HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03-02; Traffic and Mobility Commission; ; FOUR DEFICIENT STREET FACILITIES AFFECTING LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15Item 3
Meeting Date: March 2, 2020
To: Traffic and Mobility Commission
Staff Contact: Paz Gomez, deputy city manager, Public Works
paz.gomez@carlsbadca.gov, 760-602-2751
Laura Rocha, deputy city manager, Administrative Services
laura.rocha@carlsbadca.gov, 760-602-2415
Subject: Determination of four deficient street facilities affecting Local Facilities
Management Zone 15 according to the Growth Management Plan,
adoption of measures to address the deficiencies.
Recommended Actions
Support staff’s recommendation to City Council to adopt a resolution to:
A. Determine the following street facilities to be deficient because they do not meet the
vehicular level of service (LOS) performance standard required by the city’s Growth
Management Plan:
1. Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
2. Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
3. Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
4. Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
B. Determine the following street facilities to be built out and exempt from the vehicular
LOS performance standard, in accordance with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-
P.9:
1. Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
2. Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
3. Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
4. Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
Executive Summary
Each year, staff collects traffic data in accordance with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)
monitoring program to determine if the performance standard is being met for each street
facility.1 Eight street facilities in the city were identified in the Annual Growth Management
Monitoring Report for fiscal year 2017-18 as falling short of the vehicular LOS performance
standard (Exhibit 1).
2
These eight street facilities1 are:
1. Southbound El Camino Real from the Oceanside city limits to Marron Road
2. Northbound El Camino Real from Marron Road to the Oceanside city limits
3. Southbound College Boulevard from Aston Avenue to Palomar Airport Road
4. Southbound Melrose Drive from the Vista city limits to Palomar Airport Road
5. Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
6. Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
7. Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
8. Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
Exhibit 2 shows a map with locations of these eight deficient street facilities.
The issues identified with the first four street facilities were addressed during the City Council
meeting on Dec. 17, 2019, in which the council determined them to be deficient.
The council determined the street facilities identified as 1, 2 and 4 above to be built out and
exempt from the vehicular LOS performance standard, Transportation demand management
(TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) strategies now apply on those facilities.
The council also expedited two Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects for street facilities
3 and 4 above. The deficiency reported for street facility 3 is expected to be resolved by the
expedited CIP project approved by the City Council.
This staff report addresses issues related to the last four street facilities identified above. Staff
recommends the City Council find street facilities 5, 6, 7 and 8 listed above to be deficient,
considering the fiscal year 2017-18 Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report results.
Staff recommends that the council determine those four street facilities to be built out and
exempt from the LOS performance standard due to the infeasibility for private development to
solely fund and construct the College Boulevard extension project, as required by the Zone 15
Plan and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan. Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9,
discussed in greater detail below, outlines the City’s authority to “exempt” street facilities from
the city’s vehicular LOS standards.
During the July 16, 2019 City Council meeting, staff recommended construction of the College
Boulevard extension project to resolve the deficiencies identified on those four street facilities.
It was assumed at that time that funding the construction of the extension through private
development alone, as currently required by the Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 15
Plan and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) was feasible.
1 This report uses the term “street facility” and the July 16, 2019 staff report referred to deficient “street
segments.” “Street facility” is a section of roadway that shares the same roadway characteristics, and
that is composed of one or more street segments, while a “street segment” is the portion of a street
facility between two intersections. In some cases, such as with the four deficient sections of roadway
discussed in this report, a street segment is also a street facility. The term “street facility” is being used
in this report for greater consistency with terminology from the General Plan Mobility Element.
3
However, further research, including direct input from property owners in LFMZ 15, revealed
that funding the construction of the College Boulevard extension project solely by private
development is infeasible, at least for the foreseeable future.
Considering that infeasibility, staff assessed the possibility of constructing improvements at
street facilities 5, 6, 7 and 8 to address the deficiencies. However, as those projects would
trigger one or more of the exemption criteria under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9,
as detailed below, staff recommends that the City Council determine these four street facilities
to be built out and exempt from the vehicular LOS performance standard. TDM and TSM
strategies would then apply.
Staff also requests City Council direction on whether to develop a city-led financing program for
construction of the College Boulevard extension. As further described in this report, that effort
would include the city undertaking a preliminary design and engineering assessment for the
extension project.
Staff also requests council direction on whether to amend the LFMZ 15 Plan and the Citywide
Facilities and Improvements Plan now to remove the obligation of private development in LFMZ
15 to solely fund the College Boulevard extension, considering the infeasibility of that
approach.
If the City Council declines to amend the plans now but directs staff to develop a city-led
financing program for the extension project, those plans would need to be amended in the
future to include such a city-led financing plan for the extension of College Boulevard, as
approved by council.
Discussion
Background
This is the third of three staff reports stemming from a discussion at the July 16, 2019 City
Council meeting. At that meeting, staff presented a report on how these eight deficient street
facilities had been identified in the Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal
year 2017-18 as falling short of the level of service performance standard.
The City Council directed staff to consider additional options to address the deficiencies and
indicated a need for a detailed discussion with additional information before the City Council
would take action on the matter. As a result, the City Manager asked that the matter be
continued to a future City Council meeting to allow time for staff to prepare presentations
related to:
1) The different ways the TSM and TDM programs work to manage traffic congestion and
improve mobility
2) Recommendations on addressing the deficient level of service on four street facilities
located outside LFMZ 15
3) Additional options to address the deficiencies in level of service on four street facilities
affecting LFMZ 15, which relates to the uncompleted portion of College Boulevard
4
The first of these presentations occurred on Dec. 10, 2019, when staff presented an
informational report to the City Council on how the city manages traffic with transportation
system and demand management strategies. The second of these presentations occurred on
Dec. 17, 2019. At that meeting, the City Council determined the first four street facilities to be
deficient, expedited two CIP projects for street facilities 3 and 4, and exempted three of the
street facilities, 1, 2 and 4. The deficiency reported for street facility 3 is expected to be
resolved by the expedited CIP project approved by the City Council. This staff report will
address the last four street facilities that have been identified as falling below the city’s
required LOS standard.
The City’s Growth Management Plan and circulation performance standards
In 1986, the city adopted Proposition E, which amended the city’s General Plan to “ensure that
all necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with need to serve new development…
In guaranteeing that facilities will be provided emphasis shall be given to ensuring good traffic
circulation, schools, parks, libraries, open space and recreational amenities.”
To implement this general guidance, Proposition E directed the city to adopt amendments to
the section on growth management in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 12.90). The city
also adopted its Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan (CFIP) and Local Facilities
Management Zone Plan to implement Proposition E. The CFIP divided the city into 25
management zones, or LFMZs.
Under state law, the city is required to prepare a General Plan, which includes a circulation
element “to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all
users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable
to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.” (Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, the
Complete Streets Act of 2008). Similarly, Senate Bill 743 explains, “It is the intent of the
Legislature to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build
infill housing and mixed-use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit
facilities, downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments
to balance these sometimes competing needs.” (Gov. Code § 65088.4(a).)
In adopting AB 1358, the legislature found that, “Shifting the transportation mode share from
single passenger cars to public transit, bicycling, and walking must be a significant part of short
and long-term planning goals if the state is to achieve the reduction in the number of vehicle
miles traveled and in greenhouse gas emissions required by current law.” The legislature
further found that, “In order to fulfill the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
make the most efficient use of urban land and transportation infrastructure, and improve
public health by encouraging physical activity, transportation planners must find innovative
5
ways to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to shift from short trips in the automobile to biking,
walking, and use of public transit.”
Consistent with these changes to state law, the City of Carlsbad’s circulation performance
standards were amended in 2015 to plan for multimodal transportation network that meets the
needs of all users, including but not limited to pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic, and transit, as
opposed to focusing exclusively upon vehicular traffic. (General Plan Mobility Element, Section
3.3). As explained in the City’s Mobility Element and its CFIP, “[t]he City’s approach to provide
livable streets recognizes that optimum service levels cannot be provided for all travel modes
on all streets within the City. This is due to competing interests that arise when different travel
modes mix.”
The following performance standard was adopted:
Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system –
vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS D or better for all modes
that are subject to this multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) standard, as identified in
Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and
streets approved by the City Council. (Mobility Element, Implementing Policy 3-P.4).
As further explained in the Mobility Element,
Concurrent with City Council adoption of this Mobility Element, the city’s Growth
Management standard for circulation identified in the Citywide Facilities and
Improvement Plan will be amended to reflect the livable street approach to mobility
described in this element. (See also Mobility Element Policy 3-P.12.)
The Circulation Performance Standard in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan was
concurrently amended on Sept. 22, 2015 to mirror the city’s new mobility policies.
As noted above, the city’s mobility policy and performance standards include the ability to
“exempt intersections and streets.” This exemption essentially reorients the city’s planning
focus from making physical improvements roadways toward indirect transportation demand
measures to reduce overall vehicle trips, and to focus upon non-vehicular modes of travel.
