Carlsbad City Council
June 7, 2022

CA Review _RMC_
Meeting Date: June 7, 2022
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Hossein Ajideh, Engineering Manager
[email protected], 442-339-2756
Subject:

Districts:

Public hearing on TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27
All
Reco
mmended Action
Hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27 for inclusion in the 2023 San Diego Association of Governments Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

Executive Summary
To use county TransNet1 funds for local transportation projects, cities and other SANDAG member agencies must approve their programs of projects every two years. These programs are then incorporated into the regional list of TransNet projects which include proposed highway, arterial roadway, transit and bikeway projects for the entire county.

In addition to projects using TransNet funds, each agency’s program of projects must also include transportation projects that are regionally significant and increase transportation capacity, regardless of their funding sources.

To obtain the TransNet funding for Carlsbad projects, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing to consider and approve the Carlsbad Program of Projects. The signed resolution in Exhibit 1 approving the Carlsbad program is due to SANDAG by July 1, 2022. The city’s program will then be incorporated into SANDAG’s 2023 regional program and submitted to the state for approval.

Staff recommend approval of the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27 for inclusion in the 2023 update of the TransNet Program of Projects for the entire county.

Discussion
Background
SANDAG, acting as the Regional Transportation Commission, is required by state and federal laws to develop and adopt an updated regional program every two years. This is a multiyear list 1 TransNet is a countywide transportation sales tax first approved by county voters in 1987.

June 7, 2022
Item #8 Page 1 of 13

of projects submitted by cities and other jurisdictions in the county identifying transportation projects that are eligible to use the sales tax funds generated through TransNet.

In addition to the federal and state requirements, the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan2 requires that SANDAG prepare a five-year TransNet Program of Projects, also every two years.

Each member agency of SANDAG that wants to spend TransNet and/or certain federal or state funds must approve its own program of projects every two years. In addition to the projects using those funding sources, the program must include projects that will increase transportation capacity, regardless of their funding sources. The federal Metropolitan Planning and Air Quality Conformity Regulations also require inclusion of all capacity-increasing road projects for air quality emissions modeling and analysis.

The City Council approved the city’s 2020 TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects on June 2, 2020, which covered fiscal years through 2024-25. The City Council also approved an amendment to the city’s 2020 program of projects on May 11, 2021.

This year’s update
As part of the 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program development process, staff have identified several transportation projects that need either additional TransNet funding or a change of schedule of TransNet funding allocations. These changes require holding a public hearing and a resolution of the City Council before they can be submitted to SANDAG for inclusion in the 2023 regional program.

The SANDAG Board of Directors, acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, approves the TransNet Program of Projects as an element of the 2023 regional program update. The 2023 TransNet Program of Projects is scheduled for consideration by the SANDAG board on Sept. 23, 2022.

Carlsbad’s proposed Program of Projects
The proposed Carlsbad Program for2022-23 through 2026-27, which is shown in Exhibit 1, Attachment A, includes projects with the following funding sources:
• Federal funds – administered by the California Department of Transportation • TransNet Local Street Improvement Funds – administered by SANDAG • Local funds from the city’s funds, including traffic impact fees and gas tax • Local funds from developers

Federal funds included in the program are from the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users High Priority Project Funds that were repurposed for the El Camino Real widening project from Cassia Road to Camino Vida Roble.

TransNet local funds are programmed for a variety of projects, including Americans with Disabilities Act improvements, various roadway improvements, pavement management program, traffic signal improvements and roadway lighting projects.

2 The TransNet Extension Ordinance, approved by San Diego County voters in 2004, extended the initial San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance (Proposition A, 1987) for a 40 -year period commencing on April 1, 2008.

June 7, 2022
Item #8 Page 2 of 13

The city’s program of projects also includes various capacity-increasing roadway projects along regionally significant arterial roadways, regardless of the funding source. Some of these projects are funded by city funds such as traffic impact fees or funding from adjacent private development.

The program may be amended as needed on a quarterly basis during the two-year period.

These amendments must go through SANDAG’s amendment procedures for approval.

Funding requirements
The TransNet Extension Ordinance places certain requirements on local jurisdictions regarding the use of TransNet funds:
• No more than 30% of cumulative TransNet revenues shall be spent on local street and road maintenance projects.
• All new projects or major reconstruction projects funded by TransNet revenues shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists. Any deviation from this requirement shall be clearly noticed as part of that local jurisdiction’s public hearing process. • The required minimum annual level of local discretionary funds to be spent on streets and roads will be met throughout the five-year period consistent with the most recent Maintenance of Effort Requirements adopted by SANDAG.
• Local jurisdictions must collect an amount equivalent to $2,688.21, plus all applicable annual increases, from the private sector for each newly constructed residential housing unit in that jurisdiction, unless exempted under the TransNet Extension Ordinance, and shall contribute these funds to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program.
• Local jurisdictions must establish a separate Transportation Improvement Account for TransNet revenues with the interest earned spent only for those purposes for which the funds were allocated.
• Each project of $250,000 or more will be clearly designated during construction with TransNet project funding identification signs.

Options
Staff provide the following options for the City Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt a resolution approving the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27
Pros
• The identified transportation projects will receive the necessary TransNet funding to continue into the design phase or construction phase Cons
• None identified

2. Do not adopt a resolution approving the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for 2022-23 through 2026-27
Pros
• None identified

June 7, 2022
Item #8 Page 3 of 13

Cons
• Those projects in need of TransNet funding to continue into design or construction phases will not receive the necessary funding • Staff would need to address the decrease in funding from the referenced projects
• Potential delay in completing transportation projects in need of additional funding
Staff recommend Option 1 for the City Council’s approval.

Fiscal Analysis
Inclusion in SANDAG’s regional program is not a guarantee that projects will receive the stated funding. The amounts shown in Attachment A to the Resolution, Exhibit 1, are the best available estimates of project costs and anticipated funding. The city is not obligated to proceed with the projects included in the city’s Program of Projects if funding falls short or is not available.

Next Steps
Upon approval by the City Council, staff will submit the city’s program of projects and signed resolution to SANDAG for inclusion in the 2023 regional program by the due date of July 1, 2022.

The 2023 regional program is expected to be adopted by the SANDAG board on Sept. 23, 2022, and is anticipated to receive federal approval on Dec. 16, 2022.

Environmental Eval uation
The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Guidelines Section 15276(a), which states that the act does not apply to the development or adoption of a regional transportation improvement program. However, individual projects developed in accordance with such programs shall remain subject to the act.

Public Notification
Public notification of this item was published in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, and because this item is a public hearing, notice was published 10 days before the scheduled meeting date.

Exhibit

1. City Council resolution
June 7, 2022
Item #8 Page 4 of 13
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-128

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CARLSBAD TRANSNET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022-23 THROUGH 2026-27 FOR INCLUSION IN THE 2023 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION

OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, on Nov. 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, or TransNet Extension Ordinance, which has been amended from time to time in accordance with the applicable amendment requirements; and
WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension Ordinance provides that the San Diego Association of Governments, or SAN DAG, acting as the Regional Transportation Commission, shall approve every two years a multi-year program of projects submitted by local jurisdictions identifying those transportation projects eligible to use transportation sales tax (i.e., TransNet) funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad was provided with an estimate of annual TransNet local street improvement revenues for fiscal years, or FYs, 2022-23 through 2026-27; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has held a noticed Public Hearing with an agenda item that clearly identified the proposed list of projects prior to approval of the projects by its authorized legislative body, which is the City Council, in accordance with Section S(A) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Rule 7 of SAN DAG Board Policy No. 31.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:

1. That the above recitations are true and correct.

2. That pursuant to Section 2(()(1) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Carlsbad certifies that no more than 30% of its cumulative revenues shall be spent on local street and road maintenance-related projects, or that its expenditures are consistent with the most recent TransNet Extension Ordinance requirements adopted by SANDAG.

3. That pursuant to Section 4(E)(3) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Carlsbad certifies that all new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 5 of 13
TransNet revenues shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, and that any exception to this requirement permitted under the Ordinance and proposed shall be clearly noticed as part of the City of Carlsbad's public hearing process.

4. That pursuant to Section 8 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Carlsbad certifies that the required minimum annual level of local discretionary funds to be expended for street and road purposes will be met throughout the five-year period consistent with the most recent Maintenance of Effort Requirements adopted by SANDAG.

5. That pursuant to Section 9A of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Carlsbad certifies that it will exact an amount equivalent to $2,688.21, plus all applicable annual increases, from the private sector for each newly constructed residential housing unit in that jurisdiction, unless exempted under the TransNet Extension Ordinance, and shall contribute such exactions to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program, or RTCIP.

6. That pursuant to Section 13 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Carlsbad certifies that it has established a separate Transportation Improvement Account for TransNet revenues with interest earned expended only for those purposes for which the funds were allocated.

7. That pursuant to Section 18 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Carlsbad certifies that each project of $250,000 or more will be clearly designated during construction with TransNet project funding identification signs.

8. That the City of Carlsbad does hereby certify that all other applicable provisions of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 31 have been met.

9. That, pursuant to SANDAG Board Policy No. 31, Rule 15, the City of Carlsbad agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend SANDAG, the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, and all officers and employees thereof against all causes of action or claims related to the City of Carlsbad's TransNet funded projects.

10. That the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 to 2026-27 attached to this Resolution as Attachment A is hereby June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 6 of 13
' 1
f •
approved for inclusion in the 2023 SANDAG Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 7th day of June, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Norby.

None.

Hall (on CB52, CB62), Blackburn (on CB13)*
*Hall and Blackburn absent on projects listed above due to a conflict of interest MATT1:&!l!IL
FAVIOLA MEDINA, City Clerk Services Ma
(SEAL)
June 7, 2022 Item #8 Page 7 of 13
lli
Attachment A
1 June 7, 2022
Item #8 Page 8 of 13
- --- 2023 TransNet Program of Projects
FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 --- - - - - -- - - -- -- ---- -in '000s --- --- City of CARL SBAD CIP#
- I
I --RTIP ID Project Trtle Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY2S FY26 FY27 TOTAl (8048 IEI Camino Real and Cannon Intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon Rd, along the ~,~I
Road northbound side of El Camino Real just south of Cannon Rd, re- I
stripe to provide three through lanes, add a separate ped/bike I bridge structure on the northbound side of El Camino Real over Agua Hedionda Creek TransNet 151 6042 - $1,701 TronsNet - 151: CR I 1.ocal Funds $2,6721 l I
TOTAL s2,612 J $1,701 so so $01 $0 $4,373 -
- l -- f Project Desaiption ,
-- --RTIPID I Project Trtle PRIOR EXPEND.I FY23 FY24 FY2S FY26 FY27 TOTAL CBU I College Boulevard Reach A College Boulevard from Badger lane to Cannon Rd, construct a new segment of College Blvd to provide roadway with raised l
median , bike lanes and sidewalks/trails
I TransNet 151 so 3636
I TN LSI CarryOver $217 1 $983 $1,205 ---TransNet -151: CR Local Funds $430 ! $1,283 $1,500 $1,500 $24,087 $28,800 - - T -t
TOTAL $647 1 S~271 I- so $1,500 -$1,500 $24,087 $30,005 - - ---
RTIPID I Project Title -1
Pro_LectD~ cription _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _.___ PRIOR EXPEND., FY23 I FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL -- I ~
CB13 !Poinsett ia Lane Reach E Poinsettia Lane from Cassia Drive to Skimmer Court (.3 miles) in Carlsbad, construct new 4-lane roadway with median, bike ___ 11anes, and sidewalks/tra ils TransNet 151 $0 3922
~
-- -- - - ---
TransNet - 151: CR ---
+=
Local Funds $14 ,081 , $14,081 Complete
I TOTAL $14,081 so I $0
FY25 so l
2° so $14,08 1 -
I
'
I Project Title -- ---RTIPIO Project Desaiption PRIOR EXPEND., FY23 FY24 FY26 FY27 TOTAL -- --- !Pavement Management -CB20 On various streets throughout the City, pavement overlay 1 I Overlay inch or greater and mi.sce.lt.aneous roadway section repair-5 $18,942 1 I ' TransNet 151 ,,.,,._ ~ ,.,~ "·"" Sl,650 $25,042 6001 --
I - -
TN 151 Carryover $0 -
TronsNet - LSI: CR --r Local Funds $17,3991 S2,SOO I St,350 $1,350 S1,350 1 $1,350 $25,299 ---' I TOTAL $36,341 1 s2,soo : $2,500 $3,0001 $3,000 S3,000 $50,341 I I
RTIPID I Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND., FY23 FY24 FY2S I FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB21 !Pavement Management - Slurry Along various roadways , construct/app ly street sealing and I I --
,Seal/Fog Seal construct minor roadway pavement section repairs TransNet 151 I so 6001 Tra~ - LSI: Mafnt Local Funds sz,ooo I $2,000 $2,000 1 $2,000 ' sz.0001 $10,00~ ' SZ.0001 "110,000 -
TOTAL $01 S2,000 $2,000 : $2,000 $2,000 1
2 June 7, 2022
Item #8 Page 9 of 13
1_R_TI_ P-'ID;___,_P'--roject Title ____ _
CB22 .Avenida Encinas Coastal Rail
Trail and Pedestrian
Improvements
TransNet - LSI: CR -- ----
RTlPID
C831
ProjectTrtle
El Camino Real Widening - La
Costa Ave to Arenal Road
TronsNet - LSI: CR
2023 TransNet Program of Projects
FY 2022-23 to FY 202S:-27 --
---i-n '000s
City of CARLSBAD-
Project Description
jPort ion of Coasta l Rail Trail and connect to the existing trail 'along Avenida Encinas. Improvements include expansion of l
blcycle facilities to buffered bike lanes , new sidewalks and pedestr ian ramps, enhanced Intersectio n treatments , traffic calming with road diet at select locations, and wldening to accommodate multi-moda l transportation fea1ures
TranstletLW
PRIOR EXPEND~ 23
~-------- --- -- ------Stare Gran ~ ----"$-'2+--_ il. 774 __ ___::cLoca= I Funds $222 $4,956
TOTAL $22~ $6,730
Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FYZ3
Transf-lel LSI
FY24
$0
FY24
Along El Camino Real from 700 feet north of La Costa Ave to Arena I Rd, widening along the southbound side of the
roadway 10 provide three tra vel lanes, sidewalk , and a bike jlane
Lo<al Funds, $711-, --$2--:-539 $6,010
OP#
=--1-----:=____,_ -.--1
FY25 FYZ6 FY27 TOTAl
$0 ~
$1,776
$5,178
$0 $0 I __ .;cSO.:..-_..:.c$6,9S4 r FY25 t,Y2_6_--, ___ FYZ_ 7 ___ T_O_T_A_L __ _ I
$9,2: I
- J ~-
6051
I
$0 $0 sol $9,260
RTIPID
CB32
TOTAL,______ ~ $2,539 L_ $6,010
ProjectTJtle --- ~ rojectDesaiption --=i--==- I PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 - FY-2-4------+----FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL EI Camino Real Widening - Resttfpe from Poinsettia Lane to Cinnabar Way and widen El Poinsettia Lane to Camino Vida Camino Real from Cinnabar Way to Camino Vida Roble, along Roble the northbound / east side of the roadway to provide three travel lanes , sidewa lk, and a bike lane
TransNet - LSI: CR

RTIP ID
CB34
ProjectTrtle
, Palomar Alrport Road and
Paseo Oel Norte Right Tum
Lane
Project Description
Palomar Airport Rd from 1-5 to Paseo Del Norte, widening along eastbound Palomar Airport Rd to provide a dedicated TransNet LSI
TN LSI CarryOver $442 $2,713
FED Earmark $302 $1,138
TOTAL $744 $3,851 I
PRIOR EXPEND. FY23
$ 3.~ f-6072
~
,- $1,44() -
$0 $07-- $0 $0 $4,595
FY24 FY25 FY26 FV27 TOTAL
$8~ 6044
TronsNet - LSI: CR
d ght turn lane to southbound Paseo Del Norte
TN l51 CarryOVer __ $830 L_ l
Local Funds ____ .:.$-=-28:::5'---------------~----------=;_;:_ --= $285 Complete __iol_ $0 ~ $1,115

RTIP ID
CB35
Project Title _
Palomar Airport Road and
Paseo Del Norte Left Turn Lane
TransNet - LSI: CR
-+-- TOTAL, $1,1~
Project Descript ion __j
talomar A1rport Rd from l·S to Paseo Del Nort e lengthen the left tum pocket along eastbound Palomar Airport Road to northbound Paseo Del Norte TN ~ Carry(Jver
Local funds
TOTAL
PRIOR EXPEND.
$235
$124
$359
$0
FY23 FY24
$0
$0 -;
I FY25 FY26 FV27 TOTAL
1 -+
$235 1 6043
$1 24 Complete
$0 $0 $0 $0 $359
3 June 7, 2022
Item #8 Page 10 of 13
2023
Tra
nsNet
Program
of
Projects
FY
2022
-23
to
FY
2026
-27
in
'OOOs
---
City
of
CARL
SB
AD
OP#
RTIP
ID
Project
Title
_P
roject
Des
cription
PRIOR
EXPEND
.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
TOTAl
C836
cartsbad
Boulevard
Study
realignment
of
C3rlsbad
Blvd
induding
the
relocation
of
Realignm
ent
the
southbound
lanes
of
cartsbad
Blvd
to
the
east
and
the
!construction
of
complete
str
eet
and
multi
use
trail
improvements
along
the
coastal
corridor
TransNet
LSI
$0
6031
TronsNet
-LSI:

CR
TN
LSI
carryOver
$3,000
$250
$1,000
$4,250
l
TOTAL
$3,000
$250
$1,000
~
t
$0
so
$4,250
RTIP
ID
Projectrrtle
Project
Descri
ption
PRIOR
EXPEND
.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
TOTAL
CB37
El camino
Real
and
College
Blvd
Improve
El
Camino
Real
along
the
southbound
approach
to
Intersection
Improvements
the
intersection
wi
th
College
Blvd.
to
provide
th
ree
thru
lanes
and
a
signal
controlled
righ
t turn
lane
TransNet
LSI
so
6071
TronsNet
• LSI:

CR
local
Funds
$1
,02.1
$1,021
Complete
-+-
TOTAL
$1,021
so
$0
_
so
__
so_
so
Sl,02.1
_,___
RTIP
ID
Proj
ectrrtle
Project
Description
PRIOR
EXPEND
.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
TOTAL
OP#
--
f eonstruct
ADA
Improveme
nt
s per
the
Oty
of
carlsbad
C843
ADA
Improvements
Tra
nsition
Plan
for
Publk
Rights-of-way
TN
LSI
carryov
er
$1
,788
$1,367
_
$175
$715 $175
~15
$4,935
6049
Tron.Nee
-LSI
: CR
Local
Fu
nds
$0
TOTAL
$1,788
$1,367
$175
_1715
sm
L
$715
-
$4"'9~
RTIP
ID
Projectrrtle
Pro
je
ct
Descr
iption
PRIOR
EXPEND
.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
TOTA
L
C844
Traffic
Signal
• RAMS
City
of
Carlsbad
annual
operations
and
m
aintenance
cost
share
for
the
Regional
Arterial
Management
System,
(RAMS)
TransNet
LSI
$105
$105
Complete
TronsN
et -LSI:

CR
Local
Funds
$0
-.---
TOT~
j
$105
_
$0
sot
$0
$0
so
$105
--
--
T
.. -
RTI
P
ID
Projectrrtle
P~j
ect
Des
cription
PRIOR
EXPEND
.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
TOTAL
CB4S
cartsbad
Boulevard
an
d
Reconfigure
the
inte
rsection
and
the
approaches
to
the
Tamarack
Ave
Pedestrian
int
ersection
and
provide
enh
anced
facilities
for
pedes
trians,
Improvem
ent Project
(part
of
tra
nsit
users
and
bicyclists;
(Bike,
Ped,
and
Neighborhood
lump
sum
V17)
Safety
Program)
SANDAG
approved
Tra
nsNet/ATP
sw
ap
on
Oct
23,
2015
TransNet
BPNS
5116
$938
t-
$1,054
6058
TOA
-Blcydes
S84
$84
Tron.sNet
• LSI:

CR
Loca
l fun
ds
$547
$1,029
$700
$2,276
1 TOTAL
$7
47 $1,967
so
$700
$0
$0
$3,414
RTlPID
Projectrrtle
I Project
Description
PRIOR
EXPEND
.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
TOTAL
C846
Terrama
r Ar
ea
Complete
Street
Construct
complete
street
im
provements
l11cluding
th
e
Improvements
reconfiguration
of
the
curbline
and
the,
addition
of
medians
,
pedestrian
crossings
and
parkwav
imp
rovements
TN
LSI
carryOver
$1,000
$1,000
$2,000
6054
TronsNet
-LS
I: CR
Local
Funds
$1,439
$8,661
$2,800
SU,900
TOTAL
$1-,4
39 $9,661
1 $3,800
$0
1 $0
$0
$1
4,900
4 June 7, 2022
Item #8 Page 11 of 13
2023
TransNet
Program
of
Projects
FY
2022-23
to
FY
2026-27
in
'000s
City
of

CARLSBAD
CIP#
RTIP
ID
Project
Title
Project
Description
PRIOR
EXPEND.

FY23
FY24
FY25 FY26 FY27
TOTAL
CB47
Carlsbad
Village
Drive
and
Provide
mid
-b
lock
pedestrian
crossing
improvements
and
Grand
Avenue
Impro
ve
ments
sidewalk/parkway
impro
vements
at
the
approache
s to
the
railroad
track
crossings
TransNet
LSI
$1,320
$1
,320
n/a
TransNet
-LS
I:

CR
Loca
l Funds
$0
TOTAL
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0
$1,320
$1,320
RTIP
ID
Project
Title
Project
Description
PRIOR
EXPEND.

FY23
FY24
FY25 FY26
FY27
TOTAL
CB48
Chestnut
Avenue
Complete
Complete
street
improvements
including
sidewalk
Street
Improvement
s V
alley
impro
vements
and
traffic
calming
features
such
as
bulb
outs
Street
to
1-5
and
medians
TransNet
LSI
$1,080
$1,080
TN
LSI
Carryover
$0
n/a
-
TransNet
-LSI
: CR
Local
Funds
$0
TOTAL
$0
$0
$0
$1,080
$0
$0
$1,080
RTIP
ID
Project
Title
Project
Desc
ription
PRIOR
EXPEND.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
TOTAL
CB49
Kelly
Drive
and
Park
Dri
ve
Complete
street
impro
vements
including
new
curblines,
Complete
Street
Impro
ve
ments
sidewalk
and
multi
use
trail
impro
ve
ments
and
traffic
calming
features
such
as
bulb
outs
and
medians
TN
LSI
Carryover
$703
$3,972
$4,675
6075
TransNet
-LSI:

CR
Local
Funds
$1
$1,214
$1,215
TOTAL
$704
$5,186
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,890
RTIP
ID
Project
Title
Project
Description
PRIOR
EXPEND.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
TOTAL
CB50
Valley
Street
Road
Diet
and
On
Valley
St
, north
of
Chestnut,
reconfigure
to
a
comp
lete
Traffic
Calming
street
w
ith
high
visibility
crosswa
lks,
mid-block
bulbouts,
bike
lanes,
and
parking
in
select
areas
TN
LSI
Carryover
$1,645
$1,645
n/a
TransNet
-LSI:

CR
Other
Subtotal
$0
TOTAL
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,645
$0
$1,645
RTIPID
Project
Title
Project
Descript
ion
PRIOR
EXPEND.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
TOTAL
CB51
Coordinated
Traffic
Signal
Construct
fiber
optic
communications
upgrades and
install
Program
traffic
measuring
systems
and
adaptive
signal
control
systems
to
implement
adpative
traffic
signal
control
along
these
roadways
TransNet
LSI
$855
$855
6326
TN
LSI
Carryover
$1,787
$1,787
TransNet
-LSI
: CR
Local
Funds
$811
$862
$1,673
TOTAL
$3,453
$862
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,315
RTIP
ID
Project
Title
Project
Description
PRIOR
EXPEND.

FY23
FY24
FY25 FY26 FY27
TOTAL
CB52
Carlsbad
Village
and
Barrio
At
eight
intersection
locati
ons
in
the
Village
and
Barrio,
Traffic
Circles
construct
traffic
circles
at
key
intersections
to
calm
traffic
TN
LSI
Carryover
$612
$413
$1,025
4015
TransNet
-LSI:

CR
Loca
l Funds
$148
$4
,58
6 $4,734
TOTAL
$760
1 $4,999
I
$0
$0 $0
$0
$5,759
5 June 7, 2022
Item #8 Page 12 of 13
2023
TransNet
Program
of
Projects
FY
2022-23
to
FY
2026-27
in
'000s
City
of

CARLSBAD
CIP#
RTIP
ID
Project
Title
Project
Description
PRIOR
EXPEND.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
TOTAL
CB53
Carlsbad
Blvd.

