HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 2022-0003; FPC RESIDENTIAL - SB 330; TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS; 2023-02-24
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
LEVEL 1
FPC RESIDENTIAL
Carlsbad, California
February 24, 2023
LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
Prepared by: Under the Supervision of:
Román Lopez, PTP John A. Boarman, PE
Senior Transportation Planner Principal
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Location & Street Typology ................................................................................... 1
2.0 Analysis Approach & Methodology ......................................................................................... 6
2.1 Analysis Approach .............................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Multimodal Level of Service Analysis ............................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Multi-Modal Facilities to be Included in Study Area ............................................. 7
2.2.2 Project Multi-Modal Study Area ............................................................................ 9
3.0 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 12
3.1.1 Existing Site Traffic .............................................................................................. 12
3.1.2 Net Project Traffic ................................................................................................ 12
3.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment for Mobility Element Requirements .......................... 12
4.0 Project Access Analysis ........................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Project Access Conditions ................................................................................................ 16
4.1.1 Project Access Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 17
4.2 Project Access Analysis .................................................................................................... 18
4.2.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 18
4.2.2 Peak Hour Intersection Analysis ........................................................................... 18
5.0 Multi-Modal (MMLOS) Analysis ........................................................................................... 23
5.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 23
5.2 MMLOS Results ............................................................................................................... 23
5.2.1 Pedestrian LOS ..................................................................................................... 23
5.2.2 Bicycle LOS .......................................................................................................... 23
5.2.3 Transit LOS ........................................................................................................... 26
6.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 27
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
ii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A. Project Scoping Agreement
B. HCM Analysis Worksheets – Near-Term + Project
C. MMLOS Worksheets
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE
Figure 1–1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1–2 Project Area Map ............................................................................................................ 4
Figure 1–3 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2–1 MMLOS Study Area ..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3–1 Project Traffic Distribution ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 3–2 Project Traffic Assignment ........................................................................................... 15
Figure 4–1 Near-Term without Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................ 20
Figure 4–2 Project Driveway Traffic Assignment .......................................................................... 21
Figure 4–3 Near-Term + Project Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 22
LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE # PAGE
Table 1–1 Project Area Street Typology .............................................................................................. 2
Table 2–1 Multimodal Level of Service Criteria .................................................................................. 6
Table 2–2 MMLOS Point System & LOS Rating ................................................................................ 7
Table 2–3 Street Typology and Modes Subject to LOS Standards ...................................................... 9
Table 3–1 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................. 13
Table 4–1 Project Access Analysis ..................................................................................................... 18
Table 4–2 Queueing Analysis ............................................................................................................. 19
Table 5–1 Pedestrian LOS .................................................................................................................. 24
Table 5–2 Bicycle LOS ....................................................................................................................... 25
Table 5–3 Transit LOS ........................................................................................................................ 26
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
1
LEVEL 1 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
FPC RESIDENTIAL
Carlsbad, California
February 24, 2023
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has prepared this Transportation Impact Analysis
(TIA) for the FPC Residential Project (“Project”) per the City of Carlsbad’s Transportation Impact
Analysis Guidelines.
1.1 Project Description
The Project proposes to construct a mix of rowhome, townhome, and triplexes totaling 86 units on a
4.64-acre site located east of Ponto Road in the City of Carlsbad. The unit mix includes 8 2-
bedroom, 40 3-bedroom, and 38 4-bedroom units and 11 units will be affordable. The site previously
hosted a self-storage facility and junkyard which will be removed.
The Project is within the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. LLG prepared a transportation
consistency analysis to demonstrate that Project trip generation is consistent with what was allocated
to the site by the approved Vision Plan. This document is an attachment to the scoping agreement
which is provided in Appendix A.
1.2 Project Location & Street Typology
The Project site is located at 7290 Ponto Drive north of Ponto Drive and east of Ponto Road and
between Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida Encinas.
Carlsbad Boulevard is the major north-south roadway in the Project vicinity providing coastal access
and connecting to the beach, recreation, businesses, and residences near the waterfront. Regional
access to Interstate 5 is provided via Poinsettia Lane. Avenida Encinas is a Neighborhood Connector
primarily providing local mobility and access to residences and local retail. Table 1–1 shows the
Mobility Element typologies of these streets in the project vicinity.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
2
TABLE 1–1
PROJECT AREA STREET TYPOLOGY
Street Name Typology
Carlsbad Boulevard Coastal Street
Avenida Encinas Neighborhood Connector
Street
Poinsettia Lane Employment/Transit
Connector
Ponto Drive Local/Neighborhood Street
Ponto Road Local/Neighborhood Street
Figure 1–1 shows the vicinity map. Figure 1–2 shows a more detailed Project area map. Figure 1–3
shows the Project site plan.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
6
2.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
This section summarizes the analysis approach and methodology used to evaluate the Project study
area.
2.1 Analysis Approach
Based on the Project’s conformance with the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan a Level 1 TIA is
appropriate per the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (April 2018). This Level 1
TIA evaluates the Project study area per the City’s multimodal level of service (MMLOS)
methodology and guidelines. A Level 1 TIA requires multimodal analysis for pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit modes, as appropriate, and calculation of vehicular trip generation. No vehicular analysis
is required. In accordance with the TIA Guidelines, a scope of work was submitted, reviewed, and
approved by City staff. The approved scoping agreement is included in Appendix A.
While no vehicular LOS analysis is required, per City of Carlsbad Mobility Element policy, if the
project adds 110 ADT or 11 peak hour trips in a single direction of travel to a street segment exempt
from LOS standards, it is required to implement transportation demand management (TDM) and
transportation systems management (TSM) strategies. This is addressed in Section 3.2 of this report.
2.2 Multimodal Level of Service Analysis
The City of Carlsbad requires multimodal level of service (MMLOS) evaluation for pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit/rideshare users of the public roadway system. The City organizes the street
network by a system of “typologies”, as defined by the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element.
Depending on the typology, different streets may require different MMLOS evaluations. For each
roadway user set (pedestrian, bicycle, transit), general criteria groups have been identified.
Table 2–1 shows a summary of the criteria for each roadway user set.
TABLE 2–1
MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
Roadway Users
Pedestrian Bicycle Transit/Ridesharing
Accessibility & Functionality Street Characteristics Access
Street Characteristics Facility (each side of street) Connectivity
Crossing Characteristics Bikeway Design Transit Priority
Other Elements Connectivity/Contiguity Service
– Adjacent Vehicle Parking Amenities
– Other Elements. Bicycle Accommodations
– – Available Mobility Services
Source: City of Carlsbad, MMLOS Tool (March 2020).
Each roadway's typography is evaluated for the particular set of roadway users based on sub-criteria,
which is assigned “typology points”. The following represents examples of sub-criteria within the
“Transit and Ridesharing” general criteria group with corresponding points assigned:
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
7
Access – “ADA compliant sidewalk or path to transit stops in both directions” (15 points
assigned)
Connectivity – “Multiple transit routes on segment” (10 points assigned)
Transit Priority – “Dedicated right of way” (5 points assigned)
Service – “Commute shuttle service provided during the morning and afternoon commute
periods” (10 points assigned)
Amenities – “Covered bus stops” (5 points assigned)
Bicycle Accommodations – “Bike parking available at the bus stop” (5 points assigned)
Available Mobility Services – “On demand rideshare services available” (10 points
assigned)
The MMLOS analysis evaluates each of the sub-criteria, totals the points for the subject street
typology, and compares the points to the City’s MMLOS Point System and LOS Rating, shown in
Table 2–2. This table assigns a qualitative LOS to several ranges of points.
TABLE 2–2
MMLOS POINT SYSTEM & LOS RATING
Point Score LOS
90-100 A
80-90 B
70-80 C
60-70 D
50-60 E
0-50 F
Source: City of Carlsbad, MMLOS Tool (March 2020).
The City’s Mobility Element calls for each street typology to achieve LOS D or better operations for
each mode subject to level of service standards.
2.2.1 Multi-Modal Facilities to be Included in Study Area
In general, multi-modal facilities must be included in the study area based on the following criteria:
Pedestrian:
All pedestrian facilities that are directly connected to project access points will be included in
the study area.
All pedestrian facilities adjacent to the project development site that provide direct pedestrian
access to the project site will be included in the study area.
The analysis of each pedestrian facility will extend in each direction to the nearest
intersection or connection point to a multiuse trail or path. The study area will extend from
the project site until a Mobility Element Road or Class I trail is reached in each direction.
Pedestrian facilities shall include all existing and proposed sidewalks, crosswalks, signalized
pedestrian phases, and ADA-compliant facilities.
Pedestrian analysis need only be conducted for the side of the street where the project is
located, unless the project is located on both sides of the street, in which case both sides of
the street should be studied.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
8
Pedestrian analysis shall be conducted for all roadway segments included in the study area
that are subject to the Pedestrian MMLOS standards.
Bicycle:
All facilities that bicyclists can legally use shall be included in the study area from each
project access point extending in each direction of travel to the nearest intersection, dedicated
bicycle facility, or connection point to a multiuse trail or path. Inventory and evaluation shall
include all off-street and on-street bicycle paths, lanes, and routes.
Bicycle analysis shall be conducted for both directions of travel (e.g., both sides of the street)
of each facility included in the study area.
Bicycle analysis shall be conducted for roadway segments subject to the Bicycle MMLOS
standards.
Transit:
All existing transit lines and transit stops within ½ mile walking distance of the project site
shall be included in the study area.
If the roadways within the study area are not subject to Transit MMLOS standards no further
transit analysis is required.
For all transit lines located in the study area, the nearest stop for each line in each direction of
travel will be analyzed according to Transit MMLOS.
All pedestrian routes linking the project site to a transit line within the ¼ mile walking
distance boundary.
If no transit lines are provided, but the roadways within the study area are identified as
subject to Transit MMLOS, the project shall complete the worksheet for “No Transit Located
within ½ Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment”.
Transportation Demand Management Measures shall be identified for the project, which may
include on-demand transit, flex, or other measures.
Table 2–3 summarizes the modes accommodated by each street typology, and thus subject to Level
of Service analysis, per the Carlsbad General Plan Mobility Element.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
9
TABLE 2–3
STREET TYPOLOGY AND MODES SUBJECT TO LOS STANDARDS
Street Typology Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle Transit
Freeway Yes — — Yes
Arterial Street Yes No No Yes
Identity Street No Yes Yes No
Village Street No Yes Yes No
Arterial Connector Street Yes Yes Yes No
Neighborhood Connector Street No Yes Yes No
Employment/ Transit Connector Street No Yes Yes Yes
Coastal Street No Yes Yes No
School Street No Yes Yes No
Industrial Street Yes No No Yes
Local/Neighborhood Street No Yes Yes No
Street within ½ Mile of a Transit Center No Yes Yes Yes
2.2.2 Project Multi-Modal Study Area
Based on the study area criteria shown in Section 2.3.1, the MMLOS study area includes the
following:
Pedestrian
Ponto Road (Local/Neighborhood Street)
Carlsbad Boulevard to Ponto Drive (east side only)
The project site is located on the east side of Ponto Road, a Local/Neighborhood Street. These streets
are subject to Pedestrian LOS analysis. The study area extends from the project site to the nearest
intersection with a Mobility Element road: Carlsbad Boulevard to the north and Ponto Drive to the
south. Only the side of the street on which the project is located is evaluated.
Bicycle
Ponto Road (Local/Neighborhood Street)
Carlsbad Boulevard to Ponto Drive (both directions of travel)
The project site is located on the east side of Ponto Road, a Local/Neighborhood Street. These streets
are subject to Bicycle LOS analysis. The study area extends from the project site to the nearest
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
10
intersection with a Mobility Element road: Carlsbad Boulevard to the north and Ponto Drive to the
south. Both directions of travel are evaluated.
Transit
NCTD Route 101
Carlsbad Boulevard / Ponto Road
Carlsbad Boulevard / Poinsettia Lane
The nearest stops to the Project, located at Carlsbad Boulevard / Ponto Road (bolded above), were
evaluated for Transit LOS.
Poinsettia Lane, an Employment/Transit Connector Street subject to Transit LOS, is within ½ mile
walking distance of the project site. Although the individual stops at this location may slightly
exceed ½ mile walking distance and the bus route runs primarily along Carlsbad Boulevard (a
Coastal Street), Transit LOS analysis of these stops was also included for completeness.
Figure 2–1 shows the MMLOS study area.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
12
3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
3.1 Trip Generation
The Project proposes to construct a mix of rowhome, townhome, and triplexes totaling 86 units. 11
units will be affordable. The prior uses on the existing site include a 257-unit self-storage facility
and junkyard site to be removed as part of the Project. A trip credit was taken for trips generated by
the existing self-storage use. No trip credits were taken for the former junkyard land use as this
portion of the site is currently vacant.
