CA Review _RMC_
Meeting Date: Sept. 13, 2022
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Tom Frank, Transportation Director/City Engineer [email protected], 442-339-2766
Katie Hentrich, Senior Program Manager
[email protected], 442-339-2623
Subject:
Districts:
Updates on the South Carlsbad Coastline Project and the South Carlsbad Boulevard Climate Adaptation Project
2 and 3
Recommended Action
Receive updates on the South Carlsbad Coastline Project and the grant-funded South Carlsbad Boulevard Climate Adaptation Project.
E
xecutive Summary
The City of Carlsbad is exploring ways to make south Carlsbad Boulevard, a three-mile stretch of coastline from Manzano Drive to La Costa Avenue, more accessible to the community.
Earlier this year, in keeping with the City Council’s direction on Sept. 21, 2021, the city asked members of the public to share their priorities for a three-mile stretch of Carlsbad Boulevard from Manzano Drive to La Costa Avenue, including the road itself and the public land that could be freed up if the road were reconfigured. This is the South Carlsbad Coastline Project area.
Along south Carlsbad Boulevard, the city is also working on the South Carlsbad Boulevard Climate Adaptation Project. This is a grant-funded project focused on how to maximize the roadway’s resiliency to coastal flooding and cliff erosion along a one-mile stretch from Manzano Drive to 400 feet south of Island Way. Southbound Carlsbad Boulevard, near Palomar Airport Road and Las Encinas Creek, is exposed to bluff erosion hazards. Periodic flooding of the southbound lanes already occurs, resulting in beach cobble on the roadway and lane closures.
This report provides new information on public preferences and concerns, highlights the progress being made on both projects, and includes a review of existing City of Carlsbad guidelines and policy for any adaptations to South Carlsbad Boulevard.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 1 of 241
South Carlsbad Coastline Project area
One end product of the study will be a conceptual design of how southbound Carlsbad Boulevard from Manzano Drive to Island Way could be moved to the east. Due to the current requirements of the California State Coast Conservancy grant at this stage, the project team focused on changes to the roadway, not the land that could be repurposed because of moving the road to the east.
Three preliminary roadway designs have been developed that protect public infrastructure from future sea level rise while prioritizing walking and biking paths. These designs use community input, the city’s General Plan, which includes several guiding principles for South Carlsbad Boulevard, and the findings from the grant’s studies. While the preliminary roadway designs are meant to explore the viability of relocating South Carlsbad Boulevard through a climate adaptation lens, they are not intended to be final designs.
Staff presented an up date on the South Carlsbad Boulevard Climate Adaptation Project to the Traffic and Mobility Commission on July 5, 2022, and some commissioners said there was a need for additional traffic data. Some stakeholders who spoke at the meeting expressed concern that more time was needed to evaluate the options before a preferred option could be selected.
Funding for the grant expires on Feb. 28, 2023, so staff are pursuing a grant extension to allow more time for staff to work with the community and address issues and impacts of the proposed options. Staff have also begun data collection and work on the associated traffic study, which will be presented to the Traffic and Mobility commission with the options analysis, when it is completed.
Discussion
South Carlsbad Boulevard has a history of erosion and instability near Las Encinas Creek. The city has had to close this section of the roadway during coastal storms, resulting in a loss of Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 2 of 241
- South Carlsbad Coastline Project /
South Carlsbad Boulevard
Climate Adaptation Project
Carlsbad Blvd
access for emergency services, residents, businesses and recreational visitors. In response to flooding, rock barricades were extended twice under an emergency permit approved by the California Coastal Commission. Most recently, in 2016, rock shoreline protection was placed on the beach on the west side of South Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Las Encinas Creek, when high waves forced the partial closure of the roadway and emergency repair work.
Th e city received the Coastal Conservancy grant to explore options related to moving the roadway to the east due to the history of closures related to climate impacts. The City Council approved the city accepting a total of $533,175 in grant funds in 2020 and 2021.1 The project’s scope of work includes:
• A South Carlsbad Boulevard cliff erosion assessment report (Exhibit 1) which will create a foundation for the other reports and studies that will come out of this project. • A restoration analysis of Las Encinas Creek, which will explore phased adaptation options for the existing bridge, roadway, and revetment at the creek, including habitat restoration options for the area.2 A draft of this analysis is included as Exhibit 2, and a final version is expected soon.
• Development of conceptual designs and options that incorporate resiliency to coastal flooding, cliff erosion, and other sea level rise impacts, as well as a 30% design of a preferred project option (discussed later in this staff report).
Decisions already made
Section 2-P. 53 of t he city’s General Plan includes guiding principles for any development of South Carlsbad Boulevard, and the mobility element further defines Carlsbad Boulevard as a “coastal street.” Those principles are:
• Carlsbad Boulevard shall become more than a road. This transportation corridor shall provide for recreational, aesthetic and community gathering opportunities that equal the remarkable character of the land.
• Community safety shall be a high priority. Create a destination that provides a safe public environment to recreate.
• Strategic public access and parking is a key to success. Development shall capitalize on opportunities to add/enhance multiple public access points and public parking for the beach and related recreational amenities.
• Open views are desirable and important to maintaining the character of the area.
Preservation and enhancement of views of ocean, lagoons, and other water bodies and beaches shall be a high priority in road, landscaping, and amenity design and development.
1 The City Council accepted $498,075 on May 5, 2020, with Resolution No. 2020-077, and additional grant funds of $35,100 on Sept. 14, 2021, with Resolution No. 2021-209. 2 Revetments are structures placed on riverbanks banks or cliffs in such a way as to absorb the energy of incoming water.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 3 of 241
• Enhance the area’s vitality through diversity of recreational land uses. Carlsbad Boulevard development shall provide for amenities, services and goods that attract a diversity of residents and visitors.
• Create vibrant and sustainable public spaces. Development shall provide for unique and vibrant coastal gathering spaces where people of all age groups and interests can gather to enjoy recreational and environmental amenities and supporting commercial uses. • Connect community, place and spirit. Design shall complement and enhance connectivity between existing community and regional land uses. • Environmentally sensitive design is a key objective. Environmentally sensitive development that respects existing coastal resources is of utmost importance. • A signature scenic corridor shall be created through design that honors the coastline’s natural beauty. The resulting improvements will capture the ‘essence’ of Carlsbad, making it a special place for people from throughout the region with its natural beauty and vibrant public spaces. Properly carried out, the realigned boulevard will maximize public views and encourage everyone to slow down and enjoy the scenery. • Reimagining of Carlsbad Boulevard shall be visionary. The reimagined Carlsbad Boulevard corridor will incorporate core community values articulated in the Carlsbad Community Vision by providing:
o Physical connectivity through multi-modal mobility improvements including bikeways, pedestrian trails, and a traffic-calmed street; o Social connectivity through creation of memorable public spaces; and o Economic vitality through a combination of visitor and local-serving commercial, civic, and recreational uses and services.
The city's General Plan Mobility Element also includes policies for how different types of streets are designed. Carlsbad Boulevard falls under the category of “coastal streets,” so the following design elements apply:
• Primary purpose is to move people along the city’s ocean waterfront and connect people to the beach, recreation, businesses and residences in close proximity to the waterfront. The street serves as a destination for people who seek to drive, walk and bicycle along the ocean waterfront.
• Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Vehicle speeds shall be managed to support uses along the coast. • Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian crossings should be provided, including:
o High visibility crosswalks
o Enhanced pedestrian notifications (e.g., responsive push-button devices) o Enhanced bicycle detection
o Bicycle lanes shall be provided and can be further enhanced or complemented by other facilities (such as bicycle lane buffers or off-street pathways).
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 4 of 241
• Pedestrian facilities should be a minimum of five feet and shall strive for six to eight feet in width and shall conform to the American with Disabilities Act, or ADA, requirements. • Pedestrian crossing distances should be minimized.
• Trail facilities should be encouraged.
• Opportunities for mid-block pedestrian crossings should be investigated. • On-street parking should be provided.
• Transit facility and operation improvements should be encouraged.
Community priorities
In early 2022, the City of Carlsbad gathered input from the community about its p riorities, needs, and values related to the future use of the entirety of South Carlsbad Boulevard – extending beyond the segment being analyzed in the climate adaptation project– within the parameters of the city’s General Plan and its guiding principles.
The public input report, Exhibit 3, summarizes the key themes and feedback received from this outreach.
Many community members expressed a desire to keep the area in its current configuration, citing its natural beauty, the idea that it seems the same while other parts of Carlsbad have changed, and that it feels open and undeveloped. Other community members preferred the city improve this stretch of coastline if it is changed.
As to the roadway, some of the priorities shared by the community included:
• Saf er bike lanes, including some separated from the flow of car traffic • Safe, wide walking paths
• Less noise and air pollution from traffic when enjoying the coast • Slowing down traffic along the coast
• Making it safer to cross the road to get to the coast • Maintaining ocean views for drivers and residents who live along Carlsbad Boulevard The Coastal Conservancy grant project used the community’s input in designing three road options for the one-mile stretch from Manzano Drive to Island Way.
Existing conditions
I
n its current configuration within the project area, Carlsbad Boulevard is a four-lane roadway, with two vehicle lanes in each direction, split by a large, landscaped median. Both northbound and southbound directions have buffered bike lanes. Sidewalks are provided sparsely throughout the project area near Island Way and Solamar Drive.
Carlsbad Boulevard is classified as a coastal street which means its primary purpose is to move people along the city’s ocean waterfront and connect people to the beach, recreation, businesses and residences in close proximity to the waterfront.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 5 of 241
Vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle counts were collected along Carlsbad Boulevard between Avenida Encinas and Ponto Road in September 2021 as a part of the Carlsbad Active Transportation Monitoring Program. This included 24-hour vehicular counts, 13-hour pedestrian counts and 13-hour bicycle counts. These counts are summarized below:
As shown by these counts, this section of Carlsbad Boulevard not only carries vehicular traffic, but also high volumes of pedestrians and bikes. As noted in the monitoring report, this section saw the largest weekend bike count and the second largest weekday bike count of all 26 segments throughout Carlsbad that were studied.
Staff directed a consultant to conduct an additional traffic survey of the project area before Labor Day weekend and again in October, when school is in session. The results are targeted to be presented to the Traffic and Mobility Commission at a future meeting date.
Roadway options
Due to the requirements of the grant at this stage, the project team focused on changes to the roadway, not the land that could be repurposed as a result of moving the road to the east. The three options for changes to the roadway are:
• Four-lane road with traffic signals
• Two-lane road with roundabouts
• Two-lane road with roundabouts and one enhanced pedestrian crossing The preliminary conceptual design options are provided in Exhibit 4, along with a table comparing each option in Exhibit 5. All three options show most of the Class-I trail and pedestrian pathway within the depicted coastal hazard zone and along the existing southbound lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard. (A Class-I trail is a shared pathway for exclusive use by pedestrians, bicyclists and other non-motorized modes of travel including strollers and skateboards.) The Class-I trail will be intended for use by slower moving users, with a maximum speed of 20 mph.
This is a cost-effective approach to achieve the planned separated bike and pedestrian pathways, although this alignment is only viable if the area is available for use. There may be several iterations of Class-I trail and pedestrian pathway alignments as the coastline erodes and changes in the future.
Weekday count Weekend count
10,833 14,069
797 2,509
147 408
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 6 of 241
This project is intended to provide information on how to phase the adaptation of all infrastructure in the coastal hazard zone, including this Class-I trail, likely based on the frequency and intensity of climate impacts experienced in the project area. This phased adaptation would be connected to the adaptation options presented in the Las Encinas Creek restoration analysis shown as Exhibit 2, since they impact the Class-I trail and pedestrian pathway alignments at the existing bridge over Las Encinas Creek.
The plans also depict a right-of-way line with an adjacent Class-I trail and sidewalk or pedestrian pathway. This area will be planned and reserved for the most easterly alignment of a Class-I trail and pedestrian pathway on the west side of the roadway when needed due to the changing coastline. This easterly alignment of the Class-I trail and pedestrian pathway is mostly outside of the identified coastal hazard zone.
While the project’s scope includes preliminary options for roadway realignment that include a multi-use pathway as seen in all three options, additional funding would be needed to further refine and design any public access and recreational amenities. A City Council memorandum capturing the public input received (which is included as Exhibit 6) and other analysis prepared, as well as a list of concepts for these amenities for further consideration, will be prepared as a one of the outcomes of this project.
Presentations to city commissions
S
taff presented project updates to the Traffic and Mobility Commission on July 5, 2022, and Aug. 18, 2022. A summary memo of the July 5, 2022, meeting is shown as Exhibit 7, and a summary memo of the Aug. 18, 2022, meeting is included as Exhibit 8. Staff made similar presentations to the Parks & Recreation Commission on July 18, 2022, the Planning Commission on Aug. 17, 2022, and to the Beach Preservation Commission on Aug. 18, 2022 (Exhibits 9-11).
Fiscal An alysis
No city funding is being requested at this time.
Next Steps
Staff will continue to work with the Coastal Conservancy to pursue a grant extension beyond Feb. 28, 2023, to allow more time for staff to work with the community and address issues and impacts of the proposed options.
Staff will continue to work with community groups affected by the design of the preliminary roadway options to address concerns.
Staff expect to present the results of the ongoing traffic study to the Traffic & Mobility Commission at a later date.
One of the primary outcomes of this this project will be a conceptual design of how southbound C
arlsbad Boulevard from Manzano Drive to Island Way could be moved to the east to adapt to climate change impacts. The grant does not include funding: (1) to conduct environmental analysis; (2) to conduct a detailed traffic or roadway analysis; or (3) to build the new road.
Instead, the grant provides funding to complete a 30%-complete design centered around climate adaptation. The project will also produce the final Las Encinas Creek restoration analysis, a final design report and a long-term master plan that discusses phased adaptation for the project area over time.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 7 of 241
Beyond completing the climate adaptation project, staff will return to the City Council in late 2022/early 2023 to request direction on next steps for the one-mile section of roadway, the Las Encinas Creek habitat restoration and phased adaptation, and the full length of South Carlsbad Boulevard. No funding has been included in the city’s fiscal year 2022-23 budget for either project.
Environmental Eval uation
The California Environmental Quality Act guidelines list classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and as a result are exempt from further environmental review. The City Planner has determined that this report is exempt from the requirements under Guidelines sections 15262 - Feasibility and Planning Studies and 15378(b)(5), which exempts organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Public input received and technical information prepared during the planning process will be used in preparing a future environmental review document to support the South Carlsbad Boulevard Coastline Project.
Public Notification
This document was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. South Carlsbad Boulevard cliff erosion assessment report
2. Draft Las Encinas Creek habitat restoration analysis
3. Public
input report regarding South Carlsbad Boulevard
4. Conceptual de
sign options
5. Options comparison
6. Public input regarding the three options
7. Traffic and Mobility Commission summary memo for the July 5, 2022, meeting
8. Traffic and Mobility Commission summary memo for the Aug . 18, 2022, meeting
9. Parks & Recreation Commission draft minutes for the July 18, 2022, meeting
10. Planning Commission summary memo for the Aug. 17, 2022, meeting
11. Be
ach Preservation Commission summary memo for the Aug. 18, 2022, meeting Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 8 of 241
South Carlsbad Boulevard Cliff Erosion Assessment Report Submitted March 10, 2022
Summary
This study conducted coastal cliff retreat analysis to help inform the landward relocation of a segment of South Carlsbad Boulevard. The analysis consisted of a literature review, evaluation of cliff retreat from 1998 to 2020, and modeled 21st century future cliff positions Previous high resolution studies suggest historical mean cliff retreat rates range from 0.003-0.11 m/yr with maximum localized rates up to 0.66 m/yr. A new LiDAR survey was conducted in 2020 and used to measure cliff face retreat from 1998-2020 which ranged from about 0 to 0.47 m/yr with a mean of 0.039 m/yr. One section of cliff top retreated about 10 m between 2017 and 2020.
Relatively high cliff steepening (increasing cliff top hazard) occurred from 1998-2020 between Terramar and Encinas Creek, compared to the South Carlsbad State Beach campground area.
Four existing predictive forecast cliff models were run for a sub region of the study near the Solamar Dr. intersection using the OPC (2018) 0.5% probability sea level rise scenario, USGS wave projections, and the 1998-2020 cliff retreat rates. In the forecast area, future cliff retreat of 10 m impacts the proposed project at the Solamar and Carlsbad Boulevard roundabout and a recreational trail. 10 m of retreat is lower than the 25th percentile for all four model outcomes.
Present infrastructure in northern end of the forecast area becomes threatened under retreat scenarios with about 20 m of retreat, which is approximately the median retreat predicted from the combined model outcomes.
1.0 Introduction
In May 2020, the City of Carlsbad (City) was awarded funding by the California State Coastal Conservancy Climate Ready Program for the South Carlsbad Boulevard Climate Adaptation Project (Project) to develop managed retreat and long-term sea level rise adaptation options for a vulnerable stretch of coastal roadway. As a component of this project, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation was funded to conduct a detailed cliff retreat analysis to inform the landward relocation of a segment of South Carlsbad Boulevard. The following represents the results from this research and analysis endeavor.
2.0 Study Area & Forecast Area
The overall study area extends 4.6 kilometers (km) along the coast of Carlsbad, California, from the mouth of Batiquitos Lagoon at the south end of the study area to Terramar Point/Cerezo Bluffs (approximately Cerezo Drive) at the north end (Figure 1). The study area includes South Carlsbad State Campground and Las Encinas Creek area. Riprap currently exists near Las Encinas Creek outlet and at several beach access stairways within the study area (Figure 2). Schmidt Exhibit 1
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 9 of 241
hammer values, which provide an indication of rock hardness and uniaxial compressive strength (Katz et al., 2000), were taken at the cliff base (Young, 2018) and range from 0-16. Future cliff retreat rates were estimated for a portion of the study area (Forecast Area in Figure 1) specified by GHD (the consultant for this Project) and the City.
Figure 1. Study area map extending from approximately Batiquitos Lagoon to Terramar Point, and forecast area of estimated cliff retreat projections.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 10 of 241
Figure 2. (Top) Aerial photograph of study area and (center) corresponding alongshore cliff height and riprap locations and (bottom) Schmidt hammer rebound values of rock hardness from Young (2018).
3.0 Previous Studies
Several studies have conducted cliff retreat analyses in the study area. Benumof and Griggs (1999) evaluated a 750 m segment in the South Carlsbad Campground using aerial photographs and estimated cliff top (Figure 3) retreat rates of 0.43 meters per year (m/yr) (standard deviation 0.08 m/yr) from 1956 to 1994. The collaborative study of Moore et al. (1999) reported cliff top retreat rates ranging from 0.03-0.58 m/yr for cliffs along South Carlsbad State Beach during the same time period. Using airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data, Young and Ashford (2006) estimated cliff retreat rates averaged over the cliff face, from Batiquitos Lagoon to Oak Avenue, at 0.03-0.04 m/yr between 1998 and 2004.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 11 of 241
-
-S20
l:
0)
l 10
~
Cliff Height
--•RipRap
u 0 '------'--------'--------'-- ----""~ --~ ----"'-· - --"•'-'-....... -----'-, _,1!..L....!1'--____.. ...J_ _ ____,...J____!__J Q) (1)20
E ::::i
E cii
cu >
:: -g 10
"O :::J
.E _g
..c. (I)
0 c9 oQffe o
~ o:: 0L__j_ __ -E®ffi:€E~----G:e---B38t€:e---- ie-&- L-€Eai~L__-EB&-__J
80.5 80 79.5 79 78.5 78 77.5 77 76.5
Alongshore Location (km)
Figure 3. Interpretations of idealized cliff changes and cliff retreat measurements. Figure modified from Young et al. 2009b.
Hapke et al. (2008; 2009) mapped cliff top retreat in the present study area using 1933 T-sheets (NOAA historic survey maps) and 1998 airborne LiDAR data on 130 shore-normal (perpendicular to the shoreline) transects spaced 20 m alongshore (with some gaps up to about 400 m). The mean and maximum cliff top retreat rates for these transects were 0.06 m/yr and 0.21 m/yr, respectively, with estimated errors of 0.20 m/yr.
Young (2018) resampled the Hapke et al. (2008) 1933 and 1998 cliff top edge lines at a higher 5 m alongshore resolution and found mean retreat rates of 0.06 m/yr (Table 1, Figure 4). Young (2018) also used airborne LiDAR datasets to measure cliff change from 1998 to 2009 at 5 m alongshore resolution and found mean cliff top and face retreat rates of 0.11 and 0.04 m/yr, with some cliff top locations exceeding 0.40 m/yr. Recently, Swirad and Young (2021) used airborne LiDAR from 2009 and 2016 and automated procedures to estimate mean cliff top and face retreat rates of 0.003 and 0.05 m/yr, respectively.
Young et al. (2009a) used airborne LiDAR datasets and measured cliff face volume changes between 2002-2006 ranging from 0 to ~2 m3/m/yr.
Overall, historical mean cliff top and cliff face retreat estimates for high-resolution studies in the study area range from 0.003-0.11 and 0.04-0.05 m/yr, respectively. The rates vary between these previous studies because of variability in the original data sources, differences in mapping resolution, methods, time periods analyzed, and actual differences in erosion rates and processes.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 12 of 241
;---
\ !{I • Eroded Area
Cliff Retreat Measurements (m) • Talus Deposit
A B C D E
Top= 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
Face (Erosion)= 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Face (Deposition)= 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.2
Face (Net) = 0.2 0.2 0.2 00 00
Base= 1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0
Table 1. Summary of retreat rates from previous studies with high-resolution coverage in the study area.
Cliff Top Retreat Rate (m/yr) Cliff Face Retreat Rate (m/yr) Study Young (2018)
Young
(2018)
Swirad and
Young (2021)
Young
(2018)
Swirad and
Young (2021)
Time Period 1933-1998 1998-2009 2009-2016 1998-2009 2009-2016 Maximum 0.22 0.42 0.13 0.25 0.66
Mean 0.06 0.11 0.003 0.04 0.05
Minimum 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Standard
Deviation
0.04 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.08
Figure 4. (top) Aerial image of study area and (center) corresponding alongshore cliff top retreat rates from previous high-resolution studies (Young, 2018; Swirad and Young, 2021), and (bottom) mean cliff face retreat rates from previous high-resolution studies (Young, 2018; Swirad and Young, 2021).
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 13 of 241
Previous Studies
0.4 1i,,
~ --- Cliff Top 1934-1998 <:'
.S0.3 Cliff Top 1998-2009
Q)
--- Cliff Top 2009-2016
ro
I
c::: 0.2
ro I I
Q)
~ 0.1 I
c::: ~\ ,A ~A 0
0.8 ~
Cliff Face 1998-2009 <:' --- Cliff Face 2009-2016 E 0.6 Q)
~ 0.4
ro
~ 0.2
Q)
c:::
0 80.5 80 79.5 79 78.5 78 77 .5 77 76 .5
Alongshore Location (km)
In 2017, the City of Carlsbad prepared a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (City of Carlsbad, 2017) using cliff erosion projections for the Project study area (Figure 5) based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal Storm Modeling System - CoSMoS 3.0 for Southern California (Barnard et al., 2018). The CoSMoS 3.0 modeling approach estimated bluff edge erosion using a baseline bluff top edge established from a 2010 digital elevation model.
CoSMoS projections are based on historical erosion rates from 1933 to 1998 developed for the USGS National Shoreline Assessment (Hapke et al. 2008). The Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (City of Carlsbad, 2017) used sea level rise scenarios of 1.6 ft (0.5 m) and 6.6 ft (2.0m).
Figure 5. Map of potentially vulnerable parcels in Carlsbad with projected 2050 sea level rise of
1.6 ft and associated bluff retreat (Figure 6 in City of Carlsbad (2017)).
The USGS CoSMoS projections were updated in 2018 to CoSMoS 3.0 Phase 2 (Barnard et al., 2018) and show retreat rates from 2010-2100 and provide estimated future retreat for a range of sea level rise scenarios up to 5 m. For the transects in the Project’s forecast area (Table 2), CoSMoS estimates cliff retreat of 0.06-0.12 m/yr for 1 m of sea level rise. CoSMoS 3.0 Phase 2 data are available for viewing using Our Coast Our Future online map viewer (https://ourcoastourfuture.org/, Figure 6).
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 14 of 241
PARCELS - ZONING
ont~ ~ [email protected]
C] 0pe"S4>,K1t
LJ Comi,,~ nu,l,IOPf'f'!Sp,K♦
mallol1 I "'C"O'
- - - - lrwJl'IOalOfl ~ a rd ZOil♦ 40.5ml * Sfwltr Pump SUtlOl'I Hood H.ll•rd Zone!O.Sml -- .....
Table 2. CoSMoS 3.0 Phase 2 Cliff Retreat rates for the forecast area.
Figure 6. Example CoSMoS 3.0 Phase 2 projected cliff retreat for 2.5 ft (0.75 m), 3.3 ft (1 m), and
6.6 ft (2.0 m) of sea level rise within the study area (source: Our Coast Our Future online viewer).
Red is the zone of cliff retreat.
4.0 Evaluation of Existing Condidtions
To assess existing conditions, a combined drone and mobile terrestrial LiDAR survey was conducted on September 17, 2020 (Figure 7). The drone and terrestrial surveys were merged to provide complete coverage in complex topographic areas, such as the northern section of the study area where sea caves and notches are common.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 15 of 241
Cosmos Transect 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813
Cosmos Historical Retreat Rate (m/yr)
0.04 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06
Cosmos Projected Retreat Rate (m/vrl
0.25 0.05 0.06 0 .07 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.0 6 0.06
0.5 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07
Sea Level 0.75 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 Rise 1 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.1 0 .09 0.1 0.09
Scenario 1.25 0.0 8 0.11 0.14 0.1 0 .1 0 .11 0.11 0.12 0.1 (m) 1.5 0.1 0 .13 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.12
1.75 0.11 0.14 0.1 8 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.14
2 0.14 0.17 0.2 0 .14 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.16
5 0.34 0.38 0.45 0.38 0.29 0.37 0.38 0.26 0.26
Uncertainty 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Figure 7. LiDAR data collected on Sep 17, 2020 from (left) a ground based mobile LiDAR system, (center) a drone based LiDAR system, and (right) the combined LiDAR data, used to provide complete surface coverage.
The most northern portion of the study area (Figure 8) contains numerous hazardous sea caves, notches, and bluff overhangs. As these features erode farther into the cliff, the likelihood of cliff failure increases. The depth of these over-vertical features on the lower and upper cliff were mapped using the recent 2020 LiDAR survey (Figure 8). These features can fail catastrophically and cause significant cliff top retreat, as evidenced by a collapse with 9 m of retreat shown in Figure 9 section P3.
Figure 8. Areas with over-vertical topography in the upper and lower cliff obtained from a Sept. 17, 2020 LiDAR survey combined from drone- and truck-based mobile LiDAR systems. Labeled cross shore transects are shown in Figure 9.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 16 of 241
The northern portion of the study area (Figure 8) was also inspected to evaluate recent changes by comparing a 2017 LiDAR survey to the recent 2020 data at specific cross shore profiles.
Changes include lower cliff cantilever block failures at transects P1, P2, P4, and P5, a significant upper cliff failure that included ~10 m of retreat at P3, and a few meters of retreat across most of the cliff profile at P6. P2 changes observed at the cliff base could be from new notch development or changes in beach profiles inside the notch during the 2017 survey.
Figure 9. Selected cliff profiles (with the ocean to the left in each plot) in the northern portion of the study area showing significant changes between 2017 and 2020, including about 10 m of cliff top retreat at profile P3. Transect locations are shown in Figure 8.
5.0 Evaluation of Cliff Change 1998-2020
The new 2020 LiDAR dataset was used to evaluate cliff change from 1998 to 2020 to capture the longest time span of available high-resolution LiDAR data. Cliff top, cliff face, and cliff base retreat rates were evaluated at 5 m alongshore resolution (Figure 10) and provide change metrics on 3 different portions of the cliff. Cliff top and base positions were evaluated initially using cross shore profiles combined with automated detection methods (Swirad and Young, in review) and then visually inspected and edited.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 17 of 241
20 Pl P2
10 c·
~
0 -00 20 00
-c P3 P4 > ro -C:
~,f))
E' 10
C:
0 ..... ro
> QJ
LU 0
20 PS PG
10 - 2017 -0ct -3
- 2020-Sep-17
\
0 30 15 0 30 15 0
Cross Shore Location (m)
Figure 10. Cliff changes between 1998 and 2020 showing (b) volumetric change rate, (c) cliff face averaged retreat rates, (d) cliff top and cliff base change rates, and (e) a cliff steeping hazard index computed as the difference between lower and upper cliff changes. Higher values represent overall cliff steepening and increased cliff top retreat potential.
To evaluate overall vertical changes (Figures 10 and 11) and cliff face retreat rates from 1998- 2020 (Figure 10) LiDAR point data were processed into 0.5-m resolution digital elevation models using the last return (if multiple returns were available) and a natural neighbors technique (Sibson, 1981). Digital change grids, estimated by differencing successive digital elevation models created using these LiDAR datasets, show both negative (erosion) and positive (accretion, talus deposits) changes. Sources of digital change grid error include the basic LiDAR observations, spatial interpolation, and vegetation. Elevation changes can indicate landslide motion, land erosion, talus deposition, topographic beach changes, and anthropogenic changes.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 18 of 241
Cliff Change 1998-2020
--Erosion
--Accretion
• •
I 05011(d) , 1: Ii .. -~ •· . ,:'="'"-::; .,,v. •••.• 0-:: M-A~: -~:~:~:~ I ~ ~ v·~ 41- 1 ~ , • •'v 1 0-n-yv 0 -0_5~-~--~-~--~--~-~--~--~-~--~
80.5 80 79.5 79 78.5 78 77.5 77 76.5 76
Alongshore Location (km)
Figure 11. Vertical change maps of the south portion of the study area, spanning the South Carlsbad State Beach Campground, showing erosion (red) and deposition (blue) between 1998 and 2020. Colors saturate at +/- 4 m. From left to right, the panels go northward. Matchlines between panels and Figure 12 are indicated.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 19 of 241
Figure 12. Vertical change maps of the north portion of the study showing erosion (red) and deposition (blue) between 1998 and 2020. Colors saturate at +/- 4 m. From left to right, the panels go northward. Matchlines between panels and Figure 11 are indicated.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 20 of 241
Changes were separated into negative (i.e. cliff erosion) and positive (i.e. talus deposits) volumetric changes and then evaluated in 5 m wide (in the alongshore direction) compartments. Dividing the volumetric compartment changes by the cliff height and compartment width (5 m) yielded bulk negative and positive cliff face changes, equivalent to average cliff retreat/advance over the cliff face (Figure 10). Cliff heights were obtained from the digital elevation model. The cliff face retreat from 1998-2020 ranged from about 0 to 0.47 m/yr with a mean of 0.039 m/yr.
Cliff retreat measures on different parts of the cliff can differ substantially and provide information on geomorphic change and relative cliff top stability. Cliff top retreat reduces the overall cliff slope, while cliff base and cliff face erosion (not concentrated at the cliff top) cause slope steepening, thus reducing overall cliff stability. Young et al. (2009b) suggested the difference between cliff top and cliff face erosion could be used as a cliff top retreat hazard index (Figure 13). For example, as the cliff face retreat exceeds cliff top retreat, the cliff becomes more unstable, and vice versa. A cliff steepening hazard index, defined here as the cliff base or cliff face retreat minus the cliff top retreat, increases with overall cliff steepening.
Positive hazard values indicate the cliff face or base retreat rates exceed the cliff top retreat rates, suggesting a higher relative potential for future cliff top failure. Based on cliff retreat rates from 1998-2020, relatively high cliff top hazard indexes exist in the northern portion of the study area between Terramar and Las Encinas Creek, compared to the South Carlsbad State Beach Campground area (Figure 10e).
Figure 13. Conceptual cliff changes showing the cliff top hazard index developed by Young et al. (2009b). Profiles with more erosion on the lower and middle cliff cause overall cliff steepening and an increase in the cliff top hazard index.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 21 of 241
Cliff Top Hazard Index
(Young et al., 2009) • Eroded Cliff Area
Moderate
Cliff Steepening
Severe
Cliff Steepening
Slope
Flattening
6.0 Cliff Retreat Projections
Cliff retreat projections are limited to a 940 m section in the Solamar area, extending from the north end of Las Encinas Creek riprap to approximalely the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Boulveard, approximately (Figure 1).
6.1 Model Introduction
This study estimated future cliff retreat (e.g. landward movement of cliff-base positions) of Carlsbad cliffs using four coastal cliff evolution models adapted from the existing scientific literature: modified Brunn (Bray and Hooke, 1997), modified SCAPE (Walkden and Dickson, 2008; Ashton et al., 2011), Trenhaile-Lite (Trenhaile, 2000; Limber et al., 2018), and Energy-Flux (Limber et al., 2018). All four models assume cliff erosion is primarily driven by wave action and iteratively calculate annual changes of the cross-shore profile of a cliff and fronting beach system. Other potentially important erosion factors such as rainfall (e.g. Young et al., 2009a; 2021) and groundwater are not specifically modeled but are implicitly included in the historical cliff retreat rates used to calibrate and run the models. For each iteration, the Trenhaile-Lite and Energy-Flux models update the whole cross-shore profile based on the amount of wave energy available at the cliff base and resulting cliff retreat, which subsequently influences wave transformation across the fronting beach and cliff retreat in the next iteration. Therefore, these two models work in a feedback system. On the contrary, the modified Bruun and modified SCAPE models only iteratively calculate the cliff base positions, without considering changes in the model cross-shore profile from previous time steps.