Pede
st
rian
Install
pedestrian
roadway
lighting
Roadway
Lighting
TN
LSI
Carryover
$65
$1,260
$1,325
6068
TransNet
-LSI
: CR
Lo
cal
Funds
$0
TOTAL
$65
$1,260
$0
$0 $0
$0
$1,325
RTIP
ID
Project
Title
Project
Description
PRIOR
EXPEND.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
TOTAL
CB54
State
Street
Improvements
at
Widen
the
roadway
to
accommodate
additional
on
street
Northwest
Corner
with
Grand
park
in
g,
close
driveway
access
and
reconstruction
of
the
Avenue
park
way
to
conform
w
ith
the
ne
w
curbline
TransNet
LSI
$325
$325
TN
LSI
Carryove
r
$0
6082
TransNet
-LSI:

CR
Local
Funds
$0
TOTAL
$0
$0
$0
$0
$325
$0
$325
RTIP
ID
Project
Title
Project
Description
PRIOR
EXPEND.

FY23
FY24
FY25 FY26 FY27
TOTAL
CB55
Christiansen
Avenue
Construct
new
curbline
, sidewalk
and
parkway
imp
rovements
Improvements
TransNet
LSI
$310
$310
TN
LSI
Carryover
$0
n/a
TransNet
-LSI:

CR
Local
Funds
$0
$0
TOTAL
$0
$0
$0
$0
$310
$0
$310
-----RTIP
ID
Project
Title
Project
Description
PRIOR
EXPEND.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26 FY27
TOTAL
CIP#
CB56
Chestnut
Aven
ue
Complete
Prepare
a
project
study
report
to
identify
the
scope
of
work
Street
Impro
vements
-1-5
to
for
const
ru
ction
of
complete
street
improvements
including
the
Railroad
traffic
ca
lmin
g
and
pedestrian
improvements
TransNet
LSI
$85
$85
TN
LSI
Carryover
$0
6069
TransNet
-LSI:

CR
Local
Funds
$0
$0
TOTAL
$0
$0
$85
$0 $0
$0
$85
RTIP
ID
Project
Title
Project
Description
PRIOR
EXPEND
.

FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26 FY27
TOTAL
CB58
Street
Light
Bulb
Replacement
Replace
light
bulbs
with
LED
bulbs
Program
TransNet
LSI
$445
$445
6062
TN
LSI
Carryover
$850 $700
$700
$630
$2,880
TransNet
-LSI:

Maint
Local
Funds
$320
$320
-
TOTAL
$1,615
$700 $700 $630
$0
$0
$3,645
-
RTIP
ID
Project
Title
Project
Descr
ipti
on
PRIOR
EXPEND.

FY23
FY24
FY25 FY26 FY27
TOTAL
CB59
El
Camino
Real
Widening
-
Along
El
Camino
Real
from
Sunnycreek
to
Jackspar,
widen
Sunny
Creek
to
Jackspar
along
the
southbound
side
of
the
roadway
to
provide
three
travel
lanes,
sidewalk,
and
a
bike
lane
TransNet
LSI
$2,484
$2,484
6094
TransNet
-LSI:

CR
TN
LSI
Carryover
$411
$2,115
$2,526
TOTAL
I
$411
1 $4,599
I
$a
l
$0
1 $a
l
$0
$5,010
6 June 7, 2022
Item #8 Page 13 of 13
2023 TransNet Program of Projects
FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27
in '000s
City of CARLSBAD CIP#
RTIP ID Project Title Project Descr ipti on PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB60 Melro se Drive and Palomar Widen southbound Melrose Drive to provide an additional Airport Road Impro vements through lane TransNet LSI $0 6034 -TransNet - LSI: CR Local Funds $154 $757 $911 - TOTAL $154 $757 $0 $0 $0 $0 $911
RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB61 Palomar Airport Road and Widen southbound College Blvd to add an additional through College Blvd Improvements lane TransNet LSI $0 6028
TransNet - LSI: CR Local Funds $487 $808 $1,295
TOTAL $487 $808 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,295 -
RTIPID Project Title Project Descript ion PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB62 Barrio Lighting Program Conduct lighting assessment, design, public outreach, and construct streetlights and pedestrian lighting in the Barrio neighborhood TransNet LSI $1,280 $1,280 $1,030 $3,590 4013 --- TN LSI Carryover $0 -- -- Local Funds $268 $1,192 $1,460 TOTAL $268 $2,472 $1,280 $1,030 $0 $0 $5,050
--
RTIP ID Project Title Project Description PRIOR EXPEND. FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL CB63 Valley and Magnolia Complete Construct sidewalks, bike paths, green street features and Streets underground overhead utilities TransNet LSI $0 6019 --- TN LSI Carryover $1,200 $1,200 --
Local Funds $430 $3,106 $1,000 $4,536
TOTAL $430 1 $4,306 1 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,736
--- -
--
Projected TransNet - LSI Revenue (02/2022 Rev) I I I $3,887 I $4,031 I $4,149 $4,275 I $4,403 $20,745 Programmed TransNet LSI $3,764 $2,515 $3,760 $2,285 $2,970 $15,294 - Programmed TransNet LSI Carry Over $15,978 $2,875 $1,345 $1,820 $715 $22,733 Total TransNet Programmed I $19,742 $5,390 $5,105 $4,105 I $3,685 $38,027 All Receive'" Agenda Ite m # &
For th e Informati on of the :

CITY COUNCIL
Tammy Cloud -McMinn
DateJ.e/ iP};J;)o. ~ CC ~
CM .....--ACM ....--UCM (3) ..:::;::

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Lance Schulte < [email protected]>
Sunday, June 5, 2022 12:07 PM
Council Internet Email; City Clerk
[email protected]; Boyle, Carrie@Coastal; 'Prahler, Erin@Coastal'; Ross, Toni@Coastal; Linda Culp
Subject: public input for 6-7-22 #8 Carlsbad Council agenda item - proposed Transnet funding requests - So. Carlsbad Blvd Relocation - Public input to Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee & CCC - Parks & Unconstrained-Useable Open Space facilities 2001 ERA Finanicnal Analysis of Carlsbad_Blvd_Realingment-1_.pdf; 2022-June General Comparative cost-benifits of Completing PCH-PCH Mod ification-Ponto Park - Part 1 of

2.pdf; City's PCH area map w numbered notes of Constraints - 2 of 2.pdf; Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad DLCP-LUPA planned loss of OS at Ponto - 2022.pdf Attachmen ts:

Dear City Council:

It is requested that the City Council use the $4.25 million to simply build the missing sidewalks along the 2.3 miles of PCH after conducting a citizen -based design review .

You should read the attached City of Carlsbad's 2001 Study of PCH Relocation Feasibility and funding sources. As the City has known since 2001, and also unofficially knew well before 2001, the ability to obtain 'other tax-payer' funds to pay for PCH Relocation are minimal.

Your staff report says the City plans to spend $4.25 million of tax-payer money to continue Studying PCH Relocation. This is on top of the money already spent by the City for the two (2) 2002 PCH Relocation Studies, and the 2013 PCH Relocation Design and Constraints Analysis. It is not known how much Carlsbad tax-payer money was spent already on the 2001 and 2013 PCH Studies. But for the $4.25 million requested in the Staff report for addition studies, we could actually build the needed sidewalks for the 2.3 miles of PCH based on City costs (see attached 2022-June Comparative Cost-Benefit of completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park). The City Council should be using tax-payer funds wisely to actually build the needed sidewalks, not more studies to rehash what was known in 2001.

Following are some summary excerpts from the City's 2001 ERA Financial Analysis of PCH Relocation . Council should read the 2001 Study as only Mayor Hall and Council Member Norby are familiar with the 2001 Study:
p. 1: 'I. INTRODUCTION
The Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study is an analysis of alternative scenarios for realigning Carlsbad Boulevard away from the coast bluff edge and, in the process, creating opportunities for commercial, recreation, and open space uses. One of the study's objectives is to explore ways to generate revenue from useable public land created, including potential land sale or lease opportunities, and using this revenue to help offset the cost of realigning the road.'
p. 2: 'URS Corporation and the City of Carlsbad have identified four alternative land use scenarios for a realigned Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed realignment creates 4-6 new surplus land areas resulting 5-7 potentia l parcels (see the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study - Phase I and Phase II for more details regarding these alignments and surplus land areas). The consultant team prepared hypothetical development programs for each alternative . These hypothetical development programs are not recommendations; rather, they were devised to test the potential financial impact of the following alternative approaches towards reuse of the surplus land that is created with the road realignment. They were also designed to serve as a starting point for discussion of preferred uses and to allow the decision -makers to select and combine the elements from each alternative that 1 they find most desirable . Finally, these scenarios serve as starting points for discussions with State Parks, which is critical for the pivotal Manzano parcel.
• Alternative 1 tests the financial impacts of a parks and open space scheme. It assumes that no major commercial development occurs and that the surplus parcels are used for parking, community facilities, parks, open space, and camping (concessionaire}, as shown in Table 1. ... ' p. 3: [see Table 1 below documenting only 4-acres of Park created with PCH Relocation. Table 1 lists all the "Surplus Area', most of which are small narrow slivers that have little more utility than the existing PCH right -of­ way has currently with simply Completing PCH by adding missing/needed pedestrian improvements.] Please compare the 2001 data with the attached 2022-June Gen. Comparative Cost-Benefits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification -Ponto Park 1 of 2, City PCH map w number notes of constraints 2 of 2]. r ·J r · 1 C=:J r.-J c...J LJ CJ c ·-1 c-:J L...J c --1 r· 1 c..J Tabie 1: OEVELOPM'ENIT PROO.RAM SC.E.H.ARIOS · A.llcmaW·e 1 · P4illt5' ;111d Open Spa~; SurplltS Afl!;!I!
Units 2 $ 4 5 6)
A.Gn!a e, 20.a 5. 1 10.1 1:;t 7 2 .3 -·· -
Dev~l~pable Oo~~ al
c.arr,pgrovn(l 2.8
I' l•bli,; park.l'>g Ul CH~ 1 .5 0.9
C 00',muni"iy faelily D.il 0.1 (]_ 1
Ac1lwi::iark~ 4.0
Or,ien:!.ir,r1CC· 15.0 4,4 10.1 9.3 1.-4
Commerclal Uses
C ornmeroia~Rera:~ s.l
Commerc1e1-Res1aurants $.P.
om~ l;J.

Tiir•u:: S.""cil"e Room&
Full Ser, 1ce t-'lotei Rooms
Eile,:ulir\'e ~e,(,1ing Hotel ~oom~
C:a1111p!froun~
Prim.iii•,"!! :;ii,;,:;; Siles -<1$
R.Vi;tte~ Sale~ :il;I
c Ct11111C11 faeo1ntes :i.ooo
Pu lblio;; ?'arkl2!i!
F.-es S~o~ 1<10 21)0 136
cornrnunliy IFatilftv
V i~or Ce!>lGI" s.t 2.500 :J.OOD
R8t{~~ tJumti,;,r 1
A.cllve ll-,tirk Facllllles
A-dl,-e Parks ;;ert:.$ 4.0
0~ $pac;,ei f'a r.illliaoi;
open ~,;ai::o ai::res 15,0 44 10.1 9.3 1:,4
sour.:e : URS; Wall;;u;:e. Roberts & TooO:,; and Etcno 1t1i~ R~~earch P.~ocia.les 2 p. 9: 'QUALIFICATIONS
While it appears that alternatives 3 and 4 generate enough revenue to cover development costs, the findings at this preliminary planning stage of analysis are qualified, as follows:
• The cost estimates are based on gross cost factors and need to be refined as project design becomes more specific.
• The cost estimates do not include any extraordinary off-site costs, such as for environmental or traffic mitigation.
• Some of the parcels identified for potential development, particularly those west of the alignment, may be vulnerable to long term erosion problems; therefore, their stability needs to be verified.' p. 14 'CONCLUSION
Both the SAN DAG representative and the CalTrans Local Assistance Program representative noted that most road or highway realignments are done to facilitate development. Policymakers are aware of this and generally design funding programs in a way that encourages the private sector to pay for as much of the project costs as possible. Programs are also designed to encourage municipalities to utilize funds from their share of the gas tax, TransNet, and even the General Fund and Community Development Block Grants before turning to State and Federal funds. Finally, due to the limited funds available, all funding sources give priority to projects of a regional significance over those of local importance."
The City's 2001 PCH Relocation Feasibility Study concluded there was limited availability for non-Carlsbad funding, particularly if tax-payer funding is used to reduce PCH roadway capacity, and particularly when other much more tax­ payer efficient means to provide missing sidewalks in PCH. See the attached 2022-June Gen. Comparative Cost-Benefits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification -Ponto Park 1 of 2 file. It uses City of Carlsbad data. See also the City's PCH area map w number notes of constraints 2 of 2 file that like the City's 2001 Study confirms minimal added utility from 2.3 miles of PCH Relocation, particularly for a tax-payer cost of $60 to 85 million or $37 to 26 million per mile where other tax-payer transportation needs are far greater.

As your 6-7-22 staff report says,
• "In addition to projects using TransNet funds, each agency's program of projects must also include transportation projects that are regionally significant and increase transportation capacity, regardless of their funding sources." • "Each member agency of SAN DAG that wants to spend TransNet and/or certain federal or state funds must approve its own program of projects every two years. In addition to the projects using those funding sources, the program must include projects that will increase transportation capacity, regardless of their funding sources.

Again the City's 2.3 mile PCH Relocation Proposal does not "increase transportation capacity", but proposes to reduces capacity by 50%. Adding needed pedestrian sidewalks will increase "pedestrian capacity' but adding most all the missing sidewalks can easily and cost-effectively be done within the Existing PCH configuration right-of-way. The City has had over 35-years to simply add sidewalks to PCH in South Carlsbad but has not added them for over 35-years. • "Fiscal Analysis: Inclusion in SANDAG's regional program is not a guarantee that projects will receive the stated funding . The amounts shown in Attachment A to the Resolution, Exhibit 1, are the best available estimates of project costs and anticipated funding . The city is not obligated to proceed with the projects included in the city's Program of Projects if funding falls short or is not available .

There is no City obligation to proceed with simply and cost-effectively adding any needed PCH sidewalks; nor for proceeding with an any potential PCH Relocation modification.

However for the $4.25 million in tax-payer money staff wants to allocate to re-Study PCH Relocation, instead the City Council could actually build the missing sidewalks within he existing PCH Configuration right -of-way and after 35+ years 3 Carlsbad Citizens could be provided the missing sidewa lks. That would save tax-payers $85 to 60 million and assure Carlsbad gets the sidewalk funded .

It is requested that the City Council use the $4.25 million to simply build the missing sidewalks along the 2.3 miles of PCH after conducting a citizen -based design review.

The City Council could then use the $85 to 60 million saved by not Relocating PCH and instead use it to buy the much needed Ponto Park and actually provide more and much better Park land.

Thank you,
Lance Schulte
-- -------- -----·-·---~-----
From: Lance Schulte [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 1:21 PM
To: '[email protected]'; [email protected]; 'City Clerk'; 'Kyle Lancaster'; Carrie Boyle ([email protected]); 'Prahler, Erin@Coastal'; Ross, Toni@Coastal ([email protected]); Don Neu ([email protected])
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: Public input to Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee & CCC - Parks & Unconstrained-Useable Open Space facilities
Dear Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Carlsbad Council and Parks and Planning Commissions, & CA Coastal Commission:

The Committee is tasked with recommending to the Council proposed changes to City Park and City Unconstrained/Useable Open Space Standards within the Growth Management Program Update .

Because Carlsbad is quickly running out of vacant land, the Committee's recommendations are critical for very obvious reasons. The Committee will be recommending (for all future generations) the final methods to supply Citizen desired Parks and Unconstrained/Useable Open Space. It is important the Committee wisely represent the interests of those future generations . The Park and Open Space supply solutions for future generations will amend Carlsbad's updated 2015 General Plan and the "as of 2013" Local Coastal Program.

Since 2017 many People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens have overwhelming expressed their need and desire for :

1. Fairness, and a true adequately sized and dimensioned Ponto Park to address City Park Master Plan documented "lack of Park Service and Park Inequity" in this area, and

2. Correcting the City's documented 30-acre shortfall in required Unconstrained and Useable Open Space in the Ponto area, and

3. Correcting the City's planned loss of 32+ acres of Coastal Open Space at Ponto (the State Campground and Beach) first documented in 2017 and thus not a part of the City's General Plan & Growth Management Program .

Since 2017, over 5,000 Carlsbad Citizen and visitor petitions have been sent to the City & Coastal Commission expressing the desire and need of both Citizens and visitors to have these Parks and Open Space issues addressed. The Council has been narrowing deferring addressing these issues and noted waiting for the Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee to consider both the data and Citizen and visitor desires.

Attached are 5 data files sent to the City by Carlsbad People for Ponto. The data files were sent as comments to the City's proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment that seeks to change Carlsbad's 2013 LCP with the outdated 2015 General Plan, Carlsbad's Park Master Plan Update process, and the Growth Management Program that your 4 Committee will be making recommendations to change. People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens conducted over 50 official Carlsbad Public Records Requests to compile this data. We provide these data files in preparation of your June 23rd meeting.

1. Coastal Recreation and comparative Park data: Summary data on supply/demand/distribution-fairness of City Parks in Carlsbad, unflattering comparative data on how much parkland and where Carlsbad provides Parks relative to Encinitas and Oceanside and national averages, documents Carlsbad's Park Master Plan mapping Park distribution unfairness at Ponto, and documenting that many Carlsbad's Park acres are Unusable for people because they are constrained habitat land protected from human use/intrusion.

2. Sea Level Rise & Carlsbad planned loss of Open Space at Ponto: A) Summary data on how sea level rise (SLR) will remove Open Space at Ponto. B) City GIS maps/data that shows 30-aceres of required Unconstrained/Useable Open Space was not provided at Ponto (Zone 9) by using false exemptions while similar and adjacent Local Facility Management Zones (19 & 22) provided their required Unconstrained/Useable Open Space. C) City maps and data tables documenting the both loss of Open Space at Ponto from SLR and the missing Growth Management Open Space at Ponto.

3. Updated 2022-June Comparative Cost-Benefits of PCH Modification and Ponto Park: A) Summary City data comparing the Citizen and tax-payer Cost-Benefit of Park and Useable Open Space alternatives at Ponto. The data file initially compared cost-benefits of the 11-acre Ponto Planning Area F and pre-2022 City Cost data. However in May 2022 the City updated its PCH Relocation costs, and a willing seller of 14.3 acres of adjacent land (Ponto Planning Area G, H, and I; aka Kam Sang) was listed for sale. B) The Kam Sang list price of $2.7 million per acre or a bit more than the $2.4 to $1.4 million per acre price of recent Ponto land sales noted in the file but are close. C) The City's updated PCH Relocation Costs are similar. The Cost-Benefit Comparison still shows purchasing Ponto Park land is still a better value for Carlsbad Citizens, and saves tax-payers money. The Comparison references a City map and data showing sea level rise impact areas, and the City's PCH Relocation environmental and design constraints.

4. Citizens' City Budget Ponto Park need-requests: A) Summary data and verbatim documentation of Carlsbad Citizens requests to budget to address the need for Ponto Park, and Open Space issues at Ponto. B) The volume of Citizen input on Ponto Park and Open Space, and the actual verbatim Carlsbad Citizen comments should be considered. C) In addition since 2017 when Carlsbad Citizen first became aware of several Ponto Planning Mistakes by the City:
a. false Growth Management Unconstrained/Useable Open Space 'Standard exemption' at Ponto b. failure in the 2010 Ponto Vision Plan that is the basis for the 2015 General Plan Update, and the failure of the 2015 General Plan Update to follow the 1996 Local Coastal Program Land Use Policy for Planning Area F that required the City to consider and document the need for Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and Low-cost Visitor Accommodation land use prior to proposing a change in the Non-residential Reserve land use policy. Failing to fully disclose the Coastal Commission's rejection of the Ponto Vision Plan in 2010 because of these reasons, and not disclosing 2016, 2017 and 2022 directions to the City .. c. SW Quadrant Park deficits going back to 2012
d. Not considering 2017 Sea Level Rise Impact Report that shows the loss of 32+ acres of high-priority Coastal Open Space land uses at Ponto.
e. As a corollary example, the City has additional history in collaborating with developers to skirt standards and allow development without developers providing their required public facilities - the Rosalena HOA Trail segment of the Batiquitos Lagoon Bluff-top trail at Ponto is a classic example . This example resulted in delaying construction of the public tra il by over 35-years and ended up costing about 75 Carlsbad homeowners over $1 million in additional costs. It almost resulted in no trail being built and City and/or developer pocketing money meant to pay for the trail. This scenario could happen a far larger scale and cost if Ponto developers are not required to provide the missing 30acres of required Useable Open Space at Ponto
Carlsbad People for Ponto Citizens have asked the City to provide the Citizen input since 2017 for all things Ponto related. Reviewing the public record of 5,000+ citizen communications since 2017 reveals only maybe a dozen (mostly 5 developer paid or supported) are not in support of Ponto Park. Your fellow Carlsbad Citizens ask the Growth Management Committee to read their input and to consider future generations.

Thank you for serving on the Growth Management Committee . You each have a large and vital task, as you r recommendations will be the beginnings of what (due to Carlsbad running out of vacant land) will be the 'final glide path' that forever defines Carlsbad's Quality of Life. After your recommendations , there will only be added population demands on the public facilities. As more infill development is added and there may be no vacant land to provide needed supplies of facilities like Parks and Unconstrained/Useable Open Space.

I speak from having already professionally followed the path you are on. After working on Carlsbad's Growth Management Program in the mid-1980s I addressed this same issues for the then new City of Dana Point that (in 1989) was at a similar stage of 'near buildout as Carlsbad is now .

Based on my professional experience I imp lore you seriously and fully consider that data and desires your fellow Carlsbad People for Ponto Citizens have provided you and the City. Based on where Carlsbad is we, and you, will only get this one chance to get it right.

Sincerely,
Lance Schulte
35-year Carlsbad resident
former Carlsbad Growth Management and Dana Point city planner CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou recognize the sender and know the content i safe.
6 n u
0 0
0 0
0 CJ
r,
J
0 n
u
n
' I
u
~ u
n
' '
u
ERA.

Economics Research Associates

CARLSBAD BOULEVARD

REALIGNMENT STUDY
PHASE II: PRELIMINARY

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Submitted to:

The City of Carlsbad
Prepared by:

Economics Research Associates
URS Corporation
Wallace, Roberts & Todd
October 4, 2001
ERA. Project No. 14158
964 5th Avenue Suite 214
San Diego. CA 92101 ERA is affiliated with Drivers Jonas 619 544 1402 FAX 619 544.1404 www.erasf com/eras!
Los Angeles San Francisco San Diego
Chicago Dallas Washington DC London
0 0
0 G
D
0 D
0 0
0 0
0 0
D
0 0
0 0
0 ■ MM
Economics Resear-ch Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ...................... .............................................................................................................. 1 II. Development Scenarios ............................................................. .................. ........................... ........ 2 III. Land and Fiscal Value Estimates ................................................................................................... 7 IV. Other Potential Sources for Funding Realignment Costs ............................................................. 11 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................... 15 0 0
D
0 D
0 0
0 D
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 D
D
D
Economics Research Associates

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 1: Development Program Scenarios - Alternative 1.. .................... .................................................. 3 Table 2: Development Program Scenarios - Alternative 2 .............................................................................. .4 Table 3: Development Program Scenarios -Alternative 3 .................. : ............................................................ 5 Table 4: Development Program Scenarios - Alternative 4 ............................................................... '. ............... 6 Table 5: Preliminary Revenue/Cost Comparison .............................................................................................. 8 D
D
0 D
D
0 D
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
D
D
D
0 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this study reflect the most accurate and timely infonnation possible, and they are believed to be reliable. This study is based on estimates, assumptions and other infonnation reviewed and evaluated by Economics Research Associates from its consultations with the client and the client's representatives and within its general knowledge of the industry. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the client, the client's agent and representatives or any other data source used in preparing or presenting this study.

This report is based on information that was current as of October 2001 or as noted in the report, and Economics Research Associates has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date.

No warranty or representation is made by Economics Research Associates that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved.

Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name of "Economics Research Associates" in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of Economics Research Associates. No abstracting, excerpting or summarization of this study may be made without first obtaining the prior written consent of Economics Research Associates. This report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the client without first obtaining the prior written consent of Economics Research Associates. This study may not be used for purposes other than that for which it is prepared or for which prior written consent has first been obtained from Economics Research Associates.

This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions and considerations.

D
D
D
D
0 0
D
D
0 0
D
0 0
0 0
0 D
0 0
■ =i;M
Economics Resear-ch Associate s
I. INTRODUCTION
The Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study is an analysis of alternative scenarios for realigning Carlsbad Boulevard away from the coast bluff edge and, in the process, creating opportunities for commercial, recreation, and open space uses. One of the study's objectives is to explore ways to generate revenue from useable public land created, including potential land sale or lease opportunities, and using this revenue to help offset the cost of realigning the road.

This Phase II report is a preliminary evaluation of each scenario's financial implications. The Phase I report, presented in April 1999, evaluated the market context in which development may take place. Some of the key rent and market assumptions presented in this report are based on the 1999 research, adjusted for inflation. A market analysis update has not taken place since 1999. The values presented here are preliminary estimates for planning purposes only, and should not be interpreted as valuations or appraisals since they are based on conceptual development programs, gross preliminary development cost factors, and two-year old market research. Valuations or appraisals will require greater due diligence regarding current market conditions, more specific development and site planning programs, and more detailed cost estimates .