Trip generation estimates for the Project were based on SANDAG’s Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic
Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002).
Table 3–1 tabulates the Project traffic generation. The gross project (before accounting for existing
land use) is calculated to generate 688 ADT with 55 AM (11 in/ 44 out) peak hour trips and 69 PM
(48 in/ 21 out) peak hour trips.
3.1.1 Existing Site Traffic
Table 3–1 also shows the existing site traffic generation of the self-storage facility. The existing site
is calculated to generate 51 ADT, with 3 AM peak hour trips (2 in / 1 out) and 5 PM peak hour trips
(3 in / 2 out).
3.1.2 Net Project Traffic
After accounting for the existing land uses to be replaced, the net Project is calculated to generate
637 ADT with 52 AM (9 in/ 43 out) peak hour trips and 64 PM (45 in/ 19 out) peak hour trips.
3.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment for Mobility Element Requirements
Project trip distribution was developed based on the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR
traffic study. The trip distribution for the larger plan area was locally adjusted to account for the
Project location within the plan area. The overall traffic distribution from the Ponto Beachfront
Village Vision Plan EIR traffic study is included in Appendix B.
Figure 3–1 shows the Project trip distribution and Figure 3–2 shows the assigned Project traffic
volumes.
City policy per the Mobility Element requires that projects adding 110 ADT or 11 peak hour trips in
a single direction of travel to roadways that are exempt from Auto LOS standards are required to
implement TDM and TSM strategies.
The nearest roadways that are exempt from Auto LOS standards are Palomar Airport Road, from
Paseo Del Norte to College Boulevard and La Costa Avenue, between Interstate 5 and El Camino
Real.
As shown in Figure 3–2, the Project will not add 110 ADT or 11 peak hour trips to any exempt
roadway and as such is not required by Mobility Element policy to implement TDM and TSM
strategies.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
13
TABLE 3–1
TRIP GENERATION
Land Use
Quantity
Daily Trip Ends
(ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Description Rate Type Rate a ADT % of
ADT
In:Out
Split
Volume % of
ADT
In:Out
Split
Volume
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed
Apartment Multi-family
>20 DU/acre 86 DU 8/DU 688 8% 20:80 11 44 55 10% 70:30 48 21 69
Existing (to be replaced)
Storage Storage 257 vaults 0.2/vault 51 6% 50:50 2 1 3 9% 50:50 3 2 5
Net New Trips — — 637 — — 9 43 52 — — 45 19 64
Footnotes:
a. Trip generation rates from SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 (“SANDAG Brief Guide”).
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
16
4.0 PROJECT ACCESS ANALYSIS
4.1 Project Access Conditions
Primary access to the Project will be provided by an unsignalized driveway on Ponto Road.
Secondary access will be provided via a driveway located near the southeast corner of the Project
site along an extension of Ponto Drive (Beach Way) that will terminate in a cul-de-sac.
Operational analysis of the primary Project access is provided in this section. The following lane
geometry was assumed:
Southbound (Ponto Road) – 1 shared through/left-turn lane
Westbound (Project Driveway) – 1 shared left/right-turn lane
Northbound (Ponto Road) – 1 shared through/right-turn lane
As part of the Project development, the Project will complete half-width frontage improvements
along Ponto Road and Ponto Drive. The proposed cross-sections are illustrated below:
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
17
4.1.1 Project Access Traffic Volumes
Background traffic volumes for analysis were obtained from the traffic study completed for the
overall Vision Plan EIR (Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Traffic Constraints Study; RBF
Consulting, August 2007).
The Near-Term with Vision Plan scenario, with current Project traffic subtracted out, was used as
the baseline “Near-Term without Project” scenario for analysis representing the background through
volumes on Ponto Road.
These traffic volumes may be considered conservative for two reasons. First, they assume full
development of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area. Currently only one project, the Cape
Rey Beach Hilton resort located southeast of Carlsbad Boulevard / Ponto Road, has been developed
or redeveloped under the Vision Plan. Two other Vision Plan developments, aside from the proposed
Project, are proposed and currently under review. Second, the baseline through volumes are taken
from the east (westbound) leg of the Carlsbad Boulevard / Ponto Road intersection. Much of the
traffic counted at the east leg of this intersection is associated with either the Hilton resort or the
existing residential development to the north. Not all will pass the Project driveway.
Finally, Project traffic volumes to/from the primary driveway were added based on the trip
generation and distribution shown in Section 3 of this report. This analysis assumes 100% of Project
traffic at the primary Ponto Road driveway.
Figure 4–1 illustrates the Near-Term without Project traffic volumes. Figure 4–2 shows the Project
traffic assignment at the driveway. The gross Project traffic was added to the turning movements in
and out of the Project site. Existing site traffic to be removed appears as negative through volumes
on Ponto Road, as the existing access to the self-storage facility is on the south side of the site on
Ponto Drive.
Figure 4–3 shows the Near-Term with Project traffic volumes.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
18
4.2 Project Access Analysis
4.2.1 Methodology
Level of Service (LOS) analysis was performed for the Project Driveway on Ponto Road to
determine if operational improvements are needed at this unsignalized intersection providing direct
access to the Project site.
LOS is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given intersection
under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis
considering factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to
maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities of an
intersection. Level of service designations ranges from A to F, with LOS A representing the best-
operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Level of service
designation is reported differently for signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections.
Unsignalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle
delay was determined using the methodology in Chapters 19 and 20 of the Highway Capacity
Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 11) computer software. The
delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection Level of
Service (LOS).
Queueing analysis was also performed. The 95th percentile queues for left turns in and out of the
Project driveway are reported using the HCM 6 methodology with the assistance of the Synchro
(version 11) computer software.
4.2.2 Peak Hour Intersection Analysis
Table 4–1 shows the AM/PM peak hour operations of the Project Driveway under Near-Term +
Project conditions. As shown in Table 4–1, the Project driveway is calculated to operate at LOS B
during the AM and PM peak hours.
TABLE 4–1
PROJECT ACCESS ANALYSIS
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Near-Term + Project
Delay a LOS b
Project Driveway / Ponto Road MSSC AM 10.9 B
PM 14.0 B
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service
c. Minor Street Stop Control. Minor street delay is reported.
General Notes:
Bold and shading indicates unacceptable level of delay.
UNSIGNALIZED
Delay LOS
0.0 ≤ 10.0 A
10.1 to 15.0 B
15.1 to 25.0 C
25.1 to 35.0 D
35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 50.1 F
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
19
Table 4–2 summarizes the Project driveway queueing analysis. As shown in Table 4–2, the 95th
percentile queues for the left-turn movements in and out of the Project site are calculated at less than
one (1) vehicle for both the AM and PM peak hours.
TABLE 4–2
QUEUEING ANALYSIS
Intersection Movement Near-Term + Project
Queue (veh) Queue (ft)
1. Project Driveway / Ponto
Road
SBL <1.0 <25
WBL <1.0 <25
General Notes:
95th percentile queues shown. 25 feet per queued vehicle assumed.
Queues shown are the highest of AM and PM peak hours.
Based on this analysis, it was determined the primary Project driveway will operate adequately as
proposed and no further operational improvements are required. The Project driveways shall provide
adequate sight distance according to City of Carlsbad standards.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
23
5.0 MULTI-MODAL (MMLOS) ANALYSIS
5.1 Background
The existing multi-modal (i.e., pedestrian, bicycle, or transit) facilities in the vicinity of the Project
site were evaluated using the City of Carlsbad’s MMLOS Tool (March 2020). The MMLOS study
area was selected based on the City’s scoping requirements and the street typology of the roadway,
which indicates which modes are subject to LOS standards on that facility type.
Ponto Road is classified as a Local/Neighborhood Street and was evaluated for Pedestrian and
Bicycle LOS. The pedestrian/bicycle study area extends in either direction from the Project driveway
from Carlsbad Boulevard to Ponto Drive.
5.2 MMLOS Results
5.2.1 Pedestrian LOS
Table 5–1 summarizes the Pedestrian LOS analysis. As shown in Table 5–1, study area segments on
the side of the road which the Project is located are calculated to obtain an acceptable Pedestrian
LOS, except for:
Ponto Road: North of Project Site to Ponto Drive
Ponto Drive: Ponto Road to 300’ south of Ponto Road
The Project will provide a 10’ sidewalk and other improvements on Ponto Road along its frontage as
illustrated in the cross-section shown in Section 4.1. The Project will also provide the missing
sidewalk on Ponto Drive from Ponto Road to private Beach Way as shown in Section 4.1. The
parcels adjacent to the remainder of this segment of Ponto Drive are also within the Ponto
Beachfront Village Vision Plan area and will be conditioned to complete the remaining pedestrian
improvements when developed. There is a separate project (Ponto Beachfront) currently under
discretionary review that would develop the parcels along the east side of this section of Ponto Drive
and provide the required pedestrian improvements.
As shown in Table 5–1, with the provision of these improvements all segments would be calculated
at an acceptable Pedestrian LOS.
Appendix C contains the detailed Pedestrian LOS worksheets.
5.2.2 Bicycle LOS
Table 5–2 summarizes the Bicycle LOS analysis. As shown in Table 5–2, both directions of travel
within the study area are calculated at acceptable LOS D or better.
As part of the previously discussed Project improvements the Project will provide a bike lane in the
northbound direction of travel on Ponto Road, which will connect to existing bike lanes north of the
Project. No additional Project improvements are required.
Appendix C also contains the detailed Bicycle LOS worksheets.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
24
TABLE 5–1
PEDESTRIAN LOS
Location Direction
Existing With Improvements
Improvements Total
Score LOS Total
Score LOS
Ponto Road
Carlsbad Boulevard to North of
Project Site NB 100 A — — None
North of Project Site to Ponto
Drive NB — F* 100 A
Project will provide 10’ sidewalk, 2.5’ landscaped
parkway, and ADA compliant ramps and landings.
(Project frontage)
Ponto Drive
Ponto Road to 300’ s/o Ponto Road NB — F* 100 A
Project will provide 10’ sidewalk, 2.5’ landscaped
parkway from Ponto Road to private Beach Way.
Adjacent properties to improve remaining length
with minimum 5’ unobstructed sidewalk and ADA
compliant ramps and landings when developed.
300’ s/o Ponto Road to Avenida
Encinas NB 95 A — — None
General Note:
Pedestrian LOS evaluated for side of street
on which project is located.
* = Facility does not meet minimum
requirements to calculate score.
MMLOS Point
Point Score LOS
90-100 A
80-89 B
70-79 C
60-69 D
50-59 E
0-49 F
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
25
TABLE 5–2
BICYCLE LOS
Location Direction
Existing With Improvements
Improvements Total
Score LOS Total
Score LOS
Ponto Road
Carlsbad Boulevard to North of
Project Site
NB 95 A — — None SB 95 A — —
Carlsbad Boulevard to North of
Project Site
NB 70 C 75 C Provide 8’ Class II bike
lane in the SB direction of
travel. SB 70 C 80 B
Ponto Drive
Ponto Road to 300’ s/o Ponto Road NB 70 C — — None SB 70 C — —
300’ s/o Ponto Road to Avenida
Encinas
NB 65 D — — None SB 70 C — —
MMLOS Point
Point Score LOS
90-100 A
80-89 B
70-79 C
60-69 D
50-59 E
0-49 F
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
26
5.2.3 Transit LOS
Table 5–3 summarizes the Transit LOS and shows that the bus stops in both directions of travel at
Carlsbad Boulevard / Ponto Road fail to obtain an acceptable LOS as no stop amenities are provided
at either stop. The Project will provide a bench and trash can at each stop. The Project will also
construct ADA compliant sidewalk on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard from the existing
crosswalk to the southbound stop. Together, this will improve the Transit LOS to acceptable LOS C.
The bus stops at Carlsbad Boulevard / Poinsettia Lane obtains an acceptable LOS C in both direction
of travel. No additional Project improvements are required.
Appendix C also contains the detailed Transit LOS worksheets.
TABLE 5–3
TRANSIT LOS
Location Direction
Existing With Improvements
Improvements Total
Score LOS Total
Score
LOS
Route 101
Carlsbad Boulevard / Ponto Road
NB 45 F 72 C Provide bench and trash can.
SB 45 F 72 C
Add ADA compliant sidewalk
between existing crosswalk and
transit stop. Provide bench and
trash can.
