Loading...
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.