(Mobility Element Policies 3-P.9 and 3-P.11)
The city’s GMP regulations state that, “If at any time after preparation of a local facilities
management plan the performance standards established by a plan are not met then no
development permits or building permits shall be issued within the local zone until the
6
performance standard is met or arrangements satisfactory to the city council guaranteeing the
facilities and improvements have been made.” [CMC § 21.90.080, see also § 21.90.130]
Considering this requirement and the identified street facility deficiencies, the July 16, 2019
staff report suggested that:
1) The City Council consider exempting certain street segments, in keeping with Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.11
2) The council consider enacting a permit prohibition in LFMZ 15.
At that meeting City Council directed staff to return with additional options to address the
deficiencies.
Senate Bill 330, which became effective Jan. 1, 2020, established new procedures on placing a
“moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development, including mixed-use
development.” [Gov. Code, § 66300(b)(1)(B)(I)].
Where housing is an allowable use, that law prohibits a city from enacting a “development
policy, standard or condition” that would have the effect of “imposing a moratorium or similar
restriction or limitation on housing development…other than to specifically protect against an
imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity
of, the area subject to the moratorium…” Such a moratorium or similar restriction on housing
development is not enforceable until it has first been submitted and approved by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development.
The City Attorney’s Office is currently reviewing the city’s Growth Management Plan in light of
the new regulations contained in Senate Bill 330.
Fiscal year 2017-18 Annual Monitoring Report and deficiencies in four street facilities
Each year, staff monitors circulation and other factors on the city’s public facilities and submits
a report to the City Council comparing performance data against the adopted standards.
The Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal year 2017-18 identified a total of
eight street facilities that did not have exemptions from the vehicular LOS performance
standard and that do not meet the vehicular LOS performance standard. On Dec. 17, 2019, the
City Council determined that four of the street facilities are deficient and exempted three of the
street facilities. The fourth one will meet the vehicular LOS performance standard upon
completion of a CIP project that City Council expedited.
In accordance with CMC Section 21.90.130, staff recommends that the City Council determine
deficiencies to exist at the remaining four street facilities that were reported in the fiscal year
2017-18 Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report as falling short of the vehicular LOS
performance standard as listed below in Table 1.
7
Table 1
Proposed actions to address deficiencies at four street facilities
Based on this information, staff recommends that the City Council determine that a deficiency
exists at each of the street facilities under CMC Section 21.90.130(c):
If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the city manager that facilities or
improvements within a facilities management zone or zones are inadequate to
accommodate any further development within that zone or that the performance
standards adopted pursuant to Section 21.90.100 are not being met he or she shall
immediately report the deficiency to the council. If the council determines that a
deficiency exists then no further building or development permits shall be issued within
the affected zone or zones and development shall cease until an amendment to the
citywide facilities and improvements plan or applicable local facilities management plan
which addresses the deficiency is approved by the city council and the performance is
met.
Policy options
When a deficiency is determined to exist, in accordance with CMC Sections 21.90.080 and
21.90.130, the City Council can either adopt measures that implement or guarantee the
facilities and improvements that address the deficiency, or the council can prohibit
development and the issuance of building permits in affected LFMZs until the performance
standard is met. Measures include:
8
1. Identifying and funding an improvement project that will result in that street facility
meeting the performance standard
2. Determining that the street facility is built out and exempt from the LOS standard
under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9, such that TDM/TSM strategies will
apply to development that adds vehicle traffic to the exempt street facilities
Although the GMP includes a circulation performance standard tied to LOS, the General Plan
Mobility Element acknowledges that the city cannot always rely on adding roadway capacity to
address deficiencies. In other words, the city cannot always build its way out of traffic
congestion. The City Council has the authority to deem a street facility built out and exempt
from the LOS D standard when the following build-out criteria are met, under General Plan
Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9:
Develop and maintain a list of street facilities where specified modes of travel are exempt
from the LOS standard (LOS exempt street facilities), as approved by the City Council. For
LOS exempt street facilities, the city will not implement improvements to maintain the LOS
standard outlined in Policy 3-P.4 if such improvements are beyond what is identified as
appropriate at build out of the General Plan. In the case of street facilities where the vehicle
mode of travel is exempt from the LOS standard, other non-vehicle capacity-building
improvements will be required to improve mobility through implementation of
transportation demand and transportation system management measures as outlined in
Policy 3-P.11, to the extent feasible, and/or to implement the livable streets goals and
policies of this Mobility Element. Evaluate the list of exempt street facilities, as part of the
Growth Management monitoring program, to determine if such exemptions are still
warranted. To exempt the vehicle mode of travel from the LOS standard at a particular
street intersection or segment, the intersection or street segment must be identified as built-
out by the City Council because:
a. acquiring the rights of way is not feasible; or
b. the proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment in an
unacceptable way and mitigation would not contribute to the nine core values of the
Carlsbad Community Vision; or
c. the proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other
community values or General Plan policies; or
d. the proposed improvements would require more than three through travel lanes in
each direction.
General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11 requires new development that adds vehicular
traffic to street facilities that are exempt from the vehicle LOS D standard to implement:
• TDM strategies that reduce the reliance on single-occupant automobile and assist in
achieving the city’s livable streets vision
• TSM strategies that improve traffic signal coordination and improve transit service
Issues with potential solutions for the four street facility deficiencies
This staff report identifies measures to address the remaining four deficient street facilities
reported in the fiscal year 2017-18 Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report. As noted
9
above, the recommendations below differ from the recommendations offered in the July 16,
2019 staff report because further research contradicted the prior assumption that private
development alone can feasibly undertake the College Boulevard extension, as identified in the
LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP, and that those improvements will be sufficient to resolve the
deficiencies on those street facilities.
Currently the LFMZ 15 Plan and the CFIP obligate private development to fund the College
Boulevard extension with construction of two lanes and full width grading for four lanes.2 In
2015, a preliminary estimate of constructing a four-lane roadway (two lanes in each direction)
to connect College Boulevard from Cannon Road to Sunny Creek Road was $22 million. Using
escalation factors of 3% per year since 2015, an estimate for the same scope of work in 2020
dollars would be approximately $26 million. Staff recommends construction of the full four
lanes. Since the estimate was prepared for a private developer, staff added 20% to
accommodate paying prevailing wage and fulfilling other city requirements, which increased
the estimate to approximately $30 million. For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumed
that a city-led College Boulevard extension project would carry that estimated cost of $30
million.
Additionally, during a meeting with affected LFMZ 15 property owners in October 2019,
property owners described significant challenges associated with funding the College Boulevard
extension. Some of their tentative building maps are expiring in summer 2020 and ballooning
costs have made some projects not economically viable. Some property owners provided the
following feedback:
• The current density was insufficient to support the costs
• They’ve been unable to get private financing
• There is a lack of critical mass of property owners willing and able to develop their
properties in the near term
During the years 2012-2015, the city made several financing program efforts to assist the
property owners in LFMZ 15, as noted below:
• On Sept. 10, 2013, via Agenda Bill 21,360, the City Council approved a reimbursement
agreement between the City of Carlsbad and Bent-West LLC for assessment district
formation deposits and allowed Bent-West, LLC to temporarily bypass the initial Policy
No. 33 approval steps.
• On April 15, 2014, via Agenda Bill 21,567, the City Council made a finding under the
policy to waive the provision of the pass-through requirement for community facilities
districts based on the benefit of proceeding with the College Boulevard improvements
in a district with diverse ownership.
2 The LFMZ 15 Plan requires that the improvements contain the following elements: (i) full width grading to major
arterial standards; (ii) two center travel lanes including a raised median and left turn pockets; (iii) construction of
full width bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek; and (iv) full intersection improvements to Cannon Road and College
Boulevard including appropriate lane transitions to the southern leg of College Boulevard. Zone 15 LFMP,
Amendment E, at page 97.
10
• On Feb. 17, 2015, via Agenda Bill 21,864, the City Council directed staff to pursue
alternative financing in the form of a development condition or reimbursement
agreement based on the challenges of applying community facilities district financing on
properties unentitled properties, parcels whose owners have not begun the process of
seeking building permits
• On July 28, 2015, via Agenda Bill 22,053 and Ordinance No. CS-281, the City Council
approved adding Chapter 3.40 to the Carlsbad Municipal Code setting forth procedures
for establishment of a reimbursement fee for funding the reimbursement of certain
costs of construction of eligible improvements.
Those efforts proved unsuccessful.
Aside from the financing issues, there are issues of road capacity to consider.
A recent city study showed that traffic on a two-lane extension of College Boulevard as
described in the LFMZ 15 Plan and the CFIP would be above capacity if it existed today. That
would rectify the deficiencies on the adjacent street facilities, even though the extension itself
would fall short of the LOS performance standard. But the extension would likely take three to
five years to complete, and the extension is not expected to fully resolve the deficiencies on the
four street facilities that would exist at that time.
Therefore, the College Boulevard extension, as contemplated in the LFMZ 15 Plan and the CFIP,
cannot be reasonably relied upon to fully resolve the deficiencies on the four street facilities.
That’s why staff recommends focusing on whether improvements at the four deficient street
facilities could make those facilities meet the LOS standard, and whether the exemption criteria
stated in General Plan Mobility Element 3-P., detailed above, apply to those facilities. If the
College Boulevard extension cannot be relied upon to resolve the deficiencies, then
improvements located at the four subject deficient street facilities would trigger exemption
criteria under Policy 3-P.9 as further described below.