The modified Bruun and modified SCAPE models assume future cliff retreat (R2) depends on historical cliff retreat (R1), and historical (S1) and future (S2) sea level rise. The modified Bruun model is also influenced by profile geometry, closure depth (most landward depth with no significant bathymetric elevation change), and back shore geologic composition.
The models are expressed as:
𝑅2 = 𝑅1 + (𝑆2 − 𝑆1)(
𝐿
𝑃(𝐵+ℎ)) (Eq. 1, Modified Bruun)
𝑅2 = 𝑅1√𝑆2 𝑆1⁄ (Eq. 2, Modified SCAPE)
where L, B, h, and P in Eq. 1 are the cross-shore length of the active profile (L), cliff height (B), closure depth (h), and the proportion of sediment eroded that is sufficiently coarse to remain within the equilibrium shore profile (P), respectively.
The modified Bruun model is adapted from the widely used Bruun rule for sandy beaches (e.g.
Bruun, 1962), which assumes conservation of sediment and an equilibrium profile shape and is the most basic of the four models used here. The modified SCAPE model is expressed as a Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 22 of 241
relatively simple relationship (Eq. 2), but was derived from detailed process-based modeling of soft cliff coasts using the full SCAPE model version (Soft Cliff And Platform Erosion, Walkden and Dickson, 2008). Therefore, the modified SCAPE (Eq. 2) model is considered more physics- based compared to the modified Bruun model (Eq. 1), even though both models have relatively simple mathematical expressions.
The Trenhaile-Lite and Energy Flux models further assume that, in addition to historical cliff retreat (R1), and historical (S1) and future (S2) sea level rise, future cliff retreat (R2) also depends on wave energy transformation across surf and swash zones and, therefore, the slope of the beach fronting the cliff. In both models, the beach slope is defined as the linear slope from the cliff base at mean sea level and the wave breaking point, where the water depth equals Hb/0.78 (Hb: breaker height) (Battjes, 1974).
The wave force available for cliff erosion is calculated as follows:
𝐹𝑤 = 𝜌
𝐻𝑏
1.56 𝑒−𝑥𝑤 (Eq. 3, Trenhaile-Lite)
𝐹𝑤 = (
1 8 𝜌𝑔𝐻𝑏
2√
𝑔𝐻𝑏
0.78) 𝑒−𝑥𝑤 (Eq. 4, Energy Flux)
where 𝜌, 𝑔, and 𝑥 are the density of water (1025.2 kg/m3), gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and a decay constant (0.05 m-1, Limber et al., 2018) that represents the dissipation of wave energy across the surf and swash zones, respectively. 𝑤 is the width of the surf and swash zones and is calculated as follows:
𝑤 =
𝐻𝑏 0.78⁄
tan 𝛼 (Eq. 5)
where 𝛼 is the beach slope. The future cliff retreat (R2) in each iteration is estimated as follows:
𝑅2 = 𝐾 ∙ 𝐹𝑤−𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 (Eq. 6)
where K is a calibration coefficient that converts wave energy available at a model cliff base to cliff retreat distance. 𝐹𝑤−𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 is a measure of annual wave forcing (kg/m2 for Trenhaile-Lite, and kg m/s3 for Energy-Flux) calculated using a time series of wave data at a given site.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 23 of 241
6.2 Model calibration (2000-2020)
Calibration of the Trenhaile-Lite and Energy-Flux models used modeled historical hindcast wave data, observed historical cliff retreat data (R1), and observed sea level rise data (S1) between 2000 and 2020. The observed historical sea level rise rate at the La Jolla station (~ 28 km south of the study site) was 2.13 mm/yr (Figure 14, tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov, station 9410230).
Figure 14. Relative observed sea level trends in La Jolla, CA (https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9410230).
The calibration coefficient (K) relates the historical cliff retreat rate to historical wave force as follows:
𝐾 = 𝑅1̅̅̅̅
𝐹̅𝑤−𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
⁄ (Eq. 7)
where 𝐹̅𝑤−𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 is the mean annual wave force over the 2000-2020 time period, and 𝑅1̅̅̅̅ is the mean observed historical cliff retreat rate during the same period (Fig. 14a, in total 196 cases).
The observed historical cliff face retreat rates from 1998-2020, evaluated in Section 5, were assumed to represent years 2000-2020 and ranged from 0.006-0.18 m/yr with a mean and median retreat of 0.076 and 0.071 m/yr, respectively.
Hourly 2000-2020 hindcast wave data (Figure 15b) was estimated using a buoy-driven regional wave model (O'Reilly et al., 2016), and converted to three-hour average wave data consistent with the USGS projected wave data (Hegermiller et al., 2016) used for model prediction. The calibration run was initiated with a simplified cross-shore profile (Figure 15c) based on 2009- Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 24 of 241
Ill
i
~
::E
0.45 0.30
0 .15
0.00 - 0 .15
- 0 .30
- 0.45
Relative Sea Level Trend
9410230 La Jolla , California
9410230 La Jolla, California 2.13 +/- 0,26 mm/yr
- Linear Relative Sea Level Trend
- Upper 95% Confidence Interval
- Lower 95% Confidence In terva l
Monthly mean sea level with the
average seaso nal cycle removed
' -,
' - ,
Apparent Datum 5hi~t
- 0 .6 0 ·~=---;::::=::-------------- -== =-- ---=====----;::::=::----------~----' 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
2011 LiDAR observations (2013 NOAA Coastal California TopoBathy Merge Project). No calibration was done for the modified Bruun and modified SCAPE models because both models are insensitive to wave conditions.
Figure 15. (a) Observed mean cliff retreat rate between 1998-2020, (b) modeled nearshore significant wave height (Hs), and (c) observed and simplified cross-shore profile used for the modeling.
6.3 Model prediction (2012-2100)
Model runs were conducted for the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) (2018) 0.5% probability La Jolla sea level rise scenario with specified water levels of 0.63 m in 2050, 1.10 m in 2070, and
2.16 m in 21001. All model runs used a one-year time step. A quadratic function fit to the specified OPC (2018) water levels was used to estimate sea levels between 2012 and 2100 (Figure 16a). The simplified cross-shore profile (Figure 15c) was used to represent the forecast area.
The modified Bruun model runs used geometric parameters of the simplified observed cross- shore profile (Figure, 14c; Table 3) and measured cliff sand content of (P=0.9, Young et al., 2010). The closure depth was estimated at 8 m (Birkemeier et al., 2012). The h model parameter was modified to 9.5 m to account for the cliff base elevation (1.5 m) and to maintain consistency with the geometric relationships of the modified Bruun model.
For Trenhaile-Lite and Energy-Flux model runs, the future cliff retreat (R2) of a given year was estimated using the projected wave data (a time series of three-hour average wave data from USGS (Hegermiller, et al. 2016); Fig. 15b) and sea level rise (S2) of a given year, model cross-
1 Water levels are relative to the sea level in 2000.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 25 of 241
16 (a) 4.5 (b) 20 (c)
--Observation
14 4 15
--Model
12 3.5
<J) co 10 0 3
CX)
~ 10
u >
"' ~ :[2 .5
C 5 ·
0 8 <J)
g
ai I 2 C
0 0
.0 6 ~ E 1.5 > ::, Q)
z iii -5 4
2 0.5 -10
0 -15
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 2005 2010 2015 2020 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 Cliff face retreat (m/year) Year Distance [m]
shore profile of a previous year, and a calibration coefficient unique to each observed cliff retreat rate (192 cases, Figure 15a). In addition, runs using Trenhaile-Lite and Energy-Flux models were initiated with a 2012 cross-shore profile obtained during the model calibration. In total, 768 prediction runs were conducted considering four models and 192 observed cliff retreat rates.
Figure 16. (a) Sea level rise scenario and (b) projected significant wave height (Hs) between 2012-2100 used for model runs.
Table 3. Parameter values for runs using the modified Bruun model Active profile length (L) 400 m
Cliff height (B) 17.5 m
Closure depth 8 m
Proportion of sediment eroded that is sufficient coarse to remain within the equilibrium profile (P, from Young et al., 2010)
0.9 6.4 Model prediction output
For runs from all four models, modeled cliff retreat rates increased through time as sea level rise rates accelerated (Figure 17 and Table 4). The modified Bruun model predicted the highest cliff retreat with a median of 36.9 m in 2100 (relative to 2012 cliff base position), as opposed to
20.7 m (modified SCAPE), 17.5 m (Trenahile-Lite), and 16.5 m (Energy-Flux). Compared to other Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 26 of 241
2.5 (a) 4 (b)
3.5 E 2
0 3
0 0
E 2.5 N
.8 1.5 (/)
Cl) I
> -0 2 ~
Cl)
ai t5
Cl) L..
1 ·e- 1.5 ai > a.. ..92
ro 1
~ 0.5
0.5 0 0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
models, the modified SCAPE model predicted the largest range of 2100 cliff retreat at 1.8-51 m.
Trenhaile-Lite and Energy-Flux models predicted the least cliff retreat on average with the 25th - 75th percentile ranges of 14.4-23.0 m and 13.6-21.5 m in 2100, respectively. With all model results combined, the 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile cliff retreat in 2100 was predicted to be 15.4 m, 21.8 m, and 33.9 m, respectively.
Figure 17. Median (black), minimum and maximum (gray), and 25th and 75th percentile (blue) results of simulated cliff retreat predicted by (a) modified Brunn, (b) modified SCAPE, (c) Trenhaile-Lite, and (d) Energy-Flux models. (e) Results combining all model outputs.
Table 4. Median, minimum, maximum, and 25th and 75th percentile values of simulated cliff retreat in 2100 predicted by modified Brunn, modified SCAPE, Trenhaile-Lite, and Energy-Flux models, and results combining all model outputs.
Modified
Bruun
Modified
SCAPE
Trenhaile-
Lite Energy-Flux All models
combined
Minimum (m) 31.3 1.8 5.8 5.7 1.8
25th
percentile
(m)
35.3 15.3 14.4 13.6 15.4
Median (m) 36.9 20.7 17.5 16.5 21.8
75th
percentile
(m)
39.8 30.5 23.0 21.5 33.9
Maximum
(m) 46.1 51.4 33.6 31.2 51.4
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 27 of 241
(a) Modified Bruun (b) Modified SCAPE (c) Trenhaile-Lite (d) Energy-Flux (e) Combined results 40 40 40 40
20 20 20 20
0 ~ - ~---~-~ 0 0 0 0 L_.LC..a= '-----~-~-~
2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 Year
Scenarios with retreat of about 10 m or more intersect with the proposed project at the Solamar and Carlsbad Boulevard roundabout and a recreational trail in the southern portion of the forecast area (Figure 18). 10 m of retreat is lower than the 25th percentile for all four model outcomes (Table 4). Present infrastructure in northern end of the forecast area becomes threatened under retreat scenarios with about 20 m of retreat, which is approximately the median retreat predicted from combined model. Observed cliff retreat rate between 1998- 2020 ranged up to 0.18 m/yr (Figure 15a), suggesting portions of the forecast area could exceed 10 m of retreat by 2100 even without considering the forecasted accelerated sea level rise. In addition, the cliff base retreat in the Solamar area has exceeded the cliff top retreat in many areas recently, indicating cliff steeping and increasing cliff top instability (Figure 10e). None of the models used have been validated with observations and caution should be used when interpreting the model outcomes.
Figure 18. Map of the forecast area showing proposed road alignment and zones of cliff retreat relative to the 2020 cliff top position.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 28 of 241
7.0 References
Ashton, A.D., Walkden, M.J., & Dickson, M.E. (2011). Equilibrium responses of cliffed coasts to changes in the rate of sea level rise Marine Geology 284(1), 217–229.
Barnard, P.L., Erikson, L.H., Foxgrover, A.C., Limber, P.W., O'Neill, A.C., & Vitousek, S. (2018).
Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) for Southern California, v3.0, Phase 2 (ver. 1g, May 2018): U.S. Geological Survey data release.
Battjes, J.A. (1975). Surf similarity. In Coastal Engineering 1974 (pp. 466-480).
Benumof, B.T., & Griggs, G.B. (1999). The dependence of seacliff erosion rates on cliff material properties and physical processes: San Diego County, California. Shore & Beach, 67(4), 29-41.
Birkemeier, W., Flick R.E, Sterrett, K., Guza R.T., Seymour, R.J., O’Reilly, W.C., & Thomas, J. (2012). West Coast Closure Depth and SCBPS Beach Surveys. Presented by W.C. O’Reilly to the California Sediment Management Working Group on 11/14/2012 in San Francisco, California.
Bray, M.J., & Hooke, J.M. (1997). Prediction of soft-cliff retreat with accelerating SLR. Journal of Coastal Research 13, 453–467.
City of Carlsbad Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. December 2017.
Hapke, C., Reid, D., & Borrelli, M. (2008). A GIS Compilation of Vector Cliff Edges and Associated Cliff Erosion Data for the California Coast 2007, revised 2008.
Hapke, C.J., Reid, D., & Richmond, B. (2009). Rates and trends of coastal change in California and the regional behavior of the beach and cliff system. Journal of Coastal Research, 25(3), 603- 615.
Hegermiller, C.A., Erikson, L.H., & Barnard, P. (2016). Nearshore waves in southern California:
hindcast, and modeled historical and 21st-century projected time series. U.S. Geological Survey.
Limber, P.W., Barnard, P.L., Vitousek, S., & Erickson, L.H. (2018). A model ensemble for projecting multidecadal coastal cliff retreat during the 21st century. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 123, 1566-1589.
Katz, O., Reches, Z., & Roegiers, J.C. (2000). Evaluation of mechanical rock properties using a Schmidt hammer. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 37, 723–728.
Moore, L.J., Benumof, B.T., & Griggs, G.B. (1999). Coastal erosion hazards in Santa Cruz and San Diego Counties, California. Journal of Coastal Research, 121-139.
OPC, 2018. State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance, 2018 Update. Ocean Protection Council:
Sacramento, CA, USA, 84.
O'Reilly, W.C., Olfe, C., Thomas, J., Seymour, R.J., & Guza, R.T. (2016). The California coastal wave monitoring and prediction system. Coastal Engineering, 116, 118–132.
Sibson, R. (1981). "A brief description of natural neighbor interpolation (Chapter 2)". In V.
Barnett (ed.). Interpreting Multivariate Data. Chichester: John Wiley, 21–36 Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 29 of 241
Swirad, Z.M., & Young, A.P. (2021). Automating coastal cliff erosion measurements from large- area LiDAR datasets in California, USA. Geomorphology, 389 (107799), 15.
Swirad, Z.M., & Young, A.P. (In Review) CliffDelineaTool v1.1.0: an algorithm for identifying coastal cliff base and top positions, Geoscience Model Development.
Trenhaile, A. S. (2000_. Modeling the development of wave-cut shore platforms. Marine Geology 166(1), 163–178.
Walkden, M., & Dickson, M. (2008). Equilibrium erosion of soft rock shores with a shallow or absent beach under increased SLR. Marine Geology 251(1), 75-84.
Young, A.P., & Ashford, S.A. (2006). Application of airborne LIDAR for seacliff volumetric change and beach-sediment budget contributions. Journal of Coastal Research, 22(2), 307-318.
Young, A.P., Raymond, J.H., Sorenson, J., Johnstone, E.A., Driscoll, N.W., Flick, R.E., & Guza, R.T. (2010). Coarse sediment yields from seacliff erosion in the Oceanside Littoral cell. Journal of Coastal Research 26 (3), 580-585.
Young, A.P., Guza, R.T., Flick, R.E., O'Reilly, W.C., & Gutierrez, R. (2009a). Rain, waves, and short-term evolution of composite seacliffs in southern California. Marine Geology, 267(1-2), 1-
7. Young, A.P., Flick, R.E., Gutierrez, R., & Guza, R.T. (2009b). Comparison of short-term seacliff retreat measurement methods in Del Mar, California. Geomorphology, 112(3-4), 318-323.
Young, A.P., Guza, R.T., O’Reilly, W.C., Burvingt, O., & Flick, R.E. (2016), Observations of coastal cliff base waves, sand levels, and cliff top shaking, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 41, 1564– 1573.
Young, A.P. (2018), Decadal-scale coastal cliff retreat in southern and central California.
Geomorphology, 300, 164-175.
Young, A.P., Guza, R.T., Matsumoto, H., Merrifield, M.A., O'Reilly, W.C., & Swirad, Z.M. (2021). Three years of weekly observations of coastal cliff erosion by waves and rainfall. Geomorphology, 375.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 30 of 241
DRAFT Las Encinas Creek
Habitat Restoration
Alternatives Analysis
Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration
Alternatives Analysis Report
City of Carlsbad
1 March 2022
Exhibit 2
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 31 of 241
The Power of Commitment
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 32 of 241
➔
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis i
Executive summary
A study was conducted to understand the hydrology and biology of the Las Encinas Creek estuary, a small wetland system along central Carlsbad’s coastline, in order to better predict how the habitats might evolve under two proposed scenarios being considered within the South Carlsbad Climate Adaptation Project and with consideration of up to 6.6 feet (ft) of sea level rise (SLR). The options under evaluation are ones being referred to as Phased Retreat and Let it Go. The Phased Retreat or “Retreat Later” alt ernative would either leave in place or partially remove the southbound South Carlsbad B oulevard (Blvd.) infrastructure for interim passive or active recreational uses until coastal hazards overwhelm the repurposed space. Once this trigger is met, southbou nd would be demolished and recreational uses would shift to the new bi -directional roadway corridor. The Let it Go or “Retreat Now” alternative, refers to the naturalization of the area by removing infrastructure within the 2120 projected coastal hazard zone and restoring the La Encinas Creek estuary system.
A baseline understanding of the Encinas Creek estuary guided the development of habitat restoration concepts for each of these options that considered how the shoreline, tidal marsh habitat, and creek hydrology would respond to SLR. This study presents a comparison of these two implementation options to aide in the decision making of which restoration option to proceed with for the Project. Key findings from this analysis are as follows:
• Persistence of a sandy beach. The Retreat Now option increases the beach area now and sustains this beach through 6.6’ of SLR as the beach and created dune are allowed move landward. With 1.7’ of SLR the existing narrow beach within the Study Area will be lost if southbound Carlsbad Blvd. remains under existing conditions and the Phased Retreat option.
• Restoration of developed areas. The Let it Go option would remove about half of the developed area that exists within the study area and restore it to coastal strand habitat. • Tidal wetland migration. Under existing conditions and with both implementation options, the gradual topographic relief east of the southbound Carlsbad Blvd. can a ccommodate tidal wetland habitat migration with future SLR . The habitat projections for both implementation options assume removal of non-native vegetation and replacement with tidal wetlands and coastal scrub, which provides immediate habitat benefit and accommodates the migration of the tidal wetlands long-term. Restoration of this area can maximize tidal wetland creation now and can increase resiliency through 6.6’ of SLR for both implementation options. Removal of the non -native vegetation to accommodat e native plantings will be an important restoration goal to achieve desired vegetation communities in short and long-term. • Transition of riparian habitat. The habitat projections show an overall decline of Arroyo willow riparian habitat with SLR for existing conditions and both implementation options. The loss could be reduced with establishment of additional riparian habitat in suitable areas around the periphery of the Study Area that would ideally be contiguous with similar riparian habitat types.
Other key considerations associated with the implementation options relate to the shoreline response. A summary of the findings of this analysis is below:
• Phased Retreat. Under the Phased Retreat alternative, wave runup from extreme wave events in combination with sea level rise will result in more frequent, episodic flooding of the repurposed roadway and damage to the existing rock shoreline protection (RSP). The maintenance and repair of the RSP will be a determining factor in the long -term shoreline response under this alternative. With little or no maintenance, the RSP will settle lower on the beach profile becoming less effective against erosion and flooding from storm events and SLR. Eventually, the road prism will be subject to episodic erosio n behind the failed RSP, likely impacting the recreational opportunities available in this area. With increased maintenance and repair activities, the RSP could continue to provide protection of the abandoned roadway although this strategy would involve significant cost and potential regulatory challenges. • Let it Go. This concept proposes to restore a sandy beach and cobble-sand dune system in place of the existing southbound Carlsbad Blvd. These elements are intended to slow the landward migration of the beach and dune over restored Las Encinas Creek estuary habitats. Our analysis found that the cobble- dominant berm would be 50% more resilient to erosion with SLR, than a similar feature comprised of sand.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 33 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis ii
Next steps for this study include further progressing the design of the Las Encinas Creek estuary restoration component of the Project once a decision is made between Phased Retreat and Let it Go options. Should the Phased Retreat option be selected, future study may be needed to define appropriate triggers for future management actions (e.g. RSP improvements and eventual retreat). Coordination with the resource agencies, and specifically the California Coastal Commission, would be beneficia l to discuss the triggers and potential management actions associated with this option. The restoration design option would ultimately become part of the roadway design package at the conclusion of the South Carlsbad Climate Adaptation Project phase.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 34 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis iii
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 6
2. Study Purpose & Scope 8
3. Coastal & Hydrological Setting 9
3.1 Coastal Setting 9
3.1.1 Coastal Water Levels 10
3.1.2 Sea Level Rise Projections 10
3.1.3 Shoreline Erosion 11
3.1.4 Cliff Erosion 12
3.1.5 Shoreline Protection 12
3.2 Hydrologic Setting - Encinas Creek 13
4. Biological Site Assessment 16
4.1 Previous Biological Studies & Mapping 16
4.2 Updated Topographic & Biological Assessment 17
4.2.1 Mapping Methods 17
4.2.2 Habitat and Topographic Mapping 18
4.2.3 Vegetation Communities 21
4.2.3.1 Freshwater Wetland and Riparian Communities 22
4.2.3.2 Native Scrub Communities 23
4.2.3.3 Non-Native Vegetation 25
4.2.4 Summary of Habitat and Topographic Mapping Findings 26
5. Hydrological Site Assessment 27
5.1 Methods 27
5.2 Results 28
5.3 Key Findings 31
6. Las Encinas Creek Estuary Habitat Restoration Concepts 33
6.1.1 Phased Retreat or “Retreat Later” 33
6.1.2 Let it Go or “Retreat now” 35
7. Hydraulic Site Assessment 37
7.1 Model Domain & Bathymetry 37
7.2 Model Boundary Conditions 37
7.3 Flood Potential Results 38
8. Shoreline Response Assessment 41
8.1 Methods & Assumptions 41
8.2 Cobble Reduction Factor 41
8.3 Shoreline Response to Sea Level Rise 44
8.3.1 Phased Retreat or “Retreat Later” 44
8.3.2 Let it Go or “Retreat now” 45
8.3.2.1 Beach Formation 47
9. Habitat Migration Projections 48
9.1 No Project Condition 48
9.2 Phased Retreat 49
9.3 Let it Go 52
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 35 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis iv
10. Comparison of Implementation Options 54
11. Conclusions 56
12. References 58
Table index
Table 3-1. Tidal Datums for La Jolla, CA (NOAA Sta. 9410230) 10 Table 3-2. Sea Level Rise Projections for La Jolla (OPC, 2018) 11 Table 3-3. Cliff Retreat Setbacks within the Study Area (SIO, 2022) 12 Table 4-1. Total acreage of each vegetation type mapped in the Study Area 21 Table 8-1. Projected Shoreline Erosion Rates for the Study Area 44
Figure index
Figure 1. South Carlsbad Boulevard Climate Adaptation Project – Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Study Area 7
Figure 2. Encinas Creek Study Area Present Day (Left) & and 1932 (Right) 9 Figure 3. Study Area Shoreline 10
Figure 4. Beach Widths within the Study Area (SANDAG CB-0760 Profile) 11 Figure 5. Erosion along Southbound Carlsbad Boulevard near Encinas Creek (Photo taken 3/17/2016 by City of Carlsbad) 12
Figure 6. Las Encinas Creek Basin 13
Figure 7. Large scour pool at the outlet of the large culvert under Avenidas Encinas 14 Figure 8. Encinas Creek Thalweg Profile 14
Figure 9. Previous habitat mapping by EDAW and AECOM 16 Figure 10. Vegetation map and avian observations, project site is shown in red. (AECOM, 2013).
CAGN – Coastal California Gnatcatcher; WTKI – White-tailed kite; WIFL – Willow Flycatcher; YBCH – Yellow breasted Chat; YWAR – Yellow Warbler 17 Figure 11. Vegetation mapping results at Study Area 19
Figure 12. Topography and Hydrology of the Study Area 20 Figure 13. Iceplant Dominant Portion of the Study Area 21 Figure 14. Vegetation Alliance elevation bands within the Study Area 22 Figure 15. Cattail marsh bordered by dense arroyo willow 23 Figure 16. Dry braided channels and sediment deposits within the willow thicket 23 Figure 17. Coastal sage scrub with many non-native species at the base of the northern cliff east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard 24
Figure 18. Coyote brush dominates a large patch of the western portion of the Study Area 25 Figure 19. Dense pampass grass in the northeast portion of the Study Area 26 Figure 20. Las Encinas Creek Monitoring Well Locations 27 Figure 21. Daily Precipitation for Carlsbad-Palomar Airport (top); Encinas Creek & La Jolla (NOAA Tide Gauge 9410230) Water Levels (middle); Encinas Creek Salinity (bottom) 29 Figure 22. Southbound Carlsbad Blvd Culvert on 12/15/2022 (A & B) and 01/19/2022 (C & D) 30 Figure 23. Intermittent Breached Estuary Physical Processes during Open inlet Condition (top) and Closed Inlet Conditions (bottom) 32
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 36 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis v
Figure 24. Proposed Project Elements for the Phased Retreat Alternative 34 Figure 25. Proposed Project Elements for the “Retreat Now” Alternative 36 Figure 26. HEC-RAS 2D Model Domain 37
Figure 27. Modelled water surface elevation for existing conditions 38 Figure 28. Modelled water surface elevation for Phased Retreat Alternative 38 Figure 29. Modelled water surface elevation for Retreat Now (Let it Go) Alternative 39 Figure 30. Velocity profile for Q100 (MLW tide, 0.71-ft) under Let it Go Alternative 39 Figure 31. Velocity for Q100 (MLW tide, 0.71-ft) under Let it Go Alternative 40 Figure 32. Location of Cobble Influence Shoreline Erosion Analysis. Top: Henamans Beach (cobble beach) and Pacific Beach / Tourmaline (sand beach); Bottom: Ventura (sand beach) and Ventura River Mouth (cobble beach) 43
Figure 33 Comparison of Shoreline Erosion Rates for Henamans and Pacific Beach 44 Figure 34. Cobble-Dominant Dune fronting the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge in Imperial Beach (source: govisitsandiego.com) 45
Figure 35. Shoreline Evolution Projections for Assumed Sand Dune (top) and Cobble/Sand Dune (bottom) 46
Figure 36. Shoreline vs Cliff Erosion Projection through Year 2100 47 Figure 37. Habitat projections with projected SLR under existing conditions (EC) conditions 48 Figure 38. Habitat Projections for Existing Conditions 49 Figure 39. Habitat projections for projected SLR under Phased Retreat alternative 50 Figure 40. Habitat Projections under Phased Retreat Alternative 51 Figure 41. Habitat projections with projected SLR under Let it Go alternative 52 Figure 42. Habitat Projections under Let it Go alternative 53 Figure 43. Comparison of Habitat Projections with Sea Level Rise for the Implementation Options 55
Appendices
Appendix A. Cliff Erosion Assessment Report
Appendix B. Habitat Restoration Concept Drawings
Appendix C. Encinas Creek Habitat Mapping Technical Memorandum
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 37 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 6
1. Introduction
The South Carlsbad Climate Adaptation Project (Project) seeks to realign Carlsbad Boulevard to re -vision acres of coastal land between approximately Terramar Point and Island Way with multi-use trails, community spaces and habitat restoration areas. The repurposing of this space will be accomplished primarily through consolidating roadway infrastructure into a bi-directional transportation corridor along the existing northbound South Carlsbad Boulevard alignment. Relocation of this roadway would build resilience into the transportation corridor from current and projected future coastal haza rds; specifically, the coastal and cliff erosion that is anticipated as sea levels rise (SLR) over the next 100 years. The aim is to achieve Project resilience without the need for new shoreline protection (and possibly the removal of existing protection) with a focus on retreating from coastal hazards and the use of nature-based design techniques to slow erosion while restoring habitat.
During the design phase of the Project and specifically during stakeholder outreach activities, questions surrounding whether the Project should be phased over time or built to the ultimate (i.e. 2120 -time horizon) configuration initially. These two phasing options are being referred to commonly within this study as “Phased Retreat / Retreat Later” or “Let it Go / Retreat Now”. Key themes around the question of phasing relate to the proposed uses of these abandoned spaces and the types, function and viability of habitat restoration options at Las Encinas Creek in each of these scenarios. This study seeks to help answer questions regarding the quality and resilience of habitat restoration options at Las Encinas Creek as they relate to the two Project implementation options being considered. The Study Area is focused on the Las Encinas Creek area to inform implementation phasing in this segment of the Project Area (Figure 1).
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 38 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 7
Figure 1. South Carlsbad Boulevard Climate Adaptation Project – Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Study Area
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 39 of 241
:!SO 150 1,000
elConC
~~"n 1:9'3
G,ift , VlfPSCl!OSfe,l
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 8
2. Study Purpose & Scope
The purpose of this study is to aide in the decision -making process between the two Project implementation options being considered with a focus on a comparison between the habitat restoration opportunities and challenges they present. The study includes the following scope of work:
• Fill identified biological and topographic data gaps for Las Encinas Creek estuary; • Assess tidal, freshwater and groundwater influences using collected water level a nd water quality data;
• Conduct supplemental vegetation mapping to characterize existing and future habitat gradients; • Develop a numerical hydrodynamic model to assess fluvial and coastal flooding associated with existing and future sea level rise scenarios;
• Characterize the coastal processes that influence form/function of habitat types; and • Develop conceptual restoration designs for two (2) alternatives.
In addition, this study aims to address the following questions that were heard during agency coordi nation meetings in which Las Encinas Creek concepts were discussed:
1. How does the Las Encinas Creek system function today?
2. How could the Las Encinas Creek system be restored under each of these implementation options?
3. How would the restored system function in the future with SLR under the Project implementation options being considered (Let it Go vs Phased Retreat)?
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 40 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 9
3. Coastal & Hydrological Setting
The Study Area has undergone significant development in the last century. Historically, the area was likely a tidal lagoon consisting of salt flats subject to frequent overwash. Evidence of overwash can be seen in Figure 2 as sand splay deposits, which appear to reach as far east as the Interstate 5 (I -5) alignment. The construction of south- and northbound Carlsbad Boulevard and the North County Transit District (NCTD) rail prism would have reduced the frequency of overwash events and landward migration of the foredune stran d and dune field.
Currently, Encinas Creek flows through an engineered channel through the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant and enters the Project Area through a single concrete box culvert under Avenida Encinas and the rail prism. Encinas Creek continue s from the rail prism culvert outfall to the Northbound Carlsbad Boulevard crossing, which consists of a double concrete box culvert , and then Southbound Carlsbad Boulevard crossing, which consists of a concrete arch culvert and discharges directly to the beach and Pacific Ocean.
Figure 2. Encinas Creek Study Area Present Day (Left) & and 1932 (Right)
3.1 Coastal Setting
The coastline fronting the Project Area is predominantly narrow sandy beaches backed by steep coastal cliffs.
The cliff geology is described in upper and lower layers with varying thickness. The upper layer consists of a weak marine terrace deposit, while the lower layer varies in type and thickness.
The beaches along this reach of shoreline are narrow and chronically eroding. This beach condition has led to a history of damage occurring to the low-lying segment of Carlsbad B oulevard fronting Encinas Creek, which resulted in two extensions to the b ridge abutment rock slope protection (Figure 3). The wave climate in the City of Carlsbad can be characterized by long period swells predominately from the southwest through the summer and spring months. During the winter and fall months, high energy waves approach from the northwest and west.
I-5
Overwash/
sand splay
deposits
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 41 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 10
Figure 3. Study Area Shoreline
3.1.1 Coastal Water Levels
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains and operates tidal stations throughout the Unites States. The representative tide gauge for the Project site is located in La Jolla, approximately 18 miles south of the Study Area. The datums used in this study are shown in Table 3-1 relative to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).
Table 3-1. Tidal Datums for La Jolla, CA (NOAA Sta. 9410230) Datum Elevation, ft NAVD88
Highest Observed (11/25/2015) 7.62
Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) 7.01
Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) 5.13
Mean High Water (MHW) 4.41
Mean Sea Level (MSL) 2.54
Mean Low Water (MLW) 0.71
NAVD88 0.00
Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) -0.19
Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) -2.20
Lowest Observed (12/17/1993) -3.06
The shoreline fronting the Project site shoreline is classified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as Zone VE, with a base flood elevation (BFE) of 18 -ft (NAVD 88). Zone VE is defined as an area subject to a 100-year flood with exposure to waves. The offshore area is classified by a BFE of 21 -ft.
3.1.2 Sea Level Rise Projections
In the State of California, t he Sea-Level Rise Guidance 2018 Update published by the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) is considered to be the best available science concerning SLR projections. Projections are provided for 12 active tidal gauges in California and the La Jolla projections are representative of the Project site. The range of SLR projections at time horizons of interest for the Project are shown in Table 3-2 Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 42 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 11
Table 3-2. Sea Level Rise Projections for La Jolla (OPC, 2018) Time Horizon Likely Range, 66% Probability SLR is
between left and right column (ft)
0.5% Probability
Projection (ft)
H++ Scenario
Projection (ft)
2050 0.7 1.2 2.0 2.8
2070 1.1 2.0 3.6 5.2
2100 1.8 3.6 7.1 10.2
2120 2.3 4.3 8.8 14.3
Based on the OPC SLR Guidance document and the California Coastal Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance (2018), we have assumed the appropriate risk category for the Project is the “medium -high risk aversion” for which the guidance document recommends using the 0.5% probability SLR projections . The Project planning horizon is 100 years (or out to year 2120) due to the importance of the proposed transportation infrastructure.
