HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-25; Growth Management Citizens Committee; ; Committee BusinessCA Review ______
Meeting Date: Aug. 25, 2022
To: Growth Management Citizens Committee
Staff Contact: Eric Lardy, City Planner
Eric.Lardy@carlsbadca.gov
Sarah Lemons, Communication & Engagement
Sarah.Lemons@carlsbadca.gov
Subject
Committee Business
Recommended Action
Receive presentations and discuss the following topics:
• Population Projections. Receive short presentation on city projections versus SANDAG
population projections.
• Mobility & Circulation Performance Standard (continued). Receive a short recap
presentation from city staff and consultants on the existing standard, along with a
presentation of some possible options going forward. Group discussion on the standard: Is
this standard important to quality of life in Carlsbad? Should this standard be re-evaluated in
any way? (Nathan Schmidt, City of Carlsbad Transportation & Mobility Manager, and Stephen
Cook, Intersecting Metrics)
• Libraries Performance Standard. Receive a presentation from city staff on the existing
standard and status of library facilities in Carlsbad. Group discussion on the standard: Is this
standard important to quality of life in Carlsbad? Should this standard be re-evaluated in any
way? (Exhibit 1) (Suzanne Smithson, Director of Libraries and Cultural Arts)
• Committee meeting schedule and topics
Fiscal Analysis
This action has no fiscal impact.
Environmental Evaluation
In keeping with California Public Resources Code Section 21065, this action does not constitute a
“project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act in that it has no potential to
cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment. Therefore, it does not require environmental review.
Public Notification and Outreach
This item was noticed in keeping with the Ralph M. Brown Act and it was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. Libraries Performance Standard
GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE @) Staff Report
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT – Exhibit 1
AUG. 25, 2022
LIBRARY FACILITIES
800 sq. ft. per 1,000 population must be scheduled for construction within a five-year
period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units, beginning at the time the need is
first identified.
BACKGROUND
Library space (leased/owned, public/non-public) is used as a standard library measurement of customer
use and includes collection space, seating, meeting rooms, staff areas, technology, and other public facility
needs. The performance standard was originally developed based on surveys of other libraries of
comparable size and based on related standards (such as volumes per capita) set by the American Library
Association in the 1970s.
When the Growth Management Program was developed, it was recognized that certain facilities could
be constructed incrementally, like sewer and water utilities, while others must be constructed all at
once or in phases, like library space. When a library facility is constructed, it must be constructed to full
size or in large phases; and therefore, more time for planning, site acquisition and financing is required.
The original intent of the five-year timing threshold was for the park to be in operation when the
demand had reached a certain point. In 1986, it was estimated that the amount of development that
would produce 1,000 population was 432 new homes; however, it isn’t financially efficient to construct
a library facility in small increments for each 432 homes. Instead, the five-year period allowed demand
to accumulate to the point that construction of a full library facility would be warranted.
Here’s a summary of the history of the park standard:
• Council Policy Statement No. 32 (September 1982)
Policy No. 32 established the Public Facilities Management System (later replaced with the
Growth Management Program) and established the minimum service levels for seven public
facilities; the minimum service level for libraries was “at least 0.6 square feet per capita.”
• Public Facility Standards and Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (Sept. 1986)
In September 1986, the City Council adopted the public facility standards for the Growth
Management Program as part of the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan. The adopted
parks standard at this time was: “800 sq. ft. per 1,000 population must be scheduled for
construction within a five-year period.”
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT – Exhibit 1
AUG. 25, 2022
2
• City Council Resolution No. 97-434 and 97-435 (April 1997)
In April 1997, the City Council received a 10-year anniversary report on the Growth
Management Program and adopted resolutions amending the population related public facility
standards, including the library standard. The following was added to the library standard:
o 800 sq. ft. per 1,000 population must be scheduled for construction within a five-year period
or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units, beginning at the time the need is first
identified.
The addition of a dwelling unit threshold was intended to clarify the number of homes the city
estimated would be built in a five-year period, which at that time (1997) was 1,250 homes per
year citywide, or 6,250 homes in a five-year period. The library facility standard has remained
the same since 1997.
FACILITY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Based on the June 30, 2021, population estimate of 116,025, the growth management standard requires
92,820 sq. ft. of public library space. The city’s current 99,993 sq. ft. of library facilities adequately meets
the growth management standard.
CURRENT LIBRARY FACILITIES
Facility Square Feet
Dove Library 64,000*
Cole Library 24,600
Learning Center 11,393
Total 99,993
*includes approximately 12,000 sq feet of art gallery, garden, and café space
Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
Based on the current General Plan residential land use designations, the projected buildout population is
133,874, the demand for library facilities will be 106,600 sq. ft. The existing 99,993 square feet of library
facilities is less than the projected demand for library facilities at buildout.
In 2015-16, the city completed major maintenance and renovation for both the Cole and Dove facilities
that addressed ADA requirements and delivery of modern library services and technology, while extending
the life of the Cole Library by 10 to 15 years. Items necessary for a modern library were excluded from the
Cole remodel due to the knowledge that a completely new facility was expected in the future.
Built in 1967, the design of the Cole Library could not have contemplated modern library services including
the extensive delivery of public internet computers, collaborative study spaces (study rooms), children’s
play spaces, community meeting and event spaces, automated materials handling and the variety of new
materials formats. Additionally, the library’s role as a community gathering space has increased. With an
already maximized building footprint and infrastructure constraints, the Cole Library cannot expand
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT – Exhibit 1
AUG. 25, 2022
3
further to meet these changing needs. Additional meeting spaces, technology learning labs and maker
spaces are examples of elements desired by the community.
The civic center and city hall site studies, which were presented to the City Council on August 16, 2022,
will inform the timing and opportunities for a new Cole facility. At this meeting, the City Council directed
that staff pursue a new City Hall building at the existing city hall site and a new enlarged Cole Library
building. As these plans advance, staff will need to evaluate opportunities for future library space.
HOW THE CITY FUNDS LIBRARY FACILITIES
The city funds library facilities in multiple ways:
• Community Facilities District #1 taxes (built Dove library and will fund future expansion of Cole)
• Public Facilities Fees-these fees charged to developers can be used to construct or improve any
city building, including library facilities
• Community Development Block Grant (Federal HUD program) funded some of the Library
Learning Center
• General Fund has been used for various library expenses. When the two remodel projects were
done, those funds came from General Capital Construction Fund and Infrastructure
Replacement Fund. Both are funded with contributions from the city’s General Fund
• General Fund is where all operational costs come from, aside from any federal or state grants
the library may receive, as well as donations
Operations funding for library facilities is from the City’s General Fund. This includes Cultural Arts
spaces, staff and operating expenses.
FY 2022-23 Library Operating Budget:
Adopted Budget % of Total
Personnel Services: $8,759,917 60%
Operating Expenses:
Professional, Contract Services $734,375
Supplies, Materials $1,302,947
Repair, Maintenance $6,800
Interdepartmental Charges $3,362,870
Other Operating Expenses $453,733
Capital Outlay $0
Total Operating Expenses: $5,860,725 40%
TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET: $14,620,642
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT – Exhibit 1
AUG. 25, 2022
4
OTHER STANDARDS AND CONSIDERATIONS
In the 1970’s, the American Library Association set standards for building design of library services. This
calculation was based on library usage at that time. Today’s library services offer so much more.
Library spaces have evolved from places where community members check out physical books and study
or read quietly into dynamic community gathering spaces. Public libraries now offer their communities
robust maker spaces, business incubators, children’s play spaces, access to alternate circulating
collections such as tools or kitchen equipment, large programming spaces, and space for community
partners to deliver services.
In Carlsbad, the three library facilities are not libraries alone and library space is combined with cultural
arts space. Library & Cultural Arts locations offer galleries, performance spaces and gardens.
Carlsbad Library & Cultural Arts rely on these industry experts for best practices:
• Public Library Association (PLA) - PLA is an offshoot of the American Library Association and
enhances the development and effectiveness of public library staff and public library services
specifically.
• California Library Association (CLA) - CLA is a 501c-3 nonprofit that provides professional
development and advocacy support for its members and the California library community at large.
They are committed to helping library staff develop the knowledge and skills needed to work for
21st Century libraries, and to advance in the library field.
• Institute of Museum and Library Services – is a governmental agency that works to advance,
support, and empower America’s museums, libraries, and related organizations through
grantmaking, research, and policy development. The agency carries out its charge as it adapts to
meet the changing needs of our nation’s museums and libraries and the communities they serve.
They work to help these institutions navigate change and continue to improve their services.