Recommended actions to address the four deficient street facilities
Staff has considered options outside of the College Boulevard extension to address the LOS
deficiencies and recommends that the City Council adopt the following measures to address the
four street facility deficiencies covered in this report.
1. For Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
Current CIP Project No. 6071 was designed to enhance pedestrian and bicycle forms of mobility
and to upgrade the existing curb ramps and crosswalks to meet the Americans with Disabilities
Act standards. This proposed project would improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility
at the intersection of El Camino Real at College Boulevard and would include traffic signal
timing modifications to improve traffic operations. Staff expects to request City Council
approval of plans and specifications and authorization to bid for CIP Project No. 6071, a
roadway improvement project, in spring 2020. Exhibit 3 shows a location map for this project.
11
While this project will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility, it is not expected to
make this facility meet the LOS performance standard. Therefore, the street facility is expected
to remain deficient after completion of the project.
Staff recommends the City Council determine this street facility to be built out and exempt
from the LOS performance standard, under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (d).
That’s because future roadway improvements to address the anticipated remaining deficiency
after the completion of CIP Project No. 6071 would require further widening of El Camino Real
to accommodate a fourth through lane, which would conflict with General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.9 (d).
A project to widen El Camino Real to four lanes also conflicts with the following goals listed in
the General Plan Mobility Element:
• Keep Carlsbad moving with livable streets that provide a safe, balanced, cost-effective,
multi-modal transportation system (vehicles, pedestrians, bikes, transit)
accommodating the mobility needs of all community members, including children, the
elderly and the disabled (Goal 3-G.1)
• Provide inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote livable streets (Goal
3-G.3)
• Protect and enhance the visual, environmental and historical characteristics of Carlsbad
through sensitive planning and design of scenic transportation corridors (Goal 3-G.6)
Development that adds traffic to this exempt street facility will be required to implement
appropriate TDM and TSM strategies under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11.
2. For Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
The road improvement work detailed in current CIP Project Nos. 6042/6056 would help
improve traffic flow of northbound El Camino Real at Cannon Road, but the street facility would
still not meet the LOS performance standard. Staff expects to request City Council approval of
plans and specifications and authorization to bid for CIP Projects Nos. 6042/6056 in fall 2021.
Exhibit 4 shows a project location map for those projects.
An unnumbered CIP project to widen northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to
Jackspar Drive is estimated to cost $3.3 million and is currently scheduled for fiscal year 2025-
29. Though this project is expected to improve traffic circulation, it is not expected to make the
street facility meet the LOS performance standard, as shown in Table 1. Therefore, the street
facility is expected to remain deficient after completion of the project.
Staff recommends the City Council also determine this street facility to be built out and exempt
from the LOS performance standard, under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (d).
Future roadway improvements to address the anticipated remaining deficiency after CIP Project
Nos. 6042/6056 and the unnumbered CIP project would require further widening of El Camino
12
Real to accommodate a fourth through lane, which would conflict with General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.9 (d).
• A project to widen El Camino Real to four lanes also conflicts with the goals listed in the
General Plan Mobility Element, as noted above. TDM and TSM strategies would also be
required of any development that adds traffic to this exempt street facility.
3. For Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
Staff recommends the City Council determine this street facility to be built out and exempt
from the LOS D standard under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a), that acquiring
the rights of way is not feasible, and that, in keeping with Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(c), that
the proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other community values
or General Plan policies because of effects on sidewalks, crosswalks and bicycle lanes.
Appropriate TDM and TSM strategies would be required of future development that adds traffic
to this exempt street facility under Mobility Element Policy 3. P11
Relating to General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(a), widening Cannon Road to three lanes
in each direction between El Camino Real and College Boulevard would require the acquisition
of additional right of way. Acquiring the additional right of way is infeasible due to the
following:
• The additional right of way will require encroachment into open space for the
preservation of natural resources near the intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon
Road. This will result in destruction of some of the natural resources in that area.
• The new travel lane on the north side of Cannon Road will encroach into the road
setback of the adjacent residential community. The residents along Cannon Road would
experience increased road noise due to the decreased separation of the road and the
homes. Large slopes border the north side of Cannon Road and would require
considerable grading and construction of tall retaining walls. The necessary height of the
walls would conflict with zoning, building the walls would be costly and their presence
would be disruptive to residents in adjacent homes.
• The additional right of way contains areas under private ownership. The city would
either need to pay for the acquisition, if the owners were willing to negotiate a sale, or
condemn the property.
• A trail easement along the south side of Cannon Road, which is located within the
additional right of way, would need to be relinquished by the city.
Relating to General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(c), the proposed improvements would
present unacceptable impacts to the following community values and General Plan policies:
• The Carlsbad Community Vision (Exhibit 6) core value of “Walking, biking, public
transportation and connectivity” calls for increasing travel options through enhanced
walking, bicycling and public transportation systems and enhancing mobility through
increased connectivity and intelligent transportation management. Accommodating
three through lanes on Cannon Road between El Camino Real and College Boulevard
13
would discourage bicycling and walking by placing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in
much closer proximity to high-speed vehicle travel (the speed limit is 50 mph in this
section.) Meandering pedestrian trails would be removed and replaced with sidewalks
closer to the travel lanes. This placement is highly likely to result in lower facility use as
users would likely feel less safe.
• The Carlsbad Community Vision core value of “Open space and the natural
environment” relates to prioritizing protection and enhancement of open space and the
natural environment and supporting and protecting Carlsbad’s unique open space and
agricultural heritage. Accommodating three through lanes would require grading and
roadway widening beyond the existing right of way, cutting into existing open space and
preserve habitat. Impacts to habitat preserve areas would trigger environmental review,
discretionary approvals, biological reports, and require wildlife agency permits, as well
as identifying or constructing mitigation areas to offset the impacted habitat. Adding a
through lane would require that the city relinquish a trail easement on the south side of
Cannon Road, and a habitat area at the corner of El Camino Real and Cannon Road
would be encroached upon by road improvements.
• General Plan Mobility Element Goal 3-G.6 calls for the city to, “Protect and enhance the
visual, environmental and historical characteristics of Carlsbad through sensitive
planning and design of scenic transportation corridors.” Adding lanes to this corridor
would greatly impact the scenic aspect of this corridor. Large swaths, 15 to 20 feet, of
scenic landscaping including trees and meandering trails would be removed on each
side of the corridor to make way for asphalt and concrete improvements. The corridor
would look much less appealing due to a significant decrease in landscaping.
4. For westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
For the same reasons described above for eastbound Cannon Road, staff recommends the City
Council determine this street facility to be built out and exempt from the LOS performance
standard, under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a), that acquiring the rights of way
is not feasible, and that, in keeping with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(c), the
proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other community values or
General Plan policies because of potential elimination of sidewalks, crosswalks and bicycle
lanes.
Under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11, future development that adds traffic to this
exempt street facility will be required to implement appropriate TDM and TSM strategies.
Extending College Boulevard
Completing the missing link of College Boulevard involves more than building a roadway. Items
to consider include design, permitting, technical reports, wildlife agency approvals,
construction, acquisition of easements and constructing mitigation areas.
The city reviewed construction drawings for the College Boulevard extension from the early
2000’s to 2015. Constructing the College Boulevard extension requires hiring consultants
including engineers and landscape architects to develop construction drawings that meet
current federal, state, and local requirements. Additional consultants must be hired to update
14
and revise several technical reports such as biological, drainage, geotechnical, storm water
quality and storm water pollution prevention.
To define the improvements of the College Boulevard extension, the project consists of several
elements such as:
• Full-width grading for the road, paved travel lanes and sidewalks
• Median and median landscaping
• Bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek
• Underground utilities including potable water pipes and sewer and storm drains
• Traffic signals and street lights
Environmental clearances required by the California Environmental Quality Act are in place to
construct the College Boulevard extension. The three certified environmental impact reports
are:
1. Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention
Basins, reference no. EIR 98-02
2. Cantarini Ranch, reference no. EIR 02-02
3. Dos Colinas, reference no. EIR 09-01
There are other non-roadway improvements associated with extending College Boulevard and
are required per the above certified environmental impact reports. These non-roadway
improvements consist of acquisition and construction of:
• A replacement site for the existing recreational vehicle and garden site serving the
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park community
• A proposed flood control facility adjacent to the College Blvd extension
• Water quality treatment basins required to treat storm runoff the College Boulevard
extension to current satisfy storm water requirements
• Habitat mitigation area to address habitat impacts associated with constructing the
College Boulevard extension
Making these College Boulevard improvements requires the city to have the right of way, or
easements. The city currently has right of way for the College Boulevard roadway. However,
there are additional easements and property that must be obtained to build the roadway and
the other improvements listed above. Easements are required for temporary grading and
construction, drainage and access, stormwater flow, sewers, water quality basins and habitat
mitigation.
As part of the certified environmental impact reports listed above, prior to construction,
approvals from wildlife agencies are needed. This will require resources to hire consultants to
process and secure approvals with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others, as
required.
15
Financing the College Boulevard extension
Private development in LFMZ 15 is currently obligated to fund the College Boulevard extension
consisting of full width grading (to accommodate four lanes) but constructing only two of the
four lanes. As discussed above, staff believes this approach is infeasible considering the unique
hurdles in LFMZ 15. However, construction of the College Boulevard extension with two lanes
would result in traffic congestion benefits.
