HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-05; City Council; ; Determination of Four Deficient Street Facilities and Financing Program Options, including Extension of College Boulevard-THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO A FUTURE AGENDAMay 5, 2020
12. DETERMINATION OF FOUR DEFICIENT STREET FACILITIES AND FINANCING PROGRAM
OPTIONS, INCLUDING EXTENSION OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD -Adoption of a resolution
determining deficiencies of four street facilities according to the Growth Management Plan
Vehicular Level of Service Standard, exempting such facilities from the Standard, expediting
CIP Project No. 6094 (widening northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to
Jackspar Drive), and adoption of CEQA findings; and,
Provide direction to city staff on whether to pursue a city-led financing program, planning,
and environmental review for construction of the College Boulevard extension, which would
include the city undertaking a preliminary design and engineering assessment. If the council
does not pursue the College Boulevard extension at this time, provide direction to city staff
on whether to eliminate this extension from the City's General Plan; and
Provide direction to city staff on whether to pursue amending the Local Facilities
Management Zone 15 Plan and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan relating to
the obligation of private development in Zone 15 to fund the College Boulevard extension
project, which would include funding consultant assistance to amend these plans. (Staff
contact: Paz Gomez, Public Works and Laura Rocha, Administrative Services)
THIS ITEM WAS
CONTINUED TO
A FUTURE AGENDA
~ CITY COUNCIL
~ Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
May 5, 2020
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
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
CA Review RK
Subject: Determination of Four Deficient Street Facilities and Financing Program
Options, including Extension of College Boulevard.
Recommended Actions
1. Adopt a resolution to:
A. Determine the following street facilities to be deficient because they do not meet the
vehicular level of service component of the city's circulation 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
C. Expedite Capital Improvement Program Project No. 6094, to improve traffic circulation
by widening northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive, by
proposing different funding sources which may necessitate meeting Proposition H
requirements if more than $1 million of general funds are used.
2. Provide direction to city staff on whether to pursue a city-led financing program, planning,
and environmental review for construction of the College Boulevard extension, which would .
include the city undertaking a preliminary design and engineering assessment. If the council
does not pursue the College Boulevard extension at this time, provide direction to city staff
on whether to eliminate this extension from the City's General Plan.
3. Provide direction to city staff on whether to pursue amending the Local Facilities
Management Zone 15 Plan and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan relating to
the obligation of private development in Zone 15 to fund the College Boulevard extension
project, which would include funding consultant assistance to amend these plans.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 1 of 279
Executive Summary
Each year, staff collects traffic data in accordance with the Growth Management Plan, or GMP,
monitoring program to determine if the GMP performance standards are being met, including
the City's Circulation performance standard.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 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 3 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 under the
vehicular LOS component ofthe city's circulation performance standard.
The council determined the street facilities identified as 1, 2 and 4 above to be built out and
"exempt"2 from the vehicular LOS performance standard. Transportation demand
management, or TDM, and transportation system management, or TSM, strategies now apply
on those facilities. The council also expedited two Capital Improvement Program projects for
street facilities 3 and 4 above. The deficiency reported for street facility 3 would 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,
under the vehicular LOS component of the City's Circulation performance standard, considering
the fiscal year 2017-18 Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report results. Staff
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.
22 "Exempt" is a term of art under the City's policies that re-orients the city's panning focus from physical vehicular
roadway improvements to indirect transportation demand measures to reduce overall trip generation, and to
focus upon non-vehicular modes of travel. (Mobility Element Policies 3-P.9 and 3-P.11.)
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 2 of 279
recommends that the council determine those four street facilities to be built out and exempt
from the LOS performance standard per General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 criteria.
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 City Council direction in the Local Facilities
Management Zone 15, or LFMZ 15, Plan and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan was
feasible.
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 currently infeasible.
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 in-lieu of physical LOS improvements. For northbound El Camino
Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road, the street facility will remain deficient with three
through lanes (upon completion of expedited CIP Project No. 6094) so it is requested that
determination be made that the facility is built out and exempt.
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. Amending these plans would require funding of a consultant for assistance.
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 potentially 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.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 3 of 279
Discussion
Background
This is the third of three City Council staff reports stemming from a discussion at the July 16,
2019 City Council meeting. At that meeting, staff presented a report on how the 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 act 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 vehicular level of service on the first four
street facilities
3) Additional options to address the deficiencies in level of service on the remaining four
street facilities, which is affected by the uncompleted portion of College Boulevard
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 would be resolved by the expedited CIP project
previously approved by the City Council. While staff hoped to bring this matter back to the City
Council sooner, this process was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and it was necessary to
receive input from the California Department of Housing and Community Development
regarding the recently enacted laws described below. 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
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 4 of 279
Management Zone Plan to implement Proposition E (including the GMP Performance
Standards). The CFIP divided the city into 25 management zones, or LFMZs.
The CFIP divided the city into 25 Local Facility Management Zones (LFMZs). Each LFMZ is
required to have an adopted Local Facilities Management Plan that must describe the
following:
• How the LFMZ will be developed
• How compliance with the GMP standards will be achieved
• What public facilities will be required to maintain each performance measure
• What financing mechanisms will be used to fund these facilities
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 in.tent 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
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 multi modal 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). The Circulation Performance Standard in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, or
CFIP, was concurrently amended on Sept. 22, 2015 to reflect the livable street approach to
mobility described in this element. (General Plan Mobility Element, Policy 3-P.12.) The City's
2015 CFIP, General Plan Update, and associated Circulation Performance Standards were
previously challenged in court. (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (San Diego County ·
Superior Court Case No. 37-2015-00035458-CU-WM-NC.) That Petition alleged violations of the
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 5 of 279
City's Growth Management Plan, but the case was ultimately settled in 20173 and dismissed
with prejudice.
As explained in the City's 2015 Mobility Element and GMP Performance Standa rds (contained in
the 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 Circulation
performance standard was adopted as the City's Mobility Element and the City's GMP
Circulation Performance Standard:
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 (M_MLOS} 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; CFIP Circulation Performance Standard). 4
3 The 2017 North County Advocates Settlement Section 4.3.6 states "As part of the development review process
the City shall evaluate all discretionary projects for consistency with applicable General Plan policies and CAP
measures and actions that aim to reduce roadway congestion and vehicular miles traveled (VMT), through
Transportation Demand Management (TOM techniques and multi-modal improvements.") Within twelve (12)
months, the City shall update is Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, incorporating multi-modal level of service
(MMLOS) analysis to address vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes of travel, and including transportation
demand management (TDM) trip reduction methodologies and best practices to reduce automobile trips and
improvement travel model shift. The updated TIA Guidelines will also be used to determine requirements for
offsetting project impacts and evaluating opportunities for improving project-level connections for all travel modes
(vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit). Within twelve (12) months of the state Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) issuing final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the use of VMT as the primary metric to analyze
transportation impacts rather than vehicle level of service (LOS), the City, in collaboration with SAN DAG and
applicable working groups, will revise the updated TIA Guidelines to be consistent with OP R's final amendments to
the CEQA Guidelines."
4 The GMP Circulation Performance Standard provides additional discussion, explaining: "Traditionally,
transportation systems have been designed to achieve a level of service from the perspective of the driver, not
pedestrians or bicyclists. However, the city's livable streets vision recognizes the street as a public space and
ensures that the public space serves all users of the system (elderly, children, bicycles, pedestrians, etc.) within the
urban context of that system (e.g. accounting for the adjacent land uses) ... While many transportation projects in
Carlsbad have historically been vehicle capacity enhancing and traffic control focused, the livable streets strategy
will explore all potential solutions to enhance the mobility for all users of the street. Many future transportation
projects will involve repurposing existing right-of-way rather than acquiring and constructing new right-of-
way ... The 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. Therefore, the General Plan Mobility Element intends to provide a balanced mobility system that
identifies, based on the type of street (street typology), the travel modes for which service levels should be
enhanced and maintained per the multi-modal level of service (MM LOS) standard specified in the city's Citywide
Facilities and Improvements Plan." https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?Blob1D=24067
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 6 of 279
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 wilf 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 Janes 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
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 roadway improvements 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
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 7 of 279
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, Housing Crisis Act of 2019
Senate Bill 330, which became effective Jan. 1, 2020, established new procedures on placing a
11moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development, including mixed-use
development." [Gov. Code,§ 66300(b)(l)(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, or HCD.
On April 17, 2020; the city received an opinion from HCD regarding the city's ability to
implement a moratorium under the City's Growth Management Plan (CMC §§ 21.90.080 and
21.90.130) in light of SB 330. (Exhibit 16.) HCD's opinion concludes that "the housing
moratorium adopted pursuant to the city's GMP would be impermissible under Government
Code section 66300." HCD's letter states:
"HCD does not consider, however, that general concerns about the health and welfare
of the citizenry-including traffic conditions that cause minor delays-present an
imminent threat to health and safety ... ln this case, the City's proposed moratorium
would prohibit the issuance of any development or building permits in Local Facilities
Management Zone 15 (11LFMZ 15") untilJour (4) identified street facilities meet the
vehicle level of service ("LOS") performance standard of Dor the necessary
improvements are guaranteed. (See City of Carlsbad Mun. Code,§ 21.90.080.) LOS D
simply refers to the rate at which traffic flows on a roadway, and at LOS D there is no
longer free flow of traffic but instead congestion that borders on unstable flow ... While
such congestion may be uncomfortable, there is no indication in the City's GMP or in the
City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines that such a standard represents an
imminent threat to the health and safety of the residents of LFMZ or those in the
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 8 of 279
immediate area. Accordingly, HCD is of the opinion that such a moratorium cannot
permissibly be adopted or enforced consistent with Government Code section 66300."
HCD has reached similar opinions for other municipalities. In 2017, the City of Redondo Beach
adopted a mixed-use moratorium, based upon "intersections with a Level of Service (LOS)
capacity of Dor worse surrounding some of the mixed use zones as evidenced by [Redondo
Beach's] Traffic and Circulation Element...[which] represent a current and immediate threat to
the public health, safety, and welfare ... " HCD took issue with these findings stating that "the
City appears to be merely relying on a level of service (LOS) standard as a proxy for having a
'specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety standards' with little or no analysis to
support making such a finding." Concluding that "[t]he city's findings do not appear to meet this
heightened standard." (Exhibit 17)
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. The increases in
vehicular congestion have been largely caused by ambient growth outside the city. This is
generally consistent with the problems other municipalities are seeing throughout the state. As
noted in SB 330, the housing crisis has been found to be the cause of increased congestion. As
discussed in SB 330 "The housing crisis harms families across California and has resulted in all of
the following: ... Increasing greenhouse gas emissions from longer commutes to affordable
homes far from growing job centers." Similarly, the State Legislative Analyst's Office Report on
California's High Housing Costs,5 explains that "Workers in California's coastal communities
commute 10 percent further each day than commuters elsewhere, largely because limited
housing options exist near major job centers."
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.
5 https ://lao. ca .gov/ reports/2015 /finance/ho us i ng-costs/h ou sing-costs. pdf
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 9 of 279
Table 1
Proposed actions to address deficiencies at four street facilities
Deficient street Recommended Current level Affected
facility From To actions of service LFMZ
Declare exempt from
Southbound El Cannon College Blvd vehicular LOS D F 15 Camino Real Road standard, implement
CIP Project No. 6071
Declare exempt from
vehicular LOS D
Northbound El College Cannon Road standard, implement F 15 Camino Real Blvd CIP Projects Nos. 6042
and 6056, expedite CIP
Project No. 6094
Eastbound El Camino Declare exempt from
Cannon Road Real College Blvd vehicular LOS D F 15
standard
Westbound College Declare exempt from
El Camino Real vehicular LOS D E 15 Cannon Road Blvd standard
Note: Transportation system and demand management measures will be applied to development adding
traffic to the street facilities exempt from the vehicular LOS D standard
Based on this information, staff recommends that the City Council determine that a deficiency
exists at each of the street facilities.
Policy options
When a circulation deficiency is determined to exist, the City Council can normally:
1. Adopt physical improvements that would improve the vehicular LOS deficiency to LOS D
or better
2. · Adopt a moratorium to prohibit development and the issuance of building permits in
affected LFMZs until the performance standard is met, or
3. Find the street facilities exempt from the vehicular LOS performance standard under
Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9, thereby prioritizing TDM measures to improve vehicular
congestion. However, as noted above, given the recently enacted provisions of SB 330
and HCD's April 17, 2020 Opinion, the City Attorney does not believe that the City has
the option of implementing a moratorium in these circumstances.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 10 of 279
Potential options therefore include:
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 to indirectly reduce vehicular congestion
Although the GMP and the Mobility Element include a circulation performance standard tied, in
part, to vehicular LOS, they acknowledge that the city cannot always rely on adding roadway
capacity to address vehicular congestion deficiencies and that other non-vehicular modes of
transportation must be considered. In other words, the city cannot always build its way out of
traffic congestion. While not applicable to every type of roadway, the State Office of Planning
and Research also acknowledges that construction of some types of roadways may actually
induce additional vehicular trips, thereby making overall congestion worse. OPR Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.)6
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
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 vehicular
LOS 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.7 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 approximately $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. 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 for
construction of four lanes or a roadway design with equivalent capacity would carry that
estimated cost of $30 million. This value does not include the costs associated with additional
6 OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, pp. 4, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, Appendix 2
available at: http://opr.ca .gov/docs/20190122-743 Technical Advisory.pdf
7 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.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 11 of 279
property acquisition, described in greater detail below in the Extending College Boulevard
section.
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.
• 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 (Exhibit 8) showed that traffic on a two-lane extension of College Boulevard
as described in the LFMZ 15 Plan and the CFIP would not be adequate to serve the anticipated
build-out traffic volumes for LFMZ 15. The study recommends construction of a four-lane
College Boulevard extension, which is currently not in the CIP. Since City Council direction in the
LFMZ 15 Plan and the CFIP (that is, a two-lane extension of College Boulevard) is for private
development funding and construction, staff is unable to recommend construction of four lanes
using city funding. City Council would need to direct staff to pursue funding for a four-lane
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 12 of 279
extension and allow for the city to lead the construction effort by amending the LFMZ 15 Plan
and CFIP.
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.9, detailed above, apply to those facilities.
Recommended actions to address the four deficient street facilities
Staff has considered options other than the College Boulevard extension described in the LFMZ
15 Plan and CFIP to address the vehicular 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 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 5 shows a location map for
this project.
While this project will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility and improve
vehicular LOS, it is not expected to make this facility meet the vehicular 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)
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 13 of 279
• Protect and enhance the visual, environmental and historical characteristics of
Carlsbad through sensitive planning and design of scenic transportation corridors
(Goal 3-G.6)
If the City Council determines this street facility to be deficient, built out and exempt,
appropriate TDM and TSM strategies would be required of future development that adds
traffic to this exempt street facility under 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 6 shows a project location map for those projects.
CIP Project No. 6094 to widen northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to ·
Jackspar Drive is estimated to cost $4 million and is currently scheduled for funding in 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 expedite CIP Project No. 6094 and direct staff to return
with potential funding sources including consideration of Proposition H if more than $1
million of general funds is used. Exhibit 15 shows a project location map for this project.
Even with the widening of northbound El Camino Real from two to three lanes from Sunny
Creek Road to Jackspar Drive, the LOS would still not meet the vehicular LOS standard during ·
the afternoon (PM) peak hour unless the four-lane College Boulevard extension is
constructed. As shown in Table 1 of the College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations
Analysis (Exhibit 8), the PM peak hour volume in the northbound direction is 2,929 vehicles
per hour which would operate at a LOS F.
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
completion of CIP Project Nos. 6042/6056 and 6094 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 goals listed in the
General Plan Mobility Element, as noted above. If City Council determines this street facility
to be deficient, built out and exempt, appropriate TDM and TSM strategies would be
required of future development that adds traffic to this exempt street facility under Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.11.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 14 of 279
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), acquiring the
rights of way is not feasible, and 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.
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 would 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 would 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 7) 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
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.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 15 of 279
• 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 Ca rlsbad 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.
If the City Council determines this street facility to be deficient, built out and exempt,
appropriate TDM and TSM strategies would be required of future development that adds
traffic to this exempt street facility under Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11.
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 deficient, built out and exempt from the LOS
performance standard, under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a), acquiring the
rights of way is not feasible, and 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.
If the City Council determines this street facility to be deficient, built out and exempt,
appropriate TDM and TSM strategies would be required of future development that adds
traffic to this exempt street facility under Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11.
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
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 16 of 279
current federal, state, and local requirements. Additional consultants must be hired to update
and revise seve.ral 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
• Intersection control and street lights
Construction of the College Boulevard extension was previously considered in three certified
environmental impact reports:
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 and costs 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 Boulevard extension
• Water quality treatment basins required to treat storm runoff from the College
Boulevard extension to satisfy current 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.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 17 of 279
Financing the College Boulevard extension
Per City Council direction, private development in LFMZ 15 is currently obligated to fund the
College Boulevard extension project which consists 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 involving private
development.
Though construction of the College Boulevard extension with only two lanes would be
beneficial, a four-lane extension project would be preferable to achieve vehicular LOS
performance standards. To construct a four-lane College Boulevard extension project, City
Council would need to direct staff to pursue a four-lane extension project since it would change
the previous direction provided in the LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP. City Council would also need to
allow for the city to lead the design and construction effort, which is a change to current
direction in the LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP (private development lead). Private development would
still be obligated to contribute their portions of the extension project as currently outlined, if
the city were to lead the effort and enter into reimbursement agreements with developers.
The city's General Plan Mobility Element includes the proposed extension of College Boulevard
as an arterial street gap closure project. The purpose ofthe city's corridor study (Exhibit 8) was
to establish a preliminary set of baseline conditions and identify potential near-term (existing
conditions) multimodal issues or opportunities assuming completion of the College Boulevard
extension as a two-lane or four-lane roadway.
Roadway capacity analysis was conducted for all study arterial roadways to determine how they
are currently operating and the effect of the extension on segment operations. The peak
directional volume LOS thresholds for all arterial streets in the area were used. As the extension
of College Boulevard does not yet exist, peak directional volume threshold for the segment to
the north of the roadway extension (Carlsbad Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive and
Cannon Road,which is a four-lane road) was used. To evaluate operations of the initial two-
lane extension, the four-lane College Boulevar~ volume thresholds for the peak direction were
divided in half.
With construction of the extension, existing vehicle trips will be re-distributed across the
surrounding roadway network. In addition, the extension will provide access to parcels within
the LFMZ 15 planning area that are expected to develop with a variety of land uses. Two new
streets are expected to intersect the extension and provide direct access to LFMZ 15 parcels.
The study includes estimates of traffic volumes associated with both re-distribution and new
adjacent development that would use the College Boulevard extension upon completion of the
roadway.
The analysis indicated that the planned two-lane roadway extension is operating at capacity in
the southbound direction in the AM, or morning, peak, and the extension is operating vehicular
performance standards in the northbound direction in the PM, or afternoon, peak hour.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 18 of 279
The planned four-lane roadway extension would operate with additional capacity in both
directions in both the AM and PM peak hours. The roadway capacity deficiencies that were
observed on study roadways under existing conditions (El Camino Real and Cannon Road) have
been ameliorated with the reassignment of existing trips to the College Boulevard extension.
When built, the extension will have a positive effect on surrounding roadway segments.
Under LFMZ 15 buildout conditions, a two-lane extension will not be adequate to eliminate the
vehicular LOS deficiencies in LFMZ 15, so it is not considered viable with these volumes. A four-
lane extension is projected to operate at or over capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours
with the addition of trips associated with LFMZ 15 buildout.
The study recommends construction of the ultimate planned cross-section of four lanes for the
College Boulevard extension to serve existing traffic and to accommodate traffic associated
with expected buildout of LFMZ 15. The four-lane extension will provide relief on the
surrounding network (El Camino Real and Cannon Road) while providing additional capacity for
development.
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 /-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, if the City
Council elects to proceed with physical LOS improvements, the Staff recommends building the
College Boulevard extension to its ultimate configuration, which includes full width grading and
constructing all four lanes or a roadway design with equivalent capacity. As detailed above, it is
assumed that a city-led extension of College Boulevard to four lanes carries an estimated cost
of $30 million, not including property acquisition/easements costs, and not including permitting
and planning costs.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 19 of 279
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, with four
lanes. 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. 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.
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.
Other funding mechanisms
The reimbursement fee ordinance (Exhibit 9), established under the powers available to charter
cities offers an additional financing tool available to help finance public improvements. It allows
the city to place conditions on properties withi~ an LFMZ and may be used in LFMZ 15 and
other situations in which an applicant(s) constructs public improvements on behalf of multiple
property owners also conditioned to construct the same public improvements. The affected
properties' proportional share and related reimbursement fee is determined by a
reimbursement fee study. The reimbursement fees pass through the city and are eventually
remitted back to the applicants who incurred the public improvement construction costs. This
attempt was previously unsuccessful in LFMZ 15 due to high upfront construction costs having
to be assumed by only a few property owners, with little to no assurance of reimbursement
fees for several years.
To circumvent the unsuccessful attempt above, the city may wish to move the project forward
and build College Boulevard to its ultimate configuration before collecting any funds from
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 20 of 279
affected property owners in LFMZ 15. In this case, the city would conduct the preliminary
design and engineering assessment to update the required public infrastructure costs. The city
would then determine, by way of a reimbursement fee study, the affected properties'
proportional share and their related reimbursement fees. The city and the affected properties
would establish terms to collect this reimbursement fee. The following would need to be
considered:
• Upfront construction costs to the city would require funding or financing approximately
$30 million, and indirect costs associated with property and easement acquisition
• Financing the construction as a CIP using $1 million or more of General Funds would
require voter approval
• Delayed or lack of development from affected properties would delay or negate
reimbursement back to city
Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan financing options
Section VII of the CFIP (attached as Exhibit 10) discusses some general financing options and
policies available to the city under the GMP. Table 2 provides an overview of four potential
debt financing mechanisms available to assist the city, two of which are noted in the CFIP. The
use of debt financing is usually justified by the rationale of spreading out the costs of public
infrastructure over the period of the bond or loan repayments.
Efforts were made during years 2012-2015 by West Partners, a large property owner within
LFMZ 15, to formulate a 1915 Bond Act assessment district and a Community Facility District.
That effort failed to gain enough consent of the benefitting property owners to move forward.
In the interim, construction of the new Sage Creek High School provided improvements to
certain LFMZ 15 facilities, including the Cannon Road-College Boulevard intersection and an
adjacent portion of Cannon Road, as well as funding for other local traffic improvements.
Generally speaking, community facility district or assessment district financing under City
Council Policy No. 33 (Exhibit 11) afford the city the best protection while providing the
property owners with assistance in the financing of such a project. However, if there are several
property owners in the potential district or if all the property owners are not ready to develop
at the same time, it may be difficult to get agreement on a CFD or assessment district. Both
mechanisms assume the city would issue debt and, once that has been done, taxes or
assessments must be collected to pay the debt.
City Council Policy No. 33 sets up guidelines which protect the city from some of the more
common pitfalls of using 1913/1915 Bond Act assessment districts, community facility districts
and bridge and thoroughfare districts financing. The city does not have any such guidelines for
enhanced infrastructure financing districts, so more care should be exercised in developing the
terms and conditions of these options.
A bridge and thoroughfare district should generally be a last choice as it does not get a project
built immediately, and it is more difficult to adjust if the cost of the project exceeds the
estimate. Any property owner who has already paid the fee would not be contributing to the
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 21 of 279
additional costs; which places the burden on the remaining property owners or the city to make
up the difference. If there is a large variation in the development schedules of the property
owners or many property owners, then a bridge and thoroughfare district may be the only
choice. In that case, there are several precautions that should be taken during the formation of
the district to minimize the risk of insufficient funds later in the life of the project. These would
include:
• Design of the project should be at the 50% level or better
• The city should own all rights of way or easements for the road alignment or irrevocable
offers to dedicate. Such rights of way should be obtained prior to formation of the
district.
• Reimbursement agreements may be done for work constructed before sufficient fees
have been collected; however, reimbursements should be subject to availability of funds
after the project is complete and should only cover the amounts set forth in the project
budget.
• Fee reviews should be required every year until the project is complete with fee updates
as needed.
An enhanced infrastructure financing district may be an option for constructing the facilities
and improvements required in LFMZ 15. Such districts are authorized to combine tax increment
funding with o~her permitted funding sources, including property and s,ales tax revenue, hotel
tax, fee or assessment revenues, or loans from a city, county or special district. The process for
creating an enhanced infrastructure financing district includes certain procedural and
substantive requirements that coincide with the redevelopment dissolution process of
Assembly Bill 126, which eliminated redevelopment agencies. For example, the city's successor
agency must have a Finding of Completion on file with the Department of Finance,
redevelopment agency litigation must be resolved, and a state controller review must be
completed.
At a special City Council meeting held on Aug. 29, 2019, city staff presented a report on Public
Infrastructure Financing that was intended to inform the City Council and the public about the
challenges and trends of local infrastructure financing. The presentation included a lengthy
discussion of specific and innovative financing mechanisms and the differences between
financing, which is borrowing money to pay for infrastructure over the life of the asset; versus
funding, in which a specific revenue source pays for the infrastructure.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 22 of 279
Table 2
Potential debt financing mechanisms for College Boulevard extension project
Type of district Pros Cons
Special assessment district Provides a fixed lien on the Requires property owners to begin
(noted in CFIP) property so owner knows the full paying immediately whether they are
amount of the debt. ready to develop or not.
Can provide funding for the Amount of assessment must be
projectimmediately so the entire proportional to the benefit being
project can be completed. received -must use benefit to spread
the cost of the project (less flexible-may
be a pro or a con).
Vote for district is based on Assessments show up on future property
majority protest. Where large owner (home owner) tax bills and may
property owners support the be viewed as an unfair burden at some
formation of a district, the time in the future.
likelihood of success is high.
Allows for the issuance of debt to Majority protest ballot procedure, per
fund early construction of project. Proposition 218.
Community facility district or Can finance certain services as Vote for district requires a two-thirds
parcel tax (noted in CFIP) well as facilities. approval by property owners. If large
property owners oppose formation of
the district, the district cannot be
formed.
Provides greater flexibility in Mello-Roos districts carry negative
structuring the special tax: does connotations.
not need to be based on benefit
but on any equitable method.
May use as a pay-as-you-go Carlsbad council policy does not allow
district or issue bonds pass-through of the tax to residential
properties.
Allows for the issuance of debt to Current council policy may not pass
fund the early construction of the Internal Revenue Service tests for the
project. issuance of tax-exempt debt. The policy
would probably have to be amended to
allow pass-through of taxes before tax-
exempt debt could be considered as a
funding source.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 23 of 279
Bridge and thoroughfare Developer payment occurs Pay-as-you-go system provides funding
district concurrent with development for the project in arrears (typically at
(more easily accepted by building permit which may be after
developers). construction has occurred).
Relatively simple to create and Since project is built over time, it's more
administer -no bond issue. likely that costs will increase before
adjustments to the fees can occur.
When costs increase, there is no
mechanism to recover additional costs
from developments already completed.
This creates potential financial exposure
for the city.
Developer fee programs cannot be used
to support debt issues. All project costs
must be paid for on a pay-as-you-go
basis, or through reimbursement
programs.
Enhanced infrastructure Best suited for a municipality with No vote to form, 55% vote is required to
financing district a relatively high share of total issue bonds.
property tax revenues or large tax
increment share.
Financed through tax increment May not use eminent domain to acquire
generated from growth in property, nor may it buy and sell
property taxes collected within a property.
designated district boundary.
Tax increment available to repay Requires a Joint Powers Authority to
for up to 45 years. form. Authority may consist of other
government agencies, such as cities,
counties and special districts.
Requires voluntary and affirmative
contributions of tax increment from
participating agencies, if applicable.
Other types of debt financing tools
Most government agencies have access to three kinds of financing options: municipal bonds,
loans and private equity investments. Table 3 below illustrates several types of debt financing
tools available to cities, along with some of the advantages and limitations of each.
Debt financing can take the form of either municipal bonds (bond financing) or private bank
loans (loan financing) and is usually governed by several factors including the economy, public
need, and availability of funds. The types and issuance of debt financing involve many aspects
including both long-term and short-term debt, tax-exempt and taxable debt, as well as debt
issued for refunding existing indebtedness. Market data, credit ratings, oversight and current
trends in the industry are important considerations pertaining to overall debt issuance of any
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 24 of 279
kind. General obligation bonds and revenue bonds are options discussed in the CFIP. In
addition, attached as Exhibit 12 is a comprehensive list of financial instruments related to debt
financing published by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission.
Public-private partnerships are contractual agreements in which governments form
partnerships with the private sector to design, finance, build, operate and/or maintain
infrastructure such as toll roads, water supply facilities and wastewater treatment plants. It
should be noted that these types of agreements, depending upon the circumstances, contain
varying degrees of risk, and some organizations have pursued projects that have been
controversial and detrimental to the short-term and long-term fiscal health of the public-sector
entity.
Municipal
bonds
Loans
Private
equity
investments
Examples
General obligation
bonds, revenue
bonds, assessment
bonds, private
activity bonds
State and/or local
programs,
commercial banks,
letters of credit,
state infrastructure
banks
Private equity,
public-private
partnerships
Table 3
Debt financing tools
Advantages
Competitive interest
rates, longer
borrowing terms.
Usually government
loans offer subsidized
interest rates, may be
more flexible.
Wider pool of
investors, faster
project completion,
risk transfers from
Limitations
Policy and statutory limits, less
flexible than other options, higher
transaction costs, involve significant
legal obligations in terms of
disclosure to investors and
following IRS rules related to the tax
exemption on the bonds.
Commercial loans tend to carry
higher interest rates than tax
exempt bonds.
Legal authority, complicated
contracts and complex
negotiations, higher investment of
staff time, consultant resources and
taxpayers to investors. transaction costs.
Privatization, as in the case of toll roads, makes sense for the public when certain conditions are
met. For example, the private company has a proven comparative advantage over the
governmental agency in providing the good or service. The services should be well-defined and
have clear criteria for evaluating results. Other implications for the public may include:
• Not realizing or receiving the full value for its toll revenues
• Loss of public control over transportation policy
• Inability to ensure privatization contracts will be fair and effective
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 25 of 279
Given the limited revenue potential with the College Boulevard extension project, privatization
of a toll road would not be a viable option. Furthermore, a private road may not be as effective
at improving vehicular LOS, as many drivers may not elect to utilize such a roadway for a fee.
Types of funding and revenue sources
To generate revenue for infrastructure projects, cities have traditionally used either taxes or
user fees for infrastructure services that people have been accustomed to paying for, such as
water or wastewater. Financial strategies typically involve expanding the revenue base to new
options, including:
• Redefining utility fees to include new types of infrastructure services (e.g., stormwater
and transportation utility fees)
• Diversifying revenue sources to both project-specific and broader sources (such as
combining sales tax with user fees)
• Examining revenue generation potential associated with infrastructure projects
• Tapping property and economic development value created by projects
Table 4 shows several types of funding and revenue sources available to cities, along with some
of the advantages and limitations of each. ·
General taxes
Special tax, or
value capture
options
Table 4
Types of funding and revenue sources
Examples
Sales tax add-on,
hotel tax, vehicle
or fuel tax, utility
user tax
Tax increment
financing, special
districts
Who Pays? Advantages
Various Broad revenue base
(property makes it easier to
owners, tourists, raise funds with
drivers) smaller percentage
increase. Usually
lower
administrative cost.
Property owners Taps major
beneficiaries of
project -
landowners.
Limitations
Weaker nexus
between taxes and
project (less politically
acceptable).
Depending on type,,
may be difficult to
secure or be
oversubscribed.
Speculative to finance
until value increase
happens. May
compete with other
government priorities
such as schools.
Funded by property
tax.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 26 of 279
User Fees Toll road or User of services Clear nexus Directly linked to
bridge, parking provided by between fees and service which can be
fees, transit fares, infrastructure project. Easily reduced by
impact fees facility understood by disruptions.
public.
Grants Federal, state, ~ederal or state Politically Unpredictable,
local programs taxpayers or acceptable, doesn't uncertain. Typically
philanthropy impact voters or up-front, not over
users. time. May impose
requirements that
impede project.
Broad sources such as property and sales taxes can be used to finance large infrastructure
projects and already have a collection process in place. Property and sales taxes can raise large
amounts for a comparatively small rate increase and in contrast to an assessment or a fee,
these taxes need not be levied in proportion to a specific benefit to a property. For example, a
half percent sales tax increase would yield approximately $10 million a year to the city. This
additional sales tax may then be used specifically to pay the debt service obligation associated
with financing the College Boulevard extension project. ·
In general, revenue sources that have a closer nexus to the project are typically more
acceptable because the link between the project and the revenue source will be widely
understood by voters and policy makers. Linking projects to additional benefits may also open
access to other sources of funds. For example, projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
may become eligible for targeted funding or grants related to those goals.
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
On Nov. 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation
Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan . This plan states that San Diego
Association of Governments; known as SAN DAG, acting as the Regional Transportation
Commission, shall approve a Regional Transportation Improvement Program, every other year
that lists projects submitted by local jurisdictions and identifies those transportation projects
that are eligible to use the transportation sales tax funds collected under TransNet. TransNet is
the region's voter-approved, half percent sales tax for transportation improvements
administered by SAN DAG. The city's current 2018 Regional Transportation Improvement
Program, or RTIP, list was approved by SANDAG's Board of Directors on Sept. 28, 2018. On June
9, 2020, staff plans to present an update to the city's TransNet Local Street Improvement
Program of Projects for fiscal years 2020-21 through 2024-25 to the City Council for approval
and submission to SANDAG.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 27 of 279
SAN DAG has provided the city with a forecast of annual TransNet local street improvement
program revenues for fiscal years 2019 through 2023. According to the information provided by
SAN DAG, as of January 2020, the city's TransNet local street improvement balance is over $18.7
million. SANDAG's forecast indicates that the city's balance will be approximately $19.6 million
by the end of fiscal year 2019-20. Currently, 27 of the city's CIP projects are included in the
2018 RTIP, of which 20 projects are financed, either fully or partially, by TransNet funds. For
these projects, approximately $19.1 million of TransNet funds have been allocated as of fiscal
year 2019-20. This leaves an unallocated TransNet balance of approximately $550,000.