PROJECT No. 14158 INTRODUCTION 1
0 0
0 0
D
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 D
0 0
••@.t
Economics Research Associates
II. DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
URS Corporation and the City of Carlsbad have identified four alternative land use scenarios for a realigned Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed realignment creates 4-6 new surplus land areas resulting 5-7 potential parcels (see the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study - Phase I and Phase II for more details regarding these alignments and surplus land areas) . The consultant team prepared hypothetical development programs for each alternative. These hypothetical development programs are not recommendations; rather, they were devised to test the potential financial impact of the following alternative approaches towards reuse of the surplus land that is created with the road realignment. They were also designed to serve as a starting point for discussion of preferred uses and to allow the decision-makers to select and combine the elements from each alternative that they find most desirable. Finally, these scenarios serve as starting points for discussions with State Parks, which is critical for the pivotal Manzano parcel.
• Alternative 1 tests the financial impacts of a parks and open space scheme. It assumes that no major commercial development occurs and that the surplus parcels are used for parking, community facilities, parks, open space, and camping (concessionaire), as shown in Table 1. • Alternative 2 tests the financial impacts of a predominately parks and open space scheme, with limited commercial development. It assumes that a time-share and executive meeting hotel is built on a small portion of Surplus Area 1, and that the rest of Surplus Area 1 and all of the other parcels are used for parking, community facilities, parks, or open space, as shown in Table 2. • Alternative 3, as shown in Table 3, tests the financial impacts of a significant commercial development scheme. It assumes significant commercial development on almost half of Surplus Areas 1 (specialty retail, restaurants, and office) and 3 (hotel), and all of Surplus Areas 2 (time-share), 6A (time-share), and 68 (office), as shown in Table 3. More than half of Surplus Area 1 is used as park space and more than half of Surplus Area 3 remains open space. Parcels 4 and 5 provide parking and open space. • Alternative 4 tests the financial impacts of a significant commercial development scheme for a majority of Surplus Area l (specialty retail, restaurants, time-share, and executive meeting hotel), with a neighborhood park on the remaining portion of Surplus Area l, as shown in Table 4. Parcels 2, 3, and 6A remain open space, and 4, 5, and 6B contain public parking and open space .

PROJECT NO. "14158 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS 2
c::-=:J CJ CJ CJ c.=J ~ c-=i CJ c=J CJ C:J C..::J c:_J c=J C__J C__J c=i CJ ~ Table 1: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCENARIOS · Alternative 1 - Parks and Open Space Surplus Area:

Units 1 2 3 4 5 GA 6B
Acreage 20.8 5.1 10.1 13.7 2.3 0.5 2.0
Developable Commercial
Campground 2.8
Public parking 1.0 0.6 1.5 0.9 0.6
Community facility 0.8 0.1 0.1
Active parks 4.0
Open space 15.0 4.4 10.1 9.3 1.4 0.5 1.4
Commercial Uses
Commercial-Retail s.f
Commercial-Restaurants s.f.

Office s.f.

Time Share Rooms
Full Service Hotel Rooms
Executive Meeting Hotel Rooms
Campground
Primitive sites Sites 45
RV sites Sites 50
Common facilities 3,000
Public Parking
Free Spaces 140 50 200 135 90
Community Facility
Visitor Center s.f. 2,500 3,000
Restrooms Number 1
Active Park Facilities
Active Parks acres 4.0
Open Space Facilities
Open Space acres - 15.0 4.4 10.1 9.3 1.4 0.5 1.4
Source : URS; Wallace, Roberts & Todd; and Economics Research Associates [__] [__.=J ~ C_::J L_J [_____=J L__] [___J c=J C_J c::J C_J C_J c.J C_J c:J LJ LJ c:J Table 2: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCENARIOS - Alternative 2
Surplus Area:,
Units 1 2 3 4 5 6A 6B
Acreage 20.8 5.1 10.1 13.7 2.3 0.5 2.0
Oevelopable Commercial I 5.0
Campground
Public parking 2.6 6.9 3.2 1.2 0.1 0.6
Community facility 0.1 0.4
Active parks 1.6 1.6 0.5 1.4
Open space 15.8 0.9 1.6 10.4 0.2 0.4
Commercial Uses
Commercial-Retail s.f
Commercial-Restaurants s.f.

Office s.f.

Time Share Rooms 100
Full Service Hotel Rooms
Executive Meeting Hotel Rooms 150
Campground
Primitive sites Sites
RV sites Sites
Common facilities
Public Parking
Free Spaces 150 870 520 176 10 90
Community Facility
Visitor Center s.f. 19,600
Restrooms Number 1 3 2 1
Active Park Facilities
Active Parks acres 1.6 1.6 0.5 1.4
Open Space Facilities
Open Space acres 15.8 0.9 1.6 10.4 0.2 0.4
Source: URS; Wallace, Roberts & Todd; and Economics Research Associates C:J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=::i CJ c=J CJ CJ c=J CJ c=i CJ CJ CJ CJ c::::J Table 3: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCENARIOS - Alternative 3
Surplus Area:

Units 1 2 3 4 5 6A 6B
Acreage• 20.8 5.1 10.1
Developable Commercial I 10.0 5.1 4.3
Campground
Public parking
Community facility
Active parks
I

10.8 Open space 5.8

0.5 2.0

0.5 i
Commercial Uses
Commercial-Retail s.f 40,000
Commercial-Restaurants s.f. 40,000
Office s.f. 80,000 15,000
Time Share Rooms 150 30
Full Service Hotel Rooms 300
Executive Meeting Hotel Rooms
Campground
Primitive sites Sites
RV sites Sites
Common facilities
Public Parking
Free Spaces
Community Facility
Visitor Center s.f.

Restrooms Number
Active Park Facilities
Active Parks acres 10.8
Open Space Facilities
Open Space acres 5.8
*Acreages may not equal total due to rounding
Source: URS; Wallace, Roberts & Todd; and Economics Research Associates c:J CJ CJ c=i c=i CJ CJ CJ
Table 4: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SCENARIOS - Alternative 4
Acreag_e*
Developable Commercial
Campground
Public parking
Community facility
Active parks
Open space
Commercial Uses
Commercial-Retail
Commercial-Restaurants
Office
Time Share
Full Service Hotel
Executive Meeting Hotel
Campground
Primitive sites
RV sites
Common facilities
Public Parking_
Free
Community Facility
Visitor Center
Restrooms
Active Park Facilities
Active Parks
Open Space Facilities
Open Space
Surplus Area:

Units 1
s.f
s.f.
s.f.

Rooms
Rooms
Rooms
Sites
Sites
Spaces
s.f.

Number
acres
acres

20.8 15.0

5.8 45,000
45,000
150
150

5.8 *Acreages may not equal total due to rounding
c::J
2 Source : URS; Wallace , Roberts & Todd; and Economics Research Associates CJ CJ CJ c:J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
3 4 5 6A 6B
0 0
0 0
D
D
D
D
0 0
0 D
D
0 0
0 D
0 D
i=lil4
Economics Research Associates
Ill. LAND AND FISCAL VALUE ESTIMATES
ERA estimated the approximate residual land value and the capitalized value of the estimated fiscal revenue associated with each of the alternative alignments and development scenarios . The estimates are very preliminary since they are based on hypothetical development programs without architectural designs, rent assumptions based on 1999 research (updated to 2001 values), preliminary site capacity and site planning analysis, and gross development cost estimates for buildings and site development. The detailed analyses for each alternative are presented in Appendix A. These estimates, which are not appraisals, will need to be revised as development programs become more specific, and they do not form the basis for a financial offering, bond, or prospectus without additional planning, engineering, cost estimating, and due diligence.

The residual land value estimates translate into the potential revenue generated from commercial land sales, or the capitalized values of leases, of surplus land areas created by the road realignment. These estimates are preliminary approximations of what a developer might be willing to pay for the land in order to obtain a reasonable rate of return on total capital (debt and equity capital) . In order to be conservative, no real appreciation was assumed; in other words, rents only rise with inflation. Some developers may speculate that rents will rise faster than inflation, which would result in higher values than estimated in this report. The fiscal revenue translates into the capitalized value of the potential fiscal resources to the City and Redevelopment Agency that could help finance some of the Carlsbad Boulevard realignment costs.

The total revenue from commercial land sales (or leases) and the capitalized value of fiscal revenue was compared to URS Corporation's preliminary estimate of road realignment costs ($18.8 million), and Wallace, Roberts, and Todd's preliminary estimates of possible public parking, parks, open space, and community facility costs ($8.5-12.1 million). While road realignment costs are required to produce the surplus parcels, costs to develop the open space are flexible. The estimates provided assume maximum improvements to the open space .

As shown in Table 5, Alternative 1, the least commercial scenario, generates very limited revenue, only $ 1.1 million in commercial land value, and over $0.2 million in the capitalized value of fiscal revenue, for a total of almost $1.3 million. Other sources would have to fund over $17 .5 million in road construction costs, and $9 .0 million in public facility, parks, and open space costs, or the amount of improvements would have to be reduced.