Carlsbad Boulevard / Poinsettia
Lane
NB 72 C — — —
SB 72 C — — —
MMLOS Point
Point Score LOS
90-100 A
80-89 B
70-79 C
60-69 D
50-59 E
0-49 F
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
N:\3538\Report\3538 LMA Report.docx
27
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
The following is a summary of key Project information and analysis results:
The Project proposes to construct a mix of rowhome, townhome, and triplexes totaling 86
units. 11 units will be affordable. The existing site contains a self-storage facility and
junkyard to be removed as part of the Project.
Before accounting for existing land uses, the Project is calculated to generate 688 ADT, with
55 AM (11 in / 44 out) and 69 PM (48 in / 21 out) peak hour trips. After accounting for trips
associated with the recently operating self-storage on the Project site, the net Project will
generate 637 ADT with 52 AM (9 in / 43 out), and 64 PM (45 in / 19 out) peak hour trips.
The Project will not add 110 ADT or 11 peak hour trips to any street segment exempt from
vehicular LOS standards and thus does not trigger Mobility Element policy requirements to
implement TDM and TSM measures.
The primary Project driveway at Ponto Road will operate adequately based on LOS and
queueing analysis and no operational improvements are required. Minimum sight distance
per City standards will be ensured.
Missing sidewalks along Ponto Road and Ponto Drive result in substandard Pedestrian LOS
under existing conditions. The Project will provide the missing sidewalks on Ponto Road and
Ponto Drive as part of development of its frontage. This will result in Pedestrian LOS B or
better.
Bicycle LOS for Ponto Road and Ponto Drive in the vicinity of the Project site are calculated
to be LOS D or better. The Project will provide a Class II bike lane in the southbound
direction of travel on Ponto Road along with its frontage improvements. No additional
Project improvements are required.
Lack of amenities at the existing bus stops at Carlsbad Boulevard / Ponto Road result in
substandard Transit LOS under existing conditions. The Project will add ADA compliant
sidewalk between the existing crosswalk and the southbound stop on the west side of
Carlsbad Boulevard. The Project will also provide a bench and trash can at each stop in either
direction of travel which will result in acceptable Transit LOS C.
Transit LOS at Carlsbad Boulevard / Poinsettia Lane is calculated to be LOS C. No
additional Project improvements are required.
End of Report
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
FPC RESIDENTIAL
Carlsbad, California
February 24, 2023
LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
APPENDIX A
PROJECT SCOPING AGREEMENT
SCOPING AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
Case No. SDP 2022‐0003/CDP 2022‐0023 (DEV2022‐0048)
Project Name:
Project Location:
Related Cases ‐
SP No. n/a
EIR No. EIR 05‐05
GPA No. n/a
CZ No. n/a
Consultant Developer
Name:
Address:
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone:(619) 400‐1034
A. Trip Generation Source:
Existing Land Use Storage Proposed Land Use
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
Total Daily Trips Forecast Daily Trips
(Attach a trip generation table. Describe Trip Reduction Factors proposed and included in the trip generation table.
See Trip Generation Attachment A
B. Trip Distribution:X Select Zone (Model Series )
(provide exhibit for detailed trip distribution and assignment.)
Trip distribution based on EIR 05‐05 Traffic Impact Analysis, locally adjusted for project site
See Attachment B ‐ EIR Trip Distribution, Project Trip Distribution & Assignment.
C. Background Traffic :
Phased project x No Yes Phases:
Please contact the Engineering Division or use the most recent provided data
Model / Forecast Methodology:
RD‐M‐Q/C‐T‐Q
& RD‐M‐Q
RD‐M‐Q/C‐T‐Q
& RD‐M‐Q
ATTACHMENT A
This Letter acknowledges the City of Carlsbad Traffic engineering Division requirements for
the transportaion impact analysis of the following project. The analysis must follow the
latest City of Carlsbad Transportation Impact Study Guidelines dated April 2018.
Self Storage and Junkyard Redevelopment
North of Ponto Drive, east of Ponto Road
Project
Description:
The project proposes a mix of rowhome, townhome, and triplexes totaling 86 units. The unit mix
includes 8 2‐bedroom units, 26 3‐bedroom units, and 52 4‐bedroom units. 11 units will be
affordable.
LLG, Engineers
San Diego, CA 92111
4542 Ruffner St. Suite 100
(858) 300‐8800
H.G. Fenton Company
7577 Mission Valley Road
SANDAG "(Not So) Brief Guide…"
Multi‐family residential
51 688 (637 net)
Level 1 TIA anticipated based on consistency with approved Specific Plan. See Attachment C for consistency analysis.
6/16/2022 N:\3538\Scoping\3538 Scoping Agreement
(Later renamed FPC Residential)
16
Transit MMLOS only
27
38
49
5
Ped/Bike MMLOS only
17
28
39
410
F. Other Jurisdictional Impacts
Is this project within any other Agency's Sphere of Influence or one‐mile radius of boundaries?X Yes No
If so, name of Jurisdiction:
Impacts to other jurisdictions were evaluated as part of EIR 05‐05
G. Site Plan (attach a legible 11' x 17' copy)See Attachment D .
H. Specific Issues to be addressed in the Study (in addition to the standard analysis described in the Guidelines)
(To be filled out by Engineering Division)
Recommended by:
Consultant's Respresentative Date
Scoping Agreement Submitted on:
Date
Scoping Agreement Resubmitted on:
Date
Approved Scoping Agreement:
City of Carlsbad Date
Traffic Engineering Division
Walter Musial, PE June 16, 2022
June 16, 2022
Ponto Road: Carlsbad Boulevard to Ponto Drive.
Encinitas
Ponto Drive: Ponto Road to Avenida Encinas
E. Study Roadway Segments: (NOTE: Subject to revision after other projects, trip generation and distribution are determined, or
comments.)
Ponto Road / Project Driveway
D. Study Intersections: (NOTE: Subject to revision after other projects, trip generation and distribution are determined, or
comments.)
Ponto Road / Carlsbad Boulevard
6/16/2022 N:\3538\Scoping\3538 Scoping Agreement
6.17.22
Consistent with approved specific plan based on attached documentation.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-21-3538 Ponto Road Residential
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Volume Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Existing Land Use
Storage 257 vaults 0.2 /vault 51 6%50%:50%2 1 3 9%50%:50%3 2 5
Proposed Project
Apartment 86 DU 8 /DU 688 8%20%:80%11 44 55 10%70%:30%48 21 69
Net New Traffic 637 9 43 52 45 19 64
Footnotes:
a. Trip generation rate from SANDAG's (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region , April 2002. ("SANDAG Brief Guide")
Table A
Trip Generation
Quantity Daily Volumes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate a Split Split
N:\3538\Trip Generation\3538.Trip Gen
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-21-3538 Ponto Road Residential
ATTACHMENT B
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT
.=-.=-.=-:::, :::, :::,
Q.Q.Q. zzz
IN (OUT)
IN (OUT)
IN (OUT)
IN (OUT)
IN (OUT)
IN (OUT)
.=-.=-.=-:::, :::, :::,
Q.Q.Q. zzz
EXAMPLE
SB
(<1%)---,
EB
WB
<-----<1%
e--4%
/ NB ,ii: ,!;.
'#6 Palomar Airport Road/
Hidden Valley Rd.
SB
SB
EB
$
1
'Ml
T ~ NB
#12 Island Way/
Carlsbad Blvd.
'Ml
~ I <-----11% J
(4%) _;a
(11%)-01 NB
EB
#18 Poinsettia Lane/
Paseo Del Norte
~
NOT TO SCALE
25101951.001
WB
I I SB 1:% ~~ <-----5% ~ SB J 1 J e--<1%
(<1%)_;a li NB (2%) ---, (2%)------> I NB ** ££
EB I EB
#1 Palomar Airport Road/ #2 Palomar Airport Road/
Avendia Encinas 1-5 SB Ramps
we
I I SB 1:,% ti; I -<1% SB J
(3%) _;a \
(<1%)------> NB
I I
(<1%)------> I NB (1%)---,. !
EB EB
#7 Palomar Airport Road/ #8 Palomar Airport Road/
Aviara Pkwy./College Blvd. Camino Vida Roble
WB I we
SB
EB
$
1
T ~ NB
#13 Breakwater Road/
Carlsbad Blvd.
SB
EB
WB
e--4%
( NB
f
#19 Paseo del Norte/
Camino de las Ondas
SB
EB
$
1 e--35%
T r NB ~l
#14 Poinsettia Lane/
Carlsbad Blvd.
WB
SB <c--11'11,
(11%)---s> NB
EB
#20 Poinsettia Lane/
Batiquitos Drive
WB
SB I <-----151
(1%) _;a
(1%)------> I NB
EB
#3 Palomar Airport Road/
1-5 NB Ramps
SB
(<1%)->
EB
WB
<-----<1%
e--2%
i NB "' ~
SB j I :1% I I SB 1:1%
1%~
(<1%)----->I NB I I (<:) ---, I NB
EB
#4 Palomar Airport Road/ #5 Palomar Airport Road/
Paseo Del Norte Armada Drive
WB we
SB <c--2% SB <c--2%
(2%)------> NB
(2%)---, NB
EB EB
#9 Palomar Airport Road/ #10 Palomar Airport Road/ #11 Palomar Airport Road/
El Camino Real El Fuerte St. Melrose Drive
WB I \I ll
"' SB ~vl I <-----35%
e--11%
(~---->11li NB
:i ~[~
EB
#15 Poinsettia Lane/
Avenida Encinas
SB
WB
<-----10%
(10%)_,11
(1%)---,. ~
EB
NB
#21 Poinsettia Lane/
Aviara Pkwy.
"' I <-----16% la! SB J
(48%)------> I NB (2%)-,,
EB
#16 Poinsettia Lane/
1-5 SB Ramps
I WB
~ SB J
(2%) _;a I'
(8%)-,, ::': NB
EB
#22 El Camino Real/
Cassia Road
SB I <-----15%
(33%) _;a 1,
(15%)-----> ! NB
EB
#17 Poinsettia Lane/
1-5 NB Ramps
SB
EB
~ 1
WB
T
,ii: ~
NB
#23 El Camino Real/
Camino Vida Roble
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan
Trip Distribution Percentages
EXHIBIT 8
WB WB Ml
~~ I "---(30%) d "---(11%) ~:a' "---(3%) :::. ... SB l ~ SB l ~ SB l\ -(10%) -(32%)
1 lJ NB j r NB NB [ ~~ ~~
EB I EB EB
#24 Ponto Drive/ #25 Beach Way/ #26 Avenida Encinas/
Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad Blvd.
WB
I I SB 1::% I I SB
Ml
SB I <--32% <---8%
(8%)--> NB (8%)------) \ NB (8%)--> NB (22%)---,, ,,,_
;,l;
EB EB EB
#30 La Costa Ave./ #31 La Costa Ave./ #32 La Costa Ave./
1-5 SB Ramps 1-5 NB Ramps Pireaus St.
~
NOT TO SCALE
25101951.001
WB [ii~ I WB
iiiiii-"---8% =-if!!. ,£:!.~~ I <---32% SB J l ~ SB SB
-6% l ~
22'4---" lll NB i NB I I 130%)-> I NB 13%---,, ;;,.;;,.,t, f e:£.e
EB EB EB
#27 Ponto Drive/ #28 La Costa Ave./ #29 La Costa Ave./
Avenida Encinas N. Coast Highway 101 Vulcan Ave.
--
WB Ml I I I WB
i~ "---4%
SB <--S% SB l ~ I I SB I <--32%
.,-0%
(8%)--> NB I r NB ~~ I (30%)--> I NB
EB EB I EB I
#33 La Costa Ave./ #34 Leucadia Blvd./ #35 La Costa Ave./
El Camino Real N. Coast Highway 101 Sheridan Rd.
Ponto Beachfront Village Plan
Trip Distribution Percentages
EXHIBIT 8
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-21-3538 Ponto Road Residential
ATTACHMENT C
SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
MEMORANDUM
N:\3538\Scoping\Consistency Memo\Consistency Memo.3538.docx
To: Ryley Webb H.G. Fenton
Date: June 10, 2022
From: Walter B. Musial & Roman Lopez
LLG, Engineers
LLG Ref: 3-22-3538
Subject: Self-Storage and Junkyard Redevelopment – Transportation Impact Consistency Memo
Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) has prepared the following transportation impact consistency memorandum for the proposed Self-Storage and Junkyard Redevelopment project (“Project”) in the City of Carlsbad. The Project is located within the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (“Vison Plan”), an approved
specific plan. The Vision Plan provides guidance for the future development of the 50-acre Ponto area located along Carlsbad Boulevard.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR 05-05/GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01) was prepared and included as part of the Vision Plan to evaluate environmental impacts of the future development in the Ponto area. The EIR included an analysis of
potential transportation impacts associated with the future development that could occur with the implementation of the Vision Plan. The transportation analysis provided in the EIR was based on information and data from the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Traffic Constraints Study (RBF Consulting, August 2007).