A project to extend College Boulevard was included in the city's 2018 RTIP list with an
estimated total cost of almost $12 million. That cost estimate needs to be updated. No
TransNet funds have been allocated for this College Boulevard extension project in the 2018
Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
Additionally, the city has $1.8 million in previously provided developer funds that are available
for this project and could be used for the project's preliminary design and engineering
assessment, if the City Council directs staff to develop a city-led effort. These funds were paid
by the developer of the Terraces at Sunny Creek under a fair share cost agreement approved by
the City Council on October 3, 2000. This agreement allowed the property owner to proceed
with development in Zone 15 in advance of the formation of a fee program.
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.
If the council elects to proceed with physical roadway improvements, 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.
Traffic and Mobility Commission recommendation
As part of the fiscal year 2017-18 annual growth management monitoring report update, this
item was presented to the Traffic and Mobility Commission on March 2, 2020. Staff's
recommendations to the City Council to determine the four street facilities to be deficient, built
out and exempt did not pass by a vote of 3-3-1 (with Commissioner Steve Linke absent).
Attached as Exhibit 13 are the minutes from that meeting.
Additionally, during the meeting, Commissioners discussed making comments at the City
Council meeting regarding support offunding and expediting an unnumbered CIP (which is now
referred to as CIP Project No. 6094) and a city-led financing program to construct the College
Boulevard extension project. With a vote of 6-0-1 (Commissioner Linke absent), the Traffic and
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 28 of 279
Mobility Commission approved Chair Mona Gocan presenting the Commission's
recommendations at the March 24, 2020 City Council meeting.
As a result of the discussions during the Traffic and Mobility Commission meeting, staff
amended this staff report to add a request to City Council to expedite CIP Project No. 6094,
widening northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive, and to return
with proposed funding sources.
Due to the COVID-19 emergency, there was a delay in presenting this item to City Council -it
was previously scheduled for March 24, 2020 -so staff brought the item back to the Traffic and
Mobility Commission with a revised staff report on April 6, 2020. A motion was made at that
meeting to support staff's recommendation for determining the four street facilities to be
deficient and expediting CIP Project No. 6094 with additional commission recommendations to
include the College Boulevard traffic study's quantitative data in the presentation to the City
Council and the commission's support for a city-led College Boulevard extension project. The
motion passed 5-2. Attached as Exhibit 14 are the draft minutes from that meeting.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 29 of 279
Fiscal Analysis
CIP projects have been identified in this staff report (CIP Nos. 6071, 6042/6056 and 6094). 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.
Table 5
Anticipated funding requests for CIP Project Nos. 6071, 6042 & 6056, 6094
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 $695,00
Total anticipated funds needed $3,520,000
CIP Project No. 6094
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
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 30 of 279
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 City 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 their interest in participating in
the project.
Staff will also return to City Council to present funding sources for consideration, if City Council
directs staff to expedite CIP No. 6094.
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.
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 in June 2020.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA}
If the City elects to eliminate the College Boulevard extension Policy 3-P.19, which serves as
mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act for vehicular LOS congestion under
the 2015 General Plan update under Mitigation Measure TR-1, staff believe that this measure
can be eliminated with a CEQA exemption. Vehicular LOS and traffic congestion are no longer
considered an environmental impact under CEQA. (Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation
v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609; Pub. Res. Code§ 21099(b)(2).) Elimination of
this policies would maintain existing conditions and would therefore not result in an
environmental impact. This includes but is not limited to exemptions under Pub. Res. Code§
21080(b)(5), CEQA Guidelines§§ 15305, 15061(b)(3).
If the Council elects to proceed with the College Boulevard extension, that extension would 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.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 31 of 279
Exhibits
1. City Council resolution
2. Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal year 2017-18: Circulation Section
3. Map of Deficient Street Facilities with Local Facility Management Zones
4. City letter to California Department of Housing and Community Development
5. Location Map for El Camino Real and College Boulevard, CIP Project No. 6071
6. Location Map for El Camino Real and Cannon Road, CIP Project Nos. 6042/6056
7. Carlsbad Community Vision
8. College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis
9. Reimbursement Fee Ordinance
10. Section VII of CFIP
11. City Council Policy No. 33
12. Comprehensive list of financial instruments related to debt financing published by the
California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC)
13. Minutes from the March 2, 2020 Traffic and Mobility Commission Meeting
14. Draft Minutes from the April 6, 2020 Traffic and Mobility Commission Meeting
15. Location Map for El Camino Real widening from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive, CIP
Project No. 6094
16. April 17, 2020, Opinion from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development regarding SB330 and the City's Growth Management Plan
17. January 2, 2018, Letter from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development regarding Redondo Beach Mixed Use Moratorium
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 32 of 279
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING DEFICIENCIES OF FOUR STREET FACILITIES
ACCORDING TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN VEHICULAR LEVEL OF
SERVICE STANDARD, EXEMPTING SUCH FACILITIES FROM THAT STANDARD,
EXPEDITING CIP PROJECT NO. 6094 (WIDENING NORTHBOUND EL CAMINO
REAL FROM SUNNY CREEK ROAD TO JACKSPAR DRIVE), AND ADOPTION OF
CEQA FINDINGS.
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, in 1986, the city adopted Proposition E (Growth Management Plan), 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;" and
WHEREAS,,,, the Growth Management Plan is implemented through Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 21.90 and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; and
WHEREAS, the GMP makes the approval of new development contingent upon adequacy of
public facilities, based on performance standards for eleven identified public facilities incorporated into
the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) includes the City's GMP
circulation performance standard, which was updated in 2015 to comply with new state planning laws;
and
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted the Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358), which requires
General Plans "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;" and
WHEREAS, the Legislature also adopted SB 375 in 2008 which calls public agencies to consider
changes in residential development patterns which provide expanded transit service and accessibility,
walkable communities, access to non-vehicular modes of transportation resulting in reductions in
Vehicle Miles Traveled; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted SB 743 in 2013, which explains that "It is the intent of the
Legislature to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build infill
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 33 of 279
Exhibit 1
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).); and
WHEREAS, the State Legislative Analyst's Office 2015 Report on California's High Housing Costs,
explains that "Workers in California's coastal communities commute 10 percent further each day than
commuters elsewhere, largely because limited housing options exist near major job centers;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City amended its General Plan and CFIP Circulation Performance
standards to incorporate these new transportation planning strategies to provide access for multi-
modal circulation, which have the benefits of improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions,
and reduced trip generation; and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City's Circulation Performance Standard was revised to state "Implement
a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system -vehicles, pedestrians,
bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS Dor 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;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City's CFIP Circulation Performance Standard was also revised to further
state: "The 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. Therefore, the General Plan Mobility Element intends to provide a
balanced mobility system that identifies, based on the type of street (street typology), the travel modes
for which service levels should be enhanced and maintained per the multi-modal level of service ·
(MM LOS) standard specified in the city's Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 Mobility Policy 3-P.9 was adopted and states in part that the City may
"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 ... ;" and
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 34 of 279
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, in 2015, North County Advocates filed a lawsuit against the City of Carlsbad
challenging the amendments to the General Plan and the CFIP, alleging that they violated the City's
Growth Management Plan (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (San Diego County Superior
Court Case No. 37-2015-00035458-CU-WM-NC.); and
WHEREAS, in 2017, North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (San Diego County Superior
Court Case No. 37-2015-00035458-CU-WM-NC) was settled and dismissed with prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the 2017 Settlement with North County Advocates acknowledged "As part of the
development review process the City shall evaluate all discretionary projects for consistency with
applicable General Plan policies and CAP measures and actions that aim to reduce roadway congestion
and vehicular miles traveled (VMT), through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques
and multi-modal improvements.") Within twelve {12) months, the City shall update its Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, incorporating multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) analysis to address
vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes of travel, and including transportation demand
management (TDM) trip reduction methodologies and best practices to reduce automobile trips and
improvement travel model shift. The updated TIA Guidelines will also be used to determine
requirements for offsetting project impacts and evaluating opportunities for improving project-level
connections for all travel modes (vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit). Within twelve {12) months
of the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issuing final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines
regarding the use of VMT as the primary metric to analyze transportation impacts rather than vehicle
level of service (LOS), the City, in collaboration with SAN DAG and applicable working groups, will revise
the updated TIA Guidelines to be consistent with OPR's final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines."
(2017 North County Advocates Settlement, Section 4.3.6.); and
WHEREAS, the GMP requires annual monitoring to measure adequate performance of various
public facilities, including circulation; and
WHEREAS, the FY 2017-18 annual monitoring report was released in July 2019, and identified
the following eight street facilities within Zone 15 as not meeting the vehicular LOS component of the
City's Circulation performance standard, including:
(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;
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 35 of 279
(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; and
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2019, city staff presented recommended actions to City Council to
address the vehicular LOS performance standard deficiencies identified in the FY 2017-18 annual
monitoring report for the above-described street facilities, and City Council returned the item with
direction for staff to formulate alternate solutions; and
WHEREAS, when a performance standard is exceeded, Carlsbad Municipal Code §§ 21.90.080
and 21.90.130 state "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 I
permits shall be issued within the local zone until the performance standard is met or arrangements
satisfactory to the city council guaranteeing the facilities and improvements have been made;" and
WHEREAS, on Dec. 17, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-270, which
determined street facilities (1) -(4) above deficient under the vehicular LOS component of the
Circulation performance standard, and determined the street facilities identified as 1, 2 and 4 above to
be built out and "exempt" from the vehicular LOS performance standard pursuant to Policy 3-P.9.
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) would be
resolved by the expedited CIP project approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, as described in the subsequent recitals, the City Attorney and the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) do not believe the City has the authority
· to implement a moratorium in response to the vehicular LOS exceedances at roadways 5, 6, 7, and 8,
as contemplated as an option under CMC §§ 21.90.080 and 21.90.130; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 4,999
residential units (General Plan Housing Element, table 10-1) which it has not yet been fulfilled, and
Zone 15 within the City of Carlsbad would allow development of approximately 1,406 dwelling units;
and
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 36 of 279
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 166 of 2017 states that "Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure
that its housing element inventory ... can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its
remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584" and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has taken the position that
exceedances of vehicular Level of Service standards cannot constitute a basis for implementing a
moratorium that precludes attainment of a City's RHNA Allocation (Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, states that where housing is an
allowable use, the City is prohibited for 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 ... ," and any
moratorium adopted pursuant to such an exemption would require approval from HCD (Gov. Code, §
66300(b)(l)(B)(i) and (ii).); and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2020, the City of Carlsbad received an opinion from HCD (Exhibit A)
which states in part that "the housing moratorium adopted pursuant to the City's GMP would be
impermissible under Government Code section 66300 ... HCD does not consider, however, that general
concerns about the health and welfare of the citizenry-including traffic conditions that cause minor
delays-present an imminent threat to health and safety ... ln this case, the City's proposed moratorium
would prohibit the issuance of any development or building permits in Local Facilities Management
Zone 15 ("LFMZ 15") until four (4) identified street facilities meet the vehicle level of service ("LOS")
performance standard of D or the necessary improvements are guaranteed. (See City of Carlsbad
Municipal Code, § 21.90.080.) LOS D simply refers to the rate at which traffic flows on a roadway, and
at LOS D there is no longer free flow of traffic but instead congestion that borders on unstable
flow ... While such congestion may be uncomfortable, there is no indication in the City's GMP or in the
City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines that such a standard represents an imminent threat
to the health and safety of the residents of LFMZ or those in the immediate area. Accordingly, HCD is
of the opinion that such a moratorium cannot permissibly be adopted or enforced consistent with
Government Code section 66300;" and
WHEREAS, city staff recommended addressing the LOS deficiencies at (5) El Camino Real
southbound from Cannon Road to College Boulevard and (6) El Camino Real northbound from College
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 37 of 279
Exhibit 1
Boulevard to Cannon Road through an exemption to the LOS D standard pursuant to Mobility Element
Policy 3-P.9 (d), because roadway improvements would require more than three through lanes in each
direction of travel even after completion of CIP projects, which is inconsistent with the General Plan
Mobility Element, Policy 3-P.9(d); and
WHEREAS, city staff recommended addressing the vehicular LOS deficiencies at (7) Cannon
Road eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard and (8) Cannon Road westbound from
College Boulevard to El Camino Real through an exemption to the vehicular LOS D standard pursuant
to Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a), because roadway improvements would require acquisition of
additional right of way, which would require encroachment into open space for the preservation of
natural resources, the westbound new travel lane would encroach into the road setback of the adjacent
community and large slopes would require considerable grading and a trail easement along the
eastbound lane would need to be relinquished by the city, as well as Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (c),
because the proposed improvements would present unacceptable impacts to the following community
values and General Plan policies: (1) the Carlsbad Community Vision core value of "Walking, biking,
public transportation and connectivity", (2) the Carlsbad Community Vision core value of "Open space
and the natural environment", and (3) General Plan Mobility Element Goal 3-G.6, which 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;" and
WHEREAS, although it will not fully address the LOS D deficiency at El Camino Real northbound
from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive, city staff recommended implementing CIP Project No. 6094
to widen El Camino Real to add a third northbound through lane to improve traffic congestion at this
location; and
WHEREAS, for the street facilities of El Camino Real southbound from Cannon Road to College
Boulevard; El Camino Real northbound from College Boulevard to Cannon Road; Cannon Road
eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard; and Cannon Road westbound from College
Boulevard to El Camino Real, staff recommended that the City Council determine the deficient street
facility to be built-out and exempt from the LOS D standard and apply TDM and TSM strategies to new
development that adds vehicle traffic to the exempt street facilities; and
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 38 of 279
Exhibit 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
2. The City finds that Gov. Code§ 65863(a) (SB 166 [2017]) and Gov. Code,§ 66300(b)(l)(B)(i)
(SB 330 [2019]) preclude the City from implementing a moratorium.
3. · That the City Council determines a deficiency of the vehicular LOS component of the City's
Circulation performance standard exists for the following street facilities based on the
results of the FY 2017-18 growth management annual monitoring report:
a. El Camino Real southbound from Cannon Road to College Boulevard (referenced above
as Street Facility (5))
b. El Camino Real northbound from College Boulevard to Cannon Road (referenced above
as Street Facility (6))
c. Cannon Road eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard (referenced above
as Street Facility (7))
d. Cannon Road westbound from College Boulevard to El Camino Real (referenced above
as Street Facility (8))
4. That the City Council determines El Camino Real southbound from Cannon Road to College
Boulevard and El Camino Real northbound from College Boulevard to Cannon Road are
built-out and exempt from the LOS performance standard for the vehicle mode of travel
under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (d), as roadway improvements.to address
the deficiencies would require more than three through travel lanes in each direction even
after completion of CIP projects. Any future development which adds vehicle traffic to
these exempt street facilities shall implement TDM and TSM strategies in accordance with
General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11.
5. In relation to the street section of El Camino Real northbound from Sunny Creek Road to
Jackspar Drive, City Council directs staff to expedite the roadway improvements under
existing CIP Project No . 6094 to partially address the identified LOS performance standard
deficiency.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 39 of 279
Exhibit 1
6. That the City Council determines Cannon Road eastbound from El Camino Real to College
Boulevard and Cannon Road westbound from College Boulevard to El Camino Real through
an exemption to the LOS D standard pursuant to Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a}, because
roadway improvements to address the deficiency would require acquisition of additional
right of way, as well as Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (c), because the proposed
improvements would present unacceptable impacts to the following community values
and General Plan policies: (1) the Carlsbad Community Vision core value of "Walking,
biking, public transportation and connectivity," (2) the Carlsbad Community Vision core
value of "Open space and the natural environment," and (3) General Plan Mobility Element
Goal 3-G .6, which 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." This is infeasible as stated in the findings above. Any future
development which adds vehicle traffic to these exempt street facilities shall implement
TDM and TSM strategies in accordance with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11.
7. The City finds that exempting these roadways from the vehicular Level of Service
performance standard would not result in any significant environmental impacts because
(1) this would maintain existing conditions and would therefore not result in an
environmental impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2), and (2) vehicular Level of Service
is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §
21099(b)(2)). Therefore, the City finds that exemption of such street facilities from
vehicular LOS standards is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Pub. Res. Code§ 21080(b}(5},
and CEQA Guidelines§§ 15305, 15061(b)(3}}.
8. The City further finds that the College Boulevard extension project is currently infeasible
because the private property owners are obligated to build it per the LFMZ 15 Plan and
CFIP but they indicated they will not do so in the foreseeable future.
Exhibit A: April 17, 2020 Opinion from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD} Regarding Senate Bill 330
Exhibit B: January 2, 2018 HCD Letter to City of Redondo Beach Regarding Senate Bill 166
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 40 of 279
Exhibit 1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the_ day of __ , 2020, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
MATT HALL, Mayor
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 41 of 279
Exhibit 2
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 plah 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
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 42 of 279
Exhibit 2
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 MM LOS standard (LOS
Dor 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 oftransportation are subject to, and which
modes are not subject to, the MM LOS standard.
• The vehicle mode of travel is subject to the MM LOS 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 MM LOS 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).
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 43 of 279
Exhibit 2
• 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 wa's 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.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 44 of 279
Exhibit 2
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 Janes
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 lnterstate-5 and El Camino Real
• El Camino Real between Palomar Airport Road and La Costa Avenue
• Palomar Airport Road between lnterstate-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 MM LOS standard (LOS Dor 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 MM LOS standard -LOS Dor higher. The
increase in segments with a LOS below Dis 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
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 45 of 279
Exhibit 2
more detailed report to the City Council on the vehicle LOS reported in the table below
and shown in Figure 4.
Deficient Level of Service Adjacent Facility
Roadway From To (LOS)' Management Zone
Segment AM PM (LFMZ)
El Camino Real Oceanside Marron Road E E 1, 2
City Limits
El Camino Real Marron Road Oceanside E E 1, 2
City Limits
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 Palomar B F 5
Avenue Airport Rd.
Melrose Drive Vista City Palomar F E 5,18
Limits Airport Rd.
Cannon Road El Camino College Blvd D F 8, 14, 15,24
Real
Cannon Road College Blvd El Camino E D 8, 14; 15, 24
Real
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)
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 46 of 279
Exhibit 2
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 tha.t 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 lnterstate-5
North Coast Project and lnterstate-S/lnterstate-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 M,unicipal Code 9>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
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 48 of 279
Exhibit 2
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.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 49 of 279
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Traffic Analysis Methodology for Roadway Segments .......................................................................................... 5
3. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations .................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis ................................................................................. , ............................................ 7
4. Reassignment of Existing Trips ............................................................................................. 11
4.1 Reassignment of Existing Trips Roadway Capacity Analysis .............................................................................. 11
5. Zone 15 Buildout Conditions ................................................................................................. 16
5.1 Zone 15 Build out Conditions Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................ 16
5.1.1 4-Lane Roadway Extension ................................................................................................................................. 16
5.2 Zone 15 Buildout Conditions Roadway Capacity Analysis ................................................................................ .21
6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 24
Appendices
Appendix A -College Boulevard Extension Analysis -Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
Appendix B -City of Carlsbad Facility Service Volume Table
Appendix C -Existing (2019) Traffic Count Data
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 60 of 279
List of Figures
Figure 1-Project Site & Study Locations .................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-Existing (2019) Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes and Geometries .............. : ...................................... 8
Figure 3 -Existing (2019) Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................ 10
Figure 4 -Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips Peak Hour Volumes and Geometries ...................................... 12
Figure 5 -Reassignment of Existing Trips Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................ 15
Figure 6 -Zone 15 Development Potential. ............................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 7 -Buildout Trips ................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 8 -Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing Trips - 2 Lane Roadway-Peak Hour Volumes and
Geometries .................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 9 -Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing Trips - 4 Lane Roadway-Pe.ak Hour Volumes and
Geometries .................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 10 -Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing Trips -4 Lane Roadway-Roadway Segment Analysis 23
List of Tables
Table 1: Existing Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................................ 9
Table 2: Roadway Capacity Analysis for Study Roadways with Reassignment of Existing Trips ...................... 13
Table 3: Zone 15 Buildout Roadway Capacity Analysis with Reassignment of Existing Trips -Four-Lane
Roadway Extension········································································:········································································· 21
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 61 of 279
Appendix A -College Boulevard
Extension Analysis -Intersection Level
of Service (LOS) Analysis
FEHR,f PEERS May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 86 of 279
College Boulevard Extension
Analysis: Intersection Level of Service
(LOS) Analysis
Introduction
In addition to the Roadway Segment LOS analysis, an intersection LOS analysis was conducted to
identified pinch points in the network and associated improvements that could be implemented at these
intersections to improve vehicular flow and reduce delay.
This document analyzes the existing traffic conditions at four existing intersections:
1. Cannon Rd-Bobcat Blvd/College Blvd
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino Real
3. Jackspar Dr-Rancho Carlsbad Dr/El Camino Real
4. College Blvd/El Camino Real
Additionally, this document analyzes the reassignment of existing trips that would be assumed to use the
College Boulevard extension following construction and the associated intersection conditions with this
reassignment. Finally, the associated intersection performance is analyzed for existing and reassigned traffic
with the addition of new trips expected to be added to-the network by forthcoming Zone 15 development
on the east and west side of the College Boulevard extension.
The analysis of scenarios with the roadway extension in place assumes the addition of the following
intersections that will have been constructed at buildout.
5. College Blvd/Future Street 1
6. College Blvd/Future Street 2
The College Boulevard/Sunny Creek Road intersection is an existing intersection but'will only be analyzed
under build out conditions as the intersection is currently functioning as a two-legged intersection.
The study area is shown on Figure 1 of the report.
Traffic Analysis Methodology for Intersections
1.1 Traffic Analysis Methodology for Signalized Intersections
The method described in Chapter 18 of the HCM 6th Edition was used to prepare the LOS calculations for
all study intersections. This LOS method analyzes a signalized intersection's operation based on average
FEHR ,1 PEERS
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 87 of 279
As shown in Table 2, all study intersections except Cannon Road/El Camino Real operate at LOS Dor
better during the AM and PM peak hours. At this location, the movements experiencing the greatest delay
are eastbound through, northbound through, and northbound right . The delay is caused by demand that
is exceeding the available capacity of that movement.
Reassignment of Existing Trips
This chapter describes the process by which existing volumes were reassigned assuming that the
proposed College Boulevard extension was in place today. This reassignment forms the baseline to which
traffic growth will be added from new development on parcels adjacent to the planned extension (see
Chapter 5 for additional growth).
Reassignment of Existing Trips Intersection Levels of Service
To simulate the change in travel patterns that are expected with the proposed roadway extension in place
today, existing trips were reassigned using the current turning movement proportions at the study
intersections. Additionally, some AM peak trips on College Boulevard are likely avoid College Boulevard
south of Carlsbad Village Drive due to the congestion and high-volume turning movements on College
Boulevard at Cannon Road and on Cannon Road at El Camino Real. Per guidance from City of Carlsbad
staff, 50 trips in the AM peak hour that currently make a southbound right turn from College Boulevard at
Carlsbad Village Drive and then make an eastbound left turn at El Camino Real and continue south
through the College Boulevard/ El Camino Real intersection were rerouted to use the College Boulevard
extension. The reassignment of trips and existing lane configurations are shown on Figure 4 of the report.
' '
With this reassignment, the delay at all study intersections was analyzed to determine the effect thatthe
proposed roadway extension may have on existing intersection operations.
Reassignment of Existing Trips Intersection Levels of Service
Peak hour intersection LOS analysis was performed for the existing study intersections with reassigned
traffic to evaluate expected travel patterns with the addition of the College Boulevard extension. Because
the volume of traffic is changing substantially for selected turning movement volumes, the signal timings
at all study intersections were optimized under this scenario. This is a normal process that the City would
employ with the opening of a new arterial street segment and change in network volumes. Table 3
shows the results of the Reassignment of Existing Trips conditions analysis. Detailed LOS Worksheets are
provided in Attachment 2.
FEHR ,,Y PEERS 4
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 90 of 279
were estimated by City of Carlsbad staff and are shown on Figure 4 in the report. Within this zone, all new
development is expected to gain access from two new four-legged public street intersections on the
College Boulevard extension and a third location: the existing intersection of College Boulevard/Sunny
Creek Road intersection, which will be upgraded to a four-legged intersection. City staff also developed
the expected peak hour turning movements and provided those estimates to Fehr & Peers. These
volumes were then distributed throughout the study network and the resulting intersection volumes are
shown on Figure 5 in the report. Note that this assignment initially assumes that all vehicle access to and
from the site at the northwest corner of the El Camino Real/College Boulevard intersection is provided on
College Boulevard and not on El Camino Real.
For this analysis, the volumes analyzed in the Reassignment of Existing Trips were added to the
distributed buildout volumes. These combined volumes are shown on Figure 6 in the report
Zone 15 Buildout Conditions Intersection Levels of Service
2-Lane Roadway Extension
Using the volumes illustrated on Figure 6 in the report and assuming construction of a two-lane College
Boulevard extension, pea k hour intersection LOS was performed for the four existing study intersections
and three additional intersections:
5. College Blvd/Sunny Creek Rd
6. College Blvd/Future Street 1
7. College Blvd/Future Street 2
Table 5 shows the results of the buildout conditions analysis with the assumption that the College
Boulevard extension is two-lanes. Detailed LOS Worksheets are provided in Attachment 4.
FEHRf PEERS 7
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 93 of 279
Table 5: Zone 15 Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips Intersection Levels
of Service (LOS) -Two-Lane Roadway Extension
Intersection
1. Cannon Rd-Bobcat
Blvd/College Blvd
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino
Real
3. Jackspar Dr-Rancho
Carlsbad Dr/El Camino
Real
4. College Blvd/El Camino
Real
5. College Blvd/Sunny
Creek Road
6. College Blvd/Future
Street 1
Traffic
Control
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized :
Signalized
Signalized
. Signalized
Reassignment of
Existing (2019) Trips
Peak Hour
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
Delay LOS2·3
(sec/veh)1
45 D
87.1 F
30.4 C
37.5 D
54.5 D
79.9 E
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
'
Buildout Plus
Reassignment of
Existing (2019) Trips
Delay
(sec/veh) 1.4 Losz,3
: I I
: I I
52.9 D
121.1 F
20.1 C
25.6 C
90.1 F
>180.0 F
>180.0 F
164.7 F
>180.0 F
A Delay
'
7.9
34.0
-10.3
-11.9
35.6
100.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
-... --·. -· ---------·•-·-··•-----..,__ --~----~---·-··
PM I N/A F N/A L ·-----····-·------·--
7. College Blvd/Future AM I N/A F N/A
Signalized .. --! ____
Street 2 PM N/A N/A >180.0 F N/A
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
Notes:
1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections.
2 LOS calculations performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition method.
3 Unacceptable seconds of delay per vehicle and LOS highlighted in bold.
4 Specific delay value is shown in Appendix F for delays over 180 seconds.
As shown in Table 5, all intersections except lnterse_ction 3 (El Camino Real/Jackspar Drive) have an increase
in vehicle delay due to the addition of buildout trips. Additionally, all intersections that intersect with the
College Boulevard extension (Intersections 5 -7) are projected to experience LOS F in one or both peak
hours indicating that the two-lane roadway does not have adequate capacity for the Zone 15 buildout
volumes.
FEHRf PEERS 8
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 94 of 279
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
Notes:
1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections.
2 LOS calculations performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition method.
3 Unacceptable seconds of delay per vehicle and LOS highlighted in bold.
4 Specific delay value is shown in Appendix G for delays over 180 seconds.
As shown in Table 6, the delay at intersections #5-7 would be greatly improved with the provision of four-
lane extension. Other poorly performing intersections are projected to experience a decrease in delay
compared to a two-lane extension; however, additional mitigation would be necessary to reduce projected
delays.
To mitigate anticipated deficiencies with a four-lane College Boulevard extension, the following
improvements are recommended in addition to optimizing signal timing:
• Addition of a right-in/right-out driveway on El Camino Real between College Boulevard and
Jackspar Drive to provide access to the retail commercial site. This should be made a condition of
approval for the subject development on this site.
• 1. Cannon Road-Bobcat Boulevard/College Boulevard:
o Add a separate northbound right-turn lane on College Boulevard and adjust the
configuration of the southbound leg on College Boulevard to have one right turn lane, two
through lanes, and one left turn lane.
• 2. El Camino Real / Cannon Road:
o Convert the existing separate right-turn lane to a third westbound through lane on El
Camino Real and add a separate southbound right turn lane on El Camino Real.
• 4. El Camino Real/ College Boulevard
o Add a second eastbound left turn lane on El Camino Real and a second westbound right
turn lane on El Camino Real.
The results of the improvements are summarized in Table 7. The LOS worksheets for these improvements
are included in Attachment 6.
FEHR ,1 PEERS 10
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 96 of 279
Attachment 1 -Existing (2019)
Intersection LOS Worksheets
FEHR,)' PEERS May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 98 of 279
Attachment 2 -Reassignment of .