PROJECT No. 1415B LAND AND FISCAL VALUE ESTIMATES 7
~~~~~~~~ . ~~~~~~~~~~~
Table 5: PRELIMINARY REVENUE/COST COMPARISON (Year 2001 Dollars) Alternatives
1 2 3 4
Revenues From Commercial Land Sales $ 1,131,000 $ 9,219,000 $ 28,155,000 $ 19,465,000 Capitalized Value of Fiscal Revenues to City & RDA $ 217,000 $ 10,849,000 $ 24,743,000 $ 16,429,000 Total Potential Revenues $ 1;348,000 $ 20,068,000 $ 52,898,000 $ 35,894,000 Less: Road Construction Costs $ 18,800,000 $ 18,800,000 $ 18,800,000 $ 18,800,000 Net Revenues <Deficit> After Road Construction Costs $ (17,452,000) $ 1,268,000 $ 34,098,000 $ 17,094,000 Less: Public Parking, Parks, Open Space, and Facilities $ 8,999,580 $ 12,062,589 $ 8,496,734 $ 9,358,925 Net Revenues <Deficit> After Public Costs $ (26,451,580) $ (10,794,589) $ 25,601,266 $ 7,735,075 Source: Economics Research Associates; URS; Wallace, Roberts & Todd D
D
0 D
D
D
D
D
0 D
D
D
0 0
D
D
D
D
0 ■ :j;t+t
Economics Research Associates
Alternative 2 generates over $9.2 million in commercial land value, and $10.8 million in fiscal revenue, for a total of $20.1 million. This amount is enough to cover the $18.8 million in road realignment costs, but not enough to cover the estimated $12.1 million in potential public facility, parks, and open space costs. Other sources would have to fund approximately $10.8 million in public facility, parks, and open space costs, or the amount or type of improvements would have to be reduced.

Alternative 3, the most commercial scenario, generates an estimated $28.2 million in revenues from commercial land value, and $24.7 million in capitalized fiscal revenue, for a total of $52.9 million . This amount is substantially more than enough to cover the $18.8 million in road realignment costs, and $8.5 million in public facility, parks, and open space costs.

Alternative 4 generates an estimated $19 .5 million in commercial land value, and $16.4 million in capitalized fiscal revenue, for a total of $35.9 million, which is more than enough to cover the $18.8 million in road realignment costs, and $9.4 million in public facility, parks, and open space costs.

QUALi FiCA TTONS
While it appears that alternatives 3 and 4 generate enough revenue to cover development costs, the findings at this preliminary planning stage of analysis are qualified, as follows:
• The cost estimates are based on gross cost factors and need to be refined as project design becomes more specific.
• The cost estimates do not include any extraordinary off-site costs, such as for environmental or traffic mitigation.
• Some of the parcels identified for potential development, particularly those west of the alignment, may be vulnerable to long term erosion problems; therefore, their stability needs to be verified.

PROJECT No. 141 SB LAND AND FISCAL VALUE ESTIMATES
D
D
D
D
D
0 D
D
D
D
D
D
0 D
D
D
D
0 D
•1;14
Economics Research Associa1:es
• A significant share of value and fiscal revenue in scenarios 2, 3, and 4 is attributable to hotels, which in 1999 demonstrated only average performance, especially among moderately priced hotels.

Also, a new hotel has been developed since 1999. While the parcels identified for potential hotel development are competitive because of the views they offer, hotel development and financing are relatively risky.
• WRT has determined that the hypothetical development programs can fit on the parcels, and URS Corporation has initially determined that the circulation system can accommodate the development.

However, there could be difficult site planning issues with some of the parcels that would limit their development potential to less than what is assumed in this analysis. • The development cost estimates for the commercial development scenarios, for the most part, do not assume structured parking. If structured parking is required, development costs could be greater which would diminish residual land values unless higher rents are achievable. • Most of the value is generated on Surplus Area I, which is owned by the State of California. The City or Redevelopment Agency would not realize the value of Surplus Area 1 unless the State trades the parcel to the City or Agency for other considerations. Therefore, the City or Agency may not be able to apply proceeds from the value of Surplus Area 1 to road realignment and public facility costs. Nevertheless, under Alternative 3, the capitalized value of the fiscal revenue alone might be sufficient to cover road construction costs and a portion of public facility costs. The capitalized value of fiscal revenue under Alternative 4 comes close to covering road construction costs, but is not sufficient to cover other public facility costs.
• Competitive market conditions could change which would affect the market potential of the development programs assumed in the scenarios analyzed in this report. The estimated values are based on the hypothetical development programs for each parcel. If development programs change, the values will change .

PROJECT No. 1415B LAND AND FISCAL VALUE ESTIMATES 10
D
D
D
0 0
0 D
D
D
D
0 D
D
D
D
D
0 D
D
•=ltf-1
Economics Resear-ch Associates
IV. ' OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING REALIGNMENT
COSTS
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and State of California Transportation Department (CalTrans) are the traditional sources of funds for capital improvements to highways. For example, the Federal government offers approximately 70 different transportation-funding programs. The majority of these funds are made available for disbursement to regional entities such as SANDAG, while a small portion is made available directly to municipalities.

FUNDS AVAILABLE DIRECTLY TO MUNICIPALITIES
The Ca!Trans Local Assistance Program (LAP) is responsible for helping municipalities located in Ca!Trans District 11 identify which Federal and State funding programs for which they are eligible and guiding them through the application process . Each program is specifically tailored for a given need, and has very strict eligibility requirements. One such specialized program funds "Intelligent Transportation Systems". Funds are available to projects that integrate new technology (computer-related) with the road/highway project to improve traffic flow. Because this program is new, eligibility requirements are not yet well defined.

There is no program specifically for road or highway realignment. Moreover, it is estimated that for every 10 applicants to each of the programs above, only the most urgent project is funded, leaving 90 percent of the applications unsuccessful. Given the level of competition for funds, if the City of Carlsbad finds that portions of the road may fall into one or more of the eligible categories, the application should present as compelling a case as possible. In any case, once a specific construction plan has been determined, a representative from the City of Carlsbad should meet with a representative from the Local Assistance Program to discuss the program in detail and determine whether or not portions of the project are eligible for Federal or State aid.

Finally, another option is direct funding from special state legislative action.

REGIONAL FUNDS
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) administers the apportionment of funds from the larger, more general State and Federal transportation funding programs. The most likely source of funding for a project such as the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard is the Regional Arterial Projects section of the Surface Transportation Projects.

PROJECT No . 1415B OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING REALIGNMENT COSTS 11 0
D
0 D
D
D
0 □
D
0 0
D
0 0
D
D
Q
0 D
■ #i,t+t
Economics Research Associates
For a project to receive an apportionment from SANDAG, it must be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). The City of Carlsbad is an active participant on the CTEC committee, the body that periodically updates the RTIP. However, it is important to note that the current RTIP (2000-2004) provides only $153 million towards projects estimated to cost nearly $392 million. Also; the current RTIP specifically states that "local governments will obtain private developer financing for those on- and off-site roadway and transit improvement necessary to accommodate the increased travel generated by private development." The major source of Federal transportation funds administered by SANDAG is the Transportation Equity Act for the 2 I st Century (TEA-21 ). In addition to highway and surface road construction and improvements, TEA- 21 is a source of funds for driver safety initiatives, transit programs, rail projects, and transportation research.

TEA-21 was established in 1998 and funded through 2003, thus funding levels beyond that time are unknown.

The Surface Transportation Program (STP) is the section of TEA-21 relevant to the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard. One STP program, Transportation Enhancement Activities Program, funds highway enhancement activities over and above mitigation, standard landscaping and other permit requirements for a normal transportation project. Project eligibility categories under the Transportation Enhancement Program which may be applicable to the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard are: 1) Scenic or historic highway programs; 2) Landscaping and other scenic beautification; 3) Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff.

Currently, all TEA-21 funds, including STP, have been assigned to projects (detailed in SANDAG's 2000 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan); however, SANDAG continues to pursue additional discretionary funding available through TEA-21 on an annual basis.

In 1987, San Diego voters passed Proposition A, which authorized a one-half percent sales tax increase dedicated for transportation improvements. The first $1 million in annual TransNet revenue is set aside for bicycle-related projects and the remainder is divided equally between highway, public transit and local street and road projects. Highway projects are approved for funding by SANDAG, CalTrans, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, and the North San Diego County Transit Development Board. Local street and road projects are approved for funding by the city councils of the 18 cities and the County Board of Supervisors. The Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment project is a potential candidate project. TransNet funds have been programmed through 2004, and the measure will expire in 2008.

PROJECT No. 14158 OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING REALIGNMENT COSTS 12 0
D
0 D
D
D
D
D
D
0 0
D
0 0
0 D
u
0 0
1:j;l4
Economics Research Associates

LOCAL SOURCES
Local sources include developer financed road improvements, transportation impact fees, tax increment financing in redevelopment project areas, infrastructure financing districts, assessment districts, Community Facilities Districts, General Obligation Bonds, and the General Fund.

To the extent that the realignment also increases road capacity that is required to mitigate the impacts of new development, developer financed road improvements or impact fees may apply. If the road realignment simply moves the road without enhancing capacity for future local developments, however, the nexus may not be strong enough for developer funding or impact fees to apply. Alternatively, the City may negotiate voluntary contributions to road realignment costs through development agreements on larger land development projects in the vicinity of Carlsbad Boulevard that require City discretionary approval.

Since the proposed Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment project is within a newly adopted redevelopment project area, the City's Redevelopment Agency may use tax increment to finance some of the realignment costs. Tax increment financing does not result in higher tax rates; rather, the incremental gain in property tax revenues is directed toward certain improvements within a redevelopment project area. To the extent that the realignment creates parcels that are commercially developed, the realignment project will be directly responsible for the tax increment generated by those commercial developments. Because tax increment will not be generated until the parcels are developed with commercial uses, there may be a cash flow financing issue to overcome to fund the realignment costs that will occur in advance of tax increment.

Another type of property tax increment financing is the Infrastructure Financing District (IFD) . It also is based on the incremental gain in property taxes rather than an increase in tax rates. The City of Carlsbad was one of the first jurisdictions in California to form an IFD. Unlike tax increment in redevelopment project areas, an IFDs do not have to be located in redevelopment project areas and, therefore, do not have to address blight or meet the "predominately urbanized" test of redevelopment law. The public facility that is financed must serve the community at large. However, unlike a redevelopment project area that can be formed by Council action, an IFD must be approved by two-thirds of the voters if 12 or more registered voters reside in the district.

Otherwise, two-thirds of the property owners within the district must vote to approve the district. The affected taxing agencies must also approve the district and tax increment sharing must be negotiated.

PROJECT No. 1 ·4158 OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING REALIGNMENT COSTS 13 G
0 0
C
D
0 0
0 0
0 0
D
0 0
0 D
0 0
0 •#itt+i
Economics Research Associates
Properties that benefit from the realignment may be assessed for a portion of the cost through a benefit assessment district, such as the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. The assessments may be pledged to support debt service on bonds, issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. The formation process must establish the scope of improvements, identify the benefiting parcels, and determine an equitable allocation of costs. Property owners vote for or against formation of an assessment district at a public hearing. Some of the benefiting properties that are owned by the State may not be assessed.

A Community Facilities District, commonly known as a Mello-Roos district, is a special tax that can be based on a formula that has a less strict benefit allocation. However, a Community Facilities District requires two­ thirds voter approval of voters residing within the district. If there are fewer than twelve registered voters in the district, the qualified electors are defined as owners ofland within the district, with each owner allowed one vote per acre.

General Obligation Bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the City, are the most secure and lowest cost form of debt financing. However, it would require two-thirds voter approval among Carlsbad's electorate, which may be difficult for the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment project unless it is perceived as a project that has citywide benefits.

Finally, the General Fund may be used to fund a portion ofroad improvements through the Capital Improvement Plan, either as direct allocations, or as annual lease payments on Certificates of Participation. Fiscal revenue from development on surplus parcels could help augment the G~neral Fund, especially if a hotel or specialty retail is developed, to enable the City to use General Fund monies for some of the road realignment and other public facility costs.

CONCLUSION
Both the SANDAG representative and the CalTrans Local Assistance Program representative noted that most road or highway realignments are done to facilitate development. Policymakers are aware of this and generally design funding programs in a way that encourages the private sector to pay for as much of the project costs as possible. Programs are also designed to encourage municipalities to utilize funds from their share of the gas tax, TransNet, and even the General Fund and Community Development Block Grants before turning to State and Federal funds. Finally, due to the limited funds available, all funding sources give priority to projects of a regional significance over those of local importance.

PROJECT No. 14158 OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR FUNDING REALIGNMENT COSTS 14 0
0 0
n
LJ
0 D
D
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
D
0 0
0 Economics Res@arch Associates

APPENDIX

LIST OF TABLES
Table l.A .1 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 1, Land Use Scenario A; Proforma Cash Flow - Preliminary Residual Land Value
Table l .A.2 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative l, Land Use Scenario A; Fiscal Revenues Table l.A.3, 4, 5 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative l, Parcel 4, Land Use Scenario A; RV Operating Statement
Table 2.A. l Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 2, Land Use Scenario A; Proforma Cash Flow - Preliminary Residual Land Value
Table 2.A.2 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment-Alternative 2, Parcel 1, Land Use Scenario A; Fiscal Revenues Table 2.A.3, 4, 5 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 2, Parcel 1, Land Use Scenario A; Executive Meeting Hotel Operating Statement
Table 2.A.6 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment-'--Alternative 2, Parcel 1, Land Use Scenario A; Time Share Table 3.A.l Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 3, Land Use Scenario A; Proforma Cash Flow - Preliminary Residual Land Value
Table 3.A.2 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 3, Land Use Scenario A; Fiscal Revenues Table 3.A.3, 4 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 3, Parcel 1, Land Use Scenario A; Retail/Commercial Operating Statement
Table 3.A.5, 6 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 3, Parcel 1, Land Use Scenario A; Office Operating Statement
Table 3 .A. 7 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 3, Parcel 2, Land Use Scenario A; Time Share Table 3.A.8, 9, 10 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 3, Parcel 3, Land Use Scenario A; Full Service Hotel
PROJECT No. 1415B APPENDIX 15
0 0
Q
0 D
0 0
0 0
0 0
D
0 0
0 0
0 0
■ eb;M
Economics Research Associates
Table 3.A.11 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 3, Parcel 6A, Land Use Scenario A; Time Share Table 3.A.12, 13 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 3, Parcel 6B, Land Use Scenario A; Office Operating Statement
Table 4.A. l Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 3, Parcel 6B, Land Use Scenario A; Proforma Cash Flow - Prelimimiry Residual Land Value
Table 4.A.2 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 4, Parcel 1, Land Use Scenario A; Fiscal Revenues Table 4.A.3, 4, 5 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment - Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A; Executive Meeting Hotel Operating Statement
Table 4.A.6, 7 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment
Retail/Commercial Operating Statement
Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A;
Table 4.A.8 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment-Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A; Time Share PROJECT No. 1415B APPENDIX 16
CJ CJ c=J ~ CJ C:J CJ c:J c=J c::J
Table I.A. I
CARLSBAD .BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Alternative I, Land Use Scenario A

PROFORMA CASH FLOW - PRELIMINARY RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
(BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
2003 2004
Yr. 2001 l'clltl YeaL2
Inflation Factor 3% Value I 1.06 1.09

SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Net Sources of Funds By l,and Use
RV - Concessionaire (0.79)
2005
Yw:...l

1.13 (0.82)
Sub-total $ $ (0.79) $ (0.82) $
Net Cash Flow After Developer Costs Is Is (0.8!1 s (0.8)1 s Net ecescot ~alue A[ter Del'.clO.P.a...CDl1.s
Net Present Value@ 14.0% Sl.20 _million, Yr. 2003 dollars Source: Economics Research Associates
2006 2007
l'l:a.cA Y=:.5

1.16 1.19

0.37 0.38

0.37 $ 0.38 $

0.41 $ 0.41 s
C::J
2008
.Year..li

1.23 0.42

0.42 $
o.4 Is
CJ CJ c=J CJ c;;i C) CJ CJ
02-Oct-0I
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
YllL1 ~ .fiac.2 Yes.ill haul fi.atl2 Yeru:.13 fu.r:.H 1'lltl5

1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I

0.43 0.44 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.53 5.40

0.43 $ 0.44 $ 0.46 $ 0.47 $ 0.49 $ 0.50 $ 0.52 $ 0.53 $ 5.40 o.4 Is o.4 Is o.s Is o.51 s o.5 Is o.51 s o.s Is o.5 I s 5.4 I CJ CJ CJ CJ C] CJ ~ CJ t=J CJ 0 CJ c=J c=i c=J CJ 0 CJ CJ Table 1.A.2
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT· Alternative 1, Land Use Scenario A

FISCAL REVENUES
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 futl l'Hr..l l'.£a.t..3. filL4 Ynr..5 l'.ilr..6 Yw:.1 Tou:.8 Yi:ar..2 YilI:..10 fur..ll Tuu..12 fur...ll .Y.u.r..1A Yw:..1.5 Inflation Factor 3% I 1.06 1.09 1.1 3 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.5 1 1.56 1.60 I PROPERTY TAXES Expressed In Millions of US Dollars
Land..llm
RV $ $ $ $ s 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ O.o4 $ 0 .04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 City's Share 4. 75% of Property Taxes $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 s 0.00 s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 RDA 's Non-housing Share 60.00% of Property Ta.es $ $ $ $ $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0,02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0,02 $ 0.02 Expressed In MIiiions or US Dollars

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
Full Service Hotel $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s $
Transient Occupancy Tax@ 10.00% of Room Revenue s $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s Gross Fiscal Operating Income From TOT & Tl s s s s s 0.02 s 0.02 s 0.02 s 0.02 s 0.02 s 0.02 s 0.82 $ 0.02 s O.OJ s 0.03 s O.OJ

SALES TAX REVENUE
Food & Beverage & 50% of Other Hotel Revt:nues $ s $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 Total Sales Tax Revenue $ s s s 0,00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

TOTAL FISCAL REVENUE
Property Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 0.02 s 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 s 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 s 0.03 Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s $ $ $ $ $ Sales Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Fiscal Revenue $ s s s 0.00 $ 0.02 s 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.oJ $ 0.03 $ 0,03 Sources u[ Eunds
FISCAL REVENUE $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.oJ $ 0,03 $ 0.oJ s 0.oJ $ 0,03 $ 0,03 $ 0.oJ Reversion @ 7% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.47
Total Source s of Funds $ $ s $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 0.oJ $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 s 0.03 $ 0.03 s 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.50 NET CASH FLOW Is Is Is Is o.oo Is 0.02 Is O.OJ I$ O.OJ Is 0.031 S o.o3 Is 0.031 S 0.031 $ O.OJ I$ o.o3 Is 0.03 ! S o.5o I Net Present Value@ 10% $0.2J million Yr. 2003 dollars
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ 0 CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ 0 CJ CJ
Table I.A .3
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Altornallvo I, Parcel 4, Land Use Scenario A RV Concessionaire Operating Stalement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yr. 2001 Value ~ futl Y.w:..l Ycau filu:.S Yw:1i Yw:..1 Yu.r..8 Yi:a.r..2 fu.r..l.ll Yur..ll fuill Yil.c..13. Y.oar..li fur.J.S Assumptions -In nation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 134 1.38 1.43 1.47 I. S I 1.56 1.60 Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Numhcr of I{\ ' S11a(·t·s 50 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Total Potential Number of nights 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 Average Annual Occupancy Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% Avg . Daily RV Ra1e / I $ 40 42 44 45 46 48 49 51 52 54 55 57 59 61 62 64 Nnmhcr or Primitive Spaces 45 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Total Potential Number of nights 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,25 0 18,250 18,250 18,250 Average Annual Occupancy Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% Avg. Daily RV Rale /I $ 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 JI 32 Operating Revenues Expressed In MIiiions of US Dollars Expressed In Millions of US Dollars Space Rental·Revenues $ $ s $ 0.68 $ 0.76 $ 0.83 $ 0 .86 $ 0.88 $ 0.91 $ 0.93 $ 0.96 $ 0.99 $ 1.02 $ 1.05 $ 1.08 As% of Room Revenues
Food & Beverage 20% 0.14 0 .15 0.17 0 .17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Other Revenues JO% 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.27 0,28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 Sublotal (Non-Room Revenues) 50% S s $ s 0.34 $ 0.38 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.44 s 0.45 $ 0.47 s 0.48 s 0.50 s 0.51 $ 0.53 s 0.54 Gross Revenues s s s $ 1.02 s 1.14 s 1.25 s 1.28 s 1.32 s 1.36 s 1.40 $ 1.44 s 1.49 s 1.53 s 1.58 s 1.63 Depactmeolal Cosls & Expenses As % of Departmental Revenues Spaces 25% 0.17 0.19 0.2 1 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.2) 0.24 0 .25 0.26 0.26 0.27 Food & Beverage 75% 0.10 0 .11 0.12 0.13 0. 13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0 .15 0.15 0.16 0.16 Other Departments 50% 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0,14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0,15 0.16 0.16 Total Departmental Expenses(% of Gross Revenues) 37% S $ $ $ 0.37 $ 0.42 $ 0.46 $ 0.47 $ 0.48 $ 0.50 $ 0.51 s 0.53 $ 0.55 $ 0.56 s 0.58 $ 0.60 Gross Operating Revenues 63% $ $ s s 0.64 $ 0.72 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.84 $ 0.86 $ 0.89 $ 0.91 $ 0.94 s 0,97 $ 1.00 s 1.03 Notes:
/ I Rate, after discounts, per occupied room.

Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ CJ D CJ D CJ CJ CJ C) CJ CJ CJ C.:=J CJ CJ 0 CJ CJ Table 1.A.4
CARLSBAll ROULEVARD REAI.IGNl\·tENT- AUernath·e 1, Parcel 4, Lund Use Scenario A RV Operating Statement
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Yr. 2001 Value fur...l har..l Yea.c..1 Yuu fur..S fiau Yw:..1 fiatJ! Year..2 Yt:ar...lJl Yn.r...11 Yuill Yoar..U Ym:.M YuLlS Expressed in Millions of US Dollars Expressed In Millions of US Dollars Gross OprcaCing Revenues 0.79 0.8 1 0.84 0.86 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 I.OJ lludistlibuled Operating E1peoses
As % of Revenue
Administrative & General 5.0% S $ s $ 0.05 $ 0.06 s 0.06 s 0.06 s 0.D7 s 0.07 $ 0.07 $ O.D7 s O.Q7 $ 0.08 s 0.08 $ 0.08 Management Fee 2.0% 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.0) 0.Q) O.DJ 0.0) O.oJ 0.0) 0.Q) O.QJ 0.0) Sales & Marketing 5.0% 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 O.D7 O.Q7 O.D7 O.D7 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 Energy Costs 6.0% 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0. 10 Repairs & Maintenance 4.0% 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 . 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 O.D7 Total 22.0% S $ $ $ 0.22 $ 0.25 $ 0.27 s 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.)0 $ 0.31 $ 0.32 $ 0.)) $ 0.)4 $ 0.35 s 0.36 Gross Qpenting Profit 41.3% $ $ $ $ 0.42 $ 0.47 $ 0.51 $ 0.53 $ 0.55 $ 0.56 $ 0.58 $ 0.60 s 0.61 $ 0,63 $ 0.65 $ 0,67 El:u:d E1p1:ases &. Capital Costs