The threshold used in the EIR for determining significance of transportation impacts
were based on vehicular capacity and delay as represented by Level of Service (LOS) standards, consistent with CEQA guidelines and City of Carlsbad and SANTEC/ITE guidelines and standards at the time of EIR approval.
LLG has prepared this transportation consistency analysis to demonstrate that Project trip generation is consistent with what was allocated to the site for the approved
Vision Plan. Project impacts measured by vehicular capacity and delay (i.e., LOS) correspond to the amount of new traffic generated by a project. Therefore, if Project trip generation does not exceed the traffic analyzed for the site in the EIR on a daily, AM peak hour, or PM peak hour the proposed Project would not result in any additional traffic impacts or exacerbate any previously identified traffic impacts.
This memo identifies the traffic analyzed for the site in the EIR and compares to the proposed Project.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is located at 7290 Ponto Drive, north of Ponto Road and east of Ponto Drive. The Project proposes to construct a mix of rowhome, townhome, and triplexes totaling 86 units on a 4.64-acre site. The unit mix includes 8 2-bedroom, 26 3-
bedoom, and 52 4-bedroom units. Eleven (11) units will be affordable. Access to the
site will be provided via Ponto Drive.
Ryley Webb June 10, 2022 Page 2
N:\3538\Scoping\Consistency Memo\Consistency Memo.3538.docx
Figure 1 shows the Project vicinity. Figure 2 shows the Project area in more detail. Figure 3 shows the Project site plan.
The Project site is composed of the following three (3) parcels detailed in Table A. The Project APNs are lettered A-C for the purposes of discussion in this memo. An exhibit from the EIR illustrating the Vision Plan site and parcels labeled with APN is included as Attachment A.
TABLE A PROPOSED PROJECT SITE DETAILS
# APN Size Owner Name General Plan Zoning
#A 214-160-2800 0.92 acres Chappee Family Trust B 01-31-89 R-15/VC RD-M-Q-/C-T-Q
#B 214-160-2500 1.50 acres
Schreiber Dale L and Donna E Survivors Trust 12-03-85
R-15/VC RD-M-Q-/C-T-Q
#C 214-171-1100 2.24 acres
Schreiber Dale L and Donna E Survivors Trust 12-03-85
R-15 RD-M-Q
PROJECT SITE CONTEXT IN VISION PLAN
The Vision Plan provides overall guidance for development of the Ponto Area and
designates six distinct Character Areas. For analysis in the EIR, the Vision Plan area is divided into Land Use Theme areas, as illustrated in EIR Figure 3-5, which differ slightly from the Vision Plan Character Areas. While the Vision Plan did not consider site-specific development proposals pending at the time, the EIR considered actual boundaries of property ownership to provide a more accurate environmental analysis.
EIR Figure 3-5 depicting the Land Use Theme areas is included as Attachment B. The Character Areas are depicted in Exhibit 2.1 from the Vision Plan, also in Attachment B. The Character Areas are also called out on EIR Figure 3-5.
Project Parcels (B) and (C), as listed in Table A, are coterminous with the “Hotel or Residential (apartments)” area within the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
Project parcel (A) comprises the portion of the “Live Work / Mixed Use” area that is located east of Ponto Road.
EIR Section 3.4 discusses existing development applications within the Vision Plan area at the time of EIR preparation. These projects are fully analyzed within the EIR.
Ryley Webb June 10, 2022 Page 3
N:\3538\Scoping\Consistency Memo\Consistency Memo.3538.docx
Project parcels (B) and (C) are discussed in EIR Section 3.4.2 as part of the then-proposed Dale Schreiber Ponto Resort application. EIR Section 3.4 is included as
Attachment C.
In addition to Project parcels (B) and (C) northeast of Ponto Drive / Ponto Road, the Dale Schreiber Ponto Resort application included parcels southwest of this intersection (APNs 216-010-01 – 05). The southwestern property is not a part of the current Project and is thus not considered further. As noted in EIR Section 3.4.2, the
Dale Schreiber project proposed 216 hotel units for the northeastern property.
LLG was not readily able to discern the exact Vision Plan land uses and intensities as analyzed in the EIR that were allocated exclusively to Parcel (A). Therefore, the trip comparison in the following section conservatively utilizes only the 216 hotel units allocated to Parcels (B) and (C).
It should be noted that the “Hotel/Commercial” area illustrated in EIR Figure 3-5 is not a part of either the proposed Project or the Dale Schreiber Ponto Resort project discussed in the EIR. The “Hotel/Commercial” area on both sides of Ponto Drive is part of the “Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort” development application discussed in Section 3.4.1 of the EIR, which has since been developed as the Cape Rey Carlsbad
Beach Hilton resort. The “Hotel/Commercial” parcel on the east side of Ponto Road is now the parking garage for the Hilton resort.
VISION PLAN TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
As noted above, the Vision Plan EIR assumed 216 hotel rooms for Project parcels (B) and (C), i.e., the “Hotel or Residential (apartments)” area.
The Project also includes parcel (A) which is part of the “Live Work / Mixed Use”
area. However, for trip generation comparison purposes, this parcel is conservatively
excluded as previously discussed.
The trip generation table (Table 10) from the Vision Plan EIR traffic study is provided below as Table B with minor formatting changes for use in this memo. The 216 hotel rooms allocated to Project Parcels (B) and (C) are shown in the highlighted
line of Table B. The original EIR trip generation table is provided in Attachment D.
As shown in Table B, the EIR trip generation the Project site is calculated to be 2,160 ADT with 130 AM peak hour trips (78 in / 52 out) and 173 PM peak hour trips (104 in / 69 out).
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation estimates for the Project’s proposed land uses were calculated using SANDAG’s Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego
Region (April 2002).
It should be noted that the prior uses on the Project site include a 257-unit self-storage facility and junkyard site to be removed as part of the Project. To provide a plan-to-
Ryley Webb June 10, 2022 Page 4
N:\3538\Scoping\Consistency Memo\Consistency Memo.3538.docx
plan comparison of the proposed Project and the approved EIR, Project trip generation is presented here without deducting the trips associated with existing land
uses to be replaced.
Table C tabulates the Project trip generation. The Project is calculated to generate 688 daily trips (ADT) with 55 AM peak hour trips (11 in/ 44 out) and 69 PM peak hour trips (48 in/ 21 out).
Table C also restates the trips allocated to the Project site by Vision Plan EIR traffic
analysis and compares this to the proposed Project. As compared to the EIR traffic analysis, the proposed Project is estimated to reduce trip generation by 1,472 ADT, 75 AM peak hour trips (67 in / 8 out) and 104 PM peak hour trips (56 in / 48 out).
TRANSPORTATION CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
The traffic generation analyzed for the Project site by the Vision Plan EIR is not
exceeded on a daily, AM peak hour (inbound or outbound), or PM peak hour (inbound or outbound) basis.
Based on this reduction in traffic generation, the proposed Project would not result in any additional traffic impacts or exacerbate any previously identified traffic impacts.
Ryley Webb June 10, 2022 Page 5
N:\3538\Scoping\Consistency Memo\Consistency Memo.3538.docx
TABLE B EIR VISION PLAN TRIP GENERATION
Area Land Use Quantity ADT AM Peak PM Peak
In Out Total In Out Total
Area A Hotel w/ conference facilities/ restaurant 215 room 2,150 77 52 129 103 69 172
Area B Specialty Retail 6.0 KSF 240 4 3 7 11 11 22
Area C Hotel 216 room 2,160 78 52 130 104 69 173
Area D Apartments 24 DU 144 2 9 11 9 4 13
Live/Work Units 9 DU 72 1 5 6 5 2 7
Area E Resort 126 room 1,008 30 20 50 28 43 71
Hotel w/ 5,000 sf banquet facilities 180 room 1,800 65 43 108 86 58 144
Area F
Townhomes (condos) 128 DU 1,024 16 66 82 72 31 103
Specialty Retail 9.25 KSF 370 7 4 11 17 17 34
Flex Restaurant/Retail 23.3 KSF 3,728 149 149 298 179 119 298
Area G Park (Developed) 0.75 acre 15 1 1 2 1 1 2
Area H
Hotel 53 room 530 19 13 32 25 17 42
Specialty Retail 12.0 KSF 480 9 6 15 22 22 44
Restaurant – Sit-down, high turnover 5.0 KSF 800 32 32 64 38 26 64
Area I Specialty Retail 16.0 KSF 640 12 8 20 29 29 58
TOTAL 15,161 502 463 965 729 518 1,247
General Notes:
• KSF = 1,000 square feet
• DU = Dwelling Unit
• Source: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Traffic Constraints Study. RBF Consulting (August 2007).
Ryley Webb June 10, 2022 Page 6
N:\3538\Scoping\Consistency Memo\Consistency Memo.3538.docx
TABLE C PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Quantity
Daily Volumes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate a ADT Rate Split In Out Total Rate Split In Out Total
Multi-Family Residential 86 DU 8 /DU 688 8% 20:80 11 44 55 10% 70:30 48 21 69
EIR Vision Plan Allocation 2,160 78 52 130 104 69 173
Difference (1,472) (67) (8) (75) (56) (48) (104)
Footnotes: a. Trip rates for both proposed Project and EIR Vision Plan based on the (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. SANDAG, April 2002.
Ryley Webb June 10, 2022 Page 7
N:\3538\Scoping\Consistency Memo\Consistency Memo.3538.docx
Figures: 1 Vicinity Map 2 Project Area Map
3 Project Site Plan
Attachments: A Vision Plan Parcels B Ponto Beachfront Village Land Use Themes (Vision Plan EIR Figure 3-5) C Existing Development Applications within the Ponto Development Area
(Vision Plan EIR Section 3.4)
D Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Forecast Traffic (EIR Traffic Study Table 10)
Ryley Webb June 10, 2022 Page 8
N:\3538\Scoping\Consistency Memo\Consistency Memo.3538.docx
ATTACHMENT A
VISION PLAN PARCELS
•
--:,
•
SAN OlEGO NORTHERN RAlLf OAD ·---~-----
------------~ .. -~---------------------------::::::,, 216-1◄0-17 ·--
) =~~~
•
216-140-16
~
-1~1b-~: ' -: --~-~-<: "'-~
'(· "\
---... -., .-----,:"" ---
---~-= i/M r ·-) rr_c~::::
----~--
216-140-08
STATE Of C <-:' 21~-t~:",s ~-.
-----. ,__,-~•• •"-'V· ' ' , ~·-~~~--_, . --=~~--~~ ~ . -~ . --=· ~=----=----=--------===== -;;,·
PACIFIC OCEAN
D Subject Site
DIIF
CONSULTING I~,,:::.:.:'· PONTO BEACH FRONT VISION PLAN• PHASE I ESA
Subject Site
Exhibit 3
Ryley Webb June 10, 2022 Page 9
N:\3538\Scoping\Consistency Memo\Consistency Memo.3538.docx
ATTACHMENT B
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE LAND USE THEMES
(VISION PLAN EIR FIGURE 3-5)
Garden Hotel *
* Character Areas in Italics ,..
CONSULTING
25101951/195lt1006.a.
El'Wll'ONMitalffiO,ICI
8
Not to Scale
Village Hotel Townhouse Neighborhood Beach front Resort
·-~------······
Live I Work Neighborhood
Ponto Beachfront Village Land Use Themes
Pont o Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR
IATIO0ITOS LAGOOII
(/
I 1.
.t1:
Figure 3-5
CITY OF CARLSBAD PONTO BEACH FRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
VILLAGE HOTEL\ ,-TOWNHOUSE BEACH FRONT RESORT
_\ I NEIGHBORHOOD
GARDEN HOTEL
LIVE-WORk NEIGHBORHOOD-
EXHIBITl.1 PONTO BEACHFRONTVILLAGE CHARACTER AREAS
CHAPTER 2 -PAGE 2
Ryley Webb June 10, 2022 Page 10
N:\3538\Scoping\Consistency Memo\Consistency Memo.3538.docx
ATTACHMENT C
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE PONTO DEVELOPMENT AREA
(VISION PLAN EIR SECTION 3.4)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR City of Carlsbad
Final EIR 3-14 August 2007
Table 3-4 lists the agencies from which approvals and permits are required. The permits and
approvals have been listed in the approximate order in which they are expected to be
obtained.