A recent city corridor study indicates constructing College Boulevard with a two-lane
configuration would provide significant traffic congestion relief in LFMZ 15. However, it also
supports a conclusion that constructing only two of the four lanes on College Boulevard will not
resolve the four subject deficiencies. The corridor study also determined that constructing four
lanes (which is not required of private development in the CFIP and LFMZ 15 Plan) would
resolve the four deficiencies and provide some additional capacity for future development in
LFMZ 15.
The corridor study results indicated the three basic approaches to extending College Boulevard
would have the following results:
1. Build a two-lane College Boulevard extension today along with the current CIP projects
with no new development in LFMZ 15:
a. All current deficiencies on Cannon Road and El Camino Real would be fully
addressed and the facilities would meet the LOS D standard.
b. The two-lane College Boulevard extension itself would be deficient, that is, it
would not meet the LOS D standard.
c. There would be no unused roadway capacity available to serve development in
LFMZ 15.
2. Build a four-lane College Boulevard extension along with the current CIP projects with
no new development in LFMZ 15:
a. All current deficiencies on Cannon Road and El Camino Real would be fully
addressed and the facilities would meet the LOS D standard.
b. The four-lane College Boulevard extension itself would meet the LOS D standard.
c. There would be some unused roadway capacity available to serve some growth
in regional traffic.
3. Build a four-lane College Boulevard extension today along with the current CIP projects,
and the building out of proposed development in LFMZ 15:
a. All current deficiencies on Cannon Road and El Camino Real would be fully
addressed and the facilities would meet the LOS D standard.
b. The four-lane College Boulevard extension itself would be deficient and would
not meet the LOS D standard.
c. There would be a new deficiency on the existing section of College Boulevard
north of Cannon Road.
16
The construction of the College Boulevard extension is identified in General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.21:
Implement connections and improvements identified in this Mobility Element, including
those identified in policy 3-P.19, as well as: Extension of College Boulevard from Cannon
Road to El Camino Real …
The implementation of Policy 3-P.19 serves as CEQA mitigation for vehicular LOS congestion
under the 2015 General Plan update under Mitigation Measure TR-1:
MM TR-1: The city shall implement all policies identified in the Mobility Element to reduce
the demand for vehicles on I- 5. However, even with implementation of these policies, the
impact will remain significant and unavoidable.
However, recent amendments to state law provide that vehicular LOS is statutorily no longer
identified as a significant environmental impact under CEQA. [Pub. Res. Code 21099(b)(2)]
Consequently, if the City elects not to proceed with this improvement it is recommended that
the City also concurrently remove this mitigation measure.
Though the LFMZ 15 Plan calls for interim improvements for College Boulevard, staff
recommends building the College Boulevard extension to its ultimate configuration, which
includes full width grading and constructing all four lanes. As detailed above, it is assumed that
a city-led extension of College Boulevard carries an estimated cost of $30 million.
Considering the above information, staff requests City Council direction on whether to develop
a city-led financing program for construction of the College Boulevard extension. This process
would include a preliminary design and engineering assessment to develop a more accurate
cost estimate that would then need to be funded and prepared in the CIP. If directed by the City
Council, staff could review what funding sources are available to fund the preliminary design
and engineering assessment, which is expected to cost approximately $3 million.
Staff also requests direction on whether to amend the LFMZ 15 Plan and the CFIP now to
remove or update the obligation of private development in LFMZ 15 to fully fund the College
Boulevard extension, due to the apparent infeasibility for that to occur. Under CMC Section
21.90.130, no LFMZ 15 development permits can be approved by the city unless the map or
permit is consistent with the LFMZ 15 Plan and this funding obligation. Considering this, staff
recommends amending the LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP now. If the City Council declines to amend
the plans at this time but directs staff to develop a city-led financing program, those plans
would ultimately require amending upon the council adopting a city-led financing program for
the project.
17
If the City Council elects to fund the preliminary design and engineering assessment cost
estimate of $3 million in the fiscal year 2020-21 CIP budget, it could take about 18 more months
to award a contract to a consultant and complete preparation of the preliminary design and
cost estimate, which would bring the timeline to early 2022.
Of note, under the expenditure limitation established in 1982 under Proposition H, a public
vote may be necessary before spending money from the city’s General Fund for the preliminary
design and engineering assessment if the expense would take more than $1 million from that
fund, and if that money was spent on an improvement project that would ultimately be
accepted into the city’s circulation system. If the City Council directs staff to pursue the
preliminary design and cost assessment, and if funding sources other than city General Funds
are not feasible, staff will consult with the City Attorney’s Office to determine whether a vote is
necessary.
Financing summary
In summary, the financing associated with construction of the College Boulevard extension
project will be challenging and demanding a prudent approach. Matching the appropriate
financing tool or tools to the project will involve using complex financing techniques requiring
careful planning and consideration from city staff and external financial partners.
Staff recommends direction from City Council to develop a city-led financing program for
construction of the College Boulevard extension project, which would include the city
undertaking a preliminary design and engineering assessment for approximately $3 million.
Fiscal Analysis
CIP projects have been identified in this staff report (CIP Nos. 6071, 6042/6056 and
unnumbered CIP). Staff has outlined the anticipated future funding needs for those CIP projects
below and will adjust the project costs as part of the fiscal year 2020-21 CIP approval process or
separately for City Council approval. Other funding needs will depend on the direction given by
City Council and are not included below.
18
Table 5
Anticipated funding requests for CIP Nos. 6071, 6042/6056 and unnumbered CIP
CIP Project No. 6071
Current appropriation $1,026,000
Current expenditures and/or encumbrances $251,153
Total available funding $774,847
Future appropriation needed $0
Total anticipated funds needed $1,026,000
CIP Projects Nos. 6042 and 6056
Current appropriation $2,825,000
Current expenditures and/or encumbrances $1,353,435
Total available funding $1,471,565
Future appropriation needed $695,000
Total anticipated funds needed $3,520,000
Unnumbered CIP project
Current appropriation $0
Future appropriation needed $4,000,000
Total anticipated funds needed $4,000,000
Total of all projects
Total anticipated funds needed $8,546,000
Next Steps
If directed by the City Council, staff can return at a future date with a city-led financing plan to
construct a four-lane College Boulevard extension for the council’s consideration, including the
city undertaking a preliminary design and engineering assessment for approximately $3 million.
Staff would meet with LFMZ 15 property owners to determine interest in participating in the
project.
Consistent with the City Council’s direction, staff will update the applicable LFMP and CFIP
relating to the obligation of private development in LFMZ 15 to fully fund the College Boulevard
extension project per CMC Section 21.90.125.
Staff also recommends the City Council consider whether it can make the findings required to
support a moratorium on development that are required under Senate Bill 330 (Gov. Code
Section 66300 et seq.)
This staff report has focused on the results of the fiscal year 2017-18 Annual Growth
Management Monitoring Report. Staff is in the process of preparing the fiscal year 2018-19
Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report, which is expected to be presented to the City
Council on April 21, 2020.
19
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Exempting street facilities and intersections from the Growth Management Program circulation
LOS standard is an activity that was previously evaluated in the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) 13-02 for the General Plan update (GPA 07-02), dated Sept. 22, 2015. The
City Council may declare certain street facilities as built-out and approve LOS exemptions
consistent with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 provided that subsequent
development projects located in LFMZs with exempted facilities incorporate appropriate TDM
and TSM measures to reduce project impacts.
The EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of the implementation of General Plan
policies and Climate Action Plan measures that would reduce congestion and vehicle-related
demand through TDM and TSM. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (c) (2),
the action to exempt the recommended street facilities from the Growth Management Program
circulation LOS performance standard is within the scope of the Final Program EIR 13-02 and no
further CEQA compliance is required.
Street improvement projects recommended in this staff report will be subject to appropriate
project-level CEQA review during their planning and design prior to implementation.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal year 2017-18: Circulation Section
2. Map of Deficient Street Facilities with Local Facility Management Zones
3. Location Map for El Camino Real and College Boulevard, CIP Project No. 6071
4. Location Map for El Camino Real and Cannon Road, CIP Project Nos. 6042/6056
5. Carlsbad Community Vision
Exhibit 1
CIRCULATION
A. Performance Standard
Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system –
vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain level of service (LOS) D or
better for all modes that are subject to this multi-modal level of service (MMLOS)
standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS
exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council.
The service levels for each travel mode are represented as a “grade” ranging from LOS A
to LOS F: LOS A reflects a high level of service for a travel mode (e.g. outstanding
characteristics and experience for that mode) and LOS F would reflect an inadequate level
of service for a travel mode (e.g. excessive congestion for vehicles, inadequate facilities
for bicycle, pedestrian, or transit users).
B. Livable Streets
The California Complete Streets Act (2008) requires cities in California to plan for a
balanced, multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of all travel modes.
Accomplishing this state mandate requires a fundamental shift in how the city plans and
designs the street system – recognizing the street as a public space that serves all users
of the system (elderly, children, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc.) within the urban context of
that system (e.g. accounting for the adjacent land uses).