Contemporary/Evolving Methodologies recommended by PLA:
• Public Library | WBDG - Whole Building Design Guide
• Design Thinking for Libraries (PLA referred)
• Libraries As Spaces For 21st Century Learners & Learning Report-of-an-LSC-CNI-Roundtable.pdf
• Space Planning (webjunction.org)
According to the Whole Building Design Guide, there are seven broad types of public library space:
• Collection space (including public computing)
• User seating space
• Staff workspace
• Meeting space
• Special use space
• Non-assignable space (including mechanical space)
Careful analysis of the following will allow designers to determine the space needs for the seven general
spaces listed above, which are common to public libraries:
CARLSBAD TOMORROW - GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT – Exhibit 1
AUG. 25, 2022
5
• Identification of the library's population of users
• Estimation of the collections provided by the library and the space needed to accommodate those
provisions to meet the future needs of its users
• Estimation of floor space needed to accommodate seating areas
• Estimation of floor space needed by staff
• Estimation of floor space needed for meeting rooms
• Estimation of miscellaneous public- and staff-use space (special use space)
• Estimation of space needed for entry halls, mechanical rooms, bathrooms, etc. (non-assignable
space).
By calculating the needs in these broad types of spaces, library planners can quantify the majority of the
overall projected space needs. But just estimating overall space requirements is not enough. Libraries
must design space to be used as efficiently and effectively as possible. Library building projects must
include flexible-use spaces that readily accommodate changes in media, technology, demographics, and
community needs, without recurring major reinvestments in building renovation.
1
July 29, 2022
To: Carlsbad Tomorrow Committee
From: Committee Member Steve Linke (Traffic & Mobility Commission)
I am concerned that the presentations on Mobility/Circulation last evening may have created some
confusion about the types of performance standards that can be implemented. There was a lot of
unavoidable, but potentially confusing, transportation engineering jargon and acronyms.
My main concern was the repeated statement that “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) must now be used
instead of “level of service” (LOS) as the performance standard under the “California Environmental
Quality Act” (CEQA). While that statement is technically true, it is not really relevant to our committee’s
work on growth management. As I explained last evening, the development project review process
simultaneously follows two paths, which can be pictured as follows:
The State requires certain proposed projects to review the environmental impact of vehicle trips
(greenhouse gas emissions) under its CEQA law with a document called an “environmental impact
report” (EIR).1 The EIR must include a study that estimates how many VMT will be generated by the
project. If VMT is determined to be over a certain CEQA threshold, then the project can be compelled to
pay for mitigation strategies to reduce its VMT by reducing vehicle trips or length.
At the same time, Carlsbad requires review of street infrastructure impacts in the vicinity of the
proposed project (e.g., vehicle congestion and pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit facility needs) under its
“Growth Management Plan” GMP code with a document called a “local mobility analysis” (LMA).2 The
LMA should include analyses of LOS for all modes of travel prioritized on the adjacent streets. If LOS is
worse than the “D” GMP performance standard for any prioritized mode, then the project should pay
for improvements such as road widening, intersection improvements, sidewalks, bike lanes, transit
amenities, and or vehicle trip/length reduction approaches.
Conveniently, many of the mitigation strategies for both paths are shared, and the State requirement
could take care of the environmental side of things, while the City requirements could cover the quality
of life side. Projects that have significant impacts on just one path could have lower mitigation
requirements, while those that have significant impacts on both paths could have higher mitigation
1 Note that some projects use a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) instead of an EIR. 2 Note that some jurisdictions call this a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA), Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA),
or Traffic Impact Study (TIS).
Agency State of California City of Carlsbad
Impact addressed Environment (GHGs) Street infrastructure
Governing code CEQA GMP
Travel mode(s) Veh icles All
Required study EIR LMA
Method VMT LOS
2
requirements. Unfortunately, from my perspective, this is not the reality in Carlsbad, which minimizes
mitigation requirements by developers.
Also note that, in Carlsbad, the proportion of projects required to do EIRs is small, and the proportion
found to have significant VMT impacts is tiny, so adopting VMT as Carlsbad’s GMP performance
standard would ensure that nearly no infrastructure projects would get funded under the GMP.
Finally, please note that the San Diego Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends,
and all major San Diego County jurisdictions use, this dual review approach. As an example, here is the
City of San Diego’s Transportation Study Manual flow chart. The State CEQA/EIR/VMT path is on the left,
and the City/LMA/LOS path is on the right.
No
Transportation
VMTCEQA
Malysis Needed
Transportation VMT
CEQA An,11lysis
Required
Less Than
Significant
Transportation Analys.is Scoping
For Develop ment Projects
Screening Criteria
CEQA
QJI!.! O~l!>I
VMTEffic ent
Loc;,tio11 per
SAN DAG screening,
Map
Small Project {Less
than 300 daily trlps1
Locally Ser\oing l'\Jblic
Facililies
Locally Ser\oing Retail
Redevelopment
Project th ,t results in
a ne decrease in
tot.ail f'roject VMT
{see excep~lon
related lo repLaaini
affa:rda'ble housing)
Affordable housing
Loc.:1I Mobility Malys,ls
l\i~
Small Project
{Consis ent "'1th
community Plan
Zoning: Less than
1,000 darly
llnildJusted drlY'l!W y
trips; Inconsistent
v.ith Community Plan
Zoning: Less than 500
daily unadjusted
drtY!l'ivay trips.}
Projects in the
Downtown
Corrwnunity Planning
Area that generate
less th.:ln 2,400 dally
1.madjusted trips.
----Not Screened Out ---
Signi i,cant
Construction of
pedestrian and
bicycle facili ·es
No
Im prove mems
Necessary
Less Than
Significant S1ignificant
No LMA Analysis
Needed
ocal Mobility Analysis
Requ ired
Improvements
Necessary
Lane
Conliguralion
lmpro,vements
Bic:yde,
pedestrian,
u-ansit
lnfrnstru,turn
imprcwements
Access
irnpro,.,ements
141
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
ACTION PLAN7
142
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
IN THIS CHAPTER
• SMP Project Database
• Prioritization Criteria
• Project Prioritization
• Project Implementation Phasing
• Program Implementation Phasing
• Forecast Active Travel Trips and
Economic Benefits
This chapter of the SMP presents an Action Plan that serves to consolidate recommendations
from previous mobility plans and then prioritize these recommendations. The chapter gives
city staff a short-range implementation plan that will support a coordinated effort to improve
mobility-related sustainability across the city. The SMP Project Database is a core component
of the SMP Action Plan. It includes recommendations from 12 prior Carlsbad mobility plans,
as well as unbuilt planned recommendations from this current planning process, especially the
planned networks presented in Chapter Five. This chapter also presents a phasing plan for the
programmatic recommendations presented in Chapter 6.
The Action Plan chapter begins with a presentation of the SMP Project Database, then presents
the project prioritization criteria, along with the prioritization analysis and results. This
assessment is intended to provide City staff and community members with an implementation
plan that leads to the highest quality, multimodal and sustainable mobility networks in the
shortest amount of time. Implementation of key programs will support the City’s efforts to
encourage more walking and cycling trips, and these programs should be launched in conjunction
with building out the active transportation networks over the coming years.
Lastly, the chapter presents estimates of new bike and walk trips anticipated to be generated by
full buildout of the SMP planned networks, and the associated economic benefits of this modal
shift.
7
ACTION PLAN
143
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
The SMP has been referred to as "a plan of plans" in that
it seeks to respect recent multimodal planning efforts
in the City of Carlsbad by consolidating their respective
recommendations into a single, searchable project
database for use by city staff and community members in
various aspects of implementing multimodalism in the city.
A total of 246 project recommendations were culled
from 12 prior plans, as well as from the current plan, and
were then assigned to 95 corridors and areas across the
city. The corridor segments were generally defi ned by
intersecting circulation element roadways. Each of the 246
projects was assigned to one of the 95 corridors or areas.
Figure 7-1 displays the SMP project corridor and area
extents with their respective IDs, while Table 7-1 presents
a basic description of recommendations being made in
these project corridor/areas. Appendix K provides a table
with the SMP Project Database and complete project
descriptions.
The SMP Project Database is an important outcome of
this planning process, and the City should coordinate
integrating this database into the recently launched
Capital Improvement Program Dashboard. Integration
of the SMP Project Database into this dashboard will
help city staff and community members understand
the multitude of proposed projects that fall along
any particular roadway segment across the City. The
understanding will facilitate combining certain projects
with others, based upon their proximity or overlap.
After the projects were assigned to corridors and areas,
each of these locations was prioritized.
Table 7-2 describes the prioritization criteria and their
minimum and maximum point values, along with how
their point values were assigned. The prioritization
criteria largely fl owed out of the community engagement
process and included factors related to density, safety,
sustainability, equity and connectivity.