3.2.10 Discretionary Actions and Approvals by Other Agencies
Additional approvals may be required by a Responsible Agency or a Trustee Agency to allow
for actions involved with development of the project site. A Responsible Agency includes
“all public agencies other than the lead agency which have discretionary approval power over
a project (Section 15382), such as the California Coastal Commission or U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.” Similarly, Trustee Agencies may also give approval and include state agencies
“having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in
trust for people of the State of California” (Section 15386), such as the California
Department of Fish and Game. Other agencies may include, but are not limited to the
following (refer also to Table 3-4):
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
California Dept. of Fish & Game;
United States Fish & Wildlife Service; and,
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
3.3 Consistency of Project With Applicable Regional and General Plans
The proposed project would be consistent with goals, policies, and guidelines set forth in the
City of Carlsbad General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Plan, the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, City of Carlsbad Growth
Management Plan, Local Facilities Management Plans (Zones 9 and 22), City of Carlsbad
Scenic Corridor Policies, and Habitat Management Plan. In addition, portions of the project
are subject to the goals and policies given in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan (SP 210)
and the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(c)). Project development and proposed
mitigation would also be consistent with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District rules
and regulations and the Air Quality Management Plan; the City General Plan Circulation
Element; Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plans; and all other plans, regulations,
or policies, as applicable.
3.4 Existing Development Applications within the Ponto Development Area
As mentioned previously, one development application and three preliminary review
applications had been submitted to the City at the time the City was directed to prepare an
EIR for the Ponto Beachfront Village project. The descriptions below represent the projects
project details at the time when the EIR was required and development within the Ponto Area
was placed on hold. As such, the scale, density, or land use types may ultimately be revised
in the future; however, these projects will be required to maintain consistency with the
overall vision, goals and guidelines given in the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, once
it is adopted. These projects are fully analyzed within the EIR with respect to the project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR City of Carlsbad
Final EIR 3-15 August 2007
details described below. The descriptions below represent the four identified projects
available at the time the City was directed to prepare the EIR.
3.4.1 Hilton Carlsbad Beach Resort
Submitted Application: SDP 05-14/CDP 05-43/RP 05-11
The site is generally located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, south of Poinsettia Lane,
Ponto Road, and covers approximately 7.0 acres of land. The site is designated as “Garden
Hotel,” as shown in Figure 3-5. It should be noted that the area shown as Garden Hotel in
Figure 3-5 of the EIR differs slightly from that shown in the Vision Plan. The Vision Plan
was prepared as a document to guide future development within the Ponto Area; however,
the Plan did not consider site-specific development. To allow for a more accurate
environmental analysis of future development within the Ponto Area, the EIR considers the
actual boundaries of property ownership and the area to which the Hilton Carlsbad Beach
Resort application applies. Therefore, to accurately consider the land area that would be
affected by development of the Garden Hotel use, the boundary of this area has been revised,
and is shown in Figure 3-5.
Access to the project site would be provided via Ponto Road. The proposed project would
include 215 hotel rooms; 12,820 square feet (SF) of meeting space; a 5,030 SF restaurant; a
1,990 SF café/bar; and spa. In addition, a parking structure, three stories above grade is
proposed. All structures are prwould be oposedsubject to the height restrictions of the
applicable zone designation and the within the height limit for the Coastal Zone., which is 35
feet. In addition, a three-story parking garage is also proposed. Publicly accessible amenities
would include oceanfront meeting rooms for functions and weddings, a public spa, and a
pedestrian trail along Carlsbad Boulevard. The project would total approximately 24,000
square feet. In addition, a parking structure, three stories above grade is proposed. All
structures are proposed within the height limit for the Coastal Zone, which is 35 feet.
The existing General Plan Land Use Designation for the the majority of the Hilton Carlsbad
Beach Resort is Residential Medium High/Travel-Recreation (RMH/TR) with approximately
1.5 acres designated TR at the northernmost end of the site. The existing zoninge designation
for the majority site is Commercial Tourist – Qualified Development Overlay/Residential
Density – Multiple zone with Qualified Development Overlay (CT-Q/RD-M-Q), with the
northernmost 1.5-acre parcel designated CT-Q. The northernmost approximately 1.2-acre
parcel of the property is within tThe Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan covers the 1.5-acre
parcel at the northern end of the area designated as Garden Hotel in the Vision Plan. The
Specific Plan zoning for that this particular parcel is CT, and the General Plan designation is
TR. The project is consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use and zoning, and
therefore, only requires implementing permits.
The project consists of one main, 215-room hotel building and a parking structure on the
eastern end of the property. The main hotel is proposed as a one-story building at the
northern end, adjacent to the single-family homes, and three stories further south.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR City of Carlsbad
Final EIR 3-16 August 2007
3.4.2 Dale Schreiber Ponto Resort
Preliminary Review: PRE 05-58
This site is generally located on the northeast corner of future Beach Way and Ponto Drive
and the southwest corner of future Beach Way and Ponto Drive. The total land area for both
properties is approximately 4.7 acres. This application would cover a portion of the area
designated in the Vision Plan as “Mixed Use” and a portion designated as “Hotel or
Residential (apartments)”; refer to Figure 3-5.
Access is proposed from future Beach Way for the northeastern property and from Ponto
Drive for the southwestern property. The project would include approximately 269 hotel
units, 216 of which are proposed on the northeastern property and 53 are proposed on the
southwestern property.
The proposed project consists of two structures that will house hotel rooms, underground
parking, lounge, restaurant, and retail spaces. Structures are proposed as three-story within
the maximum height limit of 35 feet above grade.All structures would be subject to height
restrictions of the applicable zone designation and the Coastal Zone.
In addition to various discretionary actions, a portion of the project site as proposed would
require a rezone from RMH to T-R and a related Local Coastal Program Amendment for said
rezone.
3.4.3 Carlsbad Coast Mixed-Use Residential
Preliminary Review: PRE 05-67
The site is generally located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Avenida
Encinas and covers approximately 9.5 acres of land. Access to the project is provided via
Ponto Drive. This application would cover a portion of the area designated in the Vision Plan
as “Mixed Use” and a portion designated as “Townhomes;” refer to Figure 3-5.
The proposed project would include 128 attached condominium units, 32,500 square feet of
restaurant/retail space, 24 residential stacked flats, nine live/work units, and a four-level
parking structure. All structures would be subject to height restrictions of the applicable
zone designation and the Coastal Zone.Structures are proposed within the height limit of 35
feet.
The existing General Plan Land Use Designation for the Carlsbad Coast Mixed-Use
Residential project is Unplanned Area-Travel/Recreation Commercial (UA/TR/C). The zone
designation for the site is Planned Community (PC). The property is within the Poinsettia
Shores Master Plan area.
In addition to the various discretionary actions, the project as proposed would require a
General Plan Amendment, amendment to the Master Plan to identify proposed uses, and a
Local Coastal Program Amendment.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR City of Carlsbad
Final EIR 3-17 August 2007
3.4.4 Carlsbad Coast Hotel and Timeshare
Preliminary Review: PRE 05-75
This site is generally located east of Carlsbad Boulevard and south of Avenida Encinas, on
approximately 14 acres. Access to the site would be from Avenida Encinas. This area is
located in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan Area which establishes development limits and
design criteria for this area. This application would cover the area designated as “Resort
Hotel” in the Vision Plan; refer to Figure 3-5.
The proposed project includes approximately 180 hotel units, 126 timeshare units, 3,700
square feet of retail/restaurant space, 5,000 square feet of banquet space, and a two-level
parking structure. All of the hotel and timeshare units are proposed within a series of five
three-story structures within the maximum height limit of 35 feet. All structures would be
subject to height restrictions of the applicable zone designation and the Coastal Zone.
The existing General Plan is Travel/Recreation Commercial/Open Space and Community
Parks (TR/C/OS) and zoning is PC. The proposed project is consistent with the existing
General Plan Land Use and zoning and would therefore only require implementing permits.
Ryley Webb June 10, 2022 Page 11
N:\3538\Scoping\Consistency Memo\Consistency Memo.3538.docx
ATTACHMENT D
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN FORECAST TRAFFIC
(EIR TRAFFIC STUDY TABLE 10)
Table 9
SANDAG Trip Generation Rates
AM PM
Land Use Units Daily Total In Out Total In Out
Park (Developed) acre 20 13% 50% 50% 9% 50% 50%
Apartments du 6 8% 20% 80% 9% 70% 30%
Live/work -Condos du 8 8% 20% 80% 10% 70% 30%
Town homes (Condos) du 8 8% 20% 80% 10% 70% 30%
Office ksf 20 14% 90% 10% 13% 20% 80%
Restaurant -Hiqh Quality ksf 100 1% 60% 40% 8% 70% 30%
Restaurant -Sit-Down, high turnover ksf 160 8% 50% 50% 8% 60% 40%
ksf Specialty Retail 40 3% 60% 40% 9% 50% 50%
Hotel w/conference facilities/restaurant room 10 6% 60% 40% 8% 60% 40%
Resort (200+200 Timeshares) room 8 5% 60% 40% 7% 40% 60%
Source -SANDAG "Not So Brief Guide" -April 2002
Table 10
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Forecast Traffic
AM Peak PM Peak
Area Land Use Units Amount ADT Total In Out Total In Out
Area A Hotel w/conference
facilities/restaurant ROOM 215 2,150 129 77 52 172 103 69
Area B Specialty Retail KSF 6 240 7 4 3 22 11 11
Area C Hotel Units ROOM 216 2,160 130 78 52 173 104 69
Area D Apartments DU 24 144 12 2 9 13 9 4
Live/work Units DU 9 72 6 1 5 7 5 2
Area E Resort ROOM 126 1,008 50 30 20 71 28 43
Hotel w/ 5,000 sf banquet facilities ROOM 180 1,800 108 65 43 144 86 58
Town homes (Condos) DU 128 1,024 82 16 66 102 72 31
Area F Specialty Retail KSF 9.25 370 11 7 4 33 17 17
Flex RestauranURetail KSF 23.3 3,728 298 149 149 298 179 119
Area G Park (Developed) ACRE 0.75 15 2 1 1 1 1 1
Hotel ROOM 53 530 32 19 13 42 25 17
Area H Specialty Retail KSF 12 480 14 9 6 43 22 22
Restaurant -Sit-Down, high turnover KSF 5 800 64 32 32 64 38 26
Area I Specialty Retail KSF 16 640 19 12 8 58 29 29
TOTAL 15,161 964 502 462 1,244 729 518
27
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-21-3538 Ponto Road Residential
ATTACHMENT D
PROJECT SITE PLAN
B L D G . 1 6
B L D G . 1 7
B L D G . 1 8 B L D G . 1 9
B L D G . 2 0
B L D G . 2 1
B L D G . 2 2
B L D G . 2 3
B L D G . 3
B L D G . 4
BLDG. 5
BLDG. 7
BLDG. 8
BLDG. 9
BLDG. 10
BLDG. 11
BLDG. 12
BLDG. 13
BLDG. 6
B L D G . 1 4
B L D G . 1 5
BLDG. 1BLDG. 2
PROJECT BOUNDARY
& CURRENT
PROPERTY LINES
CURRENT
PROPERTY
LINES
B L D G . 1 6
B L D G . 1 7
B L D G . 1 8 B L D G . 1 9
B L D G . 2 0
B L D G . 2 1
B L D G . 2 2
B L D G . 2 3
B L D G . 3
B L D G . 4
BLDG. 5
BLDG. 7
BLDG. 8
BLDG. 9
BLDG. 10
BLDG. 11
BLDG. 12
BLDG. 13
BLDG. 6
B L D G . 1 4
B L D G . 1 5
BLDG. 1BLDG. 2
EXIST. PONTO DR
EXIST. PONTO DR
EXIST. PONTO DR
PROJECT
BOUNDARY
PROJECT
BOUNDARY
PREPARED BY:
HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES
CONDENSED SITE PLAN
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SELF-STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
03-14-22
PARCEL 1 GROSS ACRES: 4.64 ACRES OR 202,221 SF
PROJECT SUMMARY
NET DENSITY: 18.3 DU/AC
T CLUSTER PRODUCT
TRIPLEX (8) = 24 UNITS
TOTAL UNITS = 86 UNITS
PARKING
PROVIDED:GARAGES: 86 X 2 = 172 GARAGE STALLSSURFACE PARKING: 19 (INCL. 1 ACCESSIBLE)
TOTAL SPACES = 191 SPACES
R CLUSTER PRODUCT
F CLUSTER PRODUCT
ROW TOWN 3-PLEX (4) = 12 UNITS
ROW TOWN 4-PLEX (5) = 20 UNITS
ROW TOWN 4-PLEX (1) = 4 UNITS
ROW TOWN 5-PLEX (3) = 15 UNITS
ROW TOWN 6-PLEX (1) = 6 UNITS
ROW TOWN 5.1-PLEX (1) = 5 UNITS
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
APPENDIX B
HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – NEAR-TERM + PROJECT
Near Term + Project AM FPC Residential
1: Ponto Rd & Proj Drwy 09/09/2022
N:\3538\Analysis\Synchro\1 NT+P AM.syn Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 19 224 6 5 146
Future Vol, veh/h 25 19 224 6 5 146
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 27 21 243 7 5 159
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 416 247 0 0 250 0
Stage 1 247 -----
Stage 2 169 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 591 789 - - 1310 -
Stage 1 792 -----
Stage 2 858 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 589 789 - - 1310 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 589 -----
Stage 1 792 -----
Stage 2 855 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 0 0.3
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 661 1310 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.072 0.004 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10.9 7.8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0 -
Near-Term + Project PM FPC Residential
1: Ponto Rd & Proj Drwy 09/09/2022
N:\3538\Analysis\Synchro\2 NT+P PM.syn Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 9 297 27 21 413
Future Vol, veh/h 12 9 297 27 21 413
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 13 10 323 29 23 449
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 833 338 0 0 352 0
Stage 1 338 -----
Stage 2 495 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 337 702 - - 1201 -
Stage 1 720 -----
Stage 2 611 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 328 702 - - 1201 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 328 -----
Stage 1 720 -----
Stage 2 595 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14 0 0.4
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 425 1201 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.054 0.019 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.1 -
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3538
FPC Residential
APPENDIX C
MMLOS WORKSHEETS
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To 20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
PEDESTRIAN
Roadway Direction
NB SB
* Do pedestrian crossings appear consistent with the CA
MUTCD?Yes Yes
* Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet
(Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):66
* Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g.,
cross‐slope and trip hazards)?Yes Yes
* Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA
requirements?Yes Yes
*Do the street light locations appear adequate?Yes Yes
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Number of Through Lanes:11
Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian
refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes
Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian
facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2'
Does on‐street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more
buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes Yes
Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings?No No
Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No
Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing
width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island)?No No
Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?No No
Are there intersection enhancements provided for
pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown
heads)?