Existing Trips Intersection LOS
Worksheets
FEHR,f PEERS May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 109 of 279
Attachment 3 -Mitigation/or
Reassignment of Existing Trips
Intersection LOS Worksheets
FEHR ,f PEERS May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 127 of 279
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd
ovement SBR
Lanet;onfigurations '(''('
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 632
Future Volume (veh/h} 632
12/17/2019
Initial Q Qb , veh O -~~-~-----------------~-----'
Ped-Bike Adj{A_pbT} 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 40
Peak Hour Factor 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 1382
Arrive On Green 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 2786
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 740
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1393
Q Serve(g_s}, s 12.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c}, s 12.5
Prop In Lane 1.00
~ane GrP. CaP.{9, veh/h 1382
V/C Ratio(X) 0.54
Avail CaP.(c a}, veh/h 1382 ___________________ _, ______ __
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filt_erQ) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.0
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 --------~-----........ --------~~~----Un s i g. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Dela1{d},s/veh 11.5 --~---·--
LnGr LOS B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
~imer -Assigned Phs
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM -2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 144 of 279
Attachment s -Existing Plus
Reassignment Plus Buildout -4 Lane
Roadway Intersection LOS Worksheets
FEHR1 PEERS May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 163 of 279
Attachment 6 -Mitigation/or Existing
Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout -4
Lane Roadway Intersection LOS
Worksheets
fEHR ,t PEERS May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 184 of 279
Appendix B -City of Carlsbad Facility
Service Volume Table
FEHR,f PEERS May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 205 of 279
Appendix C -Existing (2019) Traffic
Count Data
FEHR "f PEERS May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 207 of 279
Day: Tuesday
Date: 5/7/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
El Camino Real Bet. Tamarack Ave & Jackspar Dr
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4201_002
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 32 9 41 12:00 410 227 637
00:15 22 7 29 12:15 333 266 599
00:30 11 10 21 12:30 292 251 543
00:45 10 75 3 29 13 104 12:45 333 1368 297 1041 630 2409
01:00 15 12 27 13:00 311 274 585
01:15 10 7 17 13:15 304 355 659
01:30 19 8 27 13:30 313 361 674
01:45 11 55 6 33 17 88 13:45 334 1262 269 1259 603 2521
02:00 7 7 14 14:00 402 244 646
02:15 5 9 14 14:15 437 264 701
02:30 9 9 18 14:30 528 335 863
02:45 7 28 12 37 19 65 14:45 519 1886 440 1283 959 3169
03:00 4 6 10 15:00 520 291 811
03:15 4 10 14 15:15 559 288 847
03:30 11 23 34 15:30 544 290 834
03:45 8 27 39 78 47 105 15:45 637 2260 316 1185 953 3445
04:00 12 36 48 16:00 732 244 976
04:15 10 46 56 16:15 719 283 1002
04:30 13 82 95 16:30 730 226 956
04:45 25 60 115 279 140 339 16:45 786 2967 306 1059 1092 4026
05:00 14 89 103 17:00 801 250 1051
05:15 24 115 139 17:15 812 263 1075
05:30 21 204 225 17:30 674 237 911
05:45 38 97 378 786 416 883 17:45 716 3003 199 949 915 3952
06:00 67 206 273 18:00 559 192 751
06:15 66 331 397 18:15 448 194 642
06:30 86 411 497 18:30 357 182 539
06:45 213 432 619 1567 832 1999 18:45 363 1727 161 729 524 2456
07:00 379 675 1054 19:00 320 123 443
07:15 295 710 1005 19:15 292 114 406
07:30 191 810 1001 19:30 234 105 339
07:45 219 1084 817 3012 1036 4096 19:45 265 1111 95 437 360 1548
08:00 166 764 930 20:00 165 94 259
08:15 211 631 842 20:15 176 118 294
08:30 205 506 711 20:30 196 109 305
08:45 221 803 562 2463 783 3266 20:45 158 695 86 407 244 1102
09:00 225 413 638 21:00 120 76 196
09:15 186 405 591 21:15 106 81 187
09:30 207 338 545 21:30 108 71 179
09:45 202 820 312 1468 514 2288 21:45 83 417 62 290 145 707
10:00 214 241 455 22:00 85 41 126
10:15 227 264 491 22:15 77 34 111
10:30 263 231 494 22:30 96 23 119
10:45 225 929 241 977 466 1906 22:45 69 327 28 126 97 453
11:00 272 221 493 23:00 93 21 114
11:15 264 208 472 23:15 53 22 75
11:30 258 272 530 23:30 55 23 78
11:45 297 1091 264 965 561 2056 23:45 52 253 23 89 75 342
TOTALS 5501 11694 17195 TOTALS 17276 8854 26130
SPLIT% 32.0% 68.0% 39.7% SPLIT% 66.1% 33.9% 60.3%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 11:45 07:15 07:00 PM Peak Hour 16:30 14:30 16:30
AM Pk Volume 1332 3101 4096 PM Pk Volume 3129 1354 4174
Pk Hr Factor 0.812 0.949 0.972 Pk Hr Factor 0.963 0.769 0.956
7-9Volume 1887 5475 & D 7362 4-6Volume 5970 2008 ,l 0 7978
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:00 4 -6 Peak Hour 16:30 16:15 16:30
7 -9 Pk Volume 1084 3101 u 0 4096 4 -6 Pk Volume 3129 1065 0 0 4174
Pk Hr Factor 0.715 0.949 0,0() ,.,.oo, 0.972 Pk Hr Factor 0.963 0.870 _0() ocori 0.956
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 212 of 279
Day: Wednesday
Date: 5/8/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
El Camino Real Bet. Tamarack Ave & Jackspar Dr
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4201_002
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 37 12 49 12:00 320 233 553
00:15 12 12 24 12:15 280 246 526
00:30 19 9 28 12:30 261 294 555
00:45 14 82 7 40 21 122 12:45 265 1126 285 1058 550 2184
01:00 9 10 19 13:00 321 287 608
01:15 9 5 14 13:15 269 258 527
01:30 12 6 18 13:30 284 344 628
01:45 11 41 4 25 15 66 13:45 328 1202 313 1202 641 2404
02:00 9 5 14 14:00 353 268 621
02:15 12 8 20 14:15 386 279 665
02:30 3 11 14 14:30 526 337 863
02:45 9 33 12 36 21 69 14:45 522 1787 404 1288 926 3075
03:00 5 7 12 15:00 422 291 713
03:15 5 9 14 15:15 476 311 787
03:30 14 28 42 15:30 536 272 808
03:45 11 35 48 92 59 127 15:45 590 2024 283 1157 873 3181
04:00 7 33 40 16:00 599 268 867
04:15 10 56 66 16:15 686 256 942
04:30 16 79 95 16:30 662 252 914
04:45 20 53 128 296 148 349 16:45 669 2616 275 1051 944 3667
05:00 20 86 106 17:00 709 245 954
05:15 25 131 156 17:15 689 241 930
05:30 30 243 273 17:30 616 273 889
05:45 44 119 370 830 414 949 17:45 572 2586 211 970 783 3556
06:00 63 214 277 18:00 492 216 708
06:15 73 287 360 18:15 420 ' 186 606
06:30 101 396 497 18:30 359 173 532
06:45 163 400 603 1500 766 1900 18:45 304 1575 168 743 472 2318
07:00 217 560 777 19:00 249 131 380
07:15 184 737 921 19:15 246 117 363
07:30 192 745 937 19:30 199 97 296
07:45 262 855 788 2830 1050 3685 19:45 182 876 119 464 301 1340
08:00 332 657 989 20:00 169 97 266
08:15 209 587 796 20:15 162 138 300
08:30 195 576 771 20:30 143 130 273
08:45 193 929 523 2343 716 3272 20:45 137 611 90 455 227 1066
09:00 189 374 563 21:00 161 101 262
09:15 217 337 554 21:15 122 72 194
09:30 215 316 531 21:30 82 70 152
09:45 186 807 315 1342 501 2149 21:45 76 441 79 322 155 763
10:00 192 283 475 22:00 84 36 120
10:15 193 257 450 22:15 72 29 101
10:30 199 229 428 22:30 75 35 110
10:45 257 841 275 1044 532 1885 22:45 58 289 33 133 91 422
11:00 221 218 439 23:00 68 22 90
11:15 259 210 469 23:15 40 16 56
11:30 274 241 515 23:30 40 14 54
11:45 308 1062 269 938 577 2000 23:45 48 196 14 66 62 262
TOTALS 5257 11316 16573 TOTALS 15329 8909 24238
SPLIT% 31.7% 68.3% 40.6% SPLIT% 63.2% 36.8% 59.4%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 11:30 · 07:15 07:15 PM Peak Hour 16:30 14:30 16:15
AM Pk Volume 1182 2927 3897 PM Pk Volume 2729 1343 3754
Pk Hr Factor 0.923 0.929 0.928 Pk Hr Factor 0.962 0.831 0.984
7-9Volume 1784 5173 0 0 6957 4-6Volume 5202 2021 '-· 0 7223
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:15 07:15 4 -6 Peak Hour 16:30 16:00 16:15
7 -9 Pk Volume 998 2927 ·O 'J 3897 4 -6 Pk Volume 2729 1051 0 0 3754
Pk Hr Factor 0.752 0.929 ,JQ('\0 n.0C11J 0.928 Pk Hr Factor 0.962 0.955 De~ 00" 0.984
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 213 of 279
Day: Tuesday
Date: 5/7/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
El Camino Real Bet. Jackspar Dr & College Blvd
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4201_003
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 31 10 0 0 41 12:00 443 238 0 0 681
00:15 22 7 0 0 29 12:15 367 279 0 0 646
00:30 .17 13 0 0 30 12:30 330 272 0 0 602
00:45 10 80 5 35 0 0 15 115 12:45 328 1468 303 1092 0 0 631 2560
01:00 15 10 0 0 25 13:00 361 294 0 0 655
01:15 12 9 0 0 21 13:15 300 393 0 0 693
01:30 20 6 0 0 26 13:30 357 423 0 0 780
01:45 13 60 7 32 0 0 20 92 13:45 356 1374 332 1442 0 0 688 2816
02:00 10 6 0 0 16 14:00 443 266 0 0 709
02:15 5 8 0 0 13 14:15 452 336 0 0 788
02:30 10 10 0 0 20 14:30 594 388 0 0 982
02:45 10 35 12 36 0 0 22 71 14:45 578 2067 545 1535 0 0 1123 3602
03:00 6 6 0 0 12 15:00 560 365 0 0 925
03:15 2 9 0 0 11 15:15 576 350 0 0 926
03:30 14 23 0 0 37 15:30 688 331 0 0 1019
03:45 9 31 39 77 0 0 48 108 15:45 681 2505 354 1400 0 0 1035 3905
04:00 15 35 0 0 so 16:00 795 298 0 0 1093
04:15 12 50 0 0 62 16:15 728 321 0 0 1049
04:30 12 89 0 0 101 16:30 854 279 0 0 1133
04:45 30 69 120 294 0 0 150 363 16:45 810 3187 361 1259 0 0 1171 4446
05:00 17 90 0 0 107 17:00 799 314 0 0 1113
05:15 24 108 0 0 132 17:15 766 301 0 0 1067
05:30 27 220 0 0 247 17:30 752 280 0 0 1032
05:45 50 118 354 772 0 0 404 890 17:45 637 2954 256 1151 0 0 893 4105
06:00 68 199 0 0 267 18:00 553 233 0 0 786
06:15 64 324 0 0 388 18:15 461 245 0 0 706
06:30 105 415 0 0 520 18:30 380 217 0 0 597
06:45 230 467 604 1542 0 0 834 2009 18:45 354 1748 184 879 0 0 538 2627
07:00 401 673 0 0 1074 19:00 311 135 0 0 446
07:15 309 706 0 0 1015 19:15 287 123 0 0 410
07:30 195 810 0 0 1005 19:30 243 122 0 0 365
07:45 208 1113 831 3020 0 0 1039 4133 19:45 240 1081 121 501 0 0 361 1582
08:00 191 771 0 0 962 20:00 163 98 0 0 261
08:15 216 656 0 0 872 20:15 190 139 0 0 329
08:30 234 545 0 0 779 20:30 192 117 0 0 309
08:45 216 857 567 2539 0 0 783 3396 20:45 150 695 94 448 0 0 244 1143
09:00 216 413 0 0 629 21:00 124 83 0 0 207
09:15 184 420 0 0 604 21:15 99 89 0 0 188
09:30 227 351 0 0 578 21:30 107 76 0 0 183
09:45 220 847 344 1528 0 0 564 2375 21:45 91 421 66 314 0 0 157 735
10:00 230 257 0 0 487 22:00 76 46 0 0 122
10:15 254 292 0 0 546 22:15 73 30 0 0 103
10:30 260 267 0 0 527 22:30 98 26 0 0 124
10:45 253 997 239 1055 0 0 492 2052 22:45 62 309 30 132 0 0 92 441
11:00 290 224 0 0 514 23:00 84 24 0 0 108
11:15 311 239 0 0 550 23:15 so 22 0 0 72
11:30 283 270 0 0 553 23:30 so 25 0 0 75
11:45 344 1228 271 1004 0 0 615 2232 23:45 49 233 25 96 0 0 74 329
TOTALS 5902 11934 17836 TOTALS 18042 10249 28291
SPLIT% 33.1% 66.9% 38.7% SPLIT% 63.8% 36.2% 61.3%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 11:45 07:15 07:00 PM Peak Hour 16:30 14:30 16:30
AM Pk Volume 1484 3118 4133 PM Pk Volume 3229 1648 4484
Pk Hr Factor 0.837 0.938 0.962 Pk Hr Factor 0.945 0.756 0.957
7-9Volume 1970 5559 0 0 7529 4-6Volume 6141 2410 (, Q 8551
7 • 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:00 4-6 Peak Hour 16:30 16:15 16:30
7 -9 Pk Volume 1113 3118 0 1) 4133 4 -6 Pk Volume 3229 1275 0 0 4484
Pk Hr Factor 0.694 0.938 ''!Liu 0000 0.962 Pk Hr Factor 0.945 0.883 0.1)00 0 lO!' 0.957
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 214 of 279
Day: Wednesday
Date: 5/8/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
El Camino Real Bet. Jackspar Dr & College Blvd
City: Carlsbad
Project #: CA19 _ 4201 ~ 003
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 33 12 0 0 45 12:00 395 281 0 0 676
00:15 14 14 0 0 28 12:15 303 267 0 0 570
00:30 22 10 0 0 32 12:30 320 333 0 0 653
00:45 19 88 7 43 0 0 26 131 12:45 278 1296 308 1189 0 0 586 2485
01:00 10 10 0 0 20 13:00 398 306 0 0 704
01:15 9 5 0 0 14 13:15 323 277 0 0 600
01:30 12 7 0 0 19 13:30 371 352 0 0 723
01:45 14 45 4 26 0 0 18 71 13:45 384 1476 342 1277 0 0 726 2753
02:00 9 5 0 0 14 14:00 446 285 0 0 731
02:15 15 8 0 0 23 14:15 415 302 0 0 717
02:30 8 10 0 0 18 14:30 695 364 0 0 1059
02:45 8 40 11 34 0 0 19 74 14:45 606 2162 455 1406 0 0 1061 3568
03:00 4 7 0 0 11 15:00 510 319 0 0 829
03:15 6 8 0 0 14 15:15 577 331 0 0 908
03:30 13 26 0 0 39 15:30 670 297 0 0 95·7
03:45 10 33 50 91 0 0 60 124 15:45 692 2449 298 1245 0 0 990 3694
04:00 9 32 0 0 41 16:00 774 301 0 0 1075
04:15 12 61 0 0 73 16:15 687 257 0 0 944
04:30 19 77 0 0 96 16:30 854 258 0 0 1112
04:45 21 61 133 303 0 0 154 364 16:45 754 3069 286 1102 0 0 1040 4171
05:00 23 91 0 0 114 17:00 854 277 0 0 1131
05:15 29 131 0 0 160 17:15 741 258 0 0 999
05:30 28 245 0 0 273 17:30 675 279 0 0 954
05:45 54 134 379 846 0 0 433 980 17:45 649 2919 222 1036 0 0 871 3955
06:00 64 219 0 0 283 18:00 546 241 0 0 787
06:15 83 292 0 0 375 18:15 461 222 0 0 683
06:30 119 397 0 0 516 18:30 441 167 0 0 608
06:45 176 442 607 1515 0 0 783 1957 18:45 311 1759 191 821 0 0 502 2580
07:00 275 576 0 0 851 19:00 294 144 0 0 438
07:15 189 775 0 0 964 19:15 283 117 0 0 400
07:30 225 789 0 0 1014 19:30 244 104 0 0 348
07:45 286 975 821 2961 0 0 1107 3936 19:45 209 1030 125 490 0 0 334 1520
08:00 376 689 0 0 1065 20:00 212 99 0 0 311
08:15 230 629 0 0 859 20:15 204 130 0 0 334
08:30 211 592 0 0 803 20:30 175 136 0 0 311
08:45 257 1074 553 2463 0 0 810 3537 20:45 158 749 89 454 0 0 247 1203
09:00 189 395 0 0 584 21:00 200 112 0 0 312
09:15 237 376 0 0 613 21:15 158 78 0 0 236
09:30 235 328 0 0 563 21:30 96 65 0 0 161
09:45 227 888 362 1461 0 0 589 2349 21:45 96 550 75 330 0 0 171 880
10:00 223 288 0 0 511 22:00 95 36 0 0 131
10:15 235 281 0 0 516 22:15 74 33 0 0 107
10:30 262 258 0 0 520 22:30 90 35 0 0 125
10:45 269 989 285 1112 0 0 554 2101 22:45 68 327 31 135 0 0 99 462
11:00 282 242 0 0 524 23:00 66 20 0 0 86
11:15 303 226 0 0 529 23:15 44 17 0 0 61
11:30 371 245 0 0 616 23:30 49 15 0 0 64
11:45 364 1320 289 1002 0 0 653 2322 23:45 54 213 16 68 0 0 70 281
TOTALS 6089 11857 17946 TOTALS 17999 9553 27552
SPLIT% 33.9% 66.1% 39.4% SPLIT% 65.3% 34.7% 60.6%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 11:15 07:15 07:15 PM Peak Hour 16:30 14:30 16:30
AM Pk Volume 1433 3074 4150 PM Pk Volume 3203 1469 4282
Pk Hr Factor 0.907 0.936 0.937 Pk Hr Factor 0.938 0.807 0.947
7-9Volume 2049 5424 0 0 7473 4-6Volume 5988 2138 0 0 8126
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:15 07:15 4 -6 Peak Hour 16:30 16:00 16:30
7 -9 Pk Volume 1117 3074 0 0 4150 4 -6 Pk Volume 3203 1102 0 0 4282
Pk Hr Factor 0.743 0.936 ).000 0.000 0.937 Pk Hr Factor 0.938 0.915 cooo O.UOD 0.947
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 215 of 279
Day: Tuesday
Date: 5/7/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
College Blvd Bet. Carlsbad Village Dr & Cannon Rd
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4201_009
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 23 9 32 12:00 164 136 300
00:15 14 5 19 12:15 158 115 273
00:30 5 8 13 12:30 133 152 285
00:45 4 46 2 24 6 70 12:45 133 588 166 569 299 1157
01:00 8 3 11 13:00 121 157 278
01:15 4 1 5 13:15 181 148 329
01:30 10 2 12 13:30 151 161 312
01:45 5 27 3 9 8 36 13:45 153 606 139 605 292 1211
02:00 5 2 7 14:00 151 145 296
02:15 3 4 7 14:15 193 153 346
02:30 6 5 11 14:30 229 220 449
02:45 4 18 7 18 11 36 14:45 198 771 174 692 372 1463
03:00 3 2 5 15:00 205 141 346
03:15 5 5 10 15:15 275 189 464
03:30 4 13 17 15:30 292 161 453
03:45 5 17 16 36 21 53 15:45 308 1080 173 664 481 1744
04:00 9 22 31 16:00 305 123 428
04:15 6 32 38 16:15 399 120 519
04:30 5 53 58 16:30 334 135 469
04:45 9 29 65 172 74 201 16:45 364 1402 142 520 506 1922
05:00 12 48 60 17:00 397 146 543
05:15 15 78 93 17:15 416 142 558
05:30 19 141 160 17:30 378 121 499
05:45 30 76 213 480 243 556 17:45 352 1543 117 526 469 2069 .
06:00 41 148 189 18:00 264 125 389
06:15 37 247 284 18:15 250 105 355
06:30 47 317 364 18:30 167 88 255
06:45 93 218 396 1108 489 1326 18:45 174 855 92 410 266 1265
07:00 105 439 544 19:00 149 81 230
07:15 164 417 581 19:15 145 60 205
07:30 164 367 531 19:30 106 90 196
07:45 193 626 361 1584 554 2210 19:45 129 529 66 297 195 826
08:00 125 340 465 20:00 93 66 159
08:15 110 298 408 20:15 95 60 155
08:30 96 273 369 20:30 96 53 149
08:45 100 431 244 1155 344 1586 20:45 73 357 45 224 118 581
09:00 106 187 293 21:00 59 51 110
09:15 92 206 298 21:15 86 44 130
09:30 99 192 291 21:30 70 44 114
09:45 107 404 173 758 280 1162 21:45 60 275 43 182 103 457
10:00 92 121 213 22:00 59 29 88
10:15 99 118 217 22:15 48 18 66
10:30 107 131 238 22:30 40 18 58
10:45 102 400 129 499 231 899 22:45 37 184 23 88 60 272
11:00 111 113 224 23:00 39 23 62
11:15 109 114 223 23:15 35 17 52
11:30 115 154 269 23:30 31 13 44
11:45 131 466 118 499 249 965 23:45 25 130 8 61 33 191
TOTALS 2758 6342 9100 TOTALS 8320 4838 13158
SPLIT% 30.3% 69.7% 40.9% SPLIT% 63.2% 36.8% 59.1%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 07:15 06:45 07:00 PM Peak Hour 16:45 14:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 646 1619 2210 PM Pk Volume 1555 724 2106
Pk Hr Factor 0.837 0.922 0.951 Pk Hr Factor 0.934 0.823 0.944
7 •9Volume 1057 2739 0 0 3796 4-6Volume 2945 1046 ) !) 3991
7 • 9 Peak Hour 07:15 07:00 07:00 4 • 6 Peak Hour 16:45 16:30 16:45
7 • 9 Pk Volume 646 1584 0 0 2210 4 · 6 Pk Volume 1555 565 0 0 2106
Pk Hr Factor 0.837 0.902 0000 o.ouo 0.951 Pk Hr Factor 0.934 0.967 OilO'J 0000 0.944
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 216 of 279
Day: Wednesday
Date: 5/8/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
College Blvd Bet. Carlsbad Village Dr & Cannon Rd
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4201_009
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 22 10 32 12:00 175 136 311
00:15 7 5 12 12:15 136 153 289
00:30 11 4 15 12:30 126 144 270
00:45 5 45 4 23 9 68 12:45 122 559 156 589 278 1148
01:00 5 9 14 13:00 152 162 314
01:15 8 3 11 13:15 148 148 296
01:30 9 5 14 13:30 189 184 373
01:45 6 28 1 18 7 46 13:45 190 679 129 623 319 · 1302
02:00 5 2 7 14:00 195 134 329
02:15 6 5 11 14:15 199 164 363
02:30 2 5 7 14:30 230 202 432
02:45 1 14 10 22 11 36 14:45 362 986 170 670 532 1656
03:00 6 3 9 15:00 252 179 431
03:15 3 8 11 15:15 255 177 432
03:30 6 10 16 15:30 273 138 411
03:45 6 21 23 44 29 65 15:45 316 1096 172 666 488 1762
04:00 2 14 16 16:00 316 134 450
04:15 6 35 41 16:15 383 148 531
04:30 10 54 64 16:30 362 143 sos
04:45 10 28 71 174 81 202 16:45 387 1448 151 576 538 2024
05:00 13 51 64 17:00 379 128 507
05:15 15 74 89 17:15 410 130 540
05:30 21 143 164 17:30 399 135 534
05:45 23 72 227 495 250 567 17:45 357 1545 132 525 489 2070
06:00 41 136 177 18:00 296 130 426
06:15 38 236 274 18:15 255 110 365
'06:30 52 331 383 18:30 195 104 299
06:45 88 219 336 1039 424 1258 18:45 163 909 90 434 253 1343
07:00 88 340 428 19:00 130 95 225
07:15 87 339 426 19:15 120 63 183
07:30 133 360 493 19:30 102 89 191
07:45 224 532 374 1413 598 1945 19:45 108 460 64 311 172 771
08:00 168 422 590 20:00 112 73 185
08:15 174 353 527 20:15 80 81 161
08:30 112 241 353 20:30 94 74 168
08:45 109 563 252 1268 361 1831 20:45 80 366 66 294 146 660
09:00 94 204 298 21:00 117 45 162
09:15 94 180 274 21:15 94 50 144
09:30 100 164 264 21:30 64 41 105
09:45 96 384 174 722 270 1106 21:45 63 338 35 171 98 509
10:00 98 156 254 22:00 55 21 76
10:15 104 146 250 22:15 37 31 68
10:30 100 127 227 22:30 48 30 78
10:45 121 423 126 555 247 978 22:45 38 178 31 113 69 291
11:00 128 124 252 23:00 46 10 56
11:15 104 113 217 23:15 23 13 36
11:30 134 127 261 23:30 30 13 43
11:45 128 494 139 503 267 997 23:45 24 123 7 43 31 166
TOTALS 2823 6276 9099 TOTALS 8687 5015 13702
SPLIT% 31.0% 69.0% 39.9% SPLIT% 63.4% 36.6% 60.1%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 PM Peak Hour 16:45 14:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 699 1509 2208 PM Pk Volume 1575 728 2119
Pk Hr Factor 0.780 0.894 0.923 Pk Hr Factor 0.960 0.901 0.981
7-9Volume 1095 2681 0 0 3776 4-6Volume 2993 1101 0 0 4094
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 4 -6 Peak Hour 16:45 16:00 16:45
7 -9 Pk Volume 699 1509 a 0 2208 4 -6 Pk Volume 1575 576 C ll 2119
Pk Hr Factor 0.780 0.894 0000 0.000 0.923 Pk Hr Factor 0.960 0.954 0.000 0.000 0.981
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 217 of 279
Day: Wednesday
Date: 5/8/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
College Blvd Bet. El Camino Real & Aston Ave
City: Carlsbad
Project #: CA19 _ 4201 _ 010
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 5 2 7 12:00 112 143 255
00:15 3 2 5 12:15 103 116 219
00:30 2 8 10 12:30 114 118 232
00:45 3 13 6 18 9 31 12:45 116 445 126 503 242 948
01:00 4 1 5 13:00 108 113 221
01:15 2 4 6 13:15 110 99 209
01:30 4 4 8 13:30 107 99 206
01:45 3 13 4 13 7 26 13:45 97 422 100 411 197 833
02:00 4 2 6 14:00 94 110 204
02:15 1 4 5 14:15 94 118 212
02:30 2 3 5 14:30 130 150 280
02:45 4 11 5 14 9 25 14:45 107 425 153 531 260 956
03:00 2 3 5 15:00 100 130 230
03:15 2 2 4 15:15 98 115 213
03:30 2 3 5 15:30 102 109 211
03:45 3 9 7 15 10 24 15:45 103 403 97 451 200 854
04:00 2 3 5 16:00 147 143 290
04:15 6 16 22 16:15 113 119 232
04:30 12 11 23 16:30 185 144 329
04:45 11 31 25 55 36 86 16:45 135 580 152 558 287 1138
05:00 26 23 49 17:00 167 204 371
05:15 25 19 44 17:15 145 185 330
05:30 35 40 75 17:30 122 157 279
05:45 51 137 80 162 131 299 17:45 105 539 115 661 220 1200
06:00 37 49 86 18:00 82 135 217
06:15 35 57 92 18:15 76 102 178
06:30 56 73 129 18:30 70 92 162
06:45 104 232 107 286 211 518 18:45 42 270 73 402 115 672
07:00 79 82 161 19:00 37 40 77
07:15 99 106 205 19:15 30 47 77
07:30 162 131 293 19:30 26 37 63
07:45 204 544 166 485 370 1029 19:45 33 126 38 162 71 288
08:00 236 141 377 20:00 39 45 84
08:15 165 137 302 20:15 41 36 77
08:30 165 134 299 20:30 30 28 58
08:45 163 729 117 529 280 1258 20:45 28 138 23 132 51 270
09:00 139 108 247 21:00 25 28 53
09:15 126 103 229 21:15 20 17 37
09:30 109 73 182 21:30 18 11 29
09:45 104 478 79 363 183 841 21:45 21 84 13 69 34 153
10:00 81 87 168 22:00 13 9 22
10:15 77 95 172 22:15 5 7 12
10:30 85 74 159 22:30 8 14 22
10:45 80 323 95 351 175 674 22:45 9 35 10 40 19 75
11:00 86 87 173 23:00 21 11 32
11:15 94 97 191 23:15 10 7 17
11:30 100 102 202 23:30 7 10 17
11:45 108 388 143 429 251 817 23:45 6 44 3 31 9 75
TOTALS 2908 2720 5628 TOTALS 3511 3951 7462
SPLIT% 51.7% 48.3% 43.0% SPLIT% 47.1% 52.9% 57.0%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 07:45 07:45 · 07:45 PM Peak Hour 16:30 16:45 16:30
AM Pk Volume 770 578 1348 PM Pk Volume 632 698 1317
Pk Hr Factor 0.816 0.870 0.894 Pk Hr Factor 0.854 0.855 0.887
7-9Volume 1273 1014 0 0 2287 4-6Volume 1119 1219 ,J 0 2338
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:45 07:45 4 -6 Peak Hour 16:30 16:45 16:30
7 -9 Pk Volume 770 578 0 u 1348 4 -6 Pk Volume 632 698 0 0 1317
Pk Hr Factor 0.816 0.870 0.000 0.000 0.894 Pk Hr Factor 0.854 0.855 c-c•OO 0.000 0.887
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 218 of 279
Day: Thursday
Date: 5/9/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
College Blvd Bet. El Camino Real & Aston Ave
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4201_010
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 6 7 13 12:00 110 135 245
00:15 1 2 3 12:15 112 121 233
00:30 3 7 10 12:30 104 122 226
00:45 3 13 3 19 6 32 12:45 116 442 113 491 229 933
01:00 3 0 3 13:00 121 120 241
01:15 3 0 3 13:15 116 131 247
01:30 2 2 4 13:30 122 113 235
01:45 2 10 0 2 2 12 13:45 121 480 94 458 215 938
02:00 4 4 8 14:00 78 108 186
02:15 1 5 6 14:15 80 107 187
02:30 7 2 9 14:30 120 111 231
02:45 1 13 3 14 4 27 14:45 99 377 147 473 246 850
03:00 1 4 5 15:00 101 109 210
03:15 4 2 6 15:15 78 113 191
03:30 2 2 4 15:30 124 110 234
03:45 4 11 7 15 11 26 15:45 126 429 101 433 227 862
04:00 6 8 14 16:00 129 147 276
04:15 8 10 18 16:15 108 118 226
04:30 11 9 20 16:30 156 131 287
04:45 15 40 17 44 32 84 16:45 135 528 149 545 284 1073
05:00 24 17 41 17:00 191 199 390
05:15 25 31 56 17:15 116 186 302
05:30 38 38 76 17:30 117 170 287
05:45 39 126 71 157 110 283 17:45 89 513 139 694 228 1207
06:00 35 42 77 18:00 73 137 210
06:15 39 56 95 18:15 69 110 179
06:30 58 84 142 18:30 49 98 147
06:45 108 240 97 279 205 519 18:45 36 227 74 419 110 646
07:00 115 99 214 19:00 32 54 86
07:15 136 113 249 19:15 37 59 96
07:30 169 134 303 19:30 33 47 80
07:45 160 580 147 493 307 1073 19:45 42 144 37 197 79 341
08:00 169 142 311 20:00 29 36 65
08:15 151 134 285 20:15 39 43 82
08:30 138 127 265 20:30 22 23 45
08:45 162 620 162 565 324 1185 20:45 24 114 15 117 39 231
09:00 150 124 274 21:00 20 24 44
09:15 108 79 187 21:15 23 22 45
09:30 100 72 172 21:30 25 11 36
09:45 96 454 103 378 199 832 21:45 16 84 11 68 27 152
10:00 87 83 170 22:00 16 10 26
10:15 94 80 174 22:15 14 12 26
10:30 66 71 137 22:30 12 14 26
10:45 111 358 73 307 184 665 22:45 8 so 15 51 23 101
11:00 69 89 158 23:00 16 12 28
11:15 94 94 188 23:15 12 9 21
11:30 91 130 221 23:30 7 8 15
11:45 111 365 115 428 226 793 23:45 5 40 6 35 11 75
TOTALS 2830 2701 5531 TOTALS 3428 3981 7409
SPLIT% 51.2% 48.8% 42.7% SPLIT% 46.3% 53.7% S7.3%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 07:30 08:00 07:30 PM Peak Hour 16:30 16:45 16:30
AM Pk Volume 649 565 1206 PM Pk Volume 598 704 1263
Pk Hr Factor 0.960 0.872 0.969 Pk Hr Factor 0.783 0.884 0.810
7-9Volume . 1200 1058 0 D 2258 4-6Volume 1041 1239 0 I) 2280
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:30 08:00 07:30 4 -6 Peak Hour 16:30 16:45 16:30
7 -9 Pk Volume 649 565 0 !) 1206 4 -6 Pk Volume 598 704 0 0 1263
Pk Hr Factor 0.960 0.872 0000 0.00(} 0.969 Pk Hr Factor 0,783 0.884 C 000 0.000 0.810
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 219 of 279
Day: Wednesday
Date: 5/8/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Cannon Rd Bet. Faraday Ave & El Camino Real
City: Carlsbad
Project #: CA19 _ 4201 _ 022
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 14 4 18 12:00 97 105 202
00:15 12 4 16 12:15 96 121 217
00:30 8 4 12 12:30 102 104 206
00:45 8 42 6 18 14 60 12:45 77 372 120 450 197 822
01:00 6 1 7 13:00 112 98 210
01:15 2 3 5 13:15 97 121 218
01:30 4 0 4 13:30 88 166 254
01:45 3 15 1 5 4 20 13:45 104 401 113 498 217 899
02:00 4 0 4 14:00 128 92 220
02:15 4 2 6 14:15 100 115 215
02:30 1 2 ,3 14:30 136 126 262
02:45 2 11 4 8 6 19 14:45 135 499 177 510 312 1009
03:00 2 3 5 15:00 211 113 324
03:15 2 3 5 15:15 152 125 277
03:30 2 3 5 15:30 222 88 310
03:45 4 10 13 22 17 32 15:45 189 774 113 439 302 1213
04:00 0 10 10 16:00 216 108 324
04:15 2 7 9 16:15 211 107 318
04:30 3 27 30 16:30 254 114 368
04:45 8 13 27 71 35 84 16:45 235 916 121 450 356 1366
05:00 6 35 41 17:00 321 130 451
05:15 6 37 43 17:15 266 101 367
05:30 7 56 63 17:30 323 95 418
05:45 15 34 84 212 99 246 17:45 238 1148 91 417 329 1565
06:00 14 106 120 18:00 231 100 331
06:15 22 198 220 18:15 184 92 276
06:30 39 273 312 18:30 141 71 212
06:45 38 113 329 906 367 1019 18:45 96 652 48 311 144 963
07:00 57 248 305 19:00 124 48 172
07:15 51 237 288 19:15 89 54 143
07:30 73 262 335 19:30 98 54 152
07:45 116 297 308 1055 424 1352 19:45 85 396 37 193 122 589
08:00 129 267 396 20:00 88 41 129
08:15 77 275 352 20:15 76 41 117
08:30 71 199 270 20:30 75 36 111
08:45 64 341 189 930 253 1271 20:45 69 308 47 165 116 473
09:00 80 158 238 21:00 61 74 135
09:15 57 144 201 21:15 67 49 116
09:30 71 119 190 21:30 41 32 73
09:45 68 276 135 556 203 832 21:45 61 230 17 172 78 402
10:00 68 133 201 22:00 38 16 54
10:15 57 114 171 22:15 32 16 48
10:30 63 100 163 22:30 31 9 40
10:45 73 261 119 466 192 727 22:45 28 129 16 57 44 186
11:00 82 110 192 23:00 26 13 39
11:15 63 109 172 23:15 19 7 26
11:30 92 101 193 23:30 13 6 19
11:45 107 344 91 411 198 755 23:45 12 70 5 31 17 101
TOTALS 1757 4660 6417 TOTALS 5895 3693 9588
SPLIT% 27.4% 72.6% 40.1% SPLIT% 61.5% 38.5% S9.9%
,
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 11:45 07:30 07:30 PM Peak Hour 17:00 14:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 402 1112 1507 PM Pk Volume 1148 541 1592
Pk Hr Factor 0.939 0,903 0.889 Pk Hr Factor 0.889 0.764 0.882
7-9Volume 0 0 638 1985 2623 4-6Volume ' I) 2064 867 2931
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 4 -6 Peak Hour 17:00 16:15 16:45
7 -9 Pk Volume 0 0 395 1112 1507 4 -6 Pk Volume n -0 1148 472 1592
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.766 0.903 0.889 Pk Hr Factor J.C'llJ 0000 0.889 0.908 0.882
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 220 of 279
Day: Thursday
Date: 5/9/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Cannon Rd Bet. Faraday Ave & El Camino Real
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4201_022
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 10 5 15 12:00 98 92 190
00:15 11 4 15 12:15 98 89 187
00:30 4 7 11 12:30 94 104 198
00:45 6 31 5 21 11 52 12:45 83 373 112 397 195 770
01:00 5 2 7 13:00 115 107 222
01:15 6 1 7 13:15 101 116 217
01:30 2 0 2 13:30 99 145 244
01:45 4 17 0 3 4 20 13:45 111 426 119 487 230 913
02:00 3 1 4 14:00 116 102 218
02:15 2 5 7 14:15 134 91 225
02:30 4 2 6 14:30 131 138 269
02:45 1 10 3 11 4 21 14:45 124 505 130 461 254 966
03:00 2 3 5 15:00 168 111 279
03:15 2 5 7 15:15 167 113 280
03:30 1 4 5 15:30 177 88 265
03:45 3 8 12 24 15 32 15:45 183 695 105 417 288 1112
04:00 4 8 12 16:00 221 79 300
04:15 3 5 8 16:15 199 109 308
04:30 2 24 26 16:30 271 114 385
04:45 7 16 41 78 48 94 16:45 227 918 113 415 340 1333
05:00 4 30 34 17:00 290 108 398
05:15 8 43 51 17:15 304 123 427
05:30 11 73 84 17:30 266 76 342
05:45 9 32 77 223 86 255 17:45 217 1077 80 387 297 1464
06:00 14 136 150 18:00 204 79 283
06:15 27 163 190 18:15 142 75 217
06:30 30 277 307 18:30 149 59 208
06:45 52 123 311 887 363 1010 18:45 111 606 53 266 164 872
07:00 117 291 408 19:00 110 51 161
07:15 59 300 359 19:15 84 53 137
07:30 73 314 .387 19:30 84 44 128
07:45 67 316 329 1234 396 1550 19:45 82 360 48 196 130 556
08:00 73 250 323 20:00 94 34 128
08:15 68 195 263 20:15 96 40 136
08:30 82 232 314 20:30 69 26 95
08:45 61 284 205 882 266 1166 20:45 52 311 29 129 81 440
09:00 61 147 208 21:00 61 27 88
09:15 so 151 201 21:15 74 29 103
09:30 63 141 204 21:30 52 26 78
09:45 54 228 129 568 183 796 21:45 44 231 21 103 65 334
10:00 70 116 186 22:00 37 14 51
10:15 75 97 172 22:15 29 16 45