San
Marcos
VISTA
Encinitas
Oceanside
¬«21
¬«45
¬«26
¬«41
¬«37
¬«74
¬«84
¬«85
¬«83
¬«61
¬«23
¬«75
¬«60
¬«80
¬«95
¬«94
¬«54 ¬«58
¬«64
¬«72
¬«68
¬«67
¬«66
¬«57
¬«81
¬«93
¬«87
¬«76
¬«86
¬«65
¬«90
¬«73
¬«89
¬«88
¬«63
¬«62
¬«70
¬«78
¬«19
¬«16
¬«39
¬«79
¬«82
¬«91
¬«56
¬«1
¬«14
¬«2
¬«4
¬«71
¬«25
¬«69
¬«11
¬«77
¬«42
¬«17¬«3
¬«52
¬«30
¬«7
¬«55
¬«22¬«38
¬«53
¬«92
¬«34
¬«6
¬«5
¬«40
¬«44
¬«24
¬«35
¬«29
¬«27
¬«48
¬«46
¬«51
¬«28
¬«49
¬«50
¬«47
¬«8
¬«43
¬«18
¬«20
¬«7 ¬«11
¬«2
¬«33
¬«1
¬«16
¬«37
¬«9
¬«62¬«13
¬«39
¬«14
¬«38
¬«68
¬«61
¬«12
¬«10
¬«59
¬«40
¬«15¬«32
¬«17
¬«36
¬«71
§¨¦5
·}78
son
St
College
Bl
Alg a R d
Poinsettia L n
AviaraPkwy
LaCostaAve
Marron Rd
T a m ara c k
C arlsbad
Villa ge Dr
C
arls
b
a
d
Bl
ElCaminoReal
CannonRd
C olle g e B l
P oin s ettia Ln
M
elro
s
e
Dr
Ranch o
Santa F e
D
r
FaradayAve
C a m VidaRoble
A
v
da
E
n
cin
a
s
C alle B a r celona
C h e stn ut St
T a m a r a c k A v e
C
arlsbad
Bl
H
arding
St
A v e
Mo
nr
o
e
St
N
o
r
te
Pase
o
De
l
P alomarAirportRd
§¨¦5
Project Database
#3URMHFW$UHD ID
FIGURE 7-1 SMP PROJECT DATABASE PROJECT ID
L
D
144
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
PR ID Street Corridor From To
Project Recommendation Type
Bicycle Pedestrian Transit
1 Carlsbad Bl Corridor N City Boundary Carlsbad Village Dr x x x
2 Carlsbad Bl Corridor Carlsbad Village Dr Tamarack Av x x x
3 Carlsbad Bl Corridor Tamarack Av Cannon Rd x x -
4 Carlsbad Bl Corridor Cannon Rd Palomar Airport Rd x x -
5 Carlsbad Bl Corridor Palomar Airport Rd Poinsettia Ln x x -
6 Carlsbad Bl Corridor Poinsettia Ln La Costa Av x x -
7 Rail ROW Corridor Carlsbad Bl Tamarack Av -x -
8 Avenida Encinas Corridor Cannon Rd Poinsettia Ln x x x
9 State St Corridor Laguna Dr Oak Av -x -
10 Tyler St Corridor Oak Av Chestnut Av -x -
11 Roosevelt St Corridor Laguna Dr Magnolia Av -x -
12 Madison St Corridor Laguna Dr Carlsbad Village Dr -x -
13 Madison St Corridor Carlsbad Village Dr Magnolia Av -x -
14 Jefferson St Corridor Interstate 5 over-
pass
Carlsbad Village Dr x --
15 Jefferson St Corridor Carlsbad Village Dr Pine Av -x -
16 Harding St Corridor Carlsbad Village Dr Magnolia Av -x -
17 I-5 (ChinquTo Cannon)Corridor Chinquapin Av Cannon Rd x --
18 Paseo Del Norte Corridor Cannon Rd Poinsettia Ln x --
19 Monroe St Corridor Marron Rd Carlsbad Village Dr -x -
20 El Camino Real Corridor N. City Boundary Palomar Airport Rd x x -
21 El Camino Real Corridor Palomar Airport Rd Olivenhain Rd x x x
22 Tamarack Ave Corridor El Camino Real Carlsbad Village Dr x --
23 College Bl Corridor N. City Boundary El Camino Real x x -
24 College Bl Corridor El Camino Real Palomar Airport Rd --x
Table 7-1 Project Database with Project Recommendation Type
145
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
PR ID Street Corridor From To
Project Recommendation Type
Bicycle Pedestrian Transit
25 El Fuerte St Corridor Poinsettia Ln Alga Rd -x -
26 Aviara Pkwy Corridor Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real -x -
27 Melrose Dr Corridor Palomar Airport Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd x --
28 Rancho Santa Fe Rd Corridor Melrose Dr La Costa Ave x --
29 Olivenhain Rd Corridor El Camino Real La Costa Ave x --
30 Marron Rd Corridor N. City Boundary 1100' east of ECR -x x
31 Las Flores Dr Area SB Ramps NB Ramps -x -
32 Christiansen Wy Corridor Garfield St Washington St ---
33 Carlsbad Village Dr Corridor Ocean St Interstate 5 x x x
34 Carlsbad Village Dr Corridor Interstate 5 El Camino Real x x -
35 Carlsbad Village Dr Corridor El Camino Real College Bl x --
36 Oak Ave Corridor Lincoln St Washington St -x -
37 Chestnut Ave Corridor Carlsbad Bl Interstate 5 x x -
38 Chestnut Ave Corridor Interstate 5 El Camino Real x x -
39 Tamarack Ave Corridor Carlsbad Bl Interstate 5 x x -
40 Tamarack Ave Corridor Interstate 5 El Camino Real x x -
41 Cannon Rd Corridor Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real x x -
42 Cannon Rd Corridor El Camino Real eastern terminus x --
43 Faraday Ave Corridor Cannon Rd El Camino Real -x x
44 Faraday Ave Corridor El Camino Real E. City Boundary -x -
45 Palomar Airport Rd Corridor Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real x x x
46 Palomar Airport Rd Corridor El Camino Real E. City Boundary x --
47 Poinsettia Ln Corridor Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real -x -
48 Poinsettia Ln Corridor El Camino Real Melrose Dr x --
49 Alga Rd Corridor El Camino Real Melrose Dr -x -
Table 7-1 Project Database with Project Recommendation Type
146
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
PR ID Street Corridor From To
Project Recommendation Type
Bicycle Pedestrian Transit
50 La Costa Ave Corridor Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real x --
51 La Costa Ave Corridor El Camino Real Rancho Sante Fe Rd x x -
52 Buena Vista Creek Eco Area N/A N/A -x -
53 Buena Vista Lagoon Area N/A N/A -x -
54 Buena Vista ES Area N/A N/A -x -
55 Calavera Hills PMP Area N/A N/A -x -
56 Hope ES School Area Area N/A N/A -x -
57 Calavera Hills MS Area N/A N/A -x -
58 Calavera Hills ES Area N/A N/A -x -
59 Lincoln Plaza Area N/A N/A -x -
60 Village Streets Area N/A N/A -x -
61 Barrio Streets Area N/A N/A -x -
62 Carlsbad HS PMP Area N/A N/A -x -
63 Hidden Canyon Park Area N/A N/A -x -
64 Valley MS Area N/A N/A -x -
65 Magnolia ES Area N/A N/A -x -
66 SDG&E Corridor Corridor N/A N/A -x -
67 Carlsbad Highlands Eco Area N/A N/A -x -
68 Jefferson ES Area N/A N/A -x -
69 Agua Hedionda Lagoon Area N/A N/A -x -
70 Kelly Dr / Park Dr Corridor El Camino Real Alondra Wy x x -
71 Canyon Park Area N/A N/A x x -
72 Kelly ES Area N/A N/A -x -
73 CRT (Cannon To Palo-
mar)
Corridor Cannon Rd Palomar Airport Rd x x -
Table 7-1 Project Database with Project Recommendation Type
147
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
PR IDStreetCorridorFromTo
Project Recommendation Type
BicyclePedestrianTransit
50La Costa AveCorridorCarlsbad BlEl Camino Realx--
51La Costa AveCorridorEl Camino RealRancho Sante Fe Rdxx-
52Buena Vista Creek EcoAreaN/AN/A-x-
53Buena Vista LagoonAreaN/AN/A-x-
54Buena Vista ESAreaN/AN/A-x-
55Calavera Hills PMPAreaN/AN/A-x-
56Hope ES School AreaAreaN/AN/A-x-
57Calavera Hills MSAreaN/AN/A-x-
58Calavera Hills ESAreaN/AN/A-x-
59Lincoln PlazaAreaN/AN/A-x-
60Village StreetsAreaN/AN/A-x-
61Barrio StreetsAreaN/AN/A-x-
62Carlsbad HS PMPAreaN/AN/A-x-
63Hidden Canyon ParkAreaN/AN/A-x-
64Valley MSAreaN/AN/A-x-
65Magnolia ESAreaN/AN/A-x-
66SDG&E CorridorCorridorN/AN/A-x-
67Carlsbad Highlands EcoAreaN/AN/A-x-
68Jefferson ESAreaN/AN/A-x-
69Agua Hedionda LagoonAreaN/AN/A-x-
70Kelly Dr / Park DrCorridorEl Camino RealAlondra Wyxx-
71Canyon ParkAreaN/AN/Axx-
72Kelly ESAreaN/AN/A-x-
73CRT (Cannon To Palo-
mar)
CorridorCannon RdPalomar Airport Rdxx-
PR ID Street Corridor From To
Project Recommendation Type
Bicycle Pedestrian Transit
74 Legoland Area N/A N/A -x -
75 The Kirgis Trail Conn Corridor Twain Av Existing Trail -x -
76 Connector Study Area Area N/A N/A x x x
77 Carlsbad Raceway Park Corridor Melrose Dr Lionshead Av -x -
78 SDG&E (Plum to Poins)Corridor Plum Tree Ct Poinsettia Ln -x -
79 Aviara Community Park Area N/A N/A -x -
80 Poinsettia ES Area N/A N/A -x -
81 Carillo ES Area N/A N/A -x -
82 Pacific Rim Area N/A N/A -x -
83 Aviara Oaks MS & ES Area N/A N/A -x -
84 Aviara Oaks PMP Area N/A N/A -x -
85 Avenida Encinas Area N/A N/A -x -
86 Batiquitos Lagoon Area N/A N/A x --
87 Batiquitos Lagoon Eco Area N/A N/A -x -
88 SDG&E (Alga to El
Fuerte)
Corridor Alga Rd El Fuerte -x -
89 La Costa Meadows Area N/A N/A -x -
90 La Costa Heights Area N/A N/A -x -
91 El Camino Creek Area N/A N/A -x -
92 La Costa Ave / Cam
Coches
Corridor Olivenhain Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd x x -
93 Mission Estancia Area N/A N/A -x -
94 La Costa HS School
Area
Area N/A N/A -x -
95 Grand Ave Corridor Grand Ave terminus Pio Pico Dr x x -
Table 7-1 Project Database with Project Recommendation Type
148
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
Prioritization Criteria Point Value
Population Density: The Population Density criteria is a composite of scores from three unique density-related inputs,
including population density, senior density, and youth density, as follows:
Population density was calculated within a 500’ buffer area of each project using a Census Block Group-level
population dataset from the 2017 American Community Survey five-year estimate. The three density inputs were
summed by buffer area and then divided by three. The aggregate population density scores range from 0 to 1 points.