3.1.3 Shoreline Erosion
The Project site is located within the northern portion of the Oceanside littoral cell, which extends from Oceanside Harbor to the La Jolla submarine canyon. The Study Area has a limited dry sandy beach, in which the mean high water shoreline position is typically at the toe of the rock revetment. The foreshore of the beach profile contains a significant amount of cobble that is typically exposed in the spring and summer mon ths.
The presence of an overlying thin layer of sand varies seasonally and is often seen in the fall and winter months.
The San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG) commissions beach profile surveys of numerous shore-perpendicular transects throughout San Diego County on a bi-annual basis. The transect that is nearest to the Project site is located at North Ponto (CB-0760), approximately 600 ft south of the Las Encinas Creek mouth. This beach, similar to most in southern California, is at its widest in the fall and narrowest in the spring.
The general beach width trend at this site is erosional at a rate of about 2.5 ft/year , despite regional beach nourishment efforts that occurred in 2001 and 2012 (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Beach Widths within the Study Area (SANDAG CB-0760 Profile)
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 43 of 241
CB--0760 MSL Position
250 T r
200
c
"§ ········ 0
E150 e '+-
£
C:
-.§100 ·v;
0 c..
:;; I ...J
Vl ..... q
~ 50
:::::::: I a.:
v1 ~ I CQ
Qj cc I
0 0::::
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 12
3.1.4 Cliff Erosion
The realigned, bi-directional roadway and other Project features are being designed to meet the community’s needs while minimizing exposure to coastal hazards throughout the design life. A Cliff Erosion Assessment Report was prepared by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) in March 2022 to determine hazard setback distances through the Project Area (i.e. potential cliff erosion zones for various sea level rise scenarios). This study examined cliff change from 1998 to 2020 and forecasted future bluff edge positions using four predictive models over a subset of the overall Project Area. A subset of these results as they pertain to the Study Area are presented in Table 3-3. The Cliff Erosion Assessment Report is included as Appendix A for reference.
Table 3-3. Cliff Retreat Setbacks within the Study Area (SIO, 2022)
3.1.5 Shoreline Protection
The cliff fronting South Carlsbad Boulevard in the vicinity of Encinas Creek has a history of erosion and instability. Slope stabilization of this approximately 1,300 -foot segment has occurred through three incremental placements of rock shoreline protection (RSP) f rom 2009 to 2016. The RSP is a two to four ton rock placed at a 1.5:1 (H:V) slope underlain by a geotextile fabric. The last segment of RSP was placed during the 2015/2016 El Ni ño winter where a succession of wave events caused significant erosion and cliff/roadway instability (Figure 5), which led to a partial closure of the roadway and emergency repair work.
The California Coastal Commission permit granted during that time was conditional on the completion of an analysis of viable alternatives for this area. A study was prepared titled Final Alternatives Analysis Report:
Las Encinas Revetment (Moffat & Nichol 2017), which looked at various shoreline protection options alongside a roadway realignment option. The City requested a five year permit extension from the California Coastal Commission to develop a long-term management plan for the roadway that incorporates one of these alternatives. This Project is in direct response to this long-term management plan requirement.
Figure 5. Erosion along Southbound Carlsbad Boulevard near Encinas Creek (Photo taken 3/17/2016 by City of Carlsbad) Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 44 of 241
Time Horizon
2050
2070
2100
Sea Level Rise
(ft)
2.0 3.6
7.1 2
3 t Ill ,Ii ,Ii I I III Ii
Median
22 38
71 56
96 1691
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 13
3.2 Hydrologic Setting - Encinas Creek
The Encinas Creek watershed has a drainage area of approximately 3.7 square miles, extending from the McClellan-Palomar Airport westward to the Pacific Ocean (Figure 6). Similar to most of Southern California, Encinas Creek is an ephemeral stream whose drainage basin receives an average annual precipitation of approximately 13-inches, most of which occurs October-April. This basin has a mean elevation of 198-ft with a r elief of 435 -ft. The vast majority of the drainage basin is developed, with close to 50% of the land determined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to be impervious (USGS StreamStats, 2021).
Figure 6. Las Encinas Creek Basin
Encinas Creek morphology has been highly altered by upstream urbanization , culverts and shoreline modifications. Urban stormwater runoff has likely increased frequency and magnitudes of peak flow rates and velocities, resulting in channelization of Encinas Creek between the rail prism and northbound Carlsbad Boulevard. A deep scour pool exists at the large culvert outlet below Avenida Encinas/rail prism at the south- eastern end of the Study Area (Figure 7), and seasonal channels radiate out from the pool, with one small perennial channel flowing west into the cattail marsh.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 45 of 241
D 900 1,800 2,700 3,600 N
... ~.-.... ':"'- ·- _ffi_
HOnt.XIWO~ lll: NOll.lli\lllfl'UII H U w
G-rio: NAO 19&3 SU!tf'gne(:alib"rAYl ~IP! 0&06 IHI
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 14
Figure 7. Large scour pool at the outlet of the large culvert under Avenidas Encinas Water flowing approximately due west from the Avenida Encinas culvert outlet and scour pool into the cattail marsh might have diverted flow away from a more defined historic Encinas Creek channel, which had already run dry at the time of the mid -August surveys. The upper portion of the larger channel through the willow scrub has become braided and has lost a clearly defined bed, bank, and channel through much of the upper portion. The cattail marsh and seasonal channels through the willow scrub coalesce into the widened perennial creek on the north end of the site near the culvert under northbound Carlsbad Boulevard. There has likely been a major increase in peak flows that have su bstantially changed the morphology of Encinas Creek as indicated by the scour pool, apparent change in dominant flow direction, and lack of a clearly defined creek bed and bank through most of the eastern portion of the Project area. The existing thalweg p rofile of Encinas Creek within the Project area is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Encinas Creek Thalweg Profile
Based on widespread signs of seasonal inundation including high wrack caught in willows, sediment deposits, soil cracks, and obligate wetland plants at high elevations, the site is subject to flash flooding east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard during majo r winter precipitation or extreme tide events. In the northeast portion of the site, a basin characterized by pickleweed and cracked fine sandy soil appeared to seasonally collect stormwater runoff and/or floodwaters. The presence of pickleweed and other h alophytic plants in this relatively high basin area (~13 -16 feet elevation NAVD88) likely indicated that it may seasonally flood with brackish water from wave runup and accumulate salt in the soil without getting flushed by flowing freshwater Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 46 of 241
"' u ro
QI
Cl
HAT
MHHW
-SO
SB Carlsbad
Blvd
150
NB Carlsbad
Blvd
concrete Pad
Encinas Creek Thalweg Profile
----
350 550 750
Distance, ft (from beach to railway)
Railway 40
'-----.. 35
&
30 00
i Culverf 00
25 Cl
>
" 20 ~
"' Scour c·
Pool 15 o
·~
10 ~
950
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 15
inputs like m uch of the area immediately surrounding Encinas Creek. Downstream of the culvert under northbound Carlsbad Boulevard, the creek has been scoured approximately eight feet below the concrete double box culvert outlet approximately seven feet below Ordinary High Water Mark as indicated by undercut banks, breaks in slope, and vegetation type). The mouth of Encinas Creek was mostly blocked by beach sand accreting on the concrete arch culvert sill, with a very low flow observed under southbound Carlsbad Boulevard during the August field investigation. Lower Encinas Creek, bound by north - and southbound Carlsbad Boulevard was surrounded by brackish to salt marsh vegetation and appeared to have some regular tidal influence with ocean waves likely overtopping the accreted sand at higher tides. The pickleweed marsh south of the mouth of Encinas Creek extended up to a concrete pad with a marker indicating the presence of a stormwater outfall pipe. Unusual patterns of dead vegetation and wetland plants , such as cattails, around the pad may indicate that the outfall pipe is another source of hydrology onsite.
Hydrology onsite is subject to natural seasonal variation as well as increased watershed runoff and altered channel morphology that may increase the “flashiness” of the system. Surges of water into the system during periods of high surf and tides in the winter are expected to increase the extent of saltwater inundation onsite, and this could coincide with high flow events that cause the scour pool below Avenida Encinas to overflow and flood the eastern portion of the site. The site was investigated during the dry season, when Encinas Creek flow was likely at its lowest. Additionally, a smaller culvert under Avenida Encinas, a culvert and ditch originating at northbound Carlsbad Boulevard, and non-point source stormwater runoff all contribute seasonal or ephemeral discharges to the Study Area.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 47 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 16
4. Biological Site Assessment
This section provides a summary of previously completed biological studies as well as site assessments conducted as part of this study to fill data gaps.
4.1 Previous Biological Studies & Mapping
Habitat delineations at the Study Area were previously undertaken by EDAW and AECOM in 2005 and 2013, respectively. These mapping efforts were not completed at scale suitable to develop vegetation -elevation relationships. Furthermore, the best publicly available elevation dataset (light detection and ranging, or LiDAR) is not precise enough to resolve ground surf ace elevations at habitat breaks. Thus, a habitat and topographic survey was needed to accurately assess the project site.
At the eastern segment of the site, between northbound Carlsbad Boulevard and the rail prism, vegetation had previously been mapped as Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub, and willow scrub/coastal salt marsh (Figure 9). To the west of the northbound Carlsbad Boulevard, much of the area was described as disturbed southern coastal salt marsh or disturbed habitat (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Previous habitat mapping by EDAW and AECOM
Species surveys were also performed by AECOM in 2013. The results of the survey are shown in Figure 10 relative to the Study Area. Some of the species observed i nclude the Brown-Headed Cowbirds (parasitic native), White-tailed Kite, and the Willow Flycatcher.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 48 of 241
Legend
- - Creeks and Drainages
Existing cond itions
EDAW Del ineation (2005 )
Vegetation
CBS-d =Disturt>ed southern
coas1a1 blUff scrub
CVFWM-d =Dtsturt>ed
coast31 & valley freshwater
m3rsh
DH=Disturbed habitat
DW=Disturt>ed wetlam1
ORN=Omamen tal
OW=Open water
coastal salt marsh
Jurisd ictional Wet1.1nds
~ ~~~n~~risd ictional
CJ ~~i:n:s CCC Jurisdictional
AECOM Ml ine.:ttion (2013 )
Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub
Soulhem Coastal Salt
1111 ~::~d (~c~:~!\~~:t:
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 17
Figure 10. Vegetation map and avian observations, project site is shown in red. (AECOM, 2013). CAGN – Coastal California Gnatcatcher; WTKI – White-tailed kite; WIFL – Willow Flycatcher; YBCH – Yellow breasted Chat; YWAR – Yellow Warbler
4.2 Updated Topographic & Biological Assessment
GHD performed a topographic and biological field assessment to define elevations associated with habitat breaks to better understand the hydrology associated with each habitat zone. This information will provide a baseline for which to estimate how these habitat distributions may change with SLR.
4.2.1 Mapping Methods
Habitat mapping was undertaken from August 16 to August 18, 2021 led by GHD ecologist Kelsey McDonald.
Habitat mapping consisted of categorizing communities onsite according to functional habitat type and then characterizing the habitat according to dominant vegetation. Habitat polygon boundaries were primarily drawn in the field using the EOS Arrow Gold Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver and ArcCollector.
Field points and aerial imagery assisted with digitizing major vegetation breaks in the office. Native vegetation communities were then keyed to Vegetation Alliance according to the Vegetation Classification Manual for Western San Diego County (2011).
The vegetation mapping was supplemented with a topographic survey , which consisted of collecting elevations with the EOS Gold GNSS receiver and ArcCollector along stream cross-sections and cross-shore profiles. Encinas Creek and secondary channel topography was characterized by collecting elevations of Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 49 of 241
Legend
□ I DI -cal Study Afe.a
- NCTD Rli.;iht-of-Way
Species S1.1iitabla Ha:biitat
~ LFCR H!at1 - t
~ ~ S\l'lliFL E-labital
LB'I/ H!abitat
- CA.G Habit at
- IBSSP abittat
ThreaH11·rnd arid rnd.ange re-d SpgciGs Brown !H eaded Cowll lrd" Q CAGN ,Adu . • BH!CO, Ferna:e.
• WI Fl, Adult
Spocie,s of Spoci.al Concern
0 WTK I
WTK I Nest
◊ YBCH
YWAIR
.._ BH!CO. Mia
■ BH!CO, Ml d f,ema le
• o~e:: umber on poi incficB!tes spec ies ooun t
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 18
Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM), thalweg, toe of slope, and bench elevation above top of bank at a total of 24 stream cross-sections. Cross-section locations included two along the beach, six between southbound and northbound Carlsbad Boulevard, four along the discernible main channel above Carlsbad Boulevard, two along the cattail marsh channel, five along the upper scour pool and channels, four along a seasonal ditch, and one showing an additional area of seasonal flow below a smaller eastern culvert. Four cross-shore profile transects were established to characterize topography and the associated vegetation types across the site.
Elevation and generalized vegeta tion data were collected at approximately every 10 meters and at major breaks in topography or dominant vegetation type. Benchmark elevations along the road shoulder and culverts were also collected to compare the data with remotely sourced LiDAR elevations and to provide reference points for monitoring flow conditions.
4.2.2 Habitat and Topographic Mapping
The results of the habitat, hydrologic and topographic mapping are shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12. Much of the site is dominated by iceplant and non-native scrubs. There is also a strong presence of Arroyo willow, cattail marsh, and pickleweed marsh. The topographic/hydrologic mapping found th ree main channels that flow into Encinas Creek, one of which results from a stormwater conveyance feat ure found at the southern extend of the Study Area. The other two flow paths originate from the scour pool at the culvert under the railway prism. These results will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 50 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 19
Figure 11. Vegetation mapping results at Study Area
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 51 of 241
Ji.ea
plant (I)
ampas grass
)
waler (OW)
- Non-native scrub - Pickleweed marsh
(NNS) (PM)
- Coastal sage saub - Goldenbush (G)
(CSS) - Arro'fO willow (AW)
-
Coyote brush scrub - Cattail rsh (CM) (CB) ma
Contours
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 20
Figure 12. Topography and Hydrology of the Study Area
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 52 of 241
!'>per SiZE A
0 '3.i S 8i .5 1, 1.2s 175
ffl
Vegetation
Transects
Stream Cross
Secfions
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 21
4.2.3 Vegetation Communities
The Study Area is located in an anthropogenically altered estuarine setting crossed by road and rail prisms. Brackish to salt marsh habitat was observed near the mouth of Encinas Creek and in areas with accumulated salts east of southbound Carlsbad Boulevard. Freshwater wetland habitat fed by Encinas Creek was observed upstream of the northbound Carlsbad Boulevard culvert. Patches of native coastal scrub habitats were distributed within the Study Area. Non-native and invasive species have also established dominance in several areas (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Iceplant Dominant Portion of the Study Area
The total acreage of each vegetation type mapped within each habitat is provided in Table 4-1 below.
The brackish to saline pickleweed and Menzies goldenbush marsh vegetation alliances were found at the lowest elevations ( Figure 14). Freshwater cattail marsh, invasive pampas grass, and non - native scrub was observed at low -to-mid elevations. Arroyo willow scrub was found at mid-to-high elevations around Encinas Creek. Coyote brush scrub and coastal sage scrub was also observed at mid-to-high elevations. Iceplant has invaded a wide elevational range, and it was particularly dominant along the high-elevation road prisms.
Table 4-1. Total acreage of each vegetation type mapped in the Study Area Vegetation Type Total Acreage
Pickleweed Marsh 0.75
Goldenbush 0.23
Cattail Marsh 1.13
Arroyo Willow Scrub 2.53
Coastal Sage Scrub 0.32
Coyote Brush Scrub 0.59
Iceplant 2.37
Non-native Scrub 0.61
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 53 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 22
Pampas Grass 0.32
Open Water 0.33
Figure 14. Vegetation Alliance elevation bands within the Study Area The elevation range for which pickleweed dominated marsh was observed at the Project site are consistent with marsh elevations in other California intermittent breached estuaries. As stated by Thorne et al. (2021), marsh elevations in intermittent lagoons are found above mean higher high water (MHHW), whereas tidal marsh elevations in open estuaries are typically found at a lower elevation.
4.2.3.1 Freshwater Wetland and Riparian Communities
Cattail Marsh (Typha domingensis) Alliance
Southern cattail strongly dominated a wide swath of lower -elevation freshwater marsh (~11-16ft NAVD88) east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard (covering a total of 1.13 acr es) (Figure 15). Other species observed in this area included California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) and low cover of emergent Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). The cattail marsh was saturated at lower elevations near northbound Carlsbad Boulevard during the investigation. The cattail marsh received perennial flow from upper En cinas Creek at the Avenida Encinas/rail prism culvert and then flowed back into Encinas Creek near the northbound Carlsbad Boulevard culvert.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 54 of 241
40 co 35
a:,
0 30 > <(
25 z
+-
Q)
20 2
C 15
+
0 :.=
0 > 10
Q)
[jJ
5 - -
0 -~ •
-- - -
+
•
""
Vege tation Alliance
§
& 0
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 23
Figure 15. Cattail marsh bordered by dense arroyo willow Arroyo Willow (Salix lasiolepis) Alliance
Arroyo willow strongly dominated 2.53 acres of the south-eastern portion of the Study Area between Avenida Encinas and the cattail marsh to the west at elevations of 12-20ft NAVD88. Non-native red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Cal-IPC Limited) was also observed in this area around the large culvert and scour pool in the southeast corner of the Study Area. Mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia) and salt marsh fleabane (Pluchea odorata ) occurred in the understory adjacent to the culvert. Additionally, California bulrush was observed in the understory at the lower extent of the willow t hickets in Encinas Creek. To the west and northwest of the culvert, Arroyo willow formed a dense thicket with braided channels, and showed evidence of past flooding in the form of drift deposits and very few plants in the understory ( Figure 16).
Figure 16. Dry braided channels and sediment deposits within the willow thicket
4.2.3.2 Native Scrub Communities
Coastal Sage Scrub (Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum) Alliance Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 55 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 24
California buckwheat ( Eriogonum fasciculatum ) was a prominent species in mid -to-higher elevation native scrub in the Study Area (13-30ft NAVD88) and was observed to be co -dominant with California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), Menzies goldenbush, bush sunflower ( Encelia californica), and coyote brush (Figure 17). Coastal sage scrub was patchily distributed around the site, covering a total of 0.32 acres, and species composition and relative dominance varied throughout the coastal sage scrub community . Iceplant has invaded less densely vegetated areas of coastal sage scrub and has established dominance in many areas that would otherwise be at a suitable elevation range and habitat for coastal sage scrub. Non-native Canarian sea lavender (Limonium perezii) and common stock (Matthiola incana) also occurred in this habitat.
Figure 17. Coastal sage scrub with many non-native species at the base of the northern cliff east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard
Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) Scrub Alliance
Coyote brush dominated the majority of the native scrub within the Study Area (covering 0.59 acres), and it was dominant in the lower ditch drainage on the western end of the Study Area (Figure 18). Coyote brush is tolerant of a wide range of conditions, and the alliance was observed at a wide range of elevations (~13- 28ft NAVD88). Coyote brush intergraded with other native coastal scrub species including California buckwheat, lemonade berry, and Menzies goldenbush. Coyote brush also dominated some of the higher elevation area at the northeastern extent of the Study Area along the rail prism, where it intergraded with non-native shrubs and halophytes on the edge of the pickleweed-dominant basin.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 56 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 25
Figure 18. Coyote brush dominates a large patch of the western portion of the Study Area
4.2.3.3 Non-Native Vegetation
Non-native mixed scrub
Lollypop tree (Myoporum laetum, Cal-IPC Moderate), Brazilian pepper tree ( Shinus terebinthifolius, Cal-IPC Limited), and cyclops acacia (Cal -IPC Watch List) have invaded 0.61 acres east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard. These non-native small trees and shrubs have established dominance along Encinas Creek east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard and a round the high salt marsh basin and rail prism. This non -native vegetation type was primarily observed in disturbed transition zones between wetland and upland habitats at middle elevations (12-16ft NAVD88).
Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata)
Invasive pampas grass (Cal -IPC-High) has established a dense near -monospecific stand in a 0.32 -acre north- central patch east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard ( Figure 19). Cracked sand y soils and some pickleweed and saltgrass in this location appears to indicate that this area may be subject to occasional flooding, and this area was relatively low elevation (11-15ft NAVD88). Salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima, Cal- IPC High) was also observed around the edges of this highly invaded patch of pampas grass. Pampas grass also occurred in non-native scrub habitat and other disturbed areas of the Study Area.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 57 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 26
Figure 19. Dense pampas grass in the northeast portion of the Study Area Iceplant mats (Carpobrotus edulis)
Freeway iceplant (Cal -IPC High) has severely invaded 2.37 acres of the Study Area and established thick monospecific mats throughout much of the western portion of the Study Area and on both sides of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard. Freeway iceplant was observed at a wide range of elevations onsite (~9 -33 ft NAVD) and appeared to be invading brackish wetland and upland habitats.
4.2.4 Summary of Habitat and Topographic Mapping Findings Field investigations and analysis of elevation data showed that species distributions are influenced by the complex hydrology onsite as well as elevation. Pickleweed and other halophytic vegetation, such as Menzies goldenbush, were found at the lower end of the site’s elevation range on both sides of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard. Salt to brackish vegetation types were observed at elevations beyond regular tidal influence, including a high basin that appeared to seasonally flood east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard. Cattail marsh spanned across the lower portion of the site east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard, where freshwater from upper Encinas Creek collected before draining back to the main channel at the northbound Carlsbad Boulevard culvert. Arroyo willow was strongly dominant across the northeast portion of the site around upper Encinas Creek. Native coastal sage scrub and coyote brush scrub was patchily distributed at middle to high elevations across the site. Much of the site w as highly invaded by iceplant and other non -native species.
Non-native species have invaded the site across the elevation range, but iceplant was especially dominant at higher elevations around the disturbed road prisms.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 58 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 27
5. Hydrological Site Assessment
Water level and water quality (salinity and temperature) were actively monitored within the Study Area to better understand and characterize the seasonal variability influenced by tidal and surface water influences.
These data were used to inform the design of the habitat restoration concepts. The methods and results of this monitoring effort is summarized in this section.
5.1 Methods
In mid-August 2021, two monitoring wells were installed within Encinas Creek, one located on the western side of the northbound Carlsbad B oulevard culvert, and one located on the eastern side ( Figure 20). The instruments deployed into the monitoring wells were Solinist Leveloggers, which measure pressure (water levels), conductivity (salinity), and temperature. The housing for the wells was standard two inch diameter ABS pipe and are mounted via steel rebar and anchored in a fixed position to the bed of Encinas Creek . A barometer was also installed on site to compensate the collected data with local barometric pressure.
The instruments log data continuously at 15 -minute intervals and data was downloaded manually monthly.
Post-processing of data was performed using the Solinist Levelogger software. Additionally, post-processing includes referencing the observed water level data to a benchmark elevation. Benchmark elevations were collected during the initial topographic surveys. The western benchmark is located at the fir st concrete step southern culvert wall and is an elevation of 9.31-feet (NAVD88). The eastern benchmark is located on the eastern extent of the concrete pad and is an elevation of 9.72-ft (NAVD88).
Figure 20. Las Encinas Creek Monitoring Well Locations
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 59 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 28
5.2 Results
Figure 21 shows the water levels and salinity concentrations measured at the west and east locations within the Study Area during the period of data collection ( August 2021 to January 2022 ) relative to daily precipitation measured at the McClellan-Palomar Airport and tidal elevations measured at La Jolla (NOAA Tide Gauge 9410230). The measured water levels and salinity concentrations vary due to fluvial (freshwater) flow from rainfall runoff within Encinas Creek watershed, saltwater inflow from wave overwash and groundwater flux.
The measured water levels show two perched pools (west and east) separated by northbound Carlsbad Boulevard arch culvert crossing. The concrete sills on the south- and northbound Carlsbad Boulevard culvert crossings influence the exchange of surface fresh- and saltwater between the pools and are approximate elevation eight feet and 9.7 feet (NAVD88), respectively. The southbound Carlsbad Boulevard culvert sill was observed at times exposed above the beach profile but then also buried from sand and cobble after periods of high surf. The culvert sill elevations are reflected in the relatively uniform measured water levels at the west and east locations between discrete events, which are described below.
Event A: During this period, water levels i ncreased at the west and east locations from wave run -up that propagated through both culvert crossings during spring tides and a large swell event that resulted in a brief spike of salinity concentrations in the east location.
Event B: During this period, the first appreciable precipitation event of the season occurred and resulted in short increases in water levels. Immediately following the increases, the west location shows the elevations drop, likely resulting from scour of sand/cobble down to the concrete sill elevation at the southbound Carlsbad Boulevard crossings. The freshwater inflow also depresses salinity concentrations which slowly increase at the west location but remain low in the east location.
Event C: Similar to Event B, during this period a precipitation event resulted in short increases in water levels and depressed salinity concentrations from the freshwater inflow. Following the event, the salinity concentrations gradually increased at the west location but remained low in the east loc ation.
Between the events, the water levels and salinity concentrations equilibrate as can be seen in the monitoring data. Generally, water levels remain perched at or above the culvert sill elevations with salinity concertation ranging between 15-25 ppt in the west location and less than five ppt in east location. Between events, the west water levels show a mixed semi-diurnal tidal signature, which is result of wave overwash through the southbound Carlsbad Boulevard culvert or through water seepage through the road prism. It should also be noted that during routine site visits, observations of kelp/seagrass deposits are common within the creek and variations in the sand (sill) deposition at the culvert/bridge crossing is common. An example of sill formation can be seen in Figure 22, which shows the culvert conditions at a timeframe of one month.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 60 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 29
Figure 21. Daily Precipitation for McClellan-Palomar Airport (top); Encinas Creek & La Jolla (NOAA Tide Gauge 9410230) Water Levels (middle); Encinas Creek Salinity (bottom)
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 61 of 241
.c u
C
" ~ .,,,
" "
1.4 1.2
Event A
o: CJ
08/16/202 1
Event A
U -1
~
"' C -3
~ 08/ 16/2021
Event A
30 0
08/ 16/202 1
09/15/202 1
09/ 15/2021
09/ 15/202 1
Daily Precipitation - Carlsbad Event C
Event B
[J I 11111 , I
10/15/202 1 11/14/2021 12/14/2021 0 1/13/2 022
Encinas Creek Water Levels
Event C
Event B
10/ 15/2021 11/ 14/2021 12/14/2021 01/13/2022
--West Elevation --East Elevation -- La Jolla Elevation Encinas Creek Salinity
Event B Event C
10/ 15/202 1 11/14/202 1 12/14/202 1 01/13/2022
--West Conductivity --East Conductivity
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 30
Figure 22. Southbound Carlsbad Boulevard Culvert on 12/15/2022 (A & B) and 01/19/2022 (C & D)
C
D
A (Event C)
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 62 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 31
5.3 Key Findings
The key findings from the hydrological site assessment are based on the water level monitoring data, habitat elevations, and visual observations during the period of study. These findings are summarized below:
1. Water levels and salinity concentration measured at the west location are indicative of an intermittent closed estuary which refers to an estuary that is periodically (or seasonally) closed to the open ocean.
The morphology exhibits variable conditions influenced by freshwater inflow, saltwater overwash and seepage through the road prism fill. While the concrete culvert sill elevations remain fixed, the southbound Carlsbad B oulevard sill exhibits characteristics of a natural bar -built estuary mouth formed b y sand and cobble transported up the wave slope during high swells and then breached/scoured during high fluvial flows. While these discrete events can significantly alter water levels and salinity concentration within the estuary episodically, the mixed semi-diurnal tidal signature continuously observed during mouth closure periods of neap tides and no freshwater inflow indicates a direct influence from seepage (groundwater exchange) through the southbound Carlsbad Boulevard fill prism between the beach an d estuary. Thus, the current water levels and salinity concentration trends observed at the west location would likely persist with replacement of the existing southbound Carlsbad B oulevard with a naturalized shoreline and dune that would intermittently breach and exchange groundwater seepage.
2. The inlet morphology and breach characteristics of this type of estuary are dependent on several factors including wave and tide exposure, availability of sediment, freshwater input , concrete culvert sill and as observed in the measured data described above. The basics of these processes are shown in Figure 23, in which tide and wave exposure deposit s ediment at the inlet to create a temporary berm or sill. In addition, sediment from upstream fluvial sources, while assumed to be minimal given the developed watershed, may be transported and deposited at the shoreline and ocean via freshwater flow. The southbound Carlsbad Boulevard culvert acts as the inlet of the estuary, and a sill is created as sand and cobble are deposited by waves and tides. This morphology of this sill is dependent on spontaneous event -based trends that are dictated by oceanographic conditions and freshwater inflow.
3. Tidal marsh elevations within the intermittent closed estuary were observed to be higher than that of closed or perennially open estuaries and are dictated by the tidal prism, water levels, and accretion within the estuary. As the sea level rises, tidal marsh elevations will increase to maintain a state of equilibrium. Specific to intermittent breached estuaries, more frequent inlet breaching allows for marsh inundation and sediment accretion within the estuary. This proce ss aids the marsh transition with sea level rise.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 63 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 32
Figure 23. Intermittent Breached Estuary Physical Processes during Open Inlet Condition (top) and Closed Inlet Conditions (bottom)
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 64 of 241
Closed Inlet
MSL
Ocean
wave
deposition
I Breached Inlet I
MSL
wave
deposition
SB Carlsbad Blvd
seepage
SB Carlsbad Blvd
Intermittent sand
cobble deposit /
inlet closure
Estuary
Estuary
freshwater
inflow
~
freshwate r
inflow
~
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 33
6. Las Encinas Creek Estuary Habitat
Restoration Concepts
Habitat restoration concepts were developed for the two Project implementation options being considered.
These concepts are presented in this section with simplistic graphics illustrating the main components proposed. Preliminary design drawings for each of these concepts are included as Appendix B.
6.1.1 Phased Retreat or “Retreat Later”
The Phased Retreat or “Retreat Later” alternative would either leave in place or partially remove the southbound South Carlsbad Blvd infrastructur e for interim passive or active recreational uses until coastal hazards overwhelm the repurposed space. Once this trigger is met, southbound would be demolished and public access and recreational uses would shift to the new bi-directional roadway corridor. Major infrastructure elements (e.g. the roadway) would be constructed at its ultimate location while other temporary , movable, and/or low-cost Project features would occupy spaces identified as being vulnerable to projected coastal hazards. The existing r ock shoreline protection may persist for a period of time to support the use of these spaces.
Add paragraph here that speaks to phasing as it relates to SLR The “Retreat Later ” option includes the following elements and is shown below in Figure 24 =Error! Reference source not found.:
• Southbound Carlsbad Boulevard:
o Repurpose existing roadway and arch culvert for public access and recreational uses. o Retain existing rock shoreline protection (RSP) to protect these features until future coastal hazard triggers are met.
• Restoration of Las Encinas Creek estuary:
o Expand existing salt marsh and dendritic tidal channel network in footprint of removed Northbound Carlsbad Boulevard fill prism (i.e. under the new bridge) and increase transition zone habitat area
o Enhance Las Encinas Creek stream -estuary ecotone and reduce erosion potential at rail prism culvert outlet. Removal of iceplant / other non-native vegetation and active restoration (planting) with native species.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 65 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 34
Figure 24. Proposed Project Elements for the ”Retreat Later” Alternative Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 66 of 241
Legend
CJ Habitat Enhancement
Area (HEA)
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 35
6.1.2 Let it Go or “Retreat Now”
The Let it Go or “Retreat Now” alternative, refers to the naturalization of the area by removing infrastructure within the 2120 projected coastal hazard zone and restoring the La s Encinas Creek estuary system. More specifically, this alternative seeks to establish a more natural cross-shore gradient promoting morphological processes that support formation and resilience of a coastal pocket beach, dune, and dune -slack wetlands.
The Las Encinas Creek estuary and beach would be allowed to evolve naturally and without major maintenance after constructed. The option would include the following elements which are shown graphically in Figure 25Error! Reference source not found.:
• Southbound Carlsbad Boulevard:
o Remove existing roadway, roadway fill, arch culvert and RSP. • Restoration of Las Encinas Creek estuary:
o Construct cobble/sand dune along landward edge of abandoned southbound roadway alignment to form the backshore of a bar-built estuary type system. o Cobble/sand dune would be allowed to naturally erode and migr ate landward over time , accommodating the formation of a pocket beach.
o Las Encinas Creek estuary restoration is same as that specified in the ”Retreat Later” Alternative; however, depending upon the constructed dune approach and estimated rate of retreat, persistence of constructed tidal channels could be reduced from more frequent overwash and cobble/sand dune landward migration.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 67 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 36
Figure 25. Proposed Project Elements for the “Retreat Now” Alternative Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 68 of 241
,7 Habitat Enhancement
~ Area (HEA)
Tidal Wetland
Establishment Area
60 120 180 24
Feet
Ma, Pfqection: Lnbfft Corlfornul Coffc
Hon2Dr,b I Da~ Hortt,Ame,;c..,. 1983
Gw: NAO 1983 St.:i:ePlilM CaHom:.a V1 F1PS040i F,
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 37
7. Hydraulic Site Assessment
The U .S. Army Corps of Engineers River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) was used to assess hydraulic conditions of Las Encinas Creek within the Study Area under existing conditions and the propose d two alternatives. The primary purpose of the hydraulic analysis was to:
1. Assess the potential change in water surface elevations between existing conditions and proposed alternatives under current and future SLR scenarios, and
2. Assess the potential for increased scour of Las Encinas Creek with the proposed alternatives The preliminary model results have been used to inform the conceptual restoration design grading and anticipated need for scour counter measures at the pro posed bridge abutments and within Las Encinas Creek. Once an alternative is selected, additional hydraulic modeling will be necessary to advance the design.
