Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-08; City Council; 16923 part 2 of 6; Draft Program Environmental Impact ReportMICHAEL H. REMY JAMES G. MOOSE TINA A. THOMAS WHITMAN F. MANLEY ANDREA A. MATARAZZO BRIAN I. PLANT OF COUNSEL REMY, THOMAS and MOOSE, LLP AlTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 455 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 210 Telephone: (916) 443-2745 Facsimile: (916) 443-9017 htlp:llwww.remythamasandmoose.com E-mail: info@rtandm.com ALL RECEIVED OSHA R. MESERVE JENNIFER S. HOLMAN ANDREA K. LEISY TIFFANY K. WRIGHT CHRISTOPHER H. CALFEE WILLIAM C. BURKE ASHLE T. CROCKER MARY E. HANOEL SABRINA V. TELLER October 2,2002 Via Federal Express Mayor Claude A. Lewis and Council Members City of Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis, Mayor Pro Tem Kulchin, Council Members Finnila, Hall, and Nygaard: The City of Vista (“Vista”) has retained our fm to represent Vista’s interests in regard to the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (“Project”). As you are aware, the City of Carlsbad (“Carlsbad”) has issued a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (“Draft PEIR or “PEIR’)). The PEIR concludes that the Project will result in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts. As you are also aware, the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission has recommended, among other actions, certification of the PEIR and adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact (“Findings”). The Findings invoke Public Resources Code section 2 108 1, subdivision (a)(2)’ and corresponding CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivisions (a)(2) and (c),~ to conclude that Carlsbad need not mitigate the Project-induced traffic impacts in Vista. In support of the Findings, Carlsbad Planning Commissioner Whitton commented at the August 21,2002 hearing that, although impacts to intersections located in Vista can be mitigated, it is “City policy” not to mitigate outside the city limits. (Planning Commission Minutes, August 2 1, 2002, page 7.) This “City policy” is inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, 8 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”). 1 / Unless otherwise specified, all references to statutes are to the Public Resources Code. / All references to “Guidelines” or ”CEQA Guidelines” are to the current CEQA Guidelines. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 5 15000 et seq.) “Courts should afford great weight to the Guidelines except when a provision is clearly unauthorized or erroneous under CEQA.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 41 Cal. 3d 316, 39 1, fn. 2.) 2 Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 2 Certification of the PEIR is scheduled for hearing before the Carlsbad City Council on October 8,2002. In anticipation of the hearing, we are providing a copy of this letter to each council member with the hope that you review this letter, along with the enclosed materials, prior to making your decision. The detailed discussion provided in this letter reflects Vista’s resolve to have this important CEQA policy correctly interpreted. Establishing responsibility for extraterritorial mitigation is of the utmost importance. Prospectively, a proper interpretation of CEQA at this juncture will benefit all cities, including Carlsbad, when future projects are approved by neighboring jurisdictions. SUMMARY The traffic study prepared in conjunction with the PEIR concludes that eleven intersections will experience significant traffic-related impacts due to the Project. However, the PEIR only requires mitigation for those intersections located within Carlsbad, and fails to implement mitigation measures for the Project-related impacts in Vista. Despite the Project’s unmitigated traffic impacts, Carlsbad has thus far recommended approval of the Project pursuant to a Finding under section 2 108 1, subdivision (a)@). This Finding is inappropriate in this instance. In fact, the statutory language of section 2108lsupports a determination that the Project applicant (or, alternatively, Carlsbad) is responsible for making its “fair share” contribution toward mitigating traffic impacts in Vista. Section 21081 subdivision (a)(l) specifically requires an agency to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts of its project. In limited circumstances, if an agency is unable to provide mitigation, a finding under (a)@) may allow an agency to proceed with a project. However, such a finding is not available unless a lead agency affirmatively shows that (1) another agency is responsible for mitigating impacts, and (2) the other agency responsible for providing mitigation has adopted, or can and should adopt, the necessary mitigation measures. In the instant case, Carlsbad’s finding pursuant to section 21081, subdivision (a)(2) is inappropriate for four principle reasons: (I) Carlsbad is the lead agency for the Project and, under CEQA, is responsible for mitigating Project-related impacts if fea~ible;~ (2) Vista has not adopted the mitigation measures necessary to reduce the Project-related impacts to less than significant levels; (3) Vista expects that it will be financially unable to accomplish the necessary improvements without a “fair share” ’1 “Feasible” means “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” (CEQA Guidelines, 4 15364.) The Project applicant’s “fair share” contribution toward mitigating Project-related impacts is made feasible through Vista’s Capital Improvement Fund that allows Vista to receive fair share contributions for the necessary street improvements. Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 3 contribution from the Project applicant (or, alternatively, from Carlsbad); and (4); there is no authority for a claim that Vista “should” pay from its own coffers to mitigate impacts that arise as a direct result of Carlsbad’s Project. DISCUSSION I. CEQA Mandates that Lead Agencies Mitigate or Avoid Significant Environmental Impacts to the Extent Feasible. When approving a final EIR, the lead agency must certify that the EIR (1) complies with CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, $ 15090, subd. (a)(l)); (2) was presented to the decision-making body, which reviewed and considered the information in the final EIR before approving the project (CEQA Guidelines, $ 15090, subd. (a)(2)); and (3) reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis (CEQA Guidelines, $ 15090, subd. (a)(3)). Moreover, the lead agency’s duty to ensure that the EIR is adequate and complete is a statutory duty owed to the public in general, not to the project sponsor. (Mission Oaks Ranch, Ltc. v. County of Santa Barbara (1988) 65 Cal.App.4th 713, 723, disapproved on other grounds in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.App.4th 1106.) After a lead agency has certified an EIR and the decision-makers have reviewed the information contained therein, the agency considers whether to approve or to carry out the project. The lead agency may approve a project despite its significant environmental effects only if the proper findings and, if significant impacts remain unmitigated, a statement of overriding considerations are adopted. Therefore, the agency review triggers one of CEQA’s basic provisions: the lead agency’s duty to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts when it is feasible to do so. (Pub. Resources Code, $5 2 1002,21002.1, subd. (b).) This duty is reflected in Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15092, subdivision (b), which provide that a public agency may not approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either (I) the project will not have a significant effect on the environment or (2) the agency has adopted findings that all significant environmental effects have, to the extent feasible, been eliminated or substantially reduced and that any remaining effects found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to specific overriding economic, social, technological, or other benefits. Under this statutory scheme, a public agency must eliminate or reduce a project’s significant environmental effects when it is feasible to do so. (Pub. Resources Code, $5 21002-21002.1,21081; CEQA Guidelines, $3 15021, 15043, 15091.) Indeed, a fundamental CEQA policy is that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” (Pub. Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 4 Resources Code, 9 21002.)4 CEQA hrther provides that “each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects it approves or carries out whenever it is feasible to do so.” (Pub. Resources Code, 4 21002.1, subd. (b).) Agencies are therefore required to make specific findings concerning mitigation measures or project alternatives whenever an EIR identifies significant environmental effects of a project. (CEQA Guidelines, $ 15091 .) Each finding must contain an ultimate conclusion regarding each significant impact, substantial evidence supporting the conclusion, and an explanation of how the substantial evidence supports the conclusion. Specifically, the agency must make findings, for each significant impact, to the effect that the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impacts. If the agency cannot make this finding, it may make the alternative finding that changes to the project are within another agency’s jurisdiction, and such changes have been or should be adopted. 11. Project-Related Impacts to Traffic Within the City of Vista are Significant. According to the PEIR, intersection 19 currently operates at Level of Service (“LOS”) B in the morning peak hour, and LOS C in the evening. (PEIR, p. 5.2-50.) By 2005, service at this intersection (with the interim project and the Faraday connection) will decrease to LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. (PEIR, p. 5-2-63.) The PEIR identifies improvements that would mitigate impacts to intersection 19 to a less than significant level. (PEIR, p. 5.2-63.) These improvements, while not included as part of the Project, are recommended for implementation by 2005. (PEIR, p. 5.2-28, Figure 19.) In addition, the PEIR concludes that the proposed Project will add an average AM delay of 63.5 seconds to intersection 18 by 2010. (PEIR, p. 5.2-10.) A proposed intersection improvement identified in the PEIR but not included as part of the Project, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This improvement is also recommended for implementation by 2005. (PEIR, p. 5.2-28, Figure 18.) 4/ An agency does not have unlimited authority to impose mitigation measures discussed in an EIR rather, a public agency is subject to both general and specific limitations on its authority. In mitigating a project’s significant environmental effects, an agency may exercise those express or implied powers provided by law, aside from those provided by CEQA. A common method for a lead agency to determine the appropriateness of certain mitigation measures and to justify that there is a clear ‘nexus’ between the impact and the mitigation measure, is to “calculate an applicant’s pro rata share of a problem and impose no more than a pro rata share of the solution on the applicant by way of mitigation ...[ t]he EIR should be used to document such a determination of ‘rough proportionality.”’ (Bass et al., CEQA Deskbook (2d ed. 1999) p. 83.) This is the very type of mitigation that Vista has proposed - a “fair share” contribution by the City of Carisbad. ’1 The intersections of Melrose and Sunset (intersection 15) and SR 78 EB Ramps and Sycamore Avenue (intersection 36) will also be significantly impacted by the (continued) Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 5 A. Vista’s Capital Improvement Fund Permits Vista to Receive Fair Share Contributions For the Necessary Street Improvements. Although street improvements identified in the PEIR would cause the Project’s traffic-related impacts at these intersections to be reduced to a less than significant level, such improvements were not included as part of the Project. Carlsbad’s support for this omission was twofold: (I) the intersections are located outside of Carlsbad’s jurisdiction, and (2) “there is currently no specific improvement program in place to hnd, design and construct improvements to this intersection.” (PEIR, pp. 5.2-6,5.2-7; Findings, pp. 16-17.) Vista has adopted Resolution Number 2002-225, which amends its Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) to “permit Vista to receive fair share contributions toward the construction of the Street Improvements when an environmental review determines that a project (whether within Vista or outside of Vista) will produce significant traffic impacts in Vista that can be mitigated by the Street Improvements.” Therefore, Carlsbad’s fmding that no improvement program exists is inaccurate. It remains Carlsbad’s responsibility, as the lead agency under CEQA, to adequately mitigate all Project-related impacts to the extent feasible. To honor its responsibility, Carlsbad must contribute, or require the Project applicant to contribute, its fair share contribution toward mitigating traffic impacts in Vista. Carlsbad may impose this “fair share” contribution upon the Project applicant pursuant to Carlsbad’s inherent “police power” to impose regulations on land uses within its temtory.’ Therefore, the mitigation requested by Vista does not require Carlsbad to exercise its police power outside of its jurisdiction. Moreover, Vista’s request is consistent with the decision in Citizens for Quality Growth v. City ofMount Shastu, (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, wherein the court required the City of Mount Shasta to use its police power to the fullest extent possible to adequately mitigate the environmental impacts of the City’s project. Vista has calculated that the Project applicant’s fair share is $260,956.60. This amount shall be used in conjunction with Vista’s contribution to hnd the necessary improvements to streets and intersections within Vista that are negatively impacted by proposed Project. However, Vista does not seek any assistance from Carlsbad or the Project applicant to mitigate these impacts. 6 / Although not stated, it appears that Carlsbad may have been invoking CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subdivision (a)(5), which allows an agency to adopt a project with adverse environmental impacts if mitigation measures “cannot be legally imposed.” This Guidelines section is clearly inapplicable in this instance. 7 / The police power of a city or county to regulate land use to “protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents” is recognized bv common law. (Curtin. Curtin’s California Land Use and Planning Law (Solano Pres; Books >002), p.1, citing Berman v. Parker (1954) 348 U.S. 26.) Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 6 the Project. Absent the requested contribution, Vista expects that it will be unable to accomplish the necessary street improvements, and the traffic impacts generated by the Project will remain unmitigated. B. Vista Timely Raised its Concerns Regarding the Project-Related Traffic Impacts. Carlsbad has indicated that the City of Vista should have earlier communicated its request that the Project applicant contribute its fair share contribution to mitigate traftic impacts in Vista. At the Planning Commission hearing on August 21,2002, Planning Commissioner Whitton pointed out that the Project had been in the planning stages since 1997, and stated that Vista’s concerns regarding traffic impacts should have been discussed prior to circulation of the PEIR. According to Carlsbad, Vista’s failure to assert its concerns prior to circulation of the PEIR releases Carlsbad from its duty to mitigate. To the contrary, CEQA requires that once a draft EIR is prepared, the lead agency must issue notices of availability and completion, and distribute the document for review and comment and consultation with other agencies. Following distribution, each agency may submit comments on those aspects of a project that are within its area of expertise or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. (CEQA Guidelines, 3s 15203, 15204, subd. (a).) Comments are “most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, 3 15204, subd. (a).) In accordance with CEQA, Vista reviewed the Draft PEIR and submitted comments regarding the Project’s traffic impacts within the corporate limits of the City of Vista. On several occasions, including during the comment period, Vista informed Carlsbad that mitigation of traffic impacts within the City of Vista was required pursuant to section 21081, subdivision (a)( 1). For example, in a comment letter dated May 30, 2002, Vista requested that Carlsbad require the Project developer to either construct or fairly contribute to intersection improvements to mitigate the Project’s impacts.* A similar letter was sent on August 14,2002. In addition, at the Planning Commission hearing on August 21, 2002, Vista made oral statements to the effect that the Project applicant (or, alternatively, the City of Carlsbad) is required to make a fair share contribution to mitigate Project impacts. Despite Vista’s urging, however, Carlsbad has maintained its position that mitigation of traffic impacts is not required pursuant to section 2 108 1, subdivision (a)(2). Carlsbad’s statements concerning the timing of Vista’s comments disregard the very purpose of an EIR, which is to “inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible 8 / CEQA Guidelines, 5 15126.4, subd. (a)(2) provides that mitigation measures may be enforceable through “agreements, or other legally binding instruments.” Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 7 ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.” (CEQA Guidelines, $ 15121, subd. (a).) It is contrary to CEQA to require a neighboring jurisdiction to comment on the potential effects of a project prior to the lead agency’s circulation of a draft EIR for review. Without access to the Draft PEIR or the associated traffic study, Vista was obviously unable to ascertain either the Project’s impacts to traffic or the type of mitigation measures contemplated by Carlsbad. It is entirely appropriate that Vista began Project-related communications with Carlsbad following Vista’s review of the circulated PEIR. In fact, that is the very purpose for publicly circulating the PEIR. 111. The Unambiguous Statutory Language of Section 21081 Supports a Determination that the Project Applicant, or the City of Carlsbad, Is Responsible for Making Its “Fair Share” Contribution Toward Mitigating Traffic Impacts in Vista. A. Section 21081 Should Be Interpreted to Promote the General Purpose and Policy of CEQA. The cardinal rules of statutory construction require that words be given such interpretation as will promote, rather than defeat, the generalpurpose andpolicy of the law. It is an equally recognized canon of construction that “the various parts of a statutory enactment must be harmonized by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole.” (Mount Sutro Defense (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 20, 36.) A statute should be interpreted as to produce a result that is reasonable, and if two constructions are possible, that which leads to the more reasonable result should be adopted. (Zbid.) The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the Act “‘to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.”’ (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112, quoting Friends ofMarnmoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247,259.) Any construction of statutory language that subverts this principle would be unreasonable, and would constitute an abuse of discretion. Vista believes that Carlsbad’s interpretation of section 21081 has thus far subverted the goals and policies of CEQA by effectively providing a loophole for a lead agency to avoid protecting the environment. Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 8 B. The Plain Meaning of Section 21081 Provides that Lead Agencies Must Prevent or Minimize Environmental Damage. The literal terms of section 21081 establish an agency’s duty to prevent or minimize environmental damage.’ This is a straightforward directive. Section 2108 1, subdivision (a), carries out this directive by allowing an agency to fulfill its duty through adopting one or more findings with respect to each significant environmental effect. The possible findings provided by subsection (1) and (2) lead to two obvious conclusions: first, an agency must mitigate or avoid the significant effects of any project it approves; second, an agency may be unable to mitigate the impacts because another agency is responsible for such mitigation, and the other agency either has provided, or can and should provide, the appropriate mitigation. As related to the second conclusion, the responsibility to mitigate is generated by the provisions of CEQA. 1. Finding (a)(l) Requires an Agency to Mitigate or Avoid Significant Environmental Impacts of Its Project. Section 2 108 1, subdivision (a)( 1) unambiguously requires an agency to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impacts of a project by requiring changes or alterations to the project. This section clearly acknowledges that CEQA is intended to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection of the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. (CEQA Guidelines, $ 15003, subd. (0.) The CEQA Guidelines and the Public Resources Code embrace this principle, and therefore support a statutory construction of section 2 108 1 that provides the fullest possible protection of the environment, whether that “environment” is geographically located within the City of Vista or within the City of Carlsbad.” Such 9/ The statute provides, in pertinent part: Pursuant to the policy stated in Sections 21002 and 21002.1, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and each significant effect: which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environinent. jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. . . . lo/ To interpret the statutory intent of section 21081, the Carlsbad City Council may be aided by a consideration of other pertinent provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines. (Mount Sutro Defense, supra, 77 Cal.App.3d at p. 37.) Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 9 support is found in Public Resources Code section 2 1001, subdivision (0, which declares that it is the policy of the State to “require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality.” Section 21002 describes a similar policy of the State that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” In order to achieve these objectives, section 21002.1 provides that “each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.” The CEQA Guidelines offer similar principles, stating that a basic purpose of CEQA is to “prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.” (CEQA Guidelines, 5 15002, subd. (a)(3).) In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15002, subdivision (h) states that: when an EIR shows that a project could cause substantial adverse changes in the environment, the governmental agency must respond to the information by one or more of the following methods: (1) changing a proposed project; (2) imposing conditions on the approval of the project; (3) adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader class of project to avoid the adverse changes; (4) choosing an alternative way of meeting the same need; (5) disapproving the project; (6) finding that changes in, or alterations to, the project are not feasible; or (7) fmding that the unavoidable, significant environmental damage is acceptable as provided in section 15093. Notably, the Guidelines do not identify shifting the burden of mitigation to another agency as a means of mitigating substantial adverse environmental impacts. 