No No
Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at
street crossings?No No
Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No
Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80%
of street curb line?No No
Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards
businesses or attractions?No No
Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more
than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No
CARLSBAD BLVD
Local/Neighborhood
6,800
Ponto Rd
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
100 | A
NB SCORE | LOS
100 | A
SB SCORE | LOS
X
Ponto Road: 2Carlsbad Blvd to 20' South of Northernly Boundary -
EXISTING
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
BICYCLE
Roadway Direction
NB SB
*Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good
(e.g., no pot holes)?Yes Yes
*Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of
obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)?Yes Yes
*Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing
and striping design guidelines?Yes Yes
Is on‐street parking provided?No No
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Does the bikeway on the study segment and side
streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan?Both Both
Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection
provided at intersections?No No
Any bicycle racks are provided along segment?No No
Bicycle Facility Provided:Bike Lane Bike Lane
Lane Width (ft) Lane Width (ft)
55
Bicycle Buffer Width (ft)Bicycle Buffer Width (ft)
00
Bike lanes are striped
continuously through
the study segment?
Bike lanes are striped
continuously through
the study segment?
Yes Yes
Ponto Rd
CARLSBAD BLVD
20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY
Local/Neighborhood
6,800
95 | A
NB SCORE | LOS
95 | A
SB SCORE | LOS
X
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
Ponto Road: 2Carlsbad Blvd to 20' South of Northernly Boundary -
EXISTING
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path
meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 15
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width
meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility
Element (or 5' if unspecified)
10 10 10
Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and
landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 10 10
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk
segments meet ADA requirements (cross‐slope and trip
hazards)
10 10 10
Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 10 10
3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10
On‐street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer
between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 55 5
Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 50 0
Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0
Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 0 0
Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5
No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings 55 5
Permanent speed control devices installed on segments
posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are
marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 10
Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the
CA MUTCD)50 0
Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width
(pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median
island)
10 0 0
Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians
(pedestrian‐friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown
heads, signage, etc.)
10 0 0
RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light
locations appear adequate 10 10 10
Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian
attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational
spaces)
50 0
Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk
length 50 0
Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0
Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0
100 100
AA
Yes Yes
Other Elements
Accessibility and
functionality
Total Score:
All Essential Feature Criteria Met?
Pedestrian LOS:
Street characteristics
SELF‐STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Rd From CARLSBAD BLVD To 20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY
Existing
LLG Engineers
Crossing characteristics
Criteria
Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria
Ponto Road: 2Carlsbad Blvd to 20' South of Northernly Boundary -
EXISTING
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 0 0
Speed limit is 30 mph 15 15 15
Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0
Street with ADT < 3,000 15 0 0
Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0
Class I facility (off‐street path), Class IV (cycle track), or
multiuse path 25 0 0
Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on‐street
bicycle lanes)15 15 15
Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0
Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) 5 0 0
Additional traffic calming/speed management features have
been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0
Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 25 25
Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0
Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design
guidelines D 10 10 10
Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) 10 10 10
Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) 5 5 5
Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master
Plan along segment 55 5
Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and
departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes
or driveways
55 5
No on‐street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 5 5
Back‐in angled parking 5 0 0
Parallel parking with door‐side buffered bike lane 5 0 0
Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at
intersections 50 0
Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0
95 95
AA
Connectivity/
Contiguity
Adjacent Vehicle
Parking
Other Elements
SELF‐STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Rd From CARLSBAD BLVD To 20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY
Existing
LLG Engineers
Facility
Bicycle MMLOS Criteria
Criteria
Street Characteristics
Bikeway Design
Total Score:
Bike LOS:
Ponto Road: 2Carlsbad Blvd to 20' South of Northernly Boundary -
EXISTING
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To INTERSECTION OF PONTO DR / BEACH WAY
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
PEDESTRIAN
Roadway Direction
NB SB
* Do pedestrian crossings appear consistent with the CA
MUTCD?No No
* Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet
(Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):00
* Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g.,
cross‐slope and trip hazards)?No No
* Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA
requirements?Yes Yes
*Do the street light locations appear adequate?Yes Yes
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Number of Through Lanes:11
Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian
refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes
Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian
facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2'
Does on‐street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more
buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?No No
Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings?No No
Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No
Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing
width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island)?No No
Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?No No
Are there intersection enhancements provided for
pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown
heads)?
No No
Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at
street crossings?No No
Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No
Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80%
of street curb line?No No
Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards
businesses or attractions?No No
Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more
than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No
FROM 20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY
Local/Neighborhood
6,800
Ponto Rd
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
0 | F
NB SCORE | LOS
0 | F
SB SCORE | LOS
May require improvements and
upgrades to fully support CAP goals!
X
Ponto Road: 20' South of northerly boundary to intersection on Ponto Dr/Beach Way -
EXISTING
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
BICYCLE
Roadway Direction
NB SB
*Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good
(e.g., no pot holes)?Yes Yes
*Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of
obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)?Yes Yes
*Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing
and striping design guidelines?No No
Is on‐street parking provided?No No
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Does the bikeway on the study segment and side
streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan?Both Both
Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection
provided at intersections?No No
Any bicycle racks are provided along segment?No No
Bicycle Facility Provided:Bike Route Bike Route
55
00
Traffic calming features
present?
Traffic calming features
present?
No No
Ponto Rd
FROM 20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY
INTERSECTION OF PONTO DR / BEACH WAY
Local/Neighborhood
6,800
70 | C
NB SCORE | LOS
70 | C
SB SCORE | LOS
X
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
May require improvements and
upgrades to fully support CAP goals!
Ponto Road: 20' South of northerly boundary to intersection on Ponto Dr/Beach Way -
EXISTING
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path
meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 0 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width
meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility
Element (or 5' if unspecified)
10 0 0
Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and
landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 10 10
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk
segments meet ADA requirements (cross‐slope and trip
hazards)
10 0 0
Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0
3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10
On‐street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer
between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 50 0
Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 50 0
Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0
Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 0 0
Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5
No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings 55 5
Permanent speed control devices installed on segments
posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are
marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 0 0
Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the
CA MUTCD)50 0
Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width
(pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median
island)
10 0 0
Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians
(pedestrian‐friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown
heads, signage, etc.)
10 0 0
RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light
locations appear adequate 10 10 10
Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian
attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational
spaces)
50 0
Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk
length 50 0
Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0
Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0
40 40
FF
No No
Other Elements
Accessibility and
functionality
Total Score:
All Essential Feature Criteria Met?
Pedestrian LOS:
Street characteristics
SELF‐STORGAE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Rd From FROM 20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY To INTERSECTION OF PONTO DR / BEACH WAY
Existing
LLG Engineers
Crossing characteristics
Criteria
Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria
Ponto Road: 20' South of northerly boundary to intersection on Ponto Dr/Beach Way -
EXISTING
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 0 0
Speed limit is 30 mph 15 15 15
Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0
Street with ADT < 3,000 15 0 0
Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0
Class I facility (off‐street path), Class IV (cycle track), or
multiuse path 25 0 0
Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on‐street
bicycle lanes)15 0 0
Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0
Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) 5 5 5
Additional traffic calming/speed management features have
been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0
Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 25 25
Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0
Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design
guidelines D 10 0 0
Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) 10 10 10
Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) 5 5 5
Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master
Plan along segment 55 5
Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and
departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes
or driveways
50 0
No on‐street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 5 5
Back‐in angled parking 5 0 0
Parallel parking with door‐side buffered bike lane 5 0 0
Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at
intersections 50 0
Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0
70 70
CC
SELF‐STORGAE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Rd From FROM 20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY To INTERSECTION OF PONTO DR / BEACH WAY
Existing
LLG Engineers
Facility
Bicycle MMLOS Criteria
Criteria
Street Characteristics
Bikeway Design
Total Score:
Bike LOS:
Connectivity/
Contiguity
Adjacent Vehicle
Parking
Other Elements
Ponto Road: 20' South of northerly boundary to intersection on Ponto Dr/Beach Way -
EXISTING
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To INTERSECTION OF PONTO DR / BEACH WAY
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
PEDESTRIAN
Roadway Direction
NB SB
* Do pedestrian crossings appear consistent with the CA
MUTCD?Yes No
* Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet
(Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):10 0
* Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g.,
cross‐slope and trip hazards)?Yes No
* Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA
requirements?Yes Yes
*Do the street light locations appear adequate?Yes Yes
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Number of Through Lanes:11
Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian
refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes
Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian
facility and vehicle travel way:2' to 5'0' to 2'
Does on‐street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more
buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes No
Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings?No No
Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No
Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing
width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island)?No No
Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?No No
Are there intersection enhancements provided for
pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown
heads)?
No No
Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at
street crossings?No No
Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No
Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80%
of street curb line?No No
Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards
businesses or attractions?No No
Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more
than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No
FROM 20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY
Local/Neighborhood
7,100
Ponto Rd
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
100 | A
NB SCORE | LOS
0 | F
SB SCORE | LOS
May require improvements and
upgrades to fully support CAP goals!
X
Ponto Road: 20' South of northerly boundary to intersection on Ponto Dr/Beach Way - WITH
IMPROVEMENTS
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
BICYCLE
Roadway Direction
NB SB
*Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good
(e.g., no pot holes)?Yes Yes
*Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of
obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)?Yes Yes
*Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing
and striping design guidelines?Yes Yes
Is on‐street parking provided?Parallel parking No
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Does the bikeway on the study segment and side
streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan?Both Both
Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection
provided at intersections?No No
Any bicycle racks are provided along segment?No No
Bicycle Facility Provided:Bike Route Bike Route
55
00
Traffic calming features
present?
Traffic calming features
present?
No No
Ponto Rd
FROM 20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY
INTERSECTION OF PONTO DR / BEACH WAY
Local/Neighborhood
7,100
75 | C
NB SCORE | LOS
80 | B
SB SCORE | LOS
X
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
Ponto Road: 20' South of northerly boundary to intersection on Ponto Dr/Beach Way -
WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path
meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width
meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility
Element (or 5' if unspecified)
10 10 0
Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and
landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 10 10
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk
segments meet ADA requirements (cross‐slope and trip
hazards)
10 10 0
Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 10 0
3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10
On‐street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer
between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 55 0
Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 55 0
Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0
Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 0 0
Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5
No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings 55 5
Permanent speed control devices installed on segments
posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are
marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 0
Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the
CA MUTCD)50 0
Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width
(pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median
island)
10 0 0
Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians
(pedestrian‐friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown
heads, signage, etc.)