0 – 1
Employment Density: Employment density was calculated within a 500’ buffer area of each project using a Census
Block-level employment dataset from the 2016 US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics estimate.
The category breaks determining the point values of this criterion were assigned by sorting project area employment
densities in descending order and dividing the projects into five roughly equal categories. Higher employment density
is associated with higher implementation priority. The category breaks governing this criterion’s point values are as
follows:
• Lowest density (1.2 persons per acre and below) = 0 points
• Medium-Low density (1.29 – 2.12 persons per acre) = 0.25 points
• Medium density (2.21 – 4.12 persons per acre) = 0.5 points
• Medium-High density (4.32 – 7.08 persons per acre) = 0.75 points
• Highest density (7.72 persons per acre or greater) = 1 point
0 – 1
Table 7-2 Prioritization Criteria
Population Density Senior Density Youth Density
Lowest density 3.30 persons/acre and below = 0 pts 0.66 persons/acre and below = 0 pts 0.83 persons/acre and below = 0 pts
Medium-Low density 3.33 – 5.14 persons/acre = 0.5 pts ----
Medium density 5.16 – 6.36 persons/ acre = 1 pt 0.71 – 1.10 persons/acre = 2 pts 0.84 – 1.33 persons/acre = 2 pts
Medium-High density 6.40 – 8.82 persons/acre = 1.5 pts ----
Highest density 9.56 persons/acre or greater = 2 pts 1.14 persons/acre or greater = 4 pts 1.35 persons/acre or greater = 4 pts
149
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
Prioritization Criteria Point Value
Median Household Income: Median Household Income was calculated within a 500’ buffer area of each project using
Census Block Group-level median household income dataset from the 2017 American Community Survey five-year
estimate. The category breaks determining the point values of this criterion were assigned by sorting project area
median household incomes in descending order and dividing the projects into four roughly equal categories. Lower
household income is associated with higher implementation priority. The category breaks governing this criterion’s
point values are as follows:
• Highest median income ($119,210 or above) = 0 points
• Medium-High median income ($101,699 – $118,174) = 1 point
• Medium-Low median income ($76,965 – $101,235) = 2 points
• Lowest median income ($76,669 and below) = 3 points
0 – 3
CalEnvrioScreen (CES): CES is a composite index by Census Tract which reflects pollution burden and vulnerability
across the state. Higher CES scores reflect higher exposure to pollution. An average weighted CES score was calculated
for each project by intersecting the project extents with the CES coverage. The category breaks determining the point
values of this criterion were assigned by sorting average weighted scores in descending order and dividing the projects
into four roughly equal categories. Higher CES scores are associated with higher implementation priority. The CES
category breaks governing this criterion’s (shown as the CES score’s conversion to statewide percentile) point values
are as follows:
• Low CES score (9.18 and below) = 0 points
• Medium-Low CES score (9.35 - 11.47) = 1 point
• Medium-High CES score (11.53 - 13.72) = 2 points
• High CES score (13.95 and above) = 3 points
0 – 3
Table 7-2 Prioritization Criteria
150
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
Prioritization Criteria Point Value
Transit: The transit criteria assigns implementation priority to project areas within a quarter-mile of high ridership
transit stops/stations, which include the Coaster stations, planned Mobility Hub sites, and the transit stops at the
intersection of El Camino Real & Marron Road. Project extents within a quarter-mile of these high transit demand areas
were awarded 2 points. This criterion’s point values are as follows:
• More than a quarter mile from a major transit location = 0 points
• Within a quarter mile of a major transit location = 2 points
0 – 2
VMT: Implementation priority was assigned to project extents within higher VMT-generating areas of the city. VMT
generation was divided into three categories: <85%, 85-100%, or >100% of the regional average VMT. This criterion’s
point values are as follows:
• 85% of regional average or less = 0 points
• 85% - 100% = 3 points
• Above 100% (above regional average) = 6 points
0 – 6
School Proximity: Implementation priority was assigned to project extents that overlap with School Streets or are
adjacent to schools. This criterion’s point values are as follows:
• Not overlapping with a School Street/Not adjacent to a school = 0 points
• Overlaps with a School Street = 1 point
• Overlaps with a School Street and is adjacent to a school = 2 points
0 – 2
Sa
f
e
t
y
-
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Table 7-2 Prioritization Criteria
151
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
Prioritization Criteria Point Value
Collisions: This criterion assigns a point value ranging from zero to five, based on bicycle and pedestrian collisions per
mile within the last five years along the project extent. The category breaks were determined by sorting collisions per
mile in descending order and dividing the projects by mileage into five roughly equal categories. The category breaks
defining this criterion’s point values are as follows:
• No collisions along proposed project extent = 0 points
• 0.01 – 1.09 bicycle and pedestrian collisions per mile = 1 point
• 1.10 – 2.78 bicycle and pedestrian collisions per mile = 2 points
• 2.79 – 7.23 bicycle and pedestrian collisions per mile = 3 points
• 7.24 – 38.25 bicycle and pedestrian collisions per mile = 4 points
0 – 4
Key Destination Connectivity: A project received points for this prioritization criterion if it improved pedestrian,
bicycling or transit access to a key destination in the City of Carlsbad (key destinations are listed in Chapter 2). Points
were assigned based on the significance of the destination (regionally significant, locally significant, or neighborhood-
serving) and based on the level of access the project provided (if project was adjacent to destination, or if the project
connected to destination-serving roadway within a quarter-mile or between a quarter-mile and half-mile).
Up to 3 points maximum were given for this input.
Improved Accessibility Score = Transit Network Points + Bike Network Points + Pedestrian Network Points
Locational Significance
0 – 3
Transformative Corridor: Priority was assigned to projects located along Transformative Corridors using the following
scoring:
• Project does not fall along a Transformative Corridor = 0 points
• Project falls along a Transformative Corridor = 6 points
0 - 6
Total Possible Points 31
Sa
f
e
t
y
-
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Table 7-2 Prioritization Criteria
L
152
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
Figure 7-2 displays the fi nal project
prioritization scores for the 95 project
corridors and areas based on the criteria
provided in Table 7-2. Projects with the
highest implementation priority are shown
in red and orange, with prioritization scores
over 16.7 out of a total possible score of 31.