2. Finding (a)(2) Is Not Available Unless a Lead Agency Affirmatively Shows that Another Agency Is Responsible for Mitigating Impacts. Section 21081, subdivision (a)(2) and the corresponding Guidelines section 1509 1, subdivision (a)(2) states that, in order for an agency to fulfill its duty to protect the environment, it must find that it is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, and that it is neither the responsibility of, nor within the authority of, the agency making the finding. A literal reading provides that application of section 21081, subdivision (a)(2) is limited to those few situations in which the necessary mitigation measure falls outside of the responsibility and outside of the jurisdiction of the agency making the finding. To date, however, Carlsbad’s interpretation of section 2 108 1 has missed the important conjunctive, “and”, within the statute. This erroneous interpretation narrowly focuses on the language referring to “changes or alterations [that] Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page IO are within the... jurisdiction of another public agency,” and ignores the language that states such alterations must also be within the responsibility of another public agency. These two requirements are distinct.” The terms “responsibility” and “jurisdiction” impose distinct conditions that must be simultaneously satisfied before an agency is permitted to adopt a finding pursuant to section 21081, subdivision (a)(2). The “responsibility for implementation of CEQA, and a key to its effectiveness, falls squarely upon the varied lead agencies responsible for meeting its requirements.” (Statement of Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary of Resources before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, Hearing on the Proposed Revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, December 2, 1997.) The City of Carlsbad, as the only lead agency for the Project, has the responsibility under CEQA to mitigate all impacts to the extent feasible.” The “responsibility” addressed in section 21081, subdivision (a)(2), arises when a lead agency approves a project under CEQA. This CEQA-mandated responsibility cannot be shifted to another agency simply because the impacts of the lead agency’s project fall within another jurisdiction. While it may be beyond a lead agency’s authority or responsibility to physically implement mitigation measures in another jurisdiction, the lead agency retains the authority to contribute its fair share (or, alternatively, to require a project applicant to pay its fair share) toward mitigating those impacts. Such contribution is, in fact, the lead agency’s responsibility. Clearly, a finding under section 2 108 1, subdivision (a)(2), is not available to a lead agency that is responsible for mitigating the impact.13 Public Resources Code section 2 1000 provides that all “public agencies which are ‘I/ In Citizens for Quality Growth v. City ofMount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App. 3d 433, the city did not adopt mitigation measures for impacts to wetlands of a rezoning and general plan amendment, concluding that necessary mitigation measures would be imposed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in connection with a fill permit under the Clean Water Act. The court held that the city had improperly avoided responsibility under CEQA, finding that “each public agency is required to comply with CEQA and meet its responsibilities. . . .” (Id., at p. 443, fil. 8.) ’*/ The PEIR states that it is Vista’s “responsibility” to implement intersection improvements, dedicate right of ways, and configure intersections. (PEIR, p. 5.2-5.) However, Vista is not asking that Carlsbad actually physically implement the improvements. Vista merely requests that Carlsbad acknowledge its CEQA-mandated responsibility to mitigate significant Project-related traffic impacts by contributing, or by requiring the Project applicant to contribute, its fair share contribution toward the required street improvements for Intersections 18 and 19. 13/ A finding under (a)(2) is more appropriately reserved for situations in which an agency other than the lead agency has jurisdiction and responsibility over a certain resource, and the lead agency cannot proceed with its project without receiving a permit or approval from the other agency. Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 11 found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage.” Section 2 1060 defines “environment” in broad terms as the “physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by aproposedproject.” (Emphasis added.) This definition does not narrow the scope of legislative concern to preserving and enhancing only the environment of the city in which the project is located. Indeed, courts recognize that the effects of environmental abuse are “not contained by political lines.” (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263,272.) Therefore, while certain Project-related traffic impacts may fall within Vista’s jurisdiction, mitigation of those impacts remain within the responsibility of Carlsbad as the lead agency for the Project. CEQA does not excuse Carlsbad from mitigating impacts that fall slightly outside of its city boundaries - to do so would be contrary to the goals of CEQA. 3. Finding (a)(2) Is Not Available Unless A Lead Agency Affirmatively Shows that Another Agency Has Adopted, or Can and Should Adopt, Proper Mitigation Measures. In addition to the responsibility requirement discussed above, section 2 108 1, subdivision (a)(2) and the corresponding Guidelines section 15091, subdivision(a)(2) hrther provide that, in order for an agency to make a finding under (a)(2), it must find that the other public agency responsible for mitigating project impacts has, in fact, adopted the proper mitigation measures, or that the other agency can and should adopt proper mitigation measures. Moreover, Guidelines section 15091 is actually designed to avoid the situation that arises when agencies responsible for a project defer to each other, with the result that no agency deals with the issue - a result that would clearly be “contrary to the strong policy declared in Sections 21002 and 21002.1 .” (Discussion following CEQA Guidelines, $ 15091 .) To avoid such a result, CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subdivision (c), provides that “[tlhe finding in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives.” When drafting this language, the Office of Planning and Research intended that a finding under subsection (a)(2) “shall not be made if the agency making the finding has authority to deal with the significant effect.” (Office of Planning and Research, Text of Adopted Amendments with Statement of Reasons, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, p. 55.) Given that Carlsbad has the authority to require the Project applicant to contribute its “fair share” toward mitigating traffic impacts, Vista’s interpretation of section 21081is consistent with the statute’s meaning, as reflected in the amendments to CEQA Guidelines section 1509 1. In the instant matter, Carlsbad has identified Vista as the “other public agency” responsible for imposing mitigation measures. As discussed above, Vista does not have such responsibility under CEQA. Moreover, Vista has not adopted the mitigation Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 12 measures identified in the finding^.'^ In accordance with section 21081, subdivision (a)(2), Carlsbad must therefore demonstrate that Vista can and should adopt either the mitigation measures identified in the Findings, or some other comparable measure that would adequately reduce the traffic impacts. Absent the requested “fair share” contribution from the Project applicant or from the City of Carlsbad, however, Vista expects that it will be financially unable to accomplish the necessary improvements. Even if Vista could adopt the necessary mitigation measures, the statutory language of section 21081, subdivision (a)(2) hrther requires a showing that Vista “should” mitigate the Project-induced traffic impacts to intersections 18 and 19. It is contrary to CEQA to find that Vista “should” mitigate those Project-related impacts that are the responsibility of the Project’s lead agency. IV. Cross-Jurisdictional Mitigation Is Often Required Under CEQA. In a letter dated August 1,2002, Carlsbad informed Vista that “Vista is requesting Carlsbad to act extra-territorially; something State law does not authorize and CEQA clearly recognizes.” As set forth above, however, CEQA not only authorizes, it requires, that an agency mitigate all project-related impacts to the physical conditions that exist within the area of a project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21060.) Pursuant to CEQA, cross-jurisdictional mitigation is commonly required as a means of mitigating significant environmental impacts. Examples of EIRs that require such mitigation are listed below. . The Final Subsequent Program Environmental Impact Report: North County Square Specific Plan, prepared for City of Vista Planning Department, required the following mitigation to reduce short-term cumulative traffic impacts: “[tlhe project applicant shall guarantee, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, the contribution of its proportionate fair share towards the cost of the planned improvement to South Santa Fe Avenue/Sycamore Avenue within the jurisdiction of the County. . . . The proportionate contribution shall be based upon the projected daily trips generated by the North County Square project upon the affected road segment as a percentage of the existing daily trips and those from other projects which shall contribute to traffic along the roadway. The project applicant’s contribution may take the form of right-of-way, traffic impact fees or other project-related traffic improvements which are in excess of its anticipated traffic circulation impacts.” In fact, the City is holding over $300,000 in trust, to be released to the County to complete the required improvements. . The Rancho Encantada Environmental Impact Report, prepared for the City of 14 / In fact, the Findings clearly provide that the proposed mitigation measures are merely “examples of feasible mitigation” and that “other forms of mitigation could also be implemented.” (Findings, p. 16.) Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 13 . . . . . V. San Diego, required the following mitigation measures within the City of Poway: “The ownedpermittee shall assure the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Pomerado Road and Stonemille Drive” and “the owner/pemittee shall assure the construction of an additional northbound left-turn lane and an additional westbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Scripps Poway Parkway and Pomerado Road.” The Escondido Research and Technology Center Environmental Impact Report, prepared for the City of Escondido, required improvements within the unincorporated County of San Diego. The Final Environmental Impact Report: 4s Ranch, prepared for the County of San Diego, identifies four locations within the City of San Diego that would receive street improvements. The EIR states that “[tlhe County accepts the City of San Diego’s public facilities financing plans as viable mitigation through which contributions to mitigation of impacts may occur.” The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Daley Enterprises Rock Quarry, prepared by the County of San Diego, requires that the project applicant “[ilmprove Otay Lakes Road from the easterly boundary of the Chula Vista city limits. . . . The graded width of the road shall be subject to the approval of the City of Chula Vista, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. In addition, the applicant must “[elxecute an ‘Agreement to Secure Maintenance of City of Chula Vista Roads’ for the truck haul routes on County Roads. . . .” The Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, and Other Related Actions, prepared for the City of Santee, required the City to “contribute a fair- share towards the provision of a third eastbound through lane on SR-52 for about 1,300 feet approaching Mast Blvd.” within the unincorporated County of San Diego. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Home Depot-East Main Street Project, prepired for the City of El Cajon, requires that a “left turn pocket shall be added along East Main Street north of the project area at Aurora Drive,” a location which falls within the unincorporated County. The City Council Must Consider All Evidence Before Certifying the PEIR and Adopting the Findings of Fact for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan. To assist members of the Board in making an informed decision regarding certification and approval of the PEIR, the City of Vista hereby submits &e attached materials for your review: Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 14 Documents Related to Impacts and Mitigation for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan Exhibit 1 : Volume I, Section 5.2, TransportatiodTraffic, of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan . (pertaining to traffic impacts and mitigation). Exhibit 2: Volume I1 of the Draft Environmental Program Impact Report for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (traffic study). Exhibit 3: Letter dated May 29,2002 from City of Vista to the City of Carlsbad (comment letter addressing deficiencies in the DEIR). Exhibit 4: Letter dated May 30,2002, from the City of Vista to the City of Carlsbad (objecting to Carlsbad's failure to provide mitigation). Exhibit 5: Letter dated August I, 2002 from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista (responding to Vista's comments on the DEIR). Exhibit 6:'Letter dated August 14,2002 from City of Vista'to the City of Carlsbad (disagreeing with some of the comments made by Carlsbad in its August 1,2002 letter). Exhibit 7: Letter dated August 14,2002 from the City of Vista to the City of Carlsbad (confirming that Vista can present evidence and arguments concerning the propriety of the proposed (a)(2) or (a)(3) findings at the public hearing before the City Council). Exhibit 8: Letter dated August 15,2002 from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista (acknowledging that Vista could present evidence to the Carlsbad City Council). Exhibit 9: Vista City Council Resolution 2002-225 dated August 13,2002, creating a program for the receipt of fair share contributions for mitigation measures for the construction of street improvements, and amending the City's CIP . Exhibit IO: Letter dated August 2 1, 2002 from the City of Vista to the City of Carlsbad (requesting mitigation). Exhibit 1 1 : Carlsbad staff Report to its Planning Commission regarding the Carlsbad Oaks project, and Resolution No. 5244 of the Carlsbad Planning Commission recommending that the City Council certify the PEIR. Exhibit 12: Meeting Minutes for the August 2 1,2002 Carlsbad Planning Commission meeting regarding request for a recommendation of certification of the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan. Documents Related to Imoosition of Cross-Jurisdictional Mitigation Measures Exhibit 13: The Final Subsequent Program Environmental Impact Report for the North County Square Specific Plan, pp. 4.D-66,4.D-67, mitigation measure D-5 (requiring City of Vista to make contribution toward mitigation of impacts in San Diego County). Exhibit 14: The Rancho Encantada Environmental Impact Report, section 4.6, p. 4.6-38, mitigation measures 4.6-4, and 4.6-5 (requiring the City of San Diego to Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 15 mitigate trafic impacts within the City of Poway). Exhibit 15: The Escondido Research and Technology Center Environmental Impact Report, pp. S-15 - S-20 (requiring the City of Escondido to mitigate traffic impacts within the unincorporated County). Exhibit 16: The Final Environmental Impact Report: 4s Ranch, pp. 4.5-33 - 4.5- 37 (requiring the County of San Diego to contribute to established improvement programs to mitigate impacts within the City of San Diego). Exhibit 17: The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Daley Enterprises Rock Quarry, section 4.3.3(1), 4.3.3(1a), pp. 4-42 - 4- 45 (requiring the County of San Diego to improve roadways within the city of Chula Vista). Exhibit 18: The Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, and Other Related Actions, Table 4G-14 (requiring the City of Santee to contribute a fair share toward traffic improvements within the unincorporated County). Exhibit 19: The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Home Depot-East Main Street Project, section 4.2.4, mitigation measure MM 4.2-la, pp. 4.2-14,4.2- 16-4.2-18,4.2-21; Exhibit 4.1-1, p. 4.1-3 (requiring the City of El Cajon to provide mitigation for impacts that fall within the County). Relevant Leaal AuthoritiesLepislative History 0 Exhibit 20: Public Resources Code Section 21081 a Exhibit 21 : CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 Exhibit 22: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, Text of Adopted Amendments with Statement of Reasons (Ofice of Planning and Research) &&s Exhibit 23: Color map of site, September 2002. Exhibit 24: Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, Draft Program EIR, Figure 3-1, Regional Location, April 200, p. 3-2. Exhibit 25: Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, Draft Program EIR, Figure 3-2, Local Vicinity, April 2002, p. 3-3. Exhibit 26: Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, Draft Program EIR, Figure 3-4, Land Use Plan - Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, April 2002, p. 3-10. Exhibit 27: Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, Draft Program EIR, Figure 5.2-1, Carlsbad Oaks North Study Intersections, April 2002, p. 5-2-19. Exhibit 28: Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, Draft Program EIR, Figure 5.2-4, Carlsbad Oaks North, Project Year 2005 "With Faraday Connection" Adjustments Distribution, April 2002, p. 5-2-37. Exhibit 29: Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, Draft Program EIR, Figure 5.2-7, Carlsbad Oaks North Year 2020 Roadway Network, April 2002, p. 5-2-43. Mayor and Council Members - Carlsbad City Council October 2,2002 Page 16 We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this issue, and urge you to adopt a finding, pursuant to CEQA, that either the Project applicant or the City of Carlsbad make its "fair share" contribution to mitigate the Project-related environmental impacts that fall within the City of Vista. We sincerely hope that you will carefully consider our recommendations before making your decision at the October 8,2002, hearing. If you have any questions, please be advised that either the City Attorney or the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Vista will be present at the hearing, and will be available at that time to answer questions. Sincerely, REMY, THOMAS, and MOOSE / Michael H. Remy cc: Ronald R. Ball (w/encl.) Raymond R. Patchett (wlencl.) Ronald W. Rouse (wlencl.) J. Wayne Dernetz (wlencl.) Jonathan B. Stone (wlencl.) EXHIBIT 1 ,. PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the (SP 211/EIR 98-08iGPA 97-OYZC 97-05iSP 211/CT 97-13EIDP 97-IO/ Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan SUP 97-07/LFMPA-16) Volume I SCH # 2000051057 Prepared for: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prepared by: Cotton/Bridges/Associates 6336 Greenwich Drive, Suite F San Diego, California 92122 747 East Green Street, Suite 300 Pasadena, California 91 101 Sunrise Avenue, Suite 202-C Roseville, California 95661-4509 1165.00 5.2 TransportatiorvTra/f?c 5.2 TRANSPQRTATIQNIIWFFIC The information presented in this section is summarized from the Carlsbad Oaks North Trajic Study (Willdan-WPA Traffic Engineering, May 9, 200 1, revised March 29,2002). This document is located in Volume I1 Appendix B of this EIR. The methodology used in preparation of the traffic analysis is described in detail in the technical reports provided in Appendix 8. The analysis was prepared following the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines and the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan Guidelines. The extended traffic modeling effort was conducted using assumptions acceptable to the City of Carlsbad, within the Carlsbad Cities/County Sub-Area, SANDAG traffic model. Note: Due to the comprehensive study area of the traffic analysis, which includes 49 intersections, all tables and figures referenced in this section are provided at the end of the section to facilitate review by the reader. The 49 intersections that were analyzed in the traffic study were determined to be within the impact area where 50 or more project trips were assigned to the roadway network. EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 5.2-1 and Table .5.2-1 depict the existing and planned roadway network and intersections in the study area. The following describes street segments in the project area: Street Segments Palomar Airport Road (PAR) is an east-west Prime Arterial, generally providing six lanes of travel within the City of Carlsbad. Although, at its more easterly segment in Carlsbad, within the vicinity ofthe project area, it is not at its ultimate width. PAR begins at Carlsbad Boulevard in the west and continues easterly into the City of San Marcos. Left turn lanes are provided at major intersections along PAR and parking is not permitted. Full access to Interstate 5 is provided by PAR to the west; and to the east, Palomar Airport Road becomes San Marcos Boulevard. El Camino Real (ECR) is a six-lane, divided roadway within most of the study area and runs in a north-south direction in the City of Carlsbad. El Camino Real provides access into the City of Oceanside to the north and terminates in the south in the City of Encinitas. Full access to State Route (SR) 78 is provided by El Camino Real to the north. There are 4-lane and 5-lane portions that are not yet hlly widened to the north. {Melrose Drive is a north-south roadway that provides six lanes of divided travel within the study area. Melrose Drive currently exists to the north through the City ofvista and into the City of Oceanside; while to the south, Melrose Drivzrminates at its intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road. There is an unconstructed segment of Melrose Drive immediately north of PAR that prevents through travel between the northerly and southerly sections of Melrose Drive. Carlsbad Oaks Norill Specfir Plon Drcfr Progrum EIR City of Carisbad 5.2- I April 2002 5.2 T~ansp@rtati@~~/Tr#Jj)c Faraday Avenue provides four lanes of undivided travel in an east-west direction in the study area. Currently, Faraday Avenue exists from the west at approximately Camino Hills Drive to the east of El Camino Real, terminating at Orion Street, just west of the proposed project area. There is also a short segment of Faraday Avenue, just west of Melrose Drive that aligns with Park Center Drive. The roadway is currently planned to extend from Orion Street through County property and continue through the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan area ultimately connecting with Park Center Drive, east of Melrose Drive. El Fuerte Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial and, currently, a short segment of El Fuerte Street exists north of and intersects PAR. Another existing segment of El Fuerte Street begins north of Alga Road and continues southerly to transition into Alicante Road. With the proposed project, El Fuerte Street would be extended to the north (northerly of PAR) to Faraday Avenue. In the future, the segment of El Fuerte Street between PAR and Alga Road is also planned to be developed. Level of Service , ~~""l, J "r Level of Service (LOS) is a professional industry standard by which the operating conditions of a given roadway segment or intersection are measured. LOS is defined on a scale of A (the best) to F (the worst). It is generally recognized that LOS A through D represent acceptable operations, while LOS E and F indicate an over capacity situation. A more detailed explanation of LOS as it relates to vehicle delay times is contained in Appendix B of this EIR. Study Intersections and Existing Traffic Volumes A total of49 intersections are analyzed within this EIR. The intersections are listed in Table 5.2-1 and identified in Figure 5.2-1. The majority of the study intersections are located within the City of Carlsbad, with the remaining intersections located in the cities of San Marcos, Vista, and Oceanside. Figures 5.2-2A through5.2-2D illustrate theexistingvolumes at these intersections. 9.. (3 .X' -* Existing AM and PM peak hour volumes, current roadway geometrics and existing traffic controls were obtained for all of the study intersections through various sources. The ezisting conditions information was collected through field investigations performed by staff, visits to the various jurisdictions to obtain available improvement plan information, review ofpreviously completed studies, reference ofthe CarlsbadGrowth ~~~~magemenliC/onilorim~ Repori (1999), and completion of additional traffic counts where data was not available. All of the 49 intersections analyzed within this EIR are currently signalized or are expected to be signalized. Table 5.2-2 summarizes the results of the intersection analyses for existing conditions with and without improvements and without the project during the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table 5.2-2, two of the 49 intersections have Level of Service (LOS) E or F operations during one or both peak hours, which is considered over capacity in the existing condition. The two intersections and their existing LOS and estimates delay in seconds are as follows: Carisbod Oah Norlh Specific PLan Ciry o/Carlsbad Drqj Program EIR i. 7-7 April 2002 8.2 Transportatiorflraffic i Intersectiorm Hour (Seconds) LoS/De'ay Responsible Party #30 San Marcos BoulevardiRancho PM Santa Fe Fi97.6 City of San Marcos #36 SR 75 EB RampsiSycamore Avenue AM F1124.2 City of VistdCaltrans As indicated in Table 5.2-2, the following improvements would result in an acceptable LOS D at each of the intersections identified above: Intersection Improvement #30 San Marcos BoulevardRancho Santa Fe * Add one NB throu h lane Road - AddoneSB throue 5 lane * Add one WB through lane * Add one EB through lane #36 SR 78 EB RarnpsiSycamore Avenue - Change the configuration of the second EB left lane to allow left and right turn movements THRESHOLD FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE For thepurposes of this EIR, a significant impact will occur ifthe project would: - Cause an increase in rraffic that is substantial in relation to the existing.trafjic load and capacig of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to cnpacig ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). * Esceed, 'either individually or czrmulrrtively, a level of service standard established by the coung congestion management agency for designated roods or higlways. The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program circulation standards allow LOS D for street segments and intersections during peak hours. Additionally, ifan intersection operates at LOS E or F in the existing condition, a significant project impact will occur if the project increases the delay at an intersection by more than two seconds. The evaluation of impacts and mitigation measures are based on these standards. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Project Trip Generation The trip totals for the proposed Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park are shown in Table 5.2- 3. As depicted the proposed business park uses are estimated to generate 22,650 average daily trips (ADT), ofLvhich 2.375 (2,100 Id775 Out) trips would occur'during the AM peak hour and 2,670 (590 Id2,OSO Out) would occur in the Phl peak hour. Carlsbad Ooks Norrh Specific Pian Drofi Propram EIR 5.2-3 5.2 Transportation/Trafficraffic The trip generation totals shown in Table 5.2-3 represents a “trip budget” for the Carlsbad Oaks North project and SANDAG driveway trip totals. More conservative totals were incorporated into the modeling and therefore the analyses are representative of a worst case scenario. A variety andor combination of Cxlsbad Oaks North project land uses and sizes could be developed based on the totals identified in Table 5.2-3. If the eventual land uses and sizes vary from the currently envisioned development, the potential traffic impacts will have been addressed by the analyses contained within this EIR, assuming the daily and peak hour trip totals remain within the “budget” identified in Table 5.2-1. Existing Conditions +Interim Project The evaluation of this condition was performed in ordes to determine the level of project development that could occur with no significant changes to the existing street system. The interim project is represented by the amount of development that was estimated could occur by Year 2005. As shown in Table 5.2-3, this scenario assumes 119.6 acres of Planned Industrial; 4.4 acres of Light Industrial; 2.5 acres ofLow-Rise Office; and 4.4 acresofother Commercial will be developed, generating approximately 12,950 trips a day to the site. The estimate of interim project related traffic was added to the existing conditions, so the intersection analyses could be performed for this scenario. The results are summarized in Table 5.2-4, which shows two intersections (#30 San MarcosiRancho Santa Fe and #36 S.R. 7s EB Ramps / Sycamore) that require intersection improvements to provide acceptable operations. As shown in Table 5.2-2, the two intersections already have over capacity operations for existing conditions, prior to consideration of the proposed project. Further comparison of ! ?,I Table 5.2-2 and Table 5.2-4 reveals that the addition of the interim project does not directly “&;y create a significant impact upon the already unacceotable (PM) operations at #30 San MarcosiRancho Santa Fe (project increases delay by 1.5 seconds, which is less than the 2.0 second threshold). No project impact to intersection #30 will occur and no mitigation is required. With the existing roadway geometry, the addition of the interim project does have a direct significant impact (4.9 second increase in delay) upon the already unacceptable (AM) operations at intersection #36 - SR 78 EB Ramps/Sycamore intersection (greater than a 2.0 i‘ second increase). The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-31 depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant. There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level ofservice. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility ofthe City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is a specific improvement program in place to fund, design, and construct the identified improvements to intersection #36 (Figure 5.234). With these improvements in place in the existing + interim project condition, the proposed project will not result in a significant impact to this intersection. i’ Carlsbud Ouk Norih Specrfc Plan DraJ? Prograrri E!R j.2-4 Ciiy ofCur!sbud April 2002 i 5.2 Transpodation/Trafjc Year 2005 + Interim Project Without the Faradcy Corrnection This analysis was performed for both “existing” intersection geometrics and Year 2005 intersection geometries needed to provide acceptable Levels of Service (LOS). This serves to illustrate which intersections need improvements over conditions that exist today and to what extent. Table 8.2-5 provides a summary of the results for the Year 2008 (without Faraday Avenue connection) conditions with and without the project traffic. The base network assumed in the analysis includes existing lanes plus committed lanes. There are some situations where a road connection is added by Year 2005. In these cases, the added intersection leg is included in the “existing” intersection, so that all of the Year 2005 volumes are considered in the evaluations. The lane assumptions for the new intersection approach were added based on previous studies, general plan widths, assumed minimum widths, or other pertinent references. If added improvements are required, these are shown as Year 2005 improvements (Figures 5.2-3A-M, presented earlier). When these improvements are assumed to be in place at eight of the study intersections (which are operating unacceptably), the acceptable intersection operation results are listed in Table 5.2-5A, under the “Year 2005 Volumes With Improwemenis” column. These improvements address the cumulative effects of traffic growth through Year 2005 and not only project specific impacts. The project related contribution toward this interim condition is defined by the “with” and “without” project responsibilities (Table 5.2-8), including the TIF requirements. The proposed project is shown to have a significant impact (2.0 second or more delay increase at LOS E or F or a decline in intersection operations from acceptable to unacceptable) at five ofthe study intersections under these Year2005 conditions (without the Faraday connection). These five study intersections are: #I5 - MelroseiSunset, #I8 - MelroseiSycamore, #I9 - MelrosePark Center, #20 - MelrosePAR, and #47 - El FuerteiPAR. #15 MeIrose/Sunset The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 7.7 seconds in the AM peak hour, decreasing the LOS at this intersection in 2005 from D to E. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3D depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-5A Year 2005 Volumes wiih Improwemenis column). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of. service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction ofthe City of Carisbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City Carisbad Oah Norrh Specfic Plan n..,% P.,~~..~.., FIR i 7-i 5.2 Transportatiorr/TrafficrafJc of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore. while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #lS will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #IS Melrose/Sunset is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive, which will be constructed as part of the proposed project from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. #IS Melrose/Sycamore In the Year 2005 without the project, intersection #18 will operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of36.8 seconds in the AM peak hour and 15.0 seconds in the PM peak hour, decreasing the mf LOS at this intersection in 2005 from D to E. These are considered significant impacts. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3E depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impacts to a level less than significant (LOS D in AM and C in PM peak hour as shown in Table 5.2-SA Year 2005 Volumes with Improvements column). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #18 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #I8 Melrose/Sycarnore is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive, which will be constructed as part of the proposed project from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. 6 #19 Melrose/Park Center In the Year 2005 without the project, intersection #19 will operate at LOS D in the AM and PM peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 29.8 seconds in the PM peak hour, decreasing the PM LOS at this intersection in 2005 from D to E. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3E depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project .,.; ;i .,&w Curlsbad Oaks Norril Spec$c Plan Dra,fi Program EIR 5 2-6 C;y ofCarlsbad April 7002 5.2 Transportatioflraffic impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown inTable 5.2-SA Year 2005 Volmes with lnprovements column). There are other forms ofmitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #I9 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #I9 MelrosePark Center is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive, which will be constructed as part of the proposed project from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the idenrified intersection. #20 Melrose/PAR In the Year 2005 without the project, intersection #20 will operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour and D in the and PM peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of9.6 seconds in the AM peak hour. This is considered a significant impact. Implementation of the intersection improvements for intersection #20 as shown on Figure 5.2-3E would reduce the project impact at this intersection. Mitigation Measure TI requires the project applicant to provide for the design and construction ofthe recommended improvements for intersection#20 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3E. Even with implementation ofthis mitigation measure, and improvement ofthe intersection per the City of Carlsbad TIF, this intersection will continue to operate at an unacceptable level ofservice without the extension ofFaraday. However, the proposed project will not be allowed to develop without the completion of the extension of Faraday Avenue. As shown in Table 5.2-7 and as described in the “WiVirh Forrdry Connection” subsection below, implementation of the proposed project with the extension ofFaradaycompleted and with the implementationofthe improvements identified in Figure 5.2-3G (Mitigation Measure T1) will not result in a significant impact to this intersection in the Year 2005 + Interim Project condition once the Faraday extension is complete. #17 PAWE1 Fuerie In the Year 2005 without the project, intersection #47 will operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and F in the and Pbi peak hour. Without the Faraday extension complete, the proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 102.1 seconds in the Ahl peak hour and an increasz of 114.7 in the Ph! peak hour. This is considered a significant impact. Implementation ofthe intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3L would reduce the Carlsbod Oaks Norrh Specific Plm7 Dra/i Progrum EIR 5,2-7 5.2 TramspoP:arioi~,~~~~s - project impact at this intersection to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-5A) in the AM and PM peak hour. Mitigation Measure T2 requires the project api;licznt to provide for the desig and construction of the recommended improvements for intersection #47 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3L. With Faraday Connection The proposed project intends to accelerate construction of portions of Faraday Avenue, which would allow travel between ECR and Melrose Drive. This is anticipated to result in benefits to Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and some of its critical intersections in the study area by providing an alternative, parallel route. The location of this connection is at the easterly side of the City of Carlsbad. In addition, PAR is known to serve Carlsbad related traffic, as well as traffic associated with adjacent jurisdictions. The acceleration of this connection, therefore, would serve to benefit regional traffic by reducing impacts on PAR, which is a regional arterial connection. This scenario analyzes the impact of the Year 2005 + Interim Project with completion of the Faraday Avenue extension on the six critical intersections (#19 Park Center Drivehlelrose Drive, #20 Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive, #24 Faraday AvenueEl Camino Real, #25 Palomar Airport RoadfEl Camino Real, #48 PARBusiness Park Drive, and Park Center DrivelBusiness Park Drive') mostly likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Figure 5.2-4 illustrates the SANDAG model determined trip redistribution, as well as the distribution percentages, assuming the Faraday Avenue connection is in place. Figure 5.2-5 identifies the net volume changes resulting from the traffic redistribution. Table 5.2-6 provides a tabular comparison ofthe intersection operations for the six selected intersections under both the Year 2005 + Interim Project without completion of Faraday Avenue and Year 2005 + Interim Project (With Faraday Avenue Extension Complete) scenarios. As depicted in Table 5.2-6, the Year 2005 + Interim Project with the Faraday Avenue connection, there are benefits to the intersections along PAR by implementing the Faraday Avenue extension, while completion of this extension adds traffic to the Faraday Avenue intersection locations. Like the Year 2005 without Faraday Connection condition, the proposed project would result in a significant impact to intersection #19 MelroseiPark Center even with comp1,etion of the Faraday extension. #19 h.felrose/Pcrrk Center Intersection 19 would experience LOS F operations in the ,A~\.I and PM peak hour with implementation of the proposed prqject with the Faraday connection. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3E depicts an 1 Un-numbered intersection; supplemental information provided by the City ofcarisbad. .. .- .i (i ,I Corlsbod Ouk North Sprc~jic Pi017 Droji Proyrum EIR 5.2-s Ciry ojCarisbud April 2002 . .. . . .. J example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-6 Year 200j Volumes -With Improvements With Faraday Avenue Connection column). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the ,jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #I9 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #I9 MelroseRark Center is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive, which will be constructed as part of the proposed project from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. Year 2010 + Project This scenario assumes the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park will be completed and a maximum of 22,650 daily trips will be generated from the proposed Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan. This scenario also includes cumulative project traffic. Figures 5.2-6A throu,oh 5.2-6D depict the 2010 intersection volumes with the proposed project and cumulative projects. Table 5.2-7 presents a summary of the Year 2010 + Project intersection level of service for all intersections within the study area with and without the proposed project. As depicted in Table 5.2-7, the following intersections will operate at unacceptable levels of service in 2010 with the proposed project: * #I 5 Melrose DrivdSunset Drive - #I8 Melrose DriveiSycamore Avenue * #I9 Melrose DriveiPark Center Drive - #22 Melrose DrivdRancho Santa Fe - #3 1 San Marcos BoulevardGrand Avenue - #47 Palomar Airport RoadEl Fuerte Street The remaining study area intersections will operate at acceptable levels ofservice in the Year 201 0 + Project scenario. Table 5.2-7 identifies the delay attributable to the proposed project at the above intersections. Bolded values indicate either LOS E or LOS F, which is over capacity. As identified in Table 5.3-7, the project contributes sigificantly (2.0 second or more delay, increase to LOS CUI-lsbud Ouh Norlh Specific Plan DruJ Program EIR s.2-9 Ciry ofcurisbud April 2002 E or F, or a decline in operations from acceptable to unacceptable) to the Year 2010 intersection delays at all of the intersections identified above except for intersection #3 1 San j ) Ivlarcos BoulevardGrand Avenue (increase in delay to this intersection if 1.3 seconds). [n other words, the proposed project will result in a significant impact to the following five intersections in the Year 2010: \>. Ai .-. ., , .-.- - #I5 Melrose Drive/Sunset Drive #IS Melrose Drive/Sycamore Avenue * #19 Melrose DrivePark Center Drive - #22 Melrose DriveRancho Santa Fe * #47 Palomar Airport RoadEl Fuerte Street #IS hleIrose/Sunser In the Year 201 0 condition, intersection #I 5 will operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour with or without the project. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of3.8 seconds in the AM peak hour. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3D depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-8 Year 2010 Volumes with Improvemer?is column). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #I5 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #15 Melrose/Sunset is identified, the addition ofFaraday Avenue and MeEose Drive, which will be constructed as part of the proposed project from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. #IS S.vcurnore/Melrose In the Year 201 0 condition, intersection #18 will operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour with or without the project. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 63.5 seconds in the ,AM peak hour. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3D depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if Carisbad Oak Norrh Specfic Plan City ojCarisbad Draj Program EIR 5.2.10 Aprd 2002 implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-8 Year 2010 ~oi1rmes with Improvements column). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #18 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #18 Melrose/Sunset is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive, which will be constructed as part ofthe proposed project from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. #19 Melrose/Park Center In the Year 2010, intersection #I 9 would experience an acceptable LOS D operations in the AM and PM peak hour without the proposed project. The proposed project would result in an increase in delay of 73.6 seconds in the AM peak hour and 42.3 seconds in the Pb1 peak hour, lowering the LOS to F during both peak periods. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3E depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-8 Year 2010 Volumes with Improvements column). There are other forms ofmitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #19 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #I9 MelrosePark Center is identified, the addition ofFaraday Avenue and Melrose Drive, which will be constructed as part of the proposed project from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. Carixbad Ocrk North Specrfir Plan Ciry ofCorlsbod Drqi Program EIR 3.2-IJ April 2002 > In the Year 2010 with or without the project, with the existing lane geometry, intersection #22 will operate at LOS F in the AM peak and P~I peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 8.9 seconds in the AM peak hour and an increase of 1.5 seconds in the PM peak hour. The increase in delay in the AM peak hour is considered a significant impact because it is greater than 2.0 seconds. Implementation of the intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3F would reduce the project impact at this intersection to a level less than significant in the AM and PM peak hour ((LOS C as shown in Table 5.2-5 Year 201 0 Volrrrnes with I/nprovenrents column). Mitigation Measure T3 requires the project applicant to pay a fair share contribution to the City of Carlsbad to perform the recommended improvements for intersection #22 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3F. #-l7 PA WE1 Fuerte \*~ TZ.5. ..j In the Year 2010 without the project, intersection #47 will operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour and C in the PM peak hour. The addition of project traffic will result in an increase in delay of 26.5 seconds in the AM peak hour and an increase of 32.6 seconds in the Pbt peak hour, increasing the delay to an unacceptable LOS in both peak hours. This is considered a significant impact. Implementation ofthe intersection improvements shown on Figure 5.2- 3L would reduce the project impact at this intersection to a level less than significant in the AM and Ph.1 peak hour (LOS C as shown in Table 5.2-8 Year 2010 Volumes with Improvements column). Mitigation Measure T2 requires the project applicant to provide for the design and construction of the recommended improvements for intersection #47 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3L. Year 2020 + Project The Year 2020 + Project scenario analyzes the impact of buildout of the project and cumulative projects on the 2020 roadway network identified in Figure 5.2-7. Figures 5.2-8A through 5.2-8D depict the intersection volumes anticipated in the Year 2020 + Project scenario. Table 5.2-9 provides a summary of the intersection delays and LOS in the Year 2020 both with and without the project. As identified in Table 5.2-9, the following intersections will operate at unacceptable levels in the AM and/or PM peak hour with project traffic: * #I SR 78 WB Ram SEI Camino Real - #I 5 Sunset Drive/ 8 elrose Drive - # 18 Sycamore Avenue/Melrose Drive - #19 Park Center DriveiMelrosr Drive - #2 1 Alga Road/Melrose Drive * #28 Aviara - Algal Camino Real - #22 Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe - #38 Questhaven RoadRancho Santa Fe Road - #3 1 San Marcos BoulevadGrand Avenue #-I7 Palomx Airport Road!El Fuerte Street Carlsbad Ouhs North Specific Plan Drrf! Progrum EIR 5.2-12 Ciry ojcorlsbad April 2002 5.2 Transportatiolflraffic Table 5.2-9 identifies the delay attributable to the proposed project at the above intersections. As identified in Table 5.2-9, the project contributes significantly to the ,Year 2030 intersection delays at all ofthe impacted intersections with the exception of #38 Questhaven Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road. Although this intersection continues to operate at an unacceptable level in the Year 2020 AMpeak hour, the project does not result in a significant impact to this intersection as it contributes less than 2 seconds to the increased delay at this intersection #I SR 78 WB RampdECR In the Year 2020 with or without the project, intersection #I will operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and F in the PM peak hour. The addition ofproject traffic will result in an increase in delay of 3.1 seconds in the PM peak hour. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection improvement shownon Figure 5.2-3A depicts an example offeasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS C as shown in Table 5.2-5A Yeor 2005 Volumes with Improvements column). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection by the Year 2005, the impact to intersection #I will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #I SR 78 WB Ramps/ECR is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive, which will be constructed as part ofthe proposedproject from the CityofCarlsbad to the City ofvista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental I impacts to the identified intersection. #IS ~bklrose/Sunset In the Year 2020 condition, intersection # 15 will operate at LOS D in the AM and Pbl peak hour without the project. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 6.8 seconds in the AM peak hour, worsening the LOS to E. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3D depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D) as shown in Table 5.2-10 Year 2020 Volumes with lmprovemenfs column). Dray Program EIR Carisbad Oak Norrlr Specrfic Pian 5.2-13 Cip ofcarisbad Aprd 2002 There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #I5 will remain significant and unavoidable. '3 However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #I5 Melrose/Sunset is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive, which will be constructed as part ofthe proposed project from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. #I8 Sycamore/Melrose In the Year 2020 condition, intersection # 18 will operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour without the project. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 86.9 seconds in the AM peak hour and 23.1 seconds in the PM peak hour, worsening the LOS in the PM peak hour to an unacceptable LOS E. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection improvements shown on Figure 5.2-3D depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D in AM and LOS C in P~I as shown in Table 5.2-10 Year 2020 Volumes with Improvements column). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation j is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #I X will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #I8 Melrose/Sunset is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive, which will be constructed as part of the proposed project from the City of Carlsbad to the City ofvista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. Carlsbad Oaks North Specijic Pian Drafl Program EIR 5.2-I4 Ciy of Carlsbud April 2002 5.2 TransportatiotLTraJjc #19 hlelrose/Park Center In the Year 2020, intersection #I 9 would esperience an acceptable LOS D operations in the AM and PM peak hour without the proposed project. The proposed project would result in an increase in delay of 57.4 seconds in the AM peak hour and 64.6 seconds in the PM peak hour, lowering the LOS to F during both peak periods. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3E depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-10 Year 2020 Vohmes with Improvements column). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the ,jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #I9 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #19 Melrose/Park Center is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive, which will be constructed as part of the proposed project from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. #21 Alga/hlelrose In the Year 2020 with or without the project, intersection #21 will operate at LOS C in the AM peak and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 3.8 seconds in the PM peak hour. The increase in delay in the PM peak hour is considered a significant impact because it is greater than 2.0 seconds. Implementation of the intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3F would reduce the project impact at this intersection to a level less than significant in the PM peak hour (LOS C as shown in Table 5.2-10 Year 2020 Volumes with Improvements column). Mitigation Measure T4 requires the project applicant to pay a fair share contribution to the City of Carlsbad to perform the recommended improvements for intersection #21 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3F. #22 hfelrose/Rancho Santn Fe In the Year 2020 without the project, intersection #22 will operate at LOS D in the AM peak and PM peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 3.5 seconds in the PM pz& hour. The increase in delay in the P~I peak hour is considered a significant impact because it is greater than 2.0 seconds. Implementation of the intersection Carishad Oaks Norrh Specific Plun Drdi Pmornrn FIR 77-15 5.2 TransportatiowTrafjc improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3F would reduce the prqiect impact at this intersection to a level less than significant in the Ab1 and pbvi peak hour (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-10 Year2020 Voiumes IvifhI~~tproven1et7ls column). MitigationMeasureT3 requires the project ':bs*#$j ~i, applicant to paya fair share contribution to the City ofcarlsbad to perform the recommended improvements for intersection #22 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3F. #28 Aviaru-AlgdECR In the Year 2020 without the project, intersection #28 will operate at LOS D in the AM peak and LOS E in the Pht peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 2.9 seconds in the PM peL& hour. The increase in delay in the PM peak hour is considered a significant impact because it is greater than 2.0. Implementation of the intersection improvement shown on Figure 52-33 would reduce the project impact at this intersection to a level less than significant (LOS C in the AM and LOS D in the PM peak hour as shown in Table 5.2-10 Year 2020 Volumes wilh Irnprovemet7fs column). Mitigation.Measure T5 requires the project applicant to pay a fair share contribution to the improvement of intersection #28 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3G. #31 Sun Marcos/Grand In the Year 2020 condition, intersection #3 1 will operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour without the project. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 2.2 seconds in the PM peak hour, worsening the LOS in the PM peak hour. This is considered a significant impact. The intersection improvements shown on Figure 5.2- ~$) 3H depicts an example.of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D in AM PM as shown in Table 5.2-10 Year 2020 Volumes with Itnprovenwzfs column). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility ofthe City of San Marcos. The City of Sin Marcos has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #31 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #3l San MarcosiGrand is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive, which will be constructed as part of the proposed project from the City of Carlsbad to the City of Vista, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. vi,':, .a, Carisbad Oak Nordl Sprc~Jc Plan Drqi Program EIR j.2-16 City of Carisbad April 2002 5.2 Transportatioflrafik ! #47 PAWE1 Fuerte In the Year 2020 without the project, intersection #47 will operate at LOS F in the A~VL peak hour and D in the PM peak hour. The addition of project traffic will result in an increase in delay of 60.5seconds in the AM peak hour and an increase of 83.8 seconds in the Phil peak hour. This is considered a significant impact. Implementation of the intersection improvements shown on Figure 5.2-3L would reduce the project impact at this intersection to a level less than significant in the AM and PM peak hour ( (LOS C as shown in Table 5.2- IO Year 2020 Volumes with Improvements column). Mitigation Measure T2 requires the project applicant to provide for the design and construction of the recommended improvements for intersection #47 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3L. MITIGATION MEASURES #20 Melrose/PAR TI. Prior to approval of Final Map or Grading Permit, whichever occurs first, for any portion ofthe development that would generate traffic, the applicant shall provide for the design and construction of the improvement of intersection #20 MelroseiPalomar Airport Road as illustrated on Figure 5.2-3E of this EIR. Proof ofdesign, bonds, and construction schedule shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad before issuance of any building permit. #47 PARE1 Fuerte T2. Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading Permit, or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, for any portion of the development that would generate traffic, the applicant shall provide for the design and construction of the improvement of intersection #47 Palomar Airport Road/El Fuerte as illustrated on Figure 5.2-3L of this EIR. Proofofdesign, bonds, and construction schedule shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad before issuance of any building permit. #22 MelroselRancho Snnta Fe T3. Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading Permit, or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, for any portion of the development that would generate traffic, the applicant shall pay a “fair share” contribution as determined by the City of Carlsbad for the improvement of intersection #22 MelroseRancho Santa Fe as illustrated on Figure 5.2-3F of this EIR. Proof of payment of this fair share contribution shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to issuance of any building permit. Curisbad Oaks North Sprc~jic Plan Draft Program EIR 5.2-17 Ciry oJCarlsbad April 2002 #21 MelrosdMga T4. Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading Permit, or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, for any portion of the development that would generate traffic, the applicant shall pay a “fair share” contribution as determined by the City of Carlsbad for the improvement of intersection#21 Melrose/Algaas illustrated on Fi>we 5.2-3F ofthis EIR. Proof of payment ofthis fair share contribution shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to issuance of any building permit. #28 Avian-AlgdECR TS. Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading Permit, or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, for any portion of the development that would generate traffic, the applicant shall pay a “fair share” contribution as determined by the City of Carlsbad for the improvement ofintersection #?X Algal Camino Real as illustrated on Figure 5.2-36 of this EIR. Proof of payment of this fair share contribution shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to issuance of any building permit. IMPACT AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the above mitigation will reduce the significant impacts to intersections #20, #2 1, #22, #28 and #47 to a level Less than significant in all scenarios. However, the impacts at intersections #1, #IS, #18, #19, #31, and #36 will remain significant and unavoidable. Carisbad Oak Nurrh Specl>c Plan Drap Program EIR J.2-iS Ciry ofCarlsbad April 2002 1 4 W 1 k0 J0 to CANNON RI -4 W 2 I z .- PY I I LEGEND TA~ARACK AVE. I W 41 Curlsbud Oukr North Spec~fic Plun Dru8 Program EIR 5.2-20 City ofcurisbad April 2002 J6L MAR VISTA "\c 7 SUNSET Dk "\c 21 1 17 16 ! A+ RANCHO PALOMAR I AIRPORT RI ALGA RD --"-- 20 FLRADAY AVE PALDMAR IRPURT RD. JI W 24 I Id 25 LEGEND 580,640 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES k0 +.a F0 PUINSETTIA LN. IARLSBAD OAKS :XISTING NTERSECTION VOLUMES -@- Carisbad Oah 1Vorrh Specl3c Plan City of Carlsbad 1 2 zI 5 33 PALOMAR/ AIRPORT RD 0 OI PALOMAR ~AIRPCRT RD % SHA WRIDGE DR PALOMAR I AIRPORT RD ---”- zl a 32 40 LEGEND 580,640 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ARLSBAD OAKS XISTING -@- ITERSECTION VOLUMES No Scale Curlsbod Oukc Nurrh Sprci/ic Plan Dm,’? Progrum EIR 5.2-22 City oJCarlsbad April 2002 --" PALOMAR AIRPORT RD Id 47 51 55 PALOMAR] AIRPORT R1 Ii 44 1 52 56 I? 45 I1 LL W 49 53 PALOhR IAIRPGRT RD. 50 54 LEGEND 580,640 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES IARLSBAD OAKS SXISTING [NTERSECTION VULUMES -@- Carlsbud Oak North Specrfc Plan Ciry ofCarlsbud . - " . I ._^,._. 5.2 Transpo~utioflrujjic YEAR2010 MISTING GEOMEmY 't I 70 VB RAMPS 7- 't Jtt f 7 f \ Jtt 7r Jtt + 78 VB RAMPS "$x 70 V0 RAMPS tt LL ttLL 70 EB RAMPS w J W At+" 1 $ TAMARACK AVE. 4 - 'tti f JttL! 5 TAMARACK AVE. AVE. Figure 5.2-3A -0 FR - FREERIGHT RTO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT I Curisbad Ookr Norrh Specific Plan Drafi Program EIR 5.2-24 5.2 Tramportutiodruf$c - + i $ CANNON RU Tit/- @ LEGEND = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OFTHE CFD AND OTHERS. [NO PROJECT IMPACT) CITY-WIOE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE I OTHERS IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE [NO PROJECT IMPACT) "* LEGEND RTO - RIGHTTURN ovmw FR - FREERIGHT Figure 533B * - IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH LANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS nB. m4 No scale Carlsbud Ouh Norrh Specific Plan n " rrn i 7 ?< ,I n.;t mn > City ofCnrisbud 5.2 Transoortutiom'Traffic EXISTING GEOMETRY I: I1 XISTING + INrrRlM PROJEC IMPROVEMENTS FOR ---" RAUAI AVE I POINSETTIA LN. P NSETTIA LN. YWR 2005 I I1 * P NSETTIA LN, -TK a Y 3 L J W dt t til 7 Y€4R2010 I: ,+tLLi F RADAY AVE 41" 4 f P NSETTIA LN. Attj P NSETTIA + LN, + POINSETTIA LN. +YI Atti NSETTIA LN Figure 5.2-3C LEGEND FR - FREERIGHT RTO - RIGHTTURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT Carlsbad Oak North Specrfic Plan Dra8 Progrum EIR 2-26 City o/Carisbad April 2002 5.2 Transportatioru'Traf)c I1 tttt 1 E.B. 78 RAMPS IA 7" VISTA VI. -I SUNSET Dl + CANNON-MAR VISTA ii i W I + SUNSET Dl ttt+ "& CANNON-MAR VISTA YM 2010 I1 P LEGEND - FR - FREERIGHT YEAR 2020 -st\ IT VISTA VI. * CANNON-MAR VISTA RTO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH JANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS -9- .+ DiVlSlON OF WILLDAN fi'mlc UCrnG, INC. Nd Scale Carlsbad Oak North Specijic Plan C;iy of Carlsbad . "" IL li 4tt"li PARK CENTER DR. I_ x I LEGEND -L SYCAMORE AVE. -I PARK CENTER DR -L PALOHAR AIRPORT R YEAR ZW5 Y I 1 iiti i PARK CENTER DR. @ = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY OF VISTA [PROJECT IMPACT) @ = THE INTERSECTION GEOMETRY SHALL BE CONSISENT WITH A FUTURE VISTA PROJECT (HOME DEPOT). (PROJECT IMPACT) = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIRILIN OF THE CIN-WIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE I OTHERS AND THE PROJECT. (PROJECT IMPACT) It IC itq iHADOVRIDGE DR. 4+tiilT SYCAMORE AVE. 1; PARK CENTER DR. IC ! It t i i I LEGEND FR - FREERIGHT Figure 52-33 RTO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * . IMPROVEMENT 3ARLSEAO OAKS NORTH ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS -9- 4 DIVISION OF WlUDAN .. . I. _:, I.,. No Scale ~. Carlsbud Oak North Specific Plan Drafi Propram EIR 5.2-28 Ciy of Carlsbad .4"d ?OfJ7 5.2 Tratzsporiation/Trafj?c EXISTING GEOLIERY XISTING + INTERIM PROJEI IMPROVEMENTS FOR YEARZOlO A YEAR 2005 1 'ALGA RI ALGA RI d ELL 't Y d a HELROSE DR. +f@ COLLEGE - 2 TtttY BLVO. T$ COLLEGE BLVD. 0 1 Q u _1 z w e 4- FARODAY AVE. II * FhRADAY AVE. A .T FARADAY AVE. 0 1 Q " i w z @ ~ LEGEND LEGEND FR . FREERIGHT 7T0 - RIGHT TURN OVEilLAP * - IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD OAKS NORM 4NE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS 6 kc ENcmc, [Nc. A DlVlSlON OF WILWAN No Scale Cily ofCsrlsbad Tnn? Curisbud Ouh North Speclfic Pian ?, rn rrn EXISTING GEOMETRY 4tt"j PALOHAR AIRPORT RT Atti41 6 PALOHAR AIRPORT RD 4tty $ PALOMAR AIRPORT RI Y I CAHINO VIDA ROBLE A f (IDA ROBLE b 4ttk f 4tt 1 CAHINO IDA ROBLE CAWINO IDA ROBLE \itti- I 4 \ 6 F 7 tttr lSETTlA LN. & b 4tt" F A c 4tt' F 4tti P P~NSETTIA LN. i l i w Y Ii 1 mVIARA-ALGA -stt\il /f VIARA-ALGA 'IARA-ALGA w I I Figure 5.2-3G LEGEND FR ~ FREERIGHT fi;;h = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONS1BiU7Y OF THE CIT%WIOE TRAEFlC IMPACT FEE1 ?TO - RIGHTTURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT I Carlsbad Oaks North Spec$c Plan DraJ Program EIR City ofCar1sbad j.2-30 April ZOO2 li XISTING + INTEillM PROdC IMPROVEMEW3 FOR w @ I =* t* 4- 78 EB RAMP YEAR 2035 Y SAN MARCUS BLVD. YEAR ZOlO II I- ;AN HMCOS BLVU ttt LL E EB RAMP LEGEND FR - FREERIGHT YEW 2020 $ IAN MARCUS BLVD. Figure 52-38 ?.TO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * . IMPROVEMENT I CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS -9- A DIVISION OF WlLLDuI No Scale Carlsbad Oaks Norfh Specilic Plan City of Carlsbad EXISTING GEOMEiRY "[l m I TADOVRIDGE DR. t4t LL! 78 EB RAHPS :XISTING + INTERIM PROJEI IMPROVEMENTS FOR - JB RAWS I) ZI @ + < SYCAMORE AVE - 3 DI YW 2005 I Ii I) 51 ii 'f t 63 !EGEND @ = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY OF VISTA (PROJECT IMPACT) YE4R20lO 'ti YEAR ZUZO li 4 '+I 1 1ADOYRIDGE DR. LEGEND FR - FREERIGHT ?TO - RIGHTTURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT Figure 52-31 :ARLSBAD OAKS NORM ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS $i'fil WGlrnG, IN(. No Scale %DIVISION OF WILLDAY Carlsbad Oak IVorth Specrfic Plan ora$ Program EIR Ciq ofcarlsbad 5.2-32 April 2002 EXISTING GEOMETRY ti_! > OUESTHAVEN RD. I 1" PALOHAR AIRPURT RD. 14 LEGENO e OSTING +lNERlM PROJE( IMPROVEMENTS FOR 71 J > c V8 RAMPS 4" UESTHAVEN RD. c PALOMAR AIRPORT RD. -I- PALOMAR AIRPORT RD. YEAR 2005 I W LL D Y x 6 Y) > L YEAR2010 w LL B 4 U > y1 z PALUMAR AIRPORT RD. YE4R 2020 4t" ~ ;. PALOMAR AIRPORT RD. LEGEND FR - FREE RIGHl XTO - RIGHTTURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT LANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH -@- A DIVISION OF WILWAN No Scale Curisbud Oaks Norrh Specific Plan n...r. " C,D i 7.?? 5.2 Tmnsporiation/Traffic EXISTING GEOMKQY PALOMAR! AIRPORT R 2 tLL j 7 PALOHAR' AIRPORT RO i PALOHAR AIRPORT RD 2l.t.L PALOHAR AIRPORT RD, i PALOMAR AIRPORT RI PALOHA - II PALOHAI __ 41RPORT RD B aIRPORT RD. URPORT RO. YEW 2005 ,+\I ? PALOMAR AIRPORT R I IL PALOMAR AIRPORT RO YEAR2010 II I1 I" f YE4R 2020 2tL.L. I 7- PALOMAR AIRPORT RO. I+\ + PALllHAR AIRPORT RD. I" '4. 5 f PALOMAR I AIRPORT RD. LEGEJVD FR - FREERIGHT Figure 5.2-3K ?TO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT 3ARLS8AD OAKS NORTH AN€ GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS 4 DIVISION OF WILLDAN No Scaie Curlsbud Oak IVurth Specific Plan Drafr Program EIR City ujCarlsbad 5~2-3-1 April 2002 EXISTING GEOMERY I k c c c PALOHAR /AIRPORT RC II I- -.- .... c c 't 8lRPORT RD 4 PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. "-- PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. Y c a W 2 2 Y + PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. YW2005 I k c c c II ? AIRPORT RD. 7\ t k - f:: >I ; iii1 7 PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. m @ = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSlElLlTY OFTHE THE ERESSI PROJECT AND THE PROJECT. (PROJECT IMPACT] YEAR2010 k c - c PALOHAR /AIRPORT RD. &d I LEGEND FR - FREE RIGHT YEAR2020 v II I- P a I1 RTO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT LANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS CARLSBAO OAKS NORTH me mt* -9- PA TRAFmc flcm, [Nc. No Scale A DlVlSION OF WILLDAN Carisbad Oaks Norrh Sprcljc Plun Cip ofcarisbud .. 5.2 Transporta:iort/Trac LEGEND @ = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROJECT (PROJECT IMPACT) R C L YEAR2010 8 -* 4 f FARAD~Y/AVL I LEGEND FR - FREERIGHT YEAR 2020 r FARADAY AVE. Figure S.2JM TO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP ? - IMPROVEMENT :ARLSEAD OAKS NORTH ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS , OlVlSlONOF WILLDAN No Scale Carisbad Oak North Specific Plan nmfi D..~.~ _"._ FIU Ciry of Carlsbad r' 7 ?A 1.. :, Inn, 5.2 Transportatioflrafjffic i 2 tL CARLSBAD T~ARACK AVE. W AI 2 dl 4 JI W 1 3 + 162 11 k 27/15 6 117$4i I tL CALL I tL CARLSBAI BARCELDNt CANNON RD 'ILLAGE Dl CANNON RD. 1 J 0 u J w 6 7 E 5 kyc +- 6 12/12 -269 IC k 92,047 ( 16429 I SL ISETTIA Lh iRADAY AVE. IINSETTIA CN. - 12 11 LEGEND 9 -593 513 't 36/83 29/78 580/54O = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES CARLSBAD OAKS 2010(INCLUDES PRClJECT) INTERSECTION VOLUMES r/ t4 VISTA WAY EIB. 78 RAMP _I w x 13 I 14 Carisbad Oaks Norfh Specific Pian - " Ciry ofcarisbad i * I" ""i, ,,in7 5.2 ~~Pnnsportatiort/Traffic PAR CENTER DR - dl 24 PALOMAR PIRPORT RD Id 2' + SY AMORE AVL CAMINO IDA ROBLE . w 26 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES IARLSBAD OAKS ?010CINCLUDES PROJECT) .NTERSECTIUN VOLUMES -@- 1 Car!sbad Oaks North Specific Plan Dra? Propram EIR 5.240 Ciry ofCar!sbad April 2002 r' tL L J W COSTA AVE k 57 107 I +L f %$420 78 WE RAMPS PALOMAR1 AIRPORT RD. I 41 IL ~. PALOMAR AIRPORT R: 'SAN M~/RCOS BLVI Ih 35 zl a ,,I 32 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES :ARLSBAD UAKS !OlO(INCLUDES PROJECT) :NTERSECTION VOLUMES -@- Carlsbod Oakr North Specqic Plan Cir)~ ofCarfsbad n n n .. ... P," F 7.4 1 Aoril2002 PALOMAR 1 AIRPURT RI z W F 19 43 - 51 55 2+ %> 't 54/19 3; p%7 PALUMAR AIRPORT R 52 56 FALOMAR ]AIRPORT RI I IT 45 I 49 53 50 54 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ARLSBAD RAKS YTERSECTIUN VOLUMES OlO(1NCLUDES PROJECT) -@- Carlsbad Oaks Norrh Sprcfic Plan Draft Program EIR 5.242 ~~ City of Carlsbad April ZOO? . 5.2 Transportatian/TrcJj"ir 78 WE RAMPS I CANNON R: I 21 U 9 I -Jl W 2 CALLEIBARCELONA W 6 SOINSETTIA LN. * dl V 7 'OINSETTIA LN. I AI W 11 TA ARACK Ab W JI 4 POINSETTIA /LN. LEGEND sao/j+o =AM~PM PEAK HOUR VOLUUES ARLSBAD OAKS 320 {TERSECTION VOLUMES -@- Carlsbad Oak North Spccljic Ph Drafi Program EIR 5.2-44 Ciiy of Curlsbad April 2007 i 7 PALOMAR! AIRPORT RD 12 20 -1 .. F RADAY AVE W Jl 28 I I I Id 25 W 26 LEGEND 580/%0 =AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SARLSBAD OAKS 2020 INTERSECTION VOLUMES -9- No Scale A DlVlSlON OF WILLDAN Figure j.Z.-YB Carlsbad Oukr North Specific Plan - .. c 7 IC Ciiy of Carisbad J"~;/ mn? 5.2 Tratlsporiaiiotr/TraJfii. ai ,8 WB RAMP U v) zl 33 PALOMAR! AIRPORT RI SAN hRCOS BLL ---" S CAMORE AV' QL$THAVEN Rl I SHA WRIDGE DR, r PALOMAR AIRPORT RD. Lo m I? 19 21 a v1 32 I 7 EB RAMPS 1 PA'LOMAR IAIRPORT RI LEGEND SW540 =AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ARLSBAD OAKS 020 VTERSECTIDN VOLUMES Drafi Program EIR Carisbad Oak Norih Specl3c Pian City ojCarisbad 3.2-46 April 2002 i ... , . 5.2 Transportatioflraffic PALOMAR~AIRPURT RD Id 47 51 P~LOMAR~AIRPORT RI lu" A 44 52 56 I CL f PALUMAR AIRPORT RI: IZ 45 FARADAY I AVE I 49 53 ?m2 d tL f PALOMAR AIRPORT R! L w 50 54 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES CARLSBAD OAKS 2020 INTERSECTION VOLUMES -@- Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan Ciry of Curlsbad n..-x. " cra F 7.47 ADrd 2002 TABLE 5.2-1 STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS I # Jurisdiction Intersection' I I 1 SR 78 Westbound RmpsiEl Camino Real I Oceanside' I 2 I SR 78 Eastbound RamDsiEl Camino Real 1 Oceanside' I 3 1 Carlsbad Villaxe DriveEl Camino Real I Carlsbad I 4 1 Tamarack AvenueEI Camino Real 1 Carlsbad I 5 1 Cannon Road/El Carnino Real 1 Carlsbad I 6 I Calle BarcelondEI Camino Real 1 Carlsbad ~ ~~~ 7 Carlsbad Poinsettia LaneiAviara Parkway 10 Carlsbad Faraday AvenueICollege Boulevard 9 Carlsbad Cannon RoadiCollege Boulevard 8 Carlsbad Carlsbad Village DriveiColleSe Boulevard I I1 I Poinsettia LaneiEl Fuerte Street I Carlsbad I 12 I Poinsettia LaneiMelrose Drive 1 Carlsbad T""-~[Vista WayiMelrose Drive I Vista 14 Vista* SR 78 Eastbound Ramps/Melrose Drive 15 Vista Sunset DriveiMelrose Drive ""~-1 Cannon-Mar Vista/Melrose Drive 1 Oceanside 17 Vista Shadowridge DriveiMelrose Drive Vista Sycamore AvenueIMelrose Drive A 18 A 19 Vista Park Center DriveiMelrose Drive 20 Carlsbad Alga RoadiMelrose Drive 21 Carlsbad Palomar Airport RoadfMelrose Drive 22 Carlsbad College BoulevardEl Carnino Real 23 Carlsbad Melrose DriveiRancho Santa Fe Road 24 Carlsbad Faraday AvenueIEl Camino Real 25 Carlsbad Carnino Vida RobidEl Carnino Real 26 Carlsbad Palomar Airport RoadIEI Carnino Real Carlsbad Oaks Norrh SpeclFc Plan Ora? Program EIR 5.2-46 Ciry o/Carlsbad April 2002 TABLE 5.2-1 STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS # Carlsbad Avian-AldEl Camino Real 28 Carlsbad Poinsettia LaneEl Camino Real 27 Jurisdiction Intersection 29 Carlsbad La Costa AvenueEl Camino Real 30 San Marcos San Marcos BoulevardRancho Santa Fe Road 31 San Marcos San Marcos BoulevardiGrand Avenue. 31 38 40 SR 78 Eastbound RampsiSan Marcos Boulevard San Marcos* SR 78 Westbound RampdSan Marcos Boulevard San Marcor* Carlsbad Palomar Aimort RoadPalomar Oaks Way Carlsbad* Palomar Airport Roadit-5 Southbound Ramps Carlsbad Questhaven RoadRancho Santa Fe Road Vista' SR 78 Westbound Ramps/Sycamore Avenue Vista* SR 78 Eastbound RampsiSycamore Avenue Vista Shadowridge Drive/Sycamore Avenue Vista Sycamore AvenueBusiness Park Drive Palomar Aimort RoadCamino Vida Roble 1 Carlsbad Palomar Airport RoadiAmiada Drive Carlsbad Palomar Airport RoadiHidden Valley Road Carlsbad Palomar Aimort RoadiColleee Boulevard 1 Carlsbad I 46 I I 41 I 48 Palomar Airport Roadl-5 Northbound Ramps Carlsbad Palomar Airport RoadPaseo del Norte Carlsbad* San Marcos Palomar Aimort RoadBusiness Park Drive Carlsbad Palomar Airport Road El Fuerte Street 49 1 faraday AvenueiEl Fuerte Street 1 Carlsbad Source: Wiildan-WPA Traffic Engineermg. 2001 * Within Caltrans' jurisdiction for intersection operations purposes. Carlsbad Oak Norrtl Specific Plan rn Ciiy o/Carlsbad r.," i ? In ,<.,-;I mn7 i -i + t -t " !' -L Y TABLE 5.2-3 TRIP GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS Cnrlsbad Oak North Project INTERIM PROJECT (YEAR ZOOS): + Planned Industrial 119.6 Acres 9,550 945 IO5 230 920 + Light Industrial 4.4 Acres 900 85 20 20 85 + Low Rise Office 2.5 Acres 750 95 10 20 80 + Other Commercial 4.4 Acres 1,750 30 20 80 80 INTERIM SUBTOTALS 12,950 1,155 155 350 1,165 PROPOSED PROJECT (Includes lire Interim Project): + Planned Industrial 216.9 Acres 17,350 1,715 I90 415 1,665 + Light Industrial 8.7 Acres 1,750 165 40 40 165 + Low Rise Office 4.9 Acres 1,450 185 20 40 155 + Other Commercial 5.2 Acres 2, IO0 35 25 95 95 "WORST CASE" PROJECT TOTALS 22,650 2,100 275 590 2,080 Source: Willdan. 2002. 3 n W c n c r" i' c ! 'I oc I I 3/ 4 h ' U u 0 L .- f .. t I c 1 WI OI 'D I I j L I I I i I U c 0 a : . :I i 3 . C < a L i 1 i- I 3 " ? ! " , " " " . ,. c i 1/ f * u I k 4 Ifl 2 N 0 3' t t i i 3 I 2 P - 5 e N 3 p. 5 P Lg c v- n N 3 2 N 5: N - a T 3 3 C C i: x I In, mnn " EXHIBIT 2 i PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (EIR 98-0WGPA 97-05/24: 97-05/SP 211/CT 97-13/HDP 97-1O/SUP 97-07) Volume I1 SCH ## 200005 1057 Prepared for: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prepared by: Cotton/Bridges/Associates San Diego Office: 6336 .Greenwich Drive, Suite F San Diego, California 92122 747 East Green Street, Suite 300 Pasadena. California 91 101 Sunrise Avenue, Suite 202-C Roseville, California 95661 -4509 1165.00 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES VOLUME I1 Appendix B: Willdan-WPA Traffic Engineers. Carlsbad Oaks North Tra@ Sru& ' February 7,2001 (as Revised March 29,2002). Carlsbad Oaks Norfh Specific Plan Drafr Program EIR i City of Carlsbad April 2002 Prepared For: TECHBILT 3575 Kenyon Street San Diego, CA 9211 0 Prepared By: Weston S. PnngFe, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ MTLLDAN 2 7042 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 2 70 Foothill Ranch, CA 9261 0 EXECUTIVESUMMARY .................................................. i-iv TRAFFICSTUDY INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1 EXCjTINGCONDITIONS ..................................................... 