• Prior to adoption of the General Plan Mobility Element on September 22, 2015, the
growth management circulation performance standard was based on the circulation
needs of a single mode of travel – the automobile.
• The General Plan Mobility Element identifies a new livable streets strategy for mobility
within the city.
• The livable streets strategy focuses on creating a ‘multi-modal’ street network that
supports the mobility needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and vehicles.
• Providing travel mode options that reduce dependence on the vehicle also supports
the city’s Climate Action Plan in achieving its goals of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions within the city.
C. Street Typology
The city’s approach to provide livable streets recognizes that improving the LOS for one
mode of transportation can sometimes degrade the LOS for another mode. For example,
pedestrian friendly streets are designed to encourage pedestrian uses and typically have
slow vehicle travel speeds and short-distance pedestrian crossings that restrict vehicle
mobility. Therefore, the General Plan Mobility Element’s livable streets approach
Exhibit 1
identifies, based on the location and type of street (street typology), the travel modes for
which service levels should be enhanced and maintained per the MMLOS standard (LOS
D or better).
• Mobility Element Table 3-1 describes the livable street typologies and Figure 3-1
depicts the livable street system.
• The street typology identifies which modes of transportation are subject to, and which
modes are not subject to, the MMLOS standard.
• The vehicle mode of travel is subject to the MMLOS standard only on the following
street typologies: Freeways, Arterial Streets, Arterial Connector Streets, and Industrial
Streets.
• The city has historically monitored vehicle LOS along 26 street segments.
o When the Mobility Element was adopted in 2015, eight of those street
segments were designated with street typologies where the vehicle is
accommodated but is not subject to the MMLOS standard.
o These eight street segments are streets where the LOS of other travel modes
(pedestrian, bicycle, transit) is a priority.
o These eight street segments were not monitored for vehicular LOS in this
report.
o Vehicular LOS data was collected along the remaining eighteen (26-8=18)
street segments as discussed below.
D. Methods to Measure Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS)
• Vehicle LOS is measured as described below.
• The method to measure pedestrian, bicycle and transit LOS is based on the approach
used in preparation of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which
identifies attributes of a location and identifies a qualitative LOS grade based on the
attributes of the pedestrian, bicycle or transit facility. Each attribute contributes to a
point system that, when the total points for all attributes are added together,
corresponds to a qualitative letter grade. Following the adoption of the General Plan
Mobility Element and the MMLOS standard, city staff developed the MMLOS Tool,
which refines the method used in the General Plan EIR.
E. Changing How Vehicle LOS is Measured
During this reporting period, changes were made to how vehicle LOS is measured, in
comparison to previous years. The changes are summarized below and were made to
be consistent with the General Plan Mobility Element, recent changes to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the latest version of the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM).
Exhibit 1
• Eliminated intersection vehicle LOS analysis.
The city has historically monitored vehicle LOS using both intersection and street
segment methodologies. The city eliminated the use of intersection LOS analysis and
now evaluates vehicle LOS using only street segment LOS analysis.
• Updated street segment vehicle LOS analysis.
The methodology used to evaluate vehicle LOS along street segments was updated to
be consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual, per the General Plan Mobility
Element. This update resulted in significantly reduced roadway capacities which
subsequently led to significantly lower LOS results on most roadway segments.
• Re-Defined street segments to monitor.
The 18 street segments that were historically monitored and will continue to be
monitored for vehicle LOS have been divided into 43 smaller street segments.
Changes in the number of lanes, signal spacing or speed limit define the segment
division. For this reporting period, traffic counts were not collected for all 43 street
segments. Rather, traffic counts were collected at the same 18 historical locations as
in previous years, and vehicle LOS is reported for the 18 street segments that align
with the historical locations. The other 25 street segments (43-18=25) were not
monitored in this report. All 43 street segments will be monitored in 2019.
• Changing vehicle LOS monitoring from summer conditions to average spring/fall
conditions.
The schedule for collecting field data for vehicle LOS was changed from summer to
spring and fall data collection. The industry standard is to monitor traffic in the spring
and fall to reflect typical conditions when school is in session. This report reflects
traffic data gathered in the fall of 2018. Traffic data is scheduled to be collected in the
spring of 2019.
Exhibit 1
F. LOS D Exemptions
The City Council has the authority to exempt a street facility from the LOS D standard if
the street facility meets one or more of the following criteria from General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.9:
To exempt the vehicle mode of travel from the LOS standard at a particular street
intersection or segment, the intersection or street segment must be identified as built-out
by the City Council because:
a. Acquiring the rights of way is not feasible; or
b. The proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment in an
unacceptable way and mitigation would not contribute to the nine core values of
the Carlsbad Community Vision; or
c. The proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other
community values or General Plan policies; or
d. The proposed improvements would require more than three through travel lanes
in each direction.
The following street facilities were identified in the General Plan and are expected to
provide a vehicle level of service below LOS D at buildout. Per General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.10, the following street facilities, including the intersections along
these segments, are exempt from the vehicle level of service standard:
• La Costa Avenue between Interstate-5 and El Camino Real
• El Camino Real between Palomar Airport Road and La Costa Avenue
• Palomar Airport Road between Interstate-5 and College Boulevard
• Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Drive
G. FY 2017-18 Facility Adequacy Analysis
This report includes circulation facility adequacy analysis for FY 2017-18. The details of
all LOS results are found in the 2018 GMP traffic monitoring data. The following table
summarizes the street segments where vehicle and other modes of transportation exceed
(do not meet) the MMLOS standard (LOS D or higher).
1. Street Segments with Vehicle LOS Exceeding LOS D Standard
Compared to previous growth management monitoring reports, this report identifies
more street segments that do not meet the MMLOS standard – LOS D or higher. The
increase in segments with a LOS below D is primarily due to the changes in how vehicle
LOS is measured (as summarized above), and to a lesser degree changes in volume of
vehicles compared to previous years. Following this report, city staff will deliver a
Exhibit 1
more detailed report to the City Council on the vehicle LOS reported in the table below
and shown in Figure 4.
Deficient
Roadway
Segment
From To
Level of Service
(LOS) Adjacent Facility
Management Zone
(LFMZ) AM PM
El Camino Real Oceanside
City Limits
Marron Road E E 1, 2
El Camino Real Marron Road Oceanside
City Limits
E E 1, 2
El Camino Real College Blvd Cannon Road C F 5, 8, 14, 15, 24
El Camino Real Cannon Road College Blvd F B 5, 8, 14, 15, 24
College Blvd. Aston
Avenue
Palomar
Airport Rd.
B F 5
Melrose Drive Vista City
Limits
Palomar
Airport Rd.
F E 5, 18
Cannon Road El Camino
Real
College Blvd D F 8, 14, 15, 24
Cannon Road College Blvd El Camino
Real
E D 8, 14, 15, 24
2. Roadway Segments with Pedestrian LOS Exceeding LOS D Standard
None (all of the roadway segments monitored met the LOS standard)
3. Roadway Segments with Bicycle Los Exceeding LOS D Standard
None (all of the roadway segments monitored met the LOS standard)
4. Roadway Segments with Transit LOS Exceeding LOS D Standard
None (the recently adopted Travel Demand Management ordinance addresses all
outstanding issues)
Exhibit 1
Figure 4: Deficient Street Segments and LFMZ
Exhibit 1
H. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
The Environmental Impact Report for the 2015 General Plan evaluated how buildout of
the land uses planned by the General Plan will impact the vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle and
transit levels of service, and identified that additional circulation facilities may need to be
constructed in order to meet the GMP performance standard at buildout. The following
summarizes the results of that evaluation:
Vehicle Level of Service at Buildout
• Additional future road segments (extensions of College Boulevard, Poinsettia Lane
and Camino Junipero) needed to accommodate the city’s future growth were
identified as part of the General Plan update. The General Plan Mobility Element
identifies these needed future road segments as “Planned City of Carlsbad Street
Capacity Improvements.”
• The General Plan also called out the need to implement the scheduled Interstate-5
North Coast Project and Interstate-5/Interstate-78 Interchange Improvement Project
that are needed to accommodate future growth.
• The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds projects that will upgrade the LOS
including several roadway widenings along El Camino Real near: College Road
(northbound), La Costa Avenue (southbound), and Cassia Road (northbound).
• The General Plan EIR identifies travel demand management (TDM) and traffic system
management (TSM) as mitigation measures for roadway sections that have been
given LOS exemptions.
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Level of Service at Buildout
Improvements to pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities may be needed to ensure
compliance with the MMLOS standard at buildout. Needed improvements will be
identified after the city has completed an evaluation of the facility according to the
roadway typology.
I. Next Steps
Carlsbad Municipal Code ∮21.90.130 (c) states:
If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the city manager that facilities or
improvements within a facilities management zone or zones are inadequate to
accommodate any further development within that zone or that the performance
standards adopted pursuant to Section 21.90.100 are not being met, he or she
shall immediately report the deficiency to the council. If the council determines
that a deficiency exists, then no further building or development permits shall be
issued within the affected zone or zones and development shall cease until an
Exhibit 1
amendment to the city-wide facilities and improvements plan or applicable local
facilities management plan which addresses the deficiency is approved by the city
council and the performance standard is met.