10:30 78 121 199 22:30 24 11 35
10:45 72 295 85 419 157 714 22:45 31 121 6 47 37 168
11:00 73 85 158 23:00 20 17 37
11:15 69 118 187 23:15 13 11 24
11:30 91 107 198 23:30 23 6 29
11:45 85 318 93 403 178 721 23:45 18 74 7 41 25 115
TOTALS 1678 4753 6431 TOTALS 5697 3346 9043
SPLIT% 26.1% 73.9% 41.6% SPLIT% 63.0% 37.0% 58.4%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 11:45 07:00 07:00 PM Peak Hour 16:30 14:30 16:30
AM Pk Volume 375 1234 1550 PM Pk Volume 1092 492 1550
Pk Hr Factor 0.957 0.938 0.950 Pk Hr Factor 0.898 0.891 0.907
7-9Volume 0 0 600 2116 2716 4-6Volume 0 0 1995 802 2797
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:00 07:00 4 -6 Peak Hour 16:30 16:30 16:30
7 -9 Pk Volume 0 0 316 1234 1550 4 -6 Pk Volume 0 0 1092 458 1550
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.001) 0.675 0.938 0.950 Pk Hr Factor il.000 0.000 0.898 0.931 0.907
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 221 of 279
Day: Tuesday
Date: 5/7/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Cannon Rd Bet. El Camino Real & College Blvd
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4201_023
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 0 0 28 5 33 12:00 0 0 173 129 302
00:15 0 0 14 5 19 12:15 0 0 147 120 267
00:30 0 0 6 10 16 12:30 0 0 136 159 295
00:45 0 0 5 53 2 22 7 75 12:45 0 0 152 608 161 569 313 1177
01:00 0 0 10 4 14 13:00 0 0 122 160 282
· 01:15 0 0 6 1 7 13:15 0 0 148 267 415
01:30 0 0 10 1 11 13:30 0 0 146 201 347
01:45 0 0 6 32 3 9 9 41 13:45 0 0 159 575 150 778 309 1353
02:00 0 0 6 3 9 14:00 0 0 172 149 321
02:15 0 0 2 4 6 14:15 0 0 211 145 356
02:30 0 0 5 6 11 14:30 0 0 302 228 530
02:45 0 0 5 18 7 20 12 38 14:45 0 0 286 971 311 833 597 1804
03:00 0 0 2 4 6 15:00 0 0 248 205 453
03:15 0 0 6 5 11 15:15 0 0 241 245 486
03:30 0 0 4 ·11 15 15:30 0 0 285 185 470
03:45 0 0 4 16 20 40 24 56 15:45 0 0 306 1080 196 831 502 1911
04:00 0 0 7 26 33 16:00 0 0 356 136 492
04:15 0 0 4 36 40 16:15 0 0 399 128 527
04:30 0 0 5 49 54 16:30 0 0 389 166 555
04:45 0 0 7 23 78 189 85 212 16:45 0 0 395 1539 137 567 532 2106
05:00 0 0 11 56 67 17:00 0 0 426 141 567
05:15 0 0 11 91 102 17:15 0 0 432 154 586
05:30 0 0 12 141 153 17:30 0 0 444 116 560
05:45 0 0 21 55 219 507 240 562 17:45 0 0 371 1673 131 542 502 2215
06:00 0 0 37 172 209 18:00 0 0 306 105 411
06:15 0 0 34 248 282 18:15 0 0 227 102 329
06:30 0 0 51 327 378 18:30 0 0 200 92 292
06:45 0 0 154 276 403 1150 557 1426 18:45 0 0 192 925 93 392 285 1317
07:00 0 0 324 359 683 19:00 0 0 172 68 240
07:15 0 0 164 472 636 19:15 0 0 167 57 224
07:30 0 0 86 442 528 19:30 0 0 138 72 210
07:45 0 0 133 707 385 1658 518 2365 19:45 0 0 133 610 71 268 204 878
08:00 0 0 93 346 439 20:00 0 0 103 51 154
08:15 0 0 100 319 419 20:15 0 0 113 81 194
08:30 0 0 119 260 379 20:30 0 0 110 63 173
08:45 0 0 113 425 294 1219 407 1644 20:45 0 0 82 408 32 227 114 635
09:00 0 0 96 232 328 21:00 0 0 75 38 113
09:15 0 0 77 214 291 21:15 0 0 90 48 138
09:30 0 0 102 214 316 21:30 0 0 67 34 101
09:45 0 0 90 365 175 835 265 1200 21:45 0 0 64 296 40 160 104 456
10:00 0 0 97 128 225 22:00 0 0 63 28 91
10:15 0 0 88 135 223 22:15 0 0 47 14 61
10:30 0 0 112 136 248 22:30 0 0 40 17 57
10:45 0 0 98 395 135 534 233 929 22:45 0 0 45 195 14 73 59 268
11:00 0 0 115 129 244 23:00 0 0 47 23 70
11:15 0 0 112 129 241 23:15 0 0 33 14 47
11:30 0 0 117 148 265 23:30 0 0 33 10 43
11:45 0 0 144 488 132 538 276 1026 23:45 0 0 27 140 7 54 34 194
TOTALS 2853 6721 9574 TOTALS 9020 5294 14314
SPLIT% 29.8% 70.2% 40.1% SPLIT% 63.0% 37.0% 59.9%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 06:45 06:45 06:45 PM Peak Hour 16:45 14:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 728 1676 2404 PM Pk Volume 1697 989 2245
Pk Hr Factor 0.562 0.888 0.880 Pk Hr Factor 0.956 0.795 0.958
7 -9Volume 0 0 1132 2877 4009 4 -6Volume 0 0 3212 1109 4321
7 • 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:00 07:00 4 -6 Peak Hour 16:45 16:30 16:45
7 -9 Pk Volume 0 0 707 1658 2365 4 • 6 Pk Volume 0 1697 598 2245
Pk Hr Factor 'l.000 0.000 0.546 0.878 0.866 Pk Hr Factor 0.0{"l 000( 0.956 0.901 0.958
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 222 of 279
Day: Wednesday
Date: 5/8/2019
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Cannon Rd Bet. El Camino Real & College Blvd
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19 _ 4201_023
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 0 0 24 7 31 12:00 0 0 182 159 341
00:15 0 0 9 7 16 12:15 0 0 134 163 297
00:30 0 0 9 4 13 12:30 0 0 143 155 298
00:45 0 0 8 50 2 20 10 70 12:45 0 0 124 583 141 618 265 1201
01:00 0 0 7 7 14 13:00 0 0 162 162 324
01:15 0 0 6 4 10 13:15 0 0 163 158 321
01:30 0 0 9 2 11 13:30 0 0 157 264 421
01:45 0 0 5 27 0 13 5 40 13:45 0 0 184 666 185 769 369 1435
02:00 0 0 4 2 6 14:00 0 0 218 147 365
02:15 0 0 5 5 10 14:15 0 0 204 156 360
02:30 0 0 0 2 2 14:30 0 0 299 241 540
02:45 0 0 1 10 11 20 12 30 14:45 0 0 342 1063 254 798 596 1861
03:00 0 0 5 5 10 15:00 0 0 259 182 441
03:15 0 0 3 5 8 15:15 0 0 308 179 487
03:30 0 0 6 9 15 15:30 0 0 316 151 467
03:45 0 0 4 18 22 41 26 59 15:45 0 0 336 1219 183 695 519 1914
04:00 0 0 4 19 23 16:00 0 0 360 153 513
04:15 0 0 4 36 40 16:15 0 0 400 164 564
04:30 0 0 10 53 63 16:30 0 0 405 157 562
04:45 0 0 8 26 77 185 85 211 16:45 0 0 396 1561 182 656 578 2217
05:00 0 0 12 66 78 17:00 0 0 424 138 562
05:15 0 0 8 75 83 17:15 0 0 465 143 608
05:30 0 0 15 155 170 17:30 0 0 427 136 563
05:45 0 0 15 50 235 531 250 581 17:45 0 0 368 1684 138 555 506 2239
06:00 0 0 28 161 189 18:00 0 0 323 149 472
06:15 0 0 41 244 285 18:15 0 0 303 120 423
06:30 0 0 60 322 382 18:30 0 0 237 116 353
06:45 0 0 77 206 374 1101 451 1307 18:45 0 0 186 1049 80 465 266 1514
07:00 0 0 95 370 465 19:00 0 0 185 71 256
07:15 0 0 74 346 420 19:15 0 0 149 67 216
07:30 0 0 95 356 451 19:30 0 0 132 73 205
07:45 0 0 196 460 386 1458 582 1918 19:45 0 0 115 581 64 275 179 856
08:00 0 0 342 351 693 20:00 0 0 116 63 179
08:15 0 0 178 411 589 20:15 0 0 106 78 184
08:30 0 0 97 330 427 20:30 0 0 122 82 204
08:45 0 0 97 714 295 1387 392 2101 20:45 0 0 94 438 70 293 164 731
09:00 0 0 119 223 342 21:00 0 0 102 117 219
09:15 0 0 122 215 337 21:15 0 0 88 63 151
09:30 0 0 106 186 292 21:30 0 0 50 44 94
09:45 0 0 83 430 201 825 284 1255 21:45 0 0 73 313 36 260 109 573
10:00 0 0 98 174 272 22:00 0 0 62 17 79
10:15 0 0 107 144 251 22:15 0 0 44 17 61
10:30 0 0 89 135 224 22:30 0 0 59 25 84
10:45 0 0 122 416 146 599 268 1015 22:45 0 0 40 205 26 85 66 290
11:00 0 0 124 141 265 23:00 0 0 51 16 67
11:15 0 0 133 120 253 23:15 0 0 25 11 36
11:30 0 0 132 125 257 23:30 0 0 31 7 38
11:45 0 0 156 545 150 536 306 1081 23:45 0 0 28 135 9 43 37 178
TOTALS 2952 6716 9668 TOTALS 9497 5512 15009
SPLIT% 30.5% 69.5% 39.2% SPLIT% 63.3% 36.7% 60.8%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 07:45 07:30 07:30 PM Peak Hour 16:45 14:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 813 1504 2315 PM Pk Volume 1712 856 2311
Pk Hr Factor 0.594 0.915 0.835 Pk Hr Factor 0.920 0.843 0.950
7 • 9Volume 0 0 1174 2845 4019 4 ·6_Volume 0 0 3245 1211 4456
7 • 9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:30 07:30 4 • 6 Peak Hour 16:45 16:00 16:45
7 -9 Pk Volume 0 0 813 1504 2315 4 -6 Pk Volume 0 1712 656 2311
Pk Hr Factor 0000 0.000 0.594 0.915 0.835 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 t ... co 0.920 0.901 0.950
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 223 of 279
Day: Tuesday .
Date: 10/1/2019
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
VOLUME
El Camino Real Bet. Cannon Rd & Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4377 _001
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 6 16 22 12:00 237 . 332 569
00:15 17 9 26 12:15 275 287 562
00:30 7 12 19 12:30 267 292 559
00:45 11 41 12 49 23 90 12:45 311 1090 245 1156 556 2246
01:00 6 16 22 13:00 266 304 570
01:15 7 9 16 13:15 303 263 566
01:30 7 9 16 13:30 303 310 613
01:45 5 25 8 42 13 67 13:45 293 1165 368 1245 661 2410
02:00 4 9 13 14:00 264 325 589
02:15 7 7 14 14:15 264 358 622
02:30 10 12 22 14:30 304 470 774
02:45 9 30 5 33 14 63 14:45 457 1289 418 1571 875 2860
03:00 11 3 14 15:00 312 476 788
03:15 11 7 18 15:15 263 455 718
03:30 28 6 34 15:30 314 556 870
03:45 38 88 4 20 42 108 15:45 309 1198 582 2069 891 3267
04:00 21 7 28 16:00 254 636 890
04:15 44 8 52 16:15 277 512 789
04:30 84 17 101 16:30 256 478 734
04:45 140 289 23 55 163 344 16:45 276 1063 599 2225 875 3288
05:00 91 17 108 17:00 258 647 905
05:15 149 21 170 17:15 240 690 930
05:30 258 29 287 17:30 226 624 850
05:45 320 818 34 101 354 919 17:45 222 946 621 2582 843 3528
06:00 239 48 287 18:00 210 611 821
06:15 289 73 362 18:15 212 439 651
06:30 421 100 521 18:30 186 394 580
06:45 551 1500 230 451 781 1951 18:45 197 805 305 1749 502 2554
07:00 637 389 1026 19:00 145 230 375
07:15 811 178 989 19:15 138 219 357
07:30 886 176 1062 19:30 106 175 281
07:45 818 3152 201 944 1019 4096 19:45 96 485 170 794 266 1279
08:00 757 160 917 20:00 102 125 227
08:15 781 172 953 20:15 105 137 242
08:30 635 194 829 20:30 68 138 206
08:45 631 2804 190 716 821 3520 20:45 78 353 143 543 221 896
09:00 469 206 675 21:00 108 154 262
09:15 364 182 546 21:15 81 125 206
09:30 325 240 565 21:30 72 96 168
09:45 333 1491 237 865 570 2356 21:45 62 323 58 433 120 756
10:00 294 190 484 22:00 37 79 116
10:15 257 213 470 22:15 36 51 87
10:30 239 195 434 22:30 23 70 93
10:45 227 1017 211 809 438 1826 22:45 30 126 35 235 65 361
11:00 222 222 444 23:00 11 65 76
11:15 209 287 496 23:15 9 54 63
11:30 268 267 535 23:30 15 .42 57
11:45 284 983 343 1119 627 2102 23:45 17 52 29 190 46 242
TOTALS 12238 5204 17442 TOTALS 8895 14792 23687
SPLIT% 70.2% 29.8% 42.4% SPLIT% 37.6% 62.4% 57.6%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 07:15 11:45 07:00 PM Peak Hour 14:45 17:00 16:45
AM Pk Volume 3272 1254 4096 PM Pk Volume 1346 2582 3560
Pk Hr Factor 0.923 0.914 0.964 Pk Hr Factor 0.736 0.936 0.957
7-9Volume 0 0 5956 1660 7616 4-6Volume () ) 2009 4807 6816
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:15 07:00 07:00 4 -6 Peak Hour 16:15 17:00 16:45
7 -9 Pk Volume 0 0 3272 944 4096 4 -6 Pk Volume 0 0 1067 2582 3560
Pk Hr Factor u.O<)C 0.000 0.923 0.607 0.964 Pk Hr Factor o.~o CC"O 0.963 0.936 0.957
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 224 of 279
Day: Wednesday
Date: 10/2/2019
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
VOLUME
El Camino Real Bet. Cannon Rd & Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4377 _001
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 12 31 43 12:00 233 294 527
00:15 4 18 22 12:15 291 291 582
00:30 8 18 26 12:30 256 261 517
00:45 9 33 11 78 20 111 12:45 318 1098 256 1102 574 2200
01:00 8 13 21 13:00 301 282 583
01:15 4 15 19 13:15 257 303 560
01:30 5 16 21 13:30 340 263 603
01:45 4 21 5 49 9 70 13:45 277 1175 325 1173 602 2348
02:00 8 3 11 14:00 117 367 484
02:15 8 9 17 14:15 244 397 641
02:30 12 6 18 14:30 300 424 724
02:45 7 35 4 22 11 57 14:45 365 1026 354 1542 719 2568
03:00 9 9 18 15:00 305 431 736
03:15 20 3 23 15:15 257 402 659
03:30 26 5 31 15:30 283 491 774
03:45 47 102 7 24 54 126 15:45 301 1146 519 1843 820 2989
04:00 22 9 31 16:00 267 608 875
04:15 42 10 52 16:15 247 642 889 I
04:30 88 13 101 16:30 234 630 864
04:45 124 276 23 55 147 331 16:45 312 1060 648 2528 960 3588
05:00 93 14 107 17:00 239 682 921
05:15 160 24 184 17:15 260 685 945
05:30 234 28 262 17:30 251 583 834
05:45 362 849 40 106 402 955 17:45 " 210 960 518 2468 728 3428
06:00 206 60 266 18:00 173 480 653
06:15 287 71 358 18:15 197 440 637
06:30 395 109 504 18:30 188 395 583
06:45 597 1485 210 450 807 1935 18:45 170 728 333 1648 503 2376
07:00 616 386 1002 19:00 134 268 402
07:15 725 175 900 19:15 133 227 360
07:30 836 178 1014 19:30 100 216 316
07:45 863 3040 159 898 1022 3938 19:45 88 455 162 873 250 1328
08:00 723 186 909 20:00 88 154 242
08:15 631 208 839 20:15 105 149 254
08:30 627 174 801 20:30 84 159 243
08:45 621 2602 219 787 840 3389 20:45 100 377 138 600 238 977
09:00 445 211 656 21:00 72 163 235
09:15 368 168 536 21:15 74 138 212
09:30 339 195 534 21:30 56 94 150
09:45 337 1489 193 767 530 2256 21:45 51 253 87 482 138 735
10:00 250 198 448 22:00 38 91 129
10:15 269 222 491 22:15 29 64 93
10:30 222 211 433 22:30 19 77 96
10:45 280 1021 228 859 508 1880 22:45 23 109 44 276 67 385
11:00 211 248 459 23:00 26 74 100
11:15 215 255 470 23:15 15 41 56
11:30 236 285 521 23:30 16 41 57
11:45 264 926 311 1099 575 2025 23:45 12 69 32 188 44 257
TOTALS 11879 5194 17073 TOTALS 8456 14723 23179
SPLIT% 69.6% 30.4% 42.4% SPLIT% 36.5% 63.5% 57.6%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 07:15 11:30 07:00 PM Peak Hour 14:30 16:30 16:30
AM Pk Volume 3147 1181 3938 PM Pk Volume 1227 2645 3690
Pk Hr Factor 0.912 0.949 0.963 Pk Hr Factor 0.840 0.965 0.961
7 • 9Volume 0 0 5642 1685 7327 4-6Volume 0 0 2020 4996 7016
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:15 07:00 07:00 4 • 6 Peak Hour 16:45 16:30 16:30
7 -9 Pk Volume 0 Q 3147 898 3938 4 -6 Pk Volume 0 0 1062 2645 3690
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.912 0.582 0.963 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.851 0.965 0.961
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 225 of 279
Day: Tuesday
Date: 10/1/2019
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
VOLUME
Jackspar Dr Bet. Camino Hills Dr & Longfellow Rd
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4377 _002
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 1 0 1 12:00 17 9 26
00:15 0 0 0 12:15 24 12 36
00:30 0 0 0 12:30 12 18 30
00:45 0 1 0 0 1 12:45 15 68 19 58 34 126
01:00 5 0 5 13:00 21 11 32
01:15 0 0 0 13:15 18 13 31
01:30 0 0 0 13:30 22 16 38
01:45 1 6 0 1 6 13:45 23 84 24 64 47 148
02:00 0 0 0 14:00 29 14 43
02:15 0 0 0 14:15 18 17 35
02:30 1 0 1 14:30 23 15 38
02:45 0 1 0 0 1 14:45 23 93 17 63 40 156
03:00 1 0 1 15:00 38 17 ' 55
03:15 1 0 1 15:15 28 11 39
03:30 0 0 0 15:30 29 9 38
03:45 0 2 2 2 2 4 15:45 29 124 10 47 39 171
04:00 0 2 2 16:00 56 9 65
04:15 0 1 1 16:15 36 11 47
04:30 0 2 2 16:30 60 10 70
04:45 1 1 2 7 3 8 16:45 95 247 11 41 106 288
05:00 0 3 3 17:00 121 9 130
05:15 1 5 6 17:15 111 18 129
05:30 3 7 10 17:30 96 13 109
05:45 0 4 14 29 14 33 17:45 69 397 12 52 81 449
06:00 4 17 21 18:00 42 7 49
06:15 2 14 16 18:15 24 11 35
06:30 5 20 25 18:30 31 7 38
06:45 6 17 18 69 24 86 18:45 15 112 8 33 23 145
07:00 12 18 30 19:00 13 4 17
07:15 5 44 49 19:15 15 7 22
07:30 7 55 62 19:30 3 3 6
07:45 12 36 57 174 69 210 19:45 6 37 3 17 9 54
08:00 7 42 49 20:00 3 1 4
08:15 10 38 48 20:15 5 4 9
08:30 7 23 30 20:30 4 4 8
08:45 11 35 36 139 47 174 20:45 2 14 2 11 4 25
09:00 9 27 36 21:00 4 1 5
09:15 6 22 28 21:15 1 2 3
09:30 13 13 26 21:30 4 1 5
09:45 10 38 18 80 28 118 21:45 2 11 2 6 4 17
10:00 10 13 23 22:00 2 2 4
10:15 5 15 20 22:15 0 3 3
10:30 6 11 17 22:30 1 0 1
10:45 6 27 8 47 14 74 22:45 3 6 0 5 3 11
11:00 11 10 21 23:00 6 1 7
11:15 14 15 29 23:15 1 1 2
11:30 18 16 34 23:30 1 1 2
11:45 24 67 12 53 36 120 23:45 1 9 1 4 2 13
TOTALS 235 600 835 TOTALS 1202 401 1603
SPLIT% 28.1% 71.9% 34.2% SPLIT% 75.0% 25.0% 65.8%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 11:30 07:15 07:15 PM Peak Hour 16:45 13:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 83 198 229 PM Pk Volume 423 71 474
Pk Hr Factor 0.865 0.868 0.830 Pk Hr Factor 0.874 0.740 0.912
7-9Volume 71 313 0 0 384 4-6Volume 644 93 0 0 737
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:15 4 -6 Peak Hour 16:45 17:00 16:45
7 -9 Pk Volume 36 198 0 0 229 4 -6 Pk Volume 423 52 0 0 474
Pk Hr Factor 0.750 0.868 OQIYJ O!JOO 0.830 Pk Hr Factor 0.874 0.722 C. 000 O.O'JO 0.912
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 226 of 279
Day: Wednesday
Date: 10/2/2019
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
VOLUME
Jackspar Dr Bet. Camino Hills Dr & Longfellow Rd
City: Carlsbad
Project#: CA19_ 4377 _002
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 2 0 2 12:00 36 12 48
00:15 1 0 1 12:15 13 21 34
00:30 0 0 0 12:30 18 12 30
00:45 0 3 0 0 3 12:45 17 84 27 72 44 156
01:00 5 0 5 13:00 19 27 46
01:15 0 0 0 13:15 17 15 32
01:30 0 0 0 13:30 17 15 32
01:45 ·o 5 0 0 5 13:45 24 77 17 74 41 151
02:00 0 0 0 14:00 18 12 30
02:15 1 0 1 14:15 15 20 35
02:30 1 0 1 14:30 23 10 33
02:45 1 3 0 1 3 14:45 22 78 16 58 38 136
03:00 0 0 0 15:00 41 13 54
03:15 0 0 0 15:15 20 10 30
03:30 0 0 0 15:30 33 11 44
03:45 0 2 2 2 2 15:45 20 114 14 48 34 162
04:00 0 2 2 16:00 59 10 69
04:15 0 3 3 16:15 47 8 55
04:30 0 0 0 16:30 57 4 61
04:45 0 2 7 2 7 16:45 62 225 10 32 72 257
05:00 0 3 3 17:00 94 11 105
05:15 1 3 4 17:15 83 12 95
05:30 2 9 11 17:30 75 8 83
05:45 1 4 12 27 13 31 17:45 35 287 9 40 44 327
06:00 5 18 23 18:00 39 13 52
06:15 1 19 20 18:15 20 10 30
06:30 1 12 13 18:30 17 9 26
06:45 1 8 22 71 23 79 18:45 26 102 2 34 28 136
07:00 9 17 26 19:00 21 5 26
07:15 7 48 55 19:15 15 5 20
07:30 7 44 51 19:30 6 0 6
07:45 7 30 59 168 66 198 19:45 3 45 0 10 3 55
08:00 11 34 45 20:00 4 4 8
08:15 7 37 44 20:15 3 5 8
08:30 8 37 45 20:30 4 4 8
08:45 6 32 32 140 38 172 20:45 3 14 5 18 8 32
09:00 7 22 29 21:00 4 6 10
09:15 9 21 30 21:15 2 4 6
09:30 9 13 22 21:30 4 1 5
09:45 8 33 18 74 26 107 21:45 6 16 2 13 8 29
10:00 20 10 30 22:00 0 2 2
10:15 12 9 21 22:15 4 2 6
10:30 8 9 17 22:30 1 1 2
10:45 12 52 17 45 29 97 22:45 0 5 0 5 0 10
11:00 11 9 20 23:00 7 0 7
11:15 7 9 16 23:15 0 1 1
11:30 21 20 41 23:30 0 0 0
11:45 19 58 12 50 31 108 23:45 0 7 0 1 0 8
TOTALS 228 584 812 TOTALS 1054 405 1459
SPLIT% 28.1% 71.9% 35.8% SPLIT% 72.2% 27.8% 64.2%
DAILY TOTALS ~
AM Peak Hour 11:30 07:15 07:15 PM Peak Hour 16:45 12:15 16:45
AM Pk Volume 89 185 217 PM Pk Volume 314 87 355
Pk Hr Factor 0.618 0.784 0.822 Pk Hr Factor 0.835 0.806 0.845
7-9Volume 62 308 0 J 370 4-6Volume 512 72 J 0 584
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:15 07:15 4 -6 Peak Hour 16:45 16:45 16:45
7 -9 Pk Volume 33 185 o 0 217 4 -6 Pk Volume 314 41 0 0 355
Pk Hr Factor 0.750 0.784 G.000 0.000 0.822 Pk Hr Factor 0.835 0.854 0000 0.000 0.845
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 227 of 279
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. CS-286
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.40,
SECTIONS 3.40.090, 3.40.110, 3.40.140, AND 3.40.161 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PROCEDURES FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REIMBURSEMENT FEE FOR
FUNDING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT 9
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad City Council concurs that it ,s necessary to amend Chapter
3.40, Sections 3.40.090, 3.40.110, 3.40.140, and 3.40.161 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
related to the procedures for the establishment of a reimbursement fee for funding the
reimbursement of certain costs of the construction of eligible improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: That Chapter 3.40 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
Chapter 3.40 CARLSBAD REIMBURSEMENT FEE
3.40.010 Short Title
3.40.020 Purpose
3.40.030 Definitions
3.40.040 Request for Establishment of a Reimbursement Fee
3.40.050 Deposits
3.40.060 Improvements Eligible for Reimbursement
3.40.070 Eligible Costs
3.40.080 Construction of Eligible Improvements
3.40.090 Reimbursement Fee Study
3.40.100 Notice of Public Hearing
3.40.110 Public Hearing and Establishment of Reimbursement Fee
3.40.120 Adjustment of the Reimbursement Fee to Reflect Actual Costs
3.40.130 Adjustment of Reimbursement Fee for Specific Projects
3.40.140 Imposition of a Reimbursement Fee
3.40.150 Payment of the Reimbursement Fee
3.40.160 Establishment of Funds and Use of Reimbursement Fees
3.40.161 Use of Chapter 3.40 in Combination with Use of Bond Financing Prohibited
') May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 228 of 279
1
2
3
SECTION 2: That Section 3.40.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
3.40.090 Reimbursement Fee Study. The City Engineer will, following receipt of the
4 · documents required to be provided to the City Engineer pursuant to Section 3.40.040 .
hereto, in the exercise of his or her independent professional judgment, prepare or cause
to be prepared a Reimbursement Fee Study for th_e requested Reimbursement Fee that will
include the following:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. A legal description or list of the Assessor's Parcel Numbers of each parcel
within the applicable LFMZ, including the properties owned or being developed by the
Requesting Party, upon which the City Engineer determines that a portion of the eligible
costs of Eligible Improvements and Eligible Incidental Costs should be fairly allocated, the
name of the owner thereof, street address thereof each such parcel, if any, and the acreage
thereof;
B. A detailed plat showing the precise locations of all of the Eligible
Improvements for which the Requesting Party has requested reimbursement shown
in relation to the parcels identified pursuant to paragraph A above;
C. A list of each of the Eligible Improvements and the estimated cost of the
construction of the Eligible Improvements and each of the estimated Eligible Incidental Costs,
as determined by the City .Engineer to be reasonable and customary for such Eligible
Improvements and Eligible Incidental Costs;
D. A determination whether any portion of the cost of the construction of any
Eligible Improvements and related Eligible Incidental Costs may be subject to reimbursement
from any existing City impact fee program. If and to the extent that any portion of such costs
is subject to reimbursement from such impact fee program, such amount shall be deducted
from estimated cost of the construction of such Eligible Improvements and the related Eligible
Incidental Costs.
E. A report identifying the burden which the development of each parcel,
including the parcels owned or being developed by the Requesting Party, identified
pursuant to paragraph A above in accordance with its zoning and general plan d~signation
and other existing land use entitlements, if any, will impose upon the Eligible
Improvements and the extent to which the development of each such parcel will contribute
to the need for or burden upon such Eligible Improvements;
F. An explanation of how there is a reasonable relationship between the
Reimbursement Fee's use and the types of Projects on which the Reimbursement Fee may
be imposed;
G. A detailed description of the method of Reimbursement Fee allocation;
H. A reimbursement schedule to include a list of all LFMZ Properties
determined by the City Engineer to be subject to the proposed Reimbursement Fee with May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 229 of 279
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
current Assessor's parcel number, owner's name, property's street address, and the
acreage of such parcels and the proposed Reimbursement Fee applicable to each such
LFMZ Property.
Upon completion of a Reimbursement Fee Study the City Engineer shall mail a copy
of such study to the Requesting Party and the owner of each property determined by the
City Engineer to be subject to the proposed Reimbursement Fee as set forth in such
Reimbursement Fee Study, together with the notice of the date, time and place of a
property owner informational meeting at which the City Engineer or his or her designee
shall be available to answer questions regarding the Reimbursement Fee Study. Such
notice shall be given at no less than ten days before the date of such meeting. Such meeting
shall be scheduled to occur not less than 20 days prior to the public hearing required to be
held pursuant to Section 3.40.110 hereto.
SECTION 3: That Section 3.40.110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
3.40.110 Public Hearing and Establishment of Reimbursement Fee. The City Council shall
hold a public hearing to determine the types of Projects that shall be subject to the
Reimbursement Fee and the Reimbursement Fee that shall be imposed on each Project.
This Re_imbursement Fee shall only be established if the City Council can make the following
findings:
A. The purpose and use of the Reimbursement Fee.
B. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the
Reimbursement Fee and the type of Project on which the Reimbursement Fee is imposed.
C. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
Eligible Improvement and the type of Project on which the Reimbursement Fee is imposed.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council shall adopt a resolution
approving, conditionally approving or denying the establishment of the Reimbursement
Fee. If the City Council approves the establishment of the Reimbursement Fee, the
resolution shall attach as an exhibit thereto a copy of the reimbursement plan as adopted
by the City Council and shall set forth the method of Reimbursement Fee allocation as
approved by the City Council.
If the establishment of a Reimbursement Fee is approved, such resolution shall
establish the term that such Reimbursement Fee shall be in effect and may be collected
from LFMZ Properties subject to such fee. The term of a Reimbursement Fee shall be
consistent with the term, if any, for a reimbursement agreement specified in the LFMP
related to the LFMZ subject to the Reimbursement Fee, the terms for reimbursement
agreements or fees specified or contemplated in legislation or policies pertaining to such
reimbursement agreements or fees, including but not limited to the ordinances and policies
Lf May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 230 of 279
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the City, or the terms for reimbursement agreements previously established by the City,
in such order of priority; provided, however, except as provided ir.i Section 3.40.140, no
Reimbursement Fee shall have a term longer than 20 years from the first day of the
calendar year following the date of adoption of the resolution of the City Council
establishing such Reimbursement Fee.
If the Reimbursement Fee is to be subject to escalation, the resolution shall state
the rate of escalation applicable to the Reimbursement Fee.
SECTION 4: That Section 3.40.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
3.40.140 Imposition of a Reimbursement Fee. Notwithstanding any provisions of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, no permit shall be issued for any Project subject to a
Reimbursement Fee established pursuant to this Chapter except upon the condition that
the Reimbursement Fee applicable to such Project shall be paid in accordance with the
provisions of this Chapter. The obligation for the payment of a Reimbursement Fee for any
Project shall attach at the time the initial grading permit for such Project is issued. Such
obligation shall continue to apply to such Project for a period not to exceed ten (10) years
beyond the term of such Reimbursement Fee established pursuant to Section 3.40.110.
SECTION 5: That Section 3.40.161 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
3.40.161 Use of Chapter 3.40 in Combination with Use of Bond Financing Prohibited.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Chapter, this Chapter may not be used to
impose a Reimbursement Fee on certain LFMZ Properties to provide for the reimbursement of
the costs of construction of Eligible Improvements allocable to such LFMZ. Properties in
combination with the levy of special taxes pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act
of 1982, as amended, or special assessments pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of
1913 against other LFMZ Properties to secure the payment of special tax bonds or limited
obligation improvement bonds, as applicable, issued to fund the costs of construction of such
Eligible Improvements allocable to such other LFMZ Properties.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
. adoption; and the city clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text
of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published
at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days
after its adoption.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 231 of 279
B. Reimbursement Agreements. In certain instances, a
develop~r may ask the City to move a project forward in
time and to construct a facility befo~e funds have been
collected. When this occurs, the City could adopt the
policy of having the interested developer construct
the project based on a reimbursement agreement, The
City would pay the developer back for the portion of
the project that was to be funded by City resources
over a period of time. Payments would commence at the
time the City had originally scheduled construction.
Moving the project forward in time is for the benefit
of the developer. Therefore, the City's repayment would
be limited to the cost of the public portion of the
project and no interest would accrue to the developer.
The use of this method of project financing does not
eliminate the developer's obligation to pay City fees.
The developer must still pay all City fees associated
with a development.
C, Credit for Citi Fees, When it is in the public
interest to construct certain public facilities earlier
than would be possible under a pay-as-you-go program,
the City can consider giving a developer credit for
fees that would otherwise be paid, up to the cost of the
public improvement. These credits would reduce the
amount of fees payable in future years from a certain
development.
Fee credits must be used carefully to avoid elimination
of income from capital fees necessary to finance other
projects. Two alternatives exist for fee credits:
Full fee credit immediately: Under this
option, the developer who builds a public
improvement would be eligible to deduct 100%
of the cost of the improvement from fees
payable. Once the fee credit is exhausted,
the developer begins paying fees as normally
assessed by the City. Under this option the
developer gets immediate credit for the total
cost of a project.