9 . Level of Service Descriptions .. : ............................................. 11 .E.stingIntersectionAnalyses ............................................... 32 . Study Intersections and Existing Traffic Volumes .............................. 11 . Improvements . Existing Conditions ......................................... 32 PROJECTCONDITIONS .................................................... 36 -TripGeneration .......................................................... 36 -TripDistribution ......................................................... 39 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLUS THE INTERIM PROJECT ...................... 46 . Existing Conditions Plus the Interim Project Intersection Analyses ................ 47 . Improvements . Existing Conditions Plus the Interim Project .................... 55 .ThresholdofSignificance ................................................... 56 YEAR 2005 CONDITIONS - INCLUDING THE INTERIM PROJECT .............. 56 .RoadGeometricAssumptions ............................................... 57 . General TIF and Traffic Study Relationship ................................... 85 . SANDAG Traffic Modeling ................................................. 56 . Year 2005 Conditions (Without the Faraday Connection) Intersection Analyses ..... 86 . Improvements - Year 2005 Conditions (Without the Faraday Connection) .......... 93 . Year 2005 Conditions (Without Faraday Connection) With and Without Project .... 94 . Year 2005 Conditions (With the Faraday Connection) . Special Evaluation ......... 94 . -Year 2005 Conditions (With the Faraday Connection) With and Without Project ... 100 YEAR2010CONDITIONS .................................................. 100 . Improvements -Year 2010 Conditions ....................................... 118 -Year 2010 Conditions With and Without Project .............................. 122 YEAR2020CONDITIONS .................................................. 122 . Year 2020 Traffic Projections, Existing Geometries and Improvements ........... 128 . Year 2020 Conditions With and Without Project ............................. 140 . Analyses - Year 2020 Conditions ............................................ 145 . Imarovements - Year 2020 Conditions ....................................... 145 . CONCLUSION ............................................................ 146 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3A-3M FIGURE 4 FIGURlE 5A-5D FIGURE 6A-6D FIGURE 7A-7D FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9A-9D FIGURE 10A-1OD FIGURE 11A-1lD FIGURE 12A FIGURE 12B FIGURE 13 FIGURE 14 FIGURE 15A-15D FIGURE 16A-16D FIGURE 17A-17D FIGURE 18 FIGURE 19A-19D FIGURE 20A-20D FIGURE 21A-21D . Study Intersections ............................................ 2 . SitePlan ..................................................... 4 . Intersection Lane Geometric Conditions. AU Study Years .......... 14 . Existing Roadway Network ................................... 27 . Existing Intersection Volumes .................................. 28 . Interim Project Only Intersection Volumes ...................... 42 . Existing +Interim Project Intersection Volumes ................... 48 . Year 2005 Roadway Network .................................. 72 . Year 2005 Without Interim Project Intersection Volumes (WithontFaradayConnection) ................................ 73 . Year 2005 Project Only Volumes (Without Faraday Connection) ................................. 77 . Year 2005 Includes Interim Project Intersection Volumes (Without Faraday Connection) ................................ 81 . SANDAG Select Zone Year 2005 Without Faraday Connection Distribution ....................... 96 . Project Year 2005 With Faraday Connection Adjustments Distribution .............. 97 . Net Project Volume Changes Applied to the Without Faraday Connection Projections 98 I ........................ . Year 2010 Roadway Network ................................. 101 . Year 2010 Without Project Intersection Volumes ................ 103 . Year 2010 Project Only Volumes .............................. 107 . Year 2010 Includes Project Intersection Volumes .. '. ............. 111 . Year 2020 Roadway Network .................................. 123 . Year 2020 Without Project Intersection Volumes ................ 121 ;& @8?\ . Year 2020 Project 0nIy.Volumes .............................. 129 i?, < . Year 2020 Includes Project Intersection Volumes ................ 133 LIST OF TABLES TABLE1 . StudyIntersections ............................................... 12 TABLE 2 . Intersection Analyses Summary . Existing ........................... 33 TABLE 3 . Planned Added Land Uses Incorporated in the SANDAG Modeling ...... 37 TABLE4 . TripGenerationRates ............................................ 38 TABLE 5 . Trip Generation Assumptions ...................................... 40 TABLE 6 . Intersection Analyses Summary . Existing Plus Interim Project .......... 52 TABLE 7 . Cumulative Projects List .......................................... 58 TABLE 8 . Intersection Analyses Summary-Year 2005 Without Faraday Connection . 87 TABLE SA . Intersection Analyses Summary -Year 2005 With and Without Project ... 90 TABLE 9 . Level of Service Table . Year 2005 With Faraday Connection ........... 99 TABLE 10 . Intersection Analyses Summary . Year 2010 ........................ 115 TABLE 10A . Intersection Analyses Summary . Year 2010 With and Without Project . 119 TABLE 11 . Intersection Analyses Summary . Year 2020 ......................... 137 TABLE 12 -Intersection Analyses Summary -Year 2020 With and Without Project . 141 LIST OF APPENDICES A. EXPLANATION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSECTION ANALYSES B. INTERSECTION ANALYSES WORKSFIEETS C. DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME FIGURES EXECUTNE SUMMARY FOR THE CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH PROJECT The “CarLsbad Oaks North Project - Traffic Study” is the culmination of tremendous effort on the part of City Stan and, the various consultants participating in the preparation of traffic analyses for major developments within the study area. Existing traffic data were collected for the 49 study intersections and evaluated for inclusion in the report. An extended traflic modeling effort was conducted, which utilized assumptions acceptable to the City of Carlsbad, within the Carlsbad Cities/County Sub-Area, SANDAG traffic model. The traffic model projections required evaluation, input, review, and ongoing analyses to provide acceptable projections of interim traffic conditions incorporating study area cumulative projects and long-range future conditions. The consultants worked in conjunction with City Staff and City approval-was required for all projections ultimately utilized in the analyses. This document presents a review of the potential traffic impacts related to the Carlsbad Oaks North project. This study identifies the infrastructure needed to support, not only the proposed project, but the existing traffic and cumulative growth of the surrounding areas. The necessary improvements are identified in this study and the anticipated responsibilities of Carlsbad Oaks North are provided. The following is a summary of the primary findings of this Traffic Study. 1) Existing conditions were documented to provide a baseline for evaluating the proposed project impacts. It was shown (in Table 2) that two intersections would require improvement under existing conditions in order to provide acceptable operations. These intersections are: San Marcos / Rancho Santa Fe and S.R. 78 EB Ramps / Sycamore. WILLDAN Job #I2614 Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Trafic Study City of Carlsbad i When the interim Carlsbud Oaks North project is added to the existing traffic conditions, the same two intersections would require improvement. The improvements needed to mitigate the existing impacts also serve to accommodate the proposed project. Table 6 and Figures 3A - 3M present the findings and illustrate the measures at the two intersections. The currently proposed Curlsbad Ouks North project actually represents a significant reduction in development potential. The current proposal is to provide a total of 1,921,000 square feet (SF) of building area; whereas the previously planned project included in the Local Facilities Management Zone Plan would have resulted in 3,615,916 SF (which would have generated more traffic than the current project). The currently planned project is also assumed to include an acceleration of the construction of the ‘‘Faraday Avenue Connection” between El Camino Real (ECR) and Melrose Drive. The SANDAG modeling assumed this connection to occur after Year 2005, by the Year 2010. Carlsbad Uuh North, however, is assumed to require this connection as a part of its initial phases of development. Year 20Q5 analyses were conducted for both conditions without and with the Faraday Avenue Connection, The Year 2005 analyses the Faraday Connection was a supplemental evaluation which only examined six of the study intersections. The six study intersections to be analyzed for the supplemental evaluation (see Table 9) were f jointly selected and approved by KTLLDAN and the City and consisted of the locations thought to have the most potential impact with or without the Faraday Connection: The completion of the Faraday Connection was shown to benefit intersection operations on Palomar Anport Road (PAR). The PAR corridor serves traffic in the immediate vicinity, as well as traffic in surrounding areas (other jurisdictions), which use this arterial as a thoroughfare. The findings are summarized in Table 9. Job #I2614 WILLDAN ii Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Traffic Study CiQ of Carisbad 6) Analyses were provided for the Years 2005 and 2010 and the inkstructure needed to support these traffic conditions were identified. Tables 8 and 10, respectively, show the intersection operations at the 49 study locations under existing lane geometrics and for conditions with identified improvements (Figures 3A - 3M). These evaluations show the improvements needed to support existing traffic plus cumulative traffic growth, as well as the proposed project. 7) The Year 2020 conditions were evaluated and the intersection analyses results for the 49 intersections are provided in Tables I1 and 12. These long-range analyses indicate that the improvements necessary to address the Year 2020 traffic volume projections are consistent with the road system that is anticipated to ultimately be in place. An important example is the Year 2020 intersection improvements shown on Figures 3A - 3M are consistent with the mitigations included in the Traffic Improvement Fee (TIF) program. In addition, these TIF improvements provide acceptable intersection operations at the pertinent study locations. It is shown that all of the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service with the intersection geometrics identified on Figures 3A - 3M. 8) The existing and existing plus interim project analyses identify the project’s short-term responsibilities. The Year 2005 and 2010 evaluations identify the infrastructure needed to support the cumulative traffic growth expected to occur at these intervening years and based on the assumptions included in the SANDAG modeling efforts. The ultimate roadway requirements and the project’s long-term impacts are identified through the Year 2020 analyses. These evaluations are anticipated to present information necessary for the decision makers to evaluate the traffic related impacts of the proposed project. Job #I2624 WILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Traffic Study City of Carlsbad iii 9) The proposed Carlsbad Oaks North project is shown to be accommodated at each level of development. The factors and requirements which are anticipated to result in the conclusion that the project related impacts have been mitigated are: + The “Existing Plus Interim” analyses were required by the City to determine the improvements that would be associated with the initial development phase. These analyses show that improvements are needed to offset existing baffic impacts. Added improvements at the locations are required to accommodate the addition of the interim portion of the project. + The “Existing Plus Interim’’ findings do include the Carlsbad Oaks North project plans to facilitate the acceleration of the “Faraday Avenue Connection” project, in conjunction with its initial phases of development. This improvement was anticipated to occur by Year 2010, prior to this project proposal. The accelerated construction of this improvement would serve to benefit intersections along Palomar Aqort Road and serve to offset project-related impacts for this scenario. + The Year 2020 analyses, including the proposed project, show that all of the 49 study intersections would have acceptable operations, based on the geometrics shown on Figures 3A - 3M. The Carlsbad Oah North project would be subject to the TIF and it is noted that the pertinent study intersections have improvements consistent with the TIF mitigation requirements. The other intersections are anticipated to be consistent with the planned road system, which will serve long range traffic conditions. + There are several intersections outside of the City of Carlsbad which have significant project impacts. A project impact that creates a delay of greater than Job #I2614 WLLLDAN Carisbad Oaks North Projeci - Traffic Study Cify of Carlsbad iv 2.0 sezonds at intersections with unacceptable LOS E or F operations or which occurs when there is a decline in intersection operations fiom acceptable to unacceptable levels, is demeaned to be significant according to SANTEC guidelines. At these locations outside of the City of Carlsbad sphere of influence, overriding considerations would be required and the respective jurisdictions would be responsible for intersection improvements. Overall, this Traffic Study is expected to provide the information necessary to consider the potential impacts of the Curlsbud Ouh North project and require appropriate mitigation of the proposed project. Job #I2614 UULDAN V Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Trafic Study City of Carlsbad TMFFIC STUDY FOR THE CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH PROJECT INTRODUCTION This report presents a summary of the WLLDAN review of traffic factors related to the proposed business park development project (Carlsbad Oah North) to be located withm Zone 16 in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed Carlsbnd Oaks North project is planned to be generally located north of Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real and west of Melrose Drive. Figure I illustrates the location of the proposed project in relationship to the surrounding street system. This study is based upon information provided by City Staff and various consultants, model data kom the Carlsbad Sub-Area Model (“Model”) provided by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), previously completed studies in the area, field studies, and standard reference materials. Based on coordination with City Staff, SANDAG model information, reference of applicable materials, and contact with other consultants for consistency, a total of 49 intersections were selected to be analyzed for this traffic study. These 49 intersections were within the impact area where 50 or more project trips were assigned to the roadway network. The study intersections were analyzed under various conditions, including existing conditions (Year 1999), existing conditions plus interim project, Year 2005 conditions “With” and “Without” Faraday (including the interim project), Year 2010 conditions (including the project, which is anticipated to be completed), and Year 2020 (buildout) conditions (including the project). “Existing” volumes at a majority of the study intersections were obtained from the “Curkbad Growth Management Monitoring Report”’, other consultants, and a previous traffic stud$ in the project area. Counts I “1999 City of CarIsbad, Trafic Moniioring Program for Growth Management Monitoring Report”; VRPA Technologies; 1999. Job #I2614 WILLDAN CarIsbad Oaks North Project - Trafic Study City of CarIsbad 1 were conducted at the remaining study intersections by traffic counting firms (under the direction of WZLDm in the Year 2000 to provide recent “existing” traffk volumes at all of the study intersections. The project trip generation (for report purposes and associated factors - SANDAG based generations are provided) and trip assignment were based upon the Carlsbad Sub-Area traffic forecasting model, which is administered by SANDAG. This SANDAG Cities / County Forecast Transportation Planning (TRANPLAN) model; the City of Carlsbad Sub-Area model was refined to reflect cumulative kaffic volumes for the Year 2005,2010, and 2020 conditions. The proposed project (Carlsbad Oaks North), illustrated on Figure 2, would encompass a portion of the total site area of over 414 acres, which is consistent with previous and ongoing SANDAG modeling efforts. The land use assumptions for the proposed project (which were included in the traffic modeling efforts) are anticipated to provide a conservative evaluation of the proposed project, which is desirable for environmental evaluation purposes. This may result in flexibility regarding the future tenants, andor land use types that would occupy the planned building square footages, or even additional building square footages, so long as the project remains withii the analyzed ‘’trip budget”. The Carlsbad Oaks North project is also planned to include a significant transportation link as a part of its proposal. Current planning, through the SANDAG traffic modeling, anticipates the connection of Faraday Avenue [between El Camino Real (ECR) and Melrose Drive] to be in place for the Year 2010 traffic projections. (No connection is anticipated in the SANDAG Year , 2005 projections.) The Carlsbad Oaks North project intends to accelerate the construction of this llnk (Faraday Avenue, between ECR and Melrose Drive), so that it would occur in conjunction with their initial building construction. The planned acceleration of the Faraday Avenue “connection” is addressed in this study. 2 “The San Elgo Ranch”; Transtech Engineers Inc.; July 14, 1999. Job #I2614 WILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Traffic Study CiVy of Carisbad 3 Carlsbad Oah NortA presently envisions a total of 1,725,000 square feet (SF) of industrial use and 196,000 SF of office use on a total of about 150 acres: Figure 2 presents a site plan that is representative of the project, which would address the current market needs. The analyses are (based upon information provided by the applicant for inclusion in the sub-area model) approved SANDAG model assumptions. It may be noted that previous Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) traffic study assumptions included industrial use for Zone 163 (at a greater intensity), within areas consistent with the Carlsbad Ouh North project area. The analysis for the overall study area (which includes this project) is relatively complex, due to the number of major projects being proposed, all within the same relative area and development time ffame. This required the City of Carlsbad to assist in the coordination of the various traffic analyses factors, which included the SANDAG modeling, its assumptions, the traffic study procedures, roadway alternatives, project phasing, etc. Of course, each project also has its own unique traffic factors, which need to be addressed, so each individual study serves to address its own particular issues. The resulting traffic study procedures provide a comprehensive evaluation of the Carlsbad Oaks North project over a relatively large study area and integrates the potential influences and impacts of the other major projects being considered. It should also be recognized that the City of Carlsbad imposes a Traffic Improvement Fee (TIF) on new development and updates of that fee were occurring during the preparation of these analyses. Recognition of the fee is important, since this serves as a method for a jurisdiction to impose mitigation for anticipated roadway ’ improvement needs on a “fair share” type basis. This concept is important to understand, from a Carlsbad environmental perspective, since mitigation is essentially being required of a project whether it does or does not cross a specified 3 Associates; March 24, 1989. “Circulntiun Fncility, Lucnl Fncility Mnnngement Plan, Zone 16”; Westun Pringle & .rub #I2614 WILLDAN Cnrlsbnd Onks Nurth Project - Traffic Study City of Cnrlsbnd 5 threshold of “significance”. This can actually be beneficial to both the City and developers, by allowing more comprehensive planning of infrastructure needs and collecting pro-rata shares kom all developments, rather than only those which exceed a designated level of impact. The result is that project related mitigation is assured through the fees collected. A primary function of the analyses, therefore, is to assure that the planned infrastructure is sufficient to support the project related traffic, as well as the cumulative traffic needs. The following provides a very brief introduction to the analyses contained in this document. ExistinF Conditions Presents a “baseline” for conditions as they existed at the start of this study. Existinp Conditions Plus the Interim Project These conditions were determined to be important for inclusion in the study, as they served to eliminate the need for extensive analyses of numerous alternatives (given the major projects in the area and their various road connections). This condition was also intended to determine the level of project development that could occur with no significant change to the existing road system. For the Curlsbud Oak North project, an evaluation of possible added development with no added roadways is less meaningful, since the project proposal is to accelerate the Faraday Avenue connection (ECR to Melrose Drive) to occur in conjunction with the project. It is our understanding the City of Carlsbad and the Curlsbud Oaks developers are working on the formation of some form of Faraday Avenue benefit / assessment “district”, which would allow for some future reimbursements on a use I benefits basis. ! Job it12614 WILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Traffic Study Cig of Carlsbad 6 Yenr 2005 Conditions - Without Faradq Avenue Connection - With and Without the Interim Proieet This scenario includes analysis with and without the interim Carlsbad Oaks project, as well as the Year 2005 development levels for the other major projects and gowth of the surrounding areas and communities. An important factor related to the proposed project is that Faraday Avenue, west of El Fuerte Street (through County property), is not assumed to exist in the Year 2005 SANDAG modeling. These “Without Faraday Avenue Connection” analyses were conducted for the existing intersection geornetrics and improvements necessary to accommodate the Year 2005 tr&c. Year 2005 Conditions - With Faradav Avenue “Connected” Between ECR and Melrose Drive - With the Interim Proieet These additional analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of providing the Faraday Avenue connection between ECR and Melrose Drive. The methodologies to address this accelerated improvement were discussed with City Staff and the analyses were incorporated in the report. The analyses include SANDAG model volumes and redistribution of project and area traffic to reflect the connection. The evaluation of a total of six key intersections most affected by this added roadway link were completed and the results are presented in this section. These six intersections were jointly selected and approved by WLLDAN and the City. Faraday Avenue is parallel to Palomar Anport Road (PAR) and serves to provide added east-west roadway capacity, which is needed in this area. Year 2010 Conditions - With and Without the Full Proiect It should be remembered that the proposed project in these traffic analyses is represented by the SANDAG land use I trip rate model assumptions in the Carlsbad Sub-Area model and its associated traffic. The conceptual site plan WILLDAN Job #I2614 Carisbad Oaks North Project - Traflc Siudy Ciiy of Carlsbad 7 included in this study is addressed by the SANDAG data. The Year 2010 study evaluations considered that full buildout land uses could occur, given the assumptions used in the SANDAG modeling and the resulting kaffic analyses