In order to achieve a reasonable geographic
distribution of priority projects across the
city, we selected the top 30 priority projects
in a manner that would match the proportion
of project extents falling within each council
district. Council District 1, for example, has
30% of the project extents, so this district
was assigned 30% of the top 30 projects.
Council District 2 has 35% of the project
areas, so this district was assigned 35% of the
top 30 projects. Council District 3 has 20% of
the project areas, so this district was assigned
20% of the top 30 projects. Lastly, Council
District 4 has 15% of the project areas, so
this district was assigned 15% of the top 30
projects.
San
Marcos
VISTA
Encinitas
Oceanside
!(43
!(10
!(64
!(12
!(14
!(37
!(41
!(78
!(67
!(48
!(18
!(53
!(83
!(1
!(60
!(95
!(52
!(22 !(73
!(28
!(29
!(66
!(93
!(89
!(86
!(68
!(94
!(23
!(87
!(76
!(49
!(81
!(61
!(90
!(91!(39
!(20
!(88
!(42
!(46
!(62
!(56
!(54
!(82
!(38
!(3
!(2
!(40
!(19
!(44
!(55
!(72
!(74
!(24
!(92
!(30
!(80!(63
!(9
!(8
!(32
!(36
!(69!(51
!(4
!(50
!(16
!(45
!(15
!(11
!(77
!(34
!(27
!(71
!(70
!(58
!(47
!(65
!(79
!(75
!(59
!(31
!(57
!(35
!(21
!(5
!(32 !(24
!(19
!(3
!(2
!(46
!(37
!(13
!(39
!(26
!(62
!(40
!(51
!(12
!(18
!(25
!(84
!(17
!(11
!(33!(6
!(80
!(85
!(55
§¨¦5
·}78
son
St
College
Bl
Alg a R d
Poinsettia L n
AviaraPkwy
LaCostaAve
Marron Rd
T a m ara c k
C arlsbad
Villa ge Dr
C
arls
b
a
d
Bl
ElCaminoReal
CannonRd
C olle g e B l
P oin s ettia Ln
M
elro
s
e
Dr
Rancho
Santa F e Dr
FaradayAve
C a m VidaRoble
A
v
da
E
n
cin
a
s
C alle B a r celona
C h e stn ut St
T a m a r a c k A v e
C
arlsbad
Bl
H
arding
St
A v e
Mo
nr
o
e
St
N
or
te
Pase
o
De
l
P alomarAirportRd
§¨¦5
Project Prioritization Total Points
!(Priority Rank
16.8 - 28.2
14.1 - 16.7
10.1 - 14.0
10 or Less
#
FIGURE 7-2 SMP PROJECT DATABASE
153
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
San
Marcos
VISTA
Encinitas
Oceanside
!(21
!(45
!(41
!(83
!(60
!(32
!(31
!(72
!(76
!(70
!(33
!(1
!(52
!(30
!(53
!(6
!(5
!(40
!(24
!(35
!(47
!(18
!(20
!(33
!(1 !(60
!(40
!(32
§¨¦5
·}78
son
St
College
Bl
Alg a R d
Poinsettia L n
AviaraPkwy
LaCostaAve
Marron Rd
T a m ara c k
C arlsbad
Villa ge Dr
C
arls
b
a
d
Bl
ElCaminoReal
CannonRd
C olle g e B l
P oin s ettia Ln
M
elro
s
e
Dr
Rancho
Santa F e Dr
FaradayAve
C a m VidaRoble
A
v
da
E
n
cin
a
s
C alle B a r celona
C h e stn ut St
T a m a r a c k A v e
C
arlsbad
Bl
H
arding
St
A v e
Mo
nr
o
e
St
N
or
te
Pase
o
De
l
P alomarAirportRd
§¨¦5
Highest Priority Projects
Project Area ID
Council District 1
Council District 2
Council District 3
Council District 4
!(#
FIGURE 7-3 HIGHEST PRIORTITY PROJECTS
Table 7-3 and Figure 7-3 show the highest
priority (top 30) projects across the City
of Carlsbad, including consideration of the
fi nal project area prioritization score and
maintaining a reasonable distribution of top
priority projects by council district.
Table 7-4 presents a brief project description
for each of the 30 top priority projects as
defi ned in Table 7-3.
Appendix L presents the fi nal prioritization
scores and ranking for the entire database of
95 project extents.
154
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
Table 7-3 Top 30 Priority Projects by Council District
Overall
Rank Rank PR ID Street Corridor From To Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Me
d
i
a
n
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
En
v
i
r
o
S
c
r
e
e
n
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
Co
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
Ke
y
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
c
o
r
e
Tr
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
VM
T
TO
T
A
L
1 1 60 Village Streets Area N/A N/A 0.83 1 3 3 2 3 1.33 6 2 6 28.17
2 2 1 Carlsbad Bl Corridor N City Bound-
ary
Carlsbad
Village Dr
0.75 1 3 2 2 3 2.17 6 2 6 27.92
3 3 33 Carlsbad Village
Dr
Corridor Ocean St Interstate 5 0.75 1 3 3 0 4 0.00 6 2 6 25.75
4 4 53 Buena Vista
Lagoon
Area N/A N/A 1.00 0.5 3 3 2 2 0.00 6 2 6 25.5
5 5 20 El Camino Real Corridor N. City Bound-
ary
Palomar
Airport Rd
0.25 0.5 2 2 2 3 0.00 6 2 6 23.75
6 6 32 Christiansen Wy Corridor Garfield St Washington
St
0.50 1 3 1 0 3 0.00 6 2 6 22.5
7 7 31 Las Flores Dr Area SB Ramps NB Ramps 1.00 0.25 3 2 1 3 0.00 6 0 6 22.25
8 8 30 Marron Rd Corridor N. City Bound-
ary
1100' east
of El Camino
Real
0.42 0.75 3 1 0 2 0.00 6 2 6 21.17
9 9 52 Buena Vista
Creek Eco
Area N/A N/A 0.50 0.5 3 3 0 0 0.00 6 2 6 21
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
155
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
Overall
Rank Rank PR ID Street Corridor From To Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Me
d
i
a
n
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
En
v
i
r
o
S
c
r
e
e
n
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
Co
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
Ke
y
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
c
o
r
e
Tr
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
VM
T
TO
T
A
L
5 1 20 El Camino Real Corridor N. City Bound-
ary
Palomar
Airport Rd
0.25 0.5 2 2 2 3 0.00 6 2 6 23.75
8 2 30 Marron Rd Corridor N. City Bound-
ary
1100' east
of El Camino
Real
0.42 0.75 3 1 0 2 0.00 6 2 6 21.17
9 3 52 Buena Vista
Creek Eco
Area N/A N/A 0.50 0.5 3 3 0 0 0.00 6 2 6 21
10 4 45 Palomar Airport
Rd
Corridor Carlsbad Bl El Camino
Real
0.17 1 1 2 0 2 0.50 6 2 6 20.67
11 5 40 Tamarack Ave Corridor Interstate 5 El Camino
Real
0.50 0 2 2 1 3 0.00 6 0 6 20.5
14 6 41 Cannon Rd Corridor Carlsbad Bl El Camino
Real
0.00 1 2 2 2 1 0.00 6 0 6 20
20 7 70 Kelly Dr / Park
Dr
Corridor El Camino Real Alondra Wy 0.42 0 2 1 2 2 0.00 6 0 6 19.42
21 8 18 Paseo Del Norte Corridor Cannon Rd Poinsettia Ln 0.50 0.75 1 1 2 2 0.00 6 0 6 19.25
23 9 76 Connector Study
Area
Area N/A N/A 0.00 0.75 1 2 0 1 0.50 6 2 6 19.25
27 10 35 Carlsbad Village
Dr
Corridor El Camino Real College Bl 0.50 0.25 2 1 0 3 0.00 6 0 6 18.75
29 11 72 Kelly ES Area N/A N/A 0.42 0 2 1 2 1 0.00 6 0 6 18.42
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
2
Table 7-3 Top 30 Priority Projects by Council District
156
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
Overall
Rank Rank PR ID Street Corridor From To Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Me
d
i
a
n
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
En
v
i
r
o
S
c
r
e
e
n
Sc
h
o
o
l
P
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
Co
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
Ke
y
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
c
o
r
e
Tr
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
VM
T
TO
T
A
L
10 1 45 Palomar Airport
Rd
Corridor Carlsbad Bl El Camino
Real
0.17 1 1 2 0 2 0.50 6 2 6 20.67
15 2 5 Carlsbad Bl Corridor Palomar Air-
port Rd
Poinsettia Ln 0.00 0.75 1 1 0 1 2.00 6 2 6 19.75
21 3 18 Paseo Del Norte Corridor Cannon Rd Poinsettia Ln 0.50 0.75 1 1 2 2 0.00 6 0 6 19.25
23 4 76 Connector Study
Area
Area N/A N/A 0.00 0.75 1 2 0 1 0.50 6 2 6 19.25
31 5 47 Poinsettia Ln Corridor Carlsbad Bl El Camino
Real
0.58 0.5 0 1 2 2 0.00 6 0 6 18.08
34 6 24 College Bl Corridor El Camino Real Palomar
Airport Rd
0.00 1 2 2 0 1 0.00 6 0 6 18
---
31 1 47 Poinsettia Ln Corridor Carlsbad Bl El Camino
Real
0.58 0.5 0 1 2 2 0.00 6 0 6 18.08
43 2 21 El Camino Real Corridor Palomar Air-
port Rd
Olivenhain
Rd
0.42 0.5 1 1 0 2 0.00 6 0 6 16.92
45 3 6 Carlsbad Bl Corridor Poinsettia Ln La Costa Av 0.25 0.5 1 1 0 2 0.00 6 0 6 16.75
48 4 83 Aviara Oaks MS
& ES
Area N/A N/A 0.50 0.25 0 2 2 0 0.00 6 0 6 16.75
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
3
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
4
Table 7-3 Top 30 Priority Projects by Council District
L ________ _
i
L
157
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
