailtcx--, .,e.......---,-*-4,,..,34,-,.•,,,---.,,i,- -.1.47: .--''t.....,,,,,,t tot.,,j,„,, i
••••',..1,,,, .:;,:z7;';:.'.14.••••1 '.4i,;(7-ti,,,,z...4.i; ?.-te,.--;,.,---.74,-*,-u. 4..i.,:s:.%..*M.1-F.A.31..T;,--.....',-ii...1-40..;-:-.A.gQ!..z ,-",,, '.,-;....::.!...-x 's"reff'3'111';--.:1?-17:_.'4-1:-,,,rx:.!
4z.4.4,0,
i
•
,
:::::::*,,fiel!.:4-:_;,•!-.1-1!.,..tI-.' seAttiv._,_.::!,-1.1*;.i4ic,,,,;itf); ...,,,"3›.''- .*--,*:.5,.,pl,,,4f.f..:1141-...,--,, ,,-.*44i.,‘. .17,44/0,:..;;;;t,-.,12;;;,,,--,ff4,--:.i .._,j,',,,i.'Z'I'.L-.).-7,•;-',--•!..''..).'''•-,.-17.`"-i-:4,',Y,i4:.-.!.4...,i'.4.-•-i.j ..
-,.,:'..;...f0.:1-4.---,:,..-':,..-Fzr,..z.•,i...,N-.,t,., .0,4,, ...,,,1,0_ ,:t_ ...,,, -..,);,i.1,4,::-,.:1;,..c-,!,--,i'."7-t-T5:;.•':„.7, ,t..t.,: .:,,..5-, ..4.,,,,,--;:i.4.,"-,..,41,4it•-,-...,,,,,I,..4'14.,:,....4t4.4',.,:r.4.-....41'...,;r4,:..,,,P.-:',.,.0-T-',..,•=4,"..z.,,''1",p,3!,..'.. .' i
i-:.:-.•'-`;c',-..,_,,•74:,'.',3'•,17-•••:-:144',.:1:7+1•*5-it).!`*•trit,ditti ,k;,*'•• ?; -='''''';',----rrefilekr *,:*;•;:,....'CV-11'41•1**4.,i 1,-.Pki,x;:•;ti4;i,,, ,t,tr:f.:-.._•77".1,;,-,,,,,-!'!:-•''''!'1:4".4.'ij -.Stik, '*:
.-.,,,JtV,;..4.:i.t.,,--..:,-•••--.,te,ii.ii:j...:',:,g•tv.e.,... ,,,,,,....:,,,,„_,,,,...,10...,,,..,,x,, if.74,44„,,,444...1,,v,,,f>e,-,....-,.i,..,.,:,-,:t i; 3,•,,. '0,,,,,,.i1,---1.4..t.;',..ar4M-.4..„;id,Fkit-',...-ait-,-4571... ,:r.';=:;1..7-71;.•*., •: I
.7_,,,,...3.i....,..s...,0,:,6,..e, f;4........x$,, , ..5ii.q.44.1_0...istro ,r,,g,,,,, ,:..§•,,,,,..i...",..,,„:I.,•,,,,,;(±,-;rv;:::=‘,,,,A,--,,,..7s4;17-•.:',:•:"-,-,721.,.11-4i it2:7,..,„4:,5.4,,?:-.,:.:.k.,,...- ;;t:.:.=,: ig.';',.. 'eAr::::.?..1.4., 'I.
1
.-2;,;,,,,it._.s.g4.”--,.4.,U....,..,'-:;i1,-1,',;::''''f.U,L4ri.$:;k;t:.:'..:t.'.1, 4•4,1t:;11;7:',._...ii'i'45."Itc;,;;;`,W1,-4.-.74%-:.ei.`",..t-cS4''''Sli;, ..v:::17.:::.'"41=1:41 ni.".7',-,...,-:441,71,'..tre''..::;.:74.,::4.',...4).f.'''''-'''9:4::'-'•t%".',;,:-.! -••••..:.: I
---',,---"-'7"1"'-',,,,M,'',:*-1 P.e.='''.--.-ira•;'-'41:4-k,' •-*---',,, e;vtiz.r:',.-..•1:-.•,v,eli.14.:::.::.',,,',,,,-;44...,:'..T.-47,,,...:',...:Lt,e.t.,•4•.•:-:1.!•..ii,,,,....:ii ipe.3,--41:7•47,;,.p...,,,,T,,,,,/,',,,%'..tc--...r..-...ciiet,..,:,..,I.,:t.. ,•:,...,;-,41:. ....::::..::•
„.;:-4.'-..-4.2.,...:.•,,-.-..-.,.....,;.,..,,,,,,x,;,‘:-,..,kwep.-4......,,.. ,,t,i2;:,„;;:q.,r,„..,)..z.,..,..,,,,,,,L.t.s.-:.--11.-:.-_----v.c.0, ..,44,1,:„'-a.t.,,L.:..-4?:::=.,.....kdr..ii...1.._,,,,,:,.1:;:i--!,.:4„,,,,,,-,.„,:).:',Igui.4-i..,...we.t.:,... .,......z-1,... vo,-;,,,,,,; ,:-...-:.
;4,;•%...-:,:-:;;;-,:Z.‘itrrt,melr'"_.,""3Tit,..;14,1;,--'4"-Plt:::"r.7:-1.-5;:wh•,..,,,.7z.,ts":',.n,44?.;"?....',;- .*.‘,6,.:;;.,4,.-:i.....?r,?-;,-..-,..::•,,--.4 r,..4,,,,,,,,4„.....r,1-.. ,„... ...r.,;tiA
Irit,---,•,:....-,;,,,,,,'F.;r:-.,,..,, :v..:;,/:-:4:;!,,.;;;;;v.,•.4T;.:4r,r.-:ie.5:.,:,--,°Z..T7!:'1:r%:A?":1;•:',.. t..:1•0.:7-);'.: 4'V4:4.,;:.3:.-T.1,:*,V4,.i-::.•;','",147,..-V „,,---c- -,,,,,,,, :f,•.!:..:r.--.th?....i..••.i..-:.r,t;...41-8,2,!..,,t...7-.1 4...4:f,.4.1 .....,:-.i:::...
''''-Z-'fii: '''---•.• .;f7';,:;;',1;171 -'.'-',40;k-7'..'';:r:'-'7":„":::'-'-t•A'i'i:k-' ,. ,;,s'4,<, .:-.•...4,?,c.X,i-'7, =';''':....::75.Y'ri,.01.1f'1;;;Ii..". .•,':'!,!t*,,Z*,,'iTg",,,i71. ,,,.. ''
.•,-4-Lv-_,k:it:,,, li-T-.. .. ::4•*';':`±....k,:;'.)-iZ:-4.,-Zir.i::";e;.,i':;),-,4.;;;.,,A,,'. .›.,::,.:•kti':,!;t:;-'t•'ltZ: ::::,,,,,,,,,,,. -ti:\S;:*';i4rft4:141,-.-.1 ir.4-1:4•VI.lifi:Z4trO,.11.'fli4rAitt_sN-illgaili i?'577T,.' r•-• ':' I
tsti.r.i;
Ift, 4:-;.'",..';,,:,1,..-:'":".7:*,7:-.7. "'.Y;kili:'..7,---.7.:-'..1-:-.t....,4';', .'.),;7''Z;',',1-; .V.V.•%71,'---7tsVii-kt:•\.,ti.i,'''''.!.,;-'11141.1:1.;it'l,..;:,:i..4.4.4,,,v a”s•-,i'—'.,r,;,...L.,....i,w 9'17:.4;4'1 ' :
. 4'.*±":';''''''''1/4:4:-.r. :;.? 11.747.2q.,14('3;;1-71'j.:Z.'
s.':::..iVAti-;.*8j:..;i'^e-4V,'..Z„t12,17.-ee:'47,iit,'Li.f.iiW:Z...1:!.',',.*:.1.,i';' .'.A.,,,,\;,',J'.$:,--W't' * ,- a,‘,''''.--—.•2•::`, -.,--,":: ;,. 7.::;;;;--7-7:77',4 7,-A.'Tr;Z.,IZIPIA - i
.:."4,41??,,,..4-',,,,,,!.''.::.:.:-7-Tr:»511 -.':'''..,,,..".,Ini.r2Z-7.=:g.,"..•i'..--311,11,:',.41/4.'N',14"`W--. ).141:4- s't -,;Ygei ill'itirifal-j,j'Atril'14. ,4.;,;,,s,-..iitl,V'.. .15:•,;*1 i it!••'1.=1 -:
1,
,
-'''Etil:4'•'-gliit 4'`.;:'• .-1:^Tir.:f.:.4:zilliltt-'1,e;eit.'-.!.riti*A.,-..=.4-t".git'i,..,-ts4A:1-4:4'."7,,,,,i: ''°•-•• • fra-Vqtt•Lt..'t-',-..;:`:::.kai.,,,-.,,,•-:i'.1"-til .9'`,:2,-,-;•,.,!".;,...A?:At....,_,..i.,. • .•: !
-••=:'''''1/4-**,;.,Vit'r PP.!,,T,,,,,f..,...:.-....*:-.4.... .,..t.,,,,,,,..1-.4.-:--1,-,,,,,,,,.....- • .4..,ram.,-r.:•-g,,..:e;',..iit:.,:..).•!.,,,,.I.;,,.,,,,„,,AFiLl,1.7 i,....:
..,..:...,..1,,„,..._....,,,..,...<,,,...., , -".-.,. -,..., .-4`.1,-)...t.,+`1.--"eeq•-::.,f,,,,..,..1% 4 5.."."•:,';iio,,:,;••i--etjml,..kE.:`,-,i..-,••;,,,,,-,....--4,,,,,,,,I:i. r,,,,,•7:,,,,--•t':.:-f--,..f.", .::•::,
.::,,x,,,-744.„,, .-1....r -ir.,,$'ai•S;:-.•.4.!.;..;;:;•.:.t.Z,:;:t,,Is.•'''...•':'.!-:7;:it:li•frV'';.,it.4747,: 7..''' !.',.. ...4..,&,_,, *''''.:1-17-•-•',',:•,*;LT,r-':!,';').%.?''-'-'4.`''.."...-.1-,-,:'.;.i:.n',!';',:-.4'.Z;k.,".+""*.T.1 l'::•:...: II
-4W,-3-i) ;J:":4,.......c...A...X1*:- .'il-ff-iig.iii.,Z17 .;;4...Z:Igii.,',.. 11s,„,„.... _,-117- : "''f's:1;:•'-CiklOci:-.1-.P;j,"t;-1,..IFSt.F.fii•c;L7.i.445,1r,,OrP,S;:r2. ,::%•;',44'..:k-tff:.4'j-:''''W.fci:Vr,p,,,,:,......,1 ::.•:•••••••.
.2*,,r...
i
i
.,...5.35,A .:--;4::::-.,;"..., ,,,T... .,,,,' z:v4.,,,,,,i.4.,„,k,i.,,..:7-,:2.,i,....,,ts.,---4,....:0-1**,:,L;1 7iL.,-.241--isvt;,.. , ,c'47..-:-fZ,,Ibifk(ity,:7:*-ta.ili!':i*.-e.t.i.5 ,:i-,•:'.;',e;t:i?.„i4t7:::::.:..-:;;::t•'-',1',:!•,;,....)_7‘37r-7;3„;;,-,,c.":TI!:-.-1.7!„iq :..,.;!.... I
-'---'?...'''''''''' '7.''''44`.-441:ke."1.1i'' ''''''''<4*(.7-IP''''''4;•;-i'14:414'k..,...1";.*$.7. 40 'Ai.;',7:14',.7Zi^ttittri,:xtr=47'.;...::.,,,,--;-,4.."--.C..,,.`4.t.i.t.:;::,'N.--:.?,;-:',,,,c-7• 4...,,-4,1,--_,,,, -,.ifit_f7Z,,7.;..d), , •
-..:':i• .i.itt,i..,•:.;:-. .(f.„1., - '.0177trii•!-ist.c.2.*:..-tyf.:)., ...h• 4.:.•„,,-,,.J.r.--,.-.- - ;,-..z...„:,..-e.:,,...:-..,4,,,,,-.4.--4..,:.:!•,,,,,....;.,--1.!"-..:ii.:,,-,-•;:,-;;,,-.:;r:rfir,:,,,,,, ,,,,';',.. .-.4,,:r,',:*,,,:v,,,,.P. :- • ,
:-....fm-$.4411...:_*,,,,1!••;-.7:-.--k-r!-Aii ........,--. ,-47.:4,,,,v..2, -:.'g•tit;t7.4a,..,,,,.i,ge4.17,tiiipitii4;49.4,14:1.*:S.4*,,,-:A-4-,.‘,...7,qtcgr4...4%41•:•i:z..-;?..',--;se.,:Vt-'.',Lit*-- -;',i.' 1,. .eii. 'Att. '..