7.1 Model Domain & Bathymetry
HEC-RAS 2D was selected for the assessment of flood event modeling. The model domain extends from the railroad crossing west into the Pacific Ocean and far enough offshore to mitigate any hydraulic grade line influences of the tidal boundary condition. Mesh size varies within the model domain with a higher resolution within the Project Area, and larger mesh sizes off the coast to minimize model run times (Figure 26).
Figure 26. HEC-RAS 2D Model Domain
Topographic data (2016 USGS West Coast El Nino LiDAR Digital Elevation Model) was exported from the NOAA Digital Coast and processed in AutoCAD 3D to develop a Digital Elevation Model and imported into HEC-RAS. The conceptual grading design for both the Re treat Now and Phased Retreat alternatives were simulated in the model.
7.2 Model Boundary Conditions
The HEC-RAS model contains two boundary conditions. The upstream boundary condition was assigned in Encinas Creek upstream of the railroad crossing and is used to represent fluvial flow. The fluvial input was selected as the two and 100-year peak flows as described in the Encinas Creek Location Hydraulic Study, Section 12 (Caltrans, 2009) which are 427.6 cfs and 1,910 cfs, respectively. Tidal water levels obtained from Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 69 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 38
La Jolla, (Gage #9410230) were used for the downstream model water surface elevations and included the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) of 7.01 ft and the Mean Low Water of 0.71 ft (NAVD 88).
7.3 Flood Potential Results
Figure 27 shows the computed water surface elevations between the rail crossing and southbound Carlsbad Blvd crossing during the two and 100-year fluvial flow occurring coincident with the HAT and HAT plus 6.6 ft of SLR. The results indicate that under existing conditions, both south - and northbound Carlsbad Blvd crossings have capacity to convey the 100-year flow without road surface flooding during the HAT. The results also indicate that an increase in SLR by 6.6 ft during the 100-yr flow event does not alter the upstream water surface elevations because both culverts are inlet controlled which creates a backwater condition that propagate up to the rail crossing.
Figure 27. Modelled water surface elevation for existing conditions The “Retreat Later” alternative replaces the northbound Carlsbad Blvd fill prism and double box culvert with a bridge which effectively eliminates the backwater condition created by the culvert during the 100-year flow and lowers the water surface elevation through the rail crossing ( Figure 28). The hydraulic conditions of southbound Carlsbad Blvd crossing remain unchanged from existing conditions.
Figure 28. Modelled water surface elevation for Phased Retreat Alternative Similar to the Phased Retreat alternative, the “Retreat Now” alternative replaces the northbound Carlsbad Blvd fill prism and double box culvert with a bridge and also replaces the existing southbound Carlsbad Blvd and arch culvert with a naturalized dune. The dune crest will breach intermittently, similar to exist ing conditions, but will also retreat landward and upward with SLR as previously described. To assess water surface elevations associated with this alternative, the 100-year flow was simulated with dune crest elevations for 1.7-, 3.3- and 6.6-ft of SLR and as described in the shoreline response assessment section of this report.
These crest elevations result in a conservative backwater condition that does not account for a breach that would likely occur at a much lower elevation ( Figure 29). The results indicate the 100-year fluvial flow water Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 70 of 241
35 30
00 25
00 0
>
~ 20
~
C
o 15 ·;,
~
LU 10
40 35
_ 30
::::
0 ~ 25
z
~ 20
C
0 ~ 15
"' 10
200 400
Water Surface Elevation - Existing
600
Station (ft)
--Q2 HAT7.0lft --Q100Ha t 7.01 --Q213.6 1ft --Q10013.6 1 ft Water Surface Elevation - Retreat Later
Bi-directional bridge
800
Railway
1000
Railway
'----...
:,,-----
: Top of
r--eulvert
,,,,----
:_I~e2f
: Culvert
! SB Carlsbad 1
f~~ /,_, ,r---l_~ _____ L_ ___ i __________ _: _______ ==================i::=== I
t
t
200 400 600
Statio n (ft)
--Q2 HAT 7.01ft --Q100 Hat7.01 --Q213.61ft --Q10013.61ft 800 1000
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 39
surface elevation created from the dune crest elevation at 6.6 -ft SLR (22 -ft) is equivalent to the 100 -year water surface elevation through the rail prism culvert under existing conditions. Based on these results, the proposed alternatives would not increase water surface elevations within or beyond the Project Area.
Figure 29. Modelled water surface elevation for “Retreat Now” Alternative Under existing conditions, the existing culvert crossings create backwater conditions. Removal of the culverts results in lower water surface elevation potential and increased flow velocities. Indications of scour are present onsite and have the potential to increase. To better understand the erosion potential of Las Encinas Creek through the Project Area, the hydraulic model was run with a 100-year flow and tidal boundary condition of Mean Low Water (0.71 -ft) which would emulate a dune breach. The water surface elevation and velocity profile of Las Encinas Creek are shown on Figure 30. The velocity distribution throughout the Project Area is shown in Figure 31. The results indicate an erosion potential within Las Encinas Creek and , therefore, a series of boulder weirs and pools have been shown on the conceptual plans between the rail crossing and new bridge to prevent headward incision of Las Encinas Creek that could undermine the rail prism culvert and/or expose the existing buried wastewater treatment discharge pipe. During subsequent phases of design, alignment and profile options can be further assessed as well as use of a roughened channel in lieu of boulder weirs as counter measures to minimize channel erosion and scour potential.
Figure 30. Velocity profile for Q100 (MLW tide, 0.71-ft) under ”Retreat Now” Alternative
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 71 of 241
Water Surface Elevation - Retreat Now
40 Railway
------
35 Bi-direc tional bridge
/,,-----
i 30 ,.'_IOJl_~f-
i ~ 1~-
z 1------------------i----~i--------------------------------------i- ' --- ~ 20
C
0 ·.;:; 15
~ w
20 18
16 200 400 600
Station (ft)
800
--Ql OOMLW 0.71ft Dune Crest --QlOO 15ft Dune crest --Ql OO 19ft Dune Crest --Q10022 ft Dune Crest Water Surface Elevation - Retreat Now
1000
Railway
-----,,,,----·
,.'_ !~P-□!
: Culvert
I
i
40 35
30 10
~---------~---------~----------~---------~---------~-------~ o 200 400 600
Station (ft)
--Velocity (ft/sec) --Bathymetry
800 1000
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 40
Figure 31. Velocity for Q100 (MLW tide, 0.71-ft) under ”Retreat Now” Alternative
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 72 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 41
8. Shoreline Response Assessment
The purpose of this assessment is to estimate the potential shoreline response of each approach to projected sea level rise scenarios. The rate of SLR and shoreline retreat will affect habitat transgression, the evolution of the Las Encinas Creek channel, and the overall public interaction and access through the site.
8.1 Methods & Assumptions
The first step in this assessment was to determine baseline shoreline erosion rates and projected erosion rates with sea level rise. The Coastal Storm Modeling System Coastal One-Line Assimilated Simulation Tool (CoSMoS-COAST) led by USGS, publishe d regional shoreline projections with SLR scenarios from 0.5 meters (1.6-ft) to 5 meters (16.4 -ft). These shoreline retreat projections use historical trends of the MHW shoreline with models that compute long and cross shore transport at evenly spaced transects (Barnard, P.L, et al., 2018). The CoSMoS shoreline projections were used to determine rates of shoreline erosion with SLR by measuring from the current MHW shoreline to the projected eroded shoreline.
Since the CoSMoS results are only available in discrete SLR increments, the data used to estimate coastal hazards may not precisely correlate with the SLR projections listed in Table 3-2. However, the differences between the nearest CoSMoS data increment and the SLR projections are insignificant when considering the uncertainties in predicting SLR and coastal hazards over the long-term.
To further examine a potential shoreline response with sea level rise, the Bruun rule was applied to the nearest SANDAG beach profile (i.e. CB-0760). The Bruun Rule is a one -dimensional shoreline assessment which assumes that the profile is in equilibrium. The beach profile will retain its shape and sand eroded from the beach will be deposited in the nearshore within the active profile (bounded by the depth of closure). Bruun Rule assumes that as the sea level rises, the profile shifts landward and upward to maintain a position relative to MSL. The landward shift is calculated with the berm/dune crest elevation, closure depth, relative sea level rise, and the total distance of the active profile. The results from the Bruun Rule calculations were compared against the CoSMoS shoreline retreat results , in which the CoSMoS results yielded a more conservative estimate. Due to the assumptions and uncertainties with both the Bruun Rule and CoSMoS methods, the more conservative (CoSMoS) shoreline projections were chos en to represent the upper range of retreat for the project area.
8.2 Cobble Reduction Factor
Since t he proposed ”Retreat Now ” Project alternative includes a mixed sand/ cobble dune, an additional analysis was performed to estimate retreat rates of a cobble dominant shoreline. Currently, t here is limited data available on the physical performance of mixed sand / cobble beaches and berms on the open coast of southern California . Additionally, it is poorly understood how these systems will respond to projected sea level rise. Although, some studies have noted that cross and alongshore transport of cobble is much less than that of the transport of sand based on observations in San Diego County and southern California (Everts, 2002; Hironori et al 2019). Furthermore, it has been observed that waves and tidal action transport cobble onshore to form steep cobble berms (Everts, 2002; Hironori et al 2019). This information suggests that the cobble berms can be used to slow the erosion of a shoreline or add a layer of dynamic protection to a shoreline.
To evaluate this shoreline erosion reduction for cobble-dominated beaches, projected retreat rates with SLR were assessed at various cobble and sandy beach reference sites. Reference areas in southern California were chosen that contain both a cobble and sand -dominant profile within close proximity such that the oceanographic forcing is similar. The reference beaches selected include:
• Henamans (cobble) vs Pacific Beach / Tourmaline (sand) in the City of San Diego • Ventura (sand) vs Ventura River Mouth (cobble) in the City of Ventura Projected erosion rates for these reference sites were obtained from the CoSMoS data, in which retreat rates of the cobble beaches were then compared to the sand -dominant beaches. The comparison was a simple percent decrease calculation for each SLR projection between the sand and cobble beaches (starting value- Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 73 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 42
final value)/starting value). The erosion rate for each SLR scenario was t hen averaged to yield a common reduction factor for both references sites, which could then be applied to the shoreline retreat at the Study area. An example is shown in Figure 32 and Figure 33, in which erosion rates for the historically cobble beach (Henamans) are roughly half that of the nearby sand -dominant beach (Pacific Beach/Tourmaline). The reduced cobble erosion rates provide a lower bound estimate of shoreline retreat projections for this analysis.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 74 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 43
Figure 32. Location of Cobble Influence Shoreline Erosion Analysis. Top: Henamans Beach (cobble beach) and Pacific Beach / Tourmaline (sand beach); Bottom: Ventura (sand beach) and Ventura River Mouth (cobble beach) Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 75 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 44
Figure 33 Comparison of Shoreline Erosion Rates for Henamans and Pacific Beach The projected shoreline erosion rates for the Study Area were found to range from 2.8 ft/yr to 3.4 feet/year for the upper (assumed sand dominant shoreline) scenario and 1.5 feet/year t o 1.8 ft/ yr for the lower (assumed cobble dominant shoreline) scenario (Table 8-1). The cobble erosion reduction factor was assumed to be approximately 50% of the sand dominant shoreline based on analysis of the reference sites listed above. In other words, cobble dominant beaches were assumed to retreat at a rate 50% lower than sandy beaches.
Table 8-1. Projected Shoreline Erosion Rates for the Study Area Time
Horizon
Sea Level
Rise (ft)
Shoreline Erosion Rate (ft/yr) Shoreline Erosion Distance (ft) Cobble
Beach Sand Beach Cobble Beach Sand Beach
2050 1.7 1.5 2.8 44 84
2070 3.3 1.3 2.5 66 127
2100 6.6 1.8 3.4 141 271
8.3 Shoreline Response to Sea Level Rise
To evaluate the geomorphic response and apply the determined shoreline retreat rates to the Study Area alternatives, conceptual profiles for each option were developed. This section discusses the potential ran ge of shoreline responses specific to each alternative.
8.3.1 Phased Retreat or “Retreat Later”
The phased retreat alternative proposes to partially repurpose the existing southbound Carlsbad Blvd, thus the geomorphic response of the road prism and associated c omponents are being evaluated here. As the site has already experienced spontaneous erosio n in 2015 -2016, past events provide insight to future conditions with SLR. In addition, the geology of the road prism as it compares to the adjacent cliffs will help understand the potential response of this feature.
From a geologic perspective, the road prism has been documented by SIO as loose fill material. It is understood that this material has a high vulnerability to erosion and RSP is required to maintain a sta ble roadway. In addition, the dry sand beach profile is minimal, and the current high-water shoreline is typically at the toe of the RSP. With SLR, it can be expected that the dry sand beach widths will be lost entirely. In Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 76 of 241
4.5 4.0
35 3.0
....
:?. 2.5
OJ
2..0 +' ra rr.
+' 1.5 ra
OJ ....
+'
1.0 OJ
rr.
05 t
0.0 0 l 2. 3 4 5 6
Sea Level Rise (ft)
7 8
---&..- Pacific B~ach
(sand beachl
---&..- Vent ura (sand
beachl
-----· Vent ura Rive r
M out h (,cobble
beachl
_ _._ __ He n am ans
(oobb beach)
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 45
addition, wave action and undercutting at the road prism may be accelerated with SLR should the RSP lose its integrity.
The elevation of the roadway at the Las Encinas Creek bridge is approximately 17’ and significant wave overtopping was observed at this location during the 2015-2016 El Niño. Under the “Retreat Later” alternative, wave runup from extreme wave events in combination with SLR will result in more frequent, episodic flooding of the roadway and damage to the existing RSP. The maintenance and repair of the RSP will be a determining factor in the long-term shoreline response under this alternative.
With little or no maintenance, the RSP will settle lower on the profile becoming less effective against erosion from storm events and SLR . Eventually, the road prism will be subject to episodic erosion behind the failed RSP, likely impacting the recreational opportunities available in this area. With increased maintenance and repair activities, the RSP could continue to provide protection of the abandoned roadway although this strategy would involve significant cost and regulatory challenges.
8.3.2 Let it Go or “Retreat Now”
The shoreline retreat rates were applied to the ”Retreat Now” concept, which proposes to use a cobble-sand combination to create a dune strand feature in place of the existing southbound Carlsbad Blvd roadway. The overall resiliency to erosion of this feature will depend on the ratio of sand to cobble . A sand -cobble dune was constructed in south Imperial Beach, fronting the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Estuary ( Figure 34).
This Project alternative proposes to use similar techniques to protect the restored habitat area of Las Encinas Creek.
Figure 34. Cobble-Dominant Dune fronting the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge in Imperial Beach (source:
govisitsandiego.com)
To account for the uncertainties associated with cobble shorelines, erosion rates were applied to a conceptual profile for both the sand and cobble scenarios, providing a potential range of outcomes. The geomorphic response associated with these erosion rates follows the assumptions of the Bruun rule, meaning the profile shape is preserved, despite a landward and upward migration of the dune with SLR.
The results suggest that w ith 6.6’ of SLR under the sand -dominant scenario, the shoreline will be as far landward as the existing northbound Carlsbad Blvd. However, with 6.6’ of SLR un der the cobble -dominant (lower) scenario, the shoreline may only erode to about half of that distance (Figure 35).
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 77 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 46
Figure 35. Shoreline Evolution Projections for Assumed Sand Dune (top) and Cobble/Sand Dune (bottom) Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 78 of 241
Conceptual Profile: Upper Band Shoreline Retreat - Sand 40 --Concept Profile (B)
--2050 Upper Band 1.7' SLR (a)
--2070Upper Band 3.3' SLR (b)
--2100Upper Band 6.6' SLR (c)
/ \
,1· \\,
!/ ~ \\\
I / ~ \ / \
35 30
0 25 > <t
z
20 £
C:
0 ·~
15 > .,
w
10 5
0 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500
Range from Toe of Road Fill (ft)
Conceptual Profile: Lower Band Shoreline Retreat - Cobble 40 --Concept Profile (B)
--2050 Lower Band 1.7' SLR
--2070 Lower Band 3.3' SLR
--2100 Lower Band 6.6' SLR
' \
// \\\
/ \, /. \
/ \\
/ -------·-·\ !________ --- \
35 30
0 25
~ z
20 £
C:
0 ·;::;
"' 15 > .,
w
10 5
0 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500
Range from Toe of Road Fill (fl)
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 47
8.3.2.1 Beach Formation
Since the shoreline erosion rates at the Study Area are higher than the adjacent cliffs there is potential for a sand/cobble beach area to exist over the long-term. Figure 36 depicts the difference in erosion rates between the shoreline and the adjacent cliffs which would favor beach formation within the Study Area . As the shoreline retreats to a position further l andward of the adjacent high ground, the cliff formations will reduce the longshore transport of sediment . This would have a stabilizing effect on the sand/cobble beach in the vicinity of Las Encinas Creek, providing multiple public and ecological benefits in a region that may have very limited beach area in the future.
Figure 36. Shoreline vs Cliff Erosion Projection through Year 2100 Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 79 of 241
- flj 1:.....!i80 2~ <'$
Feet
f,'apPn:i,ecz:a,:Lani:>er!CoriormalConic
HoritorulD.mm: Nor!hAmerican1983
Grid:NAD1963Sta!ePlaneCalilomaVI FIPS0406Feet
Existing bluff edge
• - • (SIO, 2021)
• - • 2050 (1.7' SLR)
• - • 2070 (3.3' SLR)
• - • 2100 (6 6' SLR)
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 48
9. Habitat Migration Projections
Using the vegetation and topographic mapping, conceptual grading plans were developed and analyzed to predict post-project habitats for both alternatives and for comparison to existing conditions or the “No Project” alternative.
The elevation zones mapped for estuarine dependent habitat types, including pickleweed marsh (tidal wetland) and open water, between south- and northbound Carlsbad Blvd were used as analog elevation ranges for developing the conceptual grading plans and corresponding habitat types f or each alternative. With SLR and lack of fine sediment accretion , the estuarine dependent habitat types are expected to migrate upslope and those in lower elevations “drowning” and becoming open water. The proposed removal of the northbound Carlsbad Blvd culvert and replacement with a bridge will promote habitat connectively through the Las Encinas Creek Estuary -Stream ecotone; accommodating vegetation migration with SLR. The SLR projections assessed included 1.7-ft (near-term),
3.3-ft (mid-century) and 6.6-ft (late-century).
9.1 Existing Conditions or “No Project” Alternative
The habitat projections for existing conditions or the “No Project” alternative are shown in Figure 37 and Figure 38.
The assessment assumes the RSP and southbound Carlsbad Blvd would remain in place into the future and necessary repairs to maintain the RSP and road prism would occur. Key findings of the projected habitat changes for the No Project option are as follows:
• The small beach area that exists will be lost with 1.7’ of SLR. • Tidal wetland area has the potential to expand where gradual topography allows but would compete with existing non-native vegetation, such as iceplant , that would require removal to accommodate colonization of native species.
• Arroyo willow and coastal scrub habitats will decrease from expansion of tidal wetlands and open water. • Non-native vegetation would persist unless treated.
Figure 37. Habitat projections with projected SLR under Existing Conditions Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 80 of 241
16 14
12 V, 10
~ u
~
l'tl 8
QJ
~
6 4
- -
2 0
Existing Conditions (EC) Existing+ 1. 7' SLR -Existing+ 3.3' SLR Existing + 6.6 SLR Pickleweed marsh (Tidal Wetland)
Pampas grass
■ Open water
■ Non-native scrub
■ lceplant
Golden bush
■ Developed
■ Coastal Scrub (Coyote Brush/Sage)
Cattail marsh
Beach/Dune
■ Arroyo willow
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 49
Figure 38. Habitat Projections for Existing Conditions
9.2 Phased Retreat or “Retreat Later”
The Phased Retreat or ”Retreat Later” alternative removes a portion of the northbound Carlsbad Blvd fill prism within Las Encinas Creek through the construction of a free spanning bridge to accommodate an expanded salt marsh and dendritic tidal channel network as well as enhancing the Las Encinas Creek stream-estuary ecotone. This alternative would also replace non -native vegetation with native species and minimize impacts to existing native vegetation , such as Arroyo willow and cattail. This option does not remove the southbound roadway prism and instead repurposes this area with public access and recreation amenities. Similar to the existing condition assessment, this alternative assumes the RSP and southbound Carlsbad Blvd would remain in place into the future and necessary repairs to maintain the RSP and road prism would occur.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 81 of 241
3.3ft SLR
0 50 100
N
Feet $
Map Projection Lambert Confonmal Genie
Horizontal Datum North American 1983
Gnd NAO 1983 StatePlane Califom,a VI FIPS 0406 Feet
Habitat Type
• Arroyo willow
Beach/Dune
Coastal Scrub • Goldenbush
• (Coyote Brush/ - lceplant
Sage) • Non-native scrub
\'Ghdnef\ghd\US\San Oiego\ProJects\56 t \ 11215903\GIS\Maps\Oelrverables\Habnat_ Conversion\ 11215903 _ Carlsbad _Habrtat_ Convet'Slon _RevB _ offhne.aprx Pampas grass
Pickleweed
marsh
Data source Created byjlopez4
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 50
The habitat projections for the ”Retreat Later” alternative are shown in Figure 39 and Figure 40. The habitat response under this alternative has commonalities to that of the existing conditions. With this alternative, the main takeaways of the projected habitat changes are as follows:
• The narrow beach area that exists will be lost with 1.7 ft of SLR. • An initial increase of tidal wetlands are created with the restoration design but over time with SLR the total area will track similar to existing conditio ns. The projected tidal wetland habitat assumes removal of non - native vegetation to accommodate colonization of native species. • Decrease in iceplant and other non -natives by removing and preplacing initially with native transition zone habitat such as coastal scrub which would persist through 6.6 ft of SLR. • Arroyo willow and coastal scrub habitats will decrease from expansion of tidal wetlands and open water; and over time with SLR the total area will track similar to existing conditions.
Figure 39. Habitat projections for projected SLR under ”Retreat Later” alternative Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 82 of 241
16 14
12 vi'lO
~ u
2-
ro 8
Q.J
~
6 4
2 0
Existing
Conditions
Proposed
Conditions
Proposed+ 1.7'
SLR
Proposed+ 3.3'
SLR
Proposed+ 6.6'
SLR
Pickleweed marsh (Tidal Wetland)
Pampas grass
■ Open water
■ Non-native scrub
■ lceplant
Golden bush
■ Developed
■ Coastal Scrub (Coyote Brush/Sage)
Cattail marsh
Beach/Dune
■ Arroyo willow
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 51
Figure 40. Habitat Projections under ”Retreat Later” Alternative Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 83 of 241
6.6ft SLR
C:
\Us@rs~lopez4\De.sktop\ 11215903 _Carlsbad_ o, · @\ 11215903 _Carlsbad_ Habitat_ Conv@rsion_ offline\ 11215903 _Carlsbad_ Study Area
Proposed Bridge
Cattail marsh
Coastal Scrub
- (Coyote Brush/
Sage)
lceplant
Non-native scrub
Open water
Pampas grass
Pickleweed marsh
0 50 100 200 300 400 500
N
Feet $
Map Proiection Lambert Conformal Come
Honzonlal Datum North Amcncan 1983
Gnd NAO 1983 StatePlane Calrforma VI FIPS 0406 Feet
Data source: World Hillshade Eso, ASA. NGA. USGS, FEMA
World H1hhade: Sources Esn, Airbus OS, USGS. NGA, NASA CGIAR, N Robmsoo, NCEAS. NLS. OS, NMA,
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 52
9.3 Let it Go or “Retreat Now” Alternative
Similar to the ”Retreat Later” alternative, the Let it Go or “Retreat Now ” alternative removes a portion of the northbound Carlsbad Blvd fill prism within Las Encinas Creek through the construction of a free spanning bridge to accommodate an expanded salt marsh, enhances the Las Encinas Creek stream-estuary ecotone but also removes southbound Carlsbad Blvd fill prism and creates a n aturalized dune shoreline. Given the potential increase in landward migration of sand at the mouth, this alternative includes a simpler dendritic tidal channel network relative to ”Retreat Later” alternative. This alternative would also replace non -native vegetation with native species and minimize impacts to existing native vegetation , such as Arroyo willow and cattail. The habit at projections for the ”Retreat Now” alternative are shown in Figure 41 and Figure 42. The main findings from the projected habitat changes for this option are as follows:
• Provides a sustained beach and dune with SLR.
• Reduces the developed area by about half through the removal of the southbound roadway and RSP. • An initial increase of tidal wetlands are created as a result of the restoration design; however, over time with SLR the total area will evolve similar to existing conditions and ”Retreat Later” alternative. The project ed tidal wetland habitat assumes removal of non -native vegetation to accommodate colonization of native species.
• An initial increase of open water area but over time with SLR the total area will evolve similar to the “No Project” and “Retreat Later” alternatives.
• Decrease in iceplant and other non -natives by removing and preplacing initially with native transition zone habitat such as coastal scrub which would persist through 6.6 ft of SLR. • Arroyo willow and coastal scrub habitats will decrease from expansion of tidal wetlands and open water and over time with SLR the total area will evolve similar to the “No Project” and the ”Retreat Later” alternative.
Figure 41. Habitat projections with projected SLR under ”Retreat Now” alternative
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 84 of 241
16 14
12 <i, 10
~ u
~
ro 8
Cl)
~
6 4
2 0
Existing
Conditions
Proposed
Conditions
Proposed+ 1.7'
SLR
-Proposed+ 3.3'
SLR
Proposed+ 6.6'
SLR
Pickleweed marsh {Tidal Wetland)
Pampas grass
■ Open water
■ Non-native scrub
■ lceplant
Goldenbush
■ Developed
■ Coastal Scrub (Coyote Brush/Sage)
Cattail marsh
Beach/Dune
■ Arroyo willow
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 53
Figure 42. Habitat Projections under ”Retreat Now” alternative
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 85 of 241
Study Area
Proposed Bridge
Cattail marsh
Coastal Scrub
- (Coyote Brush/
Sage)
Non-native scrub
Pampas grass
Pickleweed marsh
C: Data source· World H llshade Sources Esn. Airbus OS, USGS. NGA. NASA. CGIAR, N Robm,on, NCEAS. NLS, OS. \Users~lopez4\De.sktop\11215903_Carlsbad_o, · e\11215903_Carlsbad_Habitat_Conv@rsion_offline\11215903_Carlsbad_H NMA, Geodata,tyrelsen, Rijkswaterslaat GSA, Geoland, FEMA. lntermap and the G1S U5er community Created
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 54
10. Comparison of Implementation Options
The habitat migration projections modelled for existing conditions and Phased Retreat option assumed the southbound Carlsbad Blvd prism and existing RSP would remain in place into the future. However, wave runup from extreme wave events in combination with SLR will result in more frequent, episodic flooding of the roadway and damage to the existing RSP. As previously described, with little or no maintenance the RSP will settle lower on the profile becoming less effective against erosion from storm events and SLR. While not directly analyzed in this Study, if continued maintenance of the RSP and road prism is not completed following storm events, the road prism erosion behind the failed RSP can be expected between 1.7 ft and 3.3 ft of SLR.
A comparison of the habitat projections for each of the implementation options is shown in Figure 43 relative to the existing conditions. The key findings from these assessments are as follows:
• Persistence of a sandy beach. With 1.7 ft of SLR the existing narrow beach within the Study Area will be lost if southbound Carlsbad Blvd . remains under existing conditions and the ”Retreat Later” option. The ”Retreat Now” option increases the beach area now and sustains this beach through 6.6 ft of SLR as the beach and created dune are allowed move landward.
• Restoration of developed areas. The ”Retreat Now” option would remove about half of the developed area that exists within the study area. These developed areas would be restored to coastal strand habitat.
• Tidal wetland migration. Under existing conditions and with both implementation options, the gradual topographic relief east of the southbound Carlsbad Blvd . can accommodate tidal wetland habitat migration with future SLR. The habitat p rojections for both implementation options assume removal of non -native vegetation and replacement with tidal wetlands and coastal scrub, which provides immediate habitat benefit and accommodates the migration of the tidal wetlands long-term. Restoration of this area can maximize tidal wetland creation now and can increase resiliency through 6.6 ft of SLR for both implementation options.
Removal of the non-native vegetation to accommodate native plantings will be an important restoration goal to achieve desired vegetation communities in both the short and long-term.
• Transition of riparian habitat. The habitat projections show an overall decline of Arroyo willow riparian habitat with SLR for existing conditions and both implementation options. The loss could be reduced with establishment of a dditional riparian habitat in suitable areas around the periphery of the Study Area that would ideally be contiguous with similar riparian habitat types.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 86 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 55
Figure 43. Comparison of Habitat Projections with Sea Level Rise for the Implementation Options
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 87 of 241
16 14
12 ~ 10
u
: 8
<l)
~ 6
4 2
0 1.7'SLR 3.3' SLR
111111
Existing
Conditions
(EC)
Proposed Proposed
Phased Let it Go
Retreat
■ Arroyo willow
EC+l.7'
SLR
■ Coastal Scrub {Coyote Brush/Sage)
■ lceplant
Pampas grass
Phased
Retreat+
1.7' SLR
Let it Go + EC+ 3.3 '
1.7' SLR SLR
Beach/Dune
■ Developed
■ Non-native scrub
Phased
Retreat+
3.3 ' SLR
Pickleweed marsh {Tidal Wetland)
Let it Go + EC+ 6.6 '
3.3 ' SLR SLR
Cattail marsh
Goldenbush
■ Open water
6.6' SLR
Phased
Retreat+
6.6 ' SLR
-Let it Go+
6.6 ' SLR
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 56
11. Conclusions
A key objective of this study was to develop a baseline understanding of the Las Encinas Creek estuary hydrology and biology. This combined with an unde rstanding of the geomorphic context and historic development patterns provides an understanding of how the natural resources in the Study Area may respond to the proposed Project activities with consideration for SLR. Topographic mapping and biological fie ld assessments were performed to define elevations associated with habitat breaks and to better understand the hydrology associated with each habitat zone. Water level and water quality (salinity and temperature) were actively monitored within the Study Ar ea to characterize the seasonal variability influenced by tidal and surface water inflows to the system. Key findings of the baseline assessment are as follows:
– Beach conditions: The general beach width trend within the Study Area is erosional at a rate of about 2.5 ft/year. This erosional rate is despite regional beach nourishment efforts that occurred in the City in 2001 and 2012. SLR projections are expected to accelerate this trend of erosion resulting in potentially significant shoreline retreat over the long-term.
– Encinas Creek Hydrology:
• Site investigations and monitoring data indicate two perched estuarine pools exist, one located between the southbound and northbound Carlsbad Blvd roadways and the other east of northbound Carlsbad Blvd.
The typical water levels were approximately eight feet (NAVD) in the west pool and 9.7 feet (NAVD) in the east pool. Both pools were controlled by their respective culvert sill elevations. • Monitoring results indicate hydrology was strongly influenced by groundw ater seepage, with periodic breaching events (high tides and large waves) temporarily increasing water levels throughout the estuary.
More frequent inlet breaching allows for marsh inundation and sediment accretion within the estuary , a process which aids the marshes transition with SLR.
• Tidal marsh elevations within the intermittently breached estuary are commensurate with other southern California intermittently breached estuaries which are higher than that of open estuaries exposed to the diurnal tidal prism.
– Habitat Distributions: Habitat distributions are influenced by the complex hydrology onsite as well as elevation within the study area. Key findings were as follows:
• Pickleweed and other halophytic vegetation were found at the lower end of the site’s elevation range on both sides of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard.
• Salt to brackish vegetation types were observed at elevations beyond regular tidal influence, including a high basin that seasonally floods east of northbound Carlsbad Boulevard during large wave events. • Cattail marsh and Arroyo willow are present across the northeast portion of the site around upper Las Encinas Creek.
• Iceplant was the predominant non-native species observed throughout the estuary at a range of elevations from approximately nine to 33 feet (NAVD) invading both brackish wetland and upland habitats.
A baseline understanding of the Las Encinas Creek estuary guided the development of two restoration concepts that consider how the shoreline, tidal marsh habitat, and creek hydrology would respond to SLR. This study analyzed two implementation alternatives, referred to commonly as “ Retreat Later” and “ Retreat Now.” The ”Retreat Later” alternative proposes to repurpose the southbound Carlsbad Blvd corridor to provide community benefits until coastal hazards overwhelm the area at which time actions will be taken to remove the roadway prism . The ”Retreat Now” alternative proposes to remove southbound Carlsbad Blvd and construct a naturalized cobble -dune strand that will allow for landward migration while also offering some protection to the proposed restored habitat within Las Encinas Creek. This study presents a comparison of these two implementation opt ions to aide in the decision making of which restoration option to proceed with for the Project.
Shoreline response with SLR is a distinguishing feature among these alternatives. A summary of the findings of this analysis is below:
• ”Retreat Later”: Significant wave overtopping has been observed in the Study Area during the 2015-2016 El Niño. Under the “Retreat Later” alternative, wave runup from extreme wave events in combination with SLR will result in more frequent, episodic flooding of the repurposed roadway and damage to the existing Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 88 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 57
RSP. The maintenance and repair of the RSP will be a determining factor in the long -term shoreline response under this alternative. With little or no maintenance, the RSP will settle lower on the beach profile becoming less effective against erosion and flooding from storm events and SLR. Eventually, the road prism will be subject to episodic erosion behind the failed RSP, likely impacting the public access and recreational opportunities available in this area. With increased maintenance and repair activities, the RSP could continue to provide protection of the abandoned roadway although this strategy would involve significant cost and potential regulatory challenges.