Rank PR ID Street From To Project Description
1 60 Village Streets N/A N/A
Pedestrian lighting; Street planters and sharrows; roadways less than 48 feet without
bike lane; Transition street improvements and entry features; Alleyway pedestrian
improvements
EV charging stations & NEV Shuttles
ADA Priority Level 1 - Village Area: Right-of-Way adjacent to public facilities
ADA Priority Level 2 - Village Area: 1/4 mile from public facilities
ADA Priority Level 3 - Village Area: Remaining (mid-term) projects in study area
2 1 Carlsbad Bl N City Boundary Carlsbad Village Dr
Pedestrian lighting and Restriping for bike and ped comfort
Pedestrian improvements
Bulbouts at all RRFB and EcoCounter locations
Transformative Corridor
Pedestrian crossings, Roadway alignment, and Transit stop improvements
Comfort Stations (quarter- to half-mile spacing)
3 33 Carlsbad Village Dr Ocean St Interstate 5
Bike and ped crossing improvements
Streetscape improvements
Improvements at intersection of Washington St/Carlsbad Village Dr
Transit stop improvements
Mobility Hub at Carlsbad Village Coaster Station
4 53 Buena Vista Lagoon N/A N/A
I-5 crossing pedestrian improvements on Carlsbad Village Dr
Buena Vista South Shore
Carlsbad Blvd Lagoon Overlook Area
Sidewalk infill, wayfinding, freeway crossing
Table 7-4 High Priority Project Descriptions (Top 30 Projects)
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
158
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
Rank PR ID Street From To Project Description
5 20 El Camino Real N. City Boundary Palomar Airport Rd
Truncated domes, audible signal installation at intersection of El Camino Real/Marron Rd
Transformative Corridor
El Camino Real & Cannon Road bridge improvements and bike lane installation
Sidewalk improvements along east and west sides of El Camino Real from Tamarack Av
to Chestnut Av; Sidewalk improvements along west side of El Camino Real from Lisa St to
Crestview
Signalized intersection improvements at El Camino Real/Chestnut Av; Signalized
intersection improvements at El Camino Real/Tamarack Av
Transit stop improvements along El Camino Real from SR-78 to Cannon Rd; Transit
stop improvements along El Camino Real from Cannon Rd to College Bl; Transit stop
improvements along El Camino Real from College Bl to Palomar Airport Rd
Class I Bike Path westside El Camino between Palomar Airport and Gateway Rd
6 32 Christiansen Wy Garfield St Washington St Christiansen Wy improvements
7 31 Las Flores Dr SB Ramps NB Ramps I-5 crossing pedestrian improvements on Las Flores Drive
8 30 Marron Rd N. City Boundary 1100' east of El
Camino Real
Sidewalk infill, wayfinding, rail crossing, transit stop improvements
Mobility Hub at Shoppes Carlsbad
9 52 Buena Vista Creek Eco N/A N/A
Haymar Rd (From El Camino To South Coast Quarry - Quarry Creek)
Haymar Rd (From Marron Rd To El Camino)
Hidden Canyon Park & North SDG&E Utility Rd
Park Drive Trail
Quarry Creek Development Trails
Buena Vista Creek Ecological Reserve Trail
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
Table 7-4 High Priority Project Descriptions (Top 30 Projects)
159
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
Rank PR ID Street From To Project Description
1 20 El Camino Real N. City Boundary Palomar Airport Rd Same as Council District 1 Rank 5
2 30 Marron Rd N. City Boundary 1100' east of El
Camino Real
Same as Council District 1 Rank 8
3 52 Buena Vista Creek Eco N/A N/A Same as Council District 1 Rank 9
4 45 Palomar Airport Rd Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real
Midblock crosswalk at Armada Dr
Multi-use path
Bicycle and traffic striping improvements on Palomar Airport Rd/I-5 overpass
Transformative Corridor
Transit stop improvements along Palomar Airport Rd from College Bl to El Camino Real
5 40 Tamarack Ave Interstate 5 El Camino Real
Improvements at intersection of Highland Drive/Tamarack Avenue
Improvements at intersection of Sunnyhill Dr/Tamarack Av
Traffic signal near Valley Middle School and Magnolia Elementary School
Transformative Corridor
6 41 Cannon Rd Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real
Truncated domes and audible signal installation at intersection of Paseo Del Norte/Cannon
Road
Transformative Corridor
7 70 Kelly Dr / Park Dr El Camino Real Alondra Wy AT facility improvements
8 18 Paseo Del Norte Cannon Rd Poinsettia Ln
Road diet and sharrows on Paseo Del Norte from Palomair Airport Rd to Cannon Rd
Transformative Corridor
9 76 Connector Study Area N/A N/A
Bicycle improvements on Camino Vida Roble from El Camino Real to Palomar Airport Rd
Mobility Hub in Business Park
Traffic signal installation and pedestrian improvments at Aramada Dr/Fleet St S.
Traffic signal installation and pedestrian improvments at intersection of Aramada Drive &
Grand Pacific Resort
Traffic signal installation and pedestrian improvments at intersection of Camino Vida Roble
& Yarrow Drive
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
2
Table 7-4 High Priority Project Descriptions (Top 30 Projects)
160
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
Rank PR ID Street From To Project Description
9 cont.76 Connector Study Area N/A N/A AT Facility improvements along Orion Street from El Camino Real to Faraday Avenue
10 35 Carlsbad Village Dr El Camino Real College Bl Transformative Corridor
11 72 Kelly ES N/A N/A SRTS improvements
---
1 45 Palomar Airport Rd Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real Same as Council District 2 Rank 4
2 5 Carlsbad Bl Palomar Airport Rd Poinsettia Ln
Reconfiguration and redevelopment; Improvements at intersection of Carlsbad Bl/
Poinsettia Ln
Pedestrian improvements
Bulbouts at all RRFB and EcoCounter locations
Class I - Bike Path
Transformative Corridor
Roadway alignment; AT facility improvements along Carlsbad Bl from Palomar Airport Rd
to Avenida Encinas; AT facility improvements
Comfort Stations (quarter- to half-mile spacing)
General Mobility Improvement
3 18 Paseo Del Norte Cannon Rd Poinsettia Ln Same as Council District 2 Rank 8
4 76 Connector Study Area N/A N/A Same as Council District 2 Rank 9
5 47 Poinsettia Ln Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real
Transformative Corridor
Traffic signal installation and pedestrian Improvements at Poinsettia Ln/Brigantine Rd
Roadway construction of Poinsettia Ln from Cassia Rd to Oriole Ct
6 24 College Bl El Camino Real Palomar Airport Rd Transit stop improvements along College Bl from Palomar Airport Rd to Faraday Av
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
2
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
3
Table 7-4 High Priority Project Descriptions (Top 30 Projects)
L
161
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
Rank PR ID Street From To Project Description
1 47 Poinsettia Ln Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real Same as Council District 3 Rank 5
2 21 El Camino Real Palomar Airport Rd Olivenhain Rd
Transformative Corridor
Traffic signal installation and pedestrian Improvements at Poinsettia Ln/Brigantine Rd
Roadway construction of Poinsettia Ln from Cassia Rd to Oriole Ct
3 6 Carlsbad Bl Poinsettia Ln La Costa Av
Reconfiguration and redevelopment
Pedestrian improvements
Bulbouts at all RRFB and EcoCounter locations
Transformative Corridor
Roadway alignment; AT facility improvements along Carlsbad Bl from Palomar Airport Rd
to Avenida Encinas; AT facility improvements
Comfort Stations (quarter- to half-mile spacing)
4 83 Aviara Oaks MS & ES N/A N/A SRTS improvements
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
4
Table 7-4 High Priority Project Descriptions (Top 30 Projects)
162
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
ideally within a 10-20 year timeframe.