..:73....4oss,:it-.,, ,,ft.z.,:;.. .1%;-....„,---34;:, .: --..s.-•tf,•,=:,,r,..;: i4py;:q .j..,,,-..:4-,-;-,f,,,,,,,-; .t4i,,,rq5tk4';.rf:,:-1,,,:;;.-4t,,,,..7.pg:.-.s-,:-i,:i'.,.:',,,j.,,,.."0: 414`3i.:F.-iw,:,-,;:m774F.,:7:',-,.:1(.,..N.„,i,~, .
t..g.,4..f.,,:-Nitilt;•.itc--;irifAiff:,,t'Itrii,.. "- __ ,-Nbi,..;X.:.„%lit !,,,":11...."P'4i44",-:„.'-',:-4-.K1.1-:iFf.f4,4';':..€,'.1-4;,,,:;;',!4):,1;•.;--144,-;:-,r".....li?A!i:C1,"!rti*F-,i.i.;•-,17:In ..:-..:.-
i
i
,37-A:eggi,::.,:14---rr*-:,:idiiietiric*••ili.v..,„,;:44.:;:t.4,-*,`,/:::ttA,54e--- .4:',4„...e),f`W,,,.-',.."-zaz.'...t.c...wlix.--- ,.5.;.4.(..:.'.....,•-7,*:',.. ,-,r.-'''''.'-''''''''`7„4-,7,.:'%"•-•,=:-.-:'-.:...1.;1::;:t.:4 ''........:.....:**.
;.11,i7c."..-..,,....' ,•:, -..:i1;',#.-iii::,fz;:ilel‘]:-..:.:••••••:.
:',7:-.41,sr,Zit,., ii=fe..,..ter-:.•Fii:47.-fif7,171;;:it--1:1•1,•ti--',-•:,*•...:Thrt7-$;,is•;?.;-......',..:.'..,'-,t-?!;:Wil,,..,-.V:,'...,,,z,.,-7v..tv.- 14. /.,1,i,_,..,•••:-..-Ii...,...y,,,z-r•-„-.,..g;.-::,.,,,..,.-:,-,.,,t;,,,,,,,..:7-r.,,,,:;,i,-,: ..*:,,,:;2...-;,,...,...,„i,,v1-_:;,!. :,,...:.:.: .
•,:'ff,'..,-.i"'-,::'-',e,,.,-"":3'.i....:'?:-..t?:•%,„'-'11-4::"--.'47.,,..,_17,"4-.,.:A-:::..4-.; ,;..t..,'•':4',..'.1..e.-t..*,:j.7.16.,„..*:.,,2**,,,,.:, -';.:,:-•'--..,:r-.''''.:-7'::''.::',-.!..1:t.:',.4...,..'-'174:•'.4:',•,•,.***,1--....;'•',*"....41.t.7:.?--•...--,-,`;*"----.4,.:,-,i-4:::,,i;-..:;.',..f.'z.;•-'•;1:•,!:"--:7-,,:'-'1'..'::41i-i'':;;.',/s.'.,•;;.,..":.::-.•,_,':i=.',...i,V;;'.:;',...*:.it':,„.1,,1:_vc.,,29"?4,....„,-,,:,::::::.:i.::
1
:t 7,44-',..v1-4'',:;:','-'•:',-47-1•,;....,.`tf-4•:•-•.•-r•;:i''''';:,•21 ';‘''••••`. -fr, i-,,r3,,,L'''t,';'-r;4.7.!-;,7.i.e.!' ;i4ft,'',.%'.':'-:-:',4t,t;11,t;;',1 i;..$;;;-.•?,;,,7,4,2,-,104.7:itg':-.3f.,•,4,4-15c:r:''.5.,,-.J•::;.;‘,4,Z,;i. ..2 I'';,i;-..''-1 i',.::.•:•.',
f.r.j .,..f
. .
. .
........4.,..-ii,...T4'.t......•.....;:44,cr."--A..5..,:zii,,:,'...--.,...''....,...,i,==-:',.,...,'-:;'..-7,-,...p9,...,,,,-f:.
:::414.'a!k."';;:'•':;;:-:14-41::';*-44''''''::Irt.:4',,L14--.1: 1.-.1':'4'.f•Vi.;:',•-;:tii7',..:::'IL:;•:11.1,fj:1;';';ifii;:i'...,4/,';..''',,,••,;1'..ti?:,.:17.:4 .1.,,,j r.;32:1;:•.k*:;...s-i;:::: 4.,•.•:=1;;Ptik4itS, •P '‘.7".::.'•'.....:.:!:'-''''''. ';:•,-.:ii:1
,::.riii,_'.. .1'....;,: ,;:..::4"..t„e•___ ..:',F.;;•1;..'"e.•:.2 I.ii;;;;',':1,',:fi*:;,. ...rs.-f.r.t.;14:',,•:'........!&11,.,;:.•.,-.;1_1(j.._,•,•:,:t•• ''-1.-..-''. -7,---_;,..-....` ._-:-.---.: '',2-:'...."`"t'F'''''.-"'" 7,27."..-77-7;-1%74;Z-7,,,tr,r,T7,-(7 ..:::'••••:'• ,
'...,ii
hig,'t. 4-,-,.....,T.,.,..d.v.:,.,.. ii........,...,,,,,..,,i:'..,-..,-;;;;.1.:4.;.;-,,;•.;..-tc-:-.....7.- 7.....,,,,.••,...-,rr.-,,,,..--,--2,1,.....1,-:.',.1.....i.,,,,,.•...,,,,'•,t..41,4i!i(-i:7 .,-;'.1-13(r,k,-...,7;'c..::.•'.'-'t,0,-4,I'.'"'''''' ' • .'. '' • 1
,---4.111--,-•-f&, :"'"7,..tC-,:li -*'..d-•,-,:,.-„--7,,t;i71.:::',-•,.-.•..ts<tf , .-:;-;',•4•;-1 fvi..:1:4417'"f,,,..,*-7,41:15 7!'IL*7-• c.--7,---•?-.T..-L.!':-.::'!"'.',-.-- -,---•,-'.- '•....::-.-----. .--,--..,,':..::,..,--.,:::••••: I::•••-•• :
f.t.=,:.: ii ,?
-.4:,-17•:
,',..:•:,!i*:.."-•':•'''F--••••••r''•"..''- "•,::,•.;..-,,;:'..!`...!,-_,..',,-,...,,,,,,,,,,.•,,,,,..:,,,,,,;%,,,,,:::25,;•,,:iii;,.. t.t.,:,44',T,:,•:;:,,,',4:,..,„::,,,. ...::i:f,•:,;:•,:i...:•••••:•••••.... 7:::::::•..;...:,.: 101
.7.11r11.110tti'•5'.'''''''.-i''''''''''''.''-..' . :-•••..:'...,.••• ':
-
:-:'::::.:;2:: :''.:;.:'•'''::...,'::'::''-:''.1".':-:. .. • .6.1
_;;!;:.:.EikkV,s.,,,,,,•-•*•4:i 1.;,:1,-'-:,•>.'',',e'',...!,,,,•,•act,--•:''..t. :.7.'..,1*.7"ii'g'4YO:.4,,Zs:••,•':•f;,.:•:4-',':1;,-.,-;:•,,,,,,,,,511'N,i,Irii!!!!'!•:•'-'7i.:',.:''''''..''.-'...''....•-••:•-:';•:-: ''"„ ''.••..:... .: ., .. ''
•4',.FS,*(;,'•*t,,,,,,,74.,.-,'0.: f..,fF''•s''.s.''.:44:-...,,,-:,,..-•.:-.,.v.. At.i.iii .,:i.r.t:.-'?:., '...: '--- -t;.::.:'.:".;..'.=......•-7::f..4'......*:-X-'-'=;ii-'.. i,:;i::-::•-::',..,...'•::''...-fs...::.:-i---..---.:''''''::::--:-.'.:-.*:'1'• . ..-' ..•-*: • V 1
;,'-',4:st4..!"?'44W,,,-,.,,.' ,---,...-'-,'. •• ',.,;,t !.,',..'-' '..',:-.-ztwiitai.!.,-. .-.,......,t!::.,.. -4.,..,....,,..,,,.,....,,,,.,....... ... ..- .:: . ; ,, . . ,, . ......,.....::,i....,., i i............. 1
-.....:1,1,•.,",,,,.... •-•• •',":,.'1/4". t,,,,,,- .,.• -,,,• ',At' .- .*,,...4,.'sq,..,,,,,,:, ,'•••' •'
- -,•••.:;;.',:',...:*:"'I:2.i.•„•.' •:::..,.':::..'.•••:::"..,.„. :.': -
•....;•'''','M'ii,41101;.t,''finis#0,..i',V71.44....,4,,,,•••'..2."'IV.4.,
414.
m 1
---.i=1*-4"''-'-'.':1:414: .-..,.'' .14t-i,l'iff;:i4....'...41Atilt-'•':1
.•:..... ..., . . ..,..• • . ..
. .. .. ..
... „ ....
. . .. . ...
-
. ... . ... ... .. .
_04 I
..•....f-44...,..,-Tfitr.,.,,,4,::., ..,4,4?4:14:.;.: .., 145,,fo..4.. ,:ig...4#•*&
.. .. . .
.. .. . :.. .• . .:......
_ .... . .:...... .
•• . • . ..
„....-,,,,,,,,,,,....,,, • -0- ... .s.,-.e ,,,.ic,. -,sr•-.-.:.,,,, ,...r.
•..,... • .•.. . •••.••.•• ••••• ..
,.•,•...• ..•: ....... .. .. •,:.. ...... . .
.-1,w4,3;':-!'1-:s ,-'.: . -4iii.,,,•*.-*--:-Yik-a ,i'4'.*'.7'.;.•'•i,'4:60t, I., .
— =
E
.,..,,,,.....,,,,,.,,..-,;:,...:,..:,..„,::„.::::.:..:.:„..,::,:„:,:,,:,,:„..:::;,:„„:„..............:.:::::..::.:... .... .
-,...,:k5.,,.;.:'.::,;•:.:;:•- :!:•.:: :,,,'.:•::::•••:.::::::•.;.:::•:•,:i::::ii;;f4t;.:.•;'::;:.',.:::':::•'.'.• • . •:
:".F=. .,',,•=,,,iy,.4.4 mg'r-,..Ti-T:i.--,'-in, ..t,-ifvsjt-,,':;.,,...4Vg., ,* .3
..... CM
, — ....,... • •.. .....• ........— . • • ..•
.s:‘.-''..•.'7:-''.....?::•..Z.,..:-..:':''''...:±ii.:1.::::.----....-1:1•.,-:.:..-,:....;:::::::::: :,i'l:',:•;:•••:,:::::::••••••••....s.E. .:....:,...:.,164411171
-;,;•.:...#‘4,,,,, ,Zfltk.t''''''' ..,":•'`,..;-...74.,.i ,..,:t4,k=',t--,.,',....• ,
= ,..:::-:,:-74•N:....‹'..•••::.!--..,.i;:.-!-•••!•,•••‘.....:....;:t.t.',,.:,',..::.:,i::;',,,•;•-.:;.-:'4..::•:•:.,„•:.::..:::,;. •
-.Z;.;>44,...., 4;$3,z--- i3...rf:I-..-%..j...c.- ...-6i,5,RIVR'...71tti`4 .... cis '•,-.•'t..;:iai`i;.,&:.:4•441t,"•;:c•r''"-Y,•si:iii,i*,::::i.:: :,',i:.•.;i:',••,7i',7;••••.':.......*•••'.....,:-.......-.
-..ti..*' •••=., , ' '1"`"' Ale,"N,•,--11t-,-, " "1,3'il.',...-•ftii.• ....,.•''-'.'.,,,,, M Ti
= g ,,,.--. ...:.,..:.,4.,..g,g,..7,:p.z.:-...q.-4.-,,,,,Af..A,.:,-,.,,..::-„;,..i..:;:::,:,..,,,,•::.:-:„--....•••••••••...-... , .