Property Taxes (based on 1% of prior year capitalized value) fommla 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Incen tive Fee 2.0% 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Insurance 1.0% 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.GI 0.01 0.01 o.oz 0.02 0.02 Capital Reserve 2.0% o.oz 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 O.QJ O.oJ 0.0~ O.oJ O.oJ O.oJ 0.0) Total 5.0% 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.10 $ 0.IO $ 0.IO s 0.11 $ 0.11 s 0.11 s 0.12 s 0.12 $ 0.12 NET OPERA TING INCOME (ex. depr., Interest & tax) 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.55 Source: Economics Research Associates

C) CJ CJ CJ CJ D CJ CJ CJ C) CJ CJ
Table I.A.5
CARLSBAIJ BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Alternatl,·e I, Parcel 4, Land Use Scenario A (BEFORE TAX ES & FINANC ING)
RV Operating S1atemen t
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Yr. 2001 Value ::w.rJ. Xur.l fur..J. Y=.A l.'u.t.S Yw:..li Yw:..1 Sources of Fund5 Expressed in Millions of US Dollars
Net Operating I n<:ome 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.43
Reversion @ 11.0%
Less Cost of Sales @ 3.0%
Net Sales Proceeds
Total Sources of Funds 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.43
Development Costs
Inflation Assumptions I 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 I. 19 1.23 1.27 Number of Spaces 95 48 48
Development Costs - Annual % 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0.0%
Development Costs per space / 1 $ 15,263 0.79 0.82
Total Development Costs $ $ 0.79 s 0.82 $ s s s
NET CASH FLOW (before financing & taxes) 0.79 0.82 0.37 o.38 0.42 0.43 Cumulative Cash Flow 0.79 1.61) (1.24) (0.86) (0.44) (0.01) Nel Present Value@ 14.0% Sl.20 million 2003 dollars
Notes:
/ I New develop me nt costs include direct cos ts, ofT-sile & on-site costs, indirect costs, and developer profit. /2 Included in development cost per space
Source : Economics Research Associates

CJ CJ CJ CJ C) CJ CJ
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
l'ea.t...8 Yu.rJ! YfatlO fuI..l..l fu.r.ll Ye.aLU futl4 Ycaill Expressed in Millions of US Dollars
s 0.44 $ 0.46 s 0.47 s 0.49 $ 0.50 s 0.52 s 0.53 $ 0.55

5.00 0.15
s $ s $ s s s $ 4.85
s 0.44 $ 0.46 $ 0.47 $ 0.49 $ 0.50 $ 0.52 s 0.53 $ 5.40 I.JO 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 t

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
$ $ s s s $

0.44 0.46 0.47 0.49 o.so O.S2 0.53 S.40

0.44 0.90 1.37 1.8S 2.36 2.87 3.41 8.80
C) CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=i
Table 2.A .I
CARI,SBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT -Allcrnath·c 2, Land Use Scenario A

PROFORMA CASH FLOW - PRELIMINARY RESIDUAL LAND Y ALUE
(BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
2003 2004 2005
Yr. 2001 Yl:ar...l Yllr..l .fillr..J
lnnation Factor 3% Value I 1.06 1.09 1.13

SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Net Snncres of Funds By I.and Ilse
Executive Mtg. Hotel Nel Cash Flow (I 1.06) (11.40)
Time Share pI.54)
2006
YcaU

1.16 2.82
9,24
CJ CJ
2007 2008
Tul.r..S filu:Ji

1.19 1.23

2.84 2.93
(2.72) 9.81
CJ CJ c:J CJ CJ c:) c=i
02-Oct-01
2009 20IO 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
l'.w:.1 Ye.aLll Year..2 ~ .Yur.ll fuI:..l.2 Yw:.13. fi.lu:.lA fur_.15

1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I

3.02 3.11 3.21 3.31 3.41 3.52 3.63 3.74 41.24
IO.IO 10.40 1.07
Sub-total $ $ (I 1.06) $ (22.93) $ 12.06 $ 0.12 $ 12.74 $ 13.12 $ 13.52 $ 4.28 $ 3.31 s 3.41 $ 3.52 $ 3.63 $ 3.74 $ 41.24 Net Cash Flow After Developer Costs Is I s (I t.1)1 s (22.9)1 s 12.1 Is 0.1 Is 12.1 Is 13.1 Is 13.S IS 4.3 Is 3.31 s 3.4 1 $ 3.s Is 3.61 $ 3.71 $ 41.2 j Ne& eces1:nt l::'.:alue A.Dec De1:elopec Costs
Net Present Value@ 14.0% $9.78 million US dollars
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=J c=J c:::=J D CJ Table 2.A.2
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REA LIGNMENT- Allcrnatlvc 2, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A

FISCAL REVENUES
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ~ fuu l'.caL1 ~ l:'.t.&LS fi.a.r..!i fia.t..1 Yur..ll Year..2 XutlQ l'.lltlJ. ~ YlltiJ Ylltl!I Tolr.1.5 Inflation Factor 3% I 1.06 1.09 1.13 1. 16 1.19 1.2) 1.27 1.)0 1.34 1.38 1.4) 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.601 PROPERTY TAXES Expressed In MIiiions or US Dollars
Lanll....l.Lm
Executive Mtg. Hotel $ $ $ $ $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.)0 $ 0.)0 $ 0.) 1 $ 0.)2 $ 0.)2 s 0.)) $ 0.)4 $ 0.)4 Time Share $ $ $ $ $ 0.11 $ 0.22 $ 0.)4 $ 0.46 $ 0.59 $ 0.62 $ 0.6) $ 0.64 $ 0.65 $ 0.67 $ 0.68 Tota l Property Tax Increment $ $ $ $ $ 0.39 $ 0.51 $ 0.63 $ 0.76 s 0.90 $ 0.93 $ 0.95 $ 0.96 $ . 0.98 $ 1.00 $ 1.02 City's Share 4, 75% or Property Taxes $ $ $ $ $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0,03 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 RDA's Non-housing Share 60.00% or Property Taxes $ $ $ $ $ 0.2) $ 0.)0 $ 0.38 $ 0.46 $ 0.54 $ 0.56 $ 0.57 $ 0.58 $ 0.59 $ 0.60 $ 0.6 1 Expressed In Millions or US Dollars

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
Exec utive Mtg. Hotel $ $ $ $ 5.57 $ 6.18 $ 6.36 $ 6.55 $ 6.75 $ 6.95 $ 7.16 $ 7.38 $ 7.60 $ 7.8) s 8,06 $ 8.30 Transient Occupancy Tax @ 10.00% of Room Revenue $ $ $ s 0.56 $ 0.62 $ 0.64 $ 0.66 $ 0.68 $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 s 0.81 $ 0.83 Gross Fiscal Operating Income From TOT & Tl s s s s 0.56 s 0.87 $ 0.96 $ 1.06 s 1.17 s 1.28 $ 1.32 s 1.35 $ 1.38 s 1.42 s 1.46 s 1.49

SALES TAX REVENUE
Food & Beverage & 50% of Other Hotel Revenues $ $ $ s 0.03 s 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 Total Sales Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0,03 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04

TOTAL FISCAL REVENUE
Property Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ s 0.25 $ 0.33 $ 0.41 $ 0.49 $ 0.58 $ 0.60 $ 0.61 $ 0.62 s 0.64 $ 0.65 $ 0.66 Transienl Occupancy Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.56 $ 0.62 $ 0.64 $ 0.66 s 0.68 $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 $ 0.81 $ 0.83 Sales Tax Revenue $ $ s $ 0.03 s 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0,03 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 s 0.04 $ 0.04 s 0.04 Total Fiscal Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.59 $ 0,90 $ 1.00 $ 1.10 $ 1.20 $ 1.31 $ 1.35 $ 1.39 s 1.42 $ 1.46 $ 1.50 $ 1.54 Sam:1:1::s o[ Enods
FISCAL OPERA TING INCOME $ $ $ $ 0.59 $ 0.90 $ 1.00 $ 1.10 $ 1.20 $ 1.31 $ 1.35 $ 1.39 $ 1.42 $ 1.46 $ 1.50 s 1.54 Reversion@ 7% $ s s $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 23.64
Tota l Sources of Funds $ $ s s 0.59 $ 0.90 $ 1.00 s 1.10 s 1.20 $ 1.31 $ 1.35 $ 1.39 $ 1.42 $ 1.46 $ 1.50 $ 25.18 NET CASH FLOW Is Is Is Is o.s9 Is o.9o Is 1.00 Is 1.10 Is 1.20 Is 1.31 I s 1.3s I s 1.39 Is 1.42 Is 1.46 I s I.SO I S 25.18 I Net Present Value @l IO¾ Sil.SI million 2003 dollars
Source: Economics Research Associa les
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c:::J CJ CJ CJ c:::J CJ CJ CJ CJ C:=J CJ Table 2.A.3
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Alternnth·e 2, Parcel I, Lnnd Use Sce norio A ExecutiH Ml't!ling Hotel Operating Stale ment
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20 11 2012 2013 20 14 2015 20 16 2017 Yr. 200 1 Value Y£Jl1'...l :ua.c.l Tou:.l Y.oau fuJ.:..S l'ul:.6 l'.w:1 ~ Xu.r.2 l:'.wJJl YtllL.ll Yw:..ll ~ Yw:..li l'.<ar..lS Assumptions
lnnation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ll ot l'I - Exec . C:our. Ctr. :\'umhcr of Rooms 150 0 0 0 150 150 150 150 150 ISO 150 150 ISO 150 150 150 Total Potenlial Number of Room nights 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750 S4,750 S4,7SO 54,750 S4,750 S4,750 S4,7SO 54.750 Average Annual Occupancy Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 65.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% Avg. Daily Rm. Rate Hotel 2 / 1 $ 135 143 148 152 157 161 166 171 176 181 187 192 198 204 210 217 Operolinr Revenues Expressed In Milli ons or US Dollan Expresse d In Millions or US Dolla rs Room Revenues s $ s $ 5.57 $ 6. 18 s 6.36 $ 6.55 s 6.75 $ 6.95 $ 7. 16 $ 7.)8 $ 7.60 $ 7.8) $ 8.06 $ 8.30 As% of Room Revenues
Food & Beverage 45% 2.5] 2. 78 2.86 2.95 3.04 3.13 3.22 3.32 3.42 3.52 3.63 3.74 Other Revenues 15% 0.84 0.93 0.95 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.07 I.I I 1.14 1. 17 1.21 1.25 Subtotal (Non-Room Revenues ) 60% $ $ $ s 3.34 $ 3.71 s 3.82 s 3.93 $ 4.05 s 4. 17 s 4.30 $ 4.43 $ 4.56 s 4.70 $ 4.84 s 4.98 Gross Revenues $ $ $ $ 8.9 1 $ 9.88 S 10. 18 S 10.49 S 10.80 S 11.13 S 11.46 S 11.80 $ 12. 16 S 12.52 S 12.90 s 13.28 D.tp_artmen1al Costs & Expenses As% of Departmental Revenues Rooms 25% 1.39 1.54 1.59 1.64 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.84 1.90 1.96 2.02 2.08 Food & Beverage 75% 1.88 2.09 2. 15 2 .21 2.28 2.35 2.42 2.49 2.56 2.64 2.72 2.80 Other Departments 50% 0.42 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.5 1 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.60 0.62 Total Departmental Expenses(% of Gross Revenues) 41% $ s $ $ 3.69 $ 4.09 s 4.22 s 4.34 $ 4.47 $ 4.6 1 $ 4.74 s 4.89 $ 5.03 s 5. 18 s 5.34 s 5.50 Gross Openllng Revenues 59% $ s $ $ 5.22 $ 5.79 $ 5.97 $ 6.1 4 s 6.33 $ 6.52 s 6.7 1 s 6.92 s 7.12 s 7.34 s 7.56 s 7.78 Notes:
/ I Rate, after discoun ts, per oc cupied room.

Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ CJ CJ c:::J c=i CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=J C:=J c:=J CJ CJ CJ CJ Table 2,A.4
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Allernative 2, Parcel 1, Land Use Sc('nario A Executive Meeting Hotel Operating Statement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yr. 2001 Value fiar..1 Tou:..l YuL.l ~ YlaL5 l'.u.r..6 fuL1 l:'.caL.l! Yur..2 fiaLl!l Y<ar..11 fiar..12 fiaLU Yu.ill l'.u.c.l.S Expressed In Million5 of US Dollan Expre5sed in Millions or US Dollan Go>ss Operating Revenues 5.97 6.14 6.33 6.52 6.71 6,92 7.12 7.34 7.56 7.78 l!udisttibuted Qpenting Expenses
As % of Revenue
Administrative & General 5.0% $ $ $ $ 0.45 $ 0.49 $ 0.51 s 0.52 s 0.54 $ 0.56 $ 0.57 $ 0.59 s 0.61 $ 0.63 s 0.64 s 0.66 Management Fee 2.0% 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 Sales & Marketing 5.0% 0.45 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.64 0.66 Energy Costs 6.0% 0.53 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.80 Repairs & Maintenance 4.0% 0.36 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.53 Total 22.0% $ $ s $ 1.96 $ 2.17 $ 2.24 $ 2.3 I $ 2.38 $ 2.45 $ 2.52 $ 2.60 s 2.67 $ 2.75 $ 2.84 $ 2.92 Gross Operating Profit 36.6% S $ $ s 3.26 $ 3.62 s 3.73 $ 3.84 $ 3.95 s 4.07 $ 4.19 $ 4.32 $ 4.45 $ 4.58 $ 4.72 $ 4.86 Ei:ud E1pensu & Cauitol Costs
Property Taxes fommla 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0,30 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.34 Incentive Fee 2.0% 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 Insurance 1.0% 0.09 0.10 O.IO 0.10 0.1 I 0,11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 Capital Reserve 2.0% 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 o .. i4 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 Total 5.0% 0.45 0.78 0.80 0.82 $ 0.84 $ 0,86 $ 0.88 $ 0.91 $ 0.93 $ 0.96 $ 0.98 $ 1.01 NET OPERA TING INCOME (ex. depr., Interest & tax) 2.82 2.84 2.93 3.02 3.11 3.21 3.31 3.41 3.S2 3.63 3.74 3.85 Source: Economics Research Associates
c=J CJ CJ c=J CJ c=i CJ CJ
Table 2.A.5
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Allernath·e 2, Pnrcel I, Land Use Scenado A (BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
Hotel Operating Statement
2003
Yr. 200 I Value fiu:..l
Sources or Funds
Net Operating Income
Reversion @ 10.0%
Less Cost of Sales @ 3.0%
Net Sale s Proceeds
Total Sources of Funds
Dnclopment Costs
Inflation Assumptions I 1.06
Number of Rooms 150
Development Costs - Annual % 0%
Development Costs per room• Hotel /I $ 135,000
Total Development Costs $
NET CASH FLOW (before financing & laxes)
Cumulative Cash Flow
Net Present Value @ 14.0% $1.02
Notes:
/ I New development costs include direct costs, off-site & on-site costs, indirect costs, and developer profit. /2 Included in development cost per room
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ c=i C=:J CJ
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Ye.atl ~ fiat.A fiar...S .YoaL!i l:'.at.1
Expressed in Millions or US Dollars

2.82 2.84 2.93 3.02

2.82 2.84 2.93 3.02

1.09 I. IJ I. 16 1.19 1.23 1.27
75 75
50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0.0%
I 1.06 11.40
S 11.06 S 11.40 s s $ $

11.06 11.40 2.82 2.84 2.93 3.02
(I 1.06) (22.46) (19.64) (16.80) (13.87) (10.85)
c=J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c::::J
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
)'.oa.r..l! Y<atl fiatlll Yw:..ll fu.t.11 l'.u.r..1J. Yttr..li Yuill E>pressed In Millions or US Dollars
$ 3.11 $ 3.21 s 3.31 $ 3.41 $ 3.52 s 3.63 $ 3.74 $ 3.85

38.54 1.16
s s $ s s s s s 37.38
s 3.11 $ 3.21 $ 3.31 $ 3.41 s 3.52 $ 3.63 s 3.74 $ 41.24 I.JO 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
$ $ s $ $ $

3.11 J.ll 3.31 3.41 3.52 3.63 3.74 41.24
(7.74) (4.53) (1.22) 2.19 5.71 9.34 13.07 54.31
CJ CJ CJ c=J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ C=:J CJ CJ CJ c:J CJ CJ CJ CJ Table 2.A.6
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Alternative 2, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A Time Share
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20!0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yr. 2001 Value filu:J. .Yolll:..l l'.ilr..l fia.t.A Y<ar...5 l'.eal:Ji l.'.ea.r.1 Y.t.u..11 fiar..2 Year..J.11 XllL.11 Yoai:..ll fuLlJ. Yw:.ll Yw:...lS Assumptions
Innation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ti111e Share (Number of Hrwms) 100 0 0 0 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total Number of Intervals Available 2,550 2,550 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5, 100 5.100 5,100 5,100 5,100 Total Number of Intervals Sold Per Year 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 100 Cumulative Intervals Sold 1,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 5,000 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100 Interval Sales Price $ 18,500 s 19.627 $20,215 $20 ,822 $21,447 $22,090 $22,753 $23,435 $24,138 $24,862 S25.608 $26,377 $27,168 $27,983 S28,822 $ 29,687 Sales Revenues Expressed in Milli ons of US Dollan Expressed in MIiiions of US Dollars Annual Sales Volume s $ $ $ 21.45 $ 22.09 $ 22.75 S 23.44 S 24.14 $ 2.49 $ $ $ $ $ s Cumulative Sales Volume 21.45 43.54 66.29 89.72 I 13.86 I 16.35 116.35 116.35 I 16.35 116.35 I 16.35 I 16.35 Cost of Sales Per Room
Product Cost (excluding land coSI) /I $ 205,000 11.54 12.24 Gross Profit Before Land Costs s $ $(11.54) S 21.45 s 9.85 S 22.75 S 23.44 $ 24.14 $ 2.49 s s $ s s Cumulative Profit Before Land Costs (11.54) 9.91 19.76 42.51 65.95 90.09 92.57 92.57 92.57 92.57 92.57 92.57 92.57 Costs & Expenses/2 As% of Annual Gross Sales
Commissions 22.0% $ $ $ $ 4.72 $ 4.86 $ 5.01 s 5.16 s 5.31 $ 0.55 $ s s $ s $ Marketing 22.0% 4.72 4.86 5.01 5.16 5.3 I 0.55
Sales Overhead 5.0% 1.07 1.10 1.14 1.17 1.21 0.12
Administration 7.0% 1.50 1.55 1.59 1.64 1.69 0.17
Acct./Legal/Counsulting 0.5% 0.1 I 0.11 0.1 I 0.12 0.12 0.01 Depreciation 0.3% 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 O.Q7 0.01
Other 0.1% 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00
Total Cost & Expenses(% of Annual Gross Sales) 56.9% $ s s $ 12.20 S 12.57 $ 12.95 $ 13.33 $ 13. 73 $ 1.41 s s $ s s $ ~et Uu£1opmeot ~tofit (I 11ssl $ $ $(11.54) S 9.24 $ (2.72) S 9.81 S 10.10 $ 10.40 s 1.07 s $ $ $ s s Cumulative Cash Flow $ $ $(11.54) $ (2.29) $ (5.01) $ 4.80 $ 14.90 S 25.30 $ 26.37 $ 26.37 $ 26.37 $ 26.37 $ 26.37 S 26.37 $ 26.37 Net Present Val ue@ 15.0% S8.09 million 2003 dollars
Notes:
/I Development costs include allocated share of onsite/offsite costs. /2 Selling and marking expenses only. Operating expenses are covcre<l 100% by annual fees.

Source: RCI Consulting, Inc.; and Economics Research Associates C:J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=i c=J CJ
Table 3.A.I
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Alternati.-e 3, Land Use Scenario A

PROFORMA CASH FLOW - PRELIMINARY RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
(BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
2003 2004 2005
Yr. 2001 Yl:ac..l fu.r.l filu:..J.

Inflation Factor 3% Value I 1.06 1.09 I. 13

SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Net Sources of Funds By I and Use
Commercial Retail Cash Flow (2.95) (3.04)
Office I (9.90)
Time Share (17.30)
Full Service Hotel (20.49) (21.10)
Time Share 6A (6.92)
Office 6B !1.71)
2006
1'll.r.A

1.16 1.74

1.59 9.24

5.55 6.93

0.30 Sub-total $ $ (23 .44) $ (59.99) $ 25.36
CJ
2007
Yllc..S

1.19 2.13

1.84 9.52

5.60 7.43

0.36 $ 26.89 s
Net Cash Flow After Developer Costs Is I s !23.4)1 s i6o.oll s 25.4 Is 26.9 Is ~el fce:seot Yahu~ A£tet lb:1::eloper Costs
Net Present Value_@_ 14.0% $29.87 million 2003 dollars
CJ CJ c=i CJ c=i CJ CJ CJ CJ
02-Oct-01
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
fiJu:..fi Y£.III:..1 Yw:JI Yl:a.r..2 ~ l'.ellLll fur.ll Yc.a.r..13 fu.t..14 Year..15

1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I

2.20 2.26 2.33 2.40 2.47 2.55 2.62 2.70 2.78 30.38

2.00 2.06 2. 13 2.19 2.25 2.32 2.39 2.46 2.54 27.97
(9.10) 10.10 10.40 10.72 I 1.04

5.77 5.95 6.14 6.33 6.52 6.72 6.93 7.15 7.37 81.27

0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 5.24

1.25 S 20.77 $ 21.39 $ 22.04 S 22.71 $ 12.03 $ 12.40 $ 12.77 $ 13.16 $ 144.86

1.21 s 20.8 Is 21.4 ! S 22.0 I s 22.1 I $ 12.0 Is 12.4 ! S 12.8 Is 13.21 s 144.9 ! CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=i CJ CJ Table 3.A.2
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Allernalive 3, Land Use Scenario A

FISCAL REVENUES
2003 2004 200S 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201S 2016 2017 fiatl Yw:..2 Year..3. fuc.A YeJu:.S .Yc.aLJi .Yt:aJ:..1 Yw:...11 Ycad Yar..1Jl Yutl1 l'.il.c..l.2 .Yca.r..lJ l'.'.car..14 Yutl5 Jnnation Factor 3% I 1.06 1.09 1. 13 1.16 1.1 9 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.5 1 1.56 160 I PROPERTY TAXES Expressed In Millions or US Dollars
Lllllll..1J.w
Commercial Retail $ $ s s $ 0.20 s 0.2 1 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 s 0.23 $ 0.23 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.25 Office I s $ $ $ $ 0. 18 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.21 s 0.21 $ 0.22 s 0.22 $ 0.23 s 0.23 $ 0.23 Time Share2 $ s $ $ $ 0.11 $ 0.22 $ 0.34 s 0.46 $ 0.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.87 s 0.89 $ 0.9 1 s 0.92 s 0.94 Full-Service Hotel $ $ s s s 0.55 $ 0.57 $ 0.58 $ 0.59 s 0.60 $ 0.61 $ 0.62 s 0.64 $ 0.65 s 0.66 $ 0.68 Time Share 6A s s $ $ s 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 s 0.09 s 0.09 s 0.1 0 $ 0. 10 s 0. 10 s 0.10 s 0.10 $ 0.11 Office 68 $ s $ s s 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 Total Property Tax Increment $ $ $ s s 1.17 $ 1.32 $ 1.46 $ 1.60 $ 1.76 $ 1.92 $ 2.08 $ 2. 12 $ 2. 17 $ 2.21 $ 2.25 City's Share 4.75% of Property Taxes $ s $ $ $ 0.06 s 0.06 s 0.07 s 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.09 s 0.10 s 0.10 s 0.10 s 0. 10 $ 0.11 RD A's Non-housing Share 60.00% of Proper1y Taxes s $ $ $ s 0.70 $ 0.79 $ 0.87 s 0.96 s 1.05 $ 1.15 s 1.25 $ 1.27 $ 1.30 s 1.33 $ 1.35 Expressed In Millions of US Dollars

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
Full Service Hotel $ $ $ $ 10.3 1 $ 11.44 $ 11.78 S 12.14 $ 12.50 $ 12.88 $ 13.26 $ 13.66 $ 14.07 S 14.49 $ 14.93 $ 15.38 Transient Occupancy Tax@ 10.00% or Room Revenue $ s $ $ 1.03 $ 1.14 $ 1.1 8 $ 1.21 s 1.25 $ 1.29 $ 1.33 s 1.37 $ 1.41 s 1.45 $ 1.49 $ 1.54 Gross Fiscal Operating Income From TOT & Tl s s s s 1.03 s 1.90 s 2.03 s 2.16 s 2.29 s 2.42 s 2.57 s 2.71 s 2.78 s 2.8S s 2.92 s 3.00

SALES TAX REVENUE
Retail Commercial s s $ $ 0.23 s 0.28 s 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.31 s 0.32 $ 0.33 s 0.34 $ 0.35 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 s 0.38 Food & Beverage & 50% of Other Hotel Revenues s s $ $ 0.07 s 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.09 s 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0. 10 $ 0.10 $ 0.10 s 0. 10 $ 0. 11 Total Sales Tax Revenue $ s $ $ 0.30 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 $ 0.39 $ 0.40 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.45 $ 0.46 $ 0.47 $ 0.49 TOT A.L FISCAL REVENUE
Property Tax Revenue $ s $ s s 0.76 $ 0.85 s 0.94 $ 1.04 $ 1.14 $ 1.24 s 1.35 s 1.38 $ 1.40 $ 1.43 s 1.46 Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue s s $ $ 1.03 $ 1. 14 $ 1.18 s 1.21 $ 1.25 s 1.29 $ 1.33 ·s 1.37 s 1.4 1 $ 1.45 $ 1.49 $ 1.54 Sales Tax Revenue s s s s 0.30 $ 0.36 s 0.37 s 0.39 s 0.40 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 s 0.45 s 0.46 $ 0.47 $ 0.49 Tota l Fisca l Revenue $ s $ $ 1.34 $ 2.26 $ 2.40 $ 2.54 s 2.69 $ 2.83 $ 2.99 $ 3. 15 s 3.23 $ 3.31 $ 3.40 s 3.49 Sa11tcts a[ Enods
FISCAL REVENUE $ s $ $ 1.34 $ 2.26 $ 2.40 $ 2.54 $ 2.69 $ 2.83 $ 2.99 $ 3. 15 s 3.23 s 3.3 I $ 3.40 s 3.49 Reversion@ 7% s s $ $ s s s s $ s s s $ $ $ 53.62
Total Sources of fun ds s s $ $ 1.34 s 2.26 $ 2.40 $ 2.54 s 2.69 $ 2.83 $ 2.99 $ 3. 15 s 3.23 s 3.3 1 $ 3.40 $ 57.1 1 NET CASH FLOW Is - Is Is - Is 1.34 I$ 2.26 Is 2.40 I s 2.54 ! S 2.69 ! S 2.83 I s 2.99 Is 3.15 ! S J.23 ! S 3.31 Is 3.40 Is s1.11 I Net Present Value@ 10% S26.2S million 2003 dollars
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=J CJ CJ c=i CJ c=i CJ CJ c=i CJ Table 3.A.3
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT· Alternative 3, Parcel I, Land Use Sce nario A Retail/Commercial: Operating Statement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 futl Yl:Ju:.l fiu..J. Yta.r.A .Yi:JlLS l'cll.t...6 ~ .huJI Ytar..2 l'.l:lu:...lll. Yu.c..11 ~ YcaLll fu.c..11 YllL.l.S Inflation Factor 3% 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 Rental Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Cumulative Gross Lcasablc Area
Com ml·n·inl Retail 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Restauranls 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 To1al 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 · Occupancy Rate
Commercial l!c•tuil 0% 0% 0% 80% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Rl'sfaunrnts 0% 0% 0% 80% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Average NNN Base Rent Per s. f. Per Y r/1 US$
( :011111,crcial Rt•lail $ 20.00 21.22 21.85 22.51 23.19 23.88 24.60 25.34 26.10 26.88 27.68 28.52 29.37 30.25 31.16 32.09 l{estaurnnts $ 30.00 31.83 32.78 33.77 34 ,78 35.82 36.90 38.00 39.14 40.32 41.53 42.77 44.06 45.38 46.74 48.14 Average Gross Sales Per Square Foot Per Year US$
Co 1111m.•rcial Rt•lail $ 250.00 265 273 28 1 290 299 307 317 326 336 346 356 367 378 389 401 Restllurants $ 375 .00 398 410 422 435 448 461 475 489 504 519 535 551 567 584 602 Expressed in MIilions or US Dollars Expressed In Millions or US Dollars Operating Revenues
Base Rent Revenue $ $ $ $ 1.85 $ 2.27 $ 2.34 $ 2.41 $ 2.48 $ 2.55 $ 2.63 $ 2.71 $ 2.79 $ 2.87 $ 2.96 $ 3.05 Gross Revenues $ $ $ $ 1.85 $ 2.27 $ 2.34 $ 2.41 $ 2.48 $ 2.55 $ 2.63 $ 2.71 $ 2.79 $ 2.87 $ 2.96 $ 3.05 Operating Expenses % of Rev.

Administrative & General 4.0% $ $ $ $ 0.07 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 Sales & Marketing 2.0% 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Total 6.0% $ $ $ $ 0.11 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.15 $ 0.15 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 $ 0.18 NET OPERATING INCOME (ex. depr., interest & tax) $ $ $ $ 1.74 $ 2.13 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.33 $ 2.40 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 $ 2.62 $ 2.70 S 2.78 S 2.87 Notes:
/I Triple-net rent where tenant pays for pro-rata share of common area charges, insurance, property taxes, and utilities in addition to base rent. No rent for tenant improvements; tenants pay for improvements.

Source: Economics Research Associates
c:=J c::::::J c::::::J C=:J c::::::J c::::J c::::::J CJ c::::::J c::::J C3 CJ c:=J CJ c=J CJ CJ c=J CJ Table 3.A.4
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT - Alternative 3, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A Retail/Comm ercial: Operating Statement
2003 2004 zoos 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 :hlll:.l Ycat..l fia.r..3. YH.L.4 YcllL!i filu:..6 YllL1 fuLll fi.ar.2. Ytlu:..lJl l'nc...11 Yl:B.r..ll l:n.r..1.1 l:.'.l:Ju:..H 1D.t..!S Suuc..::e:i o( Euods Expressed in Millions or US Dollars Expressed in Millions of US Dollars Net Operating Income $ $ $ $ 1.74 $ 2.13 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.33 $ 2.40 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 $ 2.62 $ 2.70 $ 2.78 $ 2.87 Reversion@ 10.0% $28.66
Less Cost of Sales@ 4.0% $ 1.15
Net Sale Proceeds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $27.51
Total Sources of Funds $ $ $ $ 1.74 $ 2.13 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.33 $ 2.40 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 $ 2.62 $ 2.70 $ 2.78 $30.38 DcYclopmeot Costs
Gross Leasable Area (s.f.) 80,000 40,000 40,000
Inflation Assumptions I 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I Comnu:rcial Rct:iil 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Restaurants 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% New Development Costs/2 $ 135.00 per sf $ $ 2.95 $ 3.04 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ Tota l Development Costs 2.95 3.04
NET CASH FLOW (before financing & taxes) 2.9S 3.04 1.74 2.13 2.20 2.26 2.33 2.40 2.47 2.55 2.62 2.70 2.78 30.38 CUMULATIVE CASH FLOW 2.95 5.99 4.25 2.11 0.08 2.35 4.68 7.08 9.55 12.10 14.72 17.42 20.20 50.S8 Residual Land Value= Net Present Value@ 14.0% SS.28 million 2003 dollars Notes:
/1 New development costs, include direct costs, indirect costs, and developer profit.

Source: Economics Research Assoc iates
CJ c=i c=J c=i c=J c=i c.:J c=i
Table 3.A.5
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGN1'-1ENT- Alternati\'e 3, Parce l 11 Land Use ~ce nario A Office Operating Statement
lnnation Factor
Rental Escalation
()nice
T ota l Cl. !\
Average Annual Occupancy Rate
Occupied Space
A,•ernge NNN Rent Per s.f.. Per Year
New
Yr. 200 1 Va\!!!:_
3%
0%
80,000
80,000

22.80 2003 2004
Y<a.r.1 fiu.l

1.06 1.09

1.00 1.00
0% 0%
$ 24. 19 $ 24.9 1
c:J
2005 2006
'.uat..l Ytau

1.13 1. 16

1.00 1.00
80,000
80,000
0% 80%
64,000
$ 25.66 S 26.43
CJ C=:J c=i
2007 2008 2009 2010
fu.t..S fiacii Y£u.1 l.'£.u..ll

1.19 1.23 1.27 I.JO

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
90% 95% 95% 95%
72,000 76,000 76,000 76,000
s 27.22 $ 28.04 $ 28.88 $ 29.75
c=i CJ C:::J CJ [=3
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 . 2016 2017
Y.atl YtatlJI l'.'.nill Y.u..12 Yw:.U l:'.ll.r..14 Ync..15

1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
80,000 80,000 80.000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
76,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 76.000