Partial fee credit -credit over time: In
this option, the developer who builds a
public improvement receives a credit for the
cost of a public improvement. However, the use
of that credit is spread over a series of
years. This allows the City to continue to
receive at least a portion of fees
-68-
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 237 of 279
In the course of developing the Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan, the fol lowing financing policies were
identified:
1. Recognize that those projects identified in the Public
Facilities Pee Calculation are the ultimate
responsibility of the City to fund, however, the
priority for funding projects is at the discretion of
the City Council,
2. Recognize that the Capital Improvements Program will
play a significant role in helping to establish
compliance with the adopted preformance standards.
Priority for the funding of projects should go to infill
areas or areas of the city where existing deficiencies
exist.
3. ~gree to consider assisting developers with credits
against future fees, reimbursement agreements, forming
assessment districts, etc. only when it is clearly in
the public interest to do so or to rectify public
facility deficiencies and not to induce growth by
prematurely upgrading public facilities,
~-Recognize that all credit or reimbursement arrangements
will be made based on the City's plans for timing of
certain public facilities. Por example, if a developer
wanted to put in an improvement that the City had not
planned for 5 years and was not necessary to rectify an
existing deficiency, the City would not consider
beginning to ~rovide credits or reimbursement until the
5th year, if at all,
5. Recognize that public facility improvements made up-
front or ahead of City plans by developers must provide
the funds necessary to cover annual operating costs for
the facility until the time the Citi had previously
planned to provide the facility,
6. With the recent reduction in residential densities and
overall restriction on residential development,
recognize that it may be necessary to start charging
fees to commercial and industrial land uses in cases
where they are not presently assessed. For example,
commercial and industrial developments do not pay school
or park fees although they will increasingly impact
these f~cilities. With the reduction in residential
land uses and density, it may be necessary to charge
commercial and industrial to make up the deficit.
7, At a future date, consider directing staff to conduct a
financial analysis of the Public Facilities Fee to determine
its adequacy in terms of cash flow and method of calculation
in light of the overall Growth Management Program.
-71-
,,.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 240 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
EXHIBIT 11
Pagel of 15
Policy No. __ 3=3::;__ __
Date Issued 12/17 /02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
BACKGROUND
The City Council often receives requests from property owners to use special districts to fund public
improvements. These "Special Districts" include Assessment Districts formed pursuant to the Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways Code Section 10000 and following) (the "1913 Act"),
with Improvement Bonds issued pursuant to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways
Code Section 8500 and following) (the "1915 Act"), Community Facilities Districts formed pursuant to
the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code Section 53311 and following) (the
"Mello-Roos Act"), and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts (Government Code Section 66484 and
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.08.140). The City Council has found it necessary to determine
circumstances under which the City Council will approve Special District formation and financing as a
guide to those who would seek to request it.
The ability of a property owner or developer to obtain financing of public improvements from the
proceeds of tax-exempt bonds 'provides substantial economic benefits to such owner or developer. These
benefits include the financing of such improvements at interest rates substantially lower than
conventional financing interest rates, if such conventional financing is available, and/or the ability to
obtain financing without providing equity compensation to the lender. For this consideration, the City
Council has determined that tax-exempt financing should only be used if the public interest• would be
served thereby in addition to the benefit conferred on the properties within the proposed Special District. ·
The Mello-Roos Act requires that a public agency initiating proceedings to form a Community Facilities
District after January 1, 1994 must first consider and adopt local goals and policies concerning the use of
the Mello-Roos Act. This policy shall act as such a statement oflocal goals and policies pursuant to this
statutory requirement and as a consolidation and replacement of the existing Policy 33 and Policy 38 and
shall also provide guidance in the approval of Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts. Thus, the existing
Policies No. 33 and 38 have been repealed.
PURPOSE
The 1:1rimary purpose for the City Council's approval of Special District financing is to complete the links
in the City's traffic circulation system. The City Council in that regard will not favor a proposed Special
District that contemplates the construction of a portion of an arterial street unless it is extended in a
logical way to connect with and improve the City's existing traffic circulation system. The City may
require that proponents of a Special District expand the area to be included within a proposed Special
District as may be necessary to complete linkages in the City's traffic circulation system. Other
improvements may be considered by the City Council on a case-by-case basis. This policy does not
address the funding of public services.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 244 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public hnprovements
Page 2 of 15
Policy No. __ 3~3~--
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
The underlying principals behind this policy are:
• To protect the public interest;
• To ensure fairness in the application of the assessments, special . taxes, or fees to current and
future property owne~s;
• To ensure full disclosure to current and future property owners of the Special District;
• To ensure the creditworthiness of any Special District debt;
• To protect the City's credit rating and financial position;
• To ensure that the applicants for Special District proceedings, other than City-initiated
proceedings, pay all costs associated with the formation of any Special District;
• To establish one policy regarding the requirements that must be met before the City Council will
consider approving the financing of public improvements using Special Districts;
• To provide City staff, the residents of the City, and owners and developers of property located
within the City with guidance in the application for and consideration of the establishment of
Special Districts; and
• To incorporate the requirements of new legislation pertaining to the use of Special Districts.
It is not the intent of this policy to relieve any developer of responsibilities for the construction of public
improvements or satisfaction of other conditions of development related to the subdividing of property,
the processing of tentative or final maps, or master plan developments. This policy does not supersede
any law, but the intent is to further restrict or clarify its use.
POLICY
Statement:
l. FINDING OF PUBLIC INTEREST
The City may allow the financing of public improvements under the provisions of this policy if, in
the City's opinion, the public interest would be served thereby in addition to the benefit conferred
on the properties within the proposed Special District.
Each applicant for the establishment of a Special District must comply with the applicable
requirements contained herein unless the City Council expressly grants an exception to such policy
or policies as they apply to a specific application.
7 May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 245 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 3 of 15
Policy No. --=33"'----
Date Issued 12/17 /02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None_
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
Facilities Allowed:
2. AUTHORIZED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Improvements proposed to be financed through a Special District must be public improvements that
will be owned, operated, or maintained by the City or other public agency or public utility. The City
Council shall have the final determination as to the eligibility of any improvements for financing, as
well as the prioritization of financing of such improvements. Such improvements generally include,
but are not limited to:
A. Streets and".Highways: Arterial streets, highways~ major'bridges, and freeway interchanges
identified on the traffic circulation element of the Carlsbad General Plan. If the primary
purpose of completing a circulation link is niet, and overriding public interest is shown, then
public facilities increasing traffic capacity for a circulation element may be considered. Right-
of-way must be dedicated, offered for dedication, or acquired prior to formation of the Special
District. Right-of-way withirt the boundaries of the Special District is generally not authorized
to be financed through a Special District except under special circumstances as recommended
by the City Engineer.
B. Other Public Improvements: If appurtenant to the types of street ,and highway improvements
described in (A) above, the following additional improvements may be considered:
1) Sewer lines or other sewer facilities: Sewer lines must be located within the rights-of-way
of the arterial streets when the City Engineer determines it is necessary that they be so
located.
2) Water lines and other water facilities: Water lines must be located within the rights-of-way
of the arterial streets when the City Engineer determines it is necessary that they be so
located.
3) Drainage facilities.
4) Landscape and irrigation facilities.
5) Reclaimed water facilities in rights-of-way.
6) Grading for eligible public streets.
7) Environmental mitigation required for the improvements being financed through the
Special District.
8) Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, if located on land or easements owned or dedicated to the
City and accepted as part of the Citywide trail system.
9) Such other improvements as may be authorized by law and which the City Council
determines are consistent with the policies herein.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 246 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page4 of 15
Policy No. __ 3 .... 3.__ __
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02
. Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
Such improvements may be limited by the type of Special'District utilized or at the discretion of
City Council. Any improvements already included in an existing fee program are not eligible to
be financed by a Special District. Generally, other facilities may be considered if initiated by
City Council or the owners of existing developed property. All improvements must be located in
public rights-of-way dedicated or otherwise granted to the City or other public agency.
3. INCIDENT AL COSTS
Eligible Incidental Costs that may be financed from the proceeds of bonds issued for a Special
District or the assessments, special taxes, or fees levied within a Special District shall be limited to
those incidental costs directly related to the improvements financed from the proceeds of such
bonds or revenues. These incidental costs are eligible to the extent that such costs have been
included in the calculation of the assessment, special tax, or fees. "Administrative Procedures for
Reimbursable Public Works Projects," as issued from time to time by the City Engineer, are
provided and detail eligible incidental costs for public works construction projects.
Ineligible Incidental Costs. Costs considered ineligible to be financed from the proceeds of Special
District bonds or the assessments, special taxes, or fees levied within a Special District include, but
are not limited to, the following: ·
A. Development impact fees.
B. Administrative or overhead expenses, financial consultant, or legal fees incurred by an
applicant for the formation of a Special District. This limitation does not apply to amounts
advanced by the applicant to the City pursuant to the provisions of this policy to pay for pre-
formation costs incurred by the City. (See "Pre-Formation Costs, Deposits, and
Reimbursements.")
C. Land-use planning and subdivision costs and environmental review costs related to such land-
use planning and subdivision.
D. Environmental impact studies, unless directly related to the project and done separately for the
project.
E. Endowments for mitigation land.
F. Construction loan interest.
G. Costs incurred prior to the City Council's acceptance of a request to begin work on the
formation of a Special District, a reimbursement, or acquisition agreement, or the adoption of a
resolution of intention to form the Special District, whichever comes first.
H. Subdivision financial analysis.
I. Attorney's fees incurred by the property owners or their agents, except as recommended by the
City Attorney related to condemnation proceedings.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 247 of 279
· CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 5 of 15
Policy No. -~3""'3'----
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Disiricts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
J. On-site right-of-way and easements.
K. Other overhead expenses incurred by the applicant.
4. STAGE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
Any public improvements proposed to be financed through a Special District must meet all design
and construction requirements and standards as may be established by the City and in accordance
with current State laws. A public improvement proposed to be acquired from the proceeds of bonds,
assessments, fees, or special taxes shall not be paid for out of Special District funds until all
components, including appurtenant improvements, of such improvement are completed, bonds are
sold if applicable, and such improvement has been opened to the public or could be opened to the
public but for the fact that such opening has been withheld or delayed solely by the City.
An "improvement" shall be generally defined as a particular street with independent usage,
including all appurtenant improvements such as sewer, drainage, and utility improvements
appurtenant to the street. The City Engineer shall have the authority and discretion to establish one
or more separate improvements consistent with the definition thereof for any Special District. Each
improvement established by the City Engineer for any Special District and all components,
including any appurtenant improvements, included within each such improvement must be
described in the acquisition and financing agreement for such Special District. Any deviation of the
description of an improvement shall be approved _by the City Engineer.
The City Engineer may authorize the partial release of funds of up to ninety percent (90%) of the
cost of any such. improvement to pay for the acquisition of such improvement when such
improvement, including all components thereof, can, in the opinion of the City Engineer, be opened
by the City for use by the public. Ten percent (10%) qf the cost of any improvement shall not be
paid for until final acceptance of such improvement by the City and the City Engineer or his or her
designee has certified the final cost of such improvement.
Prior to formation, any required environmental review and an environmental certification for
development within the proposed Special District and the improvements proposed to be financed by
the Special District must be completed, land use entitlement approvals for such development must
be obtained, and right-of-way for all improvements proposed to be financed by the Special District
must be dedicated or an irrevocable offer to dedicate must be received by the City.
Prior to the sale of bonds, if applicable, design of substantially all improvements to be financed
from the proceeds of such bonds must be completed (100%) and bids for construction received.
The City may enter into acquisition agreements prior to the formation of the Special District. Any
acquisition under such agreement shall be conditional upon formation of the Special District and, if
/2) May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 248 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 6 of 15
Policy No. _....:a.,:33:c.._ __
Date Issued 12/17 /02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment ·Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
applicable, issuance of bonds for such Special District. Except as provided below, the purchase
price of any improvement shall not exceed the estimated costs for such improvement per the
acquisition agreement, the engineer's report, or Community Facilities District report, as applicable,
for the Special District when such Special District was formed. Any costs above this amount will
be eligible for inclusion in the purchase price for an improvement only if there are eligible funds
remaining upon completion of all of the improvements to be financed by a Special District. For
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts, or Community Facilities Districts that do not or cannot issue
debt, construction to be completed by the developers will be reimbursed through fees or special
taxes, if and when collected.
Property Own.er Requirements:
5. CONCURRENCE OF PROPERTY OWNERS
Where a Special District is initiated by the property owners, the application for the consideration of
the establishment of a Special District shall have the concurrence of the affected area's property
owners representing not less than 65%, by area, of the land proposed to be assessed, taxed, or
subject to the payment of fees. The application for consideration shall include an acceptance of this
policy and, when applicable, a waiver of the property owners' rights under the Majority Protest Act.
The City Council is in no way required to proceed with the formation of a Special District if the
City Council finds that the creation of the Special District, the financing of the improvements by a
Special District, or the construction of the improvements will not be in the best interest of the City.
6. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY AND STABILITY OF THE PROPONENTS
Any application for the establishment of a Special District shall contain such information and be
submitted in such form as the Finance Director may require. In addition to such information as the
Finance Director may require, each application must contain:
A. Proof of authorization to submit the application on behalf of the owner of the property for
which the application is submitted if the applicant is not the owner of such property.
B. Evidence satisfactory to the Finance Director that the applicant represents or has the consent of
the owners of not less than 65%, by area, of the property proposed to be subject to the levy of
the fees, assessments, or special taxes.
C. A business plan for the development of the property within the proposed Special District and
such additional financial information as the Finance Director may deem necessary to
adequately review the financial feasibility of the Special District. The applicant must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Finance Director the ability of the owner(s) of the
property proposed to be developed to pay the fees, assessments or special taxes for the Special
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 249 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 7 of 15
Policy No. __ 3~3~--
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
District and any other assessment, special taxes and ad valorem taxes on such property until
full build-out of the property.
7. PRE-FORMATION COSTS, DEPOSITS, AND REIMBURSEMENTS
Except for those applications for Special Districts where the City is the applicant, all City and
consultant costs incurred in the evaluation of applications and the proceedings to form a Special
District and issue bonds, if applicable, will be paid by the applicant by advance deposit with the
City of monies sufficient to pay all such costs.
Each application for the formation of a Special District shall be accompanied by an initial deposit in
an amount to be determined by the Finance Director to be adequate to fund the evaluation of the
application and begin the proceedings to form the Special District and issue bonds, if applicable. If
additional funds are required to pay pre-formation costs, the Finance Director may make written
demand upon the applicant for such additional funds and the applicant shall deposit such additional
funds with the City within five (5) working days of the date of receipt of such demand. Upon the
depletion of the funds deposited by applicant for pre-formation costs, all proceedings shall be
suspended until receipt by the City of such additional funds as the Finance Director may demand.
The deposits shall be used by the City to pay for costs and expenses incurred by the City incident to
the evaluation of the application and proceedings for the formation of the Special District and the
issuance of bonds (if applicable) including, but not limited to, legal, special tax or assessment
consulting, engineering, appraisal, market absorption, financial advisor, administrative and staff
costs and expenses, required notifications, printing, and publication costs.
The City shall refund any unexpended portion of the deposits upon the occurrence of one of the
following events:
A. The formation of the Special District and the issuance of the bonds, if applicable;
B. The formation of the Special · District or the issuance of the bonds is not approved by the City
Council; or
C. The proceedings for the formation of the Special District and the issuance of bonds are
abandoned at the written request of the applicant.
Except as otherwise provided herein, the applicant shall be entitled, at the option of the City, to
reimbursement of or credit against special taxes or assessment installments for all amounts
deposited, if such amounts are recovered in the Special District. Any such reimbursement shall be
payable solely from the proceeds of the bonds, special taxes, or fees as applicable.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 250 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 8 of 15
Policy No. __ 3 ___ 3 ____ _
Date Issued 12/17 /02
Effective Date 12/17 /02
Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
8. STAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Development projects shall be at the stage of land use entitlements and design where all criteria of
the policy can be adequately assessed. All property to be included in a Special District shall have
already received environmental review and approval of all land use entitlements such as zoning,
master plans, specific plans, or Local Facilities Management Plans and regulatory permits. The City
Council may approve a Special District that includes some land without such approvals if the
improvements to be financed are consistent with the General Plan and if the City Council finds the
improvements are required in the public interest.
9. DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Approval of a Special District and construction of the public improvements does not, in and of
itself, vest any rights to the then existing land use approvals for the property to be assessed or taxed
for such improvements or to any particular level, type, or intensity of development or use.
Applicants for a Special District must include an express acknowledgement of this policy and shall
expressly waive on their behalf and on behalf of their successors and assigns any cause of action at
law or in equity including, but not limited to, talcing or damaging of property, for reassessment of
property or denial of any right protected by USC Section 1983 which might be applicable to the
properties to be assessed.
Formation Process:
10. CREATION OF THE SPECIAL DISTRICT, REVIEW COMMITTEE
It is the intention of the City Council that proponents of a Special District have an early opportunity
to have the proposal reviewed by City staff for compliance with this policy. In that regard, the City
Council hereby directs the creation of the Special District Review Committee. The Committee shall
consist of the City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Planning Director,
City Engineer, Administrative Services Director (Chairperson), Finance Director, and Public Works
Director. The Committee shall meet to review a proposal for a Special District for the purpose of
determining whether or not the requirements of this policy have been satisfied.
Committee review shall take place prior to the presentation of a Special District proposal to City
Council. Whenever any such proposal is presented to the City Council, it shall be accompanied by a
report containing the findings and recommendations of the Committee made in regard to such
proposal. The Committee may require the proponents to furnish any additional information
necessary to the evaluation of the proposed Special District. The Committee may require all or any
part of the deposits provided for in this policy to be made prior to commencing their review of the
proposed Special District.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 251 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
' General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 9 of 15
Policy No. -~33"----
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
11. SELECTION OF CONSULT ANTS
The City shall select all consultants, such as, but not limited to, the assessment engineer or special
tax consultant, bond counsel, financial consultant, and ifrequired, underwriter and appraiser.
12. FEASIBILITY STUDY
If the City Council determines it necessary, a financial feasibility study may be required by a
consultant selected by the City to be accomplished at the expense of the proponents of the Special
District to ascertain whether or not the proposed Special District is financially feasible and whether
or not the proposed bonds will find market acceptance.
Assessment /Special Tax Considerations:
13. APPORTIONMENT METHODOLOGY/ REQUIREMENTS
The City or the special tax consultant or assessment engineer, as applicable, selected by the City
shall determine the special tax formula or method of assessment spread. The prime emphasis in the
establishment of the special tax formula will be fairness to the future property owner who will be
paying the taxes over the years. The methodology for spreading assessments shall be based upon
the benefit to the properties assessed. The methodology utilized shall adhere to the following
requirements:
A. The annual assessment or special tax shall be sufficient to include an amount necessary to pay
for the expenses incurred by such Special District in the levy and collection of the assessment,
special tax, or fee and the administration of the bonds and the Special District.
B. For special taxes:
l) The maximum projected annual special tax revenues must equal 110% of the projected
annual gross debt service of any bonds of the Community Facilities District.
2) The special tax formula shall include provisions to protect against changes in density
resulting in the generation of insufficient special tax revenue to pay annual debt service and
administrative expenses. As a condition of approval of the downsizing of the development
by the applicant or the applicant's successor-in-interest, the City Council may require the
prepayment of a portion of the special tax obligation as may be necessary in the
determination of the City to ensure that adequate debt service coverage exists with respect to
any outstanding bonds .. Alternatively, the City Council may require security in a form and
amotlilt deemed necessary by the City to provide for the payment of debt service on the
bonds.
3) A partial and/or total prepayment option shall be included in any rate and method of
apportionment of special taxes to pay for public improvements.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 252 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 10 of 15
Policy No. __ 3""'3 ____ _
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None_
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
4) The applicable special tax to pay for public improvements levied against any parcel used for
private residential purposes must be discharged prior to the sale of the individual lot.
5) The rate and method of apportionment of a special tax to pay for public improvements shall
specify a fiscal year or number of years beyond which the special tax may not be levied on
any parcel.
C. All developed and undeveloped property within any Special District that is not otherwise
statutorily exempt from the levy of the assessment, fee, or special taxes shall bear its appropriate
share of the Special District's aggregate obligation from the date of formation of the Special
District consistent with the other goals and policies set forth herein.
D. The City Council will not approve a Spe'Cial District unless all assessments, fees, or special
taxes apportioned to publicly owned parcels within the District have been paid or discharged to
the City's satisfaction.
14. DISCHARGE OF ASSESSMENT OR SPECIAL TAX OBLIGATION
It is the City's desire that any assessment or special tax obligation be discharged prior to the sale of
individual lots. Under this policy, property owners ofresidential land within a Community Facilities
District must discharge the special tax obligation applicable to the property prior to the sale of
individual lots. For commercial/industrial property within a CPD and any property within an
assessment district, the City Council may approve a pass-through of the obligation to a prospective
purchaser at the City's sole discretion.
15. MAXIMUM AGGREGATE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS
If the City Council approves a pass-through of the assessment or special tax obligation, it is the
policy of the City that the total of the following taxes, assessments, and special taxes appearing on
the property tax bill shall not exceed 1. 8% of such initial sales price of any residential dwelling unit
to such residential homeowner:
A. Ad valorem property taxes.
B. Voter-approved ad valorem property taxes in excess of 1 % of the assessed value of the subject
property.
C. The maximum annual special taxes levied by all Community Facilities Districts under
consideration and any other Community Facilities Districts or other public agency charges on
the tax roll.
D. The annual assessment installments, including administrative surcharge, for any existing or
proposed assessment district, whether such assessment installments are utilized to pay debt
service on bonds issued for such assessment district or to pay for maintenance or services.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 253 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 11 of 15
Policy No. _ __.,._,33~--
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None_
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City" Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
While there is no specific limit on the rate of assessment or taxation of commercial or industrial
property, the City Council reseIVes the right to limit the rate of such taxation or assessment to
ensure the economic feasibility of such property.
The applicant for the establishment of any Special District shall be required to enter into an
agreement with the City or the Special District requiring the prepayment by the applicant of that
portion of the obligation applicable to any parcel used for residential purposes in order to reduce the
annual maximum obligation to the standards described above.
16. DISCLOSURE TO PROPERTY PURCHASERS
Property owners for all Special Districts will be required to provide for full and complete disclosure
of such Special District applicable to the property to prospective purchasers. The disclosure must
include all of the following in addition to such other provisions as may be required by State law, the
Municipal Code of the City, or as the applicant may deem necessary: ·
A. Provide full disclosure of the proposed Special District and all other assessment and special tax
financing applicable to the property (whether imposed by the City or any other public agency),
including the maximum annual payment, monthly payments, principal, average interest rate,
duration of payments, list of facilities to be funded, and the tax formula or method of spread in
easily understood terms.
B. List the amount of the assessment or special tax payments in all sales brochures, all advertising
and all purchase documents adjacent to the sales price of the property and in the same size type.
C. Where an assessment or special tax is authorized to-be passed through, give prospective
purchasers an option to have the obligation lien discharged prior to the close of escrow or to
assume the obligation by a pass-through as a part of the sales price of the property.
D. Specify in all disclosure documents the name, title, telephone number, and address of a
representative of the City as provided to the applicant who may be contacted by any prospective
purchaser of property within a Special District for further information regarding the Special
District and the lien.
The disclosure program will be subject to City Council approval. The City Council's goal is to
provide complete and concise disclosure to any subsequent property purchaser.
Requirements ofDebt Issuance:
17. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF BONDS
The following Section is only applicable to assessment districts and Community Facilities Districts.
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts are unable to issue debt. Bonds shall be issued in accordance
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 254 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 12 of 15
Policy No. __ 3~3~. -~-
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: . Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridg~ and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
with the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 for assessment districts and Chapter 2.5, Part 1,
Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code, commencing with Section 53311 for Community
Facilities Districts unless the City Council determines otherwise.
Bonds issued under this policy may be sold through competitive or negotiated sale as determined by
City Council. The City Council will consider recommendations from staff and/or the City's
financial consultant in selecting a method of sale.
The terms and conditions of any bonds issued by the City for any Special District including without
limitation the sizing, timing, term, interest rates, discount, redemption features, flow of funds,
investment provisions, and foreclosure covenants shall be established by the City. Each bond issue
shall be structured to adequately protect bond owners and to avoid negatively impacting the bonding
capacity or creditworthiness of the City. Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, the
following shall serve as minimum bond requirements:
A. A reserve fund or other security recommended by City staff, the City's financial advisor,
and/or underwriter shall be established for each bond issue in an amount recommended by the
City's financial advisor and/or underwriter.
B. Interest shall be capitalized for a bond issue only so long as necessary to place the charges on
the assessment roll. Interest may be capitalized for a longer term (not to exceed an aggregate of
18 months) on an exception basis at the sole discretion of the Finance Director, ta1cing into
consideration the value-to-lien ratio, the expected timing of initial residential occupancies,
expected absorption and build-out of the project, the expected construction and completion
schedule for the public improvements to be funded from the proceeds of the bond issue in
question, the size of the bond issue, the development pro forma and the equity position of the
applicant, and such other factors as the Finance Director may deem relevant.
C. In instances where multiple series of bonds are to be issued, the City shall determine what
improvements shall be financed from the proceeds of each series of bonds.
D. Neither the faith, credit, nor taxing power of the City shall be pledged to the payment of the
bonds. The sole source of revenue for the payment of the bonds shall be the assessments or
special taxes, capitalized interest, if any, and monies on deposit in the reserve fund established
for such bonds.
18. REQUIRED VALUE-TO-LIEN RA TIO I APPRAISAL
Project property value-to-lien ratio, i.e., the full cash value of the properties subject to the levy of
the assessments or special taxes, including the value of the improvements to be financed, compared
to the aggregate amount of the lien to be created, plus any prior or anticipated fixed assessment liens
and/or special tax liens, must be 4.:1. A project may be approved with a ratio between 4:1 and a
'., l . May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 255 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 13 of 15
Policy No. -----=33~--
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17 /02
Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
minimum of 3: 1 if the ratio is recommended by the underwriter and/or financial advisor to the City
and if the City Council finds the reduced ratio to be within acceptable parameters. The required
value-to-lien ratio shall be determined with respect to all taxable property within the Special District
in the aggregate and with respect to each discrete development area as defined by the Finance
Director.
In addition, the City Council may, it its sole discretion, accept a form or forms of credit
enhancement such as a letter of credit, bond insurance, or the escrow of bond proceeds to offset a
deficiency in the required value-to-lien ratio as it applies to the taxable property within the Special
District in the aggregate or with respect to any development area.
The appraisal shall be undertaken by, done under the direction of, and addressed to the City. The
value of the property proposed to be assessed shall be performed by a certified real estate appraiser
(MAI) selected and retained by the City or the City's financial advisor.
19. MARKET ABSORPTION STUDY
The City may require a market absorption study for any Special District proposed to include new
development. In any case, the City shall retain, at the applicant's sole expense but subject to
reimbursement as provided for herein, a consultant to prepare a report to verify or establish the
pr:ojected market absorption for and the projected sales prices of the properties proposed to be
included within the Special District. If a market absorption study is conducted, the appraiser shall
utilize the conclusions of the market absorption study in conducting the appraisal of the properties
within the proposed Special District or shall justify, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, why
such conclusions were not utilized in conducting such appraisal.
20. PRIORITIZATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
The City reserves the right to establish priorities for payment or reimbursement.
21. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COST OF FORECLOSURE
The City Council may require the proponents of the Special District to enter into an agreement with
the City to be responsible for the cost of any judicial foreclosures that the City determines are
necessary in regard to the Special District bonds. The City may, at its option, retain an attorney to
prosecute the foreclosures in a timely manner in the name of the City, and the proponent shall agree
to be responsible for all costs of such foreclosures. If the City Council approves a pass-through of
the obligation to the purchaser of an individual lot, the proponents shall be relieved of their
obligation under such agreement for such lot.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 256 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 14 of 15
Policy No. --=33"----
Date Issued 12/ 17 /02
Effective Date 12/17 /02
Cancellation Date None ---
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy -for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
22. SURPLUS FUNDS
It is the City Council's policy that, in the event that there are surplus funds generated through the
creation of the Special District and the sale of bonds, if applicable, these surplus funds shall be used
as follows:
A. To complete any work related to the project that the City Council determines is equitable and
reasonable as allowed by statutes.
B. The City Council may direct staff to use a portion of this surplus to offset the annual levy of
assessments or special taxes to property owners in following years in a manner consistent with
the applicable statutes. Under this policy, an amount of up to 5% of the total bond issue size
not to exceed $1 million may be used to offset the annual levy without further Council action.
C. Unless otherwise directed by the City Council, any amount in excess of that used to offset the
annual levy described in (B) above will be used to call bonds at an appropriate bond call date.
PROCEDURE:
1. CONT ACT FOR PROPONENT(S)
Whether there is one or multiple proponents of a proposed Special District, an authorized
spokesperson shall be designated to act for the proponent(s) in their dealing with the City. The
spokesperson shall be responsible for collecting any fees for deposit with the City, providing any
necessary information to the City, and for communicating, as necessary, back to the other
proponent( s ).
2. REQUEST TO BEGIN WORK
Any request for the City to begin work on the feasibility or formation of a Special District shall
. contain such information and be submitted in such form as the City Finance Director may require.
In addition to the information required by Section 6 above, each application must contain data on
the proposed Special District to include, but not be limited to: a description of the improvements
and estimated cost of such improvements proposed to be funded by the Special District, written
justification of how these facilities comply with this policy, a construction and phasing schedule of
the improvements and the development project, and map(s) that identify the proposed boundary of
the Special District.
3. INITIAL PRESENTATION TO THE SPECIAL DISTRICT REVIEW COMMITTEE
In the initial meeting of the Special District Review Committee, the City Engineer will provide an
overview of the proposed project and the requested public facilities to be financed. This overview
will state whether or not the proposed public facilities generally adhere to this policy and describe
the timing requirement of the public facilities in conjunction with the estimated build-out of the
development project. The Finance Director shall present a brief summary of the financial stability
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 257 of 279
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 15 of 15
Policy No. --'3=3"----
Date Issued 12/17 /02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
of the proponents as provided by the proponents, confirmation of the consent of 65% of the property
owners by area, and an estimate of the pre-formation costs. Recommendation of the Special District
Review Committee shall be communicated to the proponents of the Special District.
4. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
Upon review of the proposed Special District and after considering the report of the Committee, the
City Council shall determine whether or not to authorize staff to proceed. It is the policy of the City
Council to limit projects to the criteria set forth in this policy. The City Council reserves to itself
the authority to approve or disapprove any proposed Special District. Any exceptions to the criteria
of this policy will be approved only upon an express finding by the City Council that the proposed
Special Dis1rict is so effected with a public interest that the City should assist in providing tax-free
financing for the improvement in order to satisfy a public need. If the City Council authorizes the
assessment of feasibility and proceeding with the formation of the Special District, City staff and
the proponents shall proceed to do that in accordance with State law and the requirements of this
policy.
5. ASSESSMENT OF FEASIBILITY AND FORMATION
The City Engineer and/or Finance Director shall obtain contracts with consultant(s) as required to
review the feasibility of the project and collect a pre-formation deposit as determined by the Finance
Director. The feasibility of the project as prepared by staff or consultant shall be presented to the
Special District Review Committee. Should the Special District Review Committee recommend
against the proposed Special District, such recommendation along with the feasibility study will be
communicated to the proponents of the Special District. Should the Special District Review
Committee recommend that formation of the Special District should be recommended to City
Council, a preliminary schedule shall be determined along with requirements of the proponents to
submit any additional information or deposit of funds. The recommendations of the Special District
Review Committee, preliminary schedule, and requirements of the proponents, as discussed, shall
be transmitted to the proponents.
If needed, additional meetings of the Special District Review Committee shall be held to determine
if formation of the Special District should be recommended to City Council.
6. REQUEST FOR FORMATION
The report of feasibility and recommendation of formation of the proposed Special District by the
Special District Review Committee shall be taken to City Council for consideration. If the City
Council approves proc~eding with the formation of the Special District, City staff and the
proponents shall proceed to do that in accordance with State law and the requirements of this policy.
-END OF POLICY -
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 258 of 279
EXHIBIT12
California Debt Issuance Primer -Summary of Financial Instruments
INSTRUMENT ISSUER SECURITY LEGAL AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS PROCEEDINGS --~ ~-------
DIRECT BONDS
Assessment Bonds Multiple Entities Assessments on Improvement Bond State Constitution -Projects must
(see reference table Property / Fees Act of 1911 and 1915 Proposition 218 and · distinguish between
Dal ~2 for listing) (see reference Table Special Assessment, and identify parcels
D-1-1 for list of lnves.tigation, · being assessed and
statutes) State Limitation and specific benefits
Constitution -Majority Protest Act received.
Proposition 218. of 1931 for detailed
requirements.
Typical Projects: Works of a "local nature". Improvements authorized by the Bond Acts of 1911 and 1915.
Project Examples: Streets, roads, pa rks,sewe r,li g hti ng, wate r,drai ns, transportation, water, gas, electric power.
Local Agency Multiple Entities Ad Valorem Tax Improvement Bond Article XVI, Section 2/3 majority
General Obligation (see reference Table Act of 1911 and 1915 18 and Article XIIIA approval of voters in
Bonds D-2-1 forlisting (See Tables D+2 Sectiori l(b) of the specified area (with
of special districts and D-2-1 for California Constitut-· some exceptions).
authorized to issue listings). Article XVI; ion. Cities (GC
general obligation. Section 18 and 43600), Counties
bonds) · Article XIIIA Section (GC 29900), School
I (b) of the California Districts (Ed Code
Constitution. Cities, 15100) and Special
Counties, School districts (see D-2-1
districts and Special for listings) each .
districts each have have specific
specific requirements.
requirements.
Typical Projects: ProJects are classified by City, County, School Districtand Special District.
Project Examples: Schools, parks, highways bridges, airports. (See tables in Local Agency General Obligation Bonds section for a
h . d f d d (b ) compre ens1ve escnption a projects finance categorize _ y county, cit and school district .
Mello-Roos Bonds Community Facilities ParcelTaxes Mello-Roos Facilities See "Mello-Roos" 2/3 majority voter
District(CFD) Act of 1982. bond section forthe approval of
establishment of a landowners in
HD and approval district. Must be sold
process. using competitive
bid unless
negotiated bidrnst
is proven lower.
Typical Projects :
the CFO.