'5.-A3,-*,. „_'•I,',.,..-q-I- *••,--,.,,4,•,:.-:,..,,,, ,i",,,,*,:t:•."*,:'f',.• m "T 2 = -4' l'i — ,-, ,s,‘, ii:7-..,,,,,,,...,:::•f.::.si,,-,it-A,7.z-3-,..,...,,..y,:::.,-,:::_,::!•::--::,:,-....::• :.-.. .- ". .i
7f,`.:..,,..7-.1.*,*,,,..,..,".S;:q7.e.....i. ,---.. iir.A.N.2...1,,i..-,t..r:?''''.'illi: =I ..., = .= ‘.. ‘..... 2 = f.'":-''.:.,•:2?.•'.4.•-:::'7'.;•:,..:....:.::....--.E.Ii;-:...;.!.:;::•:•-••.:.:-... ... • •
'.:..:.• • •:-.4.,1*.;.{.41,•- i.,%!V• •:;',,....-1==1.4W-e•'''''"%-.:t3'.,:::ri4.•:'''' 4. 4.' Z.° •=i) a .::: - --,.. - - ..:,:.--. ::'....:.:.,::.-.,•:i,:....:-..H.::::-...:i..,:,....::-.. ••.. • . Z
.;"*.•!-:it,-2-1 ;-,77...s.,--', IMAtti'.',',(,,,,..,....„WW,g14-A.'':;,' ,... ,..1 ?i,4 = = i= -'s,..,.: ,:-...„--. ..:---.';',,,,,, ,•::':i:...'s;;.--:•.,-:.•'.'.f..•.'*.,•• ..• :::::. • -11114-
iii:t--,777:q*-77-i 7.- i,.1..;&40,—"•-•,'."..ti.,„,,.,._;,;.*..,..14,21',i,,:-•,.:t tz. ...V., to •41:1 Z.: -- iha t....) -.•••,,,•:-:...••::"..:-.:..i.::::::..-:;;E:::,L,..!...,::ii.:":::::: :::.i..::.::;:-.:::.;,!;:::E:.-:...•-...:-..•:., . -.:IL
,:.,:::, -* :.i'g'•,:,1.4-virm-77,, ,-......,...wam,,,. • - --1,',,-;-,,•..;:-.•Atv,,,27....r 2 a .,.. r, r, c ! t.' :!-'7'.'....:•:'•:Et:'...: ',1'•-::"-:H.-'•";,:-• :::.*::''.!:!'..::::::l':'-.1:•.•:.:."':•••• :. ••7 7•
A I
gin ri, E = = = -il, = :..-,!:;.,..-:,:-;.,-.:.:-.:...1,-:;;- •:-:-• :,:.--••,•-••• .:- •.. . ....
-.1:,4„ 4:•,',.,..ir -0--..,... , ,-c, ':".:,,-,`•.4,,..,•'`..,,,,lk,?•i,•';';'
-- -- --- -....., . -•••.....•.•
,.,--. ,.:''...,,,.r':'*','A,ga..h---,.M,.. -,,,:t.,..LI,F•iet.,,•,',:-.7••,;•:„_,•,:: :.i-.71,,:,...44,4,,:::: ir, M IV ,2 (2 e, = -a. :::..-.:....:::-::.,-,...,:,..!,,:::.:....-...i...,-..,..::::;.:.---.,:.„:-,...:.:..fii i.i.-.:., ....... . ..:.::
..,...:w„.t,,,i,iir,,, ,, t.,, _,. i''',.:1...124i#ii,3,1,'41,4;4;; , . ..s.., :.,.............i....:.. ... ................".. .ii................. .....:..t _:.... ,z... ,.4
31 ,..e' ‘41.4 .e1. .1. 4, "1 " ''.1::::..•••.,S.••••'••:::.1..L.,,.',::.....:-.1,.. ;,:.:;;',,:,::,.'...:.:.:.,.:!..'.7.:.:.:............:.....:.,:.:..:.......: .,.:•:,i
'''''''"117""'-- - --,- ',',3 ---PliiiigiV•:;*;k144':.-44(iitk,i,,,4?•z "" _
• . " • ... . • v
• .-• •..
,1,th.jrtg
..".. ....' . .. 432
..'.'71-C,Wit. ' VW ' -.,.,.,:s *„_,....._,:,: ,•-.4.4•10:11;,,,,,ifilw 21IIIIL
..__j .',..: •-•,:,.-.-..-:::1:.:•'"•::::::".:::: .....•••• ...' .:.:-..'...-•:... ...........::..............:,...::fil..m.
-,:'.•:-.IKii,74-5etlidett 5:74......t?', ,,_•••m0.**1:, Off.114,24iii: -
i•-,-:.- . ... • • 0,
.•••.. • •. •.:••.. . ••••...::....:•:: •.••.•, • ••• , ..
• • -• •
•.,...... •.: .-- - . ••••:•• ....: ..:::,:s....•-: . .••• -
,,*11-11.41-L.;:i,Q:44.:7.;-•::,,:••••:•,..-:.. -.•:::.;i:''..J'-.71-- s.;2-..--::%H. :111...••••:: '7...r. '..::-:,:: •••:::. :.:-: ::, ,..._•'......,-:...,.......„,,,.,, ..,,,,,,,:.t..:.-.:.if.:,4
.4„:.7,42,,,40.44,Fi .••=-. --. ,... .,,,.....-...•;.., ..,-;',„.:.,., -< ..!:.-.H."..:<.',,,-7,,1*.a•i-A4;.F.-'7-Vii.l.sio..44,,, i.-i-::.-•,;":.-,;:,,
.:'1.!:ti;ir.-a. 1.7,.Z•.;..,..,.,.'.,,.., .':*...;',•,Atg14.f..5,ritr;I:41'Ti,'.;.:,.'.•';'!,.'. .,:t:::': „,.. .,.:' •....: :,•....4.S.,...4i4;;.,.•,.:.,.:.-:-...-.'',...--.:•. ..',Z1:4;z19.';•.;;7.:"/-.. ..':::.:::-.1,-,;•,'-"•:;;A::Y.'53,17::?-41 -:...1!"Ii ..-.4;.* .ti7:-••...*:',,,,..1,..1.•:,,,4
,'-.=7% -;7 ; M . ",:t74.:z,''''',,14.4.,V,:tf:54:-..Ato:ttti4...*:.7...:::':.5, 2..!k:-•;•:-.t'.',:4,7,;1.:ili•c".,:::$4.S. t.X.V .,i4
jul
,-::7-•.,:,..,.,. ..-.4.,t,,,,,; ;: •.:••;.;' ,:.7:-.,•1 i:.....:;',.::_.,.1.-:::',i,',.:;,:.Y.I.,.';',4,1"gai;•.?$*0::).'1,:;14.*.:4;;;;.•:*.,'.'ft."-',...,4-2.*:.•; ::....4'...''' .. -4417.,i.i .,f.f.tiP-;t.i.k .:'i.5:t.:F:-.t.:f.-..kr.k. ''',,,.-,...:-...,.-.'-,:i.z. .:.:*:*::t''''•:2;::'''' ." ','''..14.',•,-""',:!,-..s..,' ,....;...,...-,k, '.!
z,^'•t...,,,,..•',. I•-'••'2,,,,,,,;;•!.--',.,,C....,,,,,:•.•,,,at.r...,i..",,,,leff,,,,..• i.,..,-„ Ir..,,,,,crs.•• xi,.-:,•, ..3.-.........,.-• --• -- ...-.., ,-....wi..,..,x, -•,..,....„..,..,*.• .-:.,„, ..,,,,,o,...,...
".,...i.."4-T;j1T,:::'!.':.i,''''.'••',',1,1',E.t•';':::---,, ,••'.'a',..z5'.,;'1',:-'•''.'',n'.'-'r•'id:A'•,','''.'''Wv.•,A.?4'.r4.i..*. •,-,--494`.4*....64...;,,,,,„„,,-„..,„;:,:,;72 :1,,,:,,v,47",$(..::::::.-', ..,.:4,-..-_,,..;,- ;:,.,_..t..,,„,_.'-',X:7.4...-e,,,,,:.4'.4:
.)rx,-,,,t;,,,,..-it,-.A,''22,..•,,,,,...-,i'',..,-.-...i;,.:7::.,-,•.1:::::-:••:,:74?:',-.:-t.....!-,;..14.......:.:',7,:=•-•••*-',...,-.,,,,:.?7,-,,...s.,4•-•4.-1,-,,,,e7-,•-2,•,:11,4"`•7,,,' -'--:•,,,t4.'..,4,-',-.,:vi,,,I1'•*;•,;:4. ..r.f4124,71.1,...;.,' ,4(5-;:*7'•- ••:
1:....-.1:".';',.;i.:•:.tt,Z''11:',.::-:.:?,I•'.::-'1i:'';1.',.'....iii,,..4:::::'-.lr.v-'4ii4'.',4;k'4f*r4**,tr.Z.!'>'-'4,;rff•'::'.'7;;,:: ..?:T:::r'f:4Z'i:it;T:41r:• .g:,f, t*1:;,.::;,'''':::.€1'.W4lei-ei:' s!=.;g--,z...:;:L.'4::::':i:; I•:-.T.i..,.::.::c;.::Yx,st% ..s.,..,!-:-.,-.1.•:....-..,
,.,,..:4"........,.,..„!t,,,.,...,"...,..,. ,, ,....,:‘,-';-;.,,,,.....,,,,:,,,, .:.-...-:::._;;..,--::-:-,.,,-....:,-,-;,
rv:ii.:i'.f•-:t.,'",,ic..-;.:-;`, .•.,-.:',.;;:',.:,..--,:,-:','-'..::,,•:•;:i.,,:i.'4.:•;•".=2;,-.5,3.V..!,.:::-47,Asc„..11_.,,,,,,,V../.14t,•••....,"'''5;‘.0,11glak*:::3-7,'1-7341...1.1"tr;,'''''''•*,-.•-‘:--7,7:Z--'::•.;7,:i•••,'","'!...,,q;iti(*',1.,-'4'-: ,itiWtrst.....***?4sr471i.:'-'ql=' ;‘!".1te,P.'.,.,..-';:'•:.c.:7!;,‘•;•,:,.!.•,';.,,,A.,,'‘ •
,,..,.,-::,-,;,.,„,,,..,.,'::_,,,,..„-c,...r.,.-.,,..-;• .,,,,,,.,?I-•;,',:;•,,,,,,k,,,...t;:.V.'7',-;',1•,:41;,,,,,p,7ei,i'",,a,„.,,,, ''.,,4,...,...,,,,,,, ,,,g.,:44,:',s•'...:.':•:•'..i.;,,,,,-.,''.`..,•:::-.",•,`,. -:::,,;',',..•'-;- •';''',N.'..,,i,",-*%',..':' .i,' ...7;•9s.i.....ev:k1.::::.,x....,,,,k....... -
t.--.1!-:-,;tis'....:',7‘.:,:•':4',.:?,..i.j,',7'.:,12c.•::**!,J:1;.:.;;;..;:,:.•,, ,c,r;.7.:',7S,:,...tr....4t. hi.r..":4 i, ,:§ t;.,,,i?.......1:t.,,,;„,,,,.•?:,..,,:.;,,,l,i'...4.;,,ttAF.,..,.. .,,.....: .,. .... .. . .
:::!;,7rf,i-if.i.;,,Zt:-,.-,4 .P.P.,',4-.4ii.*:.'tiu!...40..1‘..T4...... ''.. .e:11:...:4.•:.;•.:,,....,:,;.'.•;.iL:H. .,•,•..s..-:._':.••: .-. -......::....:::...•'...... ...• ' i• i. •
.•••••,: :c.f.i7:.:....'::;,.••......'--..- --- . " 'i.,.,4„.Aig..,-w.,:,1i-4:4.4 .-,,: it';•',i ''.:i...-' ''-'=:::"...... '-::.--':-...-..'..-. '''''-' S'‘.-.-::i'--'*:;*'::-•-''".•--:-'.. .''*.'"'..:-. . ' * '' . .
zr-,-,',.. --,L.:41i.i-1•V.,'AXLV4 4.„,6,'.'''';''...4'..-:',.H*•;r4k-Irtfp'11,1k1MN.:`,;.I.ii',...U'.'.:i',74: .."1,:::;-,::.,: Y,'F;1,!2::::f.:ii`,.T;;.:.,:::,::-.-.,•'•::•':,.'•.....-:.":, --':..:''• f'.-:-. - r." - .
,...,41.4-01.414,4441,44 .•','-.'!.?i.,:t,o':-`,4...',.: ,
:::;:::-'°411tagl.7 A0'...,..sig,i-:- ,,_.,..4."''''''''P,..,.. :;,..rj.:43)-761.107-2;;AI•414i;S%-;;- .,i,.. ...'iT:.::'•;=-Y.:-.E':.*•':•.*::-:-.••••':•-•'..7.-.:'-.•'::. '*..... ".