• ”Retreat Now”: The long-term shoreline retreat rates were applied to the ”Retreat Now” alternative, which proposes to use a cobble -sand combination to create a dune strand feature in place of the existing southbound Carlsbad Blvd. The analysis found that a cobble -dominant berm (similar to the one fronting the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge in Imperial Beach) would be 50% more resilient to erosion with SLR than a similar feature comprised of sand. However, it should be noted that the o verall resiliency to erosion of this dune feature will depend on the desired ratio of sand to cobble.
Another key question that this study aimed to address was how the proposed restored habitats within Las Encinas Creek would migrate with SLR within each of the implementation options being considered. Key findings from this analysis are as follows:
• Persistence of a sandy beach. With 1.7 ft of SLR, the existing narrow beach within the Study Area will be lost if southbound Carlsbad Blvd. remains under the “No Project” and the ”Retreat Later” alternatives. The “Retreat Now” option increases the beach area now and sustains this beach through 6.6 ft of SLR as the beach and created dune are allowed move landward.
• Restoration of developed areas. The ”Retreat Now” option would remove about half of the developed area that exists within the study area. These developed areas would be restored to coastal strand habitat. • Tidal wetland migration. Under the “No Project” and both project alternatives , the gradual topogra phic relief east of the southbound Carlsbad Blvd . can accommodate tidal wetland habitat migration with future SLR. The habitat projections for both project altneratives assume removal of non -native vegetation and replacement with tidal wetlands and coastal scrub, which provides immediate habitat benefit and accommodates the migration of the tidal wetlands long-term. Restoration of this area can maximize tidal wetland creation now and can increase resiliency through 6.6 ft of SLR for both implementati on options.
Removal of the non-native vegetation to accommodate native plantings will be an important restoration goal to achieve desired vegetation communities in short and long-term. • Transition of riparian habitat. The habitat projections show an ov erall decline of Arroyo willow riparian habitat with SLR for “No Project” and both project altenratives. The loss could be reduced with establishment of additional riparian habitat in suitable areas around the periphery of the Study Area that would ideally be contiguous with similar riparian habitat types.
In summary, there are significant opportunities for habitat restoration and enhancement with either alternative including space for various habitats to migrate with SLR. The primary difference between the alternatives is the timing at which the southbound Carlsbad Blvd would be converted from a public access feature to a natural beach and dune area.
It is important to note that mobility improvements to the corridor for passive and active recreation i s a key element of the South Carlsbad Climate Adaptation Project. The configuration of these public access and recreational improvements would be different under each alternative being considered in this study and have not been evaluated in this study. These elements will be evaluated under a separate study as a part of the overall Project.
Next steps include further progressing the design of the Las Encinas Creek estuary restoration component of the Project once a decision is made between the “Retreat Now” and “Retreat Later” options. Should the ”Retreat Later” option be selected, a future study may be needed to define appropriate triggers for future management actions (e.g.
RSP improvements and eventual retreat). Coordination with the resource agencies, spe cifically the CCC, would be beneficial to discuss the triggers and potential management actions associated with this option. The Las Encinas Creek restoration design option selected would ultimately become part of the roadway design package at the conclusion of the South Carlsbad Climate Adaptation Project phase.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 89 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 58
12. References
1. Barnard, P., Erikson, L. H., Foxgrover, A., Limber, P. W., O'Neill, A., & Vitousek, S. (2015). Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) for Southern California, v3.0, Phase 2. U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.5066/F7T151Q4
2. Coastal Frontiers Corporation (CFC). 2020 Regional Beach Monitoring Program, Beach Profile Data.
3. Everts, C.H., Eldon, C.D., Moore, K., 2002. Performance of cobble berms in southern California. Shore & Beach 70 (4), 5-14.
4. Matsumoto, H., Young, A.P., & Guza., R.T., 2019. Observations of surface cobbles at two southern California beaches. Marine Geology. 419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2019.106049.
5. Ocean Protection Council (OPC). 2018. State of California Sea -Level Rise Guidance 2018 Update .
Accessed from: https://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit- A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf
6. Thorne M.K., Buffington K.J., Jones S .F., & Largier J.L. 2021. Wetlands in intermittently closed estuaries can build elevations to keep pa ce with sea -level rise . Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2021.107386
7. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). La Jolla, California Tidal Gauge Station 9410230. Accessed from: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stationhome.html?id=9410230
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 90 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 59
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 91 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 60
Appendices
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 92 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 61
Appendix A
Cliff Erosion Assessment Report
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 93 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 62
Appendix B
Habitat Restoration Concept Drawings
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 94 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 63
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 95 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 64
Appendix C
Las Encinas Creek Habitat Mapping
Technical Memorandum
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 96 of 241
City of Carlsbad | DRAFT Las Encinas Creek Habitat Restoration Alternatives Analysis 65
ghd.com The Power of Commitment
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 97 of 241
Exhibit 3
Public Input Report
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 98 of 241
8'
1.5%
10'
PED
4'
TYPICAL
20' WIDE CLASS 1
36'
2' VAR
R/W
8' 2'
1.5%
2'
TYPICAL TRAIL CROSS SECTION
N.T.S
8'8'10.5' 3'4'10.5'3'8'5'12'
CLASS I PATH MEDIAN/
BARRIER
BIKE BUFF VEHICLE MED. VEHICLE BUFF BIKE SIDEWALK
2% 2%
2' 10'
SIDEWALK
R/W
2'
107'R/W
VAR VAR10.5'
VEHICLE
10.5'
VEHICLE
2'8'8'8'3'10.5'4'10.5'3'8'6'2'
LID BIKE BUFF VEHICLE MED. VEHICLE BUFF BIKE LID SIDEWALK R/W
94'
R/W
VAR10.5'
VEHICLE
10.5'
VEHICLE
2% 2%
TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTION
N.T.S
2% 2%
2'8'8'8'3'10.5'4'10.5'3'8'6'2'
LID BIKE BUFF VEHICLE MED. VEHICLE BUFF BIKE LID SIDEWALK R/W
116'
R/W
VAR12'
CLASS I PATH
10'
SIDEWALK
## #
CARLSBAD BLVD RDWY RESILENCY PLAN
ALTERNATIVE 1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL ALTERNATIVE
11215903 FIG 1
PLAN
NORTH
0 400'200'
2305 Historic Decatur Road Suite 120
San Diego, CA 92106 USA
T 1 858 244 0440
W www.ghd.com
GHD STANDARD A1 ATTRIBUTE BLOCK CAD File No.: GHD_G_0045_T Updated: 08-07-03 Version: 1.1GHD STANDARD A1 SHEET CAD File No.: GHD_G_0045 Updated: 08-07-03 Version: 1.1 Plot Date: Cad File No:30 June 2022 - 1:47 PM N:\US\San Diego\Projects\561\11215903\Digital_Design\ACAD 2018\Figures\Archive\2022-06-29\2022-06-29_Carlsbad Plan Exhibit_Traffic Signal Alternative.dwgPlotted by: Kay Ngariuku
FOR REVIEW ONLY
Note:
1. GHD conceptual design developed from City of Carlsbad provided topography.
Roadway design components will need to be modified in future phases of the project to coincide with final surveyed topographic and parcel line information.
TYPICAL BRIDGE CROSS SECTION
N.T.S
Legend:
Proposed Class I Trail
Proposed Roadway
Coastal Hazard Zone
Proposed Bridge
Property Line
Landscape Areas
Proposed Pedestrian Pathway
North County Transit District RR
Solamar Dr
Palomar Airport Rd
Island Way
Carlsbad Blvd
Oceanview Dr
Retain existing
parking
"Complete Street" roadway
with sidewalks and bike lanes
Las Encinas Creek
restoration area
500' span
bridge
Class 1 shared path for pedestrians,
slower moving mobility options
Pedestrian pathway
Coastal hazard
zoneRetain existing
parking
Retain existing
parking
Coastal access
Coastal access
Avenida Encinas
Right-of-Way limit with
adjacent Class I and sidewalk
Right-of-Way limit with
adjacent Class I and sidewalk
Option 1: 4-lane road with traffic signals
Exhibit 4
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 99 of 241
2'8'8'8'3'10.5'4'10.5'3'8'6'2'
TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTION
N.T.S
LID BIKE BUFF VEHICLE MED. VEHICLE BUFF BIKE LID SIDEWALK 2% 2%
R/W
73'
R/W
VAR
8'8'10.5' 3'4'10.5'3'8'5'12'
CLASS I PATH MEDIAN/
BARRIER
BIKE BUFF VEHICLE MED. VEHICLE BUFF BIKE SIDEWALK
2% 2%
2' 10'
SIDEWALK
R/W
2'
86'R/W
VAR VAR
8'
1.5%
10'
PED
4'
TYPICAL
20' WIDE CLASS 1
36'
2' VAR
R/W
8' 2'
1.5%
2'
TYPICAL TRAIL CROSS SECTION
N.T.S
95'
2% 2%
2'8'8'8'3'10.5'4'10.5'3'8'6'2'
LID BIKE BUFF VEHICLE MED. VEHICLE BUFF BIKE LID SIDEWALK R/WR/W
VAR12'
CLASS I PATH
10'
SIDEWALK
TYPICAL BRIDGE CROSS SECTION
N.T.S
## #
CARLSBAD BLVD RDWY RESILENCY PLAN
ALTERNATIVE 2
ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE
11215903 FIG 1
PLAN
NORTH
0 400'200'
2305 Historic Decatur Road Suite 120
San Diego, CA 92106 USA
T 1 858 244 0440
W www.ghd.com
Plot Date: Cad File No:30 June 2022
- 1:40 PM N:\US\San Diego\Projects\561\11215903\Digital_Design\ACAD 2018\Figures\Archive\2022-06-29\2022-06-29_Carlsbad Plan Exhibit_Roundabout Alternative.dwgPlotted by: Kay Ngariuku Note:
1. GHD conceptual design developed from City of Carlsbad provided topography.
Roadway design components will need to be modified in future phases of the project to coincide with final surveyed topographic and parcel line information.
Legend:
Proposed Class I Trail
Proposed Roadway
Coastal Hazard Zone
Proposed Bridge
Property Line
Landscape Areas
Proposed Pedestrian Pathway
North County Transit District RR
Solamar Dr
Palomar Airport Rd
Island Way
Carlsbad Blvd
Oceanview Dr
Retain existing
parking
"Complete Street" roadway
with sidewalks and bike lanes
Las Encinas Creek
restoration area
500' span
bridge
Class 1 shared path for pedestrians,
slower moving mobility options
Pedestrian pathway
Coastal hazard
zoneRetain existing
parking
Retain existing
parking
Coastal access
Coastal access
Avenida Encinas
Right-of-Way limit with
adjacent Class I and sidewalk
Right-of-Way limit with
adjacent Class I and sidewalk
Option 2: 2-lane road with roundabouts
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 100 of 241
~
1-::
,,..
~
.,
.. • - -
: .
,~ . .
If
. ' ~
\. ' 1 1 I
t
•
~
• ' l
' I
' ' t I , I
I 'i
) I
I I
I
1 I
I II
I I
I I
I' I
I
11 II If l, I I
I i I
\I It
11 I I
I I I
I I
II
I I
I I
I I
' I I • I I I \ I I
~., ..• I
11 I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
'
I I
:! I
I I
ii
I I I
rl/ JI
I I
' I I '
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
ii
I I
I I
I I
'I
'' '' : .' , '
I / J
' : i '.
. '' ''' '' ,1 I
'I I
I I
I
I I
•
.. • '
•
•
•
.,,1,.
•\
--_t--
-,
.. ~:
I
-+------t I
I I
I
..
-+--------
-
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I I
l I
I
.. ~11
I
l
l
I
7 I
I
I
I
I --
~ -□ ---
I
' I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
11 I I
I I
A 7NO M31/\3~ ~0.:::1
j
'
I
I 11
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I
'v· /
"'
'"' ...
'''.w
'\
.. ~
..
•
..
I I
r
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
[]
' _,J
_l_
J
Ci <:s:;
co f:::
lr'1 L
~~
~ '
<(~ ~
I '1 C ,.,__,,
c----,
f-
- 1:> · ~n W
ITI
~
<'.( <t
I >
, 0
L_ ,-y
,__ ___________ §t
.,
u_ -
~ f-
c '-'
~
<l. <
f-f~
" Q_
Q_
LL U::::
c-w
<( I
C f-
0 (:
f-
LL
L
-
L/:
L
L
~
,__ ___________ "
lJll-□D
' L -"
c--"
<(
C "_',
~
'I
-"
w
f-
<(
0 2'8'8'8'3'10.5'4'10.5'3'8'6'2'
TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTION
N.T.S
LID BIKE BUFF VEHICLE MED. VEHICLE BUFF BIKE LID SIDEWALK 2% 2%
R/W
73'
R/W
VAR
8'8'10.5' 3'4'10.5'3'8'5'12'
CLASS I PATH MEDIAN/
BARRIER
BIKE BUFF VEHICLE MED. VEHICLE BUFF BIKE SIDEWALK
2% 2%
2' 10'
SIDEWALK
R/W
2'
86'R/W
VAR VAR
8'
1.5%
10'
PED
4'
TYPICAL
20' WIDE CLASS 1
36'
2' VAR
R/W
8' 2'
1.5%
2'
TYPICAL TRAIL CROSS SECTION
N.T.S
2% 2%
2'8'8'8'3'10.5'4'10.5'3'8'6'2'
LID BIKE BUFF VEHICLE MED. VEHICLE BUFF BIKE LID SIDEWALK R/W
95'
R/W
VAR12'
CLASS I PATH
10'
SIDEWALK
TYPICAL BRIDGE CROSS SECTION
N.T.S
## #
CARLSBAD BLVD RDWY RESILENCY PLAN
ALTERNATIVE 3
ROUNDABOUT HYBRID ALTERNATIVE
11215903 FIG 1
PLAN
NORTH
0 400'200'
2305 Historic Decatur Road Suite 120
San Diego, CA 92106 USA
T 1 858 244 0440
W www.ghd.com
Plot Date: Cad File No:30 June 2022
- 1:52 PM N:\US\San Diego\Projects\561\11215903\Digital_Design\ACAD 2018\Figures\Archive\2022-06-29\2022-06-29_Carlsbad Plan Exhibit_Hybrid Alternative.dwgPlotted by: Kay Ngariuku Legend:
Proposed Class I Trail
Proposed Roadway
Coastal Hazard Zone
Proposed Bridge
Property Line
Note:
1. GHD conceptual design developed from City of Carlsbad provided topography. Roadway design components will need to be modified in future phases of the project to coincide with final surveyed topographic and parcel line information.
Landscape Areas
North County Transit District RR
Solamar Dr
Palomar Airport Rd
Island Way
Carlsbad Blvd
Oceanview Dr
Retain existing
parking
"Complete Street" roadway
with sidewalks and bike lanes
Las Encinas Creek
restoration area
500' span
bridge
Class 1 shared path for pedestrians,
slower moving mobility options
Pedestrian pathway
Coastal hazard
zoneRetain existing
parking
Proposed Pedestrian Pathway
Retain existing
parking
Coastal access
Coastal access
Avenida Encinas
Right-of-Way limit with
adjacent Class I and sidewalk
Right-of-Way limit with
adjacent Class I and sidewalk
Option 3: 2-lane road with roundabouts and one enhanced pedestrian crossing Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 101 of 241
. . '
' ' ' ' !
I
•
••
~--·/ __ ,,, ,,,,,, _,/. -·
•
•
0:-::--:::J-
I
.. ~;
I
----i------I I
I I
Ill(
I
I
li
I
I
I
• I
I
I I
-+-----I I
I
.. 451,
I
l---11
-1
I
Ill(
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
..
i I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I I
; I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
JI
l : 111
I I I
I I I
11 I
I I I I
1 I I
1111
I I I
I I I
11. I
_J_
A 7NO M31/\3~ ~0.:::1
1-L
I I
I I
I I
I
I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I
l I I
I I
I I --+--------t--
h
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I
~4:; 1:!
; I I
I I
ii I I
,I I I
I I I Ill( I I I
tl I
I
_ __j
II I I
I I I
• I I I
\I I I
,1 I I
I I
111 I
C> 111 ~<t:>11
11, I
[]
Ci <:s:;
co f:::
lr'1 L
~~
~ '
<(~ C
I '1 C ,.,__,,
c----,
f-
~
1:> · ~n w
ITI
~
<'.( <t
I >
. 0
L_ ,-y
,_ ___________ Et .,
u_ -
~ f-
c '-'
~
<l. <
f-f~
" Q_
Q_
LL U::::
c-w
<( I
C f-
0 (:
f--
LL
L
L
L
~
,_ ___________ :,
lJll-□LJ
' L -"
c--"
<(
C ._,,
~
'I
-"
w
f--
<(
0 South Carlsbad Boulevard – Manzano Drive to Island Way options Adaptable
to sea level
rise by 2100
Coastal
street
features
Pedestrian
crossing
safety
10’
pedestrian
path +
sidewalks
8‘ bike
lanes + 20’
multiuse
path
Slows down
traffic
Reduces car
noise
Improves
overall
safety
Intersection
at Solamar
Drive
Current roadway No No Limited No No No Limited Limited Traffic signal
Option 1
Four lanes with
traffic signals
Satisfactory Satisfactory Safe Yes Yes Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Traffic signal
Option 2
Two lanes with
roundabouts
Better Best Safest Yes Yes Best Yes Best Roundabout
Option 3
Two lanes with
hybrid intersection
control
Best Better Safer Yes Yes Better Yes Better Enhanced
pedestrian
crossing,
right turn
only exit
Exhibit 5
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 102 of 241
( Cityof
Carlsbad
1 The City of Carlsbad developed three roadway designs for a 1-mile stretch of south Carlsbad Boulevard from Manzano Drive to Island Way as part of a project funded by the California State Coastal Conservancy. The grant is intended to demonstrate how cities can move and adapt infrastructure based on the latest modeling of sea level rise and its hazards. • 4-lane road with traffic signals
• 2-lane road with roundabouts
• 2-lane road with roundabouts and one enhanced pedestrian crossing Staff have summarized and identified themes based on the input shared on the three options. This summary does not include all the ideas and perspectives shared by the public. Readers are encouraged to review the verbatim responses and meeting summaries included for a comprehensive understanding of the input gathered.
Option 1 – 4 Lanes with Traffic Signals
What respondents liked: Option 1 – 4 Lanes with Traffic Signals Positive feedback on Option 1 centered around the following themes.
Theme: Option 1 will keep traffic flowing.
• It moves the most traffic quickly and safely, including current and future traffic conditions. • It is an improvement but the most similar to what is there today. • It retains the present character of the road.
• It keeps things simple with minimal change to existing road conditions and driving patterns. • It utilizes the existing northbound roadway grade and maintains two lanes of traffic in each direction.
• It is the most realistic and feasible option.
Theme: Option 1 will improve bike and pedestrian access. • It provides well-defined crossing opportunities for bikes and pedestrians. • It provides space for pedestrians to walk safely along the coast. • It provides a buffer between bike and cars.
• It provides adequate spacing for drivers and pedestrians. • Pedestrians will have a designated walkway and a separate bike lane.
Theme: Option 1 will be the safest option.
• It maintains traffic signals, which are easier to understand. • It avoids delays and confusion associated with roundabouts. • It doesn’t contain roundabouts which are more apt to cause accidents. • Traffic lights are a universal communication method for everyone who is licensed to drive.
Theme: Option 1 will maintain parking.
• It retains existing parking, which is used often.
Exhibit 6
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 103 of 241
Public input summary - one-mile options Manzano Drive
to Island Way
2 • Existing free parking is still available.
Concerns: Option 1 – 4 Lanes with Traffic Signals
Concerned feedback on Option 1 centered around the following themes.
Theme: Option 1 is too car centric.
• It prioritizes cars over people, creates more traffic, noise and faster driving. • A four-lane road is too much and will encourage vehicles to speed. • Two lanes in each direction are unnecessary.
• It would continue to encourage commuters who may be trying to avoid I-5. • It preserves the role of the road as a thoroughfare for traffic passing through Carlsbad.
Theme: Option 1 has too may stoplights.
• Stoplights will cause more traffic.
• There won’t be adequate traffic flow and there will be increased idling and exhaust. • It does not eliminate traffic lights in favor of more efficient roundabouts. • Traffic lights are aesthetically unpleasing and too much maintenance.
Theme: Does not adequately address pedestrian and bike safety. • The bike lane is too close to traffic. There needs to be more separation from cars. • The road should be more pedestrian and bike friendly rather than just a highway. • Four lanes take up more space, leaving less room for sidewalks and bike lanes. • Cars will be moving too fast; bikes are too close to car lanes and bikers are at risk. • This option takes southbound cyclists away from the coastline and stoplights will interrupt riding.
• There is a lack of safe pedestrian crossings. There needs to be more areas with gradual descending coastal access points overall and for people with mobility impairments.
Theme: Parking access is an issue.
• Parking spaces are dangerous for cyclists/pedestrians passing behind parked vehicles. • There is a safety concern over parking entering, exiting and merging onto the main road. • Parking should be distributed away from the beach.
• It is unclear if highly desirable parking will be lost. • The parking near Solamar Dr. will be an issue. There will be cars backing out and then make a U- turn into cyclists and pedestrians.
Theme: Does not plan for the future.
• Does not adapt to sea level rise aggressively enough. • It's only "satisfactorily" adaptable to sea level rise and doesn’t adequately address coastal erosion.
• Could allow for future development in the area.
• Does not plan for long term issues and could be costly.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 104 of 241
3 Option 2 ─ 2 lanes with roundabouts
What respondents liked: Option 2 ─ 2 lanes with roundabouts Positive feedback on Option 2 centered around the following themes.
Theme: Enhances the pedestrian experience.
• There is more importance given to pedestrians and bikes, including safe crossings. • This looks like the safest option for pedestrians and cyclists. • It provides a coastal pedestrian trail separate from the road and places to walk near the water. • It retains pedestrian and mobility-impaired access to the beach areas. • The main road has been pushed further away from the coastline, offering improved access for cyclists and pedestrians.
• There is a good sharing of right of way between bikes and pedestrians as it should be in an area like this.
Theme: Reduces traffic and speed.
• It keeps the traffic flowing. Everyone stays in motion, there is less noise and less idling. • It slows down speed, reduces the amount of traffic and noise. • It reduces the car lanes to two lanes, which should help reduce speeds and make it safer. • Slower traffic hopefully reduces the number of cars using this scenic roadway. • It will reduce diversion from Interstate 5.
• It aligns with the improvements along the 101 corridor to the south.
Theme: Is efficient.
• Roundabouts are efficient, keep things moving and there is less stops and starts. • Roundabouts are helpful to improve safety and fluid driving, including providing effective ways to transition from one direction to another.
• Roundabouts encourage slower safer travel and there is better all-around visibility within roundabouts.
• Roundabouts make the area more aesthetically pleasing. Roundabouts offer an opportunity for art/sculpture and landscaping.
• Roundabouts seem to work well and create less of a feeling of a highway and more of a coastal route suitable for vehicles, bikes, pedestrians.
Theme: Balances amenities while achieving goals.
• Retains parking areas and maintains parking access.
• A narrower overall roadway will be better to move away from concerns of sea level rise. • Best option for coastal erosion and safety.
• Will increase property values.
• More fully realizes the potential of the area. It seems more peaceful.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 105 of 241
4 Concerns: Option 2 – 2 lanes with roundabouts
Concerned feedback on Option 2 centered around the following themes.
Theme: Roundabouts are a hazard.
• People don't know how to drive in roundabouts and they are challenging for bikes and pedestrians.
• Roundabouts will take time for tourists and locals to get used to and will contribute to traffic/accident issues. There are too many decisions to be made at the roundabouts for them to function safely.
• The roundabouts appear to be too small and tight to allow traffic to flow. Make the roundabouts wider in circumference so that they are safer. • There are too many roundabouts in a short span, leading to congestion and traffic. Roundabouts don't work well when the traffic is heavy. Roundabouts are much less effective than traffic lights when cars are merging.
Theme: Reducing lanes will increase traffic.
• One lane in each direction is inadequate for the population in this area. Two lanes will not accommodate the traffic, particularly during holidays and summer months. • It removes commuter lanes, which residents use and will increase drive times. • It is disjointed and inconsistent with lane patterns along the coast. • Palomar Airport Rd. traffic merging directly onto Carlsbad Blvd. will cause a bottleneck. • Increased car traffic will have a negative impact on local businesses and homeowners as we’ll not be able to enjoy our coastline as we currently do.
• Emergency vehicles will not be able to access the beach in congested hours and stalled emergency evacuations.
Theme: Pedestrian access is dangerous.
• Cars may not be able to see pedestrians or know when to yield and pedestrians may not understand where to walk.
• Pedestrians crossing at roundabouts create a chaotic traffic situation further stopping the flow of traffic.
• There are limited options to avoid hazards in the road or make evasive moves to avoid pedestrians, bikes and other cars.
• Ensure continuity of the bike and pedestrian paths to avoid collisions. • It is hard for cyclists to merge in roundabouts. Cyclists will cross into the car lanes when they want to pass a slower cyclist or converse with fellow cyclists.
Theme: There is not enough parking or coastal access.
• There are few beach access points and no additional parking for beach access. • More parking is needed.
• Concerned with people backing out of parking areas into cyclists and pedestrians. • Concerned with parking in the coastal hazard zone.
Theme: It lacks environmental protections.
• Does not seem to address the problem of sea level rise and the chronic erosion of our coastal cliffs.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 106 of 241
5 • It won't provide long-term environmental protection needed for our fragile coastal environment.
• It will increase idling and impacts to Green House Gas emissions.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 107 of 241
6 Option 3 ─ 2 lanes with roundabouts and enhanced pedestrian crossing at Solamar Drive
What respondents liked: Option 3 ─ 2 lanes with roundabouts and enhanced pedestrian crossing at Solamar Drive
Positive feedback on Option 3 centered around the following themes.
Theme: Provides an enhanced pedestrian crossing.
• People can cross safely.
• The enhanced crossing will make it easiest for people to cross. • It adequately protects pedestrians endeavoring to cross Solamar Dr. or Carlsbad Blvd. • Seems the most user friendly.
• Cyclists no longer need to negotiate two roundabouts in quick succession.
Theme: Will be easier to navigate.
• Has fewer roundabouts than Option 2.
• Subtraction of one roundabout and an enhanced pedestrian crossing will cause less accidents and is less dangerous for pedestrians.
• It does not impede traffic flow out of/into Solamar Dr. as would a roundabout. • It includes roundabouts in the right places to keep traffic moving. • It reduces the number of roundabouts with a pedestrian friendly crossing opportunity while not delaying vehicular travel.
Theme: Will maintain traffic circulation.
• The right in right out for Solamar Dr. allows traffic to flow. • Option 3 has a better flow of traffic, a much better pedestrian crossing and a right turn only. • There are no unnecessary stops.
• It is simpler than Option 2 to work well for pedestrians, bikes and cars. • It slows down traffic to still enjoy the coast.
• Drivers exiting Solamar Dr. heading south can easily turn right and loop around the Palomar Airport Rd. roundabout.
Theme: Offers a long-term solution.
• It appears to have the smallest footprint.
• It is the best option in terms of sea level rise and climate action. • It would be a long-term solution without concern for water rise. It addresses many current and future issues.
• Addresses preservation and restoration of our coastal environment. • The bridge is long overdue and will help the Encina Creek environment. • It is the best balance of long-term environmental protection, traffic relief and pedestrian safety, without adding another roundabout in an awkward location.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 108 of 241
7 Concerns: Option 3 ─ 2 lanes with roundabouts and enhanced pedestrian crossing at Solamar Drive Concerned feedback on Option 3 centered around the following themes.
Theme: Enhanced pedestrian crossing is confusing.
• There is no clear explanation of what 'hybrid intersection control' might end up being. • It is not clear on the hybrid design features to be included. • It would be good to see a visual/drawing of the enhanced pedestrian crossing. • The enhanced pedestrian control will create more of a bottleneck problem at this small intersection for vehicles going in any direction, waiting for people to cross the street. • This option is complicated at Solamar Dr.
• The hybrid pedestrian crossing will disrupt traffic and make vehicles stop.
Theme: Roundabouts are not the solution.
• People don’t know how to drive in roundabouts.
• Roundabouts would contribute to bottlenecks, traffic and accident increases. • There will need to be adjustment time for everyone.
• Too many roundabouts in rapid succession.
• The roundabout at Palomar Airport Rd. needs to be larger diameter to allow more time to decide when it is safe to enter the circle.
• Roundabouts are not sized well to allow traffic to move without people stopping all the time trying to figure them out.
• The Solamar Dr. exit will be confusing for those unfamiliar with road.
Theme: Traffic congestion and safety.
• Option 3 reduces car mobility and commuter lanes and will increase driving times. • Right turn only exits are only going to cause drivers to make illegal U-turns at another point or cut up a side street to try to turn around.
• Two lanes is not enough infrastructure to support the residential population vehicular traffic in the area. Traffic flow will be interrupted.
• In the event of a fire, tidal event, or other natural disaster, the plan does not allow for enough vehicular traffic for safe evacuation.
• It brings traffic congestion closer to residential areas.
Theme: Pedestrian safety.
• The roadway is too wide; bike and walking paths should only be along the western edge. • Concerned about the safety of pedestrians and motorists in the crosswalk with no traffic lights. • There needs to be a physical barrier separating bikes from cars.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 109 of 241
8 Other project comments/questions
Other project feedback on Options 1 through 3 is included below.
Theme: General comments.
• This project could open the door for more development. • There is no information provided on costs or methods of payment for each option, which is a critical consideration.
• Sea level rise could be faster than predicted by current models. • This lacks a plan for the campgrounds.
• Provide more dog-friendly options, including allowing leashed dogs on the beach. • Lowering the road level in front of the Solamar community would help create a more pleasing environment for both for noise and views.
• Introduce the zipper system for merging.
• In general all the designs are taking away the beauty of the existing roadways and coastal feeling. Maintain views for everyone.
• Want to leave things the way they are now.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 110 of 241
Carlsbad Coastline Project
Outreach Meeting Form
Date: June 27, 2022
Organization: Cape Rey Carlsbad Beach and Hilton Garden Inn Carlsbad Beach Attendees:
Bill Canepa (Owner/President of Wave Crest Resorts), Thomas Lee (Cape Rey Carlsbad Area General Manager), Rob Stirling (Cape Rey Carlsbad Sales and Marketing Manager)
Project team:
Tom Frank (Transportation Director), Katie Hentrich (Climate Action Plan Administrator), Nikki Matosian (Community Relations Manager), Tiffany Metti (Public Outreach Team), Jessica Ceja (Public Outreach Team) Summary: • Interested in maintaining access to their properties • Wants to see slower traffic speeds and safe pedestrian crossings.
• Hilton’s concerns include maintaining traffic flow at resort access points, particularly during higher-volume events, as well as maintained convenience for guests entering/exiting their resorts, particularly the ability to make a left turn southbound out of the Hilton Garden Inn.
• While Hilton likes the idea of reducing lanes with a two-lane alternative, Hilton expressed some concern that roundabouts could cause congestion or safety issues. Therefore, Hilton expressed preference for the four-lane Alternative 1, because it would maintain the left turn out of the Hilton Garden Inn. Hilton is also concerned about construction impacts.
Alternative 1 Likes:
• Maintains left turn out of
Hilton Garden Inn
• Drivers may be more
familiar with intersections
as opposed to roundabouts
Concerns:
• Traffic speeds and noise
• Need for traffic calming
• Wider pedestrian crossing
distance
Alternative 2 Likes:
• Reduces lanes
• Reduces speed limits
• Slows traffic
• Shortens pedestrian
crossing distance
Concerns:
• Accidents on roundabouts
• Inability to get out of the
hotel or delays due to
increased congestion
• No signals at pedestrian
crossings
• Erosion leading to
Alternative 3 and removal of
southbound left turn from
the Hilton Garden Inn
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 111 of 241
Alternative 3 Likes:
• Same as Alternative 2
Concerns:
• Inability to make a
southbound left turn from
the Hilton Garden Inn
• Guests will be
inconvenienced as they will
need to drive north through
a roundabout to ultimately
go south
General
priorities/needs
• Accessibility in and out of the hotel property
• Maintained traffic flow even during events/high traffic volumes • Maintained left turn out of the property
• Slowed speeds
• Safety
• Signals for pedestrian intersections
General
concerns:
• Congestion and delays during large events
• Inability for guests to get in and out of hotel
• A progression to Alternative 3 which removes the southbound left turn from the Hilton Garden Inn
• Pedestrian safety when crossing the road
• Construction impacts
Requests: • Maintain left turn
• Include pedestrian signals for roundabouts
• Provide City-assisted traffic control at roundabouts during large events
• Proceed with Alternative 1 and add speed bumps or traffic calming to slow traffic
Questions: • What have you done at Palomar Airport Road? • What are you doing to the bridge?
• Does the eastern edge of the road get closer to the Hilton? • Will you have traffic lights at the roundabouts?
• Will the speed limit go down on roundabouts?
• For the roundabout pedestrian crossing, would it include signals or no signals?
• What will the e-bikes do at the roundabouts?
• What will happen when guests get out of a large event at the same time?
• If we have an event, can we have personnel to direct traffic at the roundabout?
• Will you delineate coastal access throughout all three designs? • What is the timeline of this project?