The remaining proposed projects, as listed in
Appendix L, are considered Long-Term and
are anticipated to be implemented in the 20
to 30 year range.
In order to monitor and report on the
progress being made as a result of
implementing these high priority projects,
the city will execute the SMP Active
Transportation Monitoring Program as
described in detail in Chapter 6 of the SMP.
NEAR-TERM
MEDIUM-TERM
LONG-TERM
Top 10 projects
Top 11-30 projects
All remaining projects
The implementation and phasing for the
prioritized projects are divided into three
main categories: Near-Term, Medium-Term,
and Long-Term.
The top 10 priority projects are defined
as Near-Term projects and should be
implemented first, ideally within a 5 to 10
year timeframe.
The top 11-30 priority projects are defined
as Medium-Term projects and should be
implemented in the medium to near future,
IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING AND PHASING
This section proposes phasing plans for both
project and program recommendations
presented in the SMP.
Project Implementation and Phasing
The project prioritization presented
in this chapter presents a high-level
planning analysis that will require further
refinement and feasibility analysis through
the preparation of a Feasibility and
Implementation Plan. Implementation is by
far the most challenging aspect of creating
a successful mobility network. Significant
obstacles can include acquisition of right-of-
way, securing construction and maintenance
funding, designing projects that provide
access for all roadway users, and meeting
environmental standards.
In order to address these obstacles and to
determine project feasibility, the Feasibility
and Implementation Plan will include the
preparation of planning level cost estimates,
analysis of right-of-way constraints,
constructability analysis, and conceptual
plan preparation. The resulting plan will be
utilized for both grant applications and when
integrating the plan recommendations into
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for
construction.
163
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
Medium Term (5 to 10 years)
• Cycling Education
• Transportation Demand Management
The Feasibility and Implementation Plan
referenced in the previous section should
include cost estimates for launching and
maintaining these five programs, with details
such as staffing, marketing, and general
operating costs.
This program will allow city staff, elected
officials, and community members to track
changes in travel behavior over time and
especially in relation to the implementation
of active travel and transit infrastructure
projects.
Program Implementation and Phasing
Chapter 6 recommends a total of five
programs to support shifting travel from
automobile to walking and cycling across the
City of Carlsbad, as follows:
• Cycling Education
• Safe Routes to School
• Transportation Demand Management
• Active Transportation Monitoring
• Local Roadway Safety Plan
Based upon input from the Transportation
& Mobility Commission and City staff,
these programs have been prioritized for
implementation into two phases as shown
below.
Near Term (3 to 5 years)
• Safe Routes to School
• Active Transportation Monitoring
• Local Roadway Safety Plan
NEAR-TERM
MEDIUM-TERM
3-5 years
5-10 years
164
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFT ACTION PLAN
ESTIMATED NEW USERS AND ASSOCIATED BENEFITS
Calculating New Users
Table 7-5 presents an estimation of current
and projected future active transportation
trips. Current trips are based upon 2017
American Community Survey (ACS) data,
which is the most recent available from the
US Census Bureau.
These data measure commute trips only,
and therefore were extrapolated further to
capture the active travel trips taken by those
accessing transit, working from home, and
school children who bike and walk to school.
Regional growth estimates were applied
based upon SANDAG Series 13 regional
growth forecasts, and increased by 1.3% to
account for the improved facilities resulting
from buildout of the SMP networks, since
walking and biking will become viable for
more people with an enhanced network. This
increase is a conservative estimate based
upon experience of other major metropolitan
areas.
Table 7-5 Estimated Active Transportation Trips and New Users
Source of Trip Description of Source Number of Trips
Carlsbad Census Population From 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) Estimates 113,147
Current Estimated Total Daily Bicycle Trips (Weekday)
Includes bicycle commuters, Assumption of
15% of work-at-home commuters making one bicycle trip per day, 10% of transit users biking to transit, and 2% of schoolchildren traveling by bike (x2 to reflect round trips)
3,072
Current Estimated Total Daily Walk Trips (Weekday)
Includes walking commuters, Assumption of 50% of work-at-home commuters making one walking trip per day, 85% of transit users walking to transit, and 14.5% of schoolchildren traveling by foot (x2 to reflect round trips)
13,951
Regional 2050 Population Growth Estimates Based upon SANDAG regional estimates +29%
2050 Population Estimate Based upon +29% SANDAG estimate 145,960
2050 Estimated Total Daily Bicycle Trips (Weekday)
Based upon +29% SANDAG estimate and
1.3% network growth enhancement from fully completed network (based upon the experience of other major regions)
4,014
2050 Estimated Total Daily Walk Trips (Weekday)
Based upon 29% SANDAG estimate and 1.3% network growth enhancement from fully completed network (based upon the experience of other major regions)
18,231
Estimated New Bicycle Trips Per Day Based on current estimates – 2050 estimates 942
Estimated New Walking Trips Per Day Based on current estimates – 2050 estimates 4,280
165
CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN - DRAFTACTION PLAN
area. The revitalizations began with a focus
on attracting arts related business. However,
the project grew in popularity once bicycle
lanes were included. Business owners on
Broad Avenue made the connection between
bike lanes and business growth. As of 2012,
the district had seen 16 new businesses,
29 property renovations (17 at blighted
locations), and 40,000 visitors to the Arts
Walk. Restaurants had reported a growth in
business from cyclists as well .
The benefits of investing in active
transportation infrastructure is also born out
in the real estate market. Researchers have
mapped real estate transactions and have
shown that bike facilities can have positive,
statistically significant impacts on home
values. Studies in Canada , Vermont, Indiana,
and Delaware , among other places, have
shown that homes located close to bicycle
infrastructure were valued between 5- 11%
higher than comparable homes located
further away.
effects of investing in active transportation
infrastructure such as sidewalks, bicycle
facilities (lanes, paths), and complete street
design. The study found for every $1 spent
in implementing the active transportation
strategy, the economy would see an additional
$8.41 in sales output, $2.65 in personal
income, and $5.20 in value added.
Another example of a more regional economic
impact comes from North Carolina’s Outer
Banks. The Outer Banks generates $60
million in economic activity through bicycle
tourism, by conservative estimates (in 2012
dollars). The one-time investment of $6.7
million in bicycle infrastructure has resulted in
an annual nine-to-one return .
The benefits of a bicycle accessible business
district are measurable as well. A 2009
study of Bloor Street, a commercial street in
Toronto, Ontario showed that encouraging
bicycling is good for business: people who had
biked and walked to the area reported that
they spent more money in the area per month
than those who drove there .
Another study of greater Portland, Oregon
had the same finding: bicycling customers
spend more money per month. The study
found that customers who arrived by
automobile, spent the most per visit across all
of the establishments, however cyclists spent
the most per month .
Broad Avenue Arts District in Memphis, TN
was a struggling commercial and residential
Economic Benefits of New Users
The economic benefits of active
transportation are wide reaching and
measurable on many levels: benefits to
citywide economies, to businesses, to
individuals and society, and benefits to the
environment.
The transportation-related economic benefits
from investing in active transportation
infrastructure are significant and include
the reduction of congestion, decreased road
maintenance costs, less costly infrastructure,
increased road safety and decreased user
costs. Increased active transportation use
also benefits society by increasing mobility, an
increased sense of community and improved
livability . There are workplace benefits as
well – employees who are physically active
report fewer days off due to illness, have
lower turnover rates, lower healthcare costs
and increased productivity .
The City of Carlsbad can expect to accrue
several types of benefits from investing
in active transportation infrastructure as
described in the SMP and discussed below.
Citywide Economic Benefits
One study analyzed the citywide economic
benefits of active transportation investments
resulting from increased walking and bicycling
for utilitarian transportation purposes, such
as commuting or accessing neighborhood
destinations. The study analyzed the
Sources:
R. Campbell, M. Wittgens. The Business Case for Active Transportation: The Economic Benefits of
Walking and Cycling. Better Environmentally Sound
Transportation (March 2004).
Active Transportation Health and Economic Impact
Study, November 7, 2016. Southern California
Association of Governments.
D. Flusche, Bicycling Means Business: The Economic
Benefits of Bicycle Infrastructure, (2012).
1
August 24, 2022
To: Carlsbad Tomorrow Committee
From: Committee Member Steve Linke (Traffic & Mobility Commission)
Re: GMP circulation performance standards
This first page describes a flow diagram on the second page, intended to help simplify and visualize three
parallel/complementary pathways of traffic impact analysis. These pathways apply to development reviews
and the city’s annual Growth Management Plan (GMP) monitoring, consistent with the GMP and General Plan
Mobility Element. The third page contains my initial recommendations for committee consideration.