Project Examples: local parks, recreation, open-space, schools, libraries, child care centers, water/power/gas facilities. Services such as
police, fire, recreation, and Jark maintenance.
Pension Obligation local Agencies General Fund Structured as Resolution of Must be bond
Bonds refunding bonds issuance, validation issu_ance refunding.
issued pursuanqo procedures. Cannot exceed
the local Agency Unfunded Accrued
Refunding Law Actuarial Pension
(GC Section 53580) Liability(UAAL).
Article XVI, Section
18. Qualify'for
exception of
"obligations
imposed by law"_ No
2/3 majority needed.
Typical Projects: Refunding of UAAL.
Project Examples: Restricted to UAAL.
17 b'@
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 259 of 279
California Debt Issuance Primer -Summary of Financial Instruments
INSTRUMENT ISSUER SECURITY LEGALAUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS PROCEEDINGS ----------------~-------------------
CONDUIT BONDS
Conduit Revenue CEDFA, CPCFA; Joint Revenue derived Various -See Table Various -See Table COLAC Volume Cap,
Bonds -Economic Powers Authorities, from project D-8-1 forspecific D-8-1 for specific CIDFAC Approval,
Development Industrial Develop-issuers. issuers. CPCFA Approval.
· ment Agencies .
Typical Projects: Small manufacturing facilities, pollution control facilities, specific narrowly defined projects.
Project Examples: Manufacturing, assembly fabrication, renovation or processing plants for goods or agriculture. Hazardous waste disposal
and processing facilities, waste collection/treatment facilities.
Conduit · CEFA, Joint Powers Payments from California California No facilities for
Revenue Bonds Authorities, Charter Educational Facility Educational Facilities Educational Facilities religious worship.
-Educational Citiess Act -Education Code Act -Education Code
Facility Section 94100. Section 94100.
Typical Projects: Educational facilities.
Project Examples: Dormitories, administration buildings, dining halls, student unions, school libraries, research facilities, student loan
pro rams.
Conduit Revenue CHFFA, County Payments from California Health California Health TEFRA hearing
Bonds -Hospital Health Care Districts, Health Care Facility Care Facilities Care Facilities required.
and Health Care Charter Cities, Joint financing Authority financing Authority
Powers Authorities Act -GC Section Act -GC Section
15430. 15430
Typical Projects: Construction, renovation, expansion of health care facilities.
Project Examples: Acute care hospitals, psychiatric care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, community clinics, outpatient hospitals.
Conduit Cities, Counties, Revenue derived See Code Sections See Code Sections CO LAC Volume Cap.
Revenue Bonds Joint Powers from project or described inTable described in Table Various rent and
-Multifamily Authorities, Housing lending program D-9-1. D-9-1. income limitations.
Housing Authorities,
Redevelopment
Agencies (Described
in Table D-9-1)
Typical Projects: Financing and/or refinancing construction, renovation, rental housing developments for private developers.
Project Examples: Multi-family projects, including apartment buildings.
Marks-Roos Bonds Joint Powers General fund or Marks-Roos Local Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985-
Authorities revenue derived Bond Pooling Act of GC Section 6584. See "Marks-Roos" bond
from participating 1985-GC Section section for complete discussion,
local agency 6584; See "Marks-
Roos" bond section
for complete
discussion.
Typical Projects: Assisting local agencies with financing needs. Capital improvement bonds, bond pooling and working capital or insurance
programs.
Project Examples: Public buildings, stadiums, electric utilities, water and sewer treatment, airports, police stations, libraries, low-income
housing, mass transit, telecommunications. ·
Single Family Cities, Counties, Revenue from Authorized through Authorized through CO LAC Volume Cap,
Mortgage Revenue Joint Powers project CA Health and Safety CA Health and Safety various rent and
Bonds Authorities, Housing Code. See table Code. for codes income limitations.
Authorities D-7-1 for specific related to issuance
issuers. procedure, see table
D-7-1.
Typical Projects: Below market loan programs for low to moderate income families, acquisition, rehabilitation and improvement of single
· · family homes.
Project Examples: Purchase mortgage loans originated by one or more lenders participating in the program.
19 l,'9'
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 261 of 279
California Debt Issuance Primer -Summary of Financial Instruments
INSTRUMENT ISSUER SECURITY LEGAL AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS PROCEEDINGS ---------~ -----------------------
LEASES
Certificates of Joint Powers Rent Instruments See Table D-5-1 for May be used for land
Participation / Authority, Non-structured as lease, codes addressing and depreciable
Financial Leases Profit Corporation, not classified as . approval procedures property.
Leasing Company, debt for purposes for specific issuers.
Bank or Other Lessor of debt limit and
voter approval. See
Table D-S-1 for
codes addressing
authorization for
specific issuers.
Typical Projects: Public buildings. Only land and depreciable property that a public agency has statutory authorization to lease.
Project Examples: Educational facilities; irrigation, water, sewer, police and fire facilities; transpo1tation equipment.
SHORTTERM DEBT /OTHER
Commercial Paper State, Local Agencies General Fund Issuer must have Governing body Denominations of
statutory authority adopts resolution $25 Millian
to issue notes in an authorizing the
unlimited principal issuance.
amount and sell in
negotiated sale.
Typical Projects: Provide short term working capital.
Project Examples: Operating expenses or capital project start-up costs.
Tax and Revenue Public Agencies General Fund General and General and 15 month maturity,
Anticipation Notes individual entity· individual entity 85% of estimated
(TRANS) authorizations authorizations uncollected taxes,
detailed in GC detailed in GC income, revenue
Sections 53820 thru Sections 53820 thru or other sources
53859.08. 53859.08; needed ta repay
notes.
Typical Projects: Fund cash flow deficits in a fiscal year.
Project Examples· Provide funds to cover operating expenses (salaries miscellaneous expenses) for a school districts
Teeter Plan Counties Delinquent property California Revenue Teeter Plan Bond Law of 1994. GC Sections
taxes, fines, and and Tax Code 54773 -S4783.
penalties Sections 4701-4717.
Types of Projects: County financing of local agency's delinquent property taxes fines and penalties.
Project Examples: County acts as "bank" to local agencies and loans on delinquent property taxes and penalties.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 262 of 279
Exhibit 13
□ Associate Engineer Pham explained that is considered a cut through to avoid the intersection
at Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard.
□ Julie Thompson, a Carlsbad resident, explained that she is not against the speed cushions but
she thinks that there are other safety issues to be addressed on her neighborhood. The
intersection of Segovia Way and Quebrada Circle has a crosswalk for the La Costa Hills
Elementary school kids and it becomes a safety hazard during school drop off/pick up hours.
She suggested the installation of speed signs/ speed flashing signs, also recommended getting
crossing guards at the intersection during drop off/pick up school hours.
□ Sue Lightner, a Carlsbad resident, spoke in favor of the speed cushions on Segovia Way.
Motion by Commissiori Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Penseyres, to approve staff
recommendation ofTraffic Calming Plans for Segovia Way and Harwich Drive.
Motion approved: 6/0/1 (Absent: Linke)
3. FOUR DEFICIENT STREET FACILITIES AFFECTING LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15-
(Staff Contact: Paz Gomez, and Hossein Ajideh, Public Works) -
Staff's Recommendation: Approve staff recommendations
Deputy City Manager Gomez made a presentation on the Four Deficient Street Facilities
Affecting Local Facilities Management Zone 15 which are:
1. Southbound ECR from Cannon Rd to College Blvd
2. Northbound ECR from College Blvd to Cannon Rd
3. Eastbound Cannon Rd from ECR to College Blvd
4. Westbound Cannon Rd from College Blvd to ECR
Engineering Manager Ajideh explained the criteria used to determine the Four Deficient Street
Facilities and spoke about the College Blvd extension project which is included in the staff
report.
□ Commissioner Fowler inquired about the fact that Northbound ECR from College is not a,three
through lane, therefore is not built out.
0 Deputy City Manager Gomez explained that the studies show that even if there was a three
through lane it would not reach the Level of Service (LOS) required. It will relieve congestion for
a moment in time but will not solve the problem.
° Commissioner Hunter inquired if the extension of College Blvd would relieve the traffic on ECR.
In his opinion, if an exemption is granted no one will be required to do anything about the LOS
required.
□ Deputy City Manager Gomez said that the extension of College Boulevard is a solution but as of
right now the developers are not financially committed to extend College Blvd. She also
explained that "exempt" does not mean that staff will do nothing about the LOS. Exemption will
give the city another tool to ask the developers to come up with Transportation Demand
Management (TOM) and a Transportation System Management (TSM) measures to mitigate
traffic impact.
° Commissioner Hunter said that staff should recommend City Council to approve the extension
of College Boulevard and get the City Council direction on how to fund the project.
0 Assistant City Attorney Kemp explained that when a street is exempted it is simply
acknowledging that it cannot be improved anymore. When someone comes in to the city with a
Page 2 of5
Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2730 t
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 264 of 279
Exhibit 13
project, staff will condition them to mitigate to the extent possible, by employing TDM and TSM
measures. The extension of College Blvd might happen four to five years from now.
° Commissioner Hunter disagreed that nothing can be done right now and exempting the roads
is not a solution. In his opinion adding one through northbound lane on El Camino Real would
raise the LOS by 50% from Sunny Creek to Cannon Road.
° Chair Gocan inquired about the criteria used to support these four streets to be built out and
exempt.
0 Deputy City Manager Gomez explained that two criteria were used to support the four street
facilities to be exempt. For the two facilities on ECR, it is Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(c), three
through travel lanes, and for the two facilities on Cannon Rd, it is 3-P.9(a), right of way
acquisition infeasible.
0 Deputy City Manager Gomez explained to the commissioners that the CIP projected for 2025
would construct a third lane on northbound ECR and the commissioners could make a
recommendation to City Council to expedite this project.
Motion by Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Vice-Chair Johnson to not approve staff recommendation
to City Council determining that the Four Street Facilities are deficient, built out and exempt.
Motion did not pass: 3/3/1 (Absent: Linke).
Motion by Commissioner Penseyres, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve staff
recommendations to City Council determining that the Four Street Facilities are deficient, built out and
exempt, with the comment that the T&MC strongly recommended that City c6uncil approve the
extension of College Boulevard, and the addition ofa third lane on Northbound ECR from College Blvd to
Cannon Road.
Motion did not pass: 3/3/1 (Absent: Linke)
Motion by Commissioner Hunter to postpone the discussion of item 3 to T&MC April 6, 2020 meeting.
Motion was not seconded.
Deputy City Manager Gomez explained that staff intends to present the item to City Council on March
24 and would include in the staff report that the two motions did not pass. City Council could decide to
continue the item or could decide and/or provide direction on March 24. Chair Gocan (or another
Commissioner if decided by the T&MC) would have an opportunity to comment at the meeting and
provide input as part of staffs presentation.
Assistant City Attorney Kemp asked the commissioners why couldn't you make the findings on this item?
What are those things that prevented you from supporting staff recommendation?
° Commissioner Hunter said that clearly there is a deficiency, but there are areas that are not built out
including the northbound ECR. Deputy City Manager Gomez explained that even after completion of the
CIP project, the street facility would not meet LOS standard, which is why it would be built out after
construction and exemption would then be requested.
0 Vice-Chair Johnson agreed with Commissioner Hunter and she does not agree with the term
exemption because it gives the appearance that the.city is not addressing traffic issues proactively.
° Commissioner Perez agreed with Vice~Chair Johnson and Commissioner Hunter.
Page 3 of 5
Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2730 t
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 265 of 279
Exhibit 13
Motion by Vice-Chair Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to nominate Chair Gocan to go to
City Council on Mar. 24, and present the comments made by the T&MC on the northbound ECR
widening project and the College Blvd extension project.
Motion carried: 6/0/1 (Absent: Linke)
4. CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN DRAFT-(Staff Contact: Nathan Schmidt, Public
Works)
Staff Recommendation: Information only
Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager Schmidt explained that the documents on the
Sustainable Mobility Plan is presented to the T&MC a month in advance due to the size of the
document and it gives plenty time for the commissioners to evaluate and submit comments. On
April 6, staff will bring a staff report and a power point presentation on the Sustainable Mobility
Plan.
° Chair Gocan inquired if it is possible for staff to bring Safe Route to Schools discussion before
end of school year.
0 Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager Schmidt answered that Safe Route to Schools is
covered under the Sustainable Mobility Plan and the commissioners will have an opportunity to
make comments and provide inputs.
CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER COMMENTS:
City Traffic Engineer Report -:-Attachment A
TRAFFIC & MOBILITY COMMISSION COMMENTS:
° Commissioner Hunter inquired about the congestion on eastbound Palomar Airport Road all the way to
Melrose Road.
0 Senior Engineer Bilse explained that by summer the Adaptive Signal CIP project will be implemented and
should improve traffic flow.
0 Vice-Chair Johnson inquired about Avenida Encinas speed limit change that was approved over a year
ago.
□ Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager Schmidt explained that it is a question for the Traffic
Engineer and he will pass it along to be addressed by the City Traffic Engineer.
□ Commissioner Penseyres inquired about Project 6034 stripping changes on Melrose turning west to
Palomar Airport Road, and when the project will be presented to T&MC.
0 Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager Schmidt said that he is going to check with the Capital
Improvement Program group and let them know.
0 Vice-Chair Johnson inquired about the bike lane stripping on Palomar Airport road in front Costco
entrance.
Page 4 ofS
Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2730 t
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 266 of 279
that the Commission would not recommend adoption of the Carlsbad SMP until significant
revisions were incorporated into the draft document.
° Commissioner Linke co rrespondence titled Item# 2 -Sustainable Mobility Plan is on file with
the office of the City Clerk.
° Commissioner Penseyres correspondence titled Carlsbad Sustainability Plan is on file with the
office of the City Clerk.
Motion by commissioner Linke, seconded by Commissioner Penseyres to request city staff to address
the commissioner's comments and to revise the SMP. Commissioner Linke revised his motion after more
discussion. ,:~Mt . .--u{#JY ,. ,?fp
Motion by Commissioner Linke, seconded by Commissioner H<lWte;1;,to request staff to address the -~1::~.z ,-'/l'_J,'/,1,>;.,.;,
commissioner's comments and to create an Ad Hoc commi\F~ttofu(i~~ed by Commissioner Perez,
Commissioner Linke, Commissioner Penseyres and staff,f anc?to bringH'lck the results to T&MC at a ,,14;,,1;,;;, '<%;«:· future date. /{if$';:;?7 ,ey:?::';:•, . ,7✓,;;;;::,,;;:, <,,;'·1/1,'• Motion approved: 7 /0 0~3:;;-.v c:?;;?;i',,:;;::, t--Y/1\,•,r;· -~$)~1/0 ""'%~{:, -~~~;?:; f ij/,f~.. , ,;.gr}i:r;, ·1-✓?%~z. ,f«· , <%',.,;.½', ''% '0:•, L:fj(, t5 'C::.:;~;;,
3. VILLAGE AND BARRIO TRA~f!~llRCLES -(Staf{;ionJi~tf fonathan Schaui:ilet 3/1d Hosse in
A"d h P bl' W k } 1~,~~•,. W.~,P JI e , u 1c or s. --~~;)?;,,.. '<W,%
• ¼",>~ ... /,/'~~ .. ;..;.. -✓0~;.,. . Staff's Recommendat1oni~Appr:9~e,,staff recomme·Qdat1ons 1
Senior Engineer Schauble and EngT6i;eririfK1fanager Ajid·ifliresented the Village and Barrio . . • -~Z"f;,-,, '<~,-:~~1,.,%•. '•--%@!, . . . Traffic Circles, requesting T&MC to suf3,tiort staff~J(e,commend;at1on to implement the Village
• o #!~~ 1/.~»_.-,..,_ , • _; ,)/,'t'l,. '/tA ??/,:~., ",<'i~f2~,;. and Barno Traff1C::C:1rn,eS::€,ap1tal lmprov.ement P,r0gr:am.(CIP} Pro1ect No. 4015.
~b v~ _,.~,✓.4-, ;, :,.,❖>;. /,,~43/' Q;~•/¾' -,.•Xw,'Q'/;'J/.' '·4/yp,:'.,•,. ·,~,,, _;.y;;-:✓.:,::0_,1/ ·•,,0~ .'//, .. ·•. , :?~ 's;;if'f;a '%?-?, ,c.:(/ffe,, -✓,:0,'@;,:
° Commissionef.Afe:oseyres ii'.fc,\1J1red abouffifli~tersection ·cm:ner of Magnolia Ave . and Madison ,,.~.Z'r ?1½•;, ·:;:,-,✓,:;:,
St. if they will red t..¢: o~ the cef,~~~sulting on:t9e loss of parking space and the conflict between
cars making.a fast rigffi%tuq/1m'.'£rv.fadison St.'rt ·~rfering with bikes. /4~;~1*-&c~:;,.,, . ,,.~,.:;4~· .. •'.t'l,0;,74'-1;:, . . '':0: ;;, .
0,Trap~pdl'ta.t'100;;91rector~fr:~mk told Com,,rruss1on,e,1;:Penseyres that staff will look at the east ,f:}:",(/},;if,7 ,-,:,:✓,f/'?>z-. ,;,~ ,,,,:9,;:;_r,-:',,, ,✓,,.
i cdr:n er of Magnoliaji4yenue•ar,fd .. M. adison Stree.·t,. ?(;>C''j_ ~-~j1,;i: '•:0%/4*~ '❖/7;.,1.
<q.9,g1 missioner Pensf y,f~S point¢.c! .. out the saine problem on the corner of Harding Street and
Pin~txvenue; loss of p"~~rpg spat'~~h9 interference with bikes . .. «~?/~ , ,·:,:-7,1,. ~.J'.>Y /"~"·
0 Senior;1Hogineer SchaubJe:?explaineci:tliat the Barrio Master Plan has several improvements to ,;,,q,;,, , '·iz?' ,
the area a'flcLthe Traffic Crr'.efes is one measure of improvements of the Master Plan. -;;z;;,7, 7,;~
° Chair Goca rifJJ,k~s the traff:i~circles and she recommended making them attractive and •a½;:{;, 4:J:f',;f pleasant. '"-~;%:, ;,;l??:r l~~/2;~ >«~?f./ • %'~;;,%,;,:,;::,;,-~:;,' :? ,I--❖~/-
M o ti on by Commissioner Linfii seconded by Commissioner Hunter to approve staff's recommendations
to implement the Village and Barrio Traffic Circles, CIP Project No. 4015.
Motion approved: 7 /0
4. EL CAMINO REAL IMPROVEMENTS AT CANNON ROAD -{Staff contact: Brandon Miles and
Hossein Ajideh, Public Works}
Staff's Recommendation: Approve staff recommendations
Page 2 of 5
Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2730 t
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 269 of 279
Engineering Manager Ajideh and Associate Engine~r Miles presented the El Camino Real
Improvements at Cannon Road -Phase I:
• Replace safety bridge railing on both side of El Camino Real
• Widen sidewalk on south side of El Camino Real
•Adda pedestrian bridge north side of El Camino Real
• Remove overhead poles
• Provides pedestrian access for future phases
° Commissioner Linke inquired about the timing for Phase I and Phase II.
0 Associate Engineer Miles responded that Phase I is neario{t'l'ompletion, and construction 0,;;y~ should start on early 2021; Phase II staff is currently re½i,Ef;,1jng the scope of work and fee and • • ,-,Y,-/:l.,.;'7 getting a design consultant on board. 4'>'.':ff0:},%,;,,
° Comm_issioner Penseyres inquired about the p~s~®F~~ij,t~~dergrounding of the existing
power lines .A~~ )Y -x~: . • 1/) ,.,;;,;, ,,;?;,7,
0 Associate Engineer Miles said that if this Rr6Jeh 'makes all of t lfet,6riljty moves in one phase thn
the utility company is responsible for the1i~fftt placing the powei111:[t ~;.~nder the bridge (not
d d) ·-x/d~ .,. i>?~ un ergroun . · ,:;;1':c, . ·•::;,:;:0,1;. ;~0i':· .d~ . /f9.;,.
Motion by Vice-Chair Johnson, second~p~? Commissi~f~JlB{~t{lto approve s:~ff
recommendations to implement Phase;l;:9kfh~.EI Camino Re~J'.ijr.idge Improvement at Cannon Road, CIP . ~-~ :0.~~•',.,. 'f x:..-r--_,~r'/";;. ProJect Nos. 6042 and 6056. ';;:r,;;~. ¼·1::1/J;,/h :.;;;~;c . ··•¼:?. ✓-6~';/~:7' ~ ✓--~~~~ Motion approved: 7 /0 ,;;:;:");, ·~~t:;;•,,. .;.,&fl$,
•/,'''. \~?.[;;;, ''•,:~~l:0t;\;•, '•;~Z:~-, .
.a?~½,'2.(J.-;,.~. ',','/,,.. . ·,, ~~✓-.. '1 ~.«..:.,,. ..... . -«f/)i:.z?/4,~:--: _ \rt?.,, __ : 0:;~5-~.. · · 1;;,;;, A;.(.:?6:f;;?X{,0~:~, '(;\'f,(~ :&/:,,,, :;,r.:%1?»,. ,w
5. FOUR DEfJ.CIENT STREBT:,~~CILITIES'Af.:HC:flNG LOCAe:;l?~CILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15-·.71;,,4 "~ wz~ <-.>❖~}i~;;,;~;/ ~-:.•❖;~r (Staff Contact:·p_az:.Gomet, H9ssein Ajideh{:iotJ7Tom Frank, Public Works) -"#J~~~ 11(.t ·t;,;f,1/,»,_ Staff's Reco.mmendat1oh: Approve st,aff recommendations
'':,;~~-/~%}':}'¢;;• ·.;;;2::7, X-'Y.%'✓;,:7-'•~1}.({,~L, ~~:.:xm,Y0;,%f;,/.,_ -~,Wz, . 4:;;%;:;:,,;?;?{@~;~:,,. •~;fff;~?,t; • • r-o;,_,f;;,P;;-., Y:/?;;~_ . 0 •• Deg,1:1ty;61twMaq9ger Got_:Q,.e,z{Transpor;ta.t113n D11::e.ctor Frank and Engineering Manager AJ1deh /,1,1/~ ··«-~@;;•,. '«';,/,C's ''q/,:,.,,-0,, /,,' ,:>presented the Fou:r;;Deficie'rit[Street Facilities;:a:nd financing program options for the College '(;/).:fj'/, ,f~1,2;,,, . '•>"4~;,, · '•i;•.y'
··s:d'.u-levard extensid"r?::firpject. The:;four facilities are: "'@"), ·:t ·&, '(',~/;;,;..
1. -:::<\1~t?bound El Ca mfj~. Realffi~{~nnon Road to College Boulevard
2. No.rtJtbound El Camino;,Real from•College Boulevard to Cannon Road ',7.z',f,>. '.;f0{'. ,, 3. Eastl:56,"i11!d Cannon Ro.ai;lfrom El Camino Real to College Boulevard '<>:;'0->, :;;Y;,;,;
4. Westbot(~_i~f annon Rj~~ from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
W@&c a@fl ·
° Commissioner L1r¾~~~ifjftted a correspondence titled Item# 5-Determination of four street
facilities and financi/&Yp{ogram options for the College Boulevard extension project that is on file
with the office of the City Clerk. He made a power point presentation that supported his
assertion that the proposed College Boulevard extension (either 2-lane or 4-lane alternative)
effectively distributes trips throughout the network to reduce congestion on the four deficient
facilities, and therefore the staff recommendation should be to support building the College
Boulevard extension rather than pursuing the proposed exemptions. Linke noted that this
recommendation is consistent with past action taken by City Council on joint public/private
partnerships to finance road projects.
0 Deputy City Manager Gomez addressed Commissioner Linke comments:
Page 3 of 5
Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2730 t
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 270 of 279
1. College Boulevard extension and the different finance options available according to
the current LFMZ 15 Plan is to construct a two-lane alternative, unless the LFMZ 15 Plan is
amended by the City Council to consider a project for a four-lane alternative.
2. The staff recommendation includes expediting existing CIP projects to relieve
congestion on the deficient facilities, and this approach is consistent with that taken on
southbound Melrose Drive near Palomar Airport Road. That is, continue to construct
improvements even though the facilities are deemed exempt.
3. It is true that each zone that increased traffic on a deficient facility by at least 20%
was previously obligated to contribute to resolving the deficiency, but that is no longer the case.
0 In response to Commissioner Linke's statement that an e,x,emgtion would discourage the
completion of the proposed roadway improvement projeJf#}transportation Director Frank ❖-:@(':7 responded that the General Plan states: 4;"~J\·,,
For Level of Service exempt street facilities{t:6.:J!f,tV®!J?pot implement improvements to
maintain the level of service standard/;}f pJf%#d on pot&Jg.J _4, if such improvements are
beyond what is identified appropriate,:a.0 5uild out of the ~Ge,peral Plan.
Since the College Boulevard extension proJitlfs included in the Gelffal;.Plan, the proposed
• • • • '•::.r.}.1/1 ~' • ~'%~~*~ . . exemptions will not negatively impact the Cplle.ge Boulevard extension pr:0Ject.
0 Deputy City Manager Gomez clarified that t tf'lcwrent City";G:ouncil dirett;\'t}ftis .that private
• "~✓-?f,. /1/(1,/Z,"/ . ·t5¼~~;, development will eventually f~~,,%,~~d construct <Z1;>Jl~,9'~B9ulevard extens1on~~:;,~cause the
College Boulevard extension iif id'e'i;i;tified in the LFr&'Z:;1:S?plan, it is a requirement to build this ·,;~.;,'-'/,½}"t z,~ ''-:/@, infrastructure if the developers m.0.:ve·fo~w:c;1r.d. ·•,,~i:0; .... .,.,~ "'""?.r{i'·'( ,..?:9'_,-¾ □ Commissioner Penseyres inquiredf t.the'•flfsibility study #cwld trigger Proposition H. -,~,(/4 ·~,?/,/4-fit/fe!". ,❖.-&;~~
° City DeputyManag~r Gomez explall':,~·d that Pr.~lfosition H h'qf <;t-trigger that a public
referendum is recfo•'·1Mff1 3.'spe. nd ove?~ .. ?e milliodP.q;gtt.rr.s;.of G~~~I Funds. i::.i,',25/.'{;/' .• ,..,,::_,-,_p, ,~~ ,J.Y;f)';::-, ·•,:~:y~:?•.-'
° Commission~t Hµnter was:pl.eased to see'i.• he}'.prdJect ·on(:Efr:G,amino Real from Jaspar Drive to ~M;?; ❖~•~J';. ·'1-~1'✓~~)9' ' "l .. ->5-.1{/ Sunny Creek irie!6'oed in staff!oS;presentatiorYl;J5'.tlt he does ndt: support the proposed exemptions . ~<r.~if~--r;~~_:u ?if t being requested 6Vi~Xc;1ff. t::] . ··,,,r.;,t.
. . •,,..;;%;•~~ /.~~~ 0»x,.~~, . 3/~ _ . • • • · 0 V1ce;,Gha1r,)ohnson enJQy.ei;I :tire p,rn:sentat1on~gn. the Four Def1c1ent Street Fac1ht1es and . /;(f,::ff'#)p:::,,;,;,fy,,?,, '-':1/.75{,:XZ:!''-'· • -.,;'::;,,_;;;~~✓--. '{f},¼:, . . re1t er:ate>f1er;-to.ncerns ahout:exempt1onsyshe wd,f.ild prefer supporting a recommendation to ,-:Z(,"'&jy . l.',0-),'.{/,;,:,, •,~)? ''//,'.,?,?,WI, • , /
.:1.aadress the pro1!>1em✓,of congestion. ·•:::ii~;~ ··<i;'.-;':% •~:~; ':·: ◊-&t1?h❖ '~•❖i:j/ . ~-ii::§;:,,. ~%:J':;:, '~,;:x,, :~WI,.?,,. z;a'~ . '{!/7.t:,,
Motion by e~m:~issioner Fowle,[,~tconde~.$,J ,.Commissioner Penseyres to approve staff
recommendat1q6~:. ·<%¾, ·.;:_~y;
·-:_1~-".':~ ~%: .,, 1. · Adopt a resotl:i,t10,r,1 to: 'ig/,
A. DeterminefftfJfollowing sF&it facilities to be deficient because they do not meet the vehicular
level of servic~(qs) per:ft(M'ance standard required by the city's Growth Management Plan: .. 9~~!'"❖ · /1'.%;.~,,,_,~:-5. Southbound El~i1JJ$O'•Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
6. Northbound El Car:nmo 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
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
Page 4 of 5
Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2730 t May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 271 of 279
Celia A. Brewer
Page 2
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 does not define "imminent threat to the health and
safety of persons." HCD does not consider, however, that general concerns about the
health and welfare of the citizenry-including traffic conditions that cause minor
delays-present an imminent threat to health and safety. The word imminent suggests
something that will happen in the very immediate future. (Black's Law Dictionary (11th
ed. 2019) ("Imminent" means "threatening to occur immediately; dangerously
impending" or "[a]bout to take place."); Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th ed.
2010) ("Imminent" means "likely to happen without delay; impending; threatening").)
Imminent threats to the "health and safety of persons" implies an impending or
immediate threat to human life, human health, or human safety. It is a much narrower
consideration that notions of "health and welfare" that motivated the adoption of the
City's GMP.
The City's GMP appears to be designed to assure that housing development in the City
and the provision of public services are closely aligned (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code,§
21.09.010.) Nothing in the City's GMP or in its Growth Management Ordinance (City of
Carlsbad Mun. Code, Chapter 21.90) indicate that they were adopted with the intent to
avert imminent threat to the health and safety of the residents of Carlsbad. Neither do
the GMP or the Growth Management Ordinance indicate that imminent threats to health
and safety are a mandatory consideration in deciding whether to impose such a
moratorium. The purposes of the ordinance are reflected in its placement in the
Municipal Code. The ordinance is housed in the Zoning Code, under the chapter for
Growth Management, rather than under, for instance, Health and Sanitation, which
includes Emergency Services and Health and Sanitation. The overall purpose of the
Zoning Code is described as "to provide the economic and social advantages resulting
from an orderly planned use of land resources." (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code,§
21.02.010.)
In this case, the City's proposed moratorium would prohibit the issuance of any
development or building permits in Local Facilities Management Zone 15 ("LFMZ 15")
until four (4) identified street facilities meet the vehicle level of service ("LOS")
performance standard of Dor the necessary improvements are guaranteed. (See City of
Carlsbad Mun. Code,§ 21.90.080.) LOS D simply refers to the rate at which traffic
flows on a roadway, and at LOS D there is no longer free flow of traffic but instead
congestion that borders on unstable flow. (City of Carlsbad, Transportation Impact
Analysis Guidelines (April 2018), p. 22.) While such congestion may be uncomfortable,
there is no indication in the City's GMP or in the City's Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines that such a standard represents an imminent threat to the health and safety
of the residents of LFMZ or those in the immediate area. Accordingly, HCD is of the
opinion that such a moratorium cannot permissibly be adopted or enforced consistent
with Government Code section 66300.
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 275 of 279
Mr. Hoefgen, City Manager
Page 2
development application, the Department understands the application does not
include housing for lower-income households; leaving potentially no capacity
remaining to accommodate lower-income households. As a result, the element must
list and analyze sufficient and suitable sites to accommodate the regional housing
need for lower-income households and include program(s), as appropriate, to
address a shortfall of capacity. The site listing and analysis and programs must
address all the requirements of GC Section 65583.2. For more information, see
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-developmenUbuilding-blocks/index.shtml.
In addition, please be aware housing element law and other housing related laws
have been changed or added and take effect January 1, 2018. For example, no net
loss law (GC Section 65863) was amended to clarify "At no time, ... shall. .. " a local
government take action to cause an inventory to be insufficient to accommodate
housing for lower-income households. In addition, housing element law was
amended regarding analysis and programs related to the suitability and availability of
sites (AB 1397). For more information, see the Department's website at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/lhp.shtml.
2. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land-use
controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other
exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures
(Section 65583(a)(5)).
Taking actions to prohibit, even temporarily, multifamily development is viewed as a
serious constraint and contrary to planning and zoning law, particularly housing
element and related laws. This is particularly important since the recently adopted
element makes no mention of imposing a moratorium, nor was the Department made
aware of this crucial information prior to its July 2017 findings. Further, GC Section
65858 was amended in 2001 for the purpose of heightening the standard of findings
when imposing moratoriums on multifamily development. The City's findings do not
appear to meet this heightened standard. For example, the City appears to be
merely relying on a level of service (LOS) standard as a proxy for having a "specific,
adverse impact upon the public health or safety standards" with little or no analysis to
support making such a finding. Given the importance of encouraging multifamily
development and not imposing constraints, the element must be revised to analyze
the moratorium as a constraint on the cost, supply and timing of housing and include
programs as appropriate to address and remove the constraint.
3. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters
and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups
of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide
for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily
May 5, 2020 Item #12 Page 278 of 279
All Receive -Acenda Item # _11-
For the lnformiition of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Date '5 /5 l2£tA ✓ CC ✓
CM ~~DCM(3) ✓
Council Memorandum
May 5, 2020
To:
From:
Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of City Council
Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Pub~orks
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager ~
{city of
Carlsbad
Via
Re: Additional Materials Related to Staff Report Item No. 12 -Determination of
Four Deficient Street Facilities and Financing Program Options, Including
Extension of College Boulevard
This memorandum provides additional materials regarding the staff report for the May 5, 2020
City Council meeting, Item No. 12 -Determination of Four Deficient Street Facilities and
Financing Program Options, including Extension of College Boulevard:
1. Exhibit 14 and page 29 of the staff report refer to the draft minutes from the
April 6, 2020 Traffic and Mobility Commission meeting. The Traffic and Mobility
Commission met on May 4, 2020 and approved the minutes. Attachment A is the
approved minutes, which replaces Exhibit 14 of the staff report.
2. The second and third sentences of the last paragraph on page 29 are revised to read as
follows:
Motion by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Penseyres, to approve staff
recommendations:
1. 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
Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council
May 5, 2020
Page 2
C. Expedite Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 6094, to improve traffic
circulation by widening northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar
Drive, by proposing different funding sources which may necessitate meeting
Proposition H requirements if more than $1 million of general funds are used.·
Motion failed: 2/5 (No: Gocan, Johnson, Hunter, Linke and Perez)
Motion by Commissioner Linke, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to:
1. Support staff recommendations regarding points lA and lC stated above, and
2. Reject point lB listed above, and
3. pirect a representative of the T&MC to make a presentation to the City Council on the
quantitative data and conclusions from the traffic study conducted on College Boulevard
extension, and
4. Recommend that City Council direct staff to develop a city-led financing program to
build the College Boulevard extension.