:.:,-.,T:-,,,,li,,s,-.4,-,. .f,p:.:-:.•,...%•••,-;•,;•;.!-..,...1,44:::40A71,:::,...f.,,-4.4vt42,.,..',.,,.iiilip:.;:f.::..:,.K,,!".-,,,..,:,;:..:• • , . •.
•-::...ii:f .'s4!*!,,,,,,,,,::,;;..;:-",......:,,,,,,..,,''..'.'•'''''''''''''''.:'''...*
Metropolitan transportation Plan (MTP)
The Pima Association of Governments has included the La Canada Drive extension in
the PAG Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The MTP was approved by the Pima
Association of Governments Regional Council on May 27, 1998. As part of the regional
planning effort, the roadway extension was evaluated in PAG's regional travel demand
model and in a financial analysis. The local jurisdiction transportation plans and overall
MTP were found to be financially feasible.
Proposed Design Features
The proposed improvements for the La Canada Drive extensioninclude the following
design features:
• Cross Section—Two-lane collector roadway (initial) with 5-foot paved shoulders,
stop control at Tangerine Road, and 150 to 200-foot right-of-way to accommodate
build-out condition. Four-lane minor arterial roadway (future) with raised medians,
8-foot multipurpose lanes, 5-foot sidewalks or 10-foot multiuse paths, utility corridor,
curb and gutter, drainage facilities, and a traffic signal at the intersection of La
Canada and Tangerine Road.
• Design Speed—50 mph; posted for 40 to 45 mph.
• Design Vehicle—WB-50 (tractor with trailer).
• Landscaping- Native and low-water use landscaping in median and border areas.
• Drainage— Drainage facilities to accommodate 100-year storms; all-weather
crossing of major washes for both interim and build-out conditions.
• Noise Mitigation— Mitigation provisions evaluated for the roadway impacts will
include larger building setbacks and noise abatement measures.
The proposed design features for the two-lane initial roadway and four-lane ultimate
roadway are presented in Exhibit 4.
Alignment
The potential roadway alignment is constrained on both the north and south ends due to
the location of existing and planned developments and connecting roadways. For the
route to be continuous, it needs to connect with the existing La Canada Drive at
Tangerine Road, and with the current Moore Road section line. There is some flexibility
for the roadway alignment within the middle section based on current and planned land
uses. Alignment alternatives are evaluated with particular attention to traffic operations
and safety, neighborhood and environmental impacts, and cost.
Mitigation Methods
Environmental — Preservation of existing cultural and natural resources will be an
important consideration in the proposed extension of La Canada Drive. Potential
environmental impacts and mitigation methods will be identified in a subsequent
Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report to be prepared with the initial
projects engineering design. Environmental considerations include impacts on riparian
areas, drainage ways, and sensitive plant and animal species including the Pygmy owl,
and on archaeological and other cultural and environmental resources.
6
Neighborhoods—The existing project area is sparsely developed, with platted
subdivisions yet to be built. A residential development is proposed for the northeast
corner of Tangerine Road and La Canada Drive. During the design process, significant
effort will be made to address the needs and concerns of affected property owners and
residents. Existing adjacent driveways will be connected to the roadway wherever
feasible, and access points will be considered for future connections. Mitigation
provisions for the roadway impacts will include drainage facilities, and the provision of
noise abatement measures will be evaluated.
Alternate Modes — Five-foot paved shoulders for bicycle travel and graded outside
shoulder areas for pedestrians are typical features of the initial two-lane cross-section.
The future four-lane cross-section includes typical features such as 8-foot wide multiuse
lanes and 5-foot sidewalks or 10-foot off-street paths. The multiuse lanes are for
bicycle use and emergency parking, and provide pull-out area for potential future bus
stops. Alternate modes that will be considered in this study include bicycle, pedestrian,
equestrian, neighborhood electric vehicle, and other modes of nonmotorized travel.
Implementation
Intergovernmental Agreement Application (IGA)—An IGA may be necessary
between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County if the roadway alignment crosses
outside of the Oro Valley town limits. An IGA with ADOT is required for the La Canada
Drive intersection with Tangerine Road.
Funding Sources— Funding for the La Canada Drive extension will likely come from a
variety of sources including Pima Association of Government Regional Roadway Funds,
Town of Oro Valley roadway funds and development impact fees, and potential right-of-
way dedications by developers.
Preliminary Project Cost Estimate—The cost for the initial two-lane roadway,
including right-of-way, is estimated to be approximately $2.5 million. Build out of the
four-lane roadway will cost approximately $1.5 million in addition to the initial phase. A
more refined cost estimate will be prepared as part of the Design Concept Report for
the project.
Timing — Right-of-way acquisition can begin upon project approval, with construction of
the two-lane facility anticipated within the next 5 to 10 years. Construction of the four-
lane roadway is anticipated within 10 to 15 years.
8
2. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS
The primary purpose of the Location Report is to recommend a final right-of-way
alignment based on a study of reasonable alternative alignments. The roadway
alignment alternatives need to consider existing and future land uses, neighborhood
impacts, environmental and topographic conditions, and other significant issues.
The Town of Oro Valley owns virtually no right-of-way within the project study area.
Alignment alternatives that allow for reasonable cost right-of-way purchase or
dedication of right-of-way by property owners will strongly influence-the feasibility of the
La Canada extension. Opportunities exist to secure cost-effective right-of-way due to
the generally undeveloped nature of the study area. Topographical constraints,
particularly involving riparian areas and washes within the study area, also influence
project feasibility. Coordination and development of intergovernmental agreements with
Pima County are also necessary for alignments that require right-of-way within the
County.
These and other constraints and opportunities are evaluated in the following sections of
this report.
Description of Roadway Alternatives
Roadway Corridor Study Area
Based on existing and planned land uses, topographic constraints, and connectivity to
the existing roadway system, a roadway corridor study area has been defined for the
proposed extension. The primary objective at the southern terminus of the corridor is to
connect at the existing La Canada intersection with Tangerine Road. Between
Tangerine Road and Moore Road, there is greater flexibility in locating the roadway
either along or near the section line dividing Sections 34 and 35 or up to approximately
1/2 mile east of the section line. At the northern terminus of the proposed extension,
the roadway may connect to Moore Road either along the section line or at some point
up to approximately 1/2 mile east of the section line.
The roadway corridor study area is presented in Exhibit 5.
Project Termini
Critical to the extension of La Canada Drive is the location of the desired connecting
points of the project at Tangerine Road at the southern terminus and Moore Road at the
northern terminus.
Southern Terminus
At the southern terminus of the project, the section line dividing Sections 34 and 35 of
Township 11 South, Range 13 East shifts to the east approximately 100 feet from the
existing terminus of La Canada Drive at Tangerine Road. The existing intersection
cannot be shifted eastward the full distance to align with the section line due to the
construction of the U.S. Postal Service post office on the southeast quadrant of the
intersection. There is potential to shift the intersection eastward slightly, but probably a
maximum of 30 feet due to the access requirements of the post office. A roadway
alignment that is to follow the section line north of Tangerine Road would require either
9
off-set intersections or construction of a reverse "Sri curve in La Canada north of
Tangerine.
As established in the Town of Oro Valley Tangerine Road Corridor Plan and Overlay
District(December 1997), intersection straightening to eliminate off-set conditions is a
principal transportation policy for improved safety along Tangerine Road. Therefore, an
offset intersection condition at this location is not desirable. Also, movement of the
existing intersection to the west is problematic because of surface drainage
considerations and because it would move the alignment further into unincorporated
Pima County. The existing intersection location, with minor shifting to the east if
feasible, is therefore recommended as the southern terminus of the project.
Northern Terminus
Several alternatives exist at the north end of the corridor to tie in with a planned four-
lane extension of Moore Road west from Rancho Vistoso and a planned four-lane
access road that will serve future Rancho Vistoso development north of Moore. The
access road is planned to intersect with Moore Road approximately 1/4 mile east of the
existing section line dividing Sections 34 and 35.
A traffic model run was performed to forecast traffic demand on the La Canada Drive
extension. Model results indicate that traffic demand should be higher for the future
access road to Rancho Vistoso to the north than the future Moore Road extension to
the east. The location of the northern terminus, therefore, should emphasize north-
south traffic movement over east-south movement.
Three primary locations for the northern terminus of the roadway have been developed
and are considered within this report. The three primary locations are as follows:
• A western terminus that involves connecting La Canada Drive to Moore Road along
the section line. The connection at this location would involve a "T" intersection
where La Canada Drive meets Moore Road.
• An eastern terminus that aligns directly with the Rancho Vistoso access road.
Moore Road would "T" into the La Canada Drive/Rancho Vistoso access road
intersection. Moore would then continue westward as a two-lane paved roadway
and connect with the existing paved Moore Road at King Air Drive.
• A central terminus that connects La Canada Drive and Moore Road approximately
1,000 feet east of the section line. This terminus would involve a curvilinear
alignment whereby La Canada Drive would curve eastward to connect with Moore
Road. Both Moore Road to the west of the alignment and the Rancho Vistoso
access road would "T" into the La Canada/Moore Road curve. Traffic movement
between Moore Road and La Canada would therefore receive priority under this
terminus alternative.
Each of the terminus locations are presented graphically in the following sections of this
report.
Roadway Alignment Alternatives
Nine preliminary alignment alternatives were developed and evaluated for the proposed
La Canada extension. Alternatives were based on minimizing impacts on existing
11
structures, on existing as well as future land uses, and on riparian areas. The nine
alternatives were evaluated by the project team and Town staff in terms of property
impacts, right-of-way requirements, riparian impacts, traffic operations, and total cost.
Based on this preliminary review, four alternatives were chosen for further evaluation by
the project team and Town staff.
Discussed below are the four alignment alternatives. The alignments are presented
graphically in Exhibits 5 through 9.
Alternative A
1) Alternative A generally follows the section line dividing Sections 34 and 35 for the
full distance between Tangerine Road and Moore Road, consisting of property both
within Oro Valley and unincorporated Pima County. The southern 1/4 mile of the
corridor would lie within the Oro Valley town limits. The roadway would be located
on the east side of the section line for nearly the entire alignment. This alternative
would involve a stop or signal controlled "T" intersection at Moore Road and La
Canada Drive.
Alternative BI
2) Two similar alternatives have been developed which follow the section line for
varying distances and then transition eastward to connect with the Rancho Vistoso
access road and Moore Road. Alternative B1 follows the section line for
approximately 2/3 of a mile north of Tangerine Road, with a reversed "S" connection
northeast to connect with Moore Road and the Rancho Vistoso access road. This
alignment provides a direct connection to the access road, and provides emphasis
on north-south traffic movement.
Alternative B2
3) Alternative B2 is a variation on Alternative B1. The reversed "S" connection which
heads northeast from the section line would begin at a point further south than B1,
approximately 1/3 of a mile north of Tangerine Road. At 1/4 mile east of the section
line the alignment would head directly north to intersect with Moore Road and the
access road to Rancho Vistoso.
Alternative C
4) Alternative C begins at the intersection of La Canada and Tangerine Road, and then
immediately curves northeast and then north along an alignment located
approximately 1/8 mile east of the section line. At the north end of the alignment, La
Canada would then transition with a curved connection east to Moore Road. Traffic
movement between Moore Road and La Canada would be emphasized with this
alternative. Both Moore Road to the west of the alignment and the Rancho Vistoso
access road north of the alignment would "T" into the La Canada/Moore Road curve.
The final recommended right-of-way alignment may be based upon one of these
alignments, a variation of these alignments, or an alignment developed
independently based upon Town Council review and comment on the
recommended alignment contained within this report. Each of the potential
alignments to varying degrees has advantages and disadvantages in terms of property
impacts, right-of-way impacts, access, neighborhood and environmental impacts, and
other important issues. These issues are evaluated in further detail in the following
chapter.
12
RANCHO VISTOSO (FUTURE
—RANCHO VISTOSO ACCESS ROAD
KING AIR i
� :
DRIVE
�`. 1 MOORE ROAD
• __ .. 'm.•?.,:.r...a'a:.:......'T••-- -r_'i:., .- ":•��..:'':,r^�CT��:�.--:'.r.'�i;•;"��'�:•``r.'St�.!5':.. • � � • � • •
FIGUEROA, RICHARD1 ,— .....
P & ELSA L • 1 `;\ t
---------- `\\, NEW 150' ' ' 1
ELEON, LUPE M. `,, R.O.W.
BEATRIZ G.
1 1� WILHELMSEN, 1
1LEON, LUPE JR ‘� SECTION LINE HARRY TR t
& PA TRI CIA B _
E %1
ii
,1
1 ,
::
1 LEON, LUPE M.1 i i 1
,& BEATRIZ ); TOWN BOUNDARY 1
G. i/ TREMONT
11 TRUST
r)
it s
t
li
HABER, KAI i
NEW 150' R.O.W. �� ', ?
i.