A staff report will be sent to the City Council that includes the following:
• a list of the street segments subject to the LOS D standard and do not meet this
standard;
• a list of these deficient street segments that meet the conditions for an
exemption;
• a list of projects that could be implemented to meet the LOS D standard;
• a request that City Council determine which of these segments is deficient,
identify which ones should gain exemptions, and identify which projects to fund
in order to meet the LOS D standard.
Exhibit 2
EL CAMINO REAL & COLLEGE BLVD.
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 6071 3
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
COLLEGE BLVD.PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
EL CAMINO REAL AND CANNON ROAD 6042 &6056 4EL CAMINO REALCANNON ROAD
AGU
A
H
E
D
I
O
N
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
Small town feel, beach community character and connectedness
Enhance Carlsbad’s defining attributes—its small town feel and beach community character. Build on the city’s culture
of civic engagement, volunteerism and philanthropy.
Open space and the natural environment
Prioritize protection and enhancement of open space and the natural environment. Support and protect Carlsbad’s
unique open space and agricultural heritage.
Access to recreation and active, healthy lifestyles
Promote active lifestyles and community health by furthering access to trails, parks, beaches and other recreation
opportunities.
The local economy, business diversity and tourism
Strengthen the city’s strong and diverse economy and its position as an employment hub in north San Diego County.
Promote business diversity, increased specialty retail and dining opportunities, and Carlsbad’s tourism.
Walking, biking, public transportation and connectivity
Increase travel options through enhanced walking, bicycling and public transportation systems. Enhance mobility
through increased connectivity and intelligent transportation management.
Sustainability
Build on the city’s sustainability initiatives to emerge as a leader in green development and sustainability. Pursue public/
private partnerships, particularly on sustainable water, energy, recycling and foods.
History, the arts and cultural resources
Emphasize the arts by promoting a multitude of events and productions year-round, cutting-edge venues to host world-
class performances, and celebrate Carlsbad’s cultural heritage in dedicated facilities and programs.
High quality education and community services
Support quality, comprehensive education and life-long learning opportunities, provide housing and community
services for a changing population, and maintain a high standard for citywide public safety.
Neighborhood revitalization, community design and livability
Revitalize neighborhoods and enhance citywide community design and livability. Promote a greater mix of uses citywide,
more activities along the coastline and link density to public transportation. Revitalize the downtown Village as a
community focal point and a unique and memorable center for visitors, and rejuvenate the historic Barrio neighborhood.
Thousands of community members have participated
in the city-sponsored Envision Carlsbad program to create a community
vision for Carlsbad’s future. The core values and vision statements emerging
from this process serve as a guide for city leaders as they carry out their
service to all who live, work and play in the City of Carlsbad.
CommunityVision
Exhibit 5
1
Traffic and Mobility Commission, Commissioner Correspondence
From: Commissioner Steve Linke
Meeting Date: March 2, 2020
Subject: Item #3 – Determination of four deficient street facilities affecting Local Facilities
Management Zone 15 according to the Growth Management Plan, adoption of measures to
address the deficiencies
Introduction/suggested actions
As I predicted at our February 3, 2020 meeting, rather than proposing meaningful improvement
projects on the subject street facilities, staff is recommending simply exempting them from the
vehicle level of service (LOS) standard. There are multiple major problems with the staff report
(detailed below), including fatal inconsistencies with the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and
the General Plan, erroneous and misleading statements and conclusions, and a failure to
include the traffic study. Therefore, my initial request is for the commission to insist that staff
revise their report and return this item to us at our next meeting.
Failing that, I believe the commission should recommend that the City Council not exempt the
four street facilities, but rather make a city commitment to expedite and provide initial
funding for the College Boulevard extension and the completion of the three vehicle lanes on
northbound El Camino Real, with financing plans that ensure developers of projects in all
zones that contribute traffic to the area will pay their fair shares back to the city.
Summary
1. The deficient street facilities are physically located in Local Facilities Management Zones
(LFMZs) 14, 15, and 24, and the individual Local Facility Management Plans (LFMPs) for
Zones 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15 all suggest potential impacts on these facilities. However,
staff has ignored the GMP and related documents/policies, as well as past practice.
Instead, they have contrived a bizarre new scheme that considers Zone 15 a sole
“affected zone.” Staff should come back to the commission with a report that is
consistent with the GMP and past practice, and that includes a comprehensive multi-
zone assessment and plan with options that meaningfully address the deficiencies,
rather than simply proposing exemptions.
2. Based on the General Plan, exemptions from the vehicle LOS standard should be
restricted to cases in which there are no available projects to address the problem. In
this case, there are available projects that address all of the problems, so no exemptions
should occur.
3. Also based on the General Plan, exemptions from the vehicle LOS standard are
restricted to a specific set of criteria that are listed in Policy 3-P.9. Staff has
manufactured a new criterion—“infeasibility for private development to solely fund and
2
construct [a project]”—for their proposed exemptions. However, that is not one of the
valid criteria, so no exemptions should occur.
4. A traffic study was done that shows that the College Boulevard extension and current
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects would fully address the four deficient
street facilities by allowing them to maintain an LOS of D or better through city build-
out, and staff has recommended focusing on that ability in deciding on the exemptions.
Also, the completion of the College Boulevard extension is a prominent component in
the 2015 General Plan, and the widening of El Camino Real to three directional lanes is
also envisioned in the General Plan at build-out. The availability of these priority
projects that fully address the current deficiencies means that there is not a valid basis
to invoke exemptions.
5. Although the traffic study is a pivotal component in the staff report, it was not included
for our review. This means that the commission cannot assess the accuracy of the
assumptions, the magnitude of the changes in LOS triggered by the projects, or any
other details. Disturbingly, staff makes completely contradictory statements about the
study throughout the staff report, including multiple claims that the projects would not,
in fact, address the four deficient facilities, despite the reported conclusions to the
contrary. The traffic study needs to be provided to the commission for review and
comparison to staff claims in their report, and the staff report needs to be revised to
remove all erroneous and misleading statements and conclusions.
6. A potential future deficiency of the College Boulevard extension is not relevant to the
current proposed exemptions on El Camino Real and Cannon Road. The GMP and
General Plan do not support the imposition of exemptions based on theoretical future
failures of other streets—they rely on current monitoring data on the streets proposed
for exemption. The traffic study clearly demonstrates that, if the College Boulevard
extension is built, overall congestion will be significantly reduced area-wide. If and when
future traffic counts on the College Boulevard extension indicate a deficiency, then that
is the proper time to expand or exempt those facilities.
7. Two portions of the northbound El Camino Real facility currently have only two vehicle
through lanes (at the Cannon Road intersection on the north end and a larger southern
portion). It is my understanding that it is feasible to create three continuous vehicle
through lanes, plua a compliant bike lane. Based on the current service volume table
and the historical traffic count data I have collected, this would address the current
deficiency on this particular facility, even without the College Boulevard extension. In
contrast, the staff report claims that four lanes would be needed, but they do not
provide the study that allegedly shows that. That crucial study needs to be provided to
the commission. Regardless of the projected LOS, though, the projects that would
create three continuous vehicle through lanes should be expedited consistent with the
General Plan to mitigate or solve the deficiency, similar to the recent Melrose Drive
exemption/mitigation project.
3
8. Staff has deemed private development funding of the College Boulevard extension to be
infeasible for the foreseeable future. However, their proposed street facility exemptions
will only further dis-incentivize the completion of the extension and El Camino Real
projects. The exemptions remove the city’s obligation to do any projects, and area
developers are no longer required to fund them either. Rather, the developers may be
asked to help fund Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and/or Transportation
System Management (TSM) programs, which are extremely limited in their potential
impacts. Instead, the city should take the lead to initiate these projects in an expedited
manner and to formulate a comprehensive plan that ensures that all developments in
any zone, which contribute significant traffic to any of the three street segments, should
pay their fair shares.
Questions for staff
1. How is the “affected zone” approach used in the staff report consistent with the GMP,
LFMPs, and past practice, in which all zones that contribute significant traffic to the
deficient segment are supposed be considered ones creating an “impact”?
2. Where in the General Plan or other rules is an exemption allowed for “infeasibility for
private development to solely fund and construct” projects that fix LOS deficiencies?
3. Where in the General Plan or other rules does it say that hypothetical future deficiencies
on other streets can trigger an exemption on a currently deficient street?
4. Please provide a copy of the traffic study (or studies) cited in the staff report. Doesn’t
the study show that all four deficient street facilities are fully addressed by the College
Boulevard extension and current CIP projects, as indicated on the bottom of page 15?
5. Isn’t it true that the College Boulevard extension is one of the high priority street
projects in the General Plan?
6. Isn’t it true that the College Boulevard extension would result in significantly lower
overall congestion in the area by diverting some of the traffic that currently uses El
Camino Real and Cannon Road?
7. What evidence is there that four lanes are needed on northbound El Camino Real to
address the current deficiency? Please provide the study.
8. Isn’t it true that completion of three continuous vehicle through lanes for the
northbound El Camino Real facility would improve LOS there?
4
9. Isn’t it true that exempting these street facilities means that developers would no longer
be required to contribute funding for vehicle-based street improvement projects to
mitigate congestion on them, including perhaps the College Boulevard extension?