provided in this study. These Year 2010 analyses, therefore, address a buildout condition and provide a conservative evaluation of the infrastructure needs. The TIF requirements and the acceleration of the Faraday Avenue connection would be expected to provide significant mitigation for project related impacts. The Year 2010 evaluations were completed for existing and Year 2010 intersection geometric conditions to identify needed improvements to address existing, cumulative, and project related impacts. Year 2020 Conditions - Includinp the Full Project, Existinp and Future Geometw These analyses provide evaluation of the planned roadway infrastructure to determine if it can adequately address future traffic conditions, including the Carlsbad Oaks North project. As described earlier, future mitigation is identified to offset all project and cumulative traffic impacts (i.e., through the TIF andor the Faraday Avenue extension), not just those impacts, which exceed a threshold of significance. The Year 2020 evaluations were completed for existing and future intersection conditions, which generally show the benefits and extent of the street system improvements needed and planned to occur. -. Year 2020 Conditions - With and Without the Proposed Project These evaluations are included to supplement the environmental analyses and are primarily beneficial in addressing potential impacts and mitigation needs outside of the City of Carlsbad. These analyses combined with the “Year 2020 Conditions - Including the Full Project” indicate locations where project related impacts would need to be addressed. For locations within Carlsbad, there are WILLDAN Job #I2614 Carisbad Oaks North Pmjeci - Trafic Study City of Carlsbad 8 ~~ several improvement options available (i.e. TIF fees, the Faraday Avenue connection), as described above. It is also noted that the Faraday Avenue connection provides direct benefits to jurisdictioni outside Carlsbad, by adding east-west road capacity. A significant amount of “through traffic”, related to other jurisdictions, presently uses PAR. When the many traffic related factors (including various large specific developments, potential roadway alternatives, timing of street improvements, intluences from other jurisdictions, etc.) are considered, the complexity in identifying the infirastructure needs of this project and other cumulative projects is apparent. It is believed that the agreed upon procedures serve to fully identify project related impacts, provide improvement recommendation, address infrastructure needs, as well as to allow each “major”project to address its particular traffic issues. These traffic analysis procedures outlined by the City of Carlsbad (subsequent to significant meeting and discussion with the consultants for the major area projects) serve to simplify the presentation of information, while addressing all of the critical elements related to the regional road system and the specific proposed project. EXISTING CONDITIONS Palomar Airport Road (PAR) is an east-west Prime Arterial, generally providing six lanes of travel within the City of Carlsbad; although at its east side in Carlsbad, within the vicinity of the project, it is not at its ultimate width. It exists from Carlsbad Boulevard in the west and continues easterly into the City of San Marcos. Left turn lanes are provided at major intersections along Palomar Aqort Road (PAR) and parkmg is not permitted. Full access to the San Diego (1-5) Freeway is provided by PAR to the west; and to the east, Palomar mort Road becomes San Marcos Boulevard. Job #I2614 WILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Trafflc Siudy City of Carisbad 9 El Camino Real (ECR) is a six-lane, divided roadway within most of the project study area, which runs in a north-south direction through the City of Carlsbad. There are four-lane and five- lane portions not yet fully widened to the north. El Camino Real provides access into the City of Oceanside, while it terminates in the south in the City of Encinitas. Full access to State Route (S.R.) 78 is provided by El Camino Real to the north. Melrose Drive is a north-south roadway, which provides six lanes of divided travel within the project area. Melrose Drive exists to the north through the City of Vista and into the City of Oceanside; while to the south, Melrose Drive terminates at its intersection with Rancho Santa Fe. There is an unconshucted segment of Melrose Drive, immediately north of PAR. This unconstructed segment prevents through travel between the northerly and southerly sections of Melrose Drive. Faradav Avenue provides four lanes of undivided travel in an east-west direction in the project vicinity. Currently, Faraday Avenue exists from the west at approximately Camino Hills Drive to east of El Camino Real, terminating at Orion Street (west of the proposed project site). There is also a short segment of Faraday Avenue, just west of Melrose Drive, which aligns with Park Center Drive. As a part of the proposed Carlsbad Oah North project, Faraday Avenue is planned to extend kom Orion Street, through County property, and continue through the project site to connect to and become Park Center Drive, east of Melrose Drive. El Fuerte Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial and, currently, a short segment of Et Fuerte Street exists north of and intersects PAR. Another existing segment of El Fuerte Street begins north of Alga Road and continues southerly to transition into Alicante Road. With the proposed project, El Fuerte Street would be extended to the north (northerly of PAR) to Faraday Avenue. In the future, the segment of El Fuerte Street between PAR and Alga Road is also planned to be developed. Job #12614 WLLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Projcct - Traffic Study Ciiy of Carlsbad 10 Studv Intersedims and Existinc Traffic Volumes A total of 49 study intersections were selected to be analyzed in this traffic study. The study intersections are listed in Table 1 and are identified on Figure I (presented earlier in this study). The selection of the study intersections was based upon coordination with City Staff, SANDAG model information, applicable reference materials, and contact with other project traffic consultants. The majority of the study intersections are located within the City of Carlsbad, with the remaining intersections found in the Cities of San Marcos, Vista, and Oceanside. “Existing” AM and PM peak hour volumes, current roadway geometrics, and existing traffic controls were obtained for all of the study hersections through various sources. The existing conditions information was collected through field investigations performed by our staff, visits to the various jurisdictions to obtain available improvement plan information, review of previously completed studies, reference of the “Curkbad Growth Management Monitoring Report” (1999) document, and completion of additional traffic counts where data were not available. All of the 49 study intersections are or are expected to be signalized. Figures 3A - 3M illustrate the existing lane geometrics at the intersections analyzed in these traffic analyses, while Figure 4 shows the overall existing street system. The existing AM and PM peak hour volumes are shown on Figures 5A - 5D. Level of Service Descriptions The intersection counts and field data for the study intersections were utilized in the TRAFFIX (Release 7.1) software for intersection analyses, based on the Highway Capacity Manual, which was found by City Staff to be acceptable for use. This procedure defines operating conditions in terms of Levels of Service (LOS), which are based upon vehicle delay times. Levels of Service (LOS) are qualitative descriptions of intersection operations, which range bom “A” (the best) to “F” (the worst). It is generally recognized that LOS A through D represent acceptable 4 “1999 City of Carlsbad. Traffic Monitoring Program for Growth Management Monitoring Report”; oo.cit Job #I2614 WTLLDAN Carlsbad Oaks Norih Project - Traffic Study Ciiy of Carlsbad 1 1 TABLE 1 2 Carlsbad Tamarack Avenue / El Camino Real 4 Carlsbad Carlsbad Village Drive / El Camino Real 3 Oceanside" SA 78 Eastbound Ramps / El Camino Real Cannon Road / El Camino Real 1 Carlsbad 6 7 Carlsbad Calle Barcelona / El Camino Real Carlsbad Carlsbad Village Drive / Colleee Boulevard 8 Cannon Road / College Boulevard Carlsbad Poinsettia Lane / El Fuerte Street 11 Carlsbad PoinsettiaLane / AviaraParkway 10 Carlsbad Faraday Avenue / College Boulevard 9 Carlsbad ~~~~~~ ~ 12 13 Carlsbad Poinsettia Lane / Melrose Drive Vista Vista Wav / MelroseDrive 1- 78 Eastbound Ramps / Melrose Drive ~ ~ I Vista' 15 Vista Sunset Drive / Melrose Drive I I 16 17 Oceanside Cannon - Mar Vista / Melrose Drive Vista Shadowridge Drive / Melrose Drive 18 19 Vista Sycamore Avenue / Melrose Drive Vista Park Center Drive / Melrose Drive 11 20 I Palomar Airport Road / Melrose Drive ~~~~~ ~~ ~ I Carlsbad 21 Carlsbad College Boulevard / El Camino Real 23 Carlsbad Melrose Drive / Rancho Santa Fe Road 22 Carlsbad AlgaRoad / MelroseDrive 24 Carlsbad Faraday Avenue / El Camino Real 'Within Caltrans' jurisdiction for intersection operations purposes. 12 'i 03 = I! s TABLE 1 (Cont.) STUDY INTERSECTIONS Carlsbad Oaks North Project Palomar Airport Road I El Camino Real Carlsbad 26 I Camino Vida Roble I El Camino Real Carlsbad I 11 27 I Poinsettia Lane / El Camiuo Real Carlsbad I I 28 I Carlsbad 29 I La Costa Avenue / El Camino Real Carlsbad Aviara-Alga / El Camino Real 30 31 San Marcos Sau Marcos Boulevard / Rancho Sauta Fe Road San Marcos* S.R 78 Eastbound RamDs I San Marcos Boulevard 32 San Marcos San Marcos Boulevard I Grand Avenue 11 33 1 S.R 78 Westbound Ramps / Sau Marcos Boulevard I San Marcos* (1 34 35 Vista Sycamore Avenue. I Business Park Drive Vista' S.R. 78 Eastbound Ramps I Sycamore Avenue 36 Vista Shadowridge Drive / Sycamore Avenue 37 Carlsbad Ouesthaven Road / Rancho Santa Fe Road 38 S.R 78 Westbound Ramps I Sycamore Avenue ~ Vista* 39 40 Carlsbad* Palomar Airport Road I 1-5 Southbound Ramps Carlsbad Palomar Airoort Road / Camino Vida Roble 41 . Carlsbad Palomar Airport Road I Palomar Oaks Way 42 43 Carlsbad Palomar Airport Road I Armada Drive Carlsbad Palomar Air~ort Road I Colleae Boulevard 44 Carlsbad Palomar Airport Road I Hidden Valley Road ~ 45 Palomar Airport Road / 1-5 Northbound Ramps Carlsbad Palomar Abort Road / El Fuerte Street 47 Carlsbad Palomar Airport Road / Paseo Del Norte 46 Carlsbad* ~~ 48 Carlsbad Faraday Avenue / El Fuerte Street 49 San Marcos palomar Airport Road I Business Park Drive *Within Caltrans' jurisdiction for intersection operations purposes. EXISTING GEOMETRY I" si) Lq p RADAY AVE I dttt " k f (ISTING + INTERIM PROJEC IMPROVEMENTS FOR I POINSETTIA LN. YEAR 2005 ~ I" stt iii RADAY AVE .+ P NSETTIA LN. 16 IA 4PI 7 ' "VI Ttk $1 w 3 W @ +@ P NSETTIA LN, YEAR2010 At iii p RADAY AVE + POINSETTIA LN. II 4ti 4 + P NSETTIA LN. YEAR 2( 4 POINSETTIA LN LEGEND FR - FREE RIGHT FIGUR RTO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH LANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS YEAR2010 EXISTING GEOMETRY YEAR 2005 YEAR 2020 .XISTING + INTERIM PROJEC I't I- VISTA VY. VISTA VY. x tttt I E.B. 78 RAWS tttt E.€ 78 RAWS t tt @ - + SUNSET DE 'tt7 E.€ 78 RAWS 3 1 ttt W m 0 a I d W m 0 U _I W I W m 0 W a -I x 0 W v) 0 W a -I 0 3t'4 I + SUNSET I 3t'4 j + SUNSET DR 3t'4 4 SUNSET DR SUNSET DR W m 0 a i W x W m 0 U w I A 0 ttt".I$ CANNON-HAR VISTb r' tt tikl? CANNON-MAR VISTA 3" CANNON-MAR VISTA w W B/ -I x W VI 0 a J W I W FIGURE 3C LEGEND FR - FREERIGHT LEGEND = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY OF VISTA (PROJECT IMPACT) RTO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT :ARLSBAD OAKS NORTH ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS 17 EXISTING GEOMETRY -e r, f I_ 17 PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. XISTING +INTERIM PROJEC IMPROVEMENTS FOR + SYCAMCRE AVE. st_ PARK CENTER DR. d a W VI U 2 LL W PALOHAR~ AIRPORT RD W VI 0 LL W J x @ YEAR 2005 S Itttr;. W W a PARK CENTER DR. 0~ = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY OF VISTA (PROJECT IMPACT) @ = THE INTERSEFTiON GEOMETRY SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH A FUTURE blSTA PROJECT (HOME DEPOT). (PROJECT IMPACT) = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY-WIDE TRhFFIC IPACACT FEE I OTHERS AND THE PROJECT. (;'RQJECT MiPACT) 18 YEAR 2010 YEAR 2020 4it-l SYCAHORE AVE. W 0 VI LL 1 W x a * @A. '4tt4 7 PARK I CENTER DR. I LEGEND FR - FREERIGHT I2 FIGURE 3E RTO - RIGHT TURN OVERUP * - IMPROVEMENT , - 'i CARLSEAD OAKS NORTH ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS EXISTING GEOMETRY MELROSE DR. z a a 5tt 1 COLLEGE BLVD. II LEGEND - XISTING + INTERIM PROJH + ALGA RI d a -" HELROSE DR. 4 COLLEGE BLVD. 0 z u x Q I Y -1 e FARADAY AVE. YEAR 2005 J* I'tti /* * +* (* II 4tt-1 7 FARADAY AVE. @ &RS. (NO PROJECT IMPAm IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY-WIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE I @ = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY-WIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE. (PROJECT IMPAClJ e :NO PROJECT IMPACT) IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY SAN MARCOS AND Cm. IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILIM OF THE CITY SAN MARCOS. Cm AN0 TH€ PROJECT. (PROJECTIMPACT) YEAR2010 A f- W v1 P a -1 W I E MELROSE IDR, b 4ttLL 7 W YEAR 2020 * MELROSE DR. ?ti\ COLLEGE A W I W ~ FIGURE 3F LEGEND FR - FREE RIGHT !TO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT I :ARLSBAD OAKS NORTH ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS I EXISTING GEOMETRY XISTING + INTERIM PROJEC IMPROVEMENTS FOR !A" PALMAR AIRPORT RD. 1 CAMINO VIDA ROBLE aVIARA-ALGA 0 z x U U A I W @ YEAR 2005 4t+L/ % P NSETTIA LN. II I @ &HERS. IN0 PROJECT IMPAW IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSlBlLllY OF THE CIW-WIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE I 20 A 4ttL f CAMINO VIDA ROBLE P NSETTIA LN. IA 4tt"j r, VIARA-ALGA LEGEND FR - FREE RIGHT YEAR 2020 4tt4 1 ?- CAMINO VIDA ROBLE FIGURE 3G ?TO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS iXlSnNG + INTERIM PROJEC IMPROVEMENTS FOR YEAR 2010 YEAR 2020 YEAR 2005 4ttLLi + LA COSTA AVE. I A 4t+LL -7 4tty 7 LA COSTA AVE: LA COSTA AVE. LA COSTA AVE. -0 'tf a U W 2 -0 'tf U -I Y a k + +- +- rr @ I =* k* -c c -c t 5 >t ttL 4: SAN MARCO! -+5 -+a -w Pt ttL 5: SAN MARCOS +a -+% I BLVD 3LVD T't ttl' L i? U z a K - I + +- t li -t k + SAN HARCOS BLVD. SAN HaRcns I BLVD. SAN HARCOS BLVD. BLVD. \ttr BLVD. Ttt7 I I i4 - TttT -+ -72 1_ Ytt7 -w TZ I ttt LL 8 EB RAMPS LEGEND w -4" 78 EB RAMP: 8 EB RAMP (0 8 EB RAMP! K E a a w FIGURE 3H LEGEND FR - FREERIGHT a ;NO PROJECT IMPACT) - IMPROVEMENTS ARE ME RESPONSl0lLlN OF THE CITY SAN MARCOS ?TO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIGMS EXISTING GEOMETRY 12 E ZI Lo a @ I HADOVRIDGE (DR. 1 I ttt L4 78 EB RAMPS (ISTING + INTERIM PROJEC IMPROVEMENTS FOR 4" SYCAHORE AVE t 4AUO RIDGE DR. W LI 0 X U > Lo a ttt 4Ll 78 EB RAMPS YEAR 2005 Lo b % HADOWRIDGE DR. =l--" 78 EB RAMPS LEGEND @ = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY OF VISTA (PROJECT IMPACT) i 22 YEAR2010 I? YI a Ib -% Lo W "tt I ttt 4q 78 EB RAMPS YEAR 2020 Ib -% -0. Lo W z ttt iil 78 EB RAMPS LEGEND FR - FREERIGHT FIGURE 31 ?.TO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT :ARLSBAD OAKS NORTH AN€ GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS No Scale EXISTING GEOMETf7Y .XISTING + INTERIM PROJEC IMPROVEMENTS FOR YEAR2010 YEAR 2020 YEAR 2005 Jttt 1 78 WE RAMPS" $ Jttt 9 "I-- 78 WE RAMPS Jttt I7 lj vttt 2 lj %ttt >, w mttt 2 W w P U E > 4 VI (2 W LL 0 S 4 U > M @ W LL 0 E a U > M 0 W a E U 4 Lo * a 0 W a 0 S 4 > U Lo "4- WESTHAVEN RD. WESTHAVEN IRD. 2UESTHAVEN RD. Lo M 4 (3 a a + PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. "I-- PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. ";; PALOHAR AIRPORT RD URPORT RD. I b f- -c -c IA b 4t4 f- c 3t4 1 T PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. PALOMAR )KPORT RD PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. .. + PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. a 4 E 0 A 4 a. LEGEND FR - FREE RIGHT FIGURE 3, RESPONSl8lLlTY OF THE ClrY OF SAN MPRCOS AND THE FEE I OTHERS. IN0 PROJECT IMPACTI RTO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * ~ IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH LANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS -@- No Scale 23 EXISTING GEOMETRY YEAR2010 YEAR 2020 YEAR 2005 IA 14 iiii T PALOHAR AIRPORT RD 2 PALOHAR AIRPORT RD + PALOMAR AIRPORT RD. PALOHAR AIRPORT RD I II It ALL! PALOHAR AIRPORT ? RD. /tLL I r PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. ALL! r PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. /tLL T 1 PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. VRPORT RD. PALOHAfi d n a n 4 T: LL 4 I 14 IA A /ti f n- E" PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. I : PALOMAR AIRPORT RD. 4 4- J4L li PALOMAR AIRPORT RD. + PALOMAR AIRPORT RD. URPORT RD "t t I@ FIGURE 3b :TO. - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT .*Ty I: . :ARLSBAD OAKS NORTH ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS 24 No 'Scale EXISTING GEOM€RY PALOHAR !AIRPORT RD + +J Ik +a LEGEND -L PALOHAR AIRPORT RD v) K S (9 z a n PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. PALOMAR l AIRPORT RD. Y c K W 3 I.. J W PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. E Y a a n YEAR 2005 I.' "--E- PALOHAR AIRPORT RD .ttLL/ 7 PALOHAR AIRPORT RD. a n * I tLL PALOMAE W J Ik @ = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE THE BRESSI PROJECT AND THE PROJECT. (PROJECT IMPACT) 25 A + f I ** @ YEAR 2010 I.' /= PALONAR AIRPORT RD + I tLL PALOHAF 9 rt; + -+W +& -3Y lL J W A + c f URPORT RD. LEGEND FR - FREE RIGHT YEAR 2020 1.' I= PALDHAR AIRPORT R: a n 3 m FIGURE 3 RTC) - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS -@- No Scale I CYlSTlNG GEOMETRY XISTING +INTERIM PROJE( YEAR 2005 FARADAY AVE. T c‘ Ln LEGEND @ = IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROJECT (PROJECT IMPACT) 26 YEAR2010 + FARADAY AVE. YEAR 2020 , LEGEND FR - FREERIGHT FIGURE 3M ?TO - RIGHT TURN OVERLAP * - IMPROVEMENT ,h . #%;a\ .., CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH ANE GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS No Scale A DIVISION OF WILLDAN “I 2 SL CARLSBAD IILLAGE I 78 EB RAMPS I 100/148J $ 32 J 91/267+ 59/50 I: 6 u 74 4 W 2 J w -I1 W 4 3 1 T k 149/06 -$- $5'130 BARCELON k0 k0 J0 60 ULLAGE Dl k0 JK CARLSBAD r/ t4 000 -0 J0 r/ t4 CALI CANNON RI: CANNON RI '4 f 14 f Oa a Oa Q Oa a J w 7 I r/ $4 P[ RADAY AVE 74 f P~NSETTIA LI 9 12 li EB. 78 RAMP LEGEND 242/532 t 332/345 J 154/188 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ZARLSBAD OAKS :XISTING NTERSECTION VOLUMES VISTA WAY v13 59/270 1/289 + 3 No Scale FIGURE 5A k 0/3 TG MAR VISTA - 8Y175 J 1 5/57 170/272 s $4 S' s $4 CANNOI IWRIDGE Dl AMORE AVE SUNSET DE '\+ f '\+f '\+ f -1 I w 1: 16 ... 18 ! st4 PALOMAR I AIRPORT RI: ALGA RE RANCHO YNTA FE RI '\4 f 12 -1 20 1 W I 19 21 st CI s $4 .LEGE BLVD, PALOMAR PIRPURT RD. 7 RADAY AVE W 4 26 24 W 23 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES a0 J0 PO~NSETTIA LN. "0 170/85 + 28I/"" J 39 /264 AVIRA-ALGk IARLSBAD 'OAKS IXISTING :NTERSECTICIN VULUMES 212/91 j 5 -32 _I 60/419+ 65/29 I a u mr !.?a* No 'Scale Ld COSTA AVI ZI a1 Lo 33 781 WE RAMPS PALOMAR] AIRPORT RI ' SAN TlCUS BLVI r, 65 132 t 971 2382 2.t-L. f 4166 i14/5723 73/124 a 3: :o x Q u > v) T ~~ WRIDGE DR 't -01 -2"- PALOMAR AIRPORT RD !=4 VI "I I +.. 39 LEGEND f 8 EB 32 EB RAMPS 1 PALOMAR ~IRPORT RD. 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES IARLSBAD OAKS IXISTING LNTERSECTICIN VOLUMES Tu) 0 ul k 20/5 hh + 100""/'31 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD $4 J PALOMAR I AIRPORT RD Id 47 51 u) PALOMAR AIRPORT R1 J I6 44 PALOMAR I AIRPORT RI W z l!2 PI 48 52 + 959/180~ 387/954 1 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD I! 45 FARADAY 1 AVE. I IJ W 49 53 ?576/1324 + 194/204 3 118/146 7( 50 54 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES lARLSBAD OAKS IXISTING :NTERSECTION VOLUMES operations, while LOS E and F indicate an over capacity situation. A more detailed explanation of LOS as it re1a)es to vehicle delay times is contained in Appendix A. In conformance with City of Carlsbad guidelines, recommended saturation flow values associated with the intersection evaluations were utilized in the TRAFFM intersection analyses. Saturation flow values of 1,800 vehicles per left or right turn lane per hour (vph) and 2,000 vph per through lane were used as the maximum lane capacities in the intersection analyses. These saturation flows are consistent with past values used for studies in the City of Carlsbad and representative of observed field conditions. Existinp Intersection Analyses Table 2 summarizes the results of the intersection analyses for existing conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The TRAFFM worksheets for the study intersections (1999 Volumes with Existing Geometrics) can be found in Appendix B. As shown in Table 2, two of the 49 study intersections ha e LOS E or F operations, which are considered over capacity, during one or both peak hours 1 under existing conditions (1999 Volumes with Existing Geometrics). The two intersections and their Levels of Service /Delay (in seconds) are: 30) San Marcos Blvd. I Rancho Santa Fe PM - F I 97.6 I 36) S.R 78 EB Ramps I Sycamore Ave. AM - F I 124.2 I Itnorovements - Existing Conditions Potential improvement measures to address these over capacity locations were then addressed. The following improvements were added to the over capacity intersections in order to achieve acceptable operating conditions (Levels of Service A through D) during existing conditions. The improvements at the San Marcos / Rancho Santa Fe intersection are based on the existing Job #I2614 WILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Projeci - Trafflc Study Ciq of Carlsbad 32 * u) n i + t t L i= t L .. 3 intersection volumes obtained for this study. It is possible other studies could update these findings, but these improvements are accurate for the conditions detailed in this study 30) San Marcos Blvd. /Rancho Santa Fe - Add one SB through lane. - Add one NB through lane. - Add one WE3 through lane and one WE3 right lane. - Add one EB through lane. I 36) S.R 78 EB Ramps I Sycamore Ave. - Change the configuration of the second EB left lane to allow left and right turn movements (via restriping). I Table 2 shows the acceptable LOS (and delay values) which result after the improvements (listed above) are added to the existing conditions of the over capacity study intersections. (See Existing Volumes with Improvements of Table 2.) PROJECT C&DITIONS Trip Generation In order to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed Carlsbad Oaks North project, it is necessary to determine the trip generation potential of the proposed project. For this study, the project is represented by the amount of new traffic assumed to be generated by the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the traffic model for the Carisbad Oaks North areas. The land use assumptions ultimately utilized in the traffic modeling efforts resulted kom input &om the , developer, review of the developers' plan, and adjustments made by City Staff. The land use assumptions for the Interim and Total Project are provided in Table 3. The Sun Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) was retained to perform modeling analyses for the proposed project utilizing the Carlsbad Sub-Area traffic model, which was accepted for use by the City of Carlsbad. The model develops peak period trip generation estimates directly kom the land use assumptions, land size, and trip generation rate data as a part of the modeling process. Table 4, however, provides the more conservative trip generation rate assumptions, which are . ., ,. ..,., ,~ .-a ..' Job #I2614 WILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Tra#ic Study C$y of Carlsbad 36 TABLE 3 PLANNED ADDED LAND USES INCORPORATED IN T,HE SANDAG MODELING Carlsbad Oaks North Project I 4.4 Acres I/ I . 