%` 1
1 ;i I FIDELITY '
'SCRAPPER, 1i') NATIONAL SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP
PRISCILLA A. �,'�' TITLE 11S RANGE 13 E
Ii 1
1 I I 1
1
ITURTISS, 1 t
JAMES P., JR. ` 1 1 CROSS, W H 1
i
BRINGHURST, r--
SCOTT M. & 0 ; ,�A
DEBORAH K. Er 1 p F..
——_—•——---1
1 1 1
CROSS, 1 1 1
DANIEL L. & 0 a i '
CATHY LEE ——-- 1
————— I 1 �, KNOTT, RONNIE
D '' t D. & GEORGE,
1 " �v 1 LINDA A. 1
1 KAY, DAVID 1 1 1
LEE JR. & °1 �\ GEORGE, JOE
t ALDER S ON, ALDEN ; % & R O SEMAR Y
;KELLY SUE & _ ANN C. ' ))` 1 1
KAY, KARTER I ,,, i 1
LEE . . .. . 4• ��
T• V� I PROPERTY LINE, TYP.
Of 1 1
1
O 0 1
MONTGOMERY, I
1
BILLY C. & • 1 MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY
SUSAN E. 4I )• 1 1
t� 1
-- -- ---� TANGERINE
I ❑ % L.P. 1 1
1 # e 1
MID IND Ai
MILLER,* , t EXISTING BUILDING, TYP.
RICHARD ; TO �� I ' '
E. & 1 ,!i 1
SARAH K. 1 V - ; TANGERINE HEIGHTS, LLC
L_ ri 1
i i!y 1 1 1
PROPERTIES CURRENTLY
UNDER CONSIDERATION, I i ii TOWN 'BOUNDARY '
OR IN NEGOTIATION, I .) 1 I 1
FOR ANNEXATION BY 1
ORO VALLEY t. A N A1
r- T NGERI E RO D
•.. '.,,,t4",,,,,3.s. .'..' .. - ) r
SCI UTO, ALFRED I U.S. POSTAL
& GRACE SERVICE
EXISTING LA CANADA DRIVE \ ALTER N A Tl VE A
APPROX. SCALE: 1" = 600' EXHIBIT 6
RANCHO VISTOSO (FUTU.r '
RANCHO VISTOSO ACCESS ROt
KING AIR 11 ;t •
DRIVE ,
\�`, I T MOORE ROAD
,� �� • .rte . .... . �
7
..
.,
FIGUEROA, RICHARD I \\ �� 7 ILEON, LUPE M. L-'NEW 150' R.O.W.
EBEATRIZ G. 1 " SECTION LINE
1 !
WILHELMSEN,
LEON, LUPE JR i/ HARRY TR
& PA TRI CIA B `F.....
� TREMONT '.;
-i -WOEMINI
:j
i TRUST
il
LEON, LUPE M. I;= TOWN BOUNDARY !
1& BEA TRIZ G. ,
PROPERTY UNE, TYP.1- 1 . !
! `� HABER, KAI 1
1
-:.
,„_.. i
w4. , , 1
! ;r�i Ff4LoTiLi / ��►�SCHAFFER, , NSECTION 35, TOWNSHIP
PRISCILLA A. k /ii �� TITLE 11S RANGE 13E
.:. / / / s
1 k I 1
` ` NEW 150' R.O.W.
CUR TISS,
JAMES P., JR. I : CROSS, W HT 1
BRINGHURST, 1----—— = ; ; I • A
SCOTT M. & 1 • Q „ • #•
DEBORAH K. it j C \/' ——ii
———--♦
CROSS, ! �� 1 \I:7 ,
O t
DANIEL L. & 0
a ‘1
CATHY LEE • " !
_ . .i
III
KNO T T, RONNIE
CI 11 D. & GEORGE'
!7__MINININNON,MP 41•• . ! LINDA A. 1
KAY, DAVID 1 S S
LEE JR. & II
t 1D . N\\ GEORGE, JOE
!ALDERSON, ALDEN .- �� 1 & ROSEMARY
'KELLY SUE & ' — ANN C. ! 1
KAY, KAR TER I ' 1
LEE • .- ,%
OT 1 of !
MONTGOMERY, !
BILLY C. & ! • I 4,ill)
MAJOR DRAINAGEWAYSUSAN E. !4....,.._I ' .,' I i
I i)f
I & TANGERINE
I0
, L.P. ! t
0 i 1 !
I -- 1 4L:
MILLER, 1 !_,:. ,, iEXISTING BUILDING, TYP.
RICHARD 1 rI! I 1 L
i i i
SARAH K. ,,I I TANGERINE HEIGHTS, LLC
! 4;!� ; i !
I ii
PROPERTIES CURRENTLY ,� --1 1 1
UNDER CONSIDERATION, I , z: , TOWN!BOUNDARY I $
OR IN NEGOTIATION, I --�, i ! !
FOR ANNEXATION BY I -
ORO VALLEY == I TANGERINE ROAD
)r
SCIUTO, ALFRED I U.S. POSTAL
& GRACESi1 SERVICE
EXISTING LA CANADA DRIVE A L TE R N A Tl vE 3(1
APPROX. SCALE: in
= 600' EXHIBIT /
RANCHO VISTOSO (FUTUF '
�---RANCHO VISTOSO ACCESS ROA
KING AIR (11/ •
DRIVE '�\\\ i MOORE ROAD
FIGUEROA, RICHARD \ ei I
i LEON, LUPE M. �� •- NEW 150 R.O.W. i
& BEATRIZ G. '' SECTION LINE
——----——-- 0t WILHELMSEN,
'LEON, LUPE JR i 1 ,! i HARRY TR i
1& PATRICIA B ti TREMONT 1
ii TRUST
ri
LEON, LUPE M. it LEON, TOWN BOUNDARY 1
i& BEATRIZ G. 1 lI
II
ri
S'
PROPERTY LINE, P. ��
TYi
471 , IIABER, KAI t
i; , ?-- - - - ---N
, ; ` 1
SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP
r It1 i
��
/i i 11S RANGE 13E
SCHAFFER,
i r
PRISCILLA A. Q; 1. '
' 1 �--NEW 150' R.O.W. i
i \\ i�
ruRTISS, iMES P., JR.
' CROSS, W H I
BRINGHURST, i--—---—— i FIDELITY / \ A
SCOTT M. & E F / NATIONAL ��
DEBORAH K. 1:1 TITLE i a \,4_' — ——--'
CROSS, TjJ / 06 t
DANIEL L. & 0 ‘‘ ' '
• %\ 1
CATHY LEE ------ s�;:. ;::: <-. -- — ------- ----
-———— .�11 KNO T T, RONNIE
0D. & GEORGE,
I i' /°°<:'
`t i LINDA A. 1
KAY, DAVID / / 1 1
LEE JR. & I .. GEORGE, JOE
1 ALDERSON, '4'r ALDEN, `�1 & ROSEMARY
• A 1 1
(KELLY SUE & ANN C. rr
KAY, KARTER / . . - - /I/
1 1
LEE :, . i
1 .1.), 1 1
o p 1 1
MONTGOMERY,
Ii •
BILLY C. & i • 1 ,,1si MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY
SUSAN E. 1 • i,''�it�� e 1
f.
i!f i
4...___t .:
--- -�
i ,is TANGERINE
Q ,! L.P. 1 1
1 Q � i 1
MILLER,* ir_4.0 N. .
i EXISTING BUILDING, TYP.
RICHARD ' • - i; 11 i
E. & i ±- /1/
SARAH K. 1 AV'/' f.LT4 '
I TANGERINE HEIGHTS, LLC
11 A i 1
PROPERTIES CURRENTLY if
UNDER CONSIDERATION, i , i TOWN 'BOUNDARY ' 1
OR IN NEGOTIATION, 1 . .' 1 1 1
FOR ANNEXATION BY I L
t.
ORO VALLEY I TANGERINE ROAD
it
SCIUTO, ALFRED I U.S. POSTAL
& GRACE • SERVICE
EXISTING LA CANADA DRIVE I ALTEk A (2
APPROX. SCALE: 1" = 600' EXHIBIT 8
,, IJ VI S T O S O (F UT URT
KING AIR ; ;�
RANCHO VISTOSO ACCESS ROAD
DRIVE f %'\
1 \\\,, MOORE ROAD,
MOORE ROAD _. '. . - _ • ...i
.. 'ay y.��G.�.c:__ :.�:u�'vi:. -r:�:..w<`[:L`.:.t��:'k�^�.',.:Y-.•� .�ti � . � • �
FIGUEROA, RICHARD `�`� , ! r----.
P & ELSAL • &kir
I ` WILHELMSEN,
LEON, LUPE M. �`
G. �i� HARRY TREBEATRIZ
0` t
LEON, LUPE JR t i t t
&
IPATRIcIAB
B7' SECTION LINE L I
ti
r+
'LEON, LUPE M.I '; TOWN BOUNDARY '
D Y
1& BEA TRIZ G. /
1 i �TREMONT
I i
• �i TRUST
i i' - HABER, KAI i
ti
—4 t
'
i y. '
I SCHAFFER> /111:1\1) FIDELITY SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP
PRI SCILLA A. = 1 i'2 NATIONAL t 11 S RANGE 13 E t
TITLE a a
t t1
ruRTISS, '`MES P., JR. _ ' CROSS, W H 1
a
BRINGHURST, i--————— - I I • A
SCOTT M. & E-.1 I • r0
DEBORAH K. _ �� I C -------"'�
CROSS, I
t
DANIEL L. & ❑ 0 - tt
• "
CATHYLEL' --------- ::: �,4 : : :.:;_- _ — -- ------ ----
II
I / KNO T T, RONNIE
t •, �� ; D. & GEORGE, t
t KAY, DAVID ALDEN, 'ANN C. t LINDA A. i
LEE JR. & a :; GEORGE, JOE
ALDER SON, & R O SEMAR Y
'
• r,it a a
'KELLY SUE & :---- „ 1 a
KAY, KAR TER ���
LEE + ,,
t I——— «..— / vt, ' t
10r
t MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY i
MONTGOMERY,
/b
BILLY C. & t • t �i NEW 150' R.O.W.
SUSAN E. ' • �.����
11 '
4—41M1 IIMI lab ..;
TANGERINE
. oa ,'„' L.P.
0 1 t
if __ L
1
t EXISTING BUILDING, TYP.
MILLER, a 1-7
♦ 1, a a
RICHARD , a '
E. & i r/Al ITANGERINE HEIGHTS, LLC
SARAH K. � �,
t ��i„ t 1
* - '� -- PROPERTY LINE, TYP.
PROPERTIES CURRENTLYit
UNDER CONSIDERATION, 1i.,-
' TOWN'
OR IN NEGOTIATION, a i �' ' 'BOUNDARY a
FOR ANNEXATION BY
ORO VALLEY '
TANGERINE ROAD _i
SCI UTO, ALFRED I U.S. POSTAL
& GRACE SERVICE
EXISTING LA CANADA DRIVE ALTERNATIVE C
APPROX. SCALE: 1" = 600' Ex:HI.BIT 9
0
3. Comparative Impact assessment and Analysis
Each of the La Canada Drive alignment alternatives has varying impacts within the
roadway corridor study area, and therefore a process to compare these impacts was
employed to select a preferred right-of-way alignment from among the four alternatives.
Assessment criteria for selecting a preferred alignment are as follows:
• Number of affected properties and impact on function of parcels
• Impact on natural and riparian areas
• Right-of-way acquisition difficulty
• Project construction cost
• Noise mitigation
• Traffic operations
The impacts of the alignment alternatives in relation to each of the criteria are evaluated
in the following sections of the report. A summary matrix of the assessment criteria and
how the alternatives were rated utilizing these criteria is presented below.
Planning-Level Alignment Evaluation
Natural & ROW* Project
Alignment Affected Riparian Acquis. Constr. Noise Traffic
Alternative Parcels Impacts Difficulty Cost Mitigation Operations Total
A 1 1 2 2 4 4 14
81 2 2 1 1 4 1 11
B2 2 2 1 3 2 1 11
C 4 4 4 4 2 3 21
*ROW = Right of Way
In order to develop a comparison of the alternatives they were rated 1 through 4 for each of
the evaluation criteria, with ties possible. The ratings are described as follows:
(1) - Law negative impact or high positive benefit
(2) - Higher negative impact than (1) or lower positive benefit than (1)
(3) - Higher negative impact than (2) or lower positive benefit than (2)
(4)- Higher negative impact than (3) or lower positive benefit than (3)
Number of Affected Properties/Impact on Function of Parcels
This criterion is used to evaluate the impact of alternatives on properties, particularly
how many properties are affected and how they are affected in terms of existing and
future land uses. For instance, some alternatives, because of where they are located
on a parcel, may cause a portion of the property to become unusable for development
or unsuitable for set-aside as natural open space. It is important to note also that
existing and future uses receive benefits from the proposed roadway in terms of
improved access to the parcels, which is desired by some of the area property owners.