Motion approved: 5/2 (No: Fowler and Penseyres)
Attached is the quantitative data and conclusions from the traffic study conducted on the
College Boulevard extension that Commissioner Linke had requested to be included in the staff
report for the May 5, 2020 City Council meeting (Attachment B).
Attachments:
A. Approved Minutes from the April 6, 2020 Traffic and Mobility Commission Meeting
B. Commissioner Linke letter of May 4, 2020
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
Laura Rocha, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services
Ron Kemp, Assistant City Attorney
Robby Contreras, Assistant City Attorney
Tom Frank, Transportation Director
John Kim, City Traffic Engineer
Nathan Schmidt, Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager
Sheila Cobian, City Clerk Services Manager
ATTACHMENT A
TRAFFIC AND MOBILITY COMMISSION
Minutes Council Chambers
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Monday, April 6, 2020, 5:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gocan called the Meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Gocan, Johnson, Hunter, Fowler, Linke and Perez.
Absent: Penseyres
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
This meeting was conducted virtually via Zoom due to the stay-at-home order for COVID-19.
Motion by Vice-Chair Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to approve the minutes for March 2,
2020, with a minor correction and by adding one comment made by Commissioner Hunter on Item 3 -
Four Deficient Street Facilities.
Motion carried 5/0/1/1-(Absent: Penseyres -Abstained: Linke)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
No public comments
Commissioner Penseyres joined the Traffic and Mobility Commission meeting at 5:11 p.m.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS:
1. POLiCE MONTHLY REPORT-(Staff contact: Lieutenant Christie Calderwood, Police
Department) -Informational only
Lieutenant Calderwood reported that the police department has changed their mission, due to
the health crisis, with focus on educating the public to stop/limit the spread of COVID 19. As a
result, the tasks of the community service officers, motor officers and police officers are to
respond to serious calls and to enforce the closures of beach access/ parking access/ public
parks and some trails.
2. SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN -(Staff Contact: Nathan Schmidt, Public Works).
Staff Recommendation: Approve staff recommendations
Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager Schmidt presented the Sustainable Mobility Plan
(SMP} and asked the commissioners to support staff's recommendation to City Council to adopt
the Carlsbad SMP.
Page 1 of 6
Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2730 t
ATTACHMENT A
~Commissioner Perez, Vice-Chair Johnson, Commissioner Penseyres, Commissioner Linke,
Commissioner Hunter and Chair Gocan had several questions about the SMP and they all agreed
that the Commission would not recommend adoption of the Carlsbad SMP until significant
revisions were incorporated into the draft document.
~Commissioner Linke correspondence titled Item# 2 -Susta inable Mobility Plan is on file with
the office of the City Cieri<.
~Commissioner Penseyres correspondence titled Carlsbad Sustainability Plan is on file with the
office of the City Cieri<.
Motion by Commissioner Linke, seconded by Commissioner Penseyres, tci request city staff to address
the commissioners' comments and to revise the SMP. Commissioner Linke revised his motion after more
discussion.
Motion by Commissioner Linke, seconded by Commissioner Hunter to request staff to address the
commissioner's comments and to create an ad hoc committee composed of Commissioner Perez,
Commissioner Linke and Commissioner Penseyres, to work with staff and to bring back the results to
T&MC at a future date.
Motion approved : 7 /0
3. VILLAGE AND BARRIO TRAFFIC CIRCLES -(Staff Contact: Jonathan Schauble, and Hossein
Ajideh, Public Works) -
Staff's Recommendation: Approve staff recommendations
Senior Engineer Schauble and Engineering Manager Ajideh presented the Village and Barrio
Traffic Circles, requesting T&MC to support staffs recommendation to implement the Village
and Barrio Traffic Circles Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 4015.
~Commissioner Penseyres inquired about the intersection corner of Magnolia Ave . and Madison
St. if they will color the curb red resulting in a loss of parking space and the conflict between
cars making a fast right turn into Madison St. interfering with bikes.
0 Transportation Director Frank told Commissioner Penseyres that staff will look at the east
corner of Magnolia Avenue and Madison Street. '
~Commissioner Penseyres pointed out the same problem on the corner of Harding Street and
Pine Avenue, loss of parking space and interference with bikes.
0 Senior Engineer Schauble explained that the Village & Barrio Master Plan has several
improvements to the area and the traffic circles project is one measure of improvements in the
Master Plan.
~Chair Gocan likes the traffic circles and she recommends making it attractive and pleasant.
Motion by Commissioner Linke, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to approve staffs recommendations
to implement the Village and Barrio Traffic Circles, CIP Project No. 4015.
Motion approved: 7/0
Page 2 of 6
Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2730 t
ATTACHMENT A
projected to be 29 cars or 3% over capacity, versus saving 20,000 vehicle trips from being stuck
in congestion on the deficient streets. Commissioner Linke said that he wanted the City Council
to have a fulsome understanding of the vast benefits the College extension could create when
they are making their decision on whether to fund it.
0 Transportation Director Frank stated: "I think we all agree that with the College Boulevard
extension, it fully resolves all the deficiencies with ample capacity for future growth. So, we all
agree upon that. I think what you are asking for, Commissioner Linke, is the graphics which you
provided that show the traffic da.ta--versus just a description of it-and a chart."
Motion by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Penseyres, to approve staff
recommendations:
1. 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:
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
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 Cannon1Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
C. Expedite Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 6094, to improve traffic circulation by
widening northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive, by proposing
different funding sources which may necessitate meeting Proposition H requirements if more
than $1 million of general funds are used.
Motion failed: 2/5 (No: Gocan, Johnson, Hunter, Linke and Perez)
Motion by Commissioner Linke; seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to:
1. support staff recommendations regarding points 1A and lC stated above, and
2. reject point 1B listed above, and
3. direct a representative of the T&MC to make a presentation to the City Council on the
quantitative data and conclusions from the traffic study conducted on College Boulevard
extension, and
4. recommend that City Council direct staff to develop a city-led financing program to build the
College Boulevard extension.
Motion approved: 5/2 (No: Fowler and Penseyres)
Attached is the quantitative data and conclusions from the traffic study conducted on College Boulevard
extension that Commissioner Linke had requested to be included in the staff report for the May 5, 2020
City Council meeting.
Page 5 of 6
Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue I. Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2730 t
. l
l
I:
ATTACHMENT A
CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER COMMENTS:
Upcoming City Council Items on Traffic and Mobility:
o Urgency Ordinance establishing NO PARKING zone on Ca rlsbad Boulevard between Pine
Avenue and La Costa Avenue, Ponto Drive from Ponto Road to southern terminus, and
Ponto Road
TRAFFIC & MOBILITY COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Linke thanked all the commissioners and staff for the good work.
Vice-Chair Johnson also complimented everyone for the good work.
Chair Gocan was very pleased, and thankful with all the work involved in the meeting especially since it
was the first time that the Commission meeting was held virtually using Zoom .
Traffic and Mobility Commission requested staff to attach to the minutes the Quantitative Data Report
provided by commissioner Linke.
Exhibit:
Attachment A
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Gocan adjourned the Traffic & Mobility Commission Meeting on April 6, 2020, at 9:03 p.m.
Eliane Paiva
Eliane Paiva, Minutes Clerk
Page 6 of 6
Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2730 t
ATTACHMENT A
Traffic & Mobility Commission Recommendation to the City Council
City Council Meeting Date: May 5, 2020
Subject: Determination of four deficient street facilities and financing program options for the
College Boulevard extension project
At the April 6, 2020 meeting, the commission voted 5-2 (Gocan, Hunter, Johnson, Linke, and Perez in
favor; Fowler and Penseyres oppose.d) to support staff's recommendations that the City Council find
the four street facilities deficient and to expedite Capital Improvement Program Project No. 6094, but
to oppose staff's recommendation to exempt the facilities from the vehicle level of service (LOS)
performance standard, and to provide the following information derived from the traffic study. The
motion further recommended that the City Council direct staff to take the necessary steps to develop
a city-led financing program for construction of the College Boulevard extension project with all area
developers paying their fair shares.
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis information
Nearly 20,000 v~hicle trips per day are in heavy congestion on the deficient street facilities. The
following histogram of northbound El Camino Real traffic (May 2019 counts between Jackspar Dr and
College Blvd) shows a 3 hour 45 minute period of deficiency during the PM commute, during which
an average of 10,328 vehicles were traveling under Growth Management Plan (GMP) deficient LOS
"F" conditions:
Northbound El Camino Real (JacksP-,q(-College 5/2019)
3500 --·---· -· ··----·· ... -----···-·-··-------·--------··--------
3000
QJ E 2soo
::I g
4/ 2000 . u IMO
'.c ~ 1500
> ;:
::I 0 .1000 :c
LOSA-D
-LOS E-F (deficient)
··· .. GMP limit
l 1 ,·,'... -, . .. I ~lllllu1111111
O 0 -0 ODO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ODO U O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O 0 0 0 0 0 Q O M O frJ O ,., Cl M O M O , ... O , ... Cl ,.., 0 t"'1 O M O M U ,., 0 , .... 0 '1'1 O r" O M O ,., 0 , ... O M O f'Ol O f"l O ,,, C Crl Q ,,, ~a~~~N~~~~~~~"~~--~aaa~~NNMM~~~~""~~--~Maa~~HNMM ~~~M-------~---~----NNNNNNNN
Time of day
1
\ __ r--1
10,328 vehicles
(3 _hr 45 min)
Among all four deficient facilities, a cumulative average of 19,313
vehicles per day were traveling during GMP deficient LOS "E" or
"F" conditions:
ATTACHMENT A
,~ I -
Street facility I Congested
1 vehicles
l per day
NBECR(PM) 10,328
SBECR(AM) 3,096
EB Cannon (PM) 3,229
WB Cannon (AM) 2,660
TOTAL 19,313
The College Boulevard extension would fully resolve the congestion problems on the deficient
street facilities with ample capacity for future growth. In the following chart, the red bars show that
the Cannon Rd and El Camino Real street facilities are all currently deficient during the indicated time
periods, with peak vehicle volumes at 7% to 73% over their GMP deficiency limits. However, the
adjacent green bars show that all of the deficiencies are fully resolved with th_e College Blvd extension
and related recommended projects, with peak volumes at 24% to 51% under the limits. For the
College Blvd extension itself, a two-lane configuration would open right around the limit, and a four-
lane configuration would be well under its limit.
Cannon Road
3500
3000
QI
E
■ Current
+College
..... GMP limit
..:! 2500 +---------
0 >
Q)
'y 2000
1: a, :> ._ 1500 5 1310 ....
..c
~ 1000 -n,
QI
Cl.
500
130%
EBPM
The study concludes:
WBAM
· El Camino Real
173%
SBAM NBPM
2900
(3 In)
College
................ 1760
(4 In)
103% ....... 880
(2 In)
NBPM
... Ultimately, the addition of the College Boulevard extension provides a valuable connection
for the City of Carlsbad and for the region and, as shown ir;i the analysis, will effectively
redistribute trips throughout the network to reduce the effect of congestion on several
existing roadway segments in the project vicinity.
2
ATTACHMENT B
Traffic and Mobility Commission, Commissioner Correspondence
From: Commissioner Steve Linke
Meeting Date: May 4, 2020
Subject: April 6, 2020 meeting minutes on Item #5-four deficient street facilities
In creating their staff report on the Growth Management Plan (GMP)-deficient El Camino Real
and Cannon Road facilities for the May 5, 2020 council meeting, staff has again disregarded
the wishes and intent of our commission.
The motion on this item, which passed 5-2, was to recommend declaring the street facilities
deficient, but to oppose the performance standard exemptions, and to have the commission
present the quantitative data and conclusions of the traffic study in the form of the bar graphs,
histograms, etc. that I presented at the meeting. This was to support the funding of the El
Camino Real widening and College extension projects. I subsequently submitted the attached
recommendation to include in the council staff report and have Chair Gocan present to the City
Council. Ms. Gocan was included in the communications, and staff promised to get back to us if
there were any questions.
However, the staff report for Tuesday's council meeting does not include the written
recommendation or any of the quantitative data, and staff's re-interpretation of our
recommendation does not mention our opposition to the exemptions. Further, in violation of
our council-adopted Communications Plan, Chair Gocan was not invited to present our
recommendations to council (no effort was even made to contact either of us with questions).
And to top that all off, staff has added an alarming new sentence to their recommendation that
they did not present for our review-completely eliminating the College Boulevard extension
from the General Plan. This is in spite of their statements at the meeting that the exemptions
would have no effect on the future of the College extension.
So, to more accurately reflect the discussion and motion on Item #5 in our 4/6/2020 minutes, I
will be requesting the following:
1. Attach the enclosed two-page recommendation to the minutes.
2. Add the following language in the body of the minutes before the motion:
Transportation Director Frank asked Commissioner Linke for a clarification on exactly
what he meant in Part B of his proposed motion regarding "present[ing] to the City
Council the quantitative data and conclusions from the traffic study ... "
Commissioner Linke responded that the intent for the quantitative data is to show the
information from the slides he presenteq earlier, including the bar graphs and
histograms showing before-and-after conditions, because the staff report is more
qualitative (pass-fail). Commissioner Linke provided an example that the staff report
1
simply says that a two-lane College extension could be "over capacity," but that the
quantitative data shows that it is only projected to be 29 cars (3%) over capacity, versus
saving 20,000 vehicle trips from being stuck in congestion on the deficient streets.
Commissioner Linke said that he wanted the City Council to have a fulsome
understanding of the vast benefits the College extension could create when they are
making their decision on whether to fund it.
Transportation Direct Frank stated: "I think we all agree that with the College Boulevard
extension, it fully resolves all the deficiencies with ample capacity for future growth. So,
we all agree upon that. I think what you are asking for, Commissioner Linke, is the
graphics which you provided that show the traffic data--versus just a description of it--
and a chart."
I also will request that this letter to be made part of the public record for this 5/4/2020
meeting.
Our minutes were buried hundreds of pages into the City Council staff report, and they are
inadequate and incomplete. They refer to my letter and presentation, but those are not readily
available-only through a special request to the City Clerk. Our commission is also unable to
review the minutes for completeness and accuracy prior to their inclusion in City Council staff
reports. And we are not being allowed to present our own recommendations-only staff
filtered versions are included.
This whole process lacks transparency and accountability, and this current episode is
particularly disappointing.
2
Traffic & Mobility Commission Recommendation to the City Council
City Council Meeting Date: May 5, 2020
Subject: Determination of four deficient street facilities and financing program options for the
College Boulevard extension project
At the April 6, 2020 meeting, the commission voted 5-2 (Gocan, Hunter, Johnson, Linke, and Perez in
favor; Fowler and Penseyres opposed} to support staff's recommendations that the City Council find
the four street facilities deficient and to expedite Capital Improvement Program Project No. 6094, but
to oppose staff's recommendation to exempt the facilities from the vehicle level of service (LOS}
performance standard, and to provide the following information derived from the traffic study. The
motion further recommended that the City Council direct staff to take the necessary steps to develop
a city-led financing program for construction of the College Boulevard extension project with all area
developers paying their fair shares.
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis information
Nearly 20,000 vehicle trips per day are in heavy congestion on the deficient street facilities. The
following histogram of northbound El Camino Real traffic (May 2019 counts between Jackspar Dr and
College Blvd} shows a 3 hour 45 minute period of deficiency during the PM commute, during which
an average of 10,328 vehicles were traveling under Growth Management Plan (GMP} deficient LOS
"F" conditions:
Northbound El Camino Real (Jacksoar-College 5/2019)
3500 ~---------------------------------
3000 -LOSA-D
-LOS E-F (deficient}
......... GMP limit QI E 2500
.2
0
> 2000 +----------------------■ ~ 1860
:E ~ 1500 +--------------------1-~IH-■
> .:::
::I 0 1000 _,___ _________ ..____,._ ___ IHI_.
:::c
500 _,___ _________ ..._..
• --• I •.. 111 I O I ■■•• • •
f' I I • • I ' > I
11111111111
00 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0000 00000 0 000 000 000 00 00 000 00000 o en o m o m o tn o tn o rr"I o M o rr1 o rri o rr, o m o tn o m o ff! o M o l"l"I o m o rr, o M o m o m o t"'II o M o f'I"\ 0 0 ;.-i ;... N N fO rii ~ ii ui u-i lD '.D ,:..:' f..: cd CO 01 en O O ~ ;.; N N in m ~ '¢ ui U'l .:0 u:i ~ f.: CO 00 <n Gi O O ~ ;.; N N M m
. ------.-,--------..... ----NNNNNNNN
Time of day
1
10,328 vehicles
(3 ru:.,4Smin)
Among all four deficient facilities, a cumulative average of 19,313
vehicles per day were traveling during GMP deficient LOS "E" or
"F" conditions:
Street facility
NB ECR (PM}
SBECR (AM}
EB Cannon (PM}
WB Cannon (AM}
TOTAL
• -
.
10,328
3,096
3,229
2,660
19,313
The College Boulevard extension would fully resolve the congestion problems on the deficient
street facilities with ample capacity for future growth. In the following chart, the red bars show that
the Cannon Rd and El Camino Real street facilities are all currently deficient during the indicated time
periods, with peak vehicle volumes at 7% to 73% over their GMP deficiency limits. However, the
adjacent green bars show that all of the deficiencies are fully resolved with the College Blvd extension
and related recommended projects, with peak volumes at 24% to 51% under the limits. For the
College Blvd extension itself, a two-lane configuration would open right around the limit, and a four-
lane configuration would be well under its limit.
Cannon Roa d El Camino Real College
3500
■ Current 173%
■ +College 107%
3000
a, .... , GMP limit 2900
E (3 In)
..:! 2500
0 > a, u 2000 ·-1860 .c 130% ············ .. ·· 1760 a, (2 In) ~ 1500 . (41n)
5 1310 • ...
.c
~ 1000
(a a,
0.
500
0
I ~ ., I --1 -
EB PM WBAM SB AM NB PM NBPM
The study concludes:
... Ultimately, the addition of the College Boulevard extension provides a valuable connection
for the City of Carlsbad and for the region and, as shown in the analysis, will effectively
redistribute trips throughout the network to reduce the effect of congestion on several
existing roadway segments in the project vicinity.
2
All Receive -Agenda Item # a
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Date515._ CA _LCC V
CM £AC-M _ v'DCM (3) 1/
To: Carlsbad City Council
From: Steve Linke (Traffic and Mobility Commissioner, but submitting as an individual)
Subject: May 5, 2020 Item #12 -Determination of four deficient street facilities and financing
program options, including Extension of College Boulevard
To comply with the Growth Management Plan (GMP), General Plan, and a data-driven decision-
making approach, council should follow the recommendations of the Traffic and Mobility
Commission (T&MC} and not declare inappropriate vehicle level of service (LOS} exemptions on
the deficient street facilities. Rather, council should have staffexplore upfront city funding of
the package of street improvement projects that will resolve the deficiencies and link that
funding to future reimbursement by developers, consistent with past similar situations.
If council is reluctant to commit to doing the projects now due to budget challenges created by
the COVID-19 situation, please do not use that as an excuse to invoke inappropriate
exemptions. I believe the facilities could be declared temporarily non-deficient due to the
reduced traffic volumes arising from the stay-at-home orders. However, the pause time should
be used to explore funding opportunities to address the deficiencies if/when they re-emerge.
Summary ·
1. The five Capital Improvement Program (CIP} projects described in the staff report (four on El
Camino Real and the College extension) will all significantly enhance the capacity, comfort, and
safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists in the area, so they should all be completed.
2. The College Boulevard extension traffic study shows that either a two-lane or four-lane
version of the street would fully resolve the deficiencies on all four facilities, relieving nearly
20,000 vehicle trips per weekday from heavy congestion for up to 3 hours 45 minutes, and
providing ample capacity (24% to 51%} for future growth (see T&MC Recommendation).
3. Based on past staff legal analysis and a plain reading of the Growth Management Plan (GMP)
and General Plan, exemptions are not appropriate for the deficient street facilities, because
the College extension (either two or four lanes) is consistent with the General Plan and will
allow those facilities to meet their performance standards.
4. The refusal of Zone 15 land owners to fund the street projects is not a valid GMP
performance standard exemption criterion under the General Plan. In fact, such an exemption
is the very antithesis of the GMP. Due to the developer funding impasse, in combination with
the alleged inability to impose a development moratorium, upfront city funding is necessary to
initiate the project, in order to maintain compliance with the GMP mandate.
5. For the most part, the current Zone 15 plan calls for developers to pay for the first two inside
lanes of the College extension. However, traffic on the deficient street facilities actually began
exceeding the GMP limits in 2010, and the traffic study shows that the first two lanes of the
College extension would open right around its capacity due solely to the redistribution of this
existing traffic that largely originates outside of Zone 15. Thus, it is logical that the city would
fund the first two lanes of the College extension, and then seek reimbursement for fair shares
1
as development occurs and/or have the developers pay for the additional two lanes
necessary for their developments from any zone that contributes traffic.
6. There are multiple cases in which city funds have been appropriated to fund early stages of
street construction with later developer reimbursement of the city in response to current or
impending GMP deficiencies. For example, TransNet sales tax allocations, gas taxes, public
facilities fees, grants, and general fund revenues were allocated in the past to construct the
initial lanes on major portions of Palomar Airport Road, and developers were required to later
pay their fair shares for the initial and/or additional lanes. These are not cases in which another
developer fronted the funds for reimbursement, but rather the city.
7. The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan {CFIP) states that priority funding under the
CIP should go to GMP-deficient facilities, and the current CIP prioritization point system
supports that, as well, so the College extension and El Camino Real projects should all jump
near the top of the CIP priority list.
8. The cost estimate of $30 million for the College extension has a very high level of uncertainty
(other estimates range from $12 million to $19.8 million-all for a four-lane version of the ·
project). These should be refined and focused on the necessary project. For example, a two-
lane version of ·the road without all of the amenities necessary for surrounding development
should be sufficient at opening, or as an incentive to developers to contribute upfront to a
four-lane version.
9. One very appropriate mechanism for improvement projects like these is TransNet funds
from the SANDAG Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP}. Carlsbad is currently
using its TransNet allocation primarily for pavement repairs, as well as street lighting and traffic
calming projects, under exemptions. Perhaps some re-allocation could be done (e.g., repair
projects and smaller projects could be funded by the General Fund without triggering
Proposition H). Similarly, perhaps gas taxes or other resources could be re-allocated from other
projects with more flexible funding alternatives. As staff pointed out, now is the time for this
type of re-allocation, because the city is currently developing its list of projects for the 2020
RTIP update. Ultimately, though, a Proposition H vote also would be appropriate. A vote on the
adjacent Cannon Road extension passed in 2002, although that project was later abandoned.
10. Given the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is possible that federal or state
infrastructure grants may become available over the coming months, and crucial CIP projects
like these would provide economic benefits during construction, in addition to the multimodal
mobility benefits once built. Also, interest rates are likely to be very low for financing purposes
for the foreseeable future.
If you have questions about the points above, details are provided below for many of them. I
also address the following additional topics:
11. Future performance of a four-lane College extension.
12. SB 330 does not appear to restrict non-residential development moratoria.
13. Exemptions are not necessary for TDM and TSM.
14. Zone 15 is being misidentified as the only zone "affected" by the deficiencies.
2
Details
1. The five CIP projects described in the staff report will significantly enhance the capacity,
comfort, and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
• CIP Project No. 3636 (College extension) would fully resolve the vehicle, congestion
problems on El Camino Real and Cannon Road and provide new bicycle lanes and
pedestrian sidewalks/trails.
• CIP Project No. 6071 (southbound El Camino Real at the Agua Hedionda Creek Bridge)
would widen the sidewalk from 4 to 6 feet and replace the railing to achieve Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance.
• CIP Project No. 6056 (northbound El Camino Real at the bridge) would add an 8-foot
wide sidewalk and railing where there currently is no sidewalk.
• CIP Project No. 6042 (northbound El Camino Real at the Cannon Road intersection near
the bridge) would add a dedicated bicycle lane, right turn lane, and third through-lane.
• CIP Project No. 6094 (northbound El Camino Real) would add a third through-lane
between Sunny Creek Road and Jackspar Drive.
3. Exemptions are not appropriate
Here is staff's legal analysis of the GMP requirements to address street facility deficiencies from
their 12/17/2019 staff report.
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
• Where no feasible improvement project exists to achieve the performance
standard:
o City Council can determine the street facility is built out and exempt from
the LOS D standard under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9.
ApplyTDM/TSM strategies to development that adds vehicle traffic to
the exempt street facilities.
If a feasible improvement project exists that the city will not undertake, and there is no
private arrangement guaranteeing the improvement project, then City Council would
prohibit issuing development and building permits in affected LFMZs until the
performance standard is met or an arrangement guaranteeing the improvement is
adopted.
3
So, in the absence of a GMP development moratorium, which staff has ruled out based on SB
330, a mandate is created to complete the College extension, because it allows all of the
deficient street facilities to achieve their performance standards.
The College extension is listed in the updated 2015 General Plan as one of only a handful of
street projects remaining before build-out:
TABLE 3-2: PLANNED CITY Of CARLSBAD STREET CAPACITY
IMPROVEMENTS
IMPROVEMENT NAME IM PROVEMENT DESCRIPTION
College Boulevard Complete improvements between Cannon Road
and El Camino Real to arterial street typology
standards
Poinsettia Lane Complete improvements between Cassia Road
and El Camino Real to connector street typology
standards
Camino Junipero Extend to the eastern city limit as a local street
Extension
lnterstate-5 North Coast Includes the widening of lnterstate-5 to include
Project high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) (carpool) managed
lanes and auxiliary lanes connecting adjacent
interchange off-ramps and on-ramps as needed
lnterstate-5/State While in preliminary design, identifying
Route-78 Interchange transportation options will relieve congestion
Improvement on the freeway as it is a bottleneck that impacts
adjacent interchanges, regional streets, and the
movement of goods and people. This interchange
is not located within the City of Carlsbad but is
part of the Caltrans Public Works Plan for the
lnterstate-5 North Coast Corridor Project.
S. Traffic on the deficient street facilities actually began exceeding the GMP limits in 2010.
These deficiencies were masked by the old inaccurate Carlsbad LOS monitoring methods. As I
first pointed out in 2011 (and have pointed out many times since), the city used an LOS grading
method that significantly under-estimated actual congestion through 2018. For street segment
analysis, the GMP deficiency limit of LOS D was set at a ridiculously high value of 1,800 vehicles
per hour per lane. Annual monitoring and other traffic studies invariably returned LOS grades of
"A" or "B" for nearly every street for nearly 30 years, despite the heavy congestion on many of
them. Intersection analyses also over-estimated capacity and consistently returned passing LOS
grades. The current deficiencies are all arising, because the new valid Highway Capacity
Manual-based method was finally implemented, as required by the General Plan.
For the current deficiencies, the new realistic limits are 655 vehicles per lane per hour for
Cannon Road, 930 for northbound El Camino Real, and 967 for southbound El Camino Real-
about one-third to one-half of the old 1,800 value. When traffic count data from past annual
monitoring reports and traffic studies is plugged into the new LOS method, westbound Cannon
Road was first deficient in 2010, eastbound Cannon was first deficient in 2011, and northbound
El Camino was deficient at least as early as 2012 (it was not monitored prior to that):
4
'
'
I
Street facility
WB Cannon
EB Cannon
NB ECR
SB ECR
Pre-2018 "Carlsbad" New validated LOS Deficiency
LOS method method year based on
(volume per lane) (volume per lane) new method
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,800
655
655
930
967
2010
2011
~2012
2018
So, the city should have been aware of the congestion problems but allowed them to amplify
over the last 9+ years . Developments have continued to add additional traffic to the deficient
facilities-apparently without adequately funding the street improvement projects or
TDM/TSM that could have addressed the problems.
6. Examples of upfront city appropriations for past major street projects.
Palomar Airport Road East (El Camino Real to east city limit)
A review of city records indicates that, in 1990, council determined that the Palomar Airport
Road (PAR)/EI Camino Real (ECR) intersection and the portion of PAR between Melrose Avenue
and Business Park Drive (near the east city limit) had failed the GMP performance standard, and
that the portion of PAR between ECR and Melrose Avenue would fail in the near future
(Resolution No. 90-123). The first four inside lanes of PAR from ECR to the east city limit and the
PAR/ECR intersection widening/improvements were funded largely by the city through
TransNet sales taxes, with additional funding from gas taxes, a state grant, and other sources. In
combination with a widening of ECR from PAR to Faraday Avenue, the total cost was $9.7
million (CIP Project No. 3166), and a Notice of Completion for the projects was signed in 1995
(Resolution No. 95-99).
As shown in the map below, PAR forms the northern border of Local Facility Management Zone
(LFMZ) 17, and it runs through the middle of LFMZ 18.
5
Development had not yet begun in those zones when the PAR project was completed in 1995.
However, their Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMPs) indicate that the city had funded
that particular construction/improvement at a cost of about $7.2 million (about $13.4 million in
today's dollars), and owners in Zones 17 and 18 were required to reimburse the city for the
costs of constructing these initial lanes and for funding an additional third lane in each direction
as they developed their properties. This is seemingly analogous to the current situation with
the College extension and Zone 15.
For example, the 11/5/1996 Zone 18 Finance Plan states:
[The two eastbound and westbound inside lanes of Palomar Airport Road within Zone
18] have been completed by the City of Carlsbad as a part of the Palomar Airport Road
widening between El Camino Real and the east city limits. In order to satisfy this
improvement condition, developer(s) of the indicated finance areas shall reimburse the
City of Carlsbad for a proportionate share of [these lanes] that have been completed by
the City ... The financial guarantee will be in the form of a tentative map condition of
approval to comply with the Zone 18 LFMP which incorporates this finance plan.
Reimbursement to the City for the proportionate share of the improvements may be
based on the [average daily trips] generated from each individual finance area and paid
prior to the recordation of a final map for that planning area.
[Third eastbound and westbound lanes] on Palomar Airport Road and full median
improvements within the boundary of Zone 18 ... shall be privately designed and
constructed by the first developer requiring the need for them. [They] shall be
constructed or an improvement agreement shall be provided prior to the recordation of
the applicable final map by the first developer in Zone 18 requiring the need for the
specific segment of the roadway.
6
And a 12/4/2001 amendment to the Zone 18 LFMP states:
Prior to the first discretionary action, approval of the first development permit or
issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first for any project
within Zone 18, the property owner(s) shall provide a financial guarantee for the
construction of Palomar Airport Road East. Since this improvement has been completed,
the financial guarantee will be satisfied using several methods. This guarantee may be in
the form of participation in any existing Assessment District or Mello-Roos Community
Facility District formed to finance the construction of the road segment...
Palomar Airport Road West {Paseo Del Norte to College Avenue)
A review of city records also indicates that, in 1986, the city sought to create an assessment
district to have owners entirely fund the construction/improvement of PAR to six lanes
between Paseo Del Norte and College Avenue (Boulevard). However, there was a 95% written
protest citing the untimeliness of development and some large assessments on properties that
were not then planned for development.
An agreement was subsequently reached between the city and the owners, in which it appears
the city would fund construction of the inside four travel lanes, the median curb, and the
proportional share of the grading, drainage, and other costs, while the owners would fund the
construction of the third travel lanes in each direction, their frontages, and their proportional
shares of the related costs. The City also agreed to provide interim financing for the frontages
of two agricultural parcels whose owners would have to reimburse the city with interest
if/when they developed.
The project (CIP Project No. 3151) was eventually completed in 1990 at a total cost of about
$7.5 million (Resolution No. 90-1). It appears that the city ended up paying about $3.5 million
(about $7.3 million in today's dollars) for its portion of the project, predominantly from the
broad Public Facilities Fee fund supplemented by the General Fund.
7. The CFIP and CIP indicate that these projects should be funded as high priorities.
Financing Policy #2 in the CFIP reads as follows:
[T]he 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.
7
That is further supported by the current CIP prioritization point system:
Factors Points
Risk to Health, Safety and Environment and Regulatory or Mandated Requirements 35
Community Values 25
Asset Condition, Annual Recurring Costs and Asset Longevitv 20
Multiple Category Benefit and Bundling Opportunities 10
Project Readiness 5
Funding Availability 5
Total 100
• The performance standard deficiencies lead to a GMP mandate to complete the vehicle-
based CIP projects (College extension and completion of ECR to three through lanes).
• The overall package of CIP projects fit with the community values espoused in the
General Plan based on the corresponding street typologies, as described above in Note
3. That includes the substantial multimodal enhancements to capacity, comfort, and
safety for all travel modes, as well as the presence of the College extension in the list of
planned projects.
• All of the projects have been on the SAN DAG RTIP and/or the city's CIP list for many
years, and they are all long-term assets.
8. Performance of a two-lane College extension and uncertainty in the cost estimates.
A two-lane College extension would be sufficient prior to Zone 15 development.
The staff report implies that a four-lane College extension is necessary, because two lanes
would be "over capacity." However, as shown in the T&MC recommendation, the traffic study
predicts that a two-lane version of the College extension would be barely over its limit at the
worst time of day in only one direction. More specifically, the only deficient condition is a count
of 909 vehicles in the PM peak hour in the northbound direction. That is only 29 vehicles (3%)
over the GMP limit (LOS D) and only 9 vehicles over "capacity" (LOSE), which would likely
resolve within a 15 to 30 minute time period.
Furthermore, those extra 29 vehicles should be a non-factor for several reasons. First, the
Cannon Road/El Camino Real route, with its newly available capacity, will remain an alternative
to College Boulevard, so traffic will equilibrate between those two routes.
Second, the 880 vehicle GMP deficiency limit assigned to the two-lane College ~xtension
assumes the same "per lane" capacity as the four-lane portion of College Boulevard north of
Cannon Road. However, two-lane streets typically have somewhat higher "per lane" capacities
than the "per lane" capacity of four-lane streets. In addition, a two-lane College extension could
be built without any intersections/traffic signals due to the lack of development in Zone 15
assumed by that configuration . These factors should increase the GMP limit above 880 vehicles
per hour. Developers would be required to build College out to four lanes with intersections as
development occurs.
8
Thus, there likely would not be any initial deficiency with two lanes. However, if future traffic
counts indicate a deficiency, then that is the appropriate time to deal with them consistent with
the GMP.