2.5 Acres I1 + Other Commercial PROPOSED PROJECT llncludes the Interim Proieet): 4.4 Acres I 216.9 Acres II 4 Light Industrial 5.2 Acres 4 Other Commercial 4.9 Acres + Low Rise Office 8.7 Acres TABLE 4 TRIP GENERATION RATES Carlsbad Oaks North Project (1) SOURCE: Traffic Generators; San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); updated July, 1998 based upon standard SANDAG driveway trip generation rates and their relationshlp to peak hour conditions. It is noted that the model trip generation derived and applied for the proposed project through the modeling process is more conservative than the standard trip generation rates shown in Table 4. In other words, the higher trip generation rates associated with the proposed project, which were generated within the Carlsbad Sub-Area traffic model, were applied to the proposed land use assumptions. For report and evaluation purposes (Le. tiip budget purposes), however, the’ typical SANDAG trip generation is shown per the direction of City Staff. The resulting trip totals for the proposed project are shown in Table 5. These are projected trip generations for the proposed Curlsbud Ouks North project and can also be considered as a future “trip budget” for the project site. The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 22,650 daily trip ends, of whch 2,375 (2,100 In, 275 Out) trip ends would occur during the AM peak hour and 2,670 (590 In, 2,080 Out) trip ends would occur during the PM peak hour. The trip generation totals, shown in Table 5, are representative of a “hip budget” for the Curlsbud Ouh North project and provided SAiVDAG dnveway trip totals. More conservative totals were incorporated in the modeling; and, therefore, the analyses are representative of a ‘horst case” project addressed in the traffic study. It is anticipated that a variety andor combination of Curlsbud Ouh North project land uses and sizes could be developed based upon the Table 5 totals. If the eventual land uses and sizes vary from the currently envisioned development, it is anticipated their traffic impacts will have been addressed by these evaluations, assuming the trip totals remain within the Table 5 “budget”. / Trip Distribution As previously mentioned, the traffic model generates peak period trip generation estimates for the proposed project and distributes these trips onto the surrounding street system based upon the Traffic Analysis Zone (TU) structure, traffic loading points, and the existing and proposed *’ Job #I2614 WLLLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Projeci - Traffic Study City of Carlsbad 39 TABLE 5 Carlsbad Oaks North Project street system. The trip distribution is also a function of the project land use assumptions, which were specifically input into the model and are representative of the proposed project. Therefore, the traffic model was utilized to distribute and assign project traffic to the surroundmg street system. As a part of the traffic study procedures coordmated with City Staff, “Select Zone” SANDAG traffic model runs for the Carlsbad Oaks North project were requested and completed. These model runs served to determine the study area for the traffic study, as well as provide information necessary to identify project related trad impacts on the surrounding street system. The Select Zone runs provided trip distribution of the daily traffic volumes related to the proposed project land uses, which were input into the traffic model by SANDAG. These Select Zone volumes were also translated into peak hour volumes. These factors were then utilized to determine the project study area, based upon locations that are anticipated to be impacted by 50, or more, peak hour trips. In addition, the Select Zone traffic information allowed detailed evaluations of potential project traffic impacts, related to the proposed CarIsbad Oaks North project. The Select Zone distributions were referenced to eventually dictate an assignment of peak hour, project related traffic to the surrounding street system. These project traffic volumes are expected to be a conservative representation of project impacts (if compared to actual “internal” model assumptions), but were used in the intersection analyses and eventually represented , identification of project related impacts. The SANDAG Select Zone model ms were required by ’ the City of Carlsbad and served to provide evaluations consistent with the SANDAG traffic modeling procedures and assumptions. Figure 6 shows the interim project only volumes. Job #12614 WILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Trafic Siudy City of Carlsbad 41 0 Z z a u J W CANNON RI IB RAMPS tf $% 2 CALL^ BARCELONC "I W 6 CARLSBAD [VILLAGE Df - "4 W 3 CARLSBAD IVILLAGE DR dl 11 LEGEND h0 J0 't f to , CANNON RD. 00 0 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1ARLSBAD OAKS NTERIM PROJECT ONLY NTERSECTION VOLUMES k a/o -c a/a 6 223/68 AMORE AVE I L%% kq -14y13.3 k o/o ISL f 3/ 0 PALOMAR AIRPORT R1 "\4 f 21 I 22 4 CAMINO 1 IDA ROBLE PALOMAR ~IRPORT RD. AI W 24 Id 25 -I1 w 26 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ZARLSBAD OAKS INTERIM PROJECT ONLY INTERSECTION VOLUMES -@- I$\ POPNSETTIA LN, I I AVIRA-ALG '. LPI COSTA AV Id 2 * 8 WE RAMP 781 WE RAMPS T 41 a '\f PALOMAR! AIRPORT RI: s2 k O/l S +4 J o/o t 3/21 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD T SAN M~RCOS BLVD T AIRPORT RT 39 ZI ""i a 2% . t4 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES :ARLSBAD OAKS INTERIM PROJECT ONLY :NTERSECTION VOLUMES No 'Scale FTGIIRF hT: I PALOMAR T PALOMAR !AIRPORT RD -I W 47 51 L%% r, $L PALOMAR T k o/o J o/o + 3/24 AIRPORT R PALOMAR~~IRPORT R1 52 I PALOMAR AIRPORT R! I IC 45 I FARADAY I AVE. IJ LL W 49 53 50 54 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES :ARLSBAD OAKS :NTERIM PRUJECT ONLY :NTERSECTIUN VOLUMES -Q- No Scale pw -4 DA mAmr ~l~~~!~ mrr EXISTING CONDITIONS PLUS THE INTERIM PROJECT The evaluation of this condition was determined to be important for several reasons, including to determine the level of project development that could occur with no significant changes to the existing street system. In addition, the major projects in this study area have all been preparing their traffic studies simultaneously, and all represent roadway connections that could occur in numerous combinations and scenarios. Analysis of “Existing Plus Interim Project“ for each of the individual projects served to eliminate the need to evaluate unreasonable numbers of “alternative” conditions (due to an inordinate number of potential street system combinations). The “Existing Conditions Plus the Interim ProjecP‘ analyses are also expected to provide information, which would be beneficial in the .environmental analyses. It can be noted that these “Existing Plus Interim Project” analyses were directed by City Staff and utilize a combination of Select Zone model results and SANDAG peak hour trip generation information to pr duce the evaluations of project related volumes and impacts. Select Zone model runs (sho J ng the model’s estimate of how daily project traffic would distribute to the surrounding street system) were commissioned for the Carlsbad Ouh North project, assuming the existing road conditions. From this information, the percentage of project-related traffic distributed by the SANDAG model to each of the existing, surrounding roadways was calculated. These percentages were then applied to peak hour trip generation model estimates, for the interim Curlsbud Ouh North project, to determine the amount of added project traffic at each of the study locations. This resulted in AM and PM peak hour volumes for the Interim project assigned to the existing street system. f The methodology, designated by City Staff to be used in the evaluation of the ‘‘Existing Plus Interim Project” conditions, serves to provide a conservative analysis, which is expected to be “reliable” (the project traffic assignment is in a pattern consistent with the Select Zone) and ?raceable” to the proposed project. 1 Job #I2614 WILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Traflic Study City of Carlsbad 46 As described above, one aspect of these evaluations is to identify the amount of project development that could occur without significant road system changes. For the Carlsbad Oaks North project, this aspect (amount of development allowed, prior to significant road improvements) is less meaningful than perhaps other projects, since Carlsbad Oaks North plans to accelerate the construction of Faraday Avenue (which would allow travel between ECR and Melrose Drive) as a part of its initial development. The Faraday Avenue (ECR to Melrose Drive) connection was assumed in the Carlsbad Sub-Area modeling to occur in Year 2010, but the proposed project applicants envision the construction of Faraday Avenue in conjunction with the completion of the first “phase” of development. These analyses show that some level of development may be able to occur without the Faraday Avenue connection- (and instead provision of some intersection improvements), although the plan is to provide the Faraday Avenue connection. The “Existing Conditions Plus the interim Project” volumes are shown on Figures 7A - 70 and the evaluations are summarized below. The interim project is represented by the amount of development that was estimated could occur by Year 2005. In addition, improvements are identified which would serve to address existing deficiencies, as well as allow construction of the interim level of project development. These analyses serve to document what improvements are needed, assuming the Faraday Avenue connection is not implemented. There are special analyses provided in the Year 2005 analyses, which also address the acceleration of the Faraday Avenue connection. / Existing Conditions Plus the Interim Project Intersection Analvses The estimate of interim project related traffic was added to the existing conditions, so the intersection analyses could be performed for this scenario. The results are summarized in Table 6, which shows two intersections (San Marcos / Rancho Santa Fe and S.R. 78 EB Ramps / Sycamore) that require intersection improvements to provide acceptable operations. Job #I2614 IYILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Trafic Study City of Carkbad 47 W I F~RADAY AVE IT IB RAMPS CALL^ BARCELON/ W 6 I, 78 RAMP5 CARLSBAD VILLAGE D lI W 3 k0 J0 '4 to /ILLAGE Dfi 0 7 w 11 J+ 4 CANNON RI P~NSETTIA LI 12 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES I ARLSBAD OAKS XISTING + INTERIM PROJECT - lTERSECTION VOLUMES No .Scale C-TCI IRF 7L SHA~OWRIDGE D '4 f It I: 1i I 18 322 + 264/ IO! k 29/3l7 PAR CENTER D 86/620 f 62/265+ & lA 0 0, :* rr PALOMAR I AIRPORT R RANCHO ANTA FE R. =I r. 22 I: 21 k 18/82 f 66/263 + W 104 RADAY AVE LEGE BLVI CAMINO hA ROBLI '4 1 '4 h S% a: Id 25 J W 2: 24 LEGEND 580/540 =AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ARLSBAD OAKS XISTING + INTERIM PROJECT- dTERSECTIUN V'JLUMES l7$/26 -C 28I/229 J 393/264 1VIRA-ALGt 1.f '4 T " 47 /32 f 54/a2 'i 22y15 COSTA AVI a v) 33 PALOMAR] AIRPORT RI T w QU STHAVEN R1 PALOMAR 1 AIRPORT RI --"-- 'SAN MTCOS BLVD, 5 SHA WRIDGE DR, PALOMAR /AIRPORT RD 36/67S, 98/275 v) 3s 8 EB RAMP a 25 7 EB RAMPS I PALOMAR AIRPORT RI LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 3ARLSBAD OAKS [NTERSECTION VOLUMES IXISTING + INTERIM PROJECT- @.~, *". ,/1 No Scale CTCI IDC 7f Qm PALOMAF 2571/1331 + 30/lO I( 20/40 3 - 1008/265i 2 J 74f k 20/5 J 80/02 AIRPORT RD. 1 n: A 5 z AI 3 1 *Ix 3 43 AIRPORT RD. pqr a w \" I" a-4 W 3 LL 1 w 47 51 I! 44 PALOMAR/;IRPORT RD 48 m 52 I? 45 li 49 w 53 PALOMAR IAIRPORT RD. 46 a 50 54 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES XRLSBAD OAKS :XISTING + INTERIM PRUJECT- [NTERSECTIUN VOLUMES - No Scale i i i U r T n ? V I h C 2 E I . I . i The need for improvements does not result from the proposed Carlsbad Oaks North project. It can be seen in Tuble 2, which was shown earlier, that the two intersections already have over capacity operations for existing conditions, prior to consideration of the proposed project. Further review of Table 2 and Table 6 reveals that the addition of the interim project does not create a significant impact upon the (already) unacceptable (F") operations at Sin Marcos / Rancho Santa Fe (less than a 2.0 second increase). The addition of the interim project does have a significant impact upon the (already) unacceptable (AM) operations at the S.R. 78 EB Ramps / Sycamore intersection (greater than a 2.0 second increase). Improvements - Existinp Conditions Plus the Interim Proiect Figures 3A - 3M (which were presented earlier in this study) illustrate the improvements needed to mitigate the "Interim Project" plus existing traffic impacts (with no Faraday Avenue connection) and also identify the responsible party for the improvements. There are deficiencies for existing conditions and the mitigation for the existing impacts are the same as shown on Figure 3 for "Existing Plus Interim Project " conditions. It should be noted that the interim project does cause a significant impact (greater than 2.0 second increase) at the S.R. 78 EB Ramps / Sycamore intersection. This study intersection is located in the City of Vista (outside of Carlsbad's sphere of influence). The City of Vista has indicated that there is a specific improvement program in place to fund, design, and construct improvements to S.R. 78 EB Ramps / Sycamore. With these improvements in place, the existing ' plus interim project impacts do not result in a significant impact. / Since the project impact upon the San Marcos / Rancho Santa Fe intersection is insignificant (less than 2.0 second increase), project mitigation at this location would not be required. Figure 3 identifies the City of San Marcos as the party responsible for improvement to this study intersection. Job #I2614 WlLLDAN 55 Carlsbad Oaks North Projeci - Traffi Stady City of Carkbad Threshold ofSienificance The City of Carlsbad uses Level of Service @OS) D or better as the “threshold” for acceptable intersection operations. If an intersection is at LOS “E” or “F” and the project impact is greater than a two second delay, this is considered as significant. At the S.R. 78 EB Ramps / Sycamore intersection, it is noted that the project impact, during the critical peak, is a 4.9 second delay increase. This is above the threshold of significance and, therefore, considered a significant project impact. It should be noted the Curisbud Oaks North project impact at San Marcos / Rancho Santa Fe, during the critical peak, is a 1.5 second delay increase. This project impact, therefore, is below the threshold of significance and project related mitigation at this intersection is not required. YEAR 2005 CONDITIONS - INCLUDLWG THE LWTEmM PROJECT SANDAG Trafic Modeling The analyses o&these Year 2005 conditions includes the interim (Year 2005) level of project development. During the development of the assumptions to be utilized in the SANDAG modeling efforts, Carlsbad Oaks North (and the other major Carlsbad projects that were conducting simultaneous studies) provided specific information regarding the amount of development expected to occur by Year 2005. These land use assumptions were incorporated in the modeling efforts. In addition, the SANDAG model data includes consideration of traffic growth generated by all cumulative traffic throughout the study area and region. In order to verify the appropriateness of using the SANDAG model data, an extensive list of potential specific projects located in Carlsbad and surrounding jurisdictions was obtained by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Extensive efforts were made by City of Carlsbad Staff and developer consultants, which served to verify that the list of specific cumulative projects are addressed by the SANDAG modeling efforts. It should also be recognized that the modeling includes other traffic growth that goes beyond the specifically identified projects. This serves to Job #12614 UULDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Traflc Study City of Carlsbad 56 provide a “worst case” type evaluation, which includes consideration of factors such as general regional growth and projects that have not yet been approved, but could occur in the designated time fiame. Table 7 provides a list of the specific projects that were obtained by the City of Carlsbad and verified regarding their inclusion in the modeling efforts. The land use assumption utilized to develop the Year 2005 modeling needed to be applied to a roadway system that is anticipated to be in place by Year 2005. The decisions about the street network to be included in the Year 2005 modeling also resulted hm significant efforts on the part of City of Carlsbad Staff and participating consultants, to only include those roadway links that are reasonably assured to be in place. Figure 8 illustrates the Year 2005 road system, which served as a basis for the SANDAG modehg. The SANDAG modeling efforts were completed through coordination by City of Carlsbad Staff and input by the participating traffic consultants. Figures 9A -9D show the Year 2005 traffic model results without the proposed project. The volumes associated with only the Curlsbud Oak North project are presented in Figures IOA - IOD. The resulting Year 2005 with Project model data, shown in Figures 11A - IlD, were also provided by SANDAG to the consultants for use in their traffic analyses. This information was taken and utilized in the analyses of the 49 study intersections for the Carfsbad Oaks North project. Subsequent to these’ evaluations, the anticipated intersection improvement needs were identified, which would serve to support the proposed interim project as well as the cumulative traffic growth in the study area. Road Geometric Assumptions As described above, the SANDAG modeling was performed using a Year 2005 road “network”, which was determined to be the most reasonable street system, given the various traffic factors to be considered. By design, it was intended to assume “less network” to be in place than may actually occur, but ths serves to provide a conservative evaluation. The intersection analyses Job #I2614 WILLDAN Carlsbad Qnks North Project - Traffic Study Ciiy of Carlsbad 57 Carlsbad Oaks North Project City of Carlsbad 201 SF City of Carlsbad 880 SF I City ofcarlsbad I 1,076 SF ~~ 4) Aviara Phase DI 118 SF City of Carlsbad 7) Aviara Plannine Area 24 Master Plan) 54 SF City of Carlsbad 6) Aviara Planning Area 15 - Aldea 11 108 SF City of Carlsbad 5) Aviara Planning Area 12 133 SF City of Carlsbad 11 8) Aviara Planning Area 25 City of Carlsbad 34 SF I( 9) Aviara Planning Area 26 City of Carlsbad 48 SF 11 10) Aviara Plannine Area 26 North I City ofCarlsbad I 69 SF 11 11) Aviara Plannine Area 27 I Citv ofcarlsbad I 35 SF 12) Aviara Planning Area 28 ~~ ~ City of Carlsbad 61 SF 13) Aviara Planning Area 29 14) Aviara Plannine Area 30 32 SF City of Carlsbad 101 SF City of Carlsbad 11 15) Aviara Plannine Area 5 I Citv ofCarlsbad 1 103 SF I/ 16) Bressi Ranch I City of Carlsbad I 400 MF 518 SF II I I 10 AC CML 11 In Brindisi I City ofcarlsbad I 90 MF 11 18) Brookfield Meadows I Citv ofcarlsbad I 29 SF ~~~~~~ ~ 19) Buerger 138 MF City of Carlsbad 22) Calavera Heiehts - Villaee =€in 138 SF City of Carlsbad 21) Calavera Heights -Village “U” 56 MF City of Carlsbad 20) Caladris at Aviara 12 SF City of Carlsbad (1 23) Calavera Heights - Village “R” ~~ City of Carlsbad 6 SF 11 24) Calaverl Eleights -Villages “’8, X S; Y” I City of Carlsbad 73 SF 25) Calavera Hills - Village “L-1” 58 SF City of Carlsbad TABLE 7 (Cont) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Carlsbad Oaks North Project 28) Carlsbad Federal Express 0.99 OFFICE BUILDING City of Carlsbad 30) Carlsbad Ranch Coruorate Center 87.2 AC INDUSTRIAL City of Carlsbad 29) Carlsbad Raceway Business Park 10.07 AC INDUSTRIAL City of Carlsbad 31) Research Center Lot 12 32) Carlsbad Ranch Hotel 0.17 RESTAURANT City of Carlsbad 34) Carlsbad Ranch Hotel 161 TIMESHARE City of Carlsbad 33) Carlsbad Ranch Hotel 275 HOTEL City of Carlsbad ~~ ~ ~ City of Carlsbad 9 BUILDINGS 35)Cnrnatioo Property 28 SF City of Carlsbad 36) Colina Roble 32 SF City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad 112 SF II 11 38) Costa Do Sol I CityofCarlsbad I 119 h4F II IF-Courtyard By Marriott Cristalla I I City of Carlsbad 145 HOTEL 61 SF II 40) De Jong Property City of Carlsbad sa SF City of Carlsbad 43) Emerald Ridee - East 24 MF City of Carlsbad 42) Emerald Pointe Estates 61 SF City of Carlsbad 41) Emerald Ridge - West 29 SF ~~ 44) Four Seasons -Additional Timeshares 1 Citv ofcarlsbad 1 240 TIMESHARE II 45) Gibralter Greens City of Carlsbad 359 MF City of Carlsbad 48) Green Vallev - La Costa Glen 76 SF City of Carlsbad 47) Green Valley - La Costa Glen 12 MF City of Carlsbad 46) Golf Heights 12 MF ~~~ ~- 49) Hadley Property 162 HOTEL City of Carlsbad 50) Hilton Gardens Inn 3 39 SF City of Carlsbad 51) Inns of America 98 HOTEL City of Carlsbad Carlsbad Qah North Project 52) James Canyon Estates I 15 SF City of Carlsbad 53) Jefferson I Chinquapin Projects 12 SF City of Carlsbad 11 54) JPI Apartments I CityofCarlsbad 1 288 SF It 55) Kelly Ranch 2.87 AC OFFICE City of Carlsbad 57) Kelly Ranch 2.87 AC OFFICE City of Carlsbad 56) Kelly Ranch 494 MF City of Carlsbad - 11 58) Kellv Ranch - Villaee "A" I CitvofCarlsbad I 71 SF II (1 60) La Costa Greens City of Carlsbad 5 SF 11 61) La Costa Lucky / Sav-On Shopping Ctr. 1 City of Carlsbad I 11.78 AC COMMERCM II 65) Lincoln Commerce CtrJLincoln North Pt. 3.84 AC OFFICE 11 66) Lincoln Commerce CtrJLincoln North Pt. I Citv of Carlsbad I 10.61 AC INDUSTRIAL II 67) Lohf Property City of Carlsbad 2 SECONDARY City of Carlsbad 69) Magnolia Gardens 12 SF City of Carlsbad 68) Magnolia Gardens 73 SF ~~ ~~ 11 70) Maenolia Subdivision I City ofcarlsbad I 9 SF I1 71) Magnolia Subdivision 8 SECONDARY City of Carlsbad 74) Mar Vista 49 SF City of Carlsbad 73) Mar Vista 157 MF City of Carlsbad 72) Manzanita Apartments 2MF City of Carlsbad 75) Mar Vista at La Costa Mariano I7 SF City of Carlsbad 150 SF 76) PAnrimo I4 MF City of Qrlsbad 77) May Subdivision 27 MF City of Carlsbad ., **.::y e;; I] TABLE 7 (Conk) CUnaUEATPVE PROJECTS LIST Carlsbad Oaks North Project 78) Meadowview Townhomes I CityofCarlsbad I II MF It ~~ 79) Oceanbluff City of Carlsbad 96 SF I 80) Pacific Palisades Addition City of Carlsbad 24 HOTEL 81) Pacific Pointe City of Carlsbad 6 SF I 82) .Pacific View Estates I City of Carlsbad I 26 SF II 83) Pacific View Estates City of Carlsbad 4 SECONDARY II 84) Pacific View Estates City of Carlsbad 6MF 85) Palomar Beach Resort City of Carlsbad 162 HOTEL I 86) Palomar Forum / Professor's Caoital 1 City of Carlsbad I 44.4 AC R\IDUSTRLAL It ~~~~ ~ 87) Park Laguna Condos City of Carlsbad 82 MF 88) Parkside City of Carlsbad 48 SF 89) Poinsettia Hill City of Carlsbad 160 SF 90) Poinsettia Properties Master Tent. Map I City of Carlsbad I 346 SF II 91) Poinsettia Pronerties Master Tent. Mao I CitvofCarlsbad I 1.80 AC COMMERCIAL II ~~~~~~ 92) Poinsettia Properties Master Tent. Map City of Carlsbad 175 MF 93) Poinsettia Properties P.A. 8 City of Carlsbad 112SF 94) Poinsettia Properties P.A. 7 I CityofCarlsbad I 117 SF ' II 95) Poinsettia Properties P.A. A-1 City of Carlsbad 36 SF 96) Poinsettia Properties P.A. A-2 City of Carlsbad 49 SF 97) Poinsettia Properties P.A. A-3 City of Carlsbad 50 SF 98) Poinsettia Properties P.A. A4 City of Carlsbad 61 SF 99) Poinsettia Properties PA. B-1 City of Carlsbad 158 SF 100) Poinsettia Properties P.A. C City of Carlsbad 90 SF 101) Poinsettia Properties P.A. C City of Carlsbad 56 MF 102) Poinsettia Properties P.A. D City of Carlsbad 90 MF 103) Poinsettia Properties P.A. D City of Carlsbad 28 SF 104) Poinsettia I Tabata City ofcarlsbad 231 SF TABLE 7 (COQ~) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Carlsbad Oaks North Project 11 106) Promontory Business Park 1 CityofCarlsbad 1 1.85 AC OFFICE II I CityofCarlsbad I 1,117.5 KSFIP II I[ 108) Rancho Carlshad - Phase 2 City of Carlsbad 135 MOBILE HOME 109) Rancho Carrillo - Village “A” I 52 MF City of Carlsbad 110) Rancho Carrillo -Village “E” I69 SF City of Carlsbad 11 118) Rancho Carrillo - Village “B” I CityofCarlsbad I 124 MF II 11 119) Rancho Carrillo - Villages “E,F,G,K&P” I City of Carlsbad 382 SF ~~~~ I )I 120) Rancho Real City of Carlsbad 35 SF II 11 121) Rancho Verde I City ofCarlsbad I 147 SF II 122) Roesch Property City of Carlsbad 78TIMESHARE City of Carlsbad 125) Sea Point Resort 15 MF City of Carlsbad 124) Sea Gables 39 MF City of Carlsbad 123) Sambi / Plum Treewalk 21 SF _____~ ~ ~ 126) Sea Pointe Expansion 127) Seaview 17TIMESHARE City of Carlsbad 9 SF City of Carlsbad 11 128) Serenata - Aviara PA 21 City of Carlsbad 81 SF 129) Shelley City of Carlsbad 251 SF ’ .% 11. .? . *., 130) Stay Bridge Suites City of Carlsbad 106 HOTEL TABLE 7 (COQ~) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Carlsbad Oaks North Project I TABLE 7 (Cont.) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Carlsbad Oaks North Project LLC Vulcan I CityofEncinitas I 1 SF II II n LLC Vdcan 1 CityofEncinitas I 1 SF II ILy Snnta Maria I CitvofEncinitas I 1 SF II ~ 9) Pope City of Encinitas 1 SF City of Encinitas 10) Zylstra 1 SF ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 11 11) Joe Ostermao 1 CityofEncinitas 1 1 SF. I1 ~~ 12) Hayashi Kazumi 1 SF City of Encinim 13) Tom Uter 1 SF City of Encinitas 11 14) Joan Crossen Pennock I CityofEncinitas I 1 SF II 11 19 Mark Goethals I CitvofEncinitas I 1 SF II 19) Barratt America I SF City of Encinitas 21) Topmark (Dick Farrell) 11 SF City of Encinitas 20) Mike Galey 80 SF City of Encinitas (1 22) Shea Homes 1 CityofEncinitas I 80 SF I1 23) Barratt America City of Encinitas 25) Warren Scott 4 SF City of Encinitas 24) Dewood 23 SF City of Encinitas ', 1) 26) Phillip Berry I CityofEncinitas I 1 SF II II 2n Castillera I CitvofEncinitas 1 1 SF II 28) Rimmer Development 1 SF City of Encinitas 29) Mitchelle 1 SF City of Encinitas 11 30) Herbert Jacobs I CitvofEncinitas I 5 II 31) Chris Lloyd 12 City ofijncinitas 32) Chris Lloyd 5 ,, ., .:!ii City of Encinitas . ,~ TABLE 7 (Cont) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Carlsbad Oaks North Project 133 .Zahoor Abbassi I CityofEncinitas 1 4 SF 11 39) Pironz Eternad City of Encinitas 3 SF I 11 40) Chris Lloyd I CityofEncinitas I 12 SF II 11 411 James & Elizabeth Waener 42) Barratt American 43) Brooks Worthiog 44) Tony Delanzo City of Encinitas City of Encinitas 2 SF City of Encinitas 1 SF 1 SF City of Encinitas 1 SF II 45) Wayne Waener 1 CitvofEncinitas I 1 SF II ~~ ~ 46) Mark Gadbois 1 SF City of Encinitas 49) Monica & Tom Browning 1 SF City of Encinitas 48) Josh Addison 1 SF City of Encinitas 47) Lisanne Holding Company 1 SF City of Encinitas I( 50) Michele McClaio I City ofEncinitas I 1 SF II 51) Rabines Safdie 1 SF City of Encinitas 54) RonPaul 1 SF City of Encinitas 53) Lynn Kunkle I SF City of Encinitas 52) Dan Periscbetti 1 SF City of Encinitas 11 55) Hermes Avenue LLC I City ofEncinitas I 2 SF II 56) Bob Barelmann City of Encinitas ~~ 1 SF ..""".,. 