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 112 of 241
Carlsbad Coastline Project
Outreach Meeting Form
Date: July 21, 2022
Organization: Solamar Mobile Estates
Attendees: 27 attendees (Please see sign in sheet for list of attendee names) Project team:
Tom Frank (Transportation Director), Katie Hentrich (Climate Action Plan Administrator), Nikki Matosian (Community Relations Manager), Jessica Ceja (Public Outreach Team)
Summary: Solamar Mobile Estates would like to see slower traffic on Carlsbad Blvd. and likes the idea of roundabouts. Solamar wants to maintain the coastal area clean and safe for the community. Solamar expressed concerns about pedestrian safety when walking and likes the idea of an enhanced pedestrian crossing and having a voice activation but expressed concern on the right turn only since they discussed it might cause congestion.
Solamar expressed preference for Alternative 2. Solamar would like to see changes regarding the vacant parking lots and relation to erosion.
Solamar would like to see details on how the city was able to obtain this grant.
Alternative 1 Likes:
• N/A
Concerns:
• Does not slow traffic down
• Congestion
Alternative 2 Likes:
• Reduce lanes
• Roundabouts
• Slows traffic
Concerns:
• Erosion
Alternative 3 Likes:
• Same as alternative 1
Concerns:
• Fatalities when crossing the
street
• Cars not yielding
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 113 of 241
General
priorities/needs
• Slower speed limits
• Mitigate erosion
• Minimize congestion
• Protected bike lanes
• Safe pedestrian crossing
General
concerns:
• Project will be blocking resident views from their homes • Pedestrian accidents
• Erosion
• Congestion
• Inability to easily enter and exit Hilton hotel
• Speed limits
Requests: • Reduce speed limit
• Improve beach access to decrease erosion
• Voice activated crosswalks
• Close unused parking spaces
• Provide details of city’s agreement with the awarded conservancy grant
Questions: • For Alternative 1, how far east are you going? • How high is the bridge?
• How much of the property will you be removing for this project? • Will this project cause people to be closer to my home? • What will happen with the bicycle lanes?
• Could there be a stairway created for beach access?
• Did you talk about the changes on Palomar Airport Road? • Since I overlook the wetlands, will the bridge take away my water views?
• When you’re talking about the buffer lanes, are you talking about the 4 lanes?
• Did you apply for the Conservancy grant as the city?
• Can I get specific details on how you got this grant? • Has the city presented how high you must have a dip in the road for water intrusion? Is it 10 – 15 feet?
• Does the grant require you to choose from only these 3 options? • Is the grant for planning and not for building?
• What do the deliverables of the study consist of?
• When speaking about parking, will it be free or by meter? • Do we have restrictions with the roundabouts?
• Will slow traffic reduce pollution?
• Will there be a voice activation when pedestrians are crossing the street?
• If the lanes are cut in half, how is it a viable option? • Are these 3 options necessary if erosion is corrected? Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 114 of 241
• Do you have any examples of roundabouts near hotels?
• How will speed limits be changed?
• If you’re looking at beach erosion, why has the city retained parking spaces?
• How far down the line will we see progress on this?
• Are you saying that as pedestrians and senior citizens, we’re relying on the roundabouts to be clear?
• What about the erosion from 25 years ago?
• How will the different jurisdictions who don’t get along work on this if cliffs are unstable?
Next steps: • Team to provide Solamar examples of roundabouts near hotels • Team to provide Solamar details on how they were able to receive the conservancy grant
• This project is planned to go before City Council in September
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 115 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
It moves the most traffic quickly and safely.
Not much change except improving bike and pedestrian lanes. Looks like it would probably cost less.
Pedestrian pathways
I like that there is some parking but I wonder if it’s enough. 4 lanes can handle the traffic without backing up and bottle nosing. I like the pedestrian pathway. sidewalks to walk safely on coast road
Preserves status quo!
Pedestrian pathway and bike lane
I believe the traffic signal are the way to go.
Nothing, it sucks. You have beautiful neighborhoods and a world class beach, if cars want to take priority, use the 5. The PCH from Carlsbad blvd from La Costa should be 1 lane 30 mph. I've lived on 101 for 20 years, 4 lanes of traffic is a hazard to all pedestrians & owners who live in the area. Option 1 squanders the opportunity to make a our streets better.
Nothing, to much traffic
Appears to accommodate vehicle and bike traffic.
I believe the 4 lane roadway flows better than the 2 lane with roundabouts, but there are too many stop lights.
The current roundabout at the north end of Carlsbad Boulevard does not work well in my opinion because drivers don't flow through the roundabout but stop before t hey enter it. While the roundabout should promote flow it does not as currently designed. In Europe and in the Eastern US roundabouts are often two lanes in width so entering vehicles do not have to stop but merge into the circle.
Improvement over current road.
It is better than doing nothing.
It’s the closest to what we currently have which is what I’d like to stay.
Traffic flow
Good, but uses more space
Not progress, same old
Nothing
Don't like. 4 lanes too much for Hwy 101 coastal road. Drivers can use I-5 if traveling far or El Camino Real for shopping etc. 101 should remain scenic
nothing
I like this option of the three.
not a thing
no traffic circles - people in SoCal don't really know how to use them & are overly aggressive. Also like 4 lanes.
I like retaining 3 existing parking areas and street parking, changing current southbound lane to pedestrian and bike lanes, retaining 2 coastal accesses. I am relieved to see NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. This area needs to be protected in its natural state.
Lots of traffic that will move fast.
Nothing. Leave it alone. This Council should not be making this decision until Ponto and the comple te area is considered and a plan is in place for the entire area.
I like that there are no roundabouts.
Keep the current roads in place as is
Moves traffic away from coastline. utilizes existing northbound roadway grade. Walkway and bikeway on west side of roadway for 3 miles
Nothing
It has the same total number of lanes as the present road.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 116 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
well-defined crossing opportunities for bikes and pedestrians As the population grows, two lanes will be outdated by the time it completed. Four lanes will mov e more people and signals will be safer for pedestrians.
It is the normal way to route traffic and people are familiar with the traffic lights. nothing
4 lanes plus a new bike/walking path.
More room for heavy traffic. Keep it flowing smoothly, as it does now, with four lanes. road alignment
It doesn't matter. You will do what you want and it will be horrible, like everything else you do in Carlsbad. 100% waste of money. Leave carlsbad alone!!
Added pedestrian trails and bike lanes.
N/A
It does move car traffic more efficiently
Simple. People know what to do.
Nothing
4 lanes. Way too much traffic on those roads to have less than 4 lanes. 4 lanes to allow for more traffic, sidewalks and bike lanes nothing.
Option 1
nothing
More user friendly
Not much
I like that it seems like the pedestrians will have a designated walk way and a separate bike lane, which seems like it will be much safer.
Not a fan of this design…focuses too much on the car…the coast should be abo ut the pedestrian first and the vehicle last
Very little
I'd rather not have the signals
Maintains 2 lanes of traffic in each direction to help with traffic flow. nothing
Not many changes, allows for the flow of traffic, no dangerous roundabouts.
It relies on traffic signals which I think may be safer and has four lanes to accommodate present and future traffic.
Four lanes of traffic
Nothing.
Nothing! Too many lanes!!
Like it.
Four lanes for vehicle traffic throughput
I like the concept. My concern would be the city wanting to develop the new land that is being opened up. I don't think we need further development along the coast line.
Nothing
Nothing
traffic will keep flowing unlike a 2 lane option.
4 lanes and traffic lights, parking access.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 117 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Buffer between bike and cars. Pedestrian path away from road.
None.
Flow of traffic will be better
It’s better than what we have today but only slightly
It's what I know. Safe bet. It probably has the best views.
Maintains flow of traffic
I don't like it at all. I want to keep the same route, but maintained.
Sidewalks
Most realistic
Nothing
Most like what we have No expensive toundabouts
The buffers for cyclist for a divide from vehicular traffic.
I want no changes
Not much
2 lanes in each direction allows more cars to move through the area rather than having long lines of cars Do not like it. Prefer less car lanes
Stays the same
Do not care for Option 1
maintains 4 lanes
No roundabouts
Nothing.
No round abouts
4 lanes. Two lanes make traffic worse
I like that are shared pathways for pedestrians and slower moving vehicles. neutral feelings
Protected bike lanes
Nothing
Nothing
I like to keep the traffic signals and option 1
Car centric.
Prefer stop lights for more clarity and better flow of traffic. Would prefer NO amendments and leaving this part of the road AS is.
Traffic flow. Makes it green option
The stop lights are the only thing that limit the speed of the vehicles on Carlsbad Blvd. Roundabouts would not work as people cannot navigate them around here. (The "coastal accesses" confuse me -- WHERE are they exactly?)
parking retained
Less change to what is now there
Road separated bike and sidewalk pathways
It is best. There are too many vehicles to go down to two lanes. It is NOT 1950 Nothing
Maintains traffic control at Solamar Drive
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 118 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Not may favorite option
Can’t see it🤪
This option will allow adequate spacing for drivers and pedestrians. This option also offers better public safety options for vehicle egress in the event of a fire or other disaster shutting down the freeway. The other options will increase driver frustration at the slow speeds on Carlsbad BLVD which will cause them to seek the freeway at frustrated driver speeds (unsafe) through east/west streets which will greatly increase traffic loads on the east west streets.
I believe this is the BEST option for now and future as Carlsbad continues to grow as a tourist destination, Option 1 accommodates the locals & tourist traffic flow. Options 2 & 3 Will create time wasting restrictive traffic backups for locals daily to get to the Fwy & for emergency vehicles to get th ru when needed, Keeps the flow of traffic moving.
ease of through traffic less chance of bottlenecks at roundabouts It's an improvement over the existing situation
Maintains 4 lanes of traffic, seems least disruptive. Improvements in all key areas of note.
Retains existing parking, which we use often.
Generally, I like 4 lanes of traffic. Most of the roundabouts I've seen in Carlsbad & Encinitas are too small.
Nothing really. Too car focused.
I don't like it.
I like the current configuration, and this is the closest to same. I do bicycle along this stretch very often and feel it is already one of the safest stretches of coast highway I like the 4 traffic lanes to limit traffic congestion, I like the traffic signals for the residents alon g Carlsbad Blvd to access their driveways with break in traffic, and the walking path away from traffic cleans up the road through that area
I guess it gets more traffic through? But overall I don't like it More lanes of traffic. Light is very easy to understand.
Better traffic flow
existing free parking
traffic signals
Moves the traffic along efficiently.
This keeps traffic flowing. I am tired of reducing driving lanes and taking longer to get to destinations.
I like that there aren't any roundabouts. .
It is an improvement over today.
Nothing
higher traffic capacity
No roundabouts.
4 lanes of traffic, and no roundabouts
Undesirable
I do not like option 1.
Nothing
Provides an alternative route vs I-5
Best option.
I dont like this design
Bike and ped lane still
Keeps parking and bike lanes. Adds sidewalks
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 119 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Don't like; too motor-vehicle oriented
It's much the same as other sections of the coastal route past Palomar heading north.
Nothing
No roundabouts
Bike/ pedestrian path away from the 4lanes of traffic
Not much.
It's traditional and known by all. Four lanes allows for more cars and less traffic jams.
Best for traffic flow.
I prefer option 2
nothing
That it is 4 lanes
No enough pedestrian access
More drivers
No roundabouts… two lanes each way.
Pedestrian and bike paths
Separates sidewalk from road
Functional, flows well and seems to work like this now.
Frankly I do not like this option because the NB sidewalk from Palomar Airport Rd. is opposite the normal placement of sidewalks (on the left instead of right). Motor vehicles come through that curve at a higher rate of speed than the posted suggested speed limit.
no roundabouts
Just another road
Straightforward
Will be much better for traffic
4 lanes, private and safe by the beach
I dont like the limited options including access for people/bikes I like that there are four lanes for better traffic flow which can become very difficult in the summ ertime.
Keeps things simple with minimal change to existing road conditions.
Nothing. Put people first, not cars.
I like that the parking lots are retained
It's the least harmful to the existing area.
Traditional and common.
It is as close to what is currently there. I would choose to leave as is and if necessary just raise the roadway through bridge works. Else, Option 1!
Seems close to what is already there
The walking path
No roundabouts.
Nothing
looks best to keep traffic flowing
Four lanes is planning for the future, population will always grow and you have the road infostructure in place.
Also traffic will move rapidly as opposed to the other two plans.
Nothing
Maintains some existing parking.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 120 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
With four lanes this plan is most likely to eliminate congestion.
Existing parking lots are retained.
Pedestrians can safely walk along the coast, bikes are separated from traffic and 2 lanes of traffic each way allow for cars and emergency vehicles can get around obstacles in the road.
Enough lanes to accommodate increasing pollution of area and allow for access safety in the event of lane closures due to accidents or such. I NEVER go to Del Mar since they reduced their lanes and deliberately slowed traffic. Given the increasing vacancies in Del Mar over the last ten years, there are others who also avoid the area.
I like that it still has the 4 lanes south of palomar airport that already exist. It’s also using traffic lights which everyone is used to already
Good
Pedestrian pathway away from main road. Keeps traffic flowing through without having to navigate around traffic circles that mess people up and are dangerous for quick moving cyclists. My husband is a active cyclist and I am a former cyclist (the roads scare me to ride on now=been hit by cars 3 times) so I have experience with all sorts road conditions. Combined with the eBike fad I see all sort of issues arising from people not having to stop at all while riding along that stretch, especially with some of the traffic circles being tight to navigate through.
4 lanes to accommodate weekend and summer traffic, while keeping bikes and pedestrians safe.
Yes provides appropriate vehicular lanes for future growth with simple egress and access to the beac h Absolutely nothing
Nothing
I suspect Option 1 is the least expensive option, but I cannot tell the price difference. Preserves a lot of existing parking.
not my choice
Unsure
not much different than now.
Maintains flow of traffic
Too wide - too many lanes
keeps 4-lane roadway capacity. does not create or extend single-lane traffic congestion like at Terra mar Nothing. WAIT! The first survey showed that a majority of respondents did not want any changes. Leave it alone. Why did you ignore us? Let us vote on option 0. I hope a lawsuit is filed, or voters vote a measure to stop this. In any case, I hope it's held up for decades. Leave it alone!!! Looks good
Not sure
4 lanes offer better traffic flow and offer better conditions for emergency vehicles.
Too much vehicular traffic
Not much
Maintain 4 lanes to accommodate the constantly increasing traffic along the Coast Highway. The pedestrian access to sidewalks along both sides.
Retains most existing structure
Better than the other options
4 lanes
not preferred
It meets the needs.
Nothing
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 121 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
I like this option because it provides the most road and bikeway surface for users. traffic is not going to get better. Ever. Especially with the high-density residential and mixed use projects going in, which by the way, should be VERY LIMITED in this area. Traffic already stinks here. This option provides 4 lines for cars which will help keep things moving. It has a multi-use Class 1 trail for those that wish to meander, walk their p ets, etc. It provides Class 1 (NOT Class 4) painted bike lanes for those wishing to cycle a bit faster or who are commuting and don't have time to meander or dodge strollers and leashes.
Not much - it is a roadway I am used to, so that would be the only positive.
Nothing
Pedestrian trails
Doesn't squeeze everyone traveling.
4 lane option
Do not like this version.
Traffic flow
Nothing
No more traffic lights! Idling increases green house gases The pedestrian parkway and the parking
I dislike it all.
Do not like at all
Less traffic congestion
More access
Keeps flow of traffic. Seems to change the current state the least.
It's the best option out all of them.
I drive this route during the busiest hours of the day and option 1 retains two lanes in both directions.
I do not prefer this option
The 4-Lane Road provided by option 1 is highly necessary and advisable considering the current number of vehicles currently accessing and utilizing the current coastal roadway. We believe a 4 -Lane roadway with traffic signals is much safer than the other 2-Lane roadway with roundabout options proposed. We also believe the information provided in the roadway option comparison chart regarding both the safety and noise elements is biased and flawed.
The traffic will clear the area more routinely, and better deal with the flow of traffic. We want to keep the economy alive along our beach community, as it benefits all of Car lsbad, and our local business owners. Drivers understand traffic lights, that is safer for pedestrians than circles and drivers that are challenged by new circumstances. The pedestrian and cycling traffic seem to be served just as well by all the plans. I like how the access is maintained and improved to the beach (especially at Palomar Airport Road).
Having parking options and a bridge to cross
Pedestrian area and the retained parking areas
4 lanes can accommodate all the traffic better on that busy stretch & traffic signals with crosswalk are still the safest way to cross.
Keeping four lanes, and nearly keeping the overall footprint like it is now Not much. At least the bike lanes are wider than today
Palomar Airport merge is removed and connection to Carlsbad Blvd is moved further north.
Retains the present character of the road.
I like that the current beach parking will stay the same. I don't see the need for pedestrian walkway in this area.
There is nowhere to walk to and from. Are people from the campground walking North all the way to the village?
prefer roundabouts
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 122 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
the buffer between bikes & vehicles
Nothing
keep more traffic moving, allows slower cars to turn+ park from right lane Not a good option for reducing traffic so do not like
Similar to current situation. Cars can move along at a fast er pace Not much. Maybe safer intersection control at Palomar Airport Rd.
Minimal changes to the coast highway traffic flow.
Not a thing
Better pedestrian areas
It does not have roundabouts
Moves the bridge landward at Encinas.
Pedestrian crossing and slower traffic
separate part for pedestrians
Traffic flow is improved.
Has a separate area for bikes & pedestrians, wider space for vehicles.
Moves the southbound road inland while keeping same amount of lanes as currently exist. Much better climate resilience and a safer pathway for walkers & cyclists along the coast.
Safest and Best flow. 1. Drivers and cyslists going straight is the safest route. It's difficult for cars to go side- by-side through a roundabout. Cyclists get crowded out 2. Best flow. The side streets have limited traffic.
Traffics signals (with magnets and walk buttons) keep traffic flowing at a fairly constant speed. The slowing down for the roundabout has a domino-effect that is unpredictable.
Probably the least expensive in the short term.
Nothing! Why we are on the road? Just put in a protected walkway and bike path along the existing road.
Nothing
It adds new bike / ped facilities.
It is the most practical and preserves accessibility to the beach for families in cars, not only from our community but guests and elderly.
Traffic will flow and not get backed up
I don't like it.
I like keeping the four lane road. I really want to be able to drive by the ocean and have a scenic view. I also like the pedestrian walkway. No bikes
Nothing
It doesn't have roundabouts.
It's an improvement over current conditions.
It would be the least disruptive to traffic flow.
Addresses traffic problems, separates bikes from vehicles and pedestrians from bikes.
Option 4
4 lanes of traffic is good.
your chart for option 1 is so small it is difficult to read and understand Maintains traffic flow but also provides for bike lanes.
Upgrade and four lanes to accommodate traffic.
More traffic lanes, better traffic flow
Keeps 4 lanes for cars
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 123 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Four lane road is a better alternate route when I5 is congested due to an accident.
Keeps traffic flowing, provides safe pedestrian crossings.
With this first option, I like how it is adaptable to sea level rise, however, my wife and I believe that the other two options, taken in their totality, are much better choices. My neighbors, who also live on Surfside Lane, f eel the exact same way. After a conversation with them, we have decided to support the second option. nothing. road is too wide inviting more traffic
Four lanes keep traffic moving along more quickly and efficiently.
Nothing
Safe crossing and multiuse path while improving traffic.
It is best for vehicles and especially for bicyclists. Roundabouts almost got me killed on mt bicycle! Less likely to cause traffic backups
bike lanes and pedestrian lanes
Nothing
Four lanes seems good for traffic flow
It's the only option where bicycles won't have to make a dangerous merge with traffic at roundabouts. This is the same problem that the City had with its proposed Kelly expansion. Carlsbad really needs to hire planners who have ridden bicycles through roundabouts with and without fully protected bike lanes through the entire roundabout.
Simple and straightforward
Nothing
No changes
This road works. Traffic moves well and there is enough room for bicycles etc. Car passengers get to enjoy the view and cars can easily pull over and stop to look at the ocean.
This is the best. Taking it down to 2 lanes will be a disaster. Reduce the speed limit if you want to slow down traffic. Forcing traffic jams is inexcusable. Summers would be a nightmare.
I like the 4 lane road. 2 lanes are not enough to handle the traffic during heavy traffic hours.
Easy for driving. Straight away with standard stop lights This options keeps traffic moving (4-lane) like current road while making improvements to road/coastal preservation and pedestrian/rider safety.
Not a damn thing
Existing 4 lanes would remain
I like that the sidewalk is separate and that you are keeping the natural beauty that is there especially along Encinas Creek.
Maintain efficient speed and travel along Carlsbad Blvd if lights are timed appropriately.
I am a bike rider as well as a car driver. I think that the priority needs to be given to keeping auto traffic moving over more bike lane preference.
The 4 lanes alleviate traffic, which gets worse every year 4x lanes. I think roundabouts are better than traffic lights, but 4~lanes are needed to keep traffic flowing, especially if the 5 is blocked. Is there a study that shows 2x lanes can handle the traffic? I like that pedestrians have more space.
nothing. With two directional lanes on two different levels. this will also require additional stop light at Manzano/Blvd.
No roundabouts. Does not cause excessive traffic that must be navigated to cross road. Keeps exis ting traffic moving
Nothing. Traffic lights just inhibit traffic flow.
Two lanes in each direction will preserve traffic flow.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 124 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Bike land and slower traffic.
I don't like it not much of a change from current
Nothing. Leave it as is. Dont want to become like cardiff/encinitas. Its a beautiful drive and doesnt need redevelopment for monetary gain.
Nothing
It retains parking and beach accesses
Not much
4 lanes moves more traffic at a steady flow
Absolutely nothing
Maintains 4 lane capacity for cars during 5 jams and locals and seasonal beach traffic I don't like it at all
Nada
Nothing.
CPC Core Module 4: Anesthesia Technology
Four lanes and signals
Good auto flow, signals for safe pedestrian crossing, good option Nothing
Retains parking
no roundabouts -- they typically have increased likelihood of accidents as people don't know how to maneuver around them safely
Very little
It is most similar to what we have today, I guess.
Seems like a decent approach with good traffic flow and hopefully the least investment required. pedestrian walkways
Nothing really.
The sidewalks, bike lanes and the re-do on Palomar Airport Rd transition to Carlsbad Blvd. Nice layout:) This is my Favorite Option.
I don't like it. It seems to be very similar to what is currently there I like it
Nothing
4 lanes allow for better traffic flow.
Reclamation of coastal land.
Option 1 looks like the best for traffic flow.
Nothing I am a resident of Solamar and do not want 4 lanes of traffic raised to the existing elevation of the existing NB lanes. Such construction would create unacceptable noise levels, pollution and destroy the ocean view.
Not my first choice
Nothing.
4 lane road means we wouldn't have more traffic. Gets the street away from the bluff. Wouldn't create bottlenecks of the road going from 4 to 2 lanes at the ends. traffic signals rather than round-abouts
All is good. I like traffic lights. I think have to keep traffic lights at Sol amar and Island Dr.
Nothing
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 125 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
It seems to work. Not dangerous. Not disruptive. Nothing is perfect.
Not much
retained existing parking, pedestrian pathway away from traffic Leave open space no linear park
Traffic lights unnecessary and 4x lanes makes it feel like an expressway Nothing
4 lanes for cars
Added bikeway and sidewalk
The four lanes.
Great for traffic flow.
The amount of vehicles that will be accommodated at any one time The flow of car, pedestrian, and bike lanes meets standards without loss of lanes for cars.
Nothing, I feel it is going to add increased noise to the adjacent communities and does not address the need for safety or reduced speed to enjoy the coast.
not much
multiple lanes in each direction. will help with congestion Not much
Nothing
it appears to make the entrance and exit from the parking at Palomar safer than it is today otherwise still 4 lanes and stop lights as it is today
nothing
Flow of traffic especially during rush hour. Signals are safer for cyclists than roundabouts.
Pedestrian/bike path
I do not.
Nothing - leave the coast as it is.
4 lanes. 2 lanes needed for traffic each way. No roundabouts. Roundabouts don't work w ell and makes traffic horrible.
It is better than what we have now.
I don't like option 1 at all.
Nothing. I don’t like that you messing up our city.
Good traffic flow for residents.
It is most similar to what is there now with some pedestrian improvements. Also retains parking.
This option does not provide enough enhancements
4 lanes increases traffic flow as it can back up frequently during the summer; most people are NOT confused about using traffic signals
The road is kept at 4 lanes. The safest option for the busy area It allows for more vehicles and it will not cause traffic jams Four lanes of traffic— four lanes are needed in that stretch. Stoplights instead of roundabouts.
Not much too much road without safety
Nothing, leave Coast Highway alone.
That traffic flow for cars is left largely intact and allows more safe use by pedestrians and cyclists. nothing.
None. I would like to keep the roadway, without changes.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 126 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
We will continue to have 4 lanes which seems like the safest option when you think about the many cars attempting to exit the area in the case of a horrible fire or earthquake. we need a fast local alternative to I5. Nobody seems to figure out roundabout s, especially when people or bikes are involved. Try crossing as a pedestrian! In case of a major emergency how will you evacuate, move, rescue people with a 2 lane road if the highway is blocked??? any idea of how many people live here and that there are not enough evacuation routes?
It provides for roadway usage that is currently available. It's hard to train people how to use roundabouts.
Improvement over existing
Lots of lanes for cars
Dedicated pedestrian path near the ocean and away from traffic.
Want it to be almost exactly as it is now. Going down to 2 lanes is unacceptable and creates traffic jams. Do not do what they did in Leucadia. It is horrible to drive there now. 4 lanes of traffic. Please get over it we will always wants our cars! Tha nks Most traffic lanes for flow of vehicles.
Keeps four lanes intact and avoids a "road diet"
No keep it as is.
Nothing— because it will still realign the road
Doesn’t reduce car traffic, retains existing beach access and parking.
NOTHING
That 4 lanes of traffic remain. The new pedestrian path is separate from the traffic lanes. nothing
Preserves parking and beach access
Nothing
Don't like.
We like that it provides for everyone including car transportation.
Traffic flow
4 lanes. Good for heavy traffic and fast moving traffic Given how busy Carlsbad Blvd is now, especially during the summer months, and will likely become more so in the future I think the 4 lanes and traffic signals will help keep the traffic flowing more smoothly. I like the pedestrian components are largely the same for most of the designs. Personally, I like roundabouts but they require decision making by drivers and can often, unintentionally, slow everything down. Signals are common and easily understood by just about everybody.
No ruining beautiful favorite spot on coastline.
Has option for both bikes and slower moving traffic.
Option 1 at least offers better protection for the road from future flooding and sea level rise. terrible, no traffic signals needed
4 lanes
I don't
Like it best, because it will allow for the best method for traffic to move thru S. Carlsbad.
No
maintains 4 lanes so less traffic
four lanes -- moves traffic without congestion and
I like the addition of trails and places for pedestrians to cross roads What difference does it make your doing whatever you think you want? 👎 Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 127 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Nothing. Please leave the road as it is and do not change it at all. We do not want the linear park! We do not want the road changed. We told you that many times.
Safe traveling
Nothing. I want coast Hwy to remain the same
No
No roundabouts
It is the only option offered that has 4 lanes.
nothing
Less traffic congestion
Nothing
It relocates the highway eastward. This option ranks No. 3 with me Maintains traffic flow for the majority of users.
Nothing, except the lack of commercial activity and open space. Road is treacherous.
Better traffic flow
no roundabouts, which are not safe for bikers
Similar to current road.
Nothing. On Fridays and during summer/holiday times traffic is bumper to bumper. Having stop signs will only make matters worse.
Option 1 provides a shift to the east for the highway to create a "satisfactory" outcome relative to potential sea level rise, but still maintains the 4-land road which, in my opinion, is needed in this area. I also prefer the traffic signals to the roundabout options, although there may be other areas within the City of Carlsbad where roundabouts may be useful.
I like 4 lanes so traffic keeps moving. Summer traffic is so heavy keeping it moving is paramount.
Nothing
Lots of wide spaces as buffers for pedestrians and bikes Do not make changes
It allows the traffic to flow more smoothly than the other options, which is very important when the I-5 backs up.
I do not like this option because it's not the safest for pedestrians It doesn’t have roundabouts. It’s probably the least costly and disruptive plan.
Traffic would be minimally affected
nothing
Hopefully less traffic with four lanes.
Strongly don't prefer this option.
nothing
Leave the road alone. Don't do anything.
There are no roundabouts. I like the coastal walk/bike path nearest the coast. This will be a nice addition.
Nothing
No roundabouts.
Maintains sufficient traffic capacities while increasing access and safety for bicycles and pedestrians Yes, leave that stretch of Carlsbad as it is.
No - compared to other areas in Carlsbad this is the least of the community’s concern. Please do nothing .
Don’t like it leave it alone!
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 128 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
No change needed on the 101
Pretty much same as it is now.
Fastest speed possible if you are driving in a car.
Like that all existing free parking is still available. Like that the Palomar airport bridge looks to be ge tting removed although throughput will suffer.
Four lanes ease traffic flow
I don’t like this option. It is already too congested and the natural land is much preferred. There is enough development already in Carlsbad
Keep four lanes for passing. No backing up of traffic.
Not a lot, honestly.
4 lanes maximizes traffic flow. Signals for crossing, similar to whats in use today. ample space for walking parallel to road.
Smooth traffic flow. Wider bridge.
It maintains the current four lanes of traffic.
There needs to be improvements to safety for bikers along the coast and around Carlsbad but I’m not sure this is it.
It is best suited for flow of traffic
Nothing
Traffic signals are better for those who still have little experience with them No!
Just leave the highway alone and as is. No need to make it the Blakespear of death road. traffic flow would not be worse than what we have now
No
don't
Nothing
Dont like it
Nothing
Seems to be a satisfactory solution. Four lanes may assist traffic control.
Not much
Retention and not expansion of parking. Walking accommodations on the west side of the project area.
Better for traffic flow and less traffic congestion. Retains current 4 lane road. i like slowing traffic, enhancing walkign area
I don't. It doesn't slow traffic and encourages traffic bypass from the 5 fwy on heavy traffic days, doesn't slow traffic and is not pedestrian friendly.
Almost nothing. Too many lanes
Easier driving
Familiar. Has a clean separation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic with protected traffic control. 4 lanes of traffic, there is already an traffic congestion issue as it is, so narrowing it down to 2 lanes would be disastrous
I prefer stop lights to round abouts. Please keep the stop lights. Palomar airport Road is far too busy to have a round about!
No
NOTHING
It facilitates the movement of traffic
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 129 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
4 lanes will move traffic faster
i like the easier access for emergency services to get through! That it includes bike lanes and sidewalks.
multiple lanes for traffic
Traffic lights are universal communication for everyone who is licensed to drive. The colors of the lights are simple to understand.
I like the 4-way traffic lights and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.
I like the additional traffic lanes in case you are caught behind slow moving vehicles. I like the pedestrian walk on the existing road
Four lanes will continue to move traffic flow adequately and still allows for an enjoyable scenic drive.
Keeps parking and coastal access. Safest for bikers - stop lights are safer than roundabouts when competing with cars. Maintains current Carlsbad character - the look and feel.
Still has a 4 lane road - if we go down to two the traffic will be worse I like this option
Keeps traffic moving and the separate pathways for pedestrians away from road 4 lanes
I don't like option 1
4 lanes ease traffic, existing parking lots remain, looks low cost No roundabouts, 4 lanes allow more traffic to go through nothing
Fast
Overall it’s nothing special. The Sidewalk is good.
no roundabouts
I think Option 1 stays consistent with the rest of street ways in Carlsbad with traffic signals.
Minimal construction
All options open the oceanfront to pedestrians similar to the downtown sidewalk & bicycle paths.
Nothing
NA
NA
No roundabouts. More traffic lanes.
Looks like today. Can’t return to survey from conceptual vies on iPhon e. Have to start survey over The traffic will keep moving and not back up to Poinsettia. Not going from 4 lanes to 2. There's a bike lane on both sides of 101 now. There is room to add them for this plan.
The roadway should STAY AS 4 LANES!!!
allows for higher traffic volume
Better traffic flow than the others
Nothing
Cleanest simple design. Gets cars where they want to go easily.
No roundabouts! I am from the UK, I know how to use a roundabout. I’ve lived in the US for 30 years and people just don’t seem to know how to drive round roundabouts. Seen some terrible driving and near misses Leave it all alone
No matter what happens regarding climate change , traffic will continue to increase. By selecting the 4 lane road without roundabouts would be my choice. Implemental will only cause more congestion within this corridor but will also negatively impact commerce within the city of coastal Carlsbad. Options 2 and 3 will not Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 130 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
improve safety but increase a multitude of linters problems that will eventually cause millions mo re to correct.
Don’t kick the can down the road to let someone else correct the mess! keeps traffic moving, wider, accommodating for the ever increasing traffic in our area... the other options will inevitably create backups due to bikes and pedestrians and people not knowing how to use roundabouts. 4 lanes with traffic signals. 2 lanes with roundabouts is going to create traffic issues and accidents on these roundabouts. This Option is the most practical, given the other two options are not going to get commuter traffic off of the coast road, it will just create more of a backup especially at rush hour and weekends. I live on the 101 and the 4 lanes are fine for moving traffic along.
I recommend option 1. But I prefer that the city doesn't do anythi ng for at least 10 years, except for possibly building an under the current road for pedestrians. This should have been an option.
With the designs provided, it's very difficult to tell them apart (this survey is also not mobile -friendly and this survey caused my very high-memory phone to crash the first time I tried to use it; who uses computers anymore?). I really don't like the description of option 1.Not great for the local Coastal environment or our pedestrians, and does nothing to alleviate the high-speed traffic racing through there.
It's Ok
Dislike it
Stop lights for pedestrian crossing
I can still use the road for travel. It is an alternative to 5 or El Camino.
Best option to have four total lanes so there is no bottleneck thru carlsbad. Traffic will only increased for the future. Think ahead, not behind.