Cost estimate uncertainty
In the city's latest update to their SAN DAG RTIP list of projects (Amendment 06 dated
9/20/2019), they included an estimated cost of $12 million for a four-lane College extension to
be completed in 12/2022 (revised from the completion date of 12/2020 listed in the 2018
update). Staff reasonably acknowledges that those pieces of data are dated and need to be
updated.
In calculating their current $30 million estimate, though, staff refers to a 2015 developer
estimate of $22 million as their base. However, the 2015 developer estimate is $14.4 million
(Agenda Bill 21,864; 2/17/2015). When the inflation, prevailing wage, etc. factors are applied to
that value, the total cost is around $19.8 million-not $30 million.
In response to an inquiry I made about this, staff produced a 2013 estimate of about $20
million, but they were unclear on how they came up with the $30 million figure based on a
2015 estimate. I also believe that street improvements completed during construction of Sage
Creek High School in the 2013 timeframe may have actually reduced the overall costs of the
project by 2015.
Also, all of these estimates are for a four-lane College extension, but the city could explore just
paving two lanes, as described above. In addition, $3.6 million of the 2015 cost estimate was for
development-specific improvements, such as frontages, intersections, traffic signals, and water
and sewer improvements, which may not be necessary for an initial two-lane project.
9. Explore re-allocating TransNet, gas tax, and other funds; Proposition H vote.
TransNet funds
The staff report lists resources that have already been allocated to the various projects under
the CIP. I provided examples above of past major street projects funded by city resources,
including TransNet taxes from SAN DAG, gas taxes, public facilities fees, etc., which could be
explored to add to the current allocations. A focus of TransNet funds in the RTIP is projects with
regional capacity impacts. One of the two northbound El Camino Real widening projects
(Project No. 6094) includes TransNet funding as a capacity-enhancing project, but neither the
College extension (Project No. 3636) nor the other El Camino Real widening project (Project No.
6042) use TransNet funding. Instead, Carlsbad is using its TransNet allocation primarily for
pavement repairs, as well as street lighting and traffic calming projects, under RTIP exemptions.
Proposition H vote on Cannon Road (College Boulevard to city limit with Oceanside)
In 2002, a ballot measure (Proposition C) was approved by voters to allow the city to provide
funding from the General Fund in excess of the $1 million limit for the construction of the final
9
extension of Cannon Road from College Boulevard to the city limit with Oceanside (Reach 4).
Although the project was eventually dropped, there was intent by the city to pay for it upfront,
given its regional implications and lack of developer funding. Interestingly, it was presented to
voters (see ballot language below) as a means to relieve congestion on College Boulevard.
TH! P-AOPOSAl-4 The Proposal oek1 voter approvai under Carrabed Municip al
Code Chapt• f ! 24 lor the e,:peodit\tr9 ol gon•t-' iun• over st mlll lc;n to, finance or ~ Dnance
the constructlo1 01:
• A •~ITfflllng pool complo;
• Treiil !mkag;N Ind open-i,1et1:
• A Cltyls.tMy Tt'lbYf'9 Fadllty;
• A. POrdcn of Cannon Rocd. eut or con.ge (Roch •>·
~ VES VDU! on Pro~n C will pttWicie l'IIVJnl'f tor IN tol~ng ~:
• CANNON ROAD· EAST OF C~ -Thi$ s«Jlion Of Cannon, Road is nlffld$CJ lo conoect
Cannon Aoad from Cf.rbti.d to Ocftn91(M. Thia w"I •Ako •rall'ic congatlon off Colege --~lie In norttieael Car18bad "1"d el CDmlno Aeal n-, Highway 7B. A YES 'w'otf iMII nrOYide money lo oomplM this projael -"'
11. Future performance of a four-lane College extension
The traffic study suggests that a four-lane College extension could become deficient after
buildout of Zone 15. That scenario is far in the future, so it is not really relevant to the current
situation, but, because staff made a reference to it, I want to address some problems. There
were multiple calculation errors in the Zone 15 plan and the traffic study, leading to a
significant over-estimate of the maximum traffic to be generated by Zone 15. In addition,
several Zone 15 owners may no longer develop according to the staff report.
The traffic study assumes 39,329 average daily trips (ADTs) being generated at build-out of
Zone 15 (see Figure 6 of the traffic study). However, that number is based on multiple faulty
assumptions coming from the most recent Zone 15 plan amendment (2012). First, the 2012
Zone 15 plan did not properly calculate the ADTs based on the SAN DAG guidance that was
supposed to be used, resulting in the estimate being over 11,000 ADTs higher than it should
have been (see some examples below). And then that faulty data was plugged into the traffic
study model in a way that almost cer~ainly double-counted traffic from the developments that
already exist in Zone 15 (Rancho Carlsbad and Sunny Creek), which account for nearly 9,000 of
the currently assumed ADTs.
10
. TAZ I
I 614
I
I;
f
I
1.
I
i: 651
' I
1'
I
' I ,,
GP LUD I
RLM,..:J
RLM-3B
RI.M-'I
RLM•7
RUM,
RM-·I
TA6!.1;;2
B UllDOUT TRAFFIC GENERATION
!Bv TAZ and Total for LFMP Zone 15}
I Unit I l..an.d Use J TG Rate J ADT I
U() Sioole-F amil'>' 12 1-:.~20
0 Sinale-Farn1I~• 12 0
17 StnQle,FamJ~I 12 204.
9 Si,nole-f ;mlil'>' 12 108
8 Sb1gle-FamJIV 12 96
504 Si nole-Fam1I~• C 12 ~ 13048
wbrot.i.f 648 Sin(jle-FamJJv /7 f'l 7-776
/
%of
Tot.JI
3-4%
(Hi%.
0.5<}Q,
0_3%
0 .. 2¾
15 .. 4%
t9-8%
This is a senior mobile home pa rk, which should be 3 ADT per unit.
RLM-M 4 Sfnale-Famil~• 12 48 0.1%.
RUJ-9A 40 Sin2Ie-farrnll 12 4so I 1.:1%
Rl t.1-·1Q 12 Sr.nQle-f auiilv 12 144 0-4%
RU,t.1 1 88 Sinole,F am ii',• = 12 UHi6 I 2.7'%
RLM-'12 89 Single-Fam1I:,-_,. V ' 12 1.008 2-7%
~M-2 200 Srnicile-farnil-., / 1...r _1?'} 2,400 6.1%
RH/CJ'Q,:l 20 Mltlli, Fa!!]lit-f -..,,,.,,-<. a k 160 0 ,,~~ , --~-/.,,,,--.......
Most of these sing le-farn ily units should be 10 ADT per un it. '-..., __ _
' These a re apartments, v·lhich s hould be 6 ADT per unit.
Also, Zone 15 developers said in their October 2019 meeting with staff that ballooning costs
have made some projects not economically viable, the current density is insufficient to support
the costs, they've been unable to get private financing, and there is a lack of critical mass of
property owners willing and able to develop their properties in the near term.
Combining all of the above factors, it is highly unlikely that Zone 15 development would ever
cause a deficiency in a four-lane College extension. One option would be to re-do the traffic
study with the proper phased approach, realistic growth projections for all areas, accurate ADT
calculations for Zone 15, and no double-counting of ADTs from developments that already exist.
However, there is ample evidence that the College extension should be done.
12. SB 330 does not appear to restrict non-residential development moratoria.
Well over half of the traffic currently projected to be generated within Zone 15 is from
commercial developments, and commercial developments outside of Zone 15 that generate
traffic also could be included. The City Attorney's letter cited in the staff report does not
address commercial developments, and it mischaracterizes the four deficient facilities as being
located within Zone 15 (only one of them is located there). In any event, the street
improvement projects make a moratorium unnecessary, and SB 330 does not restrict the city
from imposing on all developments reasonable fees that are essential to provide necessary
public facilities.
11
13. Exemptions are not necessary for the city to pursue transportation demand and systems
management (TDM and TSM}.
We already have a city-wide TDM program, which should be expanded to make it more
meaningful, and TSM projects are already occurring across the city. TDM and TSM are the tools
that must be relied upon to address congestion after the most effective tool-street
improvements-is removed from the toolbox by exemptions. But there should be no illusion
that exemptions are somehow required to make the TDM and TSM tools available.
14. Zone 15 is being misidentified as the only zone "affected" by the deficiencies.
The GMP and associated documents define the "affected" zone(s} as those in which the
deficient facility is located, plus any other zones that create an "impact" by contributing
significant traffic to it. In the current case, three of the four deficient facilities are not even
located in Zone 15 (they are in Zones 14 and 24), and the current plans for Zones 5, 7, 8, and 13
indicate significant traffic impacts on these facilities.
The GMP, as well as the related CFIP and 25 individual LFMPs, have very specific requirements
for dealing with street deficiencies. These requirements are not being followed when Zone 15 is
treated as the sole "affected" zone arising from the four deficient street facilities. Section
21.90.110 of the GMP requires inter-zone coordination for developments that impact facilities
in multiple zones. This is implemented in Section VI of the CFIP, which requires each LFMP to ·
include a map and inventory of all major street segments and intersections within the zone, as
well as those outside of the zone that are impacted by traffic originating within the zone. Each
of the LFMPs, in turn, defines "impacted" as 20% or more of a zone's traffic.
When a street facility is found to be deficient, the required street improvement projects are the
responsibility of the zone(s} in which the facility is located plus the outside zones with traffic
impacts on the facility. As one of many historical examples of how the process is supposed to
work, the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road failed the performance
standard in 1999. The city made the zones in which the intersection is located (5 and 17} and all
other zones that contributed significant traffic to that intersection (10, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21}
responsible for dual right-turn lanes to resolve the deficiency (see Ordinance NS-473). All of
those zones were considered "affected" by the deficiency.
12
For the current deficiencies, while the northbound El Camino Real facility is located in Zone 15,
the other three are in other zones (southbound El Camino Real in Zone 24, and both eastbound
and westbound Cannon Road in Zone 14). In addition, the LFMPs for Zones 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, and
15 all indicate significant traffic impacts on the deficient facilities (e.g., see the map below from
the Zone 14 LFMP showing its impact on the deficient streets). All of these zones should have
been bearing their fair share of the responsibility for the solution to area congestion.
,,.
,,.,-dl --··•·
As another example, the most recent (2012) version of the Zone 15 LFMP indicates that Zone 15
impacts El Camino Real all the way south through its intersections with Faraday Avenue and
13
Palomar Airport Road and the associated street segments, because 20% of Zone 15 traffic uses
those facilities even though they are not physically located within Zone 5. Accordingly, Zone 15
is partially responsible for the widening of El Camino Real through Faraday Avenue, as well as
additional turn lanes at that intersection. Every LFMP works this way.
The rnad segments and intersections that are impacted by 10% or more of Zone 15
traffic are listed below. These facilities we1·e evaluated to determine the geometry
necessaiy to meet the Level of Service performance standards. The intersection
numbering sequence matches the City of Carlsbad 2002 Trnffic Monitoring
Program, which is the cause for the non-sequential order.
Il1e road segments and intersections impacted by Zone 15 include:
Road Segments
El Camino Real -from Cannon Road to Faradabr Ave
El Camino Real -from Faraday Ave to Palomai· Airport Road
Intersections
El Cami.no Real/Cannon Road (#7)
El Camino Real/College Boulevard (#8)
El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue (#9)
El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road (#10)
College Blvd/Cannon Rd (new #)
When the General Plan was updated in 2015, staff quietly deleted the "20% or more of a zone's
traffic" language from the CFIP. However, that language still exists in all of the individual LFMPs,
as does the overarching requirement in the GMP for inter-zone coordination. The deletion of
that one sentence from the CFIP does not fundamentally change the LFMPs or the way the
GMP is supposed to function.
14
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marco Gonzalez
Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:17 PM
City Clerk
City Council Agenda 5/5/20, Item 12: Please read aloud. 1 --J
All Receive -Agenda Item# l_d.
For the Information of the:
PLEASE READ COMMENT AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL
Date.5/<: CA ~c /"
CM v"ACM _ CM (3) ✓ Dear City Council:
Please accept this correspondence on behalf of the Kelly family, owners of the property where the Holly
Springs and Encinas Creek Apartments are proposed. We strongly support the staff's recommendations
regarding treatment of the four identified deficient street facilities and financing program options for
extension of College Boulevard. However, we would appreciate it if the Council could focus momentarily on
the issue of what will happen if LFM Zone 15 projects like ours do not receive the additional relief of extension
of time to finalize previously approved tentative maps.
As you are likely aware, the City's Housing Element identifies the Encinas Creek Apartments as provider of a
relatively large share of the City's affordable units in during the current cycle: 63 low and 64 moderately
priced rental units. These were intended for construction between 2010 and 2016, and despite approval by
the Planning Commission in 2013, they could not proceed due to the constraints associated with financing and
buildout ofthe entire College Boulevard extension -a problem that tonight's staff report clearly highlights.
The contemplated council action concerning the extension -pursuing City construction and recoupment of
costs from future developments -is laudable and necessary, but will take many months, and possibly up to
two years to sort out. Unfortunately, the tentative map for my client's project will expire well before such
relief is realized.
I recently wrote you regarding the City's ability under the Subdivision Map Act find that a de facto moratorium
has existed in Zone 15, effectively precluding the approval of final maps like ours for at least the last 8 to 9
months. Tonight's staff report for this item, including its recounting of discussions with HCD regarding the
propriety of such moratoriums, further supports this contention. If it will take up to two years to plan,
approve, fund, and construct the College Boulevard extension, this de facto moratorium may continue for the
entire time.
We therefore respectfully request that you either make the de facto moratorium finding contemplated by the
Act administratively, or bring it forward at the next Council meeting for discussion and approval. To be clear,
we are not asking the City to adopt a moratorium contrary to what has been communicated by HCD, but
rather, to simply recognize that such a restriction on final map processing exists (and has for many months)
and therefore tentative map extension is warranted under state law.
Again, absent such relief, our important affordable housing project may be lost to the City.
Thank you,
Marco Gonzalez
Coast Law Group LLP
1
--
Cll,\~ 1 L,w G ROll r,,,
MARCO A. GONZALEZ
Managing Partner
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
2
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Linke
Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:20 PM
City Clerk
Public comment for 5/5/2020 City Council Item #12
Steve Linke--speaking on matters outside of T&MCs duties.
All Receive -Agenda Item # J2
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Date6} S:: CA ✓cc ~
CM ✓ACM v DCM(3} ✓
All of the College extension and El Camino Real projects described in the staff report will significantly enhance
capacity, comfort, and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists, so they should all be completed.
The College extension traffic study shows that it would fully resolve the deficiencies on all four ECR and
Cannon facilities, relieving nearly 20,000 vehicles from heavy congestion.
Based on past staff legal analysis and plain readings of the GMP and General Plan, exemptions are not
allowed, because the College extension will allow the facilities to meet their performance standards.
The refusal of Zone 15 owners to fund the projects is not a valid General Plan exemption criterion. In fact, such
an exemption is the very antithesis of the GMP.
Thus, upfront city funding is necessary to initiate the College extension to comply with the GMP mandate, in
the absence of a development moratorium.
The current Zone 15 plan requires developers to pay for the first two lanes of College. However, Zone 15 is
inaccurately identified as the only zone affected by the deficiencies. Three of the four are not even located
there.
Also, area traffic began exceeding the current GMP limits in 2010, and the traffic study shows that the first
two lanes of the College extension would now only accommodate the currently existing traffic that would be
redistributed to it from ECR and Cannon.
Thus, it is logical for the city to fund the first two College extension lanes, and then seek reimbursement from
all area developments that add traffic to those lanes and for the two subsequent lanes.
There are past cases in which city funds have been appropriated to fund early stages of street construction in
response to current or impending deficiencies.
For example, city TransNet funds, gas taxes, public facilities fees, grants, and general fund revenues were
allocated to construct the initial lanes on major portions of Palomar Airport Road, and developers were
required to later pay their fair shares for those and additional lanes.
These were not cases in which another developer fronted the funds for later reimbursement, but rather city
allocations.
In addition, the CFIP states that the CIP should be prioritized to projects that resolve GMP-deficient facilities
like this.
Staff uses a 30 million dollar estimate for the extension, bu_t other estimates range from 12 to 19.8 million-all
for a four-lane version of the project.
1
A two-lane version without the amenities for surrounding development should be sufficient at opening, or as
an incentive to developers to contribute upfront to a four-lane version.
If you are reluctant to do any of the projects now due to -COVID-19 budget effects, please do not use that as an
excuse to invoke inappropriate exemptions.
Instead, declare the facilities temporarily non-deficient due to reduced traffic and-during the pause-
develop accurate cost estimates and explore funding options.
Thank you for your consideration ..
I CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on Jinks un/e;s you recognize the sender and know the contend
lis safe.I
f
2
Four Deficient Street Facilities and
Financing Options for the College
Boulevard Extension Project
Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
Laura Rocha, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services
May 5, 2020
Background
•July 16, 2019 –staff presented to City Council eight deficient street facilities as part of FY 2017-18 Growth Management Plan (GMP) monitoring program
•Dec. 10, 2019 –staff presented on transportation
demand and system management strategies
•Dec. 17, 2019 –staff returned to City Council to
present on the first four deficient street facilities
–facilities were determined to be deficient
–three were exempt, one will be resolved by project
2
3
Four deficient street
facilities
1.SB El Camino Real from
Cannon Road to College Blvd1
-Deficient Street Segment
--Highway
~~~~·· .. Planned Street
{°'City of Carlsbad
Deficient Street Segments
With Local Facility
Management Zones
"'---.,, -
4
Four deficient street
facilities
1.SB El Camino Real from
Cannon Road to College Blvd
2.NB El Camino Real from
College Blvd to Cannon Road
1, 2
-Deficient Street Segment
--Highway
~~~~·· .. Planned Street
{°'City of Carlsbad
Deficient Street Segments
With Local Facility
Management Zones
"'---.,, -
5
Four deficient street
facilities
1.SB El Camino Real from
Cannon Road to College Blvd
2.NB El Camino Real from
College Blvd to Cannon Road
3.EB Cannon Road from El
Camino Real to College Blvd
3
1, 2
-Deficient Street Segment
--Highway
~~~~·· .. Planned Street
{°'City of Carlsbad
Deficient Street Segments
With Local Facility
Management Zones
"'---.,, -
6
Four deficient street
facilities
1.SB El Camino Real from
Cannon Road to College Blvd
2.NB El Camino Real from
College Blvd to Cannon Road
3.EB Cannon Road from El
Camino Real to College Blvd
4.WB Cannon Road from
College Blvd to El Camino Real
3, 4
1, 2
-Deficient Street Segment
--Highway
~~~~·· .. Planned Street
{°'City of Carlsbad
Deficient Street Segments
With Local Facility
Management Zones
"'---.,, -
Performance Standard
•In 2015, following performance standard was adopted:
–Implement a comprehensive livable network that serves all users –vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit
–Performance standard for vehicle traffic is Level of Service (LOS) D or better
•Freeways, arterials, arterial connectors and industrial streets
–Maintain LOS D or better for all modes that are subject to multi-modal level of service standard excluding LOS-exempt intersections and streets approved by Council
•If performance standard is not met, facility is deemed deficient
7
Deficiency –Performance standards are not met
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.90.130 (c):
•If City Manager identifies facilities to be deficient:
–City Manager reports the deficiency to Council
•If Council determines a deficiency exists:
–Council adopts an arrangement guaranteeing a feasible project that will achieve performance standard; OR
–Council determines the street facility is built out and exempt from LOS D standard if no project exists to achieve performance standard (TDM/TSM measures required)
•Otherwise, no further building or development permits shall be issued within affected zones until performance standard is met or an arrangement guaranteeing a feasible project is adopted
8
Built-out and Exempt Criteria
General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9:
To exempt vehicle mode of travel from LOS standard, the intersection or street segment must be identified as built-out by Council because:
a.Acquiring the rights of way (ROW) is not feasible; or
b.Proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment in an unacceptable way…; or
c.Proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other community values or General Plan policies; or
d.Proposed improvements would require more than three through travel lanes in each direction
9
Build-out of the General Plan
General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9:
•Develop and maintain a list of LOS-exempt street facilities, approved by Council
•For exempted street facilities,city will not implement improvements to maintain LOS standard if such improvements are beyond what is identified as appropriate at build-out of the General Plan
•In case of street facilities where vehicle mode of travel is exempt from LOS standard, other non-vehicle capacity-building improvements will be required to improve mobility through implementation of transportation demand and transportation system management measures and/or to implement livable streets goals and policies of the Mobility Element
10
Does a project exist to achieve LOS D?
•Yes, the College Boulevard extension project exists in the General Plan which could achieve LOS D, but…
•College Boulevard extension project as it currently exists is not feasible
•It is not feasible based on current City Council
direction (LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP)
11
Current City Council direction
•City Council direction, per LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP, directs private development obligation to construct College Boulevard extension (two lanes only)
•Staff met with property owners in October 2019 –private development construction of College Boulevard is infeasible for foreseeable future
•Normally no building or development permits issued until plan guaranteeing project is adopted
•Senate Bill (SB) 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, effective Jan. 1, 2020, prohibits such a moratorium
12
Senate Bill 330
•Jan. 21, 2020 –informational brief to City Council, Planning Commission, Traffic and Mobility Commission, Housing Commission and Housing Element Advisory Committee
•Feb. 6, 2020 –staff meeting with state Housing and Community Development (HCD) department
–No moratorium and no dwelling unit caps
•Feb. 27, 2020 –City Attorney sent letter to HCD
•April 17, 2020 –HCD confirmed moratorium is impermissible
13
Exemptions
•Unless City Council provides a different direction, staff’s recommendation to determine the four street facilities as built-out and exempt are based on current City Council direction
–College Boulevard extension would resolve deficiencies of the four street facilities
–College Boulevard extension project to be funded by private development is infeasible in the foreseeable future
14
El Camino Real at Cannon Rd
15
16
El Camino Real at College Blvd
1. SB ECR from Cannon Rd to College Blvd
•Insert picture/map, including CIP 6071
17
ECR
CIP Project No. 6071
El Camino Real at College Blvd
18
•Exempt per Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(d), three through lanes
•Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 6071 -~$1 million
–Intersection of ECR and College Blvd
–Enhance pedestrian and bicycle forms of mobility
–Upgrade existing curb ramps and crosswalks to meet ADA standards
–Include traffic signal timing modifications
–Spring 2020 –present to City Council for approval of plans and
specifications and authorization to bid
19
1. SB ECR from Cannon Rd to College Blvd
2. NB El Camino Real from College to Cannon
•Insert picture/map, including CIP 6071
20
ECR
2. NB ECR from College Blvd to Cannon Rd
•Exempt per Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(d), three through lanes (currently portions have two lanes, will become three lanes with CIP projects;still deficient)
•CIP Project Nos. 6042/6056 -~$3.5 million
–NB ECR at Cannon Rd
–Improve traffic flow, still not meet LOS performance standard
–Fall 2021 –present to Council for approval of plans and specs and authorization to bid
•CIP Project No. 6094 -~$4 million
–Widen NB ECR from Sunny Creek Rd to Jackspar Dr
–Improve traffic flow, still not meet LOS performance standard
–FY 2025-29 forecast for budgeting; if expedited, staff will return with proposed funding sources; Prop. H requirements if >$1M Gen. Funds
21
CIP Project Nos.
6042/6056
El Camino Real at
Cannon Rd
22
CIP Project Nos. 6042/6056
El Camino Real at Cannon Rd
•Close-up picture of ECR at Cannon
23
N
ECR
Looking West
CIP Project No. 6094
ECR widening from
Sunny Creek Rd to
Jackspar Dr
24
3. EB Cannon Rd from ECR to College Blvd
25
4. WB Cannon Road from College Blvd to ECR
26
3. EB and 4. WB
Cannon Rd from ECR to College Blvd
•Exempt per Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(a), ROW not feasible
–Encroach into open space near ECR and Cannon Rd intersection
–Encroach into road setback of adjacent residential community
–Areas under private ownership
–Trail easement along south side of Cannon Rd
27
3. EB and 4. WB
Cannon Rd from ECR to College Blvd
•Exempt per Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(c), unacceptable impacts to community values and General Plan policies
–Community Vision core values of
•Walking, biking, public transportation and connectivity
•Open space and natural environment
–Mobility Element Goal 3-G.6
•Protect and enhance visual, environmental and historical characteristics of Carlsbad through sensitive planning and design of scenic transportation corridors
28
Recommended actions to City Council
1. Adopt a Resolution to:
A.Determine four street facilities are deficient
B.Determine four street facilities are built out and exempt
C.Expedite CIP Project No. 6094, widening NB ECR from Sunny Creek Rd to Jackspar Dr, by proposing different funding sources
–Prop. H requirements if >$1 million General Funds
•Please note that the Resolution (Exhibit 1) references Attachments A and B, which are Exhibits 16 and 17, respectively
29
College Blvd
gap
Existing condition
30
College Blvd
with Extension
Project
Ultimate condition
31
College Blvd Extension Project
Project consists of:
1.Full-width grading for the road, paved travel lanes and sidewalks (two-lane and four-lane options of travel lanes)
2.Median and median landscaping
3.Bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek
4.Underground utilities including potable water and sewer pipelines and storm drains
5.Intersection controls and street lights
32
Private development obligation
•Per City Council direction through LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP,
private development is obligated to fund the College Blvd
extension for
–Full-width grading to accommodate four lanes
–Constructing only two lanes (one in each direction)
•The planned two-lane roadway extension has no additional
capacity for development (p. 11 of traffic study)
33
College Blvd extension traffic study
•Corridor traffic study
–Arterial street gap closure project, Mobility Element
–With extension, existing vehicle trips will be redistributed
–Extension will provide access to parcels within Zone 15
planning area; two new future streets
–Since College Blvd does not exist yet, peak direction
volume LOS threshold for segment north of extension
(College Blvd at Carlsbad Village Dr and Cannon) was used
34
Traffic study
•Reassignment of Existing Trips
–Planned two-lane option with signals would operate
at capacity in southbound direction in AM peak and
well over capacity in northbound in PM
–Therefore no additional capacity for development
35
Traffic study
•Reassignment of Existing Trips
–Planned four-lane roadway extension would operate with additional capacity in both directions in both AM and PM peak hours
–Deficiencies have been ameliorated with reassignment of existing trips to the extension
–When built, positive effect on surrounding street segments
36
Traffic study
•Zone 15 Buildout Conditions
–A two-lane option with signals will not be adequate to serve anticipated buildout traffic volumes from Zone 15
–Two-lane option is not considered viable with Zone 15 buildout intersection volumes
–Four-lane option is projected to operate at or over capacity in both AM and PM peak hours with Zone 15 buildout
•Study recommends an extension be constructed with four lanes
–Will provide relief on surrounding network (ECR and Cannon Rd)
37
Requested action to City Council
•Provide direction on city-led financing program for construction of College Boulevard extension (four lanes)
–Preliminary cost estimate of $30 million
–Preliminary design and engineering assessment cost of $3 million
–Prop. H requirements, if >$1 million General Funds
•If City Council does not pursue College Boulevard extension at this time, provide direction to staff on whether to
eliminate this extension from the City’s General Plan
38
Requested action to City Council
Provide direction on whether to amend LFMZ 15
Plan and CFIP
–Amend obligation of private development in LFMZ 15
to fund the College Blvd extension project (city led,
four lanes)
–Funding for consultant assistance will be required
39
Financing Options
•College Boulevard extension project financing
will be complex and challenging
–Careful planning
–Use of external financial partners
–Critical to have completed preliminary design and
engineering assessment
40
Financing Options
•Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan (CFIP)
Section VII –general financing options available
–Special Assessment District
–Community Facility District or Parcel Tax
–Bridge and Thoroughfare District
–Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
41
Financing Options
•Reimbursement Fee Ordinance –CMC Section
3.40
–Allows city to place conditions on properties within
an LFMZ
–Affected properties’ proportional share and related
reimbursement fee is determined by a
reimbursement study
42
Financing Options
•City and affected property owners would establish
terms. The following need to be considered:
–Upfront costs to city would require funding or financing
of approx. $30 million and indirect costs of property and
easement acquisition
–Use of General Funds > $1 million requires voter
approval
–Delayed or lack of development from affected properties
would delay or negate reimbursement back to city
43
Types of Debt Financing Tools
•Debt financing involves many aspects including:
–Long-term or short-term debt
–Tax -exempt vs taxable debt
–Debt issued for refunding existing indebtedness
•Important industry considerations:
–Market data, credit ratings, oversight, current trends
44
Types of Debt Financing Tools
•Municipal bonds –general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, assessment bonds
•Loan financing –commercial banks, letters of
credit, state infrastructure banks
•Private equity investments –private equity, public-private partnerships
45
Types of Funding and Revenue Sources
•Financial strategies typically involve expanding the revenue base to new options, including:
–Diversifying revenue sources to both project-specific and broader sources (such as combining sales tax with user fees)
–Examining revenue generation potential associated with infrastructure projects
–Tapping property and economic development value created by projects
46
Types of Funding and Revenue Sources
•General Taxes –sales tax, hotel tax, vehicle or fuel tax, utility user tax
•Special Tax and Value Capture Options –tax increment financings, special districts
•User Fees –parking fees, toll road or bridge fees, impact fees, transit fares
•Grants –available federal, state or local programs
47
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
SANDAG administers –TransNet Funds
•City share - $19.6 million by end of FY 2019-20
•27 CIP projects in 2018 program
–20 CIP projects partially or fully funded by TransNet
–College Blvd extension project in program, estimated at
$12 million (outdated estimate) –no TransNet funds
•June 9 –presentation for City Council approval of
2020 Program of Projects
48
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
•Approximately $1.8 million of developer funds
available for College Blvd extension project in
the CIP
•Terraces at Sunny Creek project, no additional
funds in future
49
Next steps
•These four street facilities are in the FY 2017-18
GMP monitoring report
•June –FY 2018-19 GMP monitoring report
presentations to Traffic and Mobility Commission
and City Council
50
Traffic and Mobility Commission
•March 2, 2020 –Motion did not pass (3-3-1)
•April 6, 2020 –Motion passed 5-2 to:
–support staff recommendations regarding points 1A and 1C (deficient facilities and expedite CIP No. 6094)
–reject point 1B (built out and exempt facilities)
–direct a representative of the T&MC to make a presentation to the City Council on the quantitative data and conclusions from the traffic study conducted on College Boulevard extension
–recommend that City Council direct staff to develop a city-led financing program to build the College Boulevard extension
•Chair Mona Gocan
51
Traffic and Mobility Commission
Recommendation: Item #12 -Four deficient
street facilities and College Boulevard
May 5, 2020 City Council Meeting
T&MC Chair Mona Gocan
T&MC Recommendation
•Support staff’s recommendation to determine the facilities to be deficient under the GMP
•Support staff’s recommendation to expedite the widening of ECR
•Oppose staff’s recommendation to find the facilities exempt
•Provide City Council with quantitative data and the conclusion from the traffic study that were completed by a City consultant.
•Recommend that council direct staff to develop a city-led program to build the College Boulevard extension
Northbound El Cam ino Rea l (Jlac_ks»ar-College 5/2019)
3500 ----------------------------------------------
3000
Q) E 2500
;J
g
a, 2000 -u 1860
.c ~ 1500
>
L.
::J 0 1000 ::c
500
0
-LOS A-0 ---LOS IE-F {deficient)
r ......... GMP limit
••••o•u••••••uu•••--••••••••••O•uu,ou,,,,,,,,,,,o,uu,,,u .. ,,, .... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,001u,o,,,ooou••••--•••••u•••••••••••••u•••• .. • .. •••••••••••u• ...... ... , ............................ ,, .....................
I
····--··--·---■ -■11111 1111111111
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M o o ~ ~ N N m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m m o o ~ ~ N N m m v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m m o o ~ ~ N N m m ~ ~· ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N
Time •of day y
10,328 vehicles
{3 h[45 min)
Cumulative average vehicles traveling
under deficient conditions (LOS “E” or “F”)
Street facility
NB ECR {PM)
SB ECR (AM)
EB Cannon (PM)
WB Cannon {AM)
Congested
vehicles
per day
10,328
3,096
3,229
2,660
GJ
E
Cannon Road
3500 ~---------
■ Current
■ +College
3000 -+----------
••••• GMP limit
.,: 2500 +-----------
0 >
GJ u 2000 +-----------·-.s: 1,3,0%
GJ > 1o. 1500 5 1310 •••
.s:
..:.::; 1000
('a
GJ Q.
500
0
Ell Camino Reall
173%
107%
2900
(3 In)
1860
(2 In)
................... 1760
(4 In)
163%
• •••• • 880
(2 In)
Traffic Study Conclusion
•Ultimately, the addition of the College Boulevard extension provides a valuable connection for the City of Carlsbad and for the region and, as shown in the analysis, will effectively redistribute trips throughout the
network to reduce the effect of congestion on
several existing roadway segments in the
project vicinity.
Requested actions to City Council
•Provide direction on city-led financing project to
build College Boulevard extension
–If the City Council does not pursue College Boulevard extension at this time, provide direction to staff on whether to eliminate this extension from the General Plan
•Provide direction on amending LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP (private development obligation)
–Support funding of consultant to assist in amending plans
58
Recommended actions to City Council
1. Adopt a Resolution to:
A.Determine four street facilities are deficient
B.Determine these four street facilities are built out and exempt
C.Expedite CIP Project No. 6094, widening NB ECR from Sunny Creek Rd to Jackspar Dr, by proposing different funding sources
–Prop. H requirements if >$1 million General Funds
•Please note that the Resolution (Exhibit 1) references Attachments A and B, which are Exhibits 16 and 17, respectively
59
Thank you
60
CEQA mitigation
•Construction of College Blvd extension in
Mobility Element Policy 3-P.21
•CEQA mitigation for General Plan update
under MM TR-1
61
Previous efforts
•September 2013, City Council approved
reimbursement agreement with Bent-West LLC for
assessment district formation deposits and allowed
Bent-West LLC to temporarily bypass Council Policy
No. 33’s initial approval steps
•April 2014, City Council waived provision of pass-through requirement for community facility districts
62
Other previous efforts
•February 2015, City Council directed staff to pursue alternative financing in the form of a development condition or reimbursement agreement based on the challenges of CFD financing over unentitled properties
•July 2015, City Council approved adding CMC Chapter
3.40 setting forth procedures to establish a
reimbursement fee for funding the reimbursement of
certain construction costs of eligible improvements
63