$ 30 .64 $ 31.56 s 32.5 1 s 33.48 s 34.49 $ 35.52 $ )6.59 Expressed In MIiiions or US Dollan Expressed In MUHons of US Dollars Gross Revenues
Operating Expenses
Administralive & General
Sales & Marketing
Total
NET OPERATING INCOME (ex. depr., Interest & tax)
Notes:
% o f Rev.

4.0%
s s s 1. 69 s 1.96

0.07 0.08
s 2. 1) s 2.20 $ 2.26

0.09 0.09 0.09

2.0% V . VJ V oV"'T U.V"'T V , V-, V , VJ
n n, nn, nn, nn.t n n<

6.0% 0. 10 $ 0. 12 s 0.13 s O. I J $ 0.14
$ s 1.59 s 1.84 s 2.00 s 2.06 s 2.13
s 2.3) s 2.40 $ 2.47

0.09 0. 10 0. 10
n n< 0.05 0.05
s 0.14 s 0. 14 $ 0.15
s 2. 19 s 2.25 s 2.32
/ I Trip le.net renl where tenant pays for pro~rata share of common area charges, insurance, property taxes, and utilities in addition 10 base rent. No rent for tenant improveme nts; tenants pay for improvements.

Source: Economics Research Associates
$ 2.54 $ 2.62 s 2.70 s 2.78
O.IO 0.10 0. 11 0.11

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06
$ 0. 15 s 0.16 s 0.16 $ 0.17
s 2.39 s 2.46 s 2.54 s 2.61
CJ c=J
c::::J c::::J c=i CJ CJ Cl CJ c:::::.::J C:=J c::J C:J CJ c:::J C=:J CJ c=i c::J C=:J C=:J Table 3.A.6
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Alternath·e 3, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A (BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
Office Operating Statement
2003 2004 zoos 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yr. 2001 Value Yw:.l fiaL2 l:'.llLl hw:..i l'w:...5 l'llr..Ji Yw:l l'.w:..l! l:'.l:.ar..2 Ycar..lll fur.11 YuLll Xw:1.1 fur..14 fuill Soun:cs of Funds Expressed In Millions of US Dollars Expressed In MIilions of US Dollars Net Operating Income s s $ s 1.59 s 1.84 s 2.00 s 2.06 s 2.13 $ 2.19 s 2.25 s 2.32 s 2.39 s 2.46 s 2.54 s 2.6 1 Reversion@ 10.0% 26.14
Less CoSI of Sa le, @ 3.0% 0.78
Nel Sale Proceeds s s s s s s $ s s s s s s s s 25.35
Total Sources of Funds $ $ s s 1.59 s 1.84 s 2.00 $ 2.06 s 2.13 s 2.19 s 2.25 s 2.32 s 2.39 s 2.46 s 2.54 $ 27.97 Development Costs
lnnation Assumptions 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 I .JO 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 I.SI 1.56 1.60 Gross Leasable Area New 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Developm ent Costs Annual ¾ New 0% 0% 100% 0%
New Dev elopment Costs $ 110.00 per sf $ $ s 9.90 $ $ s $ $ $ s s $ $ $ $ Total Development Costs s s $ 9.90 s s s s $ S · s s s s s s NET CASH FLOW (before financing & tans) 9,90 1.59 1.84 2.00 2.06 2.13 2.19 2.25 2.32 2.39 2.46 2.54 27.97 CUMULATIVE CASH FLOW (9.90) (8.31) (6.47) (4.47) (2.41) (0.28) 1.91 4.16 6.49 8.88 11 .34 13.88 41.85 Residual Land Value= Net Present Value_@_ 14.0% $4.79
Notes:

I I
New development include direct costs, indirect costs, and developer profit.

Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ c=J c=i c=J c=J CJ c:=i c::J c=J CJ c::J CJ c::=:J c=i CJ c:::J c=i c=i CJ Table 3.A.7
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Alternative 3, Parcel 2, Land Use Scennrio A Ti me Share
2003 2004 200S 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201S 2016 2017 Yr. 200 I Value YllLl Ytu..l l'.e.u..l Yw:..i fiac..S. fiatJi l'.lld Xw:.B ~ l'.eatl.11 l'..eac..ll Xtatll Yen.ll l'.w:.M YtaLl5 Assumptions
Inflation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.5 1 1.56 1.60 Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i\umhcr or Hooms 150 0 0 0 75 75 75 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Total Number of Interva ls Available 3,825 3,825 3,825 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 7,650 Total Number of Intervals Sold Per Year 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1,000 Cumulative Intervals Sold 1,000 2,000 3.000 4.000 5,000 6,000 7,000 650 650 650 650 650 Interval Sales Price $ 18,500 $ 19,627 $20,215 $20,822 $21,447 $22,090 S22,753 $23,435 $24,138 $24,862 $25,608 $26,377 $27 ,168 $27,983 $28,822 $ 29.687 Sales Revenues Expressed In Millions or US Dollars Expressed in Millions or US Dollars Annual Sales Volume $ s $ $ 21.45 S 22.09 $ 22.75 $ 23.44 $ 24.14 $ 24.86 S 25.61 s $ s $ Cumulative Sales Volume 21.45 43.54 66.29 89.72 I 13.86 138.73 164.33 164.33 164.33 164.33 164.33 164.33 Cost of Sales Per Room
Product Cost (excluding land cost) /I s 205,000 17.30 18.9 1 Gross Profit Before Land Costs $ s $(17.30) S 21.45 $ 22.09 s 3.84 $ 23.44 $ 24.14 S 24.86 S 25.61 $ $ $ s $ Cumulative Profit Before Land Costs ( 17.30) 4.14 26.23 30.08 53.51 77 .65 102.51 128.12 128.12 128.12 128.12 128.12 128.12 Cosh & Expeoses/2 As% of Annual Gross Sales
Commissions 22.0% S s s s 4.72 $ 4.86 s 5.01 $ 5.16 s 5.31 $ 5.47 s 5.63 s $ $ s Marketing 22.0% 4.72 4.86 5.01 5.16 5.31 5.41 5.63
Sales Overhead 5.0% 1.07 I.IO 1.14 1.17 1.21 1.24 1.28
Administration 7.0% 1.50 1.55 1.59 1.64 1.69 1.74 1.79
Acct./Legal/Counsulting 0.5% 0.11 0,1 I 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 Depreciation 0.3% 0.06 0.D7 0.07 O.Q7 0.07 0.07 0.08
Other 0.1% 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0,02 0.03
Total Cost & Expenses (% of Annual Gross Sales) 56.9% S s $ $ 12.20 S 12.57 S 12.95 $ 13.33 $ 13.73 $ 14.15 $ 14.57 $ $ s $ $ !Sel Duclopmeot ecom (I ass) $ $ $(17.30) $ 9.24 $ 9.52 S (9.10) $ IO.IO $ I 0.40 $ l0.72 $ I 1.04 $ $ s $ $ Cumulative Cash Flow $ s S (17.30) S (8.06) $ 1.46 $ (7.64) S 2.46 S 12.86 $ 23.58 $ 34.61 $ 34.61 S 34.61 $ 34.61 $ 34 .61 $ 34.61 Net Pl"esent Value@ 15.0% 57.68 million 2003 dollars
Noles:
/ 1 Development costs include allocated share of onsite/ofTsite costs. /2 Selling and marking expenses only. Operating expenses are covered 100% by annual fees.

Source: RCI Consulting, Inc.; and Economics Research Associates CJ c::J c::=i c=J CJ CJ ~ c=i
Table 3.A.8
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Alternative 3, Parcel 3, Land Use Scenario A Full Service Hotel
2003
Yr. 2001 Value fiar..l
AssumptiOns
Inflation Factor 3% 1.06
Real Escalation 0% 1.00
llPlJ 1.5 (llotd 2 - E.Hl". C1mf. Cir.) Numhl•r of Rooms 300 0 Total Potential Number of Room nights
Average Annual Occupancy Rate 0.0%
Avg. Daily Rm. Rate Hotel 2 / 1 $ 125 133
Operating Revenues
Room Revenues $
As % of Room Revenues
Food & Beverage 55%
Other Revenues 30%
Subtotal (Non-Room Revenues) 85% $
Gross Revenues $
D .. epa.rJmental Co:sts & Expenses As % of Departmental Revenues Rooms 25%
Food & Beverage 75%
Other Departments 50%
Total Departmental Expenses(% of Gross Revenues) 44% S
Gross Operating Revenues 56% $
Notes:
/ I Rate, aller discounts, per occupied room.

Source : Economics Research Associates
$
$
$
$
$
CJ [ 7 c=J CJ
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
fiar...2 l'.£al:..J. fiar.A fi.a.r..S Yo.ar.11 Yw:J:

1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27

1.00 1.00 1.00 I.DO 1.00 1.00
0 0 300 300 300 300
109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500

0.0% 0.0% 65.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0%
137 141 145 149 154 158
Expressed In MIiiions of US Dollan
s S 10.31 S 11.44 S 11.78 S 12.14

5.67 6.29 6.48 6.68

3.09 3.43 3.54 3.64
$ $ 8.77 $ 9.72 $ 10.02 $ 10.32
$ S 19.08 $ 21.16 $ 21.80 S 22.45

2.58 2.86 2.95 3.03

4.25 4.72 4.86 5.01

1.55 1.72 1.77 1.82
$ $ 8.38 $ 9.30 s 9.57 $ 9.86
$ $ 10.70 $ 11.87 $ 12.23 $ 12.59
c:J c:=J C=:J C:=J CJ c=J CJ
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
l:'.ea.cJ! Yi:.u..2 Ycatl1I har..11 l'.w:..12. fiatl.1 l:'..oa.c..li l'.il.c..1.5.

1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 I.SI 1.56 1.60

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
109,500 109,500 109,500 109,500 I 09,500 109,500 109,500 109.500

70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0%
163 168 173 178 184 189 195 201
Expressed in MIiiions of US Dollan
$ 12.50 S 12.88 $ 13.26 $ 13.66 S 14.07 $ 14.49 $ 14.93 $ 15.38

6.88 7.08 7.29 7.51 7.74 7.97 8.21 8.46

3.75 3.86 3.98 4.10 4.22 4.35 4.48 4.61
$ 10.63 $ 10.94 $ 11.27 $ 11.61 $ 11.96 $ 12.32 $ 12.69 . S 13.07 $ 23.13 $ 23.82 $ 24.54 $ 25.27 $ 26.03 $ 26.81 $ 27.62 $ 28.44

3.13 3.22 3.32 3.42 3.52 3.62 3.73 3.84

5.16 5.31 5.47 5.63 5.80 5.98 6.16 6.34

1.88 1.93 1.99 2.05 2.11 2.17 2.24 2.31
$ 10.16 $ 10.46 $ 10.78 $ 11.10 $ 11.43 $ 11.78 $ 12.13 $ 12.49 $ 12.97 $ 13.36 $ 13.76 $ 14.17 S 14.60 S 15.04 $ 15.49 $ 15.95

CJ D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
Tnblc 3.A.9
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT. Alternati\'e 3. Parcel 3, Land Use Scenario A Full Service Hotel
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20!0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yr. 2001 Value l'.w:.l l'..w:..l fuc.l .fiau Xtar..S ~ Yw:.1 fiar.ll YrllL2 l'.liLlll l'.w:.ll fur.ll fur..ll Yw:.li l'.w:.L5 Expr-essed in Millions or US Dollars E:11:pressed ln Millions or US Dollars Gross Qper.ating Revenues 12.23 12.59 12.97 13.36 13.76 14.17 14.60 15.04 15.49 15.95 I lodisldbu&ed QpccaUog Expenses
As% of Revenue
Administrative & General 5.0% S s $ s 0.95 s 1.06 $ 1.09 s 1.12 $ 1.16 s 1.19 $ 1.23 $ 1.26 s 1.30 s 1.34 $ 1.38 s 1.42 Management Fee 2.0% 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57 Sales & Marketing 5.0% 0.95 1.06 1.09 1.12 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.26 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.42 Energy Costs 6.0% 1.14 1.27 1.3 I 1.35 1.39 1.43 1.47 1.52 1.56 1.61 1.66 1.71 Repairs & Maintenance 4.0% 0.76 0.85 0,87 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.07 1.10 1.14 Total 22.0% $ $ s $ 4.20 $ 4.66 s 4.80 s 4.94 s 5.09 $ 5.24 s 5.40 s 5.56 $ 5.73 $ 5.90 $ 6.08 s 6.26 Gross Operating_fmfit 34.1% $ $ $ $ 6.50 s 7.21 s 7.43 s 7.65 $ 7.88 s 8.12 s 8.36 s 8.61 $ 8.87 $ 9.14 $ 9.41 $ 9.69 Ein:d Euu:oses & Cagital Casts
Property Taxes (based on I% of prior year capitalized value) fommla 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.68 Incentive Fee 2.0% 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57 Insurance 1.0% 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.28 Capital Reserve 2.0% 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57· Total 5.0% 0.95 1.61 1.66 1.70 s 1.75 $ 1.79 s 1.84 $ 1.89 s 1.94 $ 1.99 $ 2.04 s 2.10 NET OPERA TING INCOME (ex. depr., lnlerest & tax) 5.55 5.60 5.77 5.95 6.14 6.33 6.52 6.72 6.93 7.15 7.37 7.60 Source : Economics Research Associates
CJ c=J CJ c:J CJ CJ c:J CJ
Table 3.A. I 0
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REAI.IGNMENT- Alternath·e 3, Parcel 3, Land Use Scenario A (BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
Full Service Hotel
2003
Yr. 2001 Value fiaLl
Soun:cs or Funds
Net Operating Income
Reversion @ 10.0%
Less Cost or Sales @ 3.0%
Nc1 Sales Proceeds
Total Sources of Funds
Development Costs
Innation Assumptions I 1.06
Number of Rooms 300
Development Cos ts - Annual % 0%
Development Costs per room - Hotel /1 $ 125,000
Total Development Costs $
NET CASH FLOW (before financing & taxes)
Cumulative Cash Flow
Net Prese11t Value@ 14.0% S3.94
Notes:
/ I New development costs include direct costs, off-site & on-site costs, indirect costs, and developer profit. /2 Included in development cost per room
Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ c=i CJ CJ
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
fiac..l i'.eaLl futl fiar...5. YtarJi l'.'.ll.c..1
Expreised In Millions of US Dollars

5.55 5.60 5.77 5.95

5.55 5.60 5.77 5.95

1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27
150 150
50% SO¾ 0% 0% 0% 0.0%

20.49 21.10
$ 20.49 S 21.10 $ $ $ $

20.49 21.IO 5.55 5.60 5.77 5.95
(20.49) (41.59) (36.04) (30.44) (24,67) (18.72)
CJ C:=J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
20IO 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
~ Y=-2 Year..1JI fu.c..1.1 fiaLl2 Yl:ar..ll fuLli Tou:J.S Expressed in Millions of US Dollars
$ 6. 14 $ 6.33 $ 6.52 $ 6.72 s 6.93 $ 7.15 $ 7.37 $ 7.60

75.95 2.28
$ s $ $ s $ $ $ 73.68
$ 6. 14 s 6.33 s 6.52 $ 6.72 s 6.93 $ 7.15 s 7.37 $ 81.27

1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% (1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ s

6.14 6.JJ 6.52 6.72 6.93 7.15 7.37 81.27
(12.58) (6.25) 0.27 6.99 13.93 21.07 28.44 109.71
CJ CJ c::J c=J CJ CJ c.::J CJ CJ CJ c::J CJ CJ CJ c:=i c=J c=i CJ CJ Table 3.A.11
CARLSBAD BOULEY ARD REALIGNMENT - Alternati,·e 3, Parcel 6A, Land Use Scenario A Time Share
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yr. 2001 Value Tou:..l Y<llL2 fiu..J Yciu:.A Yl:a.L5 Y<B.r..6 fillL1 Y.ear..11 fillL2 Ycac.JJl Yu.c..l.l YllLU YeJu:JJ Y<.al:J.!I Y<aLLS Assumptions
Inflation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Time Shal'c Honms 30 0 0 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Total Number of Intervals Available 1,530 1.530 1,530 1,530 1,530 1.530 1,530 1.530 1.530 1,530 1,53(1 1,530 Total Number of Intervals Sold Per Year 750 780
Cumulative Intervals Sold 750 1.530 1.530 1.530 1,530 1,530 1,530 1,530 1.530 1.530 I .530 1.530 Interval Sales Price $ 18,500 s 19,627 $20.215 $20.822 $21,447 $22,090 S22,753 $23,435 $24, I 38 $24.862 $25 .608 $26 ,377 $27.168 $27,983 $28,822 $ 29,6 87 Sales Revenues Expressed in MIiiions of US Dollar,; Expressed In Millions or US Dollars Annual Sales Volume $ s $ $ 16.08 $ 17.23 $ s s $ $ $ s $ $ Cumulative Sales Volume 16.08 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 33.32 Cost of Snles Per Room
Product Cost (excluding land cost) /I $ 205 ,000 6.92
Gross Profit Before Land Costs $ $ $ (6.92) $ 16.08 S 17.23 $ $ $ $ s s s s $ $ Cumulative Profit Before Land Costs (6.92) 9.16 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 26.39 Coses & E1penses'2 As% of Annual Gross Sales
Commissions 22.0% $ $ $ $ 3.54 $ 3.79 $ $ $ $ $
Marketing 22.0% 3.54 3.79
Sales Overhead 5.0% 0.80 0.86
Administration 7.0% 1.13 1.21
Acct./Legal/Counsulting 0.5% 0.08 0.09
Depreciation 0.3% 0.05 0.05
Other 0.1% 0,02 0.02
Total Cost & Expenses(% of Annual Gross Sales) 56.9% $ $ $ $ 9.15 $ 9.80 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Nn.J!J?velopment Profit (l ◄ oss) 43% $ $ S (6.92) S 6.93 $ 7.43 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cumulative Cash Flow $ $ S (6.92) $ 0.01 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 $ 7.44 Net Present Value@ 15.0% $3. IO million 2003 dollars
Notes:
/I Development costs include allocated share of onsite/ofTsite costs. /2 Selling and marking expenses only. Operating expenses are covered 100% by annual fees.

Source: RCI Consulting , Inc.; and Economics Research Associates c=J CJ CJ CJ CJ c::::J c=i
Tnbk3 .A. 12
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALICNr\lENT • Alll'rnalin J, Parcel 6B, Land UJe Scl'nario A ornce Operating Stal<"mcnl
CJ CJ c:::J CJ CJ C=:J CJ CJ c:J
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yr.200 1Va~ l:'.uL1 Yui:..2 Yw:.J hu:..4 .l:'.w:..5 YurJi l:'.u.t.1 Yur..B Yu.tl l:'.uL.1.11 Yw:..ll }'.nr..1.2 l:'.uLll :k'.nLL4 hu..l5 InO:uion Factor
Rental Escalation
()flin·
Tu1111c;1.,\
Average Annual Occupancy Rate
Occupied Space
A veragc NNN Rcnl Per s.f.. Per Y car
New
3% 1.06 1.09 1. 13 l.lfi 1. 19 1.23 1.27 I.JO 1.)4 1.38 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.DO 1.00 I.DO 1.00 I.DO 1.00
15,000 15,000 15,000 15.000 15.000 15,000 15 000 15.000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0% 0% 0% RO% 95% Q5% 95% 95% 95% 95%
12,000 14,250 14,250 14,150 14,250 14,250 14.250
22,80 5 24. 19 S 2<.91 $ 25.66 $ 26.4) $ 27.22 S 2R,O<I S 28.R8 S 29.75 $ J0.64 S Jl.56 E1pressed In Mllllon1 of US Dollars

1.4] 1.47 l.51 1.56

1.00 I.DO I.DO 1.00
15,000 15 000 15 000 15,000
15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
95"1,, 95"!., 95% 95%
14,250 14,250 14.250 14,250

32.5 I $ 3J.4R S JH9 S 35.52
E1prened In MIiiion, of US Dollars
GroSI Revenues S 0.)2 S 0.)9 S 0.40 0.4 I S 0,42 S 0.44 S 0.45 S 0.46 S 0.48 S 0.49 S 0.51 f)pcratinli,l t·1pensrs
Administrative & General
Sales & Marketing
Total
NET OPERATING INCOME (n. dtpr., lnterl!st & ta:x)
Noles:
%ofRev.

4.0%

2.0%

6.0% S

0.01 0.01
S 0.02
S 0.30

0.02 0.02
0,01 O.DI
s 0.02 s 0.02
$ 0J6 s O.J8

0.02 0.02 0.02 0,02 0,02

0.01 0,01 0.01 0,01 O.o!
s 0.02 s O.oJ s 0,0) s 0.03 s 0.03
s 0.39 $ 0.40 s 0.41 $ 0.42 s 0,44
/I Triple-net renl where tenant pays for pro-rata share of common area charges, insurance, property taxes, and utilities in addition to base rent. No rent for tenant improvements; tenants pay for improvements.

Source: Economics Research Associates
Tahlc J.A.IJ
CARI.SHAD ROUI.F.VARD REALIGNMENT. Allem.etl ve 3, P ■ rccl 69, L ■ nd Use Scenario A (IIEFOI\E TAXES & FINANCING)
OfnC"e Operatin~ Staccmenl

0.02 0,02 0.02
O.ol 0.01 0.0]
s 0.03 s 0.03 s 0.03
s 0.45 s 0. ◄ 6 s 0.48
s
s

1.60 1.00
15/X){)
15,000
95%
14,150

36.59 0.52

0.02 0.01
O.QJ

0.49 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yr. 2001 Value l:'.uL1 Yui:..2 Yw:.J l'.uu fuL5 YurJi Ytat:.2 Yur..B Yu.tl l:'.uL.1.11 Yw:..ll }'.nr..1.2 l'.w:..ll :k'.nLL4 Yuill Sourer, or Funcls E:1preued In MIiiions of US Doll ■ n Expressed In Mllllons of US Dollan NC"C Operating Income s s s s O.JO s 0.36 s 0.38 s 0.39 s 0.40 s 0.41 s 0.42 s 0.44 s 0.45 s 0,46 s 0.48 s 0.49 Reversion@ 10.0% 4.90
Less Cost of Sales @ 3.0% 0.15
Net Sale Proceeds s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s 4.75
Tolal Sources of Funds s s. s s 0.30 s 0.36 s 0.38 $ 0.39 s 0.40 s 0.41 s 0,42 s 0.44 s 0.45 s 0.46 s 0.48 s 5.24 Drvrlnpmcnt Cous
lnn:1.1ion Assumptions 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 l.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.4) 1.47 1..51 1.56 1.60 Gross Lcasablc Area New 15,000 15,000 15,000 ll ,000 15,000 15.000 15,000 15,000 1.5,000 15.000 15,000 15,000 ll.000 Development Costs Annual % New O¾ 0% 100% 0%
New Deve lopmcnl Costs S 101.44 per sf s s s 1.71
Total Dcvelopmenl Costs s s s 1.71
NET CASH FLOW (before fina ncing & lases) 1.71 0.30 0J6 0.38 0J9 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 5.24 CUMULATIVE CASH FLOW 1.71 1.41 I.OS 0.67 0.29 0.11 O.Sl 0,94 1.38 1.83 2.29 2.77 8.01 Rrsldual Land Value- Ne1 Presrnl Value_@ 14.00/U Sl .01 million 2003 dollars Noles:

II
New devclopmcnl costs include din:cl costs, indirect costs, 11,nd developer profit.

Source: Economics Research Associa1es
c:=i c=i CJ
CJ CJ c::::J c=J ~ c:J CJ CJ CJ
Table 4.A.I
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A

PROFORMA CASH FLOW - PRELIMINARY RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
(BEFORE TAXES & FINANCING)
2003 2004 2005
Yr. 2001 fu.r...l fiai:.Z .Yw:..J
Inflation Factor 3% Value I 1.06 1.09 1.13

SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Net Sources or Funds By Land Use
Executive Mtg. Hotel Net Cash Flow (I 1.06) (11.40)
Commercial Retail Cash Flow (3.32) (3.42)
Time Share p7.30)
2006
l'.w:.A

1.16 2.82

1.96 9.24
c:J CJ
2007 2008
l'llr...S TolrJi

1.19 1.23

2.84 2.93

2.40 2.47

9.52 (9.10)
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=i C=1
02-Oct -0I
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Yw:..1 fin..ll Yw:...2 fur...1ll fu.r...ll fuLl2 fur..1.1 fuill ~

1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 I.SI 1.56 1.60 I

3.02 3.12 3.21 3.31 3.42 3.52 3.63 3.74 41.27

2.55 2.62 2.70 2.78 2.86 2.95 3.o4 3.13 34.18

10.10 I 0.40 10.72 11.04 7.39
Sub-total $ $ (14.38) $ (32.12) $ 14.02 $ 14.76 $ (3.70) $ 15.67 $ 16.14 $ 16.63 $ 17.13 $ 13.67 $ 6.47 $ 6.67 $ 6.87 $ 75.45 Net Cash Flow Arter Developer Costs Is I s i14.4ll s p2.1il s 14.o Is 14.8 1 $ l3·7ll $ 1s.1 Is 16.1 Is 16.61 s 11.1 I s 13.71 s 6.s Is 6.71 $ 6.9 Is 1s.s I ~et ensent Yalue ACter Del'.'.eloper Costs
Net Present Value.@_ 14.0% SZ0.65 million 2003 dollars
CJ
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=i CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ Table 4.A.2
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A

FISCAL REVENUES
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Xw:..l fiar.l i'.J:ar...1 l'ca.t.j l:'.c.aL5 Yw:.Ji Yn.r..1 Yw:..l! Yw:..2 Yllr._1.J) Yill:..11 fur..12 Yrn:..lJ. fu.t..1.4 l'.'.ear:..15 lnnation Factor 3% I 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 I PROPERTY TAXES Expre ssed In Millions of US Dollars
Larul.l.L=
Executive Mtg. Hotel $ $ $ $ $ 0.28 $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.30 $ 0.30 $ 0.31 $ 0.31 $ 0.32 $ 0.33 $ 0.33 $ 0.34 Commercial Retail $ $ $ $ $ 0.23 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.25 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 0.27 $ 0.27 $ 0.28 $ 0.28 Time Share $ $ $ $ $ 0.11 $ 0.22 $ 0.34 $ 0.46 $ 0.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.87 $ 0.97 $ 0.99 $ 1.01 $ 1.03 Total Property Tax Increment $ $ $ $ $ 0.62 $ 0.74 $ 0.87 $ 1.00 $ I.IS $ 1.29 $ 1.45 $ 1.56 $ 1.59 $ 1.62 $ 1.66 City's Share 4. 75% of Property Taxes $ $ $ $ $ 0.03 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.06 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 RDA 's Non-housing Share 60.00% of Property Taxes $ $ $ $ $ 0.37 $ 0.44 $ 0.52 $ 0.60 $ 0.69 $ 0.78 $ 0.87 $ 0.94 $ 0.96 $ 0.97 $ 0.99 Expressed In Millions or US Dollars

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES
Executive Mtg. Hotel $ $ $ $ 5.57 $ 6.18 $ 6.36 $ 6.55 $ 6.75 $ 6.95 $ 7.16 $ 7.38 $ 7 .. 60 $ 7.83 $ 8.06 $ 8.30 Transient Occupancy Tax @ 10.00o/o or Room Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.56 $ 0.62 $ 0,64 $ 0.66 $ 0,68 $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 $ 0.81 $ 0.83 Gross Fiscal Operating Income From TOT & Tl s s s s 0,56 s 1.02 s 1.12 s 1.22 s 1.33 s 1.44 s 1.55 s 1.67 s 1.77 s 1.81 s 1.86 s 1.90

SALES TAX REVENUE
Retail Commercial $ $ $ $ 0,26 $ 0.32 $ 0.33 $ 0.34 $ 0.35 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 $ 0.38 $ 0.39 $ 0.40 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 Food & Beverage & 50% of Other Hotel Revenues $ $ $ $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0,04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 Total Sales Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.29 $ 0.35 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 $ 0.38 $ 0.40 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.45 $ 0.46 $ 0.47

TOTAL FISCAL REVENUE
Property Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ $ 0.40 $ 0.48 $ 0.56 $ 0.65 $ 0.74 $ 0.84 $ 0.94 $ 1.01 $ 1.03 $ 1.05 $ 1.07 Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.56 $ 0.62 $ 0.64 $ 0.66 $ 0.68 $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 0,74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 $ 0.81 $ 0.83 Sales Tax Revenue $ $ $ $ 0.29 $ 0,35 $ 0.36 $ 0.37 s 0.38 $ 0.40 $ 0.41 $ 0.42 $ 0.43 $ 0.45 $ 0.46 $ 0.47 Total Fiscal Revenue Available for Fiscal Operating Costs $ $ $ $ 0.85 $ 1.37 $ 1.48 $ 1.59 $ 1.71 $ 1.83 $ 1.96 $ 2.09 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.32 $ 2.38 Saucccs o[ Euuds
FISCAL OPERA TING INCOME $ $ $ $ 0.85 $ 1.37 $ 1.48 $ 1.59 s 1.71 $ 1.83 $ 1.96 $ 2.09 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 s 2.32 $ 2.38 Reversion@ 7% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s $ $ $ $ $ 36.54
Total Sources of Funds $ $ $ $ 0.85 $ 1.37 $ 1.48 $ 1.59 $ 1.71 $ 1.83 $ 1.96 $ 2.09 $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.32 $ 38.92 NET CASH FLOW Is Is Is Is 0.85 rs 1.37IS us Is 1.59 Is 1.11 Is 1.831 s 1.96 Is 2,091 $ 2.20 Is 2.26 IS 2.32 I s 38.92 I Net Present Value@ 10% Sl7.43 million 2003 dollars
Source: Economics Research Associates
c:J CJ c=J CJ CJ CJ c=i CJ c=J c:J c:J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ Table 4.A.3
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REA LIGNMENT- Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A Executi\·e Meeting Hotel Operat ing Statement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yr. 2001 Value Tou:.1 YeJu:.2 fur_J Yl,ar_;( fur.5 YucJi Yeu:.1 l.'.w:JI Year...2 Yl:iu.:..lJI fiaLll l'.oaLll Y.w:..l3 YfaLli fuL1S Assumptions
Innation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 llo1d Rooms 150 0 0 0 150 150 150 150 150 I 50 150 150 150 150 150 150 Total Potential Numhcr of Room nights 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750 54,750 54.750 54,750 54.750 54.7 50 54,750 54,750 Average Annual Occupancy Rate 0.0% 0.0%, 0.0% 65.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% Avg. Daily Rm. Rate Hotel 2 /1 $ 135 143 148 152 157 161 166 171 176 181 187 192 198 204 210 217 Operating Revenues Expressed ln Millions or US Doll ars Expre ssed In Millions of US Dollars Room Revenues $ $ $ $ 5.57 $ 6.18 $ 6.36 $ 6.55 $ 6.75 $ 6.95 $ 7.16 $ 7.38 $ 7.60 $ 7.83 $ 8.06 $ 8.30 As % of Room Revenues
Food & Beverage 45% 2.51 2.78 2.86 2.95 3.04 3.13 3.22 3.32 3.42 3.52 3.63 J.74 Other Revenues 15% 0.84 0.93 0.95 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.07 I.II 1.14 1.17 1.21 1.25 Subtotal (Non-Room Revenues) 60% $ $ $ $ 3.34 $ 3.71 $ J.82 $ 3.93 $ 4.05 . S 4.17 $ 4.30 $ 4.43 $ 4.56 $ 4.70 $ 4.84 $ 4.98 Gross Revenues s $ $ $ 8.91 $ 9.88 $ 10.18 S 10.49 $ 10.80 $ 11.13 S I 1.46 $ 11.80 $ 12.16 $ 12.52 $ 12,90 $ 13.28 ~epatlmeotal CoSl5 & E1p1:oscs As% of Departmental Revenues Rooms 25% 1.39 1.54 1.59 1.64 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.84 1.90 1.96 2.02 2.08 Food & Beverage 75% 1.88 2.09 2.15 2.21 2.28 2.35 2.42 2.49 2.56 2.64 2.72 2.80 Other Departments 50% 0.42 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.60 0.62 Total Departmental Expenses(% of Gross Revenues) 41% $ $ $ $ 3.69 $ 4.09 $ 4.22 $ 4.34 $ 4.47 $ 4.61 $ 4.74 $ 4.89 $ 5.03 $ 5.18 $ 5.34 $ 5.50 Gro55 Operating Revenues 59% S $ $ $ 5.22 $ 5.79 $ 5.97 $ 6.14 $ 6.33 $ 6.52 $ 6.71 $ 6.92 $ 7.12 $ 7.34 $ 7.56 $ 7.78 Notes :
/I Rate, after discounts, per occupied room.

Source: Economics Research Associates
c:::J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c:::J CJ CJ CJ CJ c:::J CJ CJ CJ CJ Table 4.A.4
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT- Alternati\'e 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A E11:eeurin Me eting Hotel Operating Statement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yr. 2001 Value YeaLl har..l fia.c..J. fillLi fia.c..S firu filll:.1 lDJ:..11 fuL2 l:'.J:JtLUl ::ua.c..11 fillLll l'.ell..lJ ~ :t'ur.1.5 Expressed Jn Millions of US Dollars Exprened in Millions of US Dollars G.coss Operating Revenues S.97 6.14 6.33 6.52 .6.71 6.92 7.12 7.34 7.56 7.78 llodistcibuted 0111:ratlng Expenses
As % of Revenue
Administrative & General 5.0% $ s $ $ 0.45 $ 0.49 $ 0.51 s 0.52 $ 0.54 s 0.56 $ 0.57 $ 0.59 s 0,61 $ 0.63 $ 0.64 s 0.66 Management Fee 2.0% 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 Sales & Marketing 5.0% 0.45 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.63 0,64 0.66 Energy Costs 6.0% 0.53 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.6S 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.7S 0.77 0.80 Repairs & Maintenance 4.0% 0,36 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.53 Total 22.0% $ s s $ 1.96 s 2.17 s 2.24 $ 2.31 $ 2.38 $ 2.45 " $ 2.52 $ 2.60 $ 2.67 $ 2.75 $ 2.84 $ 2.92 Gross Operating Profit 36.6% $ s s $ 3.26 s 3.62 $ 3,73 $ 3.84 $ 3.95 $ 4.07 $ 4.19 $ 4.32 $ 4.45 $ 4.58 s 4.72 s 4.86 Elxed Euu:o5es & Capital Costs
Property Taxes fom1Ula 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 Incentiv e Fee 2.0% 0,18 0,20 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 Insurance 1.0% 0.09 0.10 0,10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.1 t 0.12 0.12 0. 13 0.13 0.13 Capital Reserve 2.0% 0, 18 0,20 0,20 0.21 0.22 0,22 0.23 0.24 0,24 0,25 0.26 0.27 Total 5.0% 0.45 0.78 0.79 0.81 $ 0.84 s 0.86 $ 0.88 $ 0.90 s 0.93 $ 0.95 s 0.98 $ 1.00 NET OPERATING INCOME (ex. depr., interest & tu) 2.82 2.84 2.93 3.02 3.12 3.2 1 3.31 3.42 3.52 3.63 3.74 3.86 Source: Economics Research Assoc'iates