Consistent, efficient, solves specified issues, avoiding the delays of roundabouts. (Not everyone understands roundabouts.)
retaining the existing parking lots and beach access points Not a whole lot
Nothing
I like two lanes in each direction and no roundabouts. The two lanes is better at handling the traffic flow in each direction and based on my experience with roundabouts in Colorado, they don’t work well durin g heavy traffic times.
Feels safe and normal, no big change
Maintains 4 land roadway while adding pedestrian and bike lanes Traffic signals. Allows for safer road crossing. In heavy traffic, like all summer, it'd be impossible to cross. Never open up Manzano to the coast. Ever.
Not much
nothing
nothing
Big bridge, bike lanes (btw the file names are confusing. What shows a t the top for all of them is Layout 2 w labels. Plz name them by the options.)
nothing
I hate roundabouts. They slow traffic when traffic is equal from all four sides. I like the four lanes as they already work well south of here
Keeps the traffic moving and provides sidewalks and bike lanes.
Will not slow traffic on an already slow highway
Nothing
four lanes ALWAYS better than two lanes especially when I-5 Freeway problems occur Reducing number of car lanes is negative & Regressive, causes more pollution via traffic jams, and chokes off harms access to City Four lanes so traffic isn't miserable, and it keeps the view of the ocean from the drive, which is one of the best parts of the existing roadway.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 131 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Improvement of pedestrian safety. 4 lanes is able to handle more traffic. I am concerned that is traffic is restricted too much, it will dramatically increase drive time from my house to Carlsbad Village. Traffic on the 5 north can be horrible most days
Dislike
Not much. I don't believe in AGW, dangerous sea level rise, or any related nonsense. Therefore, I prefer not spending any of my tax dollars.
Lights, four lanes, retained parking
pedestrian pathway
Nothing.
most common sense
Nothing really when contrasted to the others.
Multiple lanes for car traffic.
Safer for pedestrians and addresses sea level rise.
Best option. Traffic signals. No roundabouts.
Not much
2 lanes in each direction
ease of traffic flow on the coast highway
the pedestrian walkways and additional sidewalks
Only good thing is that it moves the road over. The traffic signals are a nuisance and should be replaced by round about.
Pedestrian path, bike path, traffic signal. But it is otherwise a dud in my opinion.
Do not like it at all
No roundabouts. People go the wrong way and don't know what to do.
Good flow of traffic and safer and better flowing intersections due to traffic lights.
Closest to current roadway. 4 traffic lanes needed.
Nothing
Existing parking
Nothing
Like it. Close to original.
Carlsbad has no interest in inhibiting development. There is massive traffic already, creating stress, traffic jams and accidents. Bikes and roundabouts slow down traffic. The quality of life is degrading due to traffic, already.
Please stop with these ideas of increasing bike lanes and adding roundabouts. Hwy 101 has become a nightmare with the addition of these aspects-unsafe and way slowed down and increased traffic jams. We do not live in the 1950's. The population is vastly increasing far beyond what we can provide for with water and jamming up all the roads. We are already "locked" in locally from going much of anywhere due to the traffic. Maybe those wanting increasing bike lanes and roundabouts ought to seriously consider moving out of state. Carlsbad gives no gifts in widening roads, either. It's for increasing devolpment. Have lived here for almost 25 yrs and Carlsbad has a focus on density of housing and money and the desire for more and more traffic, I guess. Enough is enough-Please stop the degradation of the equality of life-Yet, I know that won't happen because it's Carlsbad! 4 lanes of traffic = good
Best for traffic flow.
It allows for bike lanes + a multiuser path
That it is 4 lanes so traffic will still move at an appropriate pace for a coastal highway. You can go slow in the right lane if you want to enjoy the drive, while others can still get around you in the left lane.
Provides for vehicles which is being realistic as we continue to add more dwelling units.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 132 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Option 1 is the worst choice. Option 2 is best. This is a chance to do something wonderful in regards to multi - modal transportation, safety and enhancing the attractiveness of Carlsbad to tourists, and lifestyle f or residents. 4 lanes is good
This option is good for traffic only. Do not like it
4 lanes like it currently is, not usually a traffic problem here Realignment; additional bike/ped infrastructure
Number of lanes not reduced.
smooth flow of traffic consistent with current roadway
N/a
nothing
Saves the road
Nothing
The fact that it is satisfactory
Not Encinitas road diet. Keep traffic moving.
Looks similar to current so outcome is know (visual and traffic). It is a safe choice.
It's got satisfactory parking and fluid traffic lanes
It< to me allows better traffic flow,
I like that it is still 4 lanes, so there shouldn’t be a back up or a huge slow-down of traffic I don’t like it.
I like that it does not have roundabouts and has dedicated pedestrian space.
Everything. Clean concept. Traffic signals work much more efficiently than roundabouts. It’s a simple option that will work for everyone.
Nothing. We need a park not some bogus plan to rezone land so that developers can get rich because Matt Hall has been paid off
Seems like traffic would move smoothly in a linear line. Separate pedestrian and limited mobility paths appear safe.
I like 4 lanes because traffic often backs up with just one lane. This also provides a passing opportunity for slower vehicles. 4 lanes may be useful if businesses move into this area and increase traffic.
Nothing leave the road the way it is
No roundabouts and includes traffic lights
Traffic flow
Least expensive option.
Maintains current flow of traffic.
Less traffic noise and pathways for both pedestrians and bikes Nothing. The only redeeming feature is 4 lanes - do NOT intentionally cause gridlock Traffic from the Village and Encinitas continues to flow without bottlenecking.
Nothing
Paths
It allows for vehicular traffic to flow
No rounds abouts
Seems to move more traffic
It maintains the existing number of lanes
Similar to today so minimal change to driving patterns
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 133 of 241
What do you like about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Keeps the traffic flowing
Nothing
It can handle more traffic
Dont like it
4 lanes for cars
simple
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 134 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
None
The stoplights can cause more traffic
Parking. I’d like to take advantage of this beautiful new space you are creating. But where will we park? Also traffic. We drive 101 everyday. We are concerned about traffic if we go to one lane. Already there are problems at Palomar Airport Road and 101 at times.
increase car traffic and bikes walking on sidewalks
None
Concern about safety for pedestrians and bikers crossing the street A 500' bridge is crazy. The cross sections for the proposed roads are huge. The problem you have is from Manzano to Cannon. That is a difficult stretch of roadway. You are proposing these huge highways with sidewalks and bikeways converging onto a highly congested one lane road.
It achieves nothing.
To much traffic, will be used as an alternative to I-5 and be detrimental to beauty of coast As it exists today, there are issues safely accommodating cyclist and pedestrian traffic.
Too many stop lights. Adding a stoplight to access PAR again stops flow of traffic. When I -5 is clogged traffic often moves to Carlsbad Boulevard, that cannot be stopped, but we should promote the steady, continuous, controlled flow along the roadway. Right in right out for the north parking and at Solamar Drive would be preferred. One stop light at Island Way/south parking lot would be OK Still too car centric.
Compared to options 2,3 the traffic lights are not as preferable.
Cost. Are there new traffic signals?
N/A
Accommodates cars and speed, while roundabouts help slow drivers down and improve safety for all Too many lanes
Too busy; increases speeds. Scenic 101 should move at relaxing pace. Drivers do and will continue to glance at the ocean, pedestrians etc. Keep it slow!
too many cars and too many traffic lights
there is no comprehensive plan for that area and nothing should be done until that plan has been developed. and community is not behind these options.
none
4 lane road is too much and will encourage vehicles to speed. So much concrete does not add to the beauty of this special area. Traffic signals are not needed every quarter mile. Also: This does not seem to address the problem of sea level rise and the chronic erosion of our coastal cliffs. I believe more can be done to protect this unique area by possibly moving boulders in to break up surf action at the lowest point of the road as well as along the entire cliff area. I see these boulders near the Encina Creek bridge and it seems to be hel ping. If this project is truly aimed to adapt to sea level rise, the current/remaining road changed to pedestrian/bike path and the remaining parking areas are still in danger.
Speeding and dangerous to bikes and pedestrians
See answer #1
I am concerned that there is only one coastal access from Solomar.
Development is not needed
2 lanes each direction are unnecessary from my observations while using this area.
More people
Two-way traffic at high speeds.
no flow. lot of idling and exhaust
Na
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 135 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
None
That this lame survey didn't include an option to leave things the way they are now so that our tax dollars aren't wasted just so Matt Hall and his pals can ram through some new development instead of giving us a REAL park, which is what we deserve.
Encroaches too far onto the beach. Not very resilient to Sea Level Rise None
pedestrian safety - people running lights
see above
Car centric old design. Two car lanes each way encourages higher speeds and less safety for pedestrians and bikes.
Could continue to encourage commuters who may be trying to avoid I -5 Too many cars, not enough protection from rising sea levels, not enou gh enhancements for bikes and pedestrians
Fear this could create more congestion with a traffic signal. Cars backing up.
That Matt Hall wants to leave his legacy...the Matt Hall Linear Park. I'd be okay with the Matt Hall Memorial Public Restroom, but not his phony "park" that is only intended to pave the way for massive development on our precious coastline.
How to get 4 lanes without affecting people who live in the area none
more lanes encourages more vehicular traffic
Nothing in particular--- need required safety patrol/ police monitoring from drfters/homeless Not safe for bikes
I think it emphasizes too many car lanes which also funnels too many cars quickly into the narrower and more dangerous area of the street once it enters Leucadia (we live in Leucadia). I witnessed someone be hit by a speeding car coming out of the high speed area of Carlsbad Blvd. There are too many cars and they go way too fast and keeping all these lanes will not help this problem.
Still promotes the car and speed!! Will not slow down the vehicles Status quo
stopping at the signals for only one car crossing
Pedestrian safety is not addressed.
fast cars
I would rather no changes occur, but nothing stands out None
Speed limit. I think it is very important to have a bike land separate from a pedestrian walkway. A Class 1 trail is for bikes and pedestrians. Many pedestrians get upset when there are bikes on "their" trail. They don't understand that it is a shared trail.
I live on Oceanview Drive in Solamar, so this development is directly in front of my home. A 100+ ft. wide super - highway is the worst possible solution, and is the complete opposite of the options that were discussed at the city's presentations to our home owner's association. This solution looks like the high -speed super-highway that was recently build along the low portion of the coast highway in Cardiff. It allows increased speeds, noise, pollution, limited coastal access and is complete unacceptable.
Too many lanes!!!
None
Opening land for future development. The city has shown little concern for open space. IE Ponto area for starters. Pioneer Park the hub trail etc. These are all being used as tools to development. The power plant properties is the next development jewel and hopefully a hotel isn't going in there.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 136 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
You're using the excuse of sea level rise and walkability to try to deceive people into the real reason for this change...Matt Hall wants to create a bogus park and then open the door to developers to build monst rous shopping/condo/timeshare/mixed use/tourist-serving projects that WE DO NOT WANT AND DO NOT NEED!!! Too many lanes and I would prefer to eliminate traffic lights in favor of roundabouts traffic slows driving south on this section and tourists & visitors slow way down to get a great view of the coast & ocean. A single lane would be unacceptable and slow traffic to near a stop. keep it 4 lanes.
Speed of road
1. Cost. 2. No need for signals, traffic flow is at 30 mph. 3. Beach side Reflective bike road path (green bike path flooring) so cars can SEE BETTER AT NIGHT.
Speed of cars
4 lanes of traffic unless other measures are taken to slow it down like the stretch in the village is not ideal. Also, I’d prefer the bike lanes to be over on the pedestrian path not next to cars No concerns, but it is very car centered as it is. People walk in less than optimal trails, people drive very fast and there are few places to cross if you park east of the road.
Invites more traffic at higher speeds
Traffic gets pretty heavy, but how do we stop people from wanting to drive on a beautiful stretch of coast? We don't. We maintain it and keep it patrolled.
Prefer roundabouts v. traffic lights for calming traffic. Do we need 4 lanes?? High speed of the traffic
I have none
Traffic lights. I want roundabouts and other options
Don’t think we need to change at all
Increased usage and traffic, risk to safety and increased traffic noise No need for so many lanes need to deter people from going down here Speed limit doesn’t allow safe enough passage for bicycles and pedestrians Too many lanes
None
4 lanes seems counterproductive to the preferred use of the space and this option is not the safest.
Are there going to be businesses or new homes put in, i hope not, I want it to stay as the only undeveloped scenic coastal drive in our city.
The four lanes of traffic
Less with 1
None
There are no roundabouts.
Don't like the idea of 4 lanes.
fast traffic flow
Pedestrian safety on west side of roadway
encourages heavy traffic, polution and speeding.
Too many traffic signals
More places for the homeless to loiter -Possibly resulting in a greater chance of approval of the proposed development behind the Cape Rey Hotel by removing the "not enough park area" argument. -Negative impact on emergency response time -Making the area more attractive to non-locals by providing more parking -Fear that this may result in commercial use along the road
No concerns
Not enough ped and bike options for safe travel.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 137 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
The stop and go of traffic. Slower commute times. Wasted gas.
The whole plan seems incomplete
traffic
Traffic signals may not be more efficient than roundabouts.
Extent of paving, seems like a lot to have 16'-22' of paving for side by side bike and pedestrian paths. Can some of this expanse be a non-pavement alternative to manage heat island and drainage? none
Too many cars
Does not slow traffic or reduce noise
Would still be 4 lanes, which needs to be fixed
Make the road pedestrian and bike friendly rather than just a highway. none
concern is only that traffic lights need to be engineered and timed to work w/ traffic flow to limit stop & go noise & emissions...It'll be most like what we have now that works, it won't cut noise, but keeping it a 4 lanes road means far less road rage than I think the other Options will produce due to traffic jams Option 2 and 3 seem better
None
Parking spaces need to be stripped and dangerous for bikers/pedestrians passing behind parked vehicles Four lanes obviously take up more space, leaving less room for sidewalks and bike lanes. Plus, why do we need a separate pedestrian pathway along the whole route? There are far more bicycles using the coast highway.
Too car focused.
Too many concessions to cars. Most of the vehicles using the present road are not local Carlsbad residents. This design is a concession to speed this through traffic
may not be best for slower, more casual cyclists
Beach access must stay limited here because of the lack of sand on the beach. Beachgoers will be forced to move closer to the eroding cliffs, creating a hazardous situation. too many stop lights, too many rights to bicycles should be as few as lights with NO LANE SHARING with bicycles
Concerns: noise, safety, not good enough for climate change, not the best for coastal features, not very welcoming for people not in cars (bikes, pedestrians)
Maybe getting crowded and an increase in traffic.
A little more difficult for pedestrians
refer 2 lanes to 4 lanes
none
It creates more traffic noise, faster driving, and more noise.
The 4 lane road is too much road. I like that it feels like a small town beach town with less lanes.
It seems like only the bare minimum is being done even though it is still massively expensive. It doesn't feel like 2022; the goal seems to be to preserve its role as a thoroughfare of traffic passing through Carlsbad.
Too many lanes.
climate change adaptiveness. I have one other concern regarding all of these options, which is that if flow is not improved at Cannon Rd, we are still going to have massive backups regularly heading north on 101 from Solamar to Cannon.
None.
none
Traffic signals slowing traffic
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 138 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Don't want a 4 lane highway and I don't like interference with the natural habitat between Solamar Drive and Island way which is noted as Las Encinas way. I would like it to remain as it is today.
The large road will be too busy and cause even more air pollution from vehic les.
Does not have the traffic calming that option 2 and 3 have 4 lanes too many also Too much traffic
None
Doesn't slow down traffic
None
Not as safe as other options
Encourages motor vehicle traffic
I frequent this section of the coast and there are often more pedestrians, bikes, and beach goers than cars. This is not the better or best design for our safety.
Too many lanes
Is it enough?
Expanding the road into the existing open space. Not meeting best practices for sea level rise It seems to just pretty much ignore the problem.
I prefer option 2
this is a drastic change in the roadway. The current road serves the area well, why change it? Traffic lights. Make them roundabouts
Not enough pedestrian and bike access
More traffic
Zero
Limited safety improvement
Encourages too much traffic.
Intersections favor cars
None
See above. Secondly, the "parking" dirt lot isn't built for traffic control. Too many instances where U turns and/or errant incorrect turns onto east bound Palomar are dangerous none
Not enough pedestrian welfare.
The pedestrian pathway next to the ocean. The sidewalks/ bike paths along the road seem adequate. Why do we need more paths / more enhanced development? Let’s keep it as natural as possible . That’s what locals want.
None
Slower traffic looking to turn off towards the bluff and beach.
I dislike traffic lights, potential bottlenecks
The lack of accessibility for showers and drinking foundations for beach visitors.
None
It prioritizes cars over people and it is most likely to eventually be under water anyway, so a total waste of money.
I'm not sure that we necessarily need the four lanes of traffic.
It may ruin the area.
Don't like roundabouts.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 139 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Best of the 3 options. Only concern it is moving anything that currently is there. If rising water is a problem, bridge like structures could be used to raise roadway up.
Not much change
Too many lights, brakes and traffic jams
Need wider bike lanes
Congestion with too many traffic signals
Speeding, traffic lights stragicly placed and timed correctly to slow down speeders.
The traffic lights!! It would be a complete back up like on el Camino real. Those lights are not synched at all It isn’t the best solution, doesn’t solve all problems. pedestrian safety
Access to parking lots is one road. How will exiting the parking traffic merge to the main road.
Hard to read the drawings to evaluate concerns
Since there is room for cars, bicycles, and sidewalks, all stakeholders are represented and accommodated, so no major concerns.
Traffic backing up into the Terramar neighborhood during high traffic times at the lights None. Only concern is access to the beaches along the bluffs. People are destroying the bluffs be creating new paths. I walk along that stretch of the road at minimum once per week year round.
Why is Option 1 with street lights less safe for pedestrians than Option 2 with roundabouts? None
More traffic, heavier traffic, and less Pedestrian safety.
Leave it alone
Don’t change it
not my choice
Fast traffic near pedestrians and bikes
increasing noise
Safety
the signalized intersections should be replaced with traffic circles when ever possible. Given the 'T -intersection' a traffic circle with outside straight by-pass lanes can be a very effective in slowing down but keeping traffic moving.
Everything about it concerns me.
None
Not sure
Traffic signals may create additional traffic noise and bottlenecks.
Noise, pollution and safety due to high speed
Safety
None
Speed limits
congestion
Ugly traffic signals; too much maintenance
I have nothing to compare it to. The links in the survey does not open option 2 or 3.
Too many lanes
It takes southbound cyclists away from the coastline unless they take their lives in their hands by mixing with the walkers, runners, strollers, skaters, dogs, etc. Really, there is only one sort of low-lying area on this stretch Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 140 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
that appears to be - maybe - subject to flooding if the ocean rises significantly. Have you published the scientific report that says this area is in danger of flooding. Can residents re ad it? Where can we find it? Option one does not slow down traffic, there is no crossing for pedestrians, and on and off from Palomar Blvd is dangerous.
None
None
lights at Palomar will slow down traffic
Would allow, and almost encourage, speeding and illegal street racing. Very dangerous design.
Noise from cars and hot shot drivers is not fixed. Not great for pedestrians or bikes Too urban for our beach town.
More green house gasses while waiting at a light
SAFETY for Pedestrians and Bikers. They should be COMPLETELY separated from car lanes. WAKE UP ITS 2022!!!
Will allow fast cars
More traffic
None
In my opinion as a resident, not a tourist, it looks like the best option. 4 lanes uses too much open space and does not adapt to sea level rise aggressively enough.
Need more areas with gradual descending coastal access points for people with mobility impairments.
That the traffic signals are able to work together so as not to pile up traffic. On A LL the plans, is it possible to create access from inland so as to distribute some parking away from the beach traffic arteries? For example, if we should have access from the railway station at along that railway, then under the new bridge and then west to the beach, we would tap into mass transit, better access to parking for Eastern living Carlsbadians, and those residences and businesses are connected the beach without any traffic crossings. 4 lanes is still a lot of traffic
Takes up more space. Won't scale well with sea-level rise coming. It's better to update the roads once and do it right.
Wasn't sure if the signal lights stayed in the same places? Wondered if vehicle speed would be lowered was it safe for bikers?
TOO BUSY
None
I do not see the need to change existing roadway. I am down there in that area nearly everyday and nobody I've talk to seems to not want changes there at this time.
Too car focused. Reclaim the coast road for people not cars.
Multiple red lights spaced closely together
Traffic lights are an eyesore. Would contribute to high speeds similar to present configuration.
The amount of pedestrians coming to the 1 mile stretch to walk Doesn't slow traffic or help with traffic flow. Too much hardscape and not enough landscaping.
Matt Hall will want his name on the proposed "Linear" (NOT) Park more traffic, less room for access, no roundabouts so traffic signals Does not reduce diversion from Interstate 5 at rush hour Cars are too fast, very noisy and bikers are at risk.
Traffic buildup/ backup…not enough pedestrian/ bike space? No
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 141 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
That it is not necessary and will be tied to an attempt to allow rezoning in order to satiate the greed of the tourism industry who control City Council
Keeping traffic signals will not address the issue of people drag racing off the red lights, creating noise and dangerous situations, as well as right turns on reds where I have s een multiple accidents happen.
Does not really calm traffic enough.
I prefer roundabouts over traffic lights. This option will continue the overly high speed highway, sometimes raceway, that currently exists.
none
Entry and exit to parking lots. Lack of relocating the campgrounds and parking at the site as well state park landward to guard all recreational infrastructure from SLR.
Cars can still go rather fast if they want Make walkways wide, smooth, beautiful for everyone to enjoy.
Provide ample parking please. Please add an off leash dog area no roundabouts
Make Bike Paths safe -separate from cars with a physical barrier. Drivers are distracted and go over a painted line too easily. Then they are remorseful- too late for the victim.
None
None
Great as a starting point, but lacks road calming measures to dissuade through traffic that is not coastal-use dependent.
Removing the merges from and onto Palomar Airport Road. The area will bottleneck as the light at Aveneda Encinas is out of phase.
Dated, not very attractive from the standpoint of current designs in other communities. Does not maximize the opportunity to repair existing access, traffic noise, and coastal access issues.
Why are we moving the road away from the ocean
Does not do enough to protect people
I don't see how this slows down traffic.
None
Too much noise and not as safe as #2
Keep the bikes off the walking path. Lots of benches by walking path to sit and watch, please.
Too many lanes , traffic moves to fast , doesn’t support pedestrians Moves highway away from scenic ocean views.
These kinds of intersections are poorly designed and should be phased out.
None
None
That Matt Hall and his pals in the Chamber of Commerce and the touri sm industry are going to use this as part of a plan to justify their "visitor-serving/commercial" land use rezoning and foist upon us some nightmare development that we neither need nor want
The lack of roundabouts
option 2 cart is too small to comfortably view
None.
no roundabouts to keep traffic moving at slower speeds
I don't see any parking. You should add parking for beach access Traffic Lights will continue to slow down traffic and bicycles No concerns.
none
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 142 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Based on the conversations that my wife and I had with our neighbors, we strongly believe that the first option is not as advantageous as the other two options. The first option is not the best when it comes to sea level rise, coastal street features, pedestrian crossing safety, traffic speed safety, car noise reduction, and overall safety in general. For these reasons, we have all chosen to recommend the second option.
Road too wide; roundabouts better
Concerns about auto speeding and safety.
It doesn't do enough to slow traffic and provide pedestrian and cyclist safety.
None
none
From a cycling point of view option 1 is by far the least appealing. Traffic speeds will be higher next tot he class 2 lanes and stoplights will interrupt riding.
noise level and 4 lanes
Does little to address the issues
I hate traffic lights.
Dangerous for pedestrians Worst design for rising tides Would rather not stop at stop lights, but it's safer than merging into a single lane on a bicycle to get through a roundabout.
None
Too busy with stops!
No changes there is not an option to select no changes
None, basically of its not broken don't fix it.
None
I don't understand the north end; how vehicles get access to the parking at "Turnarounds".
None
There is no information provided on costs or methods of payment for each option. This is a critical consideration.
We the people reject your phony survey. Happy 4th of July. 4 lanes are not needed along this stretch of road. The road goes to 2 lanes in Terramar anyway.
I have the same concerns for all 3-why is there no plan for a safe sidewalk along South Ponto Beach -from La Costa Blvd to Ocean Blvd? I hate that I have to walk on the busy 101 with my small dog because beaches are all dog-unfriendly in Carlsbad. I live near Ponto and would love to be able to walk my dog there safely. What is the plan for that area? When will there be a dog-friendly beach? I mean I will keep his leash on but there is such a long stretch of rarely used beach that would be perfect for dogs. It is dangerous to put us on the streets. I live in an area where there are many coyotes and they have attacked small dogs on leashes so I need to walk him where there are no coyotes. Please, please, please consider letting us bring our dogs on the beach on leash from Ponto to Terramar. Please.
Traffic lights making the trip along coast highway far too slow and long.
The separate pedestrian path is a great feature but covers the available land with a lot of pavement, rather than preserving open space
Traffic lights, they seem to be really inefficient.
Four lanes of cars is still too much traffic.
Not clear is another stop light would be installed at Blvd an d PAR. Less effective Traffic light need properly timed to prevent long wait times for wither pedestrians or vehicles Traffic lights inhibit traffic flow.
There will be too many traffic signals.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 143 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Four traffic lanes encourage motorists to speed putting bicyclists and pedestrians headed to the beach at risk.
Safety of walkers and bikers
Leave it as is. Dont want to become like cardiff/encinitas. Its a beautiful drive and doesnt need redevelopment for monetary gain.
Not the best design
None
Too much activity. Will make Carlsbad too crowded and will impede cycling. no concerns
How about Option 4, do nothing. Leave it alone.
None status quoted if not broke why fix?
Leave it as it is until you listen to the citizens of Carlsbad That it is just an excuse to allow developers to ruin out coastline It devotes too many lanes for cars. It is the least safe option of the three and does not satisfactorily address sea level rise.
Option 1 is the least safe for pedestrians and cyclists. It also allows for continued vehicle to SPEEDING and disruption of the peaceful ocean community with LOUD exhaust.
None
Little more room for bicyclist
That it is simply a sneaky way to allow large-scale development on open land and enrich friends of the cu rrent Mayor
Kind of a mess still with merging
that it's only "satisfactorily" adaptable to sea level, slows down traffic with having to wait for traffic lights Encourages automobile traffic, encourages higher speed auto traffic Safety. My main concern is that vehicles move very fast along that stretch with 2 lanes in each direction and the bike paths are minimal to keep distance to vehicles.
More traffic lights - how well will things flow? Ped x-ways are semi safe 4 lane traffic, very dense, too many cars, noise, pollution It's only "satisfactory" in all areas and doesn't do much in the way of coastal sea rise and pedestrian safety.
A fast execution would be best, not long drug out construction project.
Speed of traffic, incompatibility with bicyclists and pedestrians.
None
Don’t do it
The stoplights will back up Palomar airport road even more. There are a lot of stoplights from I -5 to Coast highway.
I’d like option one, keeping four lanes of traffic. I have a concern about changing from four lanes to two lanes, and how that would impact of traffic.
My concern on Option 1 is the bike lane is too close to traffic. Suggest moving bike lane closer to sidewalk.
Maybe swap LID and Bike? Appears Solamar has a traffic signal, will the other intersections have signals? Would also suggest installation of ped traffic flashers.
Relocating SB lanes further east would create too much noise for the Solamar residents. Lowering the road level in front of the Solamar community would help create a more pleasing environment for the Solamar community both for noise and view.
Not enough for bikes and pedestrians to access
Doesn't address all the concerns adequately. Traffic circles work much better with flow. The y have them now in several places in Encinitas and they work well.
None
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 144 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
removes some open space
No concerns.
Nothing
None at present.
Don't love the traffic lights
Traffic backup due to traffic lights for traffic coming from Palomar Airport Rd traffic lights at access point from the "turnaround" parking lot unnecessary?
Leave open space no linear park
Sorry answered that above
Doesn't do anything to reduce speeds or beach access
How to get to the beach from Island Way area
none
Nothing.
None.
traffic flow is good
none
Road noise, speed, safety and aesthetics. In addition, I want a clearer understanding and a conceptional drawing of the class 1 path and landscape improvements that will replace the current South -bound road. I'm concerned that area will just be turned into additional concrete parking lots. In addition to the class 1 multi-use walking and bike trial, what landscape improvements are planned? I would like to see some open space with stationary fire pits surrounded by adirondack chairs to gather with friends to enjoy the gorgeous ocean views.
The fire pits could be reserved or rented for a small fee. A few gourmet specialty shop (s), that do not obstruct the view, would be nice too. Such as; a coffee shop, ice cream, convenient specialty store that sells wine/beer, charcuterie boards, cheeses, gourmet sandwiches, firewood and s'mores kits for all to enjoy while enjoying the beautiful coast.
no roundabouts
none
I am interested in maintaining the old California beacharea Stop lights slow traffic down, waste gas.
Lights - no real change to current state
not much change from today - good idea to move away from stop lights to roundabouts like the other options safety
None
Intersection to Palomar Rd instead of the current configuration Traffic signals are the worst.
Leave the coast as it is/
None
It is not the safest option.
I'm concerned about the pedestrian and bike safety, as well as the travel speeds of the automobiles, it would be extremely hostile for active transport users.
Nothing. You are terrible. You are destroying cbad and everything it used t o be.
None.
Sea level rise, coastal erosion
Will not slow traffic or provide enough safe walking and biking Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 145 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
none
None
None
Safety and no regard to keeping things beachy
Leave Coast Highway alone
The backup of traffic at the lights at Palomar Airport and Solamar It's not calming traffic and noise. It's not a significant change. Cars and motorcycles still drag race down the 101 Limits the coastline view from the roadways.
Not as safe for pedestrians and bikes.
None.
none, except the waste of money and absurdity of this stupid project Safety for pedestrians.
More traffic at high speeds and not as safe for bikes and pedestrians Good for cars, not really for much else.
I am concerned that bikes will find their way onto the pedestrian and slower moving mobility option path instead of staying in the bike lanes adjacent to vehicle traffic.
Best of the 3 options but still creates unwanted stop lights.
Zero!
None
None
Don’t needs to change this amazing rural natural space.
Development
None
everything
none
4 lanes seems like it would uses up too much space that could be better put to use.
Does not slow traffic, no need for four lanes.
None at this time
leave as is
I surf down that way every day. Nothing wrong with 101 there now.
None at this time. It seems like the best choice for everyone.
Traffic lights. Cbad needs to join the roundabout revolution! That traffic will congest again after Palomar road through the residential area until Cannon and the street returns to 4 lanes, opening back up into the Village.
Many
Lack of safe pedestrian crossings along the highway.
Option 1 would be a wasted opportunity. It would be much better to make the beach area safer for pedestrians and cyclists. As long as the money is being spent to move the roadway, it should be improved and not just moved.
no improvement just more stop and go and noise
Unclear
4 lanes means more traffic
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 146 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
None, it allows for bikes and pedestrians
No
Too many lights are annoying
None
Congestion caused by lightz
Please stop shoving the linear Park down our throats. We don’t want these options. We told you to leave it as is.
You won’t listen. We pay your salaries.
None
Reduced roadway to make room for retail & hotels
No
Too complicated. Leave the road as is! Simple is better for walking, driving, and enjoying the view of the beach.
Reduction to 2 lanes is an exceedingly poor idea. Traffic is already heavy on the road. Reduction to 2 lanes will only exacerbate the traffic problem, hinder emergency vehicle access, and po se a danger during an emergency situation such as a fire.
toomuch road.
No concern
Too many lanes/signals
The highway will allow traffic to travel too fast.
why did you not consider roundabouts? They work in other countries why did you not consider adding a 6-10' walkway for this option?
Pedestrian being killed.
I don't like stoplights.
It will create more problems than currently exist. If you have traffic signals, will pedestrians also use them? This option will grind the flow of traffic to a halt.
While there are indicators where existing parking is retained, it is not clear if any parking will be lost. Having parking in this area, even if only for an occassional sunset photo, is highly desirable, in my opinion.
Doesn't reduce traffic speeds as much.
None. All the safety features are satisfactory
Too much traffic
It's too wide, and not designed at a human scale.
I do not like 4 lanes of traffic
Bike lanes could use a better buffer, maybe painted poles.
Safety
Too car-centric and less safety for non-motorists
it is stupid and not needed
None
Doesn't address concerns about sea-level rise, doesn't slow down traffic.
Multiple lanes
Leave the road alone.
I would be okay with doing no changes and keeping with what we have currently. There is no need to spend public money on what is very much okay.
Don’t touch anything please
Including safe walking zones for pedestrians.
None
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 147 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Yes, leave that stretch of Carlsbad as it is.
No - compared to other areas in Carlsbad this is the least of the community’s concern. Please do nothing. speed of cars
Doesn’t need to be changed.
high speed traffic mixed in with tourists
Adds signals, which I consider to be highly inefficient and frustrating, especially along this section of roadway.
Looks like a bunch of stop lights which sucks when you just want to cruise the coast with the windows down.
Seems much less efficient than keeping the cars moving.
Signals slow down traffic. Often unnecessarily.
I prefer the land to stay as is.
Less safe for drivers and pedestrians, saddles future residents with maintenance and replacement costs due to sea level rise. This would be a terrible long-term investment.
None.
Traffic lights can be waste of energy and time when they are slow to turn. The majority of traffic is along the coast and roundabouts can efficiency add more traffic without stopping the majority of the flow.
Looks like it just adds another road slightly inland with the same safety concerns fo r bikers and noise. speed
It will create more density on the coast
Just leave the highway alone and as is. No need to make it the Blakespear of death road or waste money to change it. The road is beautiful as it currently is so don’t make any changes to it’s current state/today. pedestrian crossing- would it be at lights
To much unnecessary realignment.
don't do it
Will not limit speeding.