17
According to Pima .,1/4-.,nty Assessor's records, there areapNr1/4,ximately 25 parcels that
lie all or partially within the roadway corridor study area, including within the Town of
Oro Valley and unincorporated Pima County. Each of these parcels is privately owned,
and range in size from 3 acres to over 48 acres. There are existing structures including
houses, barns, and other buildings located on several of these parcels. The study area
parcels are presented in Exhibit 10.
Alternative A impacts 8 parcels owned by 5 owners, Alternative B1 impacts 9 parcels
owned by 6 owners, Alternative B2 affects 11 parcels owned by 7 owners, and
Alternative C impacts 9 parcels owned by 6 owners.
The alternatives have varying impacts on the functionality or usefulness of the parcels,
particularly with respect to existing versus future land uses. These impacts are
described below.
Alternative A
Alternative A crosses 8 parcels and the ultimate roadway right-of-way comes within 100
feet of three existing residences on parcel numbers 219470180 (Miller property),
219510010 (Alden property), and 219450140 (Bringhurst property). Alternative A also
comes within approximately 500 feet of three other existing residences on parcel
numbers 219470050 (Montgomery property), 219470040 (Kay property), and
219450150 (Cross property). Alternative A causes low overall negative impact on
future uses for most parcels that the roadway crosses. Located on the east side of the
section line except at the southernmost end, Alternative A occupies a larger proportion
of land area of one of the Alden parcels compared to other parcels. This partel is
located approximately 1/3 mile north of Tangerine Road. Approximately 1/2 of this four-
acre parcel would be occupied by the full right-of-way of the future four-lane roadway.
For other parcels located within the study area, the alignment occupies less than 1/4 of
the land area of any of the parcels. The alignment provides access to properties
immediately east and west of the section line between Tangerine Road and Moore
Road.
Alternative 81
Alternative 81 impacts 9 parcels and comes within 100 feet of the Miller, Alden, and
Bringhurst residences and within 500 feet of the Montgomery, Kay, and Cross
residences. At approximately 2/3 of a mile north of Tangerine Road, Alternative 81
transitions east and traverses parcels 219490040 (Fidelity National Title property) and
219490030 (Tremont Trust property). With this alternative, there is the potential for the
northwest corner of the Fidelity parcel and the southeast corner of the Tremont parcel to
become unusable for development by the property owners. However, the property
owners of these two parcels have expressed interest in a possible trade of the two
corners. This trade would provide access to the parcels on both sides of the wash
running through the center of the parcels. Otherwise, the property owners would likely
need to construct bridge or culvert structures in order to provide all-weather access to
both sides of their parcels. At the northeast end of the alignment the alternative impacts
parcel number 219490020 (Haber property), and the roadway right-of-way comes within
600 feet of the Haber residence.
18
0
KING AIR !i RANCHO VISTOSO (i • ,)
II
DRIVE '
\\� ROAD
, MOORE R D
FIG UER OA, RICHARD219 4 50 0 D} \`;�
P & ELSALE7 _
( \ I
�\ t
LEON, LUPE M. t
•(21945001 A)
WILHELMSEN,
& BEA TRIZ G. �; SECTION L1 N E
——._-.._. ‘1 I HARRY TR
LEON, LUPE JR t 21 4 %i I (219490010)
& PATRICIA B — ( 9 5001 E} TREMONT
IININIM OP IM OMMINMMI alb QM MOM. (1 TRUST
iii(219490030)
LEON, LUPE M. ;, TOWN BOUNDARY 1
& BEA TRIZ G.--I—• II
II
I
1 (21945001
t —
(21945001 G) 1 ii
PROPERTY LINE, TYP. t • �i t S5
IIHABER, KAI t
0 -7. ?` (219490020)
4 OW all MO 4=10
1 t
I r r i FIDELITY t
SCHAFFER, t ; 1 NATIONAL SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP
PRISCILLA A. (,�, TITLE 1 11S RANGE 13E
1 (219450040) r
( (219490040) t CROSS, W H t
—.. \.��� (219490050)
CURTISS, t•
JAMES P., JR. t t
1 (219450013) ;,
BRINGHURST, t— + (219490080)
Q
% ` ' 1
SCOTT M. &
DEBORAH K. (,219450014) II I C 411=10IMPMINIMIMMOI GIP_---;
CROSS, t (21950015 1
a 1 (219490090)
DANIEL L. & 0 " 219510010
• N I 1
CATHY LEE ——--——-- :_. ����.:.:.
KNOTT, BONNIE
0 ►� _L
D. & GEORGE,
iis
1\\ ' LINDA A.
KAY, DAVID I _ (219510020) (219490070) i
LEE JR. & ��
ALDERSON, t '� •LDEN, `�� GEORGE JOE
KELLY SUE & ANN C. ?: '� t 1
KAY, KARTER � (z 19470040) ;; �I' t & ROSEMARY I
LEE . - ' �� (219490060)
1
(219470060) I iv1 t 1
(219510030)
41'
MAJOR DRAINAGEWAYMONTGOMERY, 1 +�
t t
BILLY C. & --r--• d ,
I) t
SUSAN E.
(219470050) -- -- M "'--47
TANGERINE
0
a% I i
/ L.P.
219470180 A
I I
.....
MILLER, t �� i 1 t
RICHARD � • 4) (219510050) I �
&
I Q ` / TANGERINE HEIGHTS, LLC
S K.SARAH t „/ 1 (219510070)
t ,� 1 (219510040) 1 i
�
• n
• it
i (219470170) '• '(219510060)1 t t
TANGERINE ROAD
-,:. —•— . — ...... • MINIIMMENI 11MOIJ
SCIUTO, ALFRED I U.S. POSTAL EXISTING PROPERTY
& GRACE 1 SERVICE
(224070020) AS PER PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR
EXISTING LA CANADA DRIVE EXHIBIT 1 0
0
Alternative B2
Alternative B2 impacts 11 parcels, requires the demolition or relocation of the Alden
residence, and the roadway right-of-way comes within 100 feet of the Miller and George
residences. The alternative also comes within 500 feet of the Miller residence and the
Knott/George residence located on parcel number 219490070. The alternative largely
impacts the two Alden parcels, limiting uses for the remaining land area of the parcels.
As compared with Alternative B1, the alternative essentially shifts the impact from the
Bringhurst residence located on the west side of the section line 1/2 mile north of
Tangerine Road to the George residence located 1/4 mile east of the section line at
approximately 1/2 mile north of Tangerine. The alternative brings the roadway right-of-
way to within approximately 300 feet of the Haber residence. The alternative also
largely impacts the southeast corner of the Fidelity property while reducing the impact
on the Tremont property as compared with Alternative E31. For Fidelity and Tremont,
the alternative does not provide a wash crossing for the two properties as compared
with Alternative E31. This alternative impacts the highest number of properties and
owners within the study area, but also provides access opportunities to parcels on the
east side of the study area which are currently difficult for owners to access.
Alternative C
Alternative C impacts 9 parcels and the roadway right-of-way comes within 100 feet of
the Miller and Alden residences and within 500 feet of the George residence. The
alternative causes the least impact of the three alternatives on existing residences.
However, the alternative causes the highest impact on parcels in terms of fragmenting
the parcels and reducing the amount of available land for development or set-aside as
natural open space. The Tremont property is heavily affected, particularly in the
northern section of the parcel where a second roadway connection to Moore Road
would need to be constructed across the parcel. The alternative does not provide
access across both sides of the wash in either the Fidelity or Tremont property.
Alternative C reduces the viability of parcels 219510060 and 219510050 (both owned
by Tangerine Limited Partnership), which are affected heavily by the alignment. The
alternative parallels the wash for nearly 1/2 mile north of Tangerine Road at a distance
of about 100 feet from the wash. The narrow strip of land between the alignment and
wash is unusable for development. The strip can be designated as natural open space.
However, as discussed below, the ability of this narrow strip to protect the riparian
habitat and wildlife from the roadway impacts is in question due to the close proximity of
the alignment to the wash.
Summary
Alternative A provides the least impact of the four alternatives on the parcels where the
roadway alignment is located. The alternative impacts the 8 parcels and provides the
least negative impact on the function of the parcels. The alternative provides a wash
crossing for only one parcel, the Tremont Trust property, at the north side of the
property. Alternative Bi impacts 9 parcels; however, it provides a wash crossing for
both the Fidelity and Tremont Trust parcels. Alternative B2 impacts 11 parcels but
provides a wash crossing for three properties, the Tangerine Limited Partnership,
Fidelity, and Tremont Trust parcels. Alternative C impacts 9 parcels and provides a
wash crossing for the Tangerine Limited Partnership and Tremont Trust parcels.
20
However, this aite,nduve will likely cause the greatest by impact on the function of the
parcels because it will render large portions of land unusable by the property owners.
Impact on Natural and Riparian Areas
This criterion is used to evaluate the impact of the alternatives on natural and riparian
areas. There is one designated riparian habitat located in the alignment study area,
with another designated riparian habitat located approximately %mile to the east. This
riparian habitat consists of a major wash drainage as well as tributary washes.
Major drainage and designated riparian habitat are shown in Exhibit 11. The pattern
and confluence of washes, large and small, result in fairly well defined areas of riparian
vegetation. These are washes that exhibit surface water flows only during storm
events. Although they do not exhibit perennial surface water flow, they are considered
to be biologically significant and of high wildlife habitat value. Oro Valley's "Riparian
Habitat Protection Overlay District' protects these washes.
The construction of the roadway will require the removal of significant amounts of
vegetation. Roadway segments on the upland areas will result in less removal, while
roadway segments crossing dense, wash-associated vegetation will result in greater
plant removal. The impact on wildlife resources will similarly vary. Wildlife will be
displaced and their movement altered or disrupted. In order to avoid loss of wildlife
habitat, areas that are disturbed should be revegetated with native species. Crossings
for wildlife underneath the roadway should be provided in appropriate locations.
In the case of the multi-trunk saguaro cactus at the intersection of La Canada and
Tangerine, all due consideration should be given to preserving it in place. It is located
in the Tangerine Road right-of-way aligned approximately with the centerline of La
Canada Drive. The possibility of retaining it within a median area should be fully
explored. The saguaro's size, age, and multiple trunks result in a very low potential for
successful transplant and subsequent survival. The loss of this recognizable landmark
plant would be very visible to the Oro Valley community, and should be avoided if in any
way possible.
The impacts of the roadway alternatives on natural and riparian areas are described in
the sections below.
Alternative A
As it follows the section line, Alternative A avoids crossing the designated riparian
habitat until the north end of the alignment. At this location, it is actually the improved
extension of Moore Road to La Canada that crosses the habitat. Currently, the wash
and habitat at the north end is impacted by the unimproved Moore Road at-grade
crossing. The wash at this location crosses the road at approximately a 45 degree
angle, resulting in more impact to the wash than if it crossed at a right angle.
Realignment of the wash and/or roadway to achieve more of a 90 degree angle to
reduce environmental impacts and drainage structure costs appears impractical due to
additional property impacts.
Of the four alternatives, Alternative A has the least impact on natural and riparian
habitat The alternative overlaps with sections of established dirt roadways, horse trails,
and easements between Tangerine Road and Moore Road. Most of Alternative A lies
along the upland segments of the study area, which have less vegetation and wildlife
21
than the wash arias. The alternative also utilizes the exiting unimproved alignment of
Moore Road, thereby reducing the extent of new impacts on natural and riparian
habitat.
Alternative Bl
Alternative E31 has moderate natural and riparian habitat impacts. Because it crosses
the designated riparian habitat at a location further south, where the riparian area and
wash widen out, Alternative B1 has a slightly higher impact on natural and riparian
habitat than Alternative A. Also, this is an entirely new wash crossing compared to
Alternative A and therefore has higher impact on dense, established plant species. The
alternative can be designed to cross the wash at approximately a right-angle, reducing
the overall impact on the riparian habitat. As the alternative nears the north end of the
alignment, impacts are reduced because it overlaps with an existing unimproved
roadway that is also a 60-foot wide easement. Of the four alternatives, Alternative B1
has the second lowest natural and riparian habitat.impacts.