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=i CJ CJ CJ c=i CJ CJ CJ c::=J C:=J CJ Table 4.A.5
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT - Allernat i,·e 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A (BEFORE TAXES & FI NANCING)
Hotel Operating Sta temen t
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yr. 200 1 Value Yllt..l Yllr.l filu:.l l:'.loar.A Yoar_5 fiau l'.'.taL1 Yu.r..8 fi=2 filu:.lll Ymtl1 Yu.r..12 l'.w:.1.1 Yw:.li fuill Sources o{ Funds Expressed in Millions ol US Dollars Expressed in Millions of US Dollars Net Operating Income 2.82 2.84 2.93 3.02 $ 3. 12 $ 3.21 $ 3.3 1 $ 3.42 $ 3.52 $ 3.63 $ 3.74 s 3.86 Reversion@ 10.0o/o 38.57
Less Cos t of Sales @ 3.0% 1.16
Net Sales Proceeds s s s $ $ $ $ $ 37.42
Total Sources or Funds 2.82 2.84 2.93 3.02 $ ). 12 $ 3.2 1 $ 3.3 1 $ 3.42 s ).52 $ J.63 $ 3.74 s 41.27 Development Cosfs
Inflation Assumptions I 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.5 1 1.56 1.60 I Number of Rooms 150 75 75
Development Costs • Annual % 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% Q.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0%1 Development Costs per room - Hotel / I $ 135,000 I 1.06 11.40 Total Development Costs $ S I 1.06 $ 11.40 $ s $ $ $ $ $ $ NET CASH FLOW (before financing & taxes) 3,02 3. 12 3.21 3.31 3.42 3.52 3.63 3.74 41.27 Cumulative Cash Flow 10.85 7.73 4.52 1.20 2.21 5.73 9.36 13.10 54.38 Net Present Value@ 14.0% $1.04
Notes:
/ I New develop ment costs include direct costs, ofT-site & on•sitc costs. indirect costs, and developer prorit.

Source: Economics Research Associates
c=J CJ c=J CJ c=i c=i c=i c=i CJ C:J CJ CJ c=J CJ c=J CJ CJ CJ CJ Table 4.A.6
CARLSBAD BOULEY ARD REALIGNMENT - Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A Retail/Commercial: Operating Statement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 fur..1 YeJu:..2 fia.u Ye.a.c.A Yea.u ~ ~ YilL8 fiw:.2 filu:..lll fiatll Yl:aLll Yll.t..13. Yllr...li Yu..c..15 lnnation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60 Rental Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Cumulative Gross L easable Area
Commercial Retail 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45.000 45,000 Restaurants 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45.000 45,000 45,000 45,000 Total 90,000 90,000 90,000 90.000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 Occupancy Rate
Commercial l~elail 0% 0% 0% 80% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% lh-slaurants 0% 0% 0% 80% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Average NNN Base Rent Per s. f. Per Yr/ I US$
Commercial R.t•taH $ 20.00 21.22 21.85 22.51 23.19 23.88 24.60 25.34 26.10 26.88 27.68 28.52 29.37 30.25 31.16 3_2.09 Restaurants $ 30.00 31.83 32.78 33.77 34.78 35.82 36.90 38.00 39.14 40.32 41.53 42.77 44.06 45.38 46.74 48. 14 Average Gross Sales Per Square Foot Per Year US$
Cnmml'rcial R~tail $ 250.00 265 273 281 290 299 307 317 326 336 346 356 367 378 389 401 Rl'!lifaurants $ 375.00 398 410 422 435 448 461 475 489 504 519 535 551 567 584 602 Expressed in Millions or US Dollars Expressed in Millions or US Dollars Operating Revenues
Base Rent Revenue $ $ $ $ 2.09 $ 2.55 $ 2.63 s 2.71 $ 2.79 $ 2.87 $ 2.96 $ 3.05 $ 3.14 $ 3.23 $ 3.33 $ 3.43 Gross Revenues $ $ $ $ 2.09 $ 2.,55 $ 2.63 $ 2.71 $ 2.79 $ 2.87 $ 2.96 s 3.05 $ 3 .14 $ 3.23 $ 3.33 $ 3.43 Operating Expenses % of Rev.

Administrative & General 4.0% $ $ $ $ 0 .08 $ 0. 10 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0. 11 $ 0.11 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 $ 0.13 $ 0.13 $ 0.13 $ 0. 14 Sales & Marketing 2.0% 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 O.o7 0.07 Total 6.0% $ $ $ $ 0. 13 $ 0.15 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.20 $ 0.21 NET OPERATING INCOME (ex. depr., interest & tax) s $ $ $ 1.96 $ 2.40 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 s 2.62 s 2.70 $ 2.78 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 3.04 $ J.13 S 3.22 Notes:
/ I Triple -net rent where tenant pays for pro-rata share of common area charges, insurance, property taxes, and utilities in addition to base rent. No rent for tenant improvements; tenants pay for improvements .

Source: Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ C::J C::J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ c=J CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ Table 4.A.7
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A Retail/Commercial: Operating Statement
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Yt:ar..1 Yw:.l .Yw:.J Yw:..1 Yl:a.r...5 l'.farJi l'e.a.c..1 ToLt...8 fu.r...2 Y.elu:..Ul fiar..11 l:nr..ll YeaL1J. Yll.r.U Yw:JS Sources of Euods Expressed in Millions of US Dollars Expressed in Millions of US Dollars Net Operating Income $ $ $ $ 1.96 $ 2.40 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 $ 2.62 $ 2.70 $ 2.78 $ 2.86 ·s 2.95 $ 3.04 $ 3.13 $ 3.22 Reversion@ 10.0% $32.24
Less Cost of Sales @ 4.0% $ 1.29
Net Sale Proceeds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $30.95
Total Sources of Funds $ $ $ $ 1.96 $ 2.40 $ 2.47 $ 2.55 $ 2 .62 $ 2.70 $ 2.78 $ 2.86 $ 2.95 $ 3.04 $ 3, [3 $34.18 Oe~elopmeot Costs
Gross Lcasable Area (s.f.) 90,000 45,000 45,000
Inflation Assumptions I l.06 1.09 l. I 3 1.16 1.19 1.23 l.27 1.30 1.34 l.38 l .43 l.47 1.Sl 1.56 1.60 I Commercia l Rt.-'tail 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Resla11n111ls 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% O.Oo/i, 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% New Development Costs/2 $ [35.00 per sf $ $ 3.32 $ 3.42 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ Total Development Costs 3.32 3.42
NET CASH FLOW (before financing & taxes) 3.32 2.40 2.47 2.55 2.62 2.70 2.78 2,86 2.95 3.04 3.13 34,18 CUMULATIVE CASH FLOW (3.32 2.38) 0.09 2.64 5.26 7.96 10.74 13,61 16.56 19.60 22.73 56.90 Residual Land Value= Net Present Value@ [4.0% $9.32
Notes :
/I New development costs, include direct costs, indirect costs, and developer profit.

Source : Economics Research Associates
CJ CJ c=J CJ c:J CJ c:J c:::J
Table 4.A.8
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT-Alternative 4, Parcel I, Land Use Scenario A Time Share
2003 2004
Yr. 2001 Va lue ~ Y£.u:..2
Assumptions
Inflation Factor 3% 1.06 1.09
Real Escalation 0% 1.00 1.00
T ime Share (:'\'umhcr or nooms) 150 0 0
Total Number of Intervals Available
Total Number of Intervals Sold Per Y car
Cumulati ve Intervals Sold
Interval Sales Price s 18,500 $ 19,627 $20.215
Sales Revenues
Annual Sales Volume $ $
Cumula1ive Sales Volume
Cost of Sales Per Room
Product Cost ( excluding land cost) II $ 205,000
Gross Profit Before Land Costs $ $
Cumulative Profit Before Land Costs
Costs & Expeoses/2 As % of Annual Gross Sales
Commissions 22.0% $ $
Marketing 22.0%
Sales Overhead 5.0%
Administration 7.0%
Acct./Legal/Counsultinj! 0.5%
Depreciation 0.3%
Other 0.1%
Total Cosl & Expenses(% of Annual Gross Sales) 56.9% $ $ ~i:1 Denlupmeol tcafil ([.ass) 43% S $
Cumulative Cash Flow $ $
c:J CJ CJ c=i
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
YeaLl Yu.LI. l'.l:a.c..S. l:'.£aL6 fiar..1 l:'.ilt..B

1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 75 75 75 150 150
3,825 3,825 3,825 7.650 7,6 50
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1.000
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
$20, 822 $21 ,447 $22 ,090 $22,753 $23,435 $24,138
Expressed In Millio ns of US Dollars
$ $ 21.45 $ 22.09 $ 22.7 5 $ 23.44 $ 24. 14

21.45 43.54 66.29 89.72 113.86

17.30 18.91
$ ( 17.30) $ 21.45 $ 22.09 s 3.84 s 23.44 $ 24.14
(17 .30) 4.14 26.23 30.08 53.51 77.65
$ $ 4.72 s 4.86 s 5.01 s 5.16 s 5.3 1

4.72 4.86 5.0 1 5. 16 5.3 I

1.07 1.10 1.14 1.17 1.21
I.SO 1.55 1.59 1.64 1.69

0. 11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12

0.06 0.07 0.07 0.o7 0.07

0.02 O.Q2 0.02 0.02 O.Q2
s $ 12.20 S 12.57 $ 12.95 S 13.33 $ 13.73
$(17.30) $ 9.24 $ 9.52 $ (9.10) S 10.10 S 10.40
$ ( 17.30) $ (8.06) $ 1.46 S (7.64) S 2.46 S 12.86
Net Present Value@ 15.0% S9.27 milli on 2003 dollars
Notes:
/ I Development costs include al located share of onsite/offsilc costs. /2 Selling and marking expenses only. Operating expenses are covered 100% by annual fees.

Source: RCI Consulting, Inc.; and Economics Research Associates c:J CJ [_=:J CJ CJ CJ CJ
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
l:'.tJU:..2 Y.o.atlll Yw:...ll fiaL.12 l'.'.ea.cJ.J Yea.t..14 Yil.r..1.5.

1.34 1.38 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.60

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
150 150 150 150 150 150 ISO
7,650 7,650 7.650 7.650 7,650 7,650 7,650
1,000 1,000 650
6,000 7,000 7.650 7,650 7.650 7,650 7,650
$24 ,862 $25 ,608 $26 ,377 $2 7, 168 $2 7,983 $28, 822 $ 29.68 7 Expressed In Millions or US Dollars
$ 24.86 S 25.61 S 17.14 $ $ $
138.73 164.33 18 1.48 181.48 181.48 181.48 181.48
$ 24 .86 S 25.61 $ 17. 14 $ s $
102.51 128.12 145.26 145.26 145.26 145.26 145.26
$ 5.47 $ 5.63 $ 3.77 $ s s $

5.47 5.63 3.77

1.24 1.28 0.86

1.74 1.79 1.20

0.12 0.13 0.09

0.07 0.08 0.05

0.02 0.03 0.02
$ 14.15 $ 14.57 s 9.76 s $ $ $
$ 10.72 $ I 1.04 $ 7.39 $ $ $
S 23.58 S 34.61 S 42.00 S 42.00 S 42.00 $ 42.00 $ 42.00 2022-June General Comparative tax-payer Costs/Benefits of Completing PCH, PCH Modification, and

14.3 acre Ponto Park to address planned loss of 30+ acres of Coastal Open Space Land Use at Ponto/WestBL/South Carlsbad: Part 1 of 2
Key points regarding tax-payer Cost/Benefit comparison :

City Park Fairness: Ponto/Coastal South Carlsbad has ZERO Parks and ZERO Park acres v. 10 Coastal Parks totaling 37 acres in North Carlsbad. South Carlsbad is home to 62% of Carlsbad citizens and the City major visitor industries, and they have no Coastal Park. North Carlsbad is home to 38% of Carlsbad citizens have the entire City's Coastal Parks. The City also falsely allowed Ponto Developers to NOT provide the required 15% unconstrained Growth Management Open Space required by other adjacent developers in Carlsbad.

Consequently Ponto is already developed at a density 35% higher than the rest of City.

What is missing from South PCH: The only missing components of a Carlsbad Livable (Complete) Street are adequate Coastal sidewalks/pedestrian paths. Better safer protected bike paths for the volume of bike traffic on a higher-speed roadway are highly desired. Both these missing features can be cost-efficiently provided in the existing PCH configuration. The City had over 35-years to provide the missing sidewalks on PCH and should have added sidewalks years ago.

Generalized Costs: Costs initially came from publicly stated costs by Mayor Hall in a 2019 at Meet the Mayor Realtor luncheon at Hilton Garden Inn, the City's 2001 PCH Feasibility Analysis for PCH Relocation, the earlier $13 million per mile cost for the simpler .85 mile City CIP #6054 PCH Modification Project at Terramar, general City cost data from official public records requests, and vacant Ponto land costs of $1.4 to $2.4 million per acre from recent recorded land sales at Ponto.

In May, 2022 the City released an updated cost increase for the .85 mile Terramar PCH Modification of $22.4 million per mile; and an updated cost of between $85 - $60 million for the 2.3 mile South PCH Relocation Proposal that comes to $40 to 26.1 million per mile . Kam Sang listed their 14.3 acre vacant site at Ponto for sale for $2.7 million per acre in May . The Kam Sang list price is a bit higher that recent Ponto land costs, but the Kam Sang site is of significantly higher quality being adjacent to Batiquitos Lagoon, and with 270 degree lagoon and ocean views.

Generalized Benefits: The number of acres and the quality and usability of each of those acres, and the number of new added beach parking for each of the known Option's define each Option's benefits. There may be other unknown Options that have different benefits. The City's 2001 PCH Relocation Feasibility Analysis's highest Park and Open Space Option (2001 ERA Financial Analysis "Alternative 1-parks and open space scheme") only made possible a 4-acre Active Park north of Palomar Airport Road in North Carlsbad. The City's 2013 PCH Relocation Concept design eliminated that 4-acre Active Park and only showed a few small open space areas with picnic tables . Any PCH Modification benefits are limited by existing PCH constraints. See attached Part 2: City PCH map with numbered notes on various existing environmental and land use constraints from the City's 2013 PCH Modification Design.

PCH Modification limitations: Most critically PCH Modification does NOT add any new City land. Rearranging existing PCH land may add some usability beyond the usability of existing parkway areas along PCH. However significant land in PCH right-of-way is already constrained by habitat, slopes, and water quality detention basins.

Past City Studies in 2001 and 2013 showed relatively modest changes in useable acreage from major PCH Modifications. Forever removing 2-travel lanes (over 50% of PCH capacity due to removing passing ability) will 2022-June General Comparative cost-benefits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park - part 1 Page 1 of 5 create Terra mar like traffic congestion, but could repurpose that City pavement for open space. Any net usable land in the PCH median will be relativity narrow and may be modest once all constraints are accounted for. PCH Modification should be accurately compared with the existing usable and open space parkway areas in the existing PCH configuration and Ponto Park situation. See attached Part 2: City PCH map with numbered notes on various existing land use constraints from the City's 2013 PCH Modification Design.

Four (4) Comparative tax-payer Cost/Benefits:
.1. Completing PCH & adding missing sidewalk/path and additional public parking and bike safety:
4 vehicle lanes and 2 bike lanes 177 parking spaces currently exist along South Carlsbad Blvd The only missing component of "Complete/Livable Street" is a pedestrian sidewalk/path on about 70% of PCH Total Cost to provide missing sidewalks per City data = $3-5 million (based on path width) Costs for desirable safety upgrade to existing bike lanes are not known Cost to add more Beach parking on City owned abandoned PCH North and South of Poinsettia ranges from:
• 273 additional spaces=$ 0.76 million
• 546 additional spaces=$ 1.1 million
• Plus an estimated $1.5 million for 2 signalized intersection upgrades for full 4-way access • Cost per parking space is estimated at $19,275 to $13,899 per additional parking space Total cost:$ 3.8 to 6.1 million to provide missing sidewalk/path and add more parking+ unknown amount for any desired upgrades to existing bike lanes

2. '2013 2.3 mile PCH Modification Proposal' [AECOM 11/26/2013 Alternative Development Meeting) Total Cost is $75 million per Mayor Matt Hall, but updated by City to $85-60 Million or $40-26.1 million per mile.

The costs appear consistent with 20-years of cost inflation of the basic (unmitigated environmental and traffic) 2001 costs of $26.5 to 37.3 million (in 2001 dollars) identified by the City's 2001 Feasibility Analysis by ERA. The City's 2001 ERA Analysis indicated fully mitigated costs will be higher .

Total $85 to 60 million PCH Modification cost comes to:
$ 21 to 6 million per acre to reuse existing City land into narrow open space areas (from portions of city roadway)
$872,093 per additional parking space
• 86 additional parking spaces created= 263 replacement spaces - 177 existing spaces removed • Includes multi-use pathway (sidewalk) within primarily native/natural landscaping. • Possible 50% reduction in vehicle lanes (from 4 to 2 lanes) with corresponding traffic congestion like at Terramar. Not clear if Citizens and tax-payers will approve spending $85 - 60 million to double traffic congestion.
• Includes about 4 - 10 acres for possible narrow passive Park area identified in City's 2001 PCH Modification Feasibility Analysis by ERA. However City's 2013 PCH Modification (AECOM) plans look like smaller acreage is provided .
• Does not purchase any new City land (only reconfigures existing City land) so requires Carlsbad Citizens to vote to expend funds per Proposition H, and as noted in the City's 2001 Feasibility Analysis likely will not qualify for regional, State or Federal tax-payer funding. • 2013 PCH Modification proposal could not/did not consider and map City's 2017 sea level rise data to show what areas would be lost due to sea level rise and account for any added cost and issues. 2022-June General Comparative cost-benefits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park- part 1 Page2of5 ~ 14.3 acre Ponto Coastal Park
Total Cost: $52.3 million that includes $38 million (full list price) to purchase 14.3 acres plus $1 million per acre to landscape/irrigate like the recent development cost for Buena Vista Reservoir Park (aka Poinsettia 61). $ 3.7 million per acre is the cost for buying 14.3 acres of New City land and developing a true City Park.

Ponto Park purchase:
is $3.7 million per New Added Park Acre v. $21 to $6 million per acre to NOT buy new land but simply repurposed existing City land in PCH,
Saves tax-payers $17.3 million to $2.3 million per acre, Saves tax-payers $32.7 to $7.7 million, and
Provides up to 278% to 43% more Parkland than the 2.3 mile 'PCH Modification option' • Includes adding 14.3-acres of new and viable parkland similar to (but twice as large) as Carlsbad's Holiday Park. Site includes habitat and habitat connection to Batiquitos Lagoon, and lagoon and ocean view tails that connect to the ocean and eventually east along Batiquitos Lagoon to El Camino Real. • Since an Open Space land purchase per Proposition C acquisition voters exempted such purchases from Proposition H. NCA already recommended vacant Ponto land be considered for City purchase as Open Space per the City's obligations under a lawsuit settlement. • Ponto Park's cost savings over '2.3 mile PCH Modification'= $32.7 to 7.7 million • Ponto Park's+ adding missing sidewalks cost savings over 'PCH Modification'= $28.7 to 2.7 million • Ponto Park's+ adding missing sidewalks+ 273 additional parking spaces cost savings over "PCH Modification' = $28 to 2 million
• Ponto Park's+ adding missing sidewalks+ 546 additional parking spaces cost savings over 1/PCH Modification'= $27.6 to 1.6 million

4. Combining both #1-PCH Completion and #3-Ponto Park:

Combining #1 and #3 creates at cost effective and more beneficial Coastal Park-Coastal Parking-Completes Streets solut ion. This solution actually adds 14.3-acres of New City land for a needed Park, provides for a Complete PCH without increasing traffic congestion, does not forever congest PCH travel if future PCH traffic increases, adds comparatively more beach parking, and preserves PCH land and provides the City with Coastal land use and sea level rise planning flexibility to address future needs by not forever committing the City's PCH land to a Final solution. See map on page 4 showing land use synergy of combining #1 and #3. $27.6 to 1:6 million in tax-payer cost savings are estimated from combining #1 & #3 compared to the estimated $85 - 60 million PCH Modification of 2.3 miles. Combining #1 and #3 provides all the PCH Modification features, added beach parking benefits, and Adds 14.3 acres of New City land for parks, provides the City 100% of the flexibility it will need to address sea level rise, and do so for a reduced cost to tax-payers. Page 5 shows the synergistic beach parking and Ponto Park relationship. The new 14.3 acre Kam Sang Ponto Park site is just south of the 11-acre Planning Area F site and between Avenida Encinas and Batiquitos Lagoon.
a. Ponto Park's location allows it to use the 337-610 parking spaces created by #1 above (177 existing+ 273 to 546 new parking spaces). The 337-610 parking spaces will allow Ponto Park to effectively host Carlsbad's special community events.
b. Acquiring Ponto Park's 14.3-acres provides both the City and State of CA with important future land use options to address the Sea Level Rise and Coastal Erosion (SLR) planned by the City. These options are created by leaving the exiting South Carlsbad Blvd right-of-way substantially the same (except for adding needed sidewalks and using the existing Old paved roadway for parking) thus allowing future upland relocation of the Campground . If $85 to $60 million is spent on #2 the 2022-June General Comparative cost-benefits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park- part 1 Page3of5 likelihood this very expensive City expenditure would never be abandoned by the City to allow relocation ofthe Campground.
c. Carlsbad' 2017 Sea Level Rise study shows SLR will eliminate½ of the State Campground - a high­ priority Coastal land use under the CA Coastal Act. The CA Coastal Act calls for "upland" relocation of high-priority Coastal land uses due to SLR impacts. Ponto Park could also provide for "upland" relocation of the State Campground.

Part 2 of this Comparative analysis is a separate 2-page map and data file . This Part 2 file consists of the City's PCH map of a reduced one lane in each direction (greater than 50% roadway capacity reduction) PCH configuration that maximizes potential 'excess right-of-way'. That map has numbered notes to marking locations of PCH environmental and design constraints from the City's 2013 PCH Relocation design, maps the City's 2017 Sea Level Rise Impact Areas, and for reference outlines the easterly 6.5 acre portion of the 11-acre Planning Area F site for acreage comparison purposes.
2022-June General Comparative cost-benefits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park- part 1 Page 4 of 5 Map 1:
2022-June General Comparative cost-benefits of Completing PCH-PCH Modification-Ponto Park - part 1 Page 5 of 5 City's PCH Modification Proposal Area Map with notes on usability Constraints and Issues: P4P Input 2 of2 The City's map below is marked with the following numbered list of Area Constraints and Issues. The Constraints are from the City's 2013 PCH Modification designs, the City's older 2017 Sea Level Rise Impact Study, and on-site observations. The Constraints will limit any fundamental change to the existing PCH landscape. For instance existing slope and habitat area will remain or have to be relocated which will limit the use of any excess land area from PCH Modification. These Constraints will then reduce from 62 acres the actual number of unconstrained and acres that are actually useable and can be used for different uses than currently exist.

1. Loss of the last section of Old "Historic 101" design, ambiance, and openness. Will it be replaced with typical urban arterial design?

2. Freshwater habitat

3. Sewer pumping facility

4. City's 2013 PCH plan for RESTORED RIPARIAN HABITAT

5. Sea Level Rise 2 meter Impact Area

6. City's 2013 PCH plan for BIO SWALE AND RESTORED RIPARIAN HABITAT

7. Existing beach parking to be retained

8. Least Tern habitat

9. Major storm water detention basin

10. Water

11. Slopes will likely need retaining walls to move road inland closer to proposed Kam Sang Resort

12. Endangered Species Habitat

13. City's 2013 PCH plan for COASTAL SAGE SCRUB RESTORATION

14. City's 2013 PCHplan for NATIVE GRASSLAND RESTORATION

15. City's 2013 PCH plan for BIO SWALE AND RESTORED RIPARIAN HABITAT

16. Eliminating access road for homes/businesses south of Cape Rey Resort. Who pays to replace?

17. Removes Cape Rey Resort developer required GMP Open Space for this LFMP. This GMP Open Space will have to be replaced. Who Pays?

18. City's 2013 PCH plan for L.I.D. BASIN/ BIO SWALE

19. City left several acres vacant for 20+ years. This area can cost-effectively provide 200-500 more parking spaces w/o any PCH relocation.

20. Unusual jog in roadway. Is this viable?

21. City's 2013 PCH plan for RESTORED NATIVE LANDSCAPE

22. Habitat & need to provide major storm water quality detention basin before discharging urban and creek runoff into ocean.

23. Slopes will likely need retaining walls to move road inland closer to mobile home community.

24. Steep unusable slopes needed for Palomar Airport Road overpass over railroad corridor.

For a Cost/Benefit reference point, the City's PCH Modification at Terramar (CIP project #6054 from Cannon to Manzano) that is less constrained and simpler than South Carlsbad is projected to cost around $13 million per mile. Vacant primarily unconstrained land sale costs at Ponto are documented at around $1 .4 to $2.4 million per acre. Honest Cost/Benefit of these two options should be a public tax-payer discussion.

Page1of2
D 250 500 1,000 Fee t
I ii I I I ii I
S.:.lo.U{\,(IIXJ
Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment: Right-of -Way and Available Land Analysis* c:I Proposed ROW (Approximately 43 acres)
3 Area Availabte for Other Uses (Approximately 62 acre1 s ' · .. 1. 4 July 1 , 2021 tefn .. • An..lysis is b.lsed on aeti.tl imagery. Right-of-way boundaries ilnd dCre"ges ate a.ppmximote dl'ld inte1ded for pl.;,nning le;el dOdi'(Sis onl•,•, * * For comparative visual reference the area is the 6.5 acre eastern portion of Planning Area F.

EXHIBIT 17
~'!" ~

Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Introduction:

Carlsbad first documented Sea Level Rise (SLR) and associated increases in coastal erosion in a December 2017 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (2017 SLR Assessment). Prior planning activities (2010 Ponto Vision Plan - rejected by CA Coastal Commission, and 2015 General Plan Update) did not consider SLR and how SLR would impact Coastal Open Space Land Use & CA Coastal Act 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space Land Uses at Ponto. The 2017 SLR Assessment shows Open Space land and Open Space Land Uses are almost exclusively impacted by SLR at Ponto & South Coastal Carlsbad. The 2017 SLF Assessment also shows significant LOSS of Open Space land acreage and Land Uses. Most all impacted Open Space Land Uses are CA Coastal Act "High-Priority Coastal Land Uses" - Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and Low-Cost Visitor Accommodations. Existing Ponto Open Space Land Uses are already very congested (non-existent/narrow beach) and have very high, almost exclusionary, occupancy rates (Campground) due to existing population/visitor demands. Future population/visitor increases will make this demand situation worst. The significant permanent LOSS of existing Coastal Open Space land and Coastal Open Space Land Use (and land) due to SLR reduces existing supply and compounds Open Space congestion elsewhere. Prior Ponto planning did not consider, nor plan, for significant SLR and current/future "High-Priority" Coastal Open Space Land Use demands.

Open Space and City Park demand at Ponto:

Open Space at Ponto is primarily 'Constrained' as defined by the City's Growth Management Program (GMP), and cannot be counted in meeting the City's minimal 15% 'Unconstrained' GMP Open Space Standard. Per the GMP Open Space Standard, the developers of Ponto should have provided in their developments at least 30-acres of additional 'Unconstrained' GMP Open Space at Ponto. City GIS mapping data confirm 30-acres of GMP Standard Open Space is missing at Ponto (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 9).