10 SF City of Encinitas 57) Keystone Communities 11 SF City of Encinitas 58) Venture Pacific I Booker 59) Encinitas Town Center ASC City of5ncinita.s " TABLE 7 (Cont.) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Carlsbad Oaks North Project 61) Herme AV LLC - Addisson City of Encinitas 3 SF 62) Claudia Hanson City of Encinitas 2 SF 11 63) Cornerstone Communities - Sidonia 1 CityofEncinitas I 40 SF Greystone Homes City of Encinitas 62 SF (1 65) Standard Pacific City of Encinitas 44 SF 11 66) Dean Kedenburg I CityofEncinitas 1 4 SF 11 67l Sheridan Homes LLC I Citv ofEncinitas 1 3 SF 68) Jason St. LLC City of Encinitas 3 SF 69) Sjirk Zijlstra City of Encinitas 2 SF 11 70) Benamel Develovment I City ofEncinitas I 4 SF 71) Darren Caris City of Encinitas 1 SF 72) William Johnson City of Encinitas 1 SF 73) Sjirk Zijlstra City of Encinitas 1 SF 11 74) ADA Design 1 CitvofEncinitas 1 1 SF 75) Sheridan Homes LLC City of Encinitas 3 SF 1) University Center City of San Marcos 442.5 KSF 2) University Commons City of San Marcos 930 SF 305 MF 40 KSF COMMERCIAL ll 3) Scripps I City of San Marcos 20 BEDS 90 KSF . ~ ~~~~ 4) Kaiser City of San Marcos 270 KSF OFFICE 20 KSF PLANT 227 BEDS 11 5) Meadowlark Estates 180 DU 6) CSUSM City of San Marcos 9,099 STUDENTS 7) San Marcos Highlands City of San Marcos 238 SF 4 8) Rome Depot City of San Marcos 105,000 SQF TABLE 7 (Cont) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Cadsbad Oaks North Project 11 101 Discoverv Hills I I City of San Marcos I 706 DU ~~ 12) Richard Evans 12.4 AC OFFICE City of San Marcos 14) Towne Center 75,OOO.SQF City of San Marcos 13) Commerce Square 5.64 AC RETAIL I COMMERCIAL City of San Marcos 5.0 AC OFFICE I RETAIL 3.5 AC HOTEL I RETAIL 5.2 AC RETAIL 15) Hollandia 71 SF City of San Marcos 40 AC HSPK , 263 SF City of San Marcos 16) Rancheros ln MAG Prooerties I 600 KSF COMMERCIAL City of San Marcos 18) Rancho Cielo 800 SF City of San Marcos 16 AC COMMERCIAL I 11 19) Paloma City of San Marcos 1,562 SF II 20) Schmidt -Villages "C" & "D" I 205 LOTS City of San Marcos 21) TM4569 499 APARmNTs City of San Marcos 22) Upham 23) Bier1 Group 35 SF City of Oceanside 1) Sinele Familv AS PROPOSED City of San Marcos 24) San Elijo 60 AC COMMERCIAL I INDUSTRIAL City of San Marcos ______~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ City of San Marcos 32 AC CML I 11 2) Hermosa Construction I City ofoceanside I 66 SF II ~ 3) John Crehan City of Oceanside 1 SF City of Oceanside ~ 4) South Pacific Street LLC 7 SF 2 SF City of Oceanside 6) John Donaldson 12 SF City of Oceanside 5) Russel W. Grosse Development Company ~~~ ~ 7) Mark Landers I City of Oceanside 3 CONDOS TABLE 7 (Cont) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Carlsbad Oaks North Project 11 8) Kay & Paula Alexander I City ofoceanside I 1 SF II 11 9) Roger Dana Greee I CityofOceamide I 2 SF II 11 10) Elkins I Zirnolo I Citv ofoceanside I 36.040 SOF RETAIL II I[ 11) Elkins I Zirpol~ City of Oceanside 100 KSQ COMMERCIAL II 12) Oakmont Retirement Communities 37 AC NURSERY 13) Everereen Distributors City of Oceanside 80 UNITS City of Oceanside 14) Ivey Ranch Development Company 393 AC INDUSTRIAL City of Oceanside II 1115) 9262 Inc. City of Oceanside 7,938 SQF I I( 16) Yvette Burke Little People's Daycare I City of Oceanside 1 2,480 SQF II 11 In North Coast United Methodist Church I City of Oceanside I 61,494 SQF II 11 18) Church of St. Thomas More City of Oceanside 69,938 SQF 11 2) Mitsui Fudosan he. I citvofvista I 41.977 SQF INDUSTRIAL It 3) Dig Corporation City of Vista 50,980 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 5) Mitsui Fudosan Inc. 26,960 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 4) Wilco Investments LLC 35,077 SQF INDUSTRIAL ~~ 7) Cal West Ind. Properties 40,575 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 9) Handle Ltd. 129,919 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 8) Hondle Ltd. 233,716 SQF INDUSTRIAL Citj. of Vista 11 IO) Fortune Way LLC I Citvofvista I 6.880 SQF INDUSTRIAL II 11 11) S.W.B. LLC I citv ofvista I 125.000 SOF INDUSTRIAL II ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ 12) Circus Distribution 104,002 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 13) N.C. Industrial Park LLP City of Vista ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ 1,710 SQF INDUSTRIAL 15) Kurt Ackermann 7.41 1 SQF INDUSTRIAL City if Vista TABLE 7 (Cont.) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Carlsbad Oaks North Project 16) Goodtime Enterprises LLC 38,046 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vita 17) Moxie Pacific 28,545 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 18) Killion & Bolev I city ofvista I 2,738 SOF INDUSTRIAL ~~ ~ 19) K-P Industries City of Vista 106,840 SQF OFFICE City of Vista 22) Mitsui Fudosan 464,167 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 21) Master Development Corporation 7,999 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 20) Hamann Consolidated Inc. 6,888 SQF INDUSTRIAL ~ ~~ 23) Mitsui Fudosan 134,230 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista ' 24) Mitsui Fudosan 3,775 SQF INDUSTRIAL ADDITION City of Vista 25) Sullivan Moving & Storage I City of Vista I 23,026 SQF INDUSTRIAL ADDITION 26) Mitsui Fudosan I city of Vista I 79,648 SOF INDUSTRIAL ~~~~ ~ 27) Mitsui Fudosan City of Vista 26,332 SQF FUTUR!3 EXPANSION 70,243 SQF INDUSTRIAL 28) North County Ford 1,129 SQF COMMERCIAL City of Vista 29) Indiplex LLC I City ofvista I 16,000 SQF INDUSTRIAL 30) Mitsui Fudosao I City ofvista I 205,000 SOF INDUSTRIAL 31) Handle Ltd. 6,710 SQF INDUSTRIAL ADDITION City of Vista 34) Mitsui Fudosan Inc. USA 112,500 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 33) Dartmouth Development Company 68,771 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 32) Handle Ltd. 58,778 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 35) CBS Investment Inc. I City ofvista I 29.575 SOF INDUSTRIAL 36) Denso Wireless System 38,705 SQF MDUSTRIAL City of Vista 38) Hondle Ltd. 90,98 1 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 37) Boodle Ltd. 261,278 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 39) Mitsui Fudosan I City ofvista I 40,294 SQF INDUSTRIAL to) Mitsui Fudosan Inc. USA 27,241 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 81) George &Debbie Maynard 30,700 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista TABLE 7 (Cont.) Cul\aknATWE PROJECTS LIST Carlsbad Oaks North Projeet 1142)MGFudosan Inc. USA I city of Vista I 41,091 SQF INDUSTRIAL II 11 44) David Sheeron I citv of Vista I 13.260 SOF INDUSTRIAL II 45) North County Industrial Park LP City of Vista 150,014 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 46) . Perna Prep LLC 57,709 SQF INDUSTRIAL ~~ ~~~ 11 4n Wakeham Construction Inc. I Citvofvista I 9,915 SOF INDUSTRIAL II 11 48) Merli Concrete Pumnine ~~ I citv of Vista I 13.450 SOF INDUSTRIAL I1 ~ 49) Goodtime Enterprises LLC City of Vista 4,201 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 50) Georerid Ret. Wall System 63,452 SQF INDUSTRIAL ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ 11 51) Richard & Fia Dowsing I Citvofvista I 16.460 SOF INDUSTRIAL II Milier Construction 11 54) North County Industrial Park LP I City ofvista I 34,454 SOF INDUSTRIAL II 11 55) Bill Burnett I Citvofvista I 41.657 SOF COMMERCIAL II 56) Fourstar Venture, LP 57) Rancho Vista Industrial LLC City of Vista 58) Hondle Ltd. 42,776 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 49,787 SOF INDUSTRIAL 36,938 SQF INDUSTRIAL ~~ City of Vista 333 CONDOS 11 591 Bedford Prooertv Investors. Inc. I citv ofvista I 20.740 SOF INDUSTRIAL II 61) Timothy Cunning City of Vista 22,779 SQF INDUSTRIAL 62) North County LLP City of Vista 121,656 SQF INDUSTRIAL I 11 64) Moxie Pacific City of Vista 60,000 SQF INDUSTRIAL II 11 65) WH Pomerado LLC City of Vista 76,347 SQF INDUSTRIAL 67) Tim Shook Company Inc. City af Vista .l,...r 12.420 SQF INDUSTRIAL TABLE 7 (Cont) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Carlsbad Oaks North Project 68) Mitsui Fudosan 189,500 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 70) Whammy Inc. 1,036 SQF INDUSTRIAL ADDITION City of Vista 69) Majmudar Family Trust 19,672 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 72) Mitsui Fudosan City of Vista 10,368 SQF INDUSTRIAL City of Vista 73) Costa Pacifica Development 46,199 SQF INDUSTRIAL ~~~~~ 74) Moxie Pacific City of Vista 49,773 SQF INDUSTRIAL JI o/o -e o/o J o/o 3 EB RAMF AJ t4 TA~~RACK AVE 8 WB RAMP: - 4 W 1 4 dl N & AJ +4 CARLSBAD k 6yl! +15/. BARCELON f 255/7 k o/o f o/o + o/o /ILLAGE DF CANNON RI T CANNON RD - P 4 W S &I u 8 P~NSETTIA LN OINSETTIA hN. PO NSETTIA LI T T Id 11 LEGEND + 486/427 28/30 J 32/266 VISTA WAY 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES :ARLSBAD. OAKS NTERSECTION VOLUMES m lzbll No Scale !005(WITHUUT INTERIM PROJECT) - @ - M mww INYMWIIIJ~ Nr ~~ ~ EIB. 78 RAMP ---"- L c 4MDRE AVE. .c AJ ti SHA IWRIDGE DF T k 79/393 -2g3"/'"" f 32 /433 CENTER DR 't f 24 q &2* -x 2 - 19 I MELROSE IDR AIRPORT RI 635/725 + 933/773 j 3 51/114 dl I: 21 W x 20 I CAMINO bIDA ROBLE COLLEGE BLVD F~RADAY AVE IRPORT RD. W 4 23 -I1 W 24 I 2 204/23 t 272/275 J 512/231 AVIRA-ALG LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES I )ARLSBAD OAKS [NTERSECTION VOLUMES ?OO5(WITHOUT INTERIM PROJECT) - 1 ';<-p.> ,. ,,,. .~ .,&,J mw w* No 'Scale Ll -I w COSTA AVI 't f 718 WB RAMP nT 781 WB RAMPS $1 v) 37 PALOMARI AIRPORT RD f4 - L SAN ?COS BLV '4 f a S AMORE AVI IE _. 3 P3 34 QUdSTHAVEN R1 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD . r, SL SAN M d S4 SHA 9 94/40 +- 1053 54L J 719A85 !COS BLVD '4 f 31 k o/o J o/o c o/o IWRIDGE DR '4 f I 35 P~LOMAR~AIRPORT RI: . c2 r, $4. 71 d $4 PALOMAR a r 0 B EB RAMP' 32 ! 36 EB RAMPS '4 URPORT RI LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ARLSBAD OAKS qTERSECTI0N VOLUMES w m4 No Scale 005tWITHOUT INTERIM PROJECT) - - ~~ ~ " Id 47 51 -I 55 't 66,408 c428 620 f 5OAlO URPORT R: PALOMAR 1 AIRPORT RI a! R 52 56 I %%% +781/J16; 't 323 27 J CL f Ol0 PALOMAR I AIRPORT R: IS 45 FARADAY I AVE. . 53 PALOMAR IAIRPORT RI 50 54 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ZARLSBAD OAKS :NTERSECTION VOLUMES ?OO5<WITHOUT INTERIM PROJECT) - @ - Ima mt. No Scale A DIVISION OFWLLLDAN 76 FIGURE 91 %%, 2 $4 CARLSBAD k o/o J 12/4 "\t t o/o ARACK AVE 7 P- -4 hru 4 L!2"- 8 EB RAMP 8 WB RAMP: I Y f $$% 3 ll W 1 W 2 %%% 2 tL I CANNON RD I CANNON RI gj? o/o- 2 3W U W J J 0 V -II W 8 5 k 2/12 f 2/72 +" 2/12 4RADAY AVE. PObNSETTIA L OINSETTIA N. 7 1; W 11 LEGEND 12 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES :ARLSBAD OAKS 005 ROJECT VOLUMES -g+ Io. w14 NO Scale "_. ." " i r, $4 S' 2 $4 SHA 2 ti CANNO WRIDGE DF -MAR VISTl 74 IF J 15 16 17 18 r,$4 MELROSE ALGA RD PALOMAR I AIRPORT RD PAR^ CENTER DG %d 3/23 3 %$% -4 2E 4 19 21 t o/o "c o/o f o/o &DAY AVE - Y7 18/34 f 1 /128 r, $4 CAMINO 2 $4 PALOMAR 2 $4 F IDA ROBLE! [RPORT RD. 74 f LEGE BLVD 74 f 74 f J W -1 W 1 26 25 -1 W -1 W 23 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1 hO 3s 2 $4 PC CARLSBAD OAKS 2005 PROJECT VOLUMES -@- 4 'rib JSETTIA LN PA A DIVISION I'RARII OF WILLDAN ENGINDERING, IN[, 78 FIGURE 101 27 28 bl I I I I I I k CCQ $4 74 EB RAMPS >- v) I 35 I 36 33 2t f 46/14 PALOMAR AIRPORT RE 0 I z u a 38 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES CARLSBAD OAKS 2005 PROJECT VOLUMES -6)- au m+ No Scale a 3/23 2 t 4 J 2/12 t 9/64 PALOMAR AIRPORT RI PALOMAR I AIRPORT RI: k% 2 28 AJ $4 J +do i PALOMAR AIRPORT RD PALOMAR I AIRPORT RD 1 S% AJ $4 PALOMAI; PALOMAR/;RPORT RD 52 PALOMAR 4@2 k 2/17 4/41 MRPORT RI 1: 49 W 53 k o/o AJ 64 f PALOMAR AIRP 0 W 1: 46 54 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR V0LUME.S EARLSBAD OAKS 2005 PROJECT VOLUMES No Scale ! FTGIIRE 101 \i 362/76S 6 321/513 I WE RAMP2 f- o/o I F RADAY AVE, 1 4 W 2 AJ $4 'OINSETTIA N. T $1 10 -mQ AJ $4 CARLSBAD IILLAGE DI; 7 Id 11 LEGEND CANNON RI PobNSETTIA LI 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES :ARLSBAD OAKS !005tINCLuDES INTERIM PRIIJECT) - NTERSECTION VOLUMES - 2 SL SHA I IWRIDGE DF 1 SUNSET Dk 18 t;l w I - I PALOMAR ~IRPORT RD. iiigpig u '4 /I w 26 W 25 LEGEND 204/23 c 272/275 ( 512/231 iVIRA-ALGI 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SARLSBAD OAKS INTERSECTION VOLUMES 2005(INCLUDES INTERIM PROJECT)- ifiAFFIc ENGMIC, INC, No Scale A DIVISION OF WlLLDhN FIGURE 111 82 I a 4 w 29 AJ JIL El 30 "7.- GE * -904 1112 k 111/30 30A5 /$L J PALOMAR I AIRPORT RD SAN MARCUS BLVD. ?I v) 35 I PALOMAR I AIRPORT RD :I h-. 39 7d EB RAMPS PALOMAR ]AIRPORT R1 T a 40 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES CARLSBAD OAKS INTERSECTION VOLUMES 2005UNCLUDES INTERIM PRUJECT) - @ - aBI l26M No Scale w[pB TRdMf Nf!WRMf! Nf x? n kzql 44 a x -9 7 108 J 20 83 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD I IAf PALIIMAR I AIRPORT RD I 51 1 r. W 21 u 44 PALUMAR~~RPIIRT RI: 52 %%% d b. PALOMAR 49 W 53 k a 46 54 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES IARLSBAD OAKS [NTERSECTIUN VOLUMES ?OO5(INCLUDES INTERIM PROJECT) - were subsequently performed for two intersection geometric conditions; existing and Year 2005 (the intersection improvements needed to support the Year 2005 traffic volumes) conditions. The %sting” of the existing intersection geometry is consistent with the procedures used in the City of Carlsbad Traffic Improvement Fee update analyses and serves a useful purpose. There are various roadway links in the Carlsbad road system, which are presently undeveloped. As these roadway links are constructed, they can actually serve to “mitigate” some of the Year 2005 traflic. It is possible that some locations or particular intersection movements could actually experience a decrease in traffic volumes. A review of conditions under the existing intersection geometry, therefore, serves to document the combined effect of added traffic and added road connections to identify where improvements are needed for the subject analysis-period. This format is also carried forward for the evaluations of the later years. ; !. General TIF and Trafic Study Relationship The City of Carlsbad has undertaken recent evaluations to identify long-range roadway needs for purposes of updating their Traffic Improvement Fee (TIF). The utilization of a TIF can be of particular benefit in areas such as Carlsbad, where significant development is anticipated to occur and various added road infrastructure improvements are also needed. From a traffic analysis and project mitigation viewpoint, the use of a TIF can be also be desirable, since the fees required of a project typically define the project’s proportionate share of the future road system improvement needs. This can serve to simplify the traffic study requirements, whereby the traffic study evaluations serve as verification and update of the TIF findings and the project related impacts and mitigations are already addressed through the TIF. The traffic study is “simplified”, since the project is required to provide a “fair share” toward the ultimate mhstructure needs through the requirement of the TIF. For traffic studies where no fee is required, the project related impacts are compared to a designated “threshold of significance”; but this comparison is not necessarily required where a fee is applicable. The project specific impact comparison may not be required, since the project is being required to provide mitigation +4*’ 4 .9 -“ ‘ “> .q@ *w Carlsbod Ooks North Project - Trapc Study City of Carlsbad 85 in proportion to its impacts, even if its impacts were to be less than a standard “threshold of significance”. The I traffk mitigation is essentidly predetermined, with the result that dl projects make contributions and not just those that exceed a “threshold”. A TIF can also serve to reduce the chance for a jurisdiction to assess mitigation to a project, which would go beyond the actual impacts of the development. In this study however, there are both indications of TIF requirements and evaluations of significance thresholds. This serves to detail all potential project impacts and address potential mitigation requirements. The following year 2005 analyses and subsequent year 2010 and 2020 sections provide thorough documentation of the project related impacts and improvement needs. Year 2005 Conditions (Without the Faraday Connection) Intersection Analvses Subsequent to significant review by the City of Carlsbad and participating traffic consultants, the SANDAG model data were provided for use in the traffic analyses. The SANDAG information was combined wi the appropriate roadway geometric information collected, so the intersection analyses could be Y performed. As described above, the analyses were performed for both “existing” intersection geometrics and Year 2005 intersection geometries needed to provide acceptable Levels of Service (LOS). This serves to illustrate which intersections need improvements over conditions that exist today and to what extent. Tables 8 and 8A provide a summary of the results for the Year 2005 (without Faraday Avenue connection) conditions with and without the project traffic. The base network assumed in the analysis includes existing lanes plus committed lanes. There are some situations where a road connection is added by Year 2005. In these cases, the added intersection leg is included in the “existing” intersection, so that all of the Year 2005 volumes are considered in the evaluations. The lane assumptions for the new intersection approach were added based on previous studies, general plan widths, assumed minimum widths, or other pertinent references. The other intersection approaches were evaluated based upon their present -1 Job #I2614 WILLDAN 86 Carisbad Oaks North Project - Traffic Study Ciry of Carisbad c) a U .- i? e t t C a P I - " P N 2 -5 " i2 r m m W N a c m N conditions. These intersections represented by “modified” existing conditions anticipated to be in place are in accordance with the SANDAG modeling assumptions and can be referenced in the intersection analyses worksheets provided in Appendir B. If added improvements are required, these are shown as Year 2005 improvements (Figures 3A - 3M, presented earlier), consistent with the overall study procedures. Improvements - Year 2005 Conditions (Without the Faradav Connection) The intersection geometry necessary to provide acceptable intersection opetations for Year 2005, and also the parties responsible for the improvements, are shown on Figures 3A - 3M, presented earlier. When these improvements are assumed to be in place at five of the seven of the study intersections which are operating unacceptably, the acceptable intersection operation results are listed in Table 8, under the “With Improvements” column. It must be remembered that these improvements address the cumulative effects of traffic growth through Year 2005 and not only project specific impacts. The project related contribution toward this interim condition is defined by the “with” and “without” project responsibilities (Table 8A), including the TIF requirements. The proposed Curlsbud Ouh North project is shown to have a significant impact (2.0 second or more delay increase at LOS E or F or a decline in intersection operations fiom acceptable to unacceptable) at five of the study intersections under these Year 2005 conditions (withdut the Faraday connection). These five study intersections are: Melrose / Sunset, Melrose / Sycamore, Melrose / Park Center, Melrose / PAR, and El Fuerte / PAR. As mentioned previously, Figures 3A - 3M identify the parties responsible for the improvements. For the project impacts at the study intersections outside of the City of Carlsbad (Melrose / Sunset, Melrose / Sycamore, and Melrose / Park Center), overriding considerations would be required and, in this case, the City of Vista (and a Vista project) would be responsible for the improvements at these locations. At the Melrose / PAR intersection in Carlsbad, TIF fees and project sharing of improvements would ,.e, address the impacts at this location. (It is noted that ths intersection would operate unacceptably ~, *it ’$ “. , , -% q& Job #I2614 WILLDAN Carisbad Oaks North Project - Trafflc Study Ciq of Carkbod 93 with the TIF mitigations and that there are no further improvements to this location.) For the remaining intersection in Carlsbad, the improvements necessary at El Fuerte / PAR would be the shared responsibility of the Bressi project and the Curlsbud Oukr North project. [Please refer to Figures 3A - 3M for improvement responsibilities and for the (illustrated) specific intersection improvements.] The study intersection of S.R. 78 WB Ramps / ECR is not projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service during Year 2005 conditions. There are no planned or scheduled improvements for th~s intersection during Year 2005. Year 2005 Conditions (Without the Faraday Connection) With and Without the Project Table 8A presents a comparison of conditions on the existing network with and without the proposed project. The TRAFFM worksheets contained in Appendix B provide the supporting calculations and also document the traffic volume, lane geometry, and other relative data. .* Year 2005 ConditiFns With the Faradav Connection) - Special Evaluation As described earlier in this study, Curlsbad Oukr North intends to accelerate construction of portions of Faraday Avenue, which would allow travel between ECR and Melrose Drive. This is anticipated to result in benefits to Palomar Axport Road (PAR) and some of its critical intersections in the study area by providing an alternative, parallel route. The location of this connection is at the easterly side of the City of Carlsbad. In addition, PAR is known to serve Carlsbad related traffic, as well as traffic associated with adjacent jurisdictions. The acceleration of thls connection, therefore, would serve to benefit regional traffic by reducing impacts on PAR, which is a regional arterial connection. 't The procedures for identifjmg the effects of completing the Faraday Avenue connection prior to the Year 2005 conditions were discussed with City Staff. It was decided that a SANDAG Job #I2614 WILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Projeci - Trafflc Study City of Carkbod 94 modeled redistribution of the Year 2005 traffic, assuming the connection to be in place, should be performed for six critical intersections (PAR / ECR, PAR / Melrose, Faraday / ECR, Faraday (park Center) / Melrose, Park Center / Business Park, and PAR / Business Park) anticipated to be most affected by the redistribution. This evaluation required analyses of the Year 2005 SANDAG modeling results, which provides evaluation of the traffic that would be expected~ to utilize the connection, analysis of Curlsbad Ouh North traffic, and completion of the intersection analyses for the study locations based on the “With Connection” conditions. The SANDAG model results provide documentation of the redistribution assumptions for the surrounding areas incorporated in the analyses of the “With Faraday Avenue Connection”. These redistributions of Year 2005 traffic serve to consider the various traffic that would use the Faraday Avenue connection route if the connection of Faraday Avenue were provided in Year 2005. The projections are intended to provide an evaluation of the potential circulation “benefits” for the study area (and PAR in particular). The Select Zone model run for the proposed project was provided by SANDAG and was based upon the Year 2005 modeled conditions (without the Faraday Avenue connection). It was, therefore, necessary to provide evaluations, in conjunction with City Staff, of the projected changes in project related traffic assuming the Faraday Avenue connection to be in place. The P interim project was included in the SANDAG modeling for Year 2005, so these volumes were redistributed. Figures 12A and 12B show the SANDAG model determined trip distribution percentages (Figure 124, as well as the redistribution percentages assuming the Faraday Avenue connection is in place (Figure I2B). These changes in distribution for Carlsbud Oaks North were also incorporated in the intersection analyses for the study locations with the net volume changes shown on Figure 13. A comparison of the intersection analyses results, under both the “without” and “with” Faraday Avenue connection conditions, is summarized in Table 9. As expected, it can be seen that there Job #I2614 WILLDAN Cnrkbnd Oaks North Project - Traffic Siudy City of Cnrlsbad 95