Alternative B2
Alternative B2 has very similar natural and riparian habitat impacts as Alternative B1.
The alternative crosses the designated riparian habitat approximately 1/2 mile north of
Tangerine Road. From preliminary investigation based upon review of aerial photos
and on site visits, it appears the riparian habitat at this location is approximately equal in
extent as the location where it is crossed by Alternative B1. Alternative B2 can also be
designed to cross the riparian habitat at approximately a right-angle, lessening the
overall impact
Alternative C
Alternative C has the most significant impact of the four alternatives on natural and
riparian habitat within the alignment study area. This alternative heavily impacts the
riparian habitat due to the length at which it parallels the wash at close proximity. For
nearly the entire length of the alignment between Tangerine Road and Moore Road the
alternative parallels the riparian habitat at an average distance of 100 feet.
Although this area between the roadway and riparian habitat could be designated as
natural open space, the proximity of the roadway will have greater impacts on the
viability of the riparian habitat than the other alternatives, which provide more distance
between the roadway and the wash. Where the Alternative C alignment crosses the
wash, the impact at this location is similar to the impact of the Alternative B1 and B2
crossings.
Summary
Of the four alternatives, Alternative A has the least impact on natural and riparian
habitat The alternative overlaps with sections of established dirt roadways, horse trails,
and easements between Tangerine Road and Moore Road. Most of Alternative A lies
along an area which has less vegetation and wildlife than the wash areas, and the
Moore Road section of the alternative is located along an existing dirt road. Alternatives
B1 and B2 have a slightly higher impact on natural and riparian habitat than Alternative
A. These alternatives have entirely new wash crossings compared with Alternative A
and therefore have higher impacts on dense, established plant species. Of the four
23
FROM : Matthew Zc j i PHONE NO. : 520 323 2273 Feb. 25 199 06:11PM P2
el
alternatives, Alternative C has the highest impact on natural and riparian areas due to
as oiose proximity to the major wash for nearly the full length of the atignment.
Right-of-way Acquisition Difficulty
The Town of Oro Valley owns very little right-of-way within the study area and therefore
this criterion is a primary factor in the recommendation of a roadway alignment The
criterion addresses the difficulty in acquiring right-of-way in terms of the number of
property owners affected and the ability of property owners to work with the Town on
dedication of right-of-way. Consequently, this criterion also addresses the anticipated
cost and Town staff resources associated with negotiating agreeable right-of-way
dedications and purchases versus having to go through the condemnation process.
Evaluation cf the alternatives using this criterion is based in part on meetings and
discussions with property owners directly affected by the alignment alternatives.
Alternative A
Of the four alternatives, Alternative A should face relatively low difficulty in the
acquisition of right-of-way. The alternative lies along a section line, where major
roadways typically have been built within Pima County. This alternative, while not
providing some of the access advantages or the potentially negative property impacts of
the other alternatives, provides access to the edge of parcels while keeping negative
roadway impacts also at the edge.
The alternative also provides access to each of the parcels located immediately west of
the section line in Pima County, as well as noise and other impacts to those properties.
Nearly 213 of a mile of Alternative A is located outside the Town of Oro Valley
jurisdictional boundaries, when the Moore Road extension and La Canada Drive are
combined. This may result in greater right-of-way acquisition difficulties compared to
the other alternatives, which are mainly located within Town boundaries.
In preliminary discussion with property owners who own the parcels on which the
alternative would be located,this alternative was deemed acceptable, but not
necessarily preferred, by each of the owners in terms of pursuing negotiated right-of-
way agreements.
Alternative 81
Alternative 131 is estimated to have the lowest difficulty of the four alternatives in terms
of securing right-of-way. Right-of-way acquisition is equal to Alternative A for the
southern half of the alignment The alternative affects an additional parcel and property
owner at the northeast end of the alignment (parcel number 219490020, the Haber
property). However, as discussed previously, this alternative can potentially provide
access to both sides of the wash for the Fidelity and Tremont properties, and is
therefore attractive to the owners. The access is based on the ability of the two
property owners to negotiate a trade of portions of the property or to establish local
roadway easements across each other's property. The owners have indicated interest
in pursuing an agreement if this alternative is selected for preliminary design.
Approximately 1/3 mile of this alternative is located outside of Town boundaries.
24
0
Alternative B2
Alternative B2 may have slightly higher difficulty than Alternative B1 for right-of-way
acquisition. The Alden property is entirely impacted by the alternative and would
therefore necessitate complete acquisition. The alternative may cause greater impact
to the Fidelity property than Alternative B1, and requires an access agreement or
purchase of a portion of the Alden property by Fidelity to gain access to both sides of
the wash. The southeast corner of the Fidelity property is impacted and may be less
desirable for development or may not provide useful natural open space to the owner.
However, this portion of land is at a high elevation with scenic views, and may be
usable by adjacent property owners.
An additional parcel (parcel number 219490060, the George property) as well as the
Haber property are likely impacted by the roadway, depending upon the final right-of-
way alignment. The alternative provides a wash crossing for the Tangerine Limited
Partnership property, and is therefor attractive to the property owner. Approximately 1/4
mile of this alternative is located outside of Town boundaries.
Alternative C
Alternative C will have the highest difficulty in securing right-of-way. The alternative
heavily impacts the Tangerine Limited Partnership, Fidelity, and Tremont properties.
Because it is located close to the designated riparian habitat, the alignment renders a
sizable portion of each of the properties unusable for development. As noted
previously, this additional space does not provide viable natural habitat due to the
impacts from the roadway. Also, although the alternative provides access to both sides
of the Tangerine Limited Partnership property, it does not provide access to both sides
of the Fidelity and Tremont properties. The owners and representatives for the owners
have indicated that this alternative is problematic for allowable uses of their properties.
Just over 1/4 mile of this alternative is located outside Town boundaries.
Summary
Alternative A should have comparatively low difficulty for securing right-of-way, but it is
not the preferred alternative of the property owners and may encounter more difficulties
because much of the alternative is located outside Town boundaries. Alternatives B1
and B2 both have low comparative difficulty in securing right-of-way, primarily because
both alternatives provide advantages that are attractive to the property owners. The
majority of the length of these alternatives is located within Town boundaries.
Alternative C faces the greatest difficulty of right-of-way acquisition because of the
serious negative impacts on existing properties caused by this alternative. This
alternative is largely located within Town boundaries.
Project Construction Cost
This criterion is used to evaluate each of the alternatives in terms of a planning-level
estimate for construction and right-of-way costs for the Phase 1 (2-Jane) and Phase 2
(4-lane) roadway cross sections. It is the intention of the Town of Oro Valley to
purchase the full right-of-way for the 4-lane section as part of Phase 1. The Town plans
to build the project in two phases rather than in one overall phase due to a number of
factors. Traffic demand will not initially warrant a 4-lane cross section and the Town
therefor does not intend to expend limited resources prematurely in this location.
Additionally, widening of La Canada south of Tangerine Road is considered a higher
25
priority by the Town due to existing and anticipated traffic demands. The incremental
cost of constructing La Canada Drive in two phases rather than one is estimated to be
approximately 6 percent of the overall project costs.
Cost estimates have been developed and are presented in Exhibit 12. Estimates are
presented for Phase 1 and Phase 2 as well as for the combined costs of the two
phases.
Each of the alignment alternatives has similar elements included in the total project cost
estimates. The roadway cross section for Phase 1 includes a traffic signal at Tangerine
Road and La Canada Drive, two paved lanes, paved multi-use shoulders, landscaping,
drainage improvements, and noise walls where warranted. Purchase of right-of-way for
the full 4-lane cross section is also included in Phase 1. Right-of-way costs are
estimated based on the roadway length and 150 foot average right-of-way requirement.
Depending upon topography, impacts on structures and other factors, the right-of-way
requirement can vary. On two of the alternatives the right-of-way cost estimate is
significantly higher due to property and structural impacts.
A preliminary lump sum estimate was used for utility relocation that is the same for each
alternative, because detailed evaluation of utility relocation needs will need to be
performed as part of the roadway design.
Design engineering costs included in Phase 1 assume approximately 15 percent of total
roadway and drainage improvement costs. This cost includes all estimated
environmental, drainage, and civil engineering design costs for the interim 2-lane cross
section and for the ultimate 4-lane cross section.
The roadway cross section for Phase 2 includes an expanded traffic signal at Tangerine
Road and La Canada Drive to accommodate the widened roadway, four paved lanes,
paved multi-use lanes (shoulders), curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscaping, additional
noise walls where warranted, and a raised median. Drainage improvements include
accommodation of drainage at roadside, mitigation of drainage impacts on adjacent
properties, and provision of minor and major culverts.
As part of Phase 1, each of the alternatives includes paving of Moore Road as a 2-lane
roadway with dip crossings between King Air Drive and the Moore Road/ Rancho
Vistoso access road intersection. in Phase 2, Alternative A includes expansion and
repaving of Moore Road between King Air Drive and the Moore Road/Rancho Vistoso
access road intersection to a 4-lane paved roadway with culvert crossings of the
washes. This 4-lane expansion of Moore Road is necessary to accommodate traffic
between the Moore Road/Rancho Vistoso access road intersection and the Moore
Road/La Canada Drive intersection. Under Alternatives E31, B2, and C, Moore Road is
retained as a paved 2-lane roadway with dip crossings between King Air Drive and the
Moore Road/Rancho Vistoso access road intersection. It is retained as a 2-lane cross
section because traffic is projected to almost exclusively utilize the new La Canada
Drive alignment.
When compared in combined phase project costs, planning-level estimates range from
approximately $5.46 million to $6.39 million among the four alignment alternatives.
These costs are discussed over the following pages.
26
Exhibit 12
Planning-Level Cost Estimate for La Canada Drive Extension
Tangerine Rd. to Moore Rd., Phase 1 (2-lane) and Phase 2 (4-Lane) Cross Section
(Cost in Millions of 1999 Dollars)
Phase 1: Roadway Drainage/ Design Right-of- Utility Construct Total Project
2-lane Section Culverts Eng. Way Relocat Admin. Cost, Phase 1
Alt A $1.16 $0.06 $0.50 $0.78 $0.05 $0.18 $2.74
Alt. B1 $1.15 $0.06 $0.49 $0.86 $0.05 $0.18 $2.79
Alt B2 $1.15 $0.06 $0.49 $1.11 $0.05 $0.18 $3.04
Alt. C $1.13 $0.08 $0.50 $1.68 $0.05 $0.18 $3.62
Phase 2: Roadway Drainage/ Design Right-of- Utility Construct. Total Project
4-lane Section Culverts Eng. Way Relocat Admin. Cost, Phase 2
Alt.A $1.90 $0.33 $0.22 $0.00 $0.00 $0.33 $2.79
Alt. B1 $1.81 $0.33 $0.21 $0.00 $0.00 $0.32 $2.67
Alt. B2 $1.81 $0.33 $0.21 $0.00 $0.00 $0.32 $2.67
Alt. C $1.78 $0.44 $0.22 $0.00 $0.00 $0.33 $2.77
Total Project
Phase 1 Cost, Phase 1
plus Roadway Drainage/ Design Right-of- Utility Construct. &2
Phase 2 Section Culverts Eng. Way Relocat. Admin. Combined
Alt A $3.06 $0.39 $0.73 $0.78 $0.05 $0.52 $5.53
Alt B1 $2.96 $0.39 $0.70 $0.86 $0.05 $0.50 $5.46
Alt. B2 $2.96 $0.39 $0.70 $1.11 $0.05 $0.50 $5.71
Alt C $2.91 $0.52 $0.72 $1.68 $0.05 $0.51 $6.39
27
Alternative A
Alternative A has the third highest overall estimated cost at$5.53 million due to the
greater length of the alignment compared to the other alternatives. It is estimated that
this alternative will not have property impacts that will render remnant property unusable
to existing or future property owners.
Alternative 81
Alternative B1 has the lowest estimated cost at$5.46 million of the four alternatives. In
discussions with Fidelity National Title and Tremont Trust representatives, it appears
likely that the two property owners can negotiate a trade to allow the owners access
across both sides of the wash and to enhance the developability of the remaining corner
property area, as discussed in the Right-of-Way Acquisition Difficulty section presented
previously.
Alternative B2
Alternative B2 has the second highest estimated cost at$5.71 million due to right-of-
way requirements. It is assumed in this estimate that the Town of Oro Valley will need
to purchase the entire Alden property as part of this alternative and will have to relocate
or demolish structures which are currently located on this property. Right-of-way costs
may somewhat be recoverable, however, if the Town is able to negotiate sale of the
remnant parcels to Fidelity National Title, Tangerine Limited Partnership, and/or other
potential buyers.