State of California environmental impact assessment (VMT)
On the left of the flow diagram is the State’s Environmental pathway, which is intended to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. A “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) method is used for this pathway. If a project’s calculated
VMT exceeds a certain threshold, the developer is supposed to create a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) plan to reduce GHGs. In practice, though, the City Planner either exempts or screens out almost every
project from VMT analysis, and the few that require a more detailed analysis are typically found to have little
or no impact and/or implement minimal TDM measures. Further, the VMT approach is very general and does
not directly address congestion/quality of life in specific problem areas of the city. The other two pathways,
which are based on level of service (LOS), address that.
City of Carlsbad growth management/direct mitigation (LOS)
For the Direct Mitigation pathway (in the middle of the diagram), when the city or a developer proposes a
project, they conduct a Local Mobility Analysis, which includes LOS calculations for each mode of travel
prioritized on the streets in their project area (vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit). If LOS is E or F
(GMP-deficient), the developer is supposed to either construct, or make a “fair share contribution” towards
the construction of, improvements that overcome any deficiencies. Unfortunately, vehicle LOS deficiencies
have become largely irrelevant, because the city just exempts any deficient segments from the GMP. And the
non-vehicle LOS systems have been designed to require only installation of a few sidewalk segments and small
transit stop benches to get passing grades.
City of Carlsbad growth management/indirect mitigation (LOS)
The Indirect Mitigation pathway (on the right) relates to annual GMP monitoring. Similar to Direct Mitigation,
LOS is supposed to be calculated for each prioritized mode of travel—but annually, and on a citywide basis.
Theoretically, the GMP requires the shutdown of development in any zones that have LOS deficiencies, unless
there is a planning and financial commitment to complete projects that resolve the deficiencies. Also, a list of
projects that address deficiencies should be included in the Traffic Impact Fee program, into which developers
make uniform contributions based on the number of vehicle trips they generate. This mitigates indirect
impacts (independent of the location of the project or how congested the adjacent streets are).
In practice, though, the city just exempts the vehicle LOS deficiencies, and they have begun claiming that they
never intended to enforce the LOS performance standard for the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes in
areas of the city that were already built (which is almost the entire city). In fact, in the six years since the
2
requirement to monitor non-vehicle LOS went into effect, none has ever been reported. Further, the failure to
keep the Traffic Impact Fee program updated means that critical projects like the city’s portion of the College
Boulevard extension and any non-vehicle projects have missed out on years of funding.
GMP and General Plan Mobility Element:
Three complementary review pathways
State of California
CEQA/Environment (GHGs)
l
Environmental Impact Report
~
Veh icle Miles Traveled
(% relative to current)
~
lfVMT> threshold%,
mit igation required
~
TDM Plan for GHG reduction
(measures that reduce
single-occupancy vehicle trips)
City of Carlsbad
Growth Management/Quality of Life
t t
Direct Mitigation
(near project)
Local Mobt ty Ana lysis
~
Indirect Mitigation
(citywide)
Annual GM,Monitoring
~
Level of Service (A through F)
If LOS E or F ( deficiency)
Construction or
Fa ir Share Contribution
■
Construction or
Impact Fee Program
■
Vehicle improvements before exemption: Pedestrian improvements:
• Bu ild-out through lanes
• Turn lane extensions/addit ions
• Traffic signal timing improvements
Vehicle improvements, if streets
exempted:
• TDM Plan for congestion
• TSM, including transit improvements
• Complete missing sidewalks
• Upgrade substandard sidewalks
• Enhance crosswa lks
• Install pedestrian countdown signa ls
• lmprovesignage/markings
Bicycle improvements:
• Adding and improving bike lanes
Transit/rideshare improvements:
• Stops well lit with shelters and seating
• Meaningful service/alternatives
3
Initial Suggestions
Strengthen pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS methods
Make these more stringent, in order to require more than just completion of missing sidewalks and bus stop
benches to get a passing LOS “D” grade (e.g., see the list of improvements on the right side of the box at the
bottom of the flow diagram). In addition, do not allow staff to unilaterally change the methods without public
review/adoption. Also, actually do the monitoring and report it, as required by our General Plan.
Direct Mitigation
For larger developments that add significant vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and/or transit users to the
transportation network, require construction of more local improvements. For smaller developments, set up a
system to collect fair-share contributions for local improvements, and then the city should fund its portion.
Vehicle LOS GMP exemption prerequisites
When the GMP exemption power was introduced by staff, they promised that segments would not be
exempted until build-out, and that intersection and traffic signal timing improvements still would be made.
And they promised that exempted segments “would not be forgotten,” because aggressive TDM measures
would be implemented. Accordingly, street segments should not be exempted unless they are built-out and
analyses have been done to determine whether additional turn lanes and/or extensions of existing turn lanes
and/or signal timing optimization would help improve LOS. Also, already-exempted street segments that have
not been analyzed, as described above, should have their exemptions lifted, if appropriate, or be analyzed.
Post vehicle LOS GMP exemption
For street segments that still do not meet the vehicle LOS standard after the above prerequisites are met,
require meaningful TDM, Transportation Systems Management (TSM), and transit/ridesharing measures that
directly address the local congestion problem (as prescribed in the General Plan). It is insufficient to cite a
minimal plan from the anemic Climate Action Plan TDM Program, which was not designed to address
exempted street congestion. If TDM is insufficient, then a different approach needs to be identified.
Indirect Mitigation/Traffic Impact Fee Program
Include in the TIF Program projects encompassing all of the improvement types in the box above, including
vehicle through and turn lanes, traffic signal timing projects, sidewalk/crosswalk enhancements, countdown
signals, bike lane enhancements, transit/rideshare stop improvements, and TDM measures, such as
ridesharing. Also, update the program every few years rather than waiting 15 years each time.
Strengthen Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and VMT Analysis guidelines
Update the guidelines to enhance analytic consistency. Reduce the ability to avoid mitigation by minimizing
staff discretion to waive or change rules, or to allow custom methods for each separate development.
FINALLY, DO NOT INTRODUCE ANOTHER UNPROVEN, UNMEASURABLE BLEEDING EDGE SCHEME TO REPLACE
OUR CURRENT SYSTEM—ONLY TO FAIL TO IMPLEMENT THAT ONE, AS WELL, OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
From:Sharon Jewell
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Parks
Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 1:39:43 PM
I am pleased we finally got the Poinsettia dog park opened. It would be nice if there were
shade sail areas actually inside the fencing so that those using the park are not standing in fullsunlight- and only people who are not using the dog park have a nice shaded area with tables.
This part of the design is confusing.
Carlsbad needs to rethink their dictates on dogs walking on leash within our park. Surroundingcities allow dogs on leash in parks and have for years. I am all for enforcing CA state and local
laws requiring picking up poop and walking dogs on leash outside the dog park.
Why does Carlsbad forbid responsible dog owners who keep their dogs on leash and pick upthe poop from enjoying the parks fully. Other cities have signs with animal control phone # so
offenders can be reported.
I believe anyone not abiding by the rules should be ticketed and repeat offenders banned.
Parks are for the entire community, - not just pickle ball Tennis and parents who aren’tsupervising their kids and to be honest I see lots of kids misbehaving without any supervision
in all the parks in carlsbad, and adults who dump the dogs at alga Norte dog park while theyplay sports, or let them off leash- by the batting cage area and even on playing fields without
repercussions.
Please reconsider allowing people with dogs on leash who are responsible and carry doggiebags with them to take a nice walk in Carlsbad Parks without fear of being ticketed - we have
rights too!
SincerelySharon Corrigan
Carlsbad homeowner since 1996
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Michael Fidler
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Traffic issues
Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 12:49:39 PM
I think everyone living in Carlsbad has noticed the increased level of flagrant violations of
posted speed and reckless behavior. The increased level of traffic has spread to side streets aswell as overall increased speed on main thoroughfares.
I have lived in Carlsbad for over 20 years and have definitely seen a lack of police
enforcement for traffic related issues. Speeding is so prevalent through all residential areaswith excess speed and dangerous driving conditions. With faster vehicles, distractions from
mobile phones, increase of e-bikes, lack of civility and little or no police to curtail thesedangerous conditions continue unabated.
We need alternative methods to address these issues given the constraints of available
enforcement. The consideration should be given to the use of speed bumps, trafficroundabouts, capturing license plates with capture of excess speed and running red lights, and
higher police presence.
We have seen increasing fatalities, unsafe conditions and flagrant violations of traffic laws, itis time to aggressively protect citizens and reinforce Carlsbad’s commitment to safer
communities.
Time to take definitive action as our population continues to grow and our quality of life isseverely impacted.
Mike & Tricia Fidler
6767 Mallee StCarlsbad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.