10 0 0
RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light
locations appear adequate 10 10 10
Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian
attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational
spaces)
50 0
Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk
length 50 0
Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0
Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0
100 40
AF
Yes No
Other Elements
Accessibility and
functionality
Total Score:
All Essential Feature Criteria Met?
Pedestrian LOS:
Street characteristics
SELF‐STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Rd From FROM 20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY To INTERSECTION OF PONTO DR / BEACH WAY
Future (with Project)
LLG Engineers
Crossing characteristics
Criteria
Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria
Ponto Road: 20' South of northerly boundary to intersection on Ponto Dr/Beach Way -
WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 0 0
Speed limit is 30 mph 15 15 15
Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0
Street with ADT < 3,000 15 0 0
Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0
Class I facility (off‐street path), Class IV (cycle track), or
multiuse path 25 0 0
Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on‐street
bicycle lanes)15 0 0
Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0
Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) 5 5 5
Additional traffic calming/speed management features have
been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0
Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 25 25
Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0
Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design
guidelines D 10 10 10
Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) 10 10 10
Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) 5 5 5
Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master
Plan along segment 55 5
Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and
departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes
or driveways
50 0
No on‐street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 0 5
Back‐in angled parking 5 0 0
Parallel parking with door‐side buffered bike lane 5 0 0
Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at
intersections 50 0
Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0
75 80
CB
Connectivity/
Contiguity
Adjacent Vehicle
Parking
Other Elements
SELF‐STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Rd From FROM 20' SOUTH OF NLY. BOUNDARY To INTERSECTION OF PONTO DR / BEACH WAY
Future (with Project)
LLG Engineers
Facility
Bicycle MMLOS Criteria
Criteria
Street Characteristics
Bikeway Design
Total Score:
Bike LOS:
Ponto Road: 20' South of northerly boundary to intersection on Ponto Dr/Beach Way -
WITH IMPROVEMENTS
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name Ponto Drive
From
To 300 Ft South of Ponto Rd
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
PEDESTRIAN
Roadway Direction
NB SB
* Do pedestrian crossings appear consistent with the CA
MUTCD?No No
* Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet
(Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):00
* Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g.,
cross‐slope and trip hazards)?No No
* Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA
requirements?No No
*Do the street light locations appear adequate?No No
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Number of Through Lanes:11
Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian
refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes
Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian
facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2'
Does on‐street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more
buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?No No
Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings?No No
Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No
Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing
width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island)?No No
Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?No No
Are there intersection enhancements provided for
pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown
heads)?
No No
Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at
street crossings?No No
Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No
Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80%
of street curb line?No No
Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards
businesses or attractions?No No
Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more
than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No
Ponto Rd
Local/Neighborhood
6,700
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
0 | F
NB SCORE | LOS
0 | F
SB SCORE | LOS
May require improvements and
upgrades to fully support CAP goals!
X
Ponto Drive: Ponto Road to 300' south of Ponto Road - EXISTING
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
BICYCLE
Roadway Direction
NB SB
*Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good
(e.g., no pot holes)?Yes Yes
*Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of
obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)?Yes Yes
*Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing
and striping design guidelines?No No
Is on‐street parking provided?No No
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Does the bikeway on the study segment and side
streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan?Both Both
Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection
provided at intersections?No No
Any bicycle racks are provided along segment?No No
Bicycle Facility Provided:Bike Route Bike Route
00
00
Traffic calming features
present?
Traffic calming features
present?
No No
Ponto Drive
Ponto Rd
300 Ft South of Ponto Rd
Local/Neighborhood
6,700
70 | C
NB SCORE | LOS
70 | C
SB SCORE | LOS
X
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
May require improvements and
upgrades to fully support CAP goals!
Ponto Drive: Ponto Road to 300' south of Ponto Road - EXISTING
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path
meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 0 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width
meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility
Element (or 5' if unspecified)
10 0 0
Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and
landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 0 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk
segments meet ADA requirements (cross‐slope and trip
hazards)
10 0 0
Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0
3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10
On‐street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer
between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 50 0
Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 50 0
Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0
Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 5 5
Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5
No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings 55 5
Permanent speed control devices installed on segments
posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are
marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 0 0
Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the
CA MUTCD)50 0
Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width
(pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median
island)
10 0 0
Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians
(pedestrian‐friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown
heads, signage, etc.)
10 0 0
RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light
locations appear adequate 10 0 0
Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian
attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational
spaces)
50 0
Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk
length 50 0
Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0
Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0
25 25
FF
No No
SELF‐STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Drive From Ponto Rd To 300 Ft South of Ponto Rd
Existing
LLG Engineers
Crossing characteristics
Criteria
Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria
Other Elements
Accessibility and
functionality
Total Score:
All Essential Feature Criteria Met?
Pedestrian LOS:
Street characteristics
Ponto Drive: Ponto Road to 300' south of Ponto Road - EXISTING
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 0 0
Speed limit is 30 mph 15 15 15
Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0
Street with ADT < 3,000 15 0 0
Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0
Class I facility (off‐street path), Class IV (cycle track), or
multiuse path 25 0 0
Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on‐street
bicycle lanes)15 0 0
Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0
Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) 5 5 5
Additional traffic calming/speed management features have
been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0
Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 25 25
Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0
Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design
guidelines D 10 0 0
Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) 10 10 10
Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) 5 5 5
Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master
Plan along segment 55 5
Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and
departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes
or driveways
50 0
No on‐street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 5 5
Back‐in angled parking 5 0 0
Parallel parking with door‐side buffered bike lane 5 0 0
Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at
intersections 50 0
Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0
70 70
CC
SELF‐STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Drive From Ponto Rd To 300 Ft South of Ponto Rd
Existing
LLG Engineers
Facility
Bicycle MMLOS Criteria
Criteria
Street Characteristics
Bikeway Design
Total Score:
Bike LOS:
Connectivity/
Contiguity
Adjacent Vehicle
Parking
Other Elements
Ponto Drive: Ponto Road to 300' south of Ponto Road - EXISTING
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name Ponto Drive
From
To 300 Ft South of Ponto Rd
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
PEDESTRIAN
Roadway Direction
NB SB
* Do pedestrian crossings appear consistent with the CA
MUTCD?Yes Yes
* Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet
(Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):10 0
* Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g.,
cross‐slope and trip hazards)?Yes No
* Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA
requirements?Yes No
*Do the street light locations appear adequate?Yes Yes
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Number of Through Lanes:11
Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian
refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes
Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian
facility and vehicle travel way:2' to 5'0' to 2'
Does on‐street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more
buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes No
Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings?No No
Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No
Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing
width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island)?No No
Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?No No
Are there intersection enhancements provided for
pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown
heads)?
No No
Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at
street crossings?No No
Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No
Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80%
of street curb line?No No
Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards
businesses or attractions?No No
Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more
than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No
Ponto Rd
Local/Neighborhood
7,000
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
100 | A
NB SCORE | LOS
0 | F
SB SCORE | LOS
May require improvements and
upgrades to fully support CAP goals!
X
Ponto Drive: Ponto Road to 300' south of Ponto Road - WITH IMPROVEMENTS
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
BICYCLE
Roadway Direction
NB SB
*Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good
(e.g., no pot holes)?Yes Yes
*Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of
obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)?Yes Yes
*Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing
and striping design guidelines?No No
Is on‐street parking provided?No No
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Does the bikeway on the study segment and side
streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan?Both Both
Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection
provided at intersections?No No
Any bicycle racks are provided along segment?No No
Bicycle Facility Provided:Bike Route Bike Route
00
00
Traffic calming features
present?
Traffic calming features
present?
No No
Ponto Drive
Ponto Rd
300 Ft South of Ponto Rd
Local/Neighborhood
7,000
70 | C
NB SCORE | LOS
70 | C
SB SCORE | LOS
X
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
May require improvements and
upgrades to fully support CAP goals!
Ponto Drive: Ponto Road to 300' south of Ponto Road - WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path
meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width
meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility
Element (or 5' if unspecified)
10 10 0
Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and
landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 10 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk
segments meet ADA requirements (cross‐slope and trip
hazards)
10 10 0
Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 10 0
3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10
On‐street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer
between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 55 0
Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 55 0
Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0
Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 0 0
Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5
No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings 55 5
Permanent speed control devices installed on segments
posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are
marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 10
Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the
CA MUTCD)50 0
Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width
(pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median
island)
10 0 0
Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians
(pedestrian‐friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown
heads, signage, etc.)
10 0 0
RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light
locations appear adequate 10 10 10
Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian
attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational
spaces)
50 0
Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk
length 50 0
Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0
Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0
100 40
AF
Yes No
SELF‐STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Drive From Ponto Rd To 300 Ft South of Ponto Rd
Future (with Project)
LLG Engineers
Crossing characteristics
Criteria
Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria
Other Elements
Accessibility and
functionality
Total Score:
All Essential Feature Criteria Met?
Pedestrian LOS:
Street characteristics
Ponto Drive: Ponto Road to 300' south of Ponto Road - WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 0 0
Speed limit is 30 mph 15 15 15
Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0
Street with ADT < 3,000 15 0 0
Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0
Class I facility (off‐street path), Class IV (cycle track), or
multiuse path 25 0 0
Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on‐street
bicycle lanes)15 0 0
Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0
Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) 5 5 5
Additional traffic calming/speed management features have
been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0
Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 25 25
Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0
Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design
guidelines D 10 0 0
Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) 10 10 10
Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) 5 5 5
Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master
Plan along segment 55 5
Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and
departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes
or driveways
50 0
No on‐street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 5 5
Back‐in angled parking 5 0 0
Parallel parking with door‐side buffered bike lane 5 0 0
Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at
intersections 50 0
Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0
70 70
CC
Connectivity/
Contiguity
Adjacent Vehicle
Parking
Other Elements
SELF‐STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Drive From Ponto Rd To 300 Ft South of Ponto Rd
Future (with Project)
LLG Engineers
Facility
Bicycle MMLOS Criteria
Criteria
Street Characteristics
Bikeway Design
Total Score:
Bike LOS:
Ponto Drive: Ponto Road to 300' south of Ponto Road - WITH IMPROVEMENTS
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name Ponto Drive
From
To Avenida Encinas
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
PEDESTRIAN
Roadway Direction
NB SB
* Do pedestrian crossings appear consistent with the CA
MUTCD?Yes Yes
* Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet
(Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):55
* Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g.,
cross‐slope and trip hazards)?Yes Yes
* Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA
requirements?Yes Yes
*Do the street light locations appear adequate?Yes Yes
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Number of Through Lanes:11
Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian
refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes
Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian
facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2'
Does on‐street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more
buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes No
Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings?No No
Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No
Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing
width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island)?No No
Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?No No
Are there intersection enhancements provided for
pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown
heads)?
No No
Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at
street crossings?No No
Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No
Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80%
of street curb line?No No
Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards
businesses or attractions?No No
Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more
than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No
300 Ft South of Ponto Rd
Local/Neighborhood
6,700
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
90 | A
NB SCORE | LOS
85 | B
SB SCORE | LOS
X
PONTO DRIVE: 300' SOUTH OF PONTO ROAD TO AVENIDA ENCINAS - EXISTING
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total)
BICYCLE
Roadway Direction
NB SB
*Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good
(e.g., no pot holes)?Yes Yes
*Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of
obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)?Yes Yes
*Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing
and striping design guidelines?No No
Is on‐street parking provided?Parallel parking No
Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):30 mph 30 mph
Does the bikeway on the study segment and side
streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan?Both Both
Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection
provided at intersections?No No
Any bicycle racks are provided along segment?No No
Bicycle Facility Provided:Bike Route Bike Route
00
00
Traffic calming features
present?
Traffic calming features
present?
No No
Ponto Drive
300 Ft South of Ponto Rd
Avenida Encinas
Local/Neighborhood
6,700
65 | D
NB SCORE | LOS
70 | C
SB SCORE | LOS
X
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
May require improvements and
upgrades to fully support CAP goals!
PONTO DRIVE: 300' SOUTH OF PONTO ROAD TO AVENIDA ENCINAS - EXISTING
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path
meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 15
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width
meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility
Element (or 5' if unspecified)
10 10 10
Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and
landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 10 10
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk
segments meet ADA requirements (cross‐slope and trip
hazards)
10 10 10
Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology
according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0
3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10
On‐street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer
between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 55 0
Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 50 0
Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between
pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0
Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 0 0
Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5
No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and
pedestrian crossings 55 5
Permanent speed control devices installed on segments
posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 50 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are
marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 10
Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the
CA MUTCD)50 0
Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width
(pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median
island)
10 0 0
Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians
(pedestrian‐friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown
heads, signage, etc.)