Alternative C
Alternative C has the highest overall estimated cost at$6.39 million due to right-of-way
and drainage requirements. This alternative has the greatest property impacts of all the
alternatives. It is assumed for this planning-level estimate that the property between the
roadway alignment and the designated riparian area will have to be purchased by the
Town of Oro Valley for the entire length of the alignment. Impacts from this alternative
are estimated to render the property between the riparian area and the roadway
alignment unusable to the owners.
Summary
Alternative A has the third highest planning-level construction cost estimate for the
ultimate roadway cross section at$5.53 million due to its overall greater length than the
other alternatives. Alternative B1 is estimated to have the lowest overall cost at$5.46
million due to the strong feasibility of impacted property owners to negotiate a mutually
beneficial trade of property. Alternative B2 has the second highest cost at$5.71 million
due to the full property impacts on the Alden property, although it appears likely that
adjacent property owners may be interested in purchasing the remnant land or the
Town can resell the land to other interested parties. Alternative C has the highest
estimated cost at $6.39 million due to the highest right-of-way costs and highest
drainage costs.
Noise Mitigation
This criterion is used to evaluate each of the alternatives in terms of estimated noise
impacts caused by the future roadway on existing structures, and resultant noise
mitigation requirements.
28
Ambient noise le was within the study area are relatively low. I raffic noise from
Tangerine Road and the existing portion of La Canada Drive south of Tangerine Road
affect locations in close proximity to Tangerine Road, but can be heard at locations
within 1/2 mile and further. Other traffic noise in the area is limited to low volumes of
vehicles accessing the residential properties.
Future traffic noise levels will increase in the short term due to construction-related
activities and in the long term from roadway traffic. Noise levels at locations adjacent to
the roadway will be significantly increased as a result of the new roadway (i.e.,
increased by approximately 10 decibels or more) since no roadway currently exists and
ambient noise levels are relatively low. Between one and three existing residences
would be directly impacted by the traffic noise, depending on the final alignment of the
roadway. This assumes direct impacts on those homes located within approximately
300 feet of the roadway.
According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines, noise abatement
measures should be considered at locations where future noise levels at residential use
areas are predicted to approach or exceed 67 decibels, or increase 10 decibels or more
over existing levels. Representative traffic noise attenuation measures include locating
the roadway further from residential locations (i.e., greater than 300 feet), depressing
the roadway, and constructing noise barriers such as 6-foot high walls along the right-
of-way adjacent to existing residences. Noise mitigation for future residences is
generally considered to be the responsibility of the future residents or the subdivision
developers.
The future traffic noise levels should be modeled based upon predicted peak-hour traffic
volumes and the horizontal and vertical roadway alignment, as determined by
preliminary design. The effectiveness of noise barriers should be modeled at adjacent
residential locations. The noise barriers should then be incorporated into the final
design of the roadway improvements, and integrated with the landscape treatment.
Aesthetic treatment of any recommended noise walls should be a priority.
Alternative A
As it follows the section line, Alternative A has direct noise impacts on three existing
residences. The roadway alignment comes within approximately 300 feet of the Miller,
Alden, and Bringhurst residences. The ability to depress the roadway on this alignment
(as well as each of the alignments) is limited but should be assessed in roadway
design. Approximately 2000 feet of noise wall may be required to reduce noise impacts
on the existing houses.
Alternative B1
Alternative B1 causes approximately equal noise impacts on existing residences as
Alternative A. The same three residences affected by Alternative A are impacted by
Alternative B1. At the northern 1/4 of the alignment, the alternative shifts some impact
towards the Haber residence located approximately 1/3 mile east of the section line.
However, the roadway alignment is located over 600 feet from the Haber residence. As
with Alternative A, approximately 2000 feet of noise wall may be required to help reduce
noise impacts on the existing houses.
29
Alternative 82
Alternative B2 has direct noise impacts on two existing houses, the Miller and George
residences. The Alden residence would require relocation or demolition as part of this
alternative. If the house were relocated on the existing property, additional noise
mitigation would be required. Relocation of the Alden residence on the property is not
likely due to the right-of-way impacts of B2, which will occupy over 50 percent of the
buildable area of the property. This alternative may require a minimum of 1,500 feet of
noise mitigation.
Alternative C
Alternative C has direct noise impacts on only one existing structure, the Miller
residence. Depending upon the final right-of-way alignment, the alternative may also
come within 300 feet of the Alden residence. The alternative therefore has the least
noise impact on existing residences of all of the alternatives. The alternative may
require from 600 to a 1,000 feet of noise mitigation.
Summary
Alternatives A and B1 have the highest noise impacts of the three alternatives, directly
impacting three existing residences and requiring over 2,000 feet of noise mitigation
each to help mitigate traffic noise. Alternative B2 has less noise impact, impacting two
existing residences and requiring approximately 1,500 feet of noise mitigation.
Alternative C impacts only one existing residence, requiring less than 1,000 feet of
noise mitigation.
Traffic Operations
This criterion is used to evaluate the alternatives in terms of their operational
characteristics, including how directly the major traffic generators are served, what
turning movements and stop controls may be required, and traffic safety characteristics.
The four alternatives provide sharp contrasts in traffic operational characteristics.
Alternative A
Alternative A will provide the least direct alignment for traffic operations of the four
alternatives, necessitating the longest travel distance for traffic moving between Rancho
Vistoso and La Canada Drive. The alternative also requires relatively inefficient and
difficult turning movements for traffic moving between the Rancho Vistoso access road
and Moore Road, and between Moore Road and La Canada Drive. The heaviest traffic
movement is anticipated to be between the Rancho Vistoso acess road and La Canada
Drive. In both the southbound and northbound directions this traffic will be required to
make two turning movements. Traffic between Moore Road and La Canada Drive will
be required to make one turning movement.
This alternative will also result in major traffic impacts at the intersection of La Canada
Drive and Moore Road and will impact existing traffic utilizing King Air Drive and the
two-lane Moore Road to the west of the intersection. It will also result in noise and
safety impacts at this intersection. The intersection of Moore Road and La Canada
Drive would likely require signalization as the roadways are upgraded to four lanes.
30
Alternative B1
Alternative B1 will result in very direct traffic flow between Rancho Vistoso and La
Canada Drive. The alternative serves the heaviest traffic movement by aligning directly
with the Rancho Vistoso access road. One turning movement is required for traffic
moving between Moore Road and La Canada Drive. Moore Road west of the
intersection of Moore Road and La Canada Drive will receive limited improvement to a
two-lane paved roadway, thereby helping reduce the attractiveness of this as a through-
route. The intersection of Moore Road and La Canada Drive would likely require
signalization as the roadways are upgraded to four lanes.
Alternative 82
Alternative B2 will have equivalent traffic operational characteristics as Alternative B1.
Alternative C
Alternative C will provide reasonably direct access between Moore Road and La
Canada Drive, but will result in relatively difficult access between the Rancho Vistoso
access road and La Canada Drive. Traffic movement between Moore Road to the east
of the alignment and La Canada Drive is emphasized with this alternative. Heavier
traffic demand, however, is anticipated between the Rancho Vistoso access road and
La Canada Drive. This traffic will be required to make one turning movement at the
intersection of the access road and Moore Road, which will likely require signalization
as the roadways are built out to four lanes. Operational difficulties will arise due to the
location of the intersection on a curve and to the close proximity of the intersection with
the next intersection located south along the curve. This is the intersection of La
Canada Drive with the two-lane extension of Moore Road to the west of the alignment.
Summary
Alternative A results in the longest travel distance of the four alternatives and presents
difficult turning movements at the intersection of La Canada and Moore Road and at the
intersection of Moore Road and the Rancho Vistoso access road. Alternative A also
sharply increases traffic impacts on existing traffic utilizing King Air Drive and the two-
lane Moore Road to the west of the intersection. Alternatives B1 and B2 provide the
most direct routing for the main traffic movement, which is between the Rancho Vistoso
access road and La Canada Drive. The alternatives provide very little additional impact
on the existing intersection of King Air Drive and Moore Road. Alternative C provides
less direct routing to the Rancho Vistoso access road than Alternatives B1 and B2, and
has two closely spaced intersections located on a curve. This alternative also provides
very little additional impact on the existing intersection of King Air Drive and Moore
Road.
31
0
4. Recommendations
This Location Report for the proposed extension of La Canada Drive from Tangerine
Road to Moore Road has been prepared followingtheguidance of the Pima County
Community Participation and Mitigation Ordinance 1992-59 . The Location
(No. ) Report
conclusions and recommendations are listed below.
Conclusions
• Analysis of existing traffic demand on the 1st Avenue and Oracle Road corridors in
Oro Valley indicate that these roadways are already operatingat or near capacity.
p ty.
Projected development and resultant traffic demand in Rancho Vistoso will lead to
increased traffic congestion on these corridors. There are currently only two access
points to Rancho Vistoso: Rancho Vistoso Boulevard/1 st Avenue at Tangerine Road,
and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard at Oracle Road. Previous Oro Valley subregional
planning studies and the 1996 Town of Oro Valley General Plan have shown that an
alternative route is necessary to help relieve traffic demands on the Oracle Road
and 1st Avenue corridors.
• Extension of La Canada Drive between Tangerine Road and Moore Road was
identified in the Town of Oro Valley General Plan as a feasible connection that will
provide a reasonable alternative route to serve Rancho Vistoso. The extension will
provide a direct north-south connection to the northwest area of Rancho Vistoso,
which is planned to be developed over the next 15 to 20 years.
• A Transportation Action Plan was prepared for the proposed La Canada Drive
extension, recommending that an initial two-lane roadway be constructed between
Tangerine Road and Moore Road. The TAP indicated that sufficient right-of-way,
9 Y,
an average of 150 feet wide, should be purchased in anticipation of upgrading the
roadway to a four-lane divided roadway when traffic demand warrants the increased
capacity. The TAP also recommended provisions for alternative modes of travel
and mitigation of noise impacts from the new roadway on existing residential use
areas. The TAP recommended that a Location Report be prepared to identify a final
right-of-way alignment as the next step in the development of the project
• As part of the Location Report, eight preliminary alignment alternatives were
developed and evaluated. These were reduced to four main alternatives which
received more detailed analysis in terms of the number of affected properties and
impact on function of parcels, impact on natural and riparian areas, right-of-way
9 Y
acquisition difficulty, project construction cost, noise mitigation, and traffic
operations. Based on these criteria, each of the alternatives has various
advantages and disadvantages when compared with the others. The final
recommended alignment results from a comparative assessment of the alternatives
utilizing these criteria.
Recommendations
• Implement Alternative B2, or a close variation of this alternative, as the preferred
alignment based on the criteria evaluation performed as part of the development of
the Location Report. While each alternative is feasible, Alternative B2 is preferred
for the following reasons: (1) the alternative does not have major negative impacts
32
each of the affected properties except the Alden property, and each of the affected
property owners have indicated they are willing to accept or even prefer this
alternative due to its access advantages; (2) the alignment is located primarily within
Town of Oro Valley jurisdictional limits; (3) it does not have major impacts on natural
P
and riparian areas; (4) it has a reasonable planning-level cost and good feasibility of
cost recovery with respect to resale of right-of-way; (5) it is one of the least
disruptive of the alternatives on existing residences located outside the Town limits
in terms of noise and other traffic-related impacts; and (6) it provides one of the
most direct routes for the major traffic demand between La Canada and the Rancho
Vistoso access road.
• Initiate preliminary design activities and prepare an Environmental Assessment and
Mitigation Report in general accordwith federal, State and County (i.e., Pima County
Ordinance No. 1992-96) guidelines.
• Initiate discussion with property owners to acquire an average 150-foot right-of-way,
9 Y,
subject to the results of a drainage study to define in greater detail the drainage
9
system and associated right-of-way requirements in excess of or less than 150 feet.
Right-of-way should be acquired using the preferred right-of-way alignment
recommended in the Location Report, with modification as appropriate to
accommodate the needs of affected property owners.
• Develop new aerial photography and topographic mapping to support preliminary
engineering design and to conduct a drainage study. A drainage study should be
performed to refine drainage concepts and specifications for the recommended
alignment.
• Continue coordination and consultation with the public and affected property owners
through all planning and design phases of the project.
• Coordinate with private and public utilities regarding utility relocation and
opportunities to relocate aerial lines underground, where feasible.
• Identify funding sources and program funds for planning, design, and construction
activities.
• Construct a two-lane initial roadway cross section, possibly within the next 5 to 10
years, upgrading to a four-lane cross section as traffic demand warrants. The
typical roadway cross section recommended in the Transportation Action Plan
should be constructed.
33