Like it best. Think roundaboits maximize safety, traffics flow and oedestrian safety More and more cars, emissions
Lowest for sea level rise
May encourage high speed drivers
None
Cost?
See above
Increased traffic flow as a redirect from fwy traffic
Not as safe for pedestrians and cyclists.
None
Like it
none
Just looking for safety
DESTROYING THE BEACH WITH ROADWAYS, HARDER FOR RESIDENTS TO ACCESS THEIR HOMES Is it enough, or should a greater length to this expansion also be considered none
Speed of traffic, too much traffic, 4 lanes are unnecessary, safety for cyclists and pedestrians not as pretty
The cost of the project that the taxpayers have to pay for.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 148 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
none
Cars go too fast for those who want to park or enjoy the view. Also, not much parking alongside road.
None.
Road closures during construction. Hard to articulate what the value -added changes are versus the other options and current design (i.e. roundabouts for option 2 and 3) None
Bikers
No concerns
Seems to just be satisfactory in all categories
Safety seems questionable
None
None
i just don’t think it’s the best idea overall. Too much traffic and no path.
Too fast and busy. Might grab some freeway alternates making it even more bust Limited pedestrian access from the east.
traffic back ups from traffic lights
I don't have concerns.
No decent path to beach and lower road open to future erosion.
Too many lanes in the road. A two lane road will soon be built in Encinitas. It adds friction and slows the traffic encouraging commute elsewhere
Too many lanes. High traffic. This is a scenic route and should be enhanced to the greatest extent possible .
Still priorities cars over pedestrians
Not forward thinking
None.
None
None
None
Too many lanes!!!
No roundabouts. Awkward and slows everything down too much.
No r
Waste of money
The first thing coming to mind is considering you’re looking ahead to 2100, 78 years from now. I’m in favor of planning ahead but at the same time technology is moving so fast, what you’re considering now will more thann likely be outdated and obsolete in 5-10 years and not be viable. With millions of tax payers money being wasted
none
If think the 3' buffer is not enough in any of these plans.
I know we are lucky that we live in a rich city. I believe that we forget that the major reason for roads is to move traffic in a timely manner. Currently there is enough safe space for bicycles and pedestrians for at least between the ocean to where their car is parked. I agree that the ocean level will become higher in the next 20 years. But when that occurs the city will for sure need to plow down the mobile park and everything on the east side so that developers can build up to four story tall condos and add more property taxes for the city. I'm amazed that Carlsbad is spending so much time trying to find new ways to spend our taxpayer money.
No control over traffic; limited environmental protection; limited pedestrian safety. Four Lanes in each direction turns this area into a freeway. I'm sure our Leucadian neighbors will love that right before their t wo-lane locale.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 149 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Feels too wide and will look like a concrete jungle in the area traffic doesn't get slowed enough and its most risky for pedestrians etc too much traffic, speeds too high
The parking at Solamar will be a nightmare. Cars backing out and then make a U -turn over the cyclists and pedestrians. It's ugly now, but this would be a real CF There should be more than 4 lanes.
None
traffic signals cause traffic to "stop & start" many times over, which leads to more noise from cars (racing!!) and more polution
Encourages more traffic
Too auto-centric.
None.
Doesn't best accomplish the objectives
I think ALL options do not make clear what is becoming of the Palomar Airport Rd juncture with SR101. Is the depicted realigned roadway at the North end just a transition from SR101? What is the plan for the PAirport Rd intersection with SR101? Just the new traffic light or round-a-bout? If so, has traffic flow been analyzed fully? That's going to be a VERY busy intersection. I think ALL the option maps need better labeling. Are all the grey boxes in option 1 traffic lights? Should say so. I also think option 1 with an enhanced pedestrian crossing at Solomar? 4 traffic lights within about 1/4 mile seems very excessive.
Manzano has to remain permanently closed to Coast hwy.
Roadway too wide
Design 1 is too car centric. More of that land should be used for walking and cycling.
It's not adaptable to sea level rise. It needs improvements Looks like only sidewalk on 1 side? It's still 2 lanes each way with traffic signals. Roundabouts would be way better. Cars try to go faster on 2 lane roads.
Traffic back up especially in the summer.
None
None
None
Does not slow traffic. Dangerous to bike with young kids. zero
not much different from current situation. Seems like there are better solutions for intersections Encourages traffic
Not much. I don't believe in AGW, dangerous sea level rise, or any related nonsense. Therefore, I prefer not spending any of my tax dollars.
Could additional parking be input into this option?
how do cars get to parking areas w/out disrupting pedestrians? Also do bikes go here also? Or do bikes go on 4 - lane road?
Way too many intersections. I see no traffic lights but wouldn't want them. I prefer 2 lanes to 4 if we truly want to slow down traffic.
none
Traffic signals. Not the best option for traffic flow or the environment.
If you take away the direct, unregulated connection of Carlsbad Blvd with Palomar Airport Road, then that intersection will become a traffic chokepoint. We already have enough of those in Carlsbad. 4 lane road and not as safe as other options.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 150 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
None
Traffic signals slow down traffic.
Traffic lights
none
the lack of proper bike lanes including new safety concerns regarding Ebikes Does not improve traffic flow as it retains the signals.
Does nothing to reduce traffic. I am concerned that is also doe nothing to reduce speeding. Finally, I remember your earlier email introducing the redesign idea stated something like "the car era is in the past." This plan seems car friendly.
Too fast , dangerous, unsafe, noise and air pollution
Nothing
Bike safety would be enhanced by raised curbs instead of buffer. Bike lane curbs could be rounded or something soft.
Moving the SB lane closer to residential is not acceptable. Leave highway alone.
Eliminates on beach parking
Four lanes no longer necessary - road takes too much space and will remain a busy road None
Not pedestrian friendly
None. It's the best options for the quality of life of residents. I have been in 4 0% my fault auto accidents within a 3 year period. 3 were in massive traffic jams, on Alga, the 5 freeway and with an elderly man who didn't see or stop for a red light while I was turning. I'm permanently injured due to the density of traffic as it is - I can't even work at the current time as I have to undergo more therapy! My therapy scedule has become my work schedule and I've been disabled in the accidents. As you can tell, I have a large stake in this discussion due to personal experience! I "was" self-employed and driving to get to clients. Now I drive to therapy appts 5 days a week! none
None
worst option for adapting to sea level, limited ability to slow down traffic None
Not sure with limited concept
Option 1 is the worst choice. Option 2 is best. This is a chance to do something wonderful in regards to multi - modal transportation, safety and enhancing the attractiveness of Carlsbad to tourists, and lifestyle for residents.
That traffic will be worse than what currently exists
Only good for cars that will drive too fast.
Lowest traffic calming measure potential; missing transit facilities None.
?
Doesn’t plan for long term issues
4 lanes would rather 2
No sidewalks
Safety
Not suited for our beach way of living
That it Won’t be adopted
Not sure if it adds to bike safety. That is a major corridor for bikers young and old.
Cars speeding carelessly and not having much separation from cyclists other than paint.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 151 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 1?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
None
Higher cost of 4 lane bridge
No concerns, except that I want absolutely NO parks, vendor shops or restaurants to be put anywhere on the land along the entire 3 mile stretch!
Too many lanes
I wonder how long it will take to widen the existing Eastern roadway to accommodate 4 lanes p lus bike lanes and sidewalks
None. It’s just like the majority of roads in Carlsbad. Don’t complicate things with roundabouts. I ride bikes and there is still plenty room with this plan. I bet this plan is the cheapest and best way to do this.
See above. It's not what WE who live here want. It's what Matt Hall and his pals want.
Upkeep of traffic signals and speeding
Too much traffic Too little pedestrian access
Traffic signals lead to traffic backing up. I'd prefer to see 2 lanes with roundabouts.
Not a freeway no need for 4 lanes Jesus leave our coastline alone None
Too many cars going too fast
Keep the Palomar Airport Rd. exchange like it is . No roundabout needed. It would cause traffic to back up onto 101.
None
Traffic levels, potential for sea level rise to inundate area, not as safe as other optiions. waste of money - the coast hwy is good as it is
Speed of traffic.
to much traffic, not enough safe space for bikes
Too wide, too much traffic
none
None
Stop signs become "Starting Lines" for loud cars and motorcycles who want to get off the line. Fewer stops mean more consistent flow and potentially less revving noise.
None
Cars move way too fast
Best option
Doesn’t preserve natural beauty of this area
Noise
Stop lights
None
not as safe s the other two according to the graphic
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 152 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Looks like a lot of options for modes of transportation; not sure what class 1 path is though.
Pedestrian pathways and round abouts. Coastal pedestrian trail separate from road.
Beautiful walkway being created.
I like the pedestrian pathway.
sidewalks
Nothing
This looks like the safest option for pedestrians and bikers It creates pedestrian safety for those of us that live on PCH. It reduces traffic & speed. Increased property value.
Simple and low impact
I like how the main road has been pushed further away from the coastline, offering improved access for cyclists and pedestrians.
All 3 designs have provided for improved pedestrian and biking access.
Big improvement over current road.
The combination of roundabouts and path area sounds really great. I recently visited Bend OR and they have a lot of roundabouts as opposed to stoplights and it really changes the atmosphere for the better in terms of enjoying nature and not seeing metal/unnatural structures hanging over the roadway.
Nothing, round about a are HORRIBLE
Retains parking
Preserves space
Roundabouts are helpful to improve safety and fluid driving.
Roundabout system
Maintainsscenic'feel'. Roundabouts offer opportunity for art/sculpture (like beautiful wave sculpture between S. Oceanside and N. Carlsbad on 101). Speed/pace is safest for pedestrian traffic. Win -Win. more sidewalks
nothing
I like the 2 lane road (one lane in each direction - correct?) with the four intersections changed to roundabouts.
This will hopefully slow people down and increase safety to this beautiful stretch of roadway. I like the retained parking areas, and the coastal access (that is unchanged, correct?) and the southbound lane now changed to pedestrian use and bike lane. I am relieved to see NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. This area needs to be protected in its natural state.
Slower traffic, cannot speed with so many roundabouts.
See answer #1
I dont like roundabouts especially 2
Keep current roads as is
Good sharing of right of way with bikes and pedestrians as it should be in an area like this.
Slowed traffic
Option 2 is the best in the most categories, particularly safety. everyone stays in motion. less noise. less idling.
If the round a bouts were like the European ones that would be good, but the ones I’ve see are too small. How about four lanes with round a bouts.
Not much.
slows traffic down, safer for bikes and people
Nothing
None
traffic circulation, increased all-around safety
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 153 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
see above
Only two lanes and Roundabouts encourage slower safer travel. Narrower overall roadway will be better to move away from concerns of sea level rise.
Slows down cars, reduces the amount of traffic and noise, pedestrian and bike friendly and safe.
More satisfactory than #1 in most regards. Protection against rising seas, a real upgrade to existing Traffic constantly flow. Faster than a signal.
Nothing
I like the efficiency of roundabouts for low-traffic intersections.
Like that it seems to be the safest and best option for coast erosion and safety I like the roundabout on Solamar
roundabout fewer vehicle lanes retains pedestrian and mobility -impaired access It gives some safety to peds
I like that it reduces the car lanes to two lanes which should help reduce speeds and make it safer. I also like the roundabouts to help slow down traffic and make it more aesthetically pleasing. I like the separate sidewalk for pedestrians and bike lane which should help improve safety.
Love love love the roundabouts and the pedestrian access. If there is a concern with not moving enough vehicle traffic add another vehicle lane northbound and make the roundabout 2 lanes vs 1 lane…we do this in France all over the country…by far the roundabouts are the best opt ion Causes crowding & congestion Parking retained for surfing community but serves no other constituency in any plausible manner
Great balance of all amenities while achieving goals
this is my first pick. It will keep traffic flowing
I like the roundabout & the pedestrian pathway.
slowing down cars
The colors are nice
Don’t like it.
Roundabouts
Not much.
It's okay.
Nothing
Nothing
It is fine I prefer the roundabout concept.
Nothing
The addition of roundabouts
unlike our neighbors south along Coast Highway in Encinitas they have slowed traffic to a crawl and went to a single lane traffic! Only single lanes each way along this section of roadway would be a nightmare! Parking access.
Buffer between cars and bikes. Slower speed. Pedestrian path away from road.
None.
Slows down cars
Love the round abouts and limited traffic flow. Love that existing parking is retained I like that it keeps the traffic flowing. It gives more importance to the pedestrian and bike riders, I like that it has a trail for pedestrians and slower moving vehicles added. Most of all, I like the design. It takes advantage of the coastline. Also, you can make an easy u-turn any time you go through one. It is great that you don't have to go so far to do so. People will not speed so much, which will make it safer to be in the area. slows traffic ~ both speed and number of cars
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 154 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
I don't like this option at all. Keep round abouts out of this area, or there will be accidents and road rage. There are much better ways to 'manage' traffic
Like the roundabouts and this one is marked as safest.
Sidewalks and slower/safer traffic due to roundabouts
I cannot express any likes
These graphics are difficult to understand for me. But I like everything here. I like the roundabouts that slow traffic and safer pedestrian options
Nothing
Safer, quieter, and smaller. Safest for motorists, cyclists. And pedestri ans. I much prefer round abouts to traffic signals or stop signs.
No
Rondabouts keep things moving
Round about keep traffic moving better than traffic lights. Car speeds and numbers are less so safer for peds and bicycles.
Pedestrian bridge
Nothing
Safest: people first
do not like
I don’t like it.
I like the round abouts that will naturally slow traffic Nothing
There are numerous roundabouts.
Like the idea of 2 lanes with roundabouts
all the roundabouts
Safer paths for pedestrians
Seems a lot safer by having a 2 lane road - like the crosswalks and bike paths Also the roundabouts tend to slow traffic
2 lanes and round abouts
Nothing
Nothing
Balance between cars, peds and bikes.
Nothing.
Nothing
Nothing..
retain parking
Roundabouts are more efficient
Roundabouts! They will be an excellent upgrade for all users. nothing
Roundabouts
Slows traffic. Improves noise
Seems to be the best option
slows things down...consistent with Encinitas design of the 101 Doesn’t have a right turn only at Solamar. Right turn option might increase cars heading north on Carlsbad Blvd. and have them end up using Cerezo as a turn around to be able to head south.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 155 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
I don't like it a bit! 2 lanes is not enough infrastructure to su pport vehicle traffic in the area. Making it difficult for residents to actually use the road for transit purposes puts a greater load on I -5 and El Camino Real. This is poor quality of life for actual residents, creating a gridlocked nightmare for anyone who isn't a tourist with unlimited time to sit in traffic. Carlsbad is not Disneyland, it is a city with over 100K residents. Please consider that many of us live here because we love being close to the beach, makeing the access an ordeal affects our quality of life. AND WE VOTE. This plan also creates a public safety issue. In the event of a fire, tidal event or other natural disaster or freeway disaster the plan does not allow for enough vehicular traffic for safe evacuation.
Looks pretty but NOT functional year round...fewer lanes with the roundabouts ... with current volume of car and bike traffic now makes this plan dangerous
It seems like the best balance between all of the options in terms of pros and cons I do not prefer option 2.
Retains existing parking
Not sure that I like anything about it over Option 1.
Use of a roundabout and bike + ped improvements. Traffic calming focus.
It is better than the first option
this would cause more accidents
I like the roundabouts. I only wonder if they are big enough to be efficient. I am glad there is lots of space for bikes and pedestrians
No stop light.
nothing
likle all the roundabouts to reduce speed and with slower traffic hopefully reduce number of cars using this scenic roadway
Nothing
Separation of bikes and pedestrians from cars pulling in and out on the west side. (If I am interpereting the schematic correctly)
I like the reduced number of lanes. Roundabouts are designed to create a smooth flow of traffic. Allows more enjoyment of the view.
I do not like this option.
Nothing
I like the separate bike lane and only having two lanes This plan more fully realizes the potential of the area. It seems more peaceful. It also looks to really enhance the potential for shops, restaurants and cafes.
Roundabouts, bike and pedestrian lanes.
Roundabouts
roundabouts!
Only the claim of sea level adaptability, if actually true. nothing
2 lane road
Roundabouts make a lot of sense, and I like the smaller road.
I like the roundabouts rather than lights, much more efficient- keeps cars moving, uses less start and stop gas usage. Good for bikes and pedestrians.
Roundabouts slow traffic but keep it moving. I prefer this option.
Nothing
I think this will slow traffic and keep pedestrians safer Safest and slowest traffic
Walking/ Bike lanes by water
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 156 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Appears to be the safest for vehicles and pedestrians/bikes.
Good for people
Reduced speeds of traffic and safer for pedestrians
I like the 2 lanes
It has a combination of controls
2 lanes v 4 lanes.
it's an upgrade for Carlsbad.
Nothing. No roundabouts!!
Safer for pedestrians and bicycles
We do not like roundabouts. They limit emergency response times for police and fire. This plan destroys the one coastal highway that allows the public to enjoy this unspoiled section of California coastline. Why change it?
Roundabouts
Roundabouts
Na
Nothing
Slows traffic with best safety
Slows traffic, encourages bikes and pedestrians.
Roundabouts slow car traffic
Nothing
There's no advantage in multiple roundabouts especially when you have posted speed limits going from 50mph down to 35mph northbound and the inverse in the southbound direction. nothing
Nothing. Too developed. Keep it natural, open. Like the drive throu gh Cardiff.
Nothing at all
Don’t like the round about.
Big fan of round abouts, slows traffic, best way to increase community and open to tourists (and economy) I like there is more consideration for pedestrians.
Roundabout at Island Way.
Roundabout - safest for people (walkers, runners, bikers, everyone) I really like the usage of roundabouts and the safety aligned with this proposal. This is my preferred option.
I don't
Nothing.
Not much. If eliminates some traffic lights, but traffic circles are difficult for drivers not used to them. They can be problem in themselves.
Roundabouts keep traffic moving
Love the roundabouts and walking path
Includes bike lanes, but they should be wider
Roundabouts which naturally can slow traffic but still maintain flow The roundabouts slow down traffic.
Bike lanes and looks safer than option 1
The roundabouts slow and organize traffic as long as they’re clearly marked It seems to be the safest, especially for pedestrians.
Roundabouts.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 157 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Easier access to and from Palomar Airpot and coastal parking. I like that roundabouts eliminate need for uturns on Carlsbad Blvd. safety for pedestrians and bikers.
Very little. One lane in each direction is inadequate for the population in this area. There are very few North/South roadways in the coastal area so deliberately reducing capacity is foolish, particularly since public transportation is highly inadequate.
Roundabouts should help the traffic move more smoothly at intersections, possibly less traffic back up Terrible
Pedestrian pathway and bike lanes,
Safest with best coastal street features (what are best coastal street features?) and why are roundabouts the safest?
Too much
Safest pedestrian safety plus the aesthetics of the roundabouts.
Slower traffic
Nothing
Does seem to be nicest overall. Preserves existing parking. not my choice
Slower traffic
roundabouts keep traffic moving
traffic speed calmed
Wider peds and bikes
traffic circles
Absolutely nothing. A 2-lane road replacing a 4-lane road? What are you thinking??? You are going to create a automatic traffic jam. Don't do this.
Safety and round abouts
decreased noise
Roundabouts
Additional coastal erossion buffer and roundabouts to maintain traffic flow.
I like the calming effects of round abouts
Roundabouts and access
NOTHING!!!
NA
I don't like it
control traffic
round abouts seems more modern, safe and need less maintenance - slow down traffic for safety and bikes No commit at this time.
Better than option 1
I do not like this option very much. Traffic will come to a standstill. In the area north of Manzano Dr where the road narrows, we already find traffic backing up most times of most days. Shoehorning traffic in this stretch will make things worse. Now you have idling and slow cars adding even more carbon emissions to the environment.
This will make drivers even more hostile than they already are, creating dangerous situations for c yclists and pedestrians. No. Just No.
I do like roundabouts, they are successful at slowing down traffic. New pedestrian crossings.
Round abouts keep traffic moving without stopping for traffic lites Pedestrian walkways, roundabouts to keep traffic moving.
Nature and walking paths
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 158 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Clear seperation of pedestrian traffic from main road
Would slow traffic and noise down, while allowing safety for pedestrians and bikes.
Too slow traffic
More to the community needs.
Roundabouts with two lanes calms traffic. Less accidents! I like the roundabouts to slow down the traffic without having so many signals. I like the pedestrian walk way Safest for pedestrians and bikes, please make sure that bike/pedestrians are complet ely separated from car lanes!!
Less lanes. Slower traffic
Will slow vehicle speeds
More parking
The new pedestrian pathway.
nothing.
Nothing
uses less open space, roundabouts slow down traffic, good for sea level rise mitigation.
Nothing in this option.
This plan isn't Best, or Better.
Pedestrian walkway, less traffic going through, retains some parking Has a lower footprint/takes up less public space. I like the roundabouts because they reduce traffic (people don't have to spend time waiting at stop signs), and I think we should have more of them.
Signal lights were eliminated
I think option 2 is the best option
Nothing
DOA. No single lane and roundabouts.
This is my preferred option. Makes the coast more accessible for walking and cycling. Slows down cars. Prefer roundabouts over signals
No traffic signals contributing to visual pollution.
Nothing.
roundabouts and sea rise safety
Roundabouts, buffers and landscaping
Nothing
roundabouts are fun!
Moves the roadway and makes it two lanes only. This will reduce diversion from Interstate 5. Should also be a 35 mile per hour speed limit. at least until Island Way and preferably all the way to La Costa Improvement over current situation.
Best option…maybe? Hard to tell what effect roundabouts will have, especially on bike & pedestrian crossing from inland locations.
Roundabout at Island Way.
Nothing
The roundabouts would address a long list of current issues, including noise, safety and traffic flow! I like this one the best. It rates the highest in all the areas of comparison.
Traffic circles for traffic slow down and pathways.
Two lanes instead of four. Roundabouts - safely slows traffic but allows it to flow more evenly versus traffic lights. Better all around visibility within roundabouts. I like the existing State St and Carlsbad Blvd roundabout for these reasons.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 159 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Roundabouts seem to work well, this creates less of a feeling of a highway and more of a coastal route suitable for vehicles, bikes, pedestrians
nothing
Best SLR protection. Best ability of all 3 options to combine with relocation of the campgrounds.
Roundabouts slow down traffic quite a bit. Love the pedestrian/bike paths. We hope we can skate on them as well (Rollerblade - so it has to be smooth enough). I assume there will be beautiful landscaping in roundabouts to compliment our beautiful beaches.
roundabouts will improve traffic flow and pedestrian access like option 1 NA
separate area for bikes & pedestrians
Roundabouts a nice addition to calm traffic from stoplights, reduce driver speeds, and keep things moving at a slower but more efficient pace.
One less roundabout than Option 3.
Traffic calming, better traffic flow, may reduce the noise level in our area, better coastal access for recreation, and addresses some of the seal level rise issues.
Nothing - why are we moving the road away from the ocean? Safest option, so my favorite
I think 2 lanes is great. We don't need 4 lanes of traffic through this section. Reduced lanes will slow down traffic and improve the walking/ bicycling environment. Love the roundabouts.
Nothing
safer all around for people cars etc.
I like the walking path, but I think it may not be lovely to drive and enjoy the scenery.
Two lanes and roundabouts
Nothing.
It has the best safety designs. I think this is the best overall design, and should be implemented.
Nothing.
The safety features.
Nothing
Option 4
the roundabouts
Bike lanes retained.
Roundabouts
Traffic circles, if done safely, allow for better traffic flow vs stop lights Roundabouts should smooth out traffic flow for cars and bicycles Two lanes will take up less space.
nothing!
Following conversations between me, my wife, and our neighbors on Surfside Lane, we have arrived at the conclusion that option two is the best for our community and Carlsbad as a whole. From our point of view, the second option is the leading choice for a plethora of reasons. It is the best for coastal street features, safest for pedestrian crossing safety, best for traffic speed safety, and best for overall safety. Further, the second option is better than the first option when it comes to sea level rise. Earlier today, my wife pointed out that the second option would make Carlsbad a more remarkable coastal city. I agree with her assessment that option two would enhance Carlsbad's standing in San Diego county. Relatedly, the second option would improve Carlsbad's standing in comparison to other notable coastal cities in Orange county and Los Angeles county. In short, Carlsbad's standing would be strengthened the most under the second option.
I've seen this in other coastal communities and it fits in well without having traffic signals Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 160 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
I do like roundabouts, but I can see that cutting the lanes down from 4 to 2 could slow traffic down and cause backups, especially during high-volume periods.
Love the roundabouts
I like the Coastal street features and the increased safety crossing, but do not like the roundabouts. I think this slows traffic and drivers do not understand how to use them.
I hate roundabouts!
Option 2 is somewhat appealing. The traffic calming from roundabouts and a s ingle lane of auto traffic is very appealing. I would anticipate that the cycling experience along this stretch will be good. roundabout and two-lane traffic
Offers best overall improvements
Roundabouts are the way to go.
Slows traffic Safe for pedestrians Allows for rising tides Properly designed roundabouts are more convenient for cars and, if they have protected bike lanes throughout, bicycles.
Not a fan of roundabouts
Love it!
No change
Nothing. I grew up with roundabouts back East and they work to help the flow of congested city roads. That is not Carlsbad!
I do not like Option 2 at all. It is a terrible idea.
There's nothing I like.
Nothing. People do not understand roundabouts and they lead to nothing but frustration This would be my second choice (Option 1 is first), cost notwithstanding.
Not a blessed thing
2 lanes is nice but drivers don't know how to use roundabouts.
I like this the best. I love the roundabouts and the movement of traffic. I love the sidewalks along the cliffs.
Roundabouts
I see what option 2 is going for but taking out the additional lanes and making traffic slowing features I think will just cause gridlock along the coast and will increase emissions and brake dust The roundabouts;)
I like that it is round abouts
Less traffic, more room for bikes and pedestrians. Roundabouts make for a smoother ride for bicyclists as well. not much
Nothing
Roundabout helps keep traffic flowing.
Roundabouts will preserve traffic flow.
Bike lanes, slower traffic, and fewer traffic lanes. I live just off the coast road and due to the 50 mph speed limit (INSANE) I worry every time my kids need to cross it to get to the beach.
It is better but still not as safe for pedestrian crossing Nothing. Leave it as is. Dont want to become like cardiff/encinitas. Its a beautiful drive and doesnt need redevelopment for monetary gain.
Safety
Retains beach accesses
Roundabouts
nothing
Nothing
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 161 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
I don't like it at all
Nada
I like option 2 the best as it seems safest and prioritizes pedestrians and bikers. It also seems it would reduce vehicle speeds and vehicle noise making the area inviting and highlighting and preserving it's natural beauty.
Reduces pavement and right-of-way for vehicles. Uses round-abouts instead of signals, which will act as traffic- calming device and reduce energy consumption.
Option 2 is clearly the superior design. This provides for the safest roadway for cars, pedestrians and cyclists.
Option 2 also provides for reduced speed and reduced noise levels.
Do not like roundabouts
Walkways good, steps to beach needed as in dwg,
Nothing
I like the calming effect of the traffic circles
quicker to get through without traffic lights, safest for pedestrians Use of roundabouts to slow traffic yet allow it to flow Roundabouts
I like the idea of traffic circles and I am in favor of one lane in each direction as long as it has the effect of increasing bike/pedestrian lane widths and limiting max vehicles speeds for added safety.
Flow seems better and safer all around. Better design
pedestrain safety, slower traffic
It seems to offer the most "Better" and "Best" features in all areas of concern. Roundabouts are known to keep traffic moving as well, so there is no idling at traffic lights, wasting fuel and causing more pullution.
I think it will result in reduced traffic speeds and will align with the improvements that Leucadia is making along the 101 corridor. It will be much friendlier to bicyclists and pedestrians than the current roadway. I live in North Leucadia and if this area of Carlsbad were more bike friendly, we would certainly take advantage of the opportunity to bicycle there, instead of driving as we currently do. The Ralphs supermarket on Avenida Encina is the closest market to me.
Nothing
The roundabouts will help flow and are safer.
I don’t like option too.
All roundabouts to reduce confusion on how to navigate. Roundabout at north end of city still causes confusion.
Would also suggest installation of ped traffic flashers.
Better design than option 1. Like the roundabouts at Island Way & Palomar Airport.
I like the two lanes
Yes.
Retains parking lots and no red lights
least amount of impact, better sea level rise protection Nothing.
Roundabouts
The 'coastal access' would be nice. But, that has been promised for years.
LOVE the round abouts and the 2 lane road is great. Less traffic and more room for bikes (less car/bike accidents...)
retained parking, pedestrian pathway away from traffic roundabouts instead of traffic lights improve flow 2 lanes instead of 4
Open space no linear park
This one feels more natural with the restoration and respects the coastal environment with slower moving and less traffic
The traffic circles will keep traffic moving while controlling speed Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 162 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Roundabouts
The roundabouts
The bridge.
Nothing
I feel fewer lanes and additional roundabouts will help increase the flow of traffic but reduce speed and noise while increasing safety and aesthetics. I also like the addition of the landscape improvements.
Roundabouts Coastal access safety this is the one!
there is good room for bicycles and pedestrians
That there is two lanes
Roundabouts keep traffic flowing! Finally the US is starting to use what Europe has known for years! Roundabouts make the most sense
less lights and more roundabouts - better parking entrance / exit at Palomar and Coast highway separate pathway for pedestrians and traffic
Use of roundabouts
Roundabouts as intersection control.
Nothing - leave the coast as it is.
Nothing.
It is the safest option and the best for conservancy.
Option 2 is much safer for pedestrians and bicyclists and slows down the vehicles Not a thing. Stop changing Carlsbad. You are destroying my home town.
Not a fan.
Retains existing parking
Roundabouts will slow traffic
traffic keeps moving at a slower (and safer?) pace
I do not support this option. This road is already busy with heavy traffic. This reduces the lanes and hinders traffic flow.
Roundabouts work very well. Keep traffic moving resulting in gas co st efficiency.
Don’t like this option
I like the 2 lanes verses 4 a lot more. Better traffic control Nothing, leave Coast Highway alone.
That the roundabouts will probably keep traffic flowing without significant stoppage due to traffic signal cyclin g.
I like that it is safest for pedestrians and cyclists. I think the coast should be for non vehicle traffic. This helps reduce the 101 congestion of cars and saves money and electricity for lights None.
Safe for pedestrians and bikes. Roundabouts help slow traffic. Looks nicer than traffic lights.
Roundabout at Island Way. This seems like a safe location since it is a straightaway but I would still be concerned in the case of a massive evacuation.
nothing
Seems to be the best overall plan.
Pretty much everything
Good buffer between cars, cyclists and pedestrians
Dedicated pedestrian path near the ocean and away from vehicles.
Nothing
Nothing
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 163 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Round a bouts are nice.
Don't like it
Don’t like it. Not necessary. Keep this area as is.
Nothing
Retains existing parking and beach access
Nothing!
The roundabouts are a good idea, especially multiple ones in the same area.
Best alternative, slows traffic, yet provides sufficient lanes to handle the traffic flow in this area.
Seems safer and will keep traffic moving without lights Nothing
I surf down that way every day. Nothing wrong with 101 there now.
If we completely eliminated car traffic, it would be great. In the real world, it seems unsafe for the bikes and car drivers.
Nothing
All the roundabouts and safe pedestrian crossings
A slightly smaller footprint with easy roundabouts.
Nothing
Slower traffic will make it safer for cyclist and pedestrians.
Option 2 is superior to Option 1 because it makes the road safer for beachgoers, pedestrians, and cyclists by calming traffic.
Best but make sure you do have a separate bike lane without pedestrians and runner. Be sure not to enclose it.
Stripe markings only like North and South of this option. Make sure there is one type of bike lane not one that is changing 12x like between South Carlsbad and DelMar. It is confusing and not safe. The bike path between Pointsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road is how it should be everywhere. DO NOT PUT CONCRETE BLOCKS to separate bike lanes like the stupidity they did in Cardiff on the 101. Very dangerous.
Not much
Safest and Best design
Nothing, American drivers cannot grasp the concept of roundabouts. Believe this option will initially escalate accidents and in the long term will create long lines of cars on Carlsbad Blvd as drivers hesitantly enter the roundabouts.
No
Roundabouts are more pleasant that traffic signals
Nothing
I like the roundabouts and that the road stays 1 lane each way. I like the trails and pedestrian ealkwsys 👎👎
Absolutely nothing. Leave the road as it is. You were told that multiple times by a majority of the residents of Carlsbad.
safest
No
Nothing. I like coast Hwy to remain as it is
No
I can't say anything good. Please, no roundabouts. They're terrible for back pain sufferers and the roadway is too small for them.
Pedestrian pathway. In general, I like roundabouts instead of stop signals/stop signs. However, many people either do not understand how to enter a roundabout or simply ignore proper procedure , which creates hazards.
Clear signage would be need to educate drivers (or at least try to educate them to get them to follow the rules).
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 164 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
less road that i and 3 and more land.
Nothing
Roundabouts
Traffic will move slower. This ranks No. 2 with me.
nothing
Proven to work - cars need dedicated roads away from bikes and pedestrians.
Not much
You don't have to stop at roundabouts.
It is the least offensive of all. I am not a fan of round abouts on heavily traveled streets as it won't stop rud e drivers, motorcycle morons and out of town drivers jamming up the flow. If we have to choose one of the 3, this would be it.
While there may be things to like about this in another setting, there is nothing that outweighs the need to preserve the 4-land road.
Roundabouts reduce speeds while allowing for smooth traffic flow.
Not much
Nothing
roundabouts are safer and more efficient, scale of the whole road is friendlier.
Roundabouts
Not much. Round-Abouts and traffic calming measures are not appropriate here.
I believe this option is best because it addresses every concern