Detailed support for the above summary points (optional lengthy read)
Inconsistencies with the GMP
The city has 25 different Local Facilities Management Zones (LFMZs), and each one has its own
Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP). The growth management ordinance and each of the
25 individual Plans prohibit the issuance of development/building permits when vehicle-
prioritized street facilities fail the vehicle LOS standard. These documents state that the
prohibition is to occur in the zone in which the deficient facility is located, as well as any other
zone(s) that contribute at least 20% of their traffic to the facility. This is how deficiencies have
been handled over the 30+ year life of growth management in Carlsbad.
However, in an attempt to support their recommendations to exempt the El Camino Real and
Cannon Road street facilities from the LOS standard, staff is turning this process on its head. In
their original presentation to the City Council on 7/16/2019, and now in Table 1 of the current
staff report, staff uses the phrase “affected LFMZ” to presumably assign full responsibility of
the four deficient facilities to Zone 15 (the zone in which the College Boulevard extension
would occur). This ignores the actual locations of the deficient facilities and the zones that are
contributing traffic to them.
In fact, both of the deficient Cannon Road facilities are located in Zone 14 (not Zone 15), and
the deficient El Camino Real facilities are on the boundary between Zones 15 and 24. Further,
the Plans for several other zones (5, 7, 8, and 13) all indicate significant traffic impacts on these
facilities. As an example, below is a map in the Zone 14 LFMP showing its impacts on streets
both within and outside of its own boundaries, including the four deficient facilities:
5
Staff’s significant change from past practice with this nonsensical “affected LFMZ” approach is
inconsistent with the GMP and related plans/policies, and it makes no sense. A single zone
should not bear full responsibility for deficient street facilities that are not even located in it,
solely because a theoretical street project within that zone may help mitigate the problem.
Numerous additional LOS deficient street facilities around Carlsbad will undoubtedly have to be
revealed to us in the coming months when the overdue 2018-19 GMP monitoring report is
presented, and acceptance now of this flawed approach would set a very bad precedent.
Inconsistencies with the General Plan
The 2015 General Plan update introduced the concept of the “exemptions” from the vehicle
GMP standard, but they are a last resort when other measures are no longer available or
reasonable. The completion of the College Boulevard extension is also a prominent component
in the 2015 General Plan, along with the Poinsettia Lane extension (see Table 3-2 and Policy 3-
P.21). It has been a high priority for the past 30+ years. The widening of El Camino Real to three
directional lanes is also envisioned in the General Plan at build-out. Thus, these street
improvements are available and reasonable to address the deficiencies, so no exemptions are
necessary or valid in this case.
Also, the staff report suggests the following underlying rationale for the current exemptions:
Staff recommends that the council determine those four street facilities to be built out
and exempt from the LOS performance standard due to the infeasibility for private
development to solely fund and construct the College Boulevard extension project…”
[emphasis added]
That, too, is invalid. The General Plan includes specific cases for invoking exemptions (see Policy
3-P.9), and none of them include “infeasibility for private development to solely fund and
construct” the project that fixes the problem. This is a backdoor attempt to circumvent the
voter-approved GMP and General Plan.
And staff goes even further by essentially claiming—without foundation—that the exemption
power “…reorients the city’s planning focus from making physical improvements [sic]
roadways…”—even on major arterials prioritized for vehicles.
This claim essentially provides blanket power to justify never doing another street project
anywhere in Carlsbad. There is nothing preventing the co-creation of world-class bicycle and
pedestrian facilities with vehicle improvements, and this claim sets a dangerous precedent that
is inconsistent with the spirit of the General Plan and GMP.
6
Missing traffic study
The staff report refers extensively to a “recent city corridor study” (traffic study). This traffic
study was left out of the staff report, despite the fact that the commission has insisted that
such studies be included for review by the commission. It is particularly important that the
study be provided for this specific case, and that the entire matter be brought back to the
commission at our next meeting with a revised staff report, because there are numerous
contradictory statements about the conclusions of this pivotal study. And those statements play
a central role in the justification for the exemptions (see below).
College Boulevard extension fully addresses all of the deficiencies currently under review
The formal conclusions of the above-referenced study can be found in the list of three studied
scenarios on page 15 of the staff report. Notably, all three of the scenarios (including either a
two-lane or four-lane College Boulevard extension) fix all four of the deficient street facilities
without the need for any exemptions:
All current deficiencies on Cannon Road and El Camino Real would be fully addressed
and the facilities would meet the LOS D standard.
And on page 10 of the staff report, “…staff recommends focusing on whether improvements at
the four deficient street facilities could make those facilities meet the LOS standard…” when
deciding on whether exemptions should be triggered.
So, (1) there are projects that would fix the deficient facilities, (2) the General Plan makes the
completion of the College Boulevard extension a priority, (3) it is inconsistent with the General
Plan to trigger exemptions when available projects exist, and (4) staff recommends that this
should be the focus of the exemption decision. Case closed.
Inexplicably, though, staff makes multiple contradictory statements, claiming that the College
Boulevard extension would not, in fact, fix the four deficient facilities. E.g.:
…the extension is not expected to fully resolve the deficiencies on the four street
facilities… (page 10)
A recent city corridor study…supports a conclusion that constructing only two of the
four lanes on College Boulevard will not resolve the four subject deficiencies. (page 15)
These statements convey the exact opposite of the actual conclusions of the study found at the
bottom of page 15, and they form the erroneous basis of staff’s case for the exemptions. This
self-contradictory staff report is unacceptable and needs to be revised to remove all of the
erroneous and misleading statements, and the full traffic study needs to be made available for
review by the commission to determine the truth about the deficiencies and the magnitude of
7
improvement with the projects (as opposed to just deficient vs. not deficient). Then this whole
matter should be brought back at our next meeting.
Potential future deficiency of College Boulevard
Staff goes on to suggest that a potential LOS deficiency of the College Boulevard extension itself
helps justify exempting El Camino Real and Cannon Road now, rather than building the
extension. However, the GMP and General Plan do not support the imposition of exemptions
on facilities that will theoretically become deficient in the future. They rely on current
monitoring data to trigger such decisions.
One of the overarching goals of the GMP is to achieve a minimum of LOS D everywhere
possible, and the General Plan does not allow exemptions unless deficiencies are present (in
fact, it requires periodic re-evaluation of the need for exemptions). The whole line of argument
in the staff report is antithetical to this.
If the College Boulevard extension is built, it will significantly reduce congestion on El Camino
Real and Cannon Road, and traffic will equilibrate among those streets. The four-lane version of
the extension is not projected to become deficient until build-out, which could take decades (or
never happen, based on statements from the Zone 15 developers). But, if and when actual
traffic counts show a deficiency in the future, it can be expanded or exempted at that time.
El Camino Real and Cannon Road are projected to never become deficient again after
completion of the extension, but if they do in the future, then that would be the appropriate
time to exempt them, as well. That is the logical, common-sense approach that is consistent
with the GMP and General Plan, as opposed to basically doing nothing and watching congestion
fester in the area.
And, again, the commission needs to see the traffic study to assess things like the assumptions
that were made in the scenarios (e.g., are the build-out numbers unrealistically high), the
magnitude of the alleged future deficiencies (e.g., are they barely worse than a “D,” or are they
a very bad “F”), etc.
Northbound El Camino Real
For the northbound El Camino Real facility, there is a lengthy segment in the southern portion
that constricts from three to two lanes, and there is another short stretch that constricts down
to two lanes just prior to the Cannon Road intersection. These constrictions are probably the
major contributors to the deficiency of the facility, as they reduce the service volume from
about 2,900 peak hour vehicles (in the southbound direction) down to 1,860 vehicles.
The unnumbered CIP project cited by staff addresses the southern stretch by widening it to
three lanes. CIP projects 6042 and 6056 are located in the Cannon Road intersection area, but
staff does not specify the nature of those projects, or whether they establish three through
8
lanes. However, it is my understanding that sufficient right-of-way is available at that
intersection to create all of the required lanes (left turn, three through, bicycle, and right turn).
The completion of the above projects would create a uniform set of three through lanes for the
entire facility, rather than going back-and-forth between two and three lanes. This is consistent
with the General Plan and should increase the service volume to around 2,900 peak hour
vehicles to match the southbound facility. The highest published vehicle count for the
northbound facility was 2,769 vehicles recorded in the PM peak hour in 2017, so the
completion of such projects should fully address the current deficiency.
In contrast, staff claims in their report that the projects are not expected to meet the LOS
performance standard, but they do not show any evidence of that (e.g., traffic count data), and
it is not clear whether they are assuming projects that would create three through lanes over
the entire facility. This information needs to be provided to the commission for our review,
because it forms the foundation for this exemption request (i.e., if there are projects that
address the deficiency, then the exemption should not be granted).
Even if such projects do not fully address the deficiency, though, they should be expedited for
completion along with an exemption in order to mitigate the problem. This is analogous to the
far north Melrose Drive facility that was recently exempted in combination with CIP project
6034 that improves the LOS from F to E. This is particularly true if a commitment is not made to
complete the College Boulevard extension, which would also address the deficiency. Instead,
staff seems content to just apply an exemption and revisit the unnumbered CIP project in 2025.