The City of Carlsbad GIS Map on page 2 shows locations of Open Spaces at Ponto . This map and its corresponding tax parcel-based data file document Ponto's non-compliance with the GMP Open Space Standard. A summary of that City GIS data file is also on page 2. The City said Ponto's non-compliance with the GMP Open Space Standard was 'justified' by the City 'exempting' compliance with the Standard. The City 'justified' this 'exemption' for reasons that do not appear correct based on the City's GIS map and data on page 2, and by a review of 1986 aerial photography that shows most of Ponto as vacant land. The City in the Citywide Facilities Improvement Plan (CFIP) said 1) Ponto was already developed in 1986, or 2) Ponto in 1986 already provided 15% of the 'Unconstrained' land as GMP Standard Open Space. Both these 'justifications' for Ponto 'exemption' in the CFIP were not correct.

The legality of the City 'exempting' Ponto developers from the GMP Open Space Standard is subject to current litigation.

The City proposes to continue to exempt future Ponto developers from providing the missing 30-acres of minimally required GMP Open Space, even though a change in Ponto Planning Area Fland use from the current 'Non-Residential Reserve" Land Use requires comprehensive Amendment of the Local Facilitates Management Plan Zone 9 to account for a land use change. City exemption is subject of litigation .

Ponto (west of 1-5 and South of Poinsettia Lane) currently has 1,025 homes that per Carlsbad's minimal Park Standard demand an 8-acre City Park. There is no City Park at Ponto. Coastal Southwest Carlsbad has an over 6.5 acre Park deficit that is being met 6-miles away in NW Carlsbad. Ponto is in the middle of 6-miles of Coastline without a City Coastal Park west of the rail corridor .

Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 1 of 7 -'
City GIS map of Ponto's (LFMP Zone 9)
Open Space:
• Light green areas meet the City's 15%
unconstrained Growth Management
Program Open Space Standard
• Most Ponto Open Space (pink hatch &
blue [water] on map) is "Constrained"
and does not meet the Standard
• Aviara - Zone 19, Ponto - Zone 9 and
Hanover/Poinsettia Shores - Zone 2Z
all developed around the same time
and had similar vacant lands.
• City required Aviara - Zone 19 east of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto? Aviara
had the same lagoon waters.
• City required Hanover & Poinsettia
Shores area Zone 22 just north of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto?
• Why Ponto developers were never
required to comply with the 15%
Standard Open Space is subject to
current litigation
Qpon:;<~C~ D Parro:i.
r-7 1 l'l'OlZ<'"°"' or Nbl!nl R""3JfDS ) i lfMZ9 ~ • rJ l·°"""1>·-• ~n,Siaa,P..- 1:1,400
---=-=--•thi;:s
Below is City GIS data from this map
0 1 0 1)1
-=-=- -===-- """"" -«!U
City GIS map data summary of the 15% Growth Management Standard Open Space at Ponto 472 Acres
(197 Acres)
275 Acres
X 15%
41 Acres
(11 Acres)
30 Acres
Total land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
Constrained land excluded from GMP Open Space
Unconstrained land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space requirement
GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space required
GMP Open Space provided & mapped per City GIS data
Missing Unconstrained Open Space needed in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto] to meet the City's minimum GMP Open Space Standard per City's GIS map & data 73% of the City's minimum 15% required Open Space Standard is missing due to over development of LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 2 of7 Sea Level Rise impacts on Open Space and Open Space Land Use Planning at Ponto:

The City's 2015 General Plan Update did not factor in the impacts of Sea Level Rise (SLR) on Ponto's Open Space land. In December 2017 the City conducted the first Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment https://www .carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?Blob1D=33958 . The 2017 SLR Assessment is an initia l baseline analysis, but it shows significant SLR impacts on Ponto Open Space.

More follow-up analysis is being conducted to incorporate newer knowledge on SLR projections and coastal land erosion accelerated by SLR. Follow-up analysis may likely show SLR impacts occurring sooner and more extreme.

Troublingly the 2017 SLR Assessment shows SLR actually significantly reducing or eliminating Open Space land at Ponto . SLR is projected to only impact and eliminate Open Space lands and Open Space Land Use at Ponto. The loss of Ponto Open Space land and Land Use being at the State Campground, Beaches, and Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline. The losses of these Open Space lands and land uses would progress over time, and be a permanent loss. The 2017 SLR Assessment provides two time frames near­ term 2050 that match with the Carlsbad General Plan, and the longer-term 'the next General Plan Update' time frame of 2100. One can think of these timeframes as the lifet imes of our children and their children (2050), and the lifet imes of our Grandchildren and their children (2100). SLR impact on Coastal Land Use and Coastal Land Use planning is a perpetual (permanent) impact that carries over from one Local Coastal Program (LCP) and City General Plan (GP) to the next Updated LCP and GP.

Following (within quotation marks) are excerpts from Carlsbad's 2017 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment:
[Italicized text within brackets] is added data based on review of aerial photo maps in the Assessment. "Planning Zone 3 consists of the Southern Shoreline Planning Area and the Batiquitos Lagoon. Assets within this zone are vulnerable to inundation, coastal flooding and bluff erosion in both planning horizons (2050 and 2100). A summary of the vulnerability assessment rating is provided in Table 5. A discussion of the vulnerability and risk assessment is also provided for each asset category.

5.3.1. Beaches
Approximately 14 acres of beach area is projected to be impacted by inundation/erosion in 2050 . ...

Beaches in this planning area are backed by unarmored coastal bluffs . Sand derived from the natural erosion of the bluff as sea levels rise may be adequate to sustain beach widths, thus, beaches in this reach were assumed to have a moderate adaptive capacity. The overall vulnerability rating for beaches is moderate for 2050.

Vulnerability is rated moderate for the 2100 horizon due to the significant amount of erosion expected as the beaches are squeezed between rising sea levels and bluffs. Assuming the bluffs are unarmored in the future, sand derived from bluff erosion may sustain some level of beaches in this planning area. A complete loss of beaches poses a high risk to the city as the natural barrier from storm waves is lost as well as a reduction in beach access, recreation and the economic benefits the beaches provide .

5.3.3. State Parks
A majority of the South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds (separated into four parcels) were determined to be exposed to bluff erosion by the 2050 sea level rise scenario (moderate exposure). This resource is considered to have a high sensitivity since bluff erosion could significantly impair usage of the facilities. Though economic impacts to the physical structures within South Carlsbad State Beach would be relatively low, the loss of this park would be significant Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad' s DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 3 of7 since adequate space for the park to move inland is not available (low adaptive capacity). State parks was assigned a high vulnerability in the 2050 planning horizon. State park facilities are recognized as important assets to the city in terms of economic and recreation value as well as providing low-cost visitor serving amenities. This vulnerability poses a high risk to coastal access, recreation, and tourism opportunities in this planning area.

In 2100, bluff erosion of South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds become more severe and the South Ponto State Beach day-use area becomes exposed to coastal flooding during extreme events. The sensitivity of the South Ponto day-use area is low because impacts to usage will be temporary and no major damage to facilities would be anticipated. Vulnerability and risk to State Parks remains high by 2100 due to the impacts to South Carlsbad State Beach in combination with flooding impacts to South Ponto.

Table 5: Planning Zone 3 Vulnerability Assessment Summary [condensed & notated] :

Asset
Category
Beaches
Public Access
State Parks
{Campground -
Low-cost Visitor
Accommodations]
Transportation
(Road, Bike,
Pedestrian)
Environmentally
Sensitive
Lands
Horizon
[time] Hazard Type
2050
2100
2050
Inundation/Erosion, Flooding
Inundation/Erosion, Flooding
Inundation, Flooding
2100 Inundation, Flooding
2050 Flooding, Bluff Erosion
2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion
2050 Bluff Erosion
2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion
2050 Inundation, Flooding
2100 Inundation, Flooding
Impacted Assets
14 acres (erosion)
54 acres (erosion)
6 access points
4,791 feet of trails
10 access points
14,049 feet of trails
Vulnerability
Rating
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
4 parcels [<18 Acres] High
4 parcels [>18 Acres] High
[loss of over 50% of
the campground &
its Low-cost Visitor
Accommodations,
See Figure 5.)
1,383 linear feet
11,280 linear feet
572 acres
606 acres
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 4 of7 Figt..'Te 7: soutft~m Shc.('€ine Planning Area - Ver 2050 Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 5 of 7 City of
Carlsbad
Ca I I f or n I a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Figure 5: CoSMoS Bluff Erosion Projections by 2100
(CoSMoS-COAST 2015)
[Figure 5 show the loss of over 50% of the campground and campground sites with a minimal .2 meter Sea Level Rise (SLR), and potentially the entire campground (due to loss of access road) in 2 meter SLF.]" Directions to analyze and correct current and future LOSS of Coastal Open Space Land Use at Ponto On July 3, 2017 the CA Coastal Commission provided direction to Carlsbad stating:
"The existing LUP includes policies that requi re certain visitor-serving developments and/or studies relevant to the Ponto ... area. For example, Planning Area F requires the city and developer to "consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e., public park) on the west side of the railroad .... this study should be undertaken as a part of the visitor serving use inventory analysis described above. If this analysis determines that there is a deficit of low cost visitor accommodations or recreation facilities in this area, then Planning Area F should be considered as a site where these types of uses could be developed ."
Official Carlsbad Public Records Requests (PRR 2017-260, et. al.) confirmed Carlsbad's Existing LCP and its Ponto specific existing LUP polices and Zoning regulations were never followed in the City's prior Ponto planning activit ies (i.e. 2010 Ponto Vision Plan & 2015 General Plan Update). The projected SLR loss of recreation (beach) and low-cost visitor accommodat ions (campground) at Ponto should factor in this Existing LCP required analysis, and a LCP-LUP for Ponto and Ponto Planning Area F.

In a February 11, 2020 City Council Staff Report City Staff stated:
"On March 14, 2017, the City Council approved the General Plan Lawsuit Settlement Agreement (Agreement) between City of Carlsbad and North County Advocates (NCA). Section 4.3.15 of the Agreement requires the city to continue to consider and evaluate prope rties fo r potential acquisition of open space and use good faith efforts to acquire those properties ." Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 6 of7 In 2020 NCA recommended the City acquire Ponto Planning Area Fas Open Space. The status of City processing that recommendation is unclear. However the Lawsuit Settlement Agreement and NCA's recommendation to the City should also be considered in the required Existing LCP analysis.

Summary:

Tragically Carlsbad's' Draft Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Amendment (DLCP-LUPA) is actually planning to both SIGNIFICATLY REDUCE Coastal Open Space acreage, and to eliminate 'High-Priority Coastal Open Space Land Uses at Ponto due to SLR;
The Existing LCP requirements for Ponto Planning Area F to analyze the deficit of Coastal Open Space Land Use should factor in the currently planned LOSS of both Coastal Open Space acreage and Coastal Open Space Land Uses at Ponto due to SLR. As a long-range Coastal Land Use Plan this required LCP analysis needs to also consider the concurrent future increases in both population and visitor demand for those LOST Coastal Open Space acres and Coastal Open Space Land Uses.

It is very troubling that demand for these CA Coastal Act 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space Land Uses is increasing at the same time the current (near/at capacity) supply of these CA Coastal Act 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space Land Uses is significantly decreasing due to SLR. Instead of planning for long-term sustainability of these CA Coastal Act 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space Land Uses for future generations there appears to be a plan to use SLR and inappropriate (lower-priority residential) Coastal Land Use planning to forever remove those CA Coastal Act 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space Land Uses from Ponto. CA Coastal Act Policies to address these issues should be thoroughly considered. 2021-2 proposed Draft Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan Amendment (DLCP-LUPA) will likely result in City and CA Coastal Commission making updates to the 2015 General Plan, based on the existing Ponto Planning Area F LCP - LUP Policy requirements, Ponto Open Space issues, high-priority Coastal Land Use needs, and SLR issues not addressed in the 2015 General Plan.

Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad's DLCP-LUPA's projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 7 of7

AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO: CITY CLERK
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: ----=lp..i......+-/ ........ ~c...:....1/-=:}__-2~-------­ SUBJECT: \_j~ '.::5i::, ,-,~ocy:::i
LOCATION: G}goo Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 D Other: ____ ______ ____ __ _
DATE POSTED TO CITY WEBSITE .~/:1 LQ/-Z)_
--DATE NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS: _______ __ _
NUMBER MAILED: -
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am employed by the City of Carlsbad and the foregoing is true and correct.

DEPARTMENT: [3fu CLERK'S OFFICE □ OTHER _______ _
JJ~
Signature Date
---------- ------- ---- --------- ------------- ----- -------------- -------- -------- SENT TO FOR PUBLICATION VIA E-MAIL TO: □ Union Tribune on ---- ~Coast News on s/l).2/~
PUBLICATION DATE: Union Tribune ----- ----------
Coast News ---=~-=-+/ ...... :2=-7 ........... ~"--="....------- - 1 declar e under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am employed by the City of Carlsbad and e foregoing is true and cor rect .

DEPARTMENT : CITY CLERK'S OFFICE □ OTHER _______ _
Signature Date
Attachments: 1) Mailing Labels
2) Notice w/ attachments

CITY OF CARLSBAD

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN 1h0:t the City Counci l of the City of Carlsbad will hold a pub l.ic hea ring a t t he Counci l Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Cal­ iforn ia, at S p.m. on Tues., June 7, 2022, to consider appro,-ing the Carlsbad Tran sNe t Loca l S!Ne t lmprove.me111 Pro&nm of Projects for Oscal years: 2022-23 through 2026-27 for inclus ion in the 2023 San Diego Associ at ion o( Covemment s (SANDAC) Re gional Transpor l'adoo Improvement Program (RTIP ). The Carlsbad Program of Projects con­ sists of the following:

El Camino Real Widening Proj ect from Poinsettia Lane to Cantino Vida Robl e Al.'Cruda Encinas Coastal Rail Trail and Pedestrian lmprovemcncs ADA Improvement Progni,m
Adaptiv e Traffic Siana! Pro&ram
Carlsbad Blvd. llJld Tamarack Avenue Improvemen ts
Carlsbad Blvd. Ped enrian Roadway Lightin g- North of Tamarack A,·enue Carlsbad Blvd. Realignment
Carlsbad Villag e and Barrio Tram e Circles
Carlsbad Village Drive and Crand Avenue Improvemenls
Chesmut Avenue Complete Street Impro, •ements - Valley Sa-eet to 1-S Chestnu t Avenue Comp lete Street Improvement s• I-5 to the Railroad Chrisl.ianu n A,•enue lmprm:e.me nu
College Boulevard Reach A
Kelly Drh· e and Park Drh,e Improve.menu
Pavement Manageme nt Progra m (ove rlay and slurry/fog sea l) State Street Improve ments at Grand Avenue
Stree t Light BuJb Repla cemen t Program
Terra mar Area Coastal lmpro,'f!ments
Valley Street Road Diet and 'ftaffl c Calmin g
El Camino Real Widenin g • Sunny Creek to Jack spar
Barrio Lighting Program
Valley and Magnolia Complete Struts
El Camino Real and Cannon Rd
El Camino Rea l Wide ning- La Costa Ave to Are na)
Palomar Airport Rd and College Blvd lmpro,·em e nts
Melrose Dr and Palomar Airport Rd Improv e ments
The details of the funding changes are incl uded in Attachment A to the resolut ion for this agenda item. The sraff re.po.rt and resolution will be availa ble on or a £tcr Fri., June 3, 2022.

Those persons wishing to speak on this item arc cordially invited to a u end the pub­ lic hearing . If you have any questions. plea se cnntact Hossei n Ajldeh in the Publi c Works Department at 442-339-2756 or boneio aiidch@carh;badca KO\' The meeting can be ,ricwc d onlinc at bun :rUw»:w carlsbadca eaxl<:itv·halllmccrinKl:IPCDdll or on the City's cable channel. ln add ition, "'ritte n com ments may be submitted to the Chy Council at or prior to the hearin g via U.S. Mail to the atte nti on of Office o f lhe City Clerk. 1200 Carlsba d Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, or via email to~ -If you challeng e the Carlsba d TnmsNet Local Street lmprov cmeo t Program of Projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someo ne else ra.ised at the public hearing described in ibi s nodce or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: Chy Clttrk's Office. 1200 carlsba d Villag e Driv e, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior 10 the public hearing.

PUBLISH: MAY 27, 2022
CITY OF CARLS BAD CJTY COUNC Ii~
0S/2712022 CN 26595
3 Col X 7,5''

22.50" X $15
$337.50

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a publi c hearing at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 5 p.m. on Tues., June 7, 2022, to consider approving the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for fiscal years 2022-23 through 2026-27 for inclusion in the 2023 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Transportation Improv ement Program (RTIP). The Carlsbad Program of Projects consists of the following:
• El Camino Real Widening Project from Poinsettia Lane to Camino Vida Roble • Avenida Encinas Coastal Rail Trail and Pedestrian Improvements • ADA Improvement Program
• Adaptive Traffic Signal Program
• Carlsbad Blvd. and Tamarack Avenue Improvements
• Carlsbad Blvd. Pedestrian Roadway Lighting - North of Tamarack Avenue • Carlsbad Blvd. Realignment
• Carlsbad Village and Barrio Traffic Circles
• Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue Improvements
• Chestnut Avenue Complete Street Improvements - Valley Street to 1-5 • Chestnut Avenue Complete Street Improvements - 1-5 to the Railroad • Christiansen Avenue Improvements
• College Boulevard Reach A
• Kelly Drive and Park Drive Improvements
• P avement Management Program (overlay and slurry/fog seal) • State Street Improvements at Grand Avenue
• Street Light Bulb Replacement Program
• Terramar Area Coastal Improvements
• Valley Street Road Diet and Traffic Calming
• El Camino Real Widening - Sunny Creek to Jackspar
• Barrio Lighting Program
• Valley and Magnolia Complete Streets
• El Camino Real and Cannon Rd
• El Camino Real Widening - La Costa Ave to Arena I
• Palomar Airport Rd and College Blvd Improvements
• Melro se Dr and Palomar Airport Rd Improvements
The details of the funding changes are included in Atta chment A to the resolution for this agenda item. The staff report and resolution will be available on or after Fri., June 3, 2022.

Those persons wishing to speak on this item are cordially invited to attend the public hearing . If you have any questions, please contact Hossein Ajideh in the Public Works Department at 442-339-2756 or [email protected] . The meeting can be viewed online at https ://www .carlsbadca.gov/city­ hall/m eet ings-agendas or on the City's cable channel. In addition, written comments may be submitted to the City Council at or prior to the hearing via U.S. Mail to the attention of Offi ce of the City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, or via email to [email protected] .

If you challenge the Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someon e else raised at the public hearing described in this notic e or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn : City Clerk's Offi ce, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.

PUBLISH: MAY 27, 2022

CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Carlsbad TransNet Program of
Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-23
through 2026-27
Hossein Ajideh, Engineering Manager
Esther Lan, Management Analyst
Public Works
June 7, 2022
{city of
Carlsbad
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
• Staff Recommendation
• Background
• Complete Projects
• Projects with Federal or State Funds
• Projects with TransNet Funds
• Projects with Non-TransNet Funds
• Next Steps
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
{city of
Carlsbad

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for FYs 2022-23 through 2026-27 for inclusion in 2023 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Transportation Improvement Program
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
{ City of
Carlsbad
• TransNet, a countywide transportation sales tax
approved by San Diego County voters in 1987
• In 2004, county voters approved T ransNet Extension
Ordinance extending initial Ordinance for a 40-year
period
• SANDAG shall approve every two years a
multi-year
program of projects submitted by local jurisdictions
identifying projects eligible to use TransNet Funds
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27

BACKGROUND
( cityof
Carlsbad
• List of transportation projects:
‒ use T ransNet Funds
‒ use Federal or State Funds
‒ regionally significant and increase transportation capacity • Five-Y ear Program – FYs 2022-23 to 2026-27
• June 2, 2020, Council approved Carlsbad POP for incorporation into SANDAG’s 2021 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)
• May 11, 2021, Council approved an amendment to city’s 2020 Program of Projects
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
What is Carlsbad Program of Projects (POP)?
{city of
Carlsbad
• To use TransNet Funds , member agencies of SANDAG are required to hold a public hearing and approve their programs of projects every two years
• These programs are incorporated into SANDAG Program of Projects, a r
egional program of proposed projects for the entire county ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
Why Carlsbad POP Needs Approval?
( Cityof
Carlsbad
• Efficient use of local funds
• Efficient use of TransNet f unds
• Align CIP transportation projects budget and schedule w
ith those in the regional program
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
What Are City’s Goals?
( Cityof
Carlsbad
• Five-ye ar planning and programming document
• SANDAG is required by state and federal laws to adopt an updated R
TIP every two years
• Identify transportation projects submitted by local jurisdictions • Eligible to receive funding from Federal, State, and T ransNet ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
What is the Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP)?
( Cityof
Carlsbad
• Need to approve Carlsbad POP and submit to SANDAG for inclusion in
2023 TransNet POP (FYs 22-23 to 26-27)
• SANDAG will prepare the 2023 T ransNet POP which will be programmed by 2023 RTIP
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
What’s Changed for Carlsbad?
( Cityof
Carlsbad

1. El Camino Real and College Blvd Intersection Improvements

2. Palomar Airport Rd and Paseo Del Norte Left Turn Lane

3. Palomar Airport Rd and Paseo Del Norte Right Turn Lane

4. Traffic Signal - R egional Arterial Management System (RAMS) ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
Completed Projects
( Cityof
Carlsbad
• El Camino Real Widening Project (Federal Funds)
‒ From Poinsettia Lane to Camino Vida Roble
• Avenida Encinas Coastal Rail Trail and Pedestrian
I
mprovements (State Funds)
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
Projects with Federal or State Funds
( Cityof
Carlsbad
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Improvement Program • Coordinated Traffic Signal Program
• Carlsbad Blvd. and Tamarack Avenue Intersection Improvements • Carlsbad Blvd. Pedestrian Roadway Lighting – N orth of Tamarack Avenue • Carlsbad Blvd. Realignment
• Carlsbad Village and Barrio Traffic Circles
• Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Avenue Improvements
• Chestnut Avenue Improvements – V alley Street to I-5
• Chestnut Avenue Improvements – I -5 to Railroad
• Christiansen Avenue Improvements
• College Boulevard Reach A Extension
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
Projects with TransNet Funds
( Cityof
Carlsbad
• Kelly Drive and Park Drive Improvements
• Pavement Management Program
• State Street Improvements at Grand Avenue
• Street Light Bulb Replacement Program
• Terramar Area Coastal Improvements
• Valley Street Road Diet and Traffic Calming
• El Camino Real Widening – S unny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive • Barrio Lighting Program
• Valley Street and Magnolia Avenue Complete Streets
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
Projects with TransNet Funds
( Cityof
Carlsbad
• El Camino Real and Cannon Rd Intersection Improvements • El Camino Real Widening – La Costa Ave to Arenal Rd
• Palomar Airport Rd and College Blvd Improvements
• Melrose Dr and Palomar Airport Rd Improvements
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
Non-TransNet Funded Projects
( Cityof
Carlsbad
• Adopt a Resolution approving Carlsbad Program of Projects • Submit the Resolution to SANDAG by J uly 1, 2022
• SANDAG holds a public hearing on J uly 22, 2022
• SANDAG Board adopts 2023 RTIP on Sept. 23, 2022
• Federal approval of final 2023 RTIP by Dec. 16, 2022
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27

NEXT STEPS
{ City of
Carlsbad

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving Carlsbad TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for FYs 2022-23 through 2026-27 for inclusion in SANDAG Regional Transportation Improvement Program
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27
{ City of
Carlsbad
ITEM 8: POP for FY 2022 - 23 through 2026 - 27

THANK YOU
{ City of
Carlsbad