10 0 0
RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light
locations appear adequate 10 10 10
Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian
attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational
spaces)
50 0
Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk
length 50 0
Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0
Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0
90 85
AB
Yes Yes
Other Elements
Accessibility and
functionality
Total Score:
All Essential Feature Criteria Met?
Pedestrian LOS:
Street characteristics
SELF‐STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Drive From 300 Ft South of Ponto Rd To Avenida Encinas
Existing
LLG Engineers
Crossing characteristics
Criteria
Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria
PONTO DRIVE: 300' SOUTH OF PONTO ROAD TO AVENIDA ENCINAS - EXISTING
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 0 0
Speed limit is 30 mph 15 15 15
Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0
Street with ADT < 3,000 15 0 0
Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0
Class I facility (off‐street path), Class IV (cycle track), or
multiuse path 25 0 0
Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on‐street
bicycle lanes)15 0 0
Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0
Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) 5 5 5
Additional traffic calming/speed management features have
been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0
Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 25 25
Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0
Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design
guidelines D 10 0 0
Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) 10 10 10
Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) 5 5 5
Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master
Plan along segment 55 5
Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and
departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes
or driveways
50 0
No on‐street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 0 5
Back‐in angled parking 5 0 0
Parallel parking with door‐side buffered bike lane 5 0 0
Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at
intersections 50 0
Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0
65 70
DC
Connectivity/
Contiguity
Adjacent Vehicle
Parking
Other Elements
SELF‐STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Ponto Drive From 300 Ft South of Ponto Rd To Avenida Encinas
Existing
LLG Engineers
Facility
Bicycle MMLOS Criteria
Criteria
Street Characteristics
Bikeway Design
Total Score:
Bike LOS:
PONTO DRIVE: 300' SOUTH OF PONTO ROAD TO AVENIDA ENCINAS - EXISTING
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total)
TRANSIT
Roadway Direction
NB SB
*Transit stop amenities available:
Do the sidewalks or path to the transit stop appear to be
ADA compliant?Yes Yes
Do multiple transit routes stop on the study segment?No No
Do any of the routes provide a direct link to a COASTER
station or mobility hub?Yes Yes
Do any of the routes provide a single transfer to reach a
COASTER station or mobility hub?No No
*Closest distance to existing transit stop:1/4 to 1/2 mile walk to bus
only
1/4 to 1/2 mile walk to bus
only
What type of transit priority is present?None present None present
Headways between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on
weekdays:30 minutes 30 minutes
Is there commute shuttle service provided during the
morning and afternoon commute periods?No No
On weekends, are the headways no more than 1 hour
headways between 9 am-5 pm?Yes Yes
Is there bike parking available at the bus stop?No No
Is the bus stop within 1/4 mile of a bike repair shop?No No
*Is area governed by an adopted TDM ordinance that will
promote ridesharing and/or the use of non-auto modes?No No
*Are On Demand rideshare services available?No No
*Is the study segment within FLEX service area?No No
Carlsbad Boulevard
Poinsettia Lane
Coastals
30,200
Covered Bus Stop
Bench
Well-lit Stops
Trash Cans
Stop located within a block
of commercial users
Covered Bus Stop
Bench
Well-lit Stops
Trash Cans
Stop located within a block
of commercial users
72 | C
NB SCORE | LOS 72 | CSB SCORE | LOS
X
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
MMLOS score not required for
this mode based on street
typology selected.
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD: POINSETTIA LANE - EXISTING
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
No greater than 1/4 mile walk to the nearest transit stop
50 (rail/bus)
30 (bus)0 0
No greater than 1/2 mile walk to the nearest transit stop
30 (rail/bus)
20 (bus)20 20
No greater than 1 mile bicycle ride to the nearest transit stop 5 0 0
ADA compliant sidewalk or path to transit stops in both
directions 15 15 15
Multiple transit routes stop on segment 10 0 0
Route provides a direct link to a COASTER station or mobility
hub 15 15 15
Route provides for a single transfer to reach a COASTER
station or mobility hub 5 0 0
Dedicated right of way 5 0 0
Transit priority during peak hours 5 0 0
Headways of 15 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm
on weekdays 15 0 0
Headways of 30 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm
on weekdays 5 5 5
Headways of 1 hour between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on
weekdays 2 0 0
Commute shuttle service provided during the morning and
afternoon commute periods 10 0 0
No more than 1 hour headways between 9 am and 5 pm on
weekends 5 5 5
Covered bus stops 5 0 0
Bench 10 10 10
Well-lit stop that provides a sense of security 5 0 0
Trash cans 2 2 2
Bus stop located within a block of commercial services 5 0 0
Bike parking available at the bus stop 5 0 0
Bus stop within 1/4 mile of a bike repair shop 5 0 0
Area governed by an adopted TDM ordinance that will
promote ridesharing and/or the use of non-auto modes 60 0 0
On demand rideshare services available 60 0 0
Segment within FLEX service area 60 0 0
72 72
C C
LLG Engineers
Existing
SELF-STORAGE AND JUNKYARD REDEVELOPMENT
Carlsbad Boulevard From Poinsettia Lane To
Transit & Ridesharing MMLOS Criteria
Criteria
Access
Transit Stop Located Within 1/2 Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment
Connectivity
Transit priority
Service
Bicycle
Accommodations
No Transit Stop Located Within 1/2 Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment
Amenities
Available Mobility
Services
Total Score:
Transit LOS:
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD: POINSETTIA LANE - EXISTING
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total)
TRANSIT
Roadway Direction
NB SB
*Transit stop amenities available:
Do the sidewalks or path to the transit stop appear to be
ADA compliant?Yes No
Do multiple transit routes stop on the study segment?No No
Do any of the routes provide a direct link to a COASTER
station or mobility hub?Yes Yes
Do any of the routes provide a single transfer to reach a
COASTER station or mobility hub?No No
*Closest distance to existing transit stop:1/4 to 1/2 mile walk to bus
only
1/4 to 1/2 mile walk to bus
only
What type of transit priority is present?None present None present
Headways between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on
weekdays:30 minutes 30 minutes
Is there commute shuttle service provided during the
morning and afternoon commute periods?No No
On weekends, are the headways no more than 1 hour
headways between 9 am-5 pm?Yes Yes
Is there bike parking available at the bus stop?No No
Is the bus stop within 1/4 mile of a bike repair shop?No No
*Is area governed by an adopted TDM ordinance that will
promote ridesharing and/or the use of non-auto modes?No No
*Are On Demand rideshare services available?No No
*Is the study segment within FLEX service area?No No
Carlsbad Boulevard
Ponto Road
Coastals
Covered Bus Stop
Bench
Well-lit Stops
Trash Cans
Stop located within a block
of commercial users
Covered Bus Stop
Bench
Well-lit Stops
Trash Cans
Stop located within a block
of commercial users
0 | F
NB SCORE | LOS 0 | FSB SCORE | LOS
X
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
May require improvements and
upgrades to fully support CAP goals!
MMLOS score not required for
this mode based on street
typology selected.
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD: PONTO ROAD - EXISTING
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
No greater than 1/4 mile walk to the nearest transit stop
50 (rail/bus)
30 (bus)0 0
No greater than 1/2 mile walk to the nearest transit stop
30 (rail/bus)
20 (bus)20 20
No greater than 1 mile bicycle ride to the nearest transit stop 5 0 0
ADA compliant sidewalk or path to transit stops in both
directions 15 0 0
Multiple transit routes stop on segment 10 0 0
Route provides a direct link to a COASTER station or mobility
hub 15 15 15
Route provides for a single transfer to reach a COASTER
station or mobility hub 5 0 0
Dedicated right of way 5 0 0
Transit priority during peak hours 5 0 0
Headways of 15 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm
on weekdays 15 0 0
Headways of 30 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm
on weekdays 5 5 5
Headways of 1 hour between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on
weekdays 2 0 0
Commute shuttle service provided during the morning and
afternoon commute periods 10 0 0
No more than 1 hour headways between 9 am and 5 pm on
weekends 5 5 5
Covered bus stops 5 0 0
Bench 10 0 0
Well-lit stop that provides a sense of security 5 0 0
Trash cans 2 0 0
Bus stop located within a block of commercial services 5 0 0
Bike parking available at the bus stop 5 0 0
Bus stop within 1/4 mile of a bike repair shop 5 0 0
Area governed by an adopted TDM ordinance that will
promote ridesharing and/or the use of non-auto modes 60 0 0
On demand rideshare services available 60 0 0
Segment within FLEX service area 60 0 0
45 45
F F
LLG Engineers
Existing
FPC Residential
Carlsbad Boulevard From Ponto Road To
Transit & Ridesharing MMLOS Criteria
Criteria
Access
Transit Stop Located Within 1/2 Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment
Connectivity
Transit priority
Service
Bicycle
Accommodations
No Transit Stop Located Within 1/2 Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment
Amenities
Available Mobility
Services
Total Score:
Transit LOS:
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD: PONTO ROAD - EXISTING
ROADWAY INFO
Roadway Name
From
To
Street Typology from Mobility Element _
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total)
TRANSIT
Roadway Direction
NB SB
*Transit stop amenities available:
Do the sidewalks or path to the transit stop appear to be
ADA compliant?Yes Yes
Do multiple transit routes stop on the study segment?No No
Do any of the routes provide a direct link to a COASTER
station or mobility hub?Yes Yes
Do any of the routes provide a single transfer to reach a
COASTER station or mobility hub?No No
*Closest distance to existing transit stop:1/4 to 1/2 mile walk to bus
only
1/4 to 1/2 mile walk to bus
only
What type of transit priority is present?None present None present
Headways between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on
weekdays:30 minutes 30 minutes
Is there commute shuttle service provided during the
morning and afternoon commute periods?No No
On weekends, are the headways no more than 1 hour
headways between 9 am-5 pm?Yes Yes
Is there bike parking available at the bus stop?No No
Is the bus stop within 1/4 mile of a bike repair shop?No No
*Is area governed by an adopted TDM ordinance that will
promote ridesharing and/or the use of non-auto modes?No No
*Are On Demand rideshare services available?No No
*Is the study segment within FLEX service area?No No
Carlsbad Boulevard
Ponto Rd
Coastals
Covered Bus Stop
Bench
Well-lit Stops
Trash Cans
Stop located within a block
of commercial users
Covered Bus Stop
Bench
Well-lit Stops
Trash Cans
Stop located within a block
of commercial users
72 | C
NB SCORE | LOS 72 | CSB SCORE | LOS
X
*Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP).
MMLOS score not required for
this mode based on street
typology selected.
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD: PONTO ROAD - WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Project:
Segment:
Scenario:
By:
NB SB
Points Points Assigned Points Assigned
No greater than 1/4 mile walk to the nearest transit stop
50 (rail/bus)
30 (bus)0 0
No greater than 1/2 mile walk to the nearest transit stop
30 (rail/bus)
20 (bus)20 20
No greater than 1 mile bicycle ride to the nearest transit stop 5 0 0
ADA compliant sidewalk or path to transit stops in both
directions 15 15 15
Multiple transit routes stop on segment 10 0 0
Route provides a direct link to a COASTER station or mobility
hub 15 15 15
Route provides for a single transfer to reach a COASTER
station or mobility hub 5 0 0
Dedicated right of way 5 0 0
Transit priority during peak hours 5 0 0
Headways of 15 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm
on weekdays 15 0 0
Headways of 30 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm
on weekdays 5 5 5
Headways of 1 hour between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on
weekdays 2 0 0
Commute shuttle service provided during the morning and
afternoon commute periods 10 0 0
No more than 1 hour headways between 9 am and 5 pm on
weekends 5 5 5
Covered bus stops 5 0 0
Bench 10 10 10
Well-lit stop that provides a sense of security 5 0 0
Trash cans 2 2 2
Bus stop located within a block of commercial services 5 0 0
Bike parking available at the bus stop 5 0 0
Bus stop within 1/4 mile of a bike repair shop 5 0 0
Area governed by an adopted TDM ordinance that will
promote ridesharing and/or the use of non-auto modes 60 0 0
On demand rideshare services available 60 0 0
Segment within FLEX service area 60 0 0
72 72
C C
LLG Engineers
Future (with Project)
FPC Residential
Carlsbad Boulevard From Ponto Rd To
Transit & Ridesharing MMLOS Criteria
Criteria
Access
Transit Stop Located Within 1/2 Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment
Connectivity
Transit priority
Service
Bicycle
Accommodations
No Transit Stop Located Within 1/2 Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment
Amenities
Available Mobility
Services
Total Score:
Transit LOS:
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD: PONTO ROAD - WITH IMPROVEMENTS