Exemptions will compromise funding of street projects
Many unsuccessful efforts have been made to get Zone 15 developers to agree upon an upfront
financing plan. The staff report refers to a few such initiatives, including a meeting in October
2019. There have been many other attempts over the past 30 years, including sub-division of
the zone into several smaller finance areas about 20 years ago. In some cases, developers have
received plan exceptions or zone boundary changes to accommodate their projects. In any
event, staff concluded in their report that private development funding is “infeasible…for the
foreseeable future…”
Now, if the subject street facilities are simply exempted from the vehicle LOS standard, as
recommended by staff, developers can no longer be required to fund street projects that would
improve conditions there. Instead, they may be asked to contribute to Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) and/or Transportation System Management (TSM) programs. However,
Carlsbad’s TDM program is minimal and only applies to new larger commercial developments,
while TSM provides only incremental congestion relief relative to street projects. Thus, the
proposed exemptions will only further dis-incentivize financing of the street projects that would
help fix the problem—both within and outside of Zone 15.
9
Accordingly, the recommendation to exempt the streets should be rejected, and it is time for
the city to take the lead in completing the long overdue College Boulevard extension project
consistent with the following policy option to address deficiencies, as spelled out in the staff
report:
Identifying and funding an improvement project that will result in that street facility
meeting the performance standard.
Financing
Below are some financing policies that are potentially relevant to the current matter.
The 12/17/2019 staff report on this matter included the following:
Measures to Address Street Facility Deficiencies
When a street facility deficiency is determined to exist, in accordance with CMC Section
21.90.080 and 21.90.130, the following options exist:
• Where a feasible improvement project exists to achieve the performance
standard:
o City Council can identify and fund a city improvement project that will
result in the street facility meeting the performance standard
o City Council can adopt an arrangement guaranteeing the improvement
project that will result in the street facility meeting the performance
standard
Financing Policy #2 in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) supports the priority
usage of the CIP to fund projects with existing deficiencies:
Recognize that the Capital Improvements Program will play a significant role in helping
to establish compliance with the adopted performance standards. Priority for the
funding of projects should go to infill areas or areas of the city where existing
deficiencies exist.
Consistent with the above discussion on assigning impacts based on traffic generated (not the
location of a specific project), the individual plans for the zones (LFMPs) have the following
provision:
COORDINATION WITH FINANCING PLANS FOR OTHER ZONES
Per the Growth Management Ordinance, future finance plans for other zones which
impact facilities in common with Zone [X] shall be coordinated with this Finance Plan.
Coordination, however, shall not require identical funding methods.
10
I would suggest that staff come back with multi-zone solutions representative of a
comprehensive planning approach, rather than coming up with narrowly interpreted and
convoluted strategies and excuses for not doing these important projects.
Senate Bill 330
Staff seemingly cites Senate Bill 330 as another excuse for exempting the street facilities.
However, that bill only applies to residential developments with certain numbers of affordable
housing units. It does not apply to commercial development or other residential developments.
It is also set to sunset in 2025. Should a development moratorium under the GMP be imposed,
the proper way to handle this would be to exempt the qualified developments from the
moratorium—not just let everybody build everywhere. In any event, there is no need for a
moratorium, because the solutions to the problems exist.
Sincerely,
Steve Linke
Traffic & Mobility Commissioner
1
Subject: Response to Commissioner Steve Linke Questions regarding Item #3 –
Determination of four deficient street facilities affecting Local Facilities Management
Zone 15 according to the Growth Management Plan, adoption of measures to address
the deficiencies
Questions for staff
1. How is the “affected zone” approach used in the staff report consistent with the GMP,
LFMPs, and past practice, in which all zones that contribute significant traffic to the
deficient segment are supposed be considered ones creating an “impact”?
Response:
The approach used in the staff report is consistent with past practices regarding traffic
mitigation measures. Zone 15 is the only remaining affected zone that is not built out
and has not completed improvements identified in the associated Local Facilities
Management Plan.
Section 21.90.130.C of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides guidance on the application
of the affected zone approach which states, “If at any time it appears to the satisfaction
of the city manager that facilities or improvements within a facilities management zone
or zones are inadequate to accommodate any further development within that zone or
that the performance standards adopted pursuant to Section 21.90.100 are not being
met he or she shall immediately report the deficiency to the council. If the council
determines that a deficiency exists then no further building or development permits shall
be issued within the affected zone or zones and development shall cease until an
amendment to the city-wide facilities and improvements plan or applicable local facilities
management plan which addresses the deficiency is approved by the city council and the
performance standard is met.”
2. Where in the General Plan or other rules is an exemption allowed for “infeasibility for
private development to solely fund and construct” projects that fix LOS deficiencies?
Response:
The basis for exemption under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 is outlined in
detail in the staff report.
Additionally, City Council direction on constructing the College Boulevard extension
project is outlined in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) and the Local
Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) 15 Plan. These plans identify private development’s
obligation to fund and construct the project, which includes grading of four lanes and
constructing two lanes.
3. Where in the General Plan or other rules does it say that hypothetical future
deficiencies on other streets can trigger an exemption on a currently deficient street?
2
Response:
The exemptions are based on the General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 criteria.
4. Please provide a copy of the traffic study (or studies) cited in the staff report. Doesn’t
the study show that all four deficient street facilities are fully addressed by the College
Boulevard extension and current CIP projects, as indicated on the bottom of page 15?
Response:
The College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis is attached. As described in
this study, the results indicate that construction of a four-lane College Boulevard
extension today along with current CIP projects would address the identified deficiencies
on Cannon Road and El Camino Real. The four-lane extension of College Boulevard itself
would meet the LOS D standard with no new development in LFMZ 15. However, with
build-out of LFMZ 15, the four-lane College Boulevard extension itself would be deficient
and would not meet the LOS D standard and create a new deficiency on the existing
section of College Boulevard north of Cannon Road. It is worth noting that the study does
not include regional growth as a part of the analysis for the extension of College
Boulevard.
To further clarify, the study recommends construction of four lanes, which is different
from the current College Boulevard extension project listed in the CFIP and LFMZ 15
Plan (grading of four lanes and construction of two lanes). Since City Council direction
is per the CFIP and LFMZ 15 Plan (private development funding and construction of the
project, which is not for four lanes), staff cannot recommend otherwise unless City
Council provides other direction to do so. Since private development funding is infeasible
at this time, staff can only recommend exemptions to the four deficient street facilities,
per established criteria.
A four-lane College Boulevard extension project is currently not in the CIP and is not
authorized by City Council. Only the project in the CFIP and LFMZ 15 Plan (grading of four
lanes and construction of two lanes) is in the Regional Transit Improvement Plan for
approximately $12 million, but it is unfunded. If City Council were to give direction and
funding to build all four lanes for the College Boulevard extension (estimated to be
approximately $30 million), the deficiencies in the four subject street facilities will be
addressed upon completion of the extension as discussed in the study. It should be noted
that any project using $1 million or more of general funds will need voter approval per
Proposition H.
5. Isn’t it true that the College Boulevard extension is one of the high priority street
projects in the General Plan?
Response:
General Plan Policy 3-P.21 identifies the extension of College Boulevard from Cannon
3
Road to El Camino Real as a roadway improvement project for implementation; however,
it is not classified as a “high priority street”.
6. Isn’t it true that the College Boulevard extension would result in significantly lower
overall congestion in the area by diverting some of the traffic that currently uses El
Camino Real and Cannon Road?
Response:
As identified in the College Boulevard traffic operations analysis, construction of the
College Boulevard extension with the ultimate planned cross-section of four lanes at
initial opening will provide congestion relief on the surrounding network (Cannon Road
and El Camino Real). With build-out of LFMZ 15, the four-lane College Boulevard
extension itself would be deficient and would not meet the LOS D standard on the existing
section of College Boulevard north of Cannon Road as provided in the study. Please note
that the improvement to the surrounding roadway network at build-out would result in
improved LOS, however it does not account for regional growth over the time it would
take for LFMZ 15 to be built out.
7. What evidence is there that four lanes are needed on northbound El Camino Real to
address the current deficiency? Please provide the study.
Response:
Although analysis of a four-lane facility at El Camino Real was not directly analyzed as
part of the College Boulevard Extension traffic study, the analysis does show that a three-
lane facility would operate at an unacceptable LOS standard (see response to item #8
below).
8. Isn’t it true that completion of three continuous vehicle through lanes for the
northbound El Camino Real facility would improve LOS there?
Response:
Yes, however, even with widening of the northbound direction of El Camino Real from
two to three lanes, the LOS would still exceed the acceptable LOS standard during the
PM peak hour unless the College Boulevard extension is constructed. As shown in Table
1 of the College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis, the PM peak hour
volume in the northbound direction is 2,929 vehicles per hour which would operate at
a LOS F. Please refer to the Segment Level of Service Analysis in Appendix B of the
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis report for the specific LOS
thresholds for this facility.
9. Isn’t it true that exempting these street facilities means that developers would no
longer be required to contribute funding for vehicle-based street improvement
projects to mitigate congestion on them, including perhaps the College Boulevard
extension?
4
Response:
No, exempting these street facilities does not remove the obligation of private
development to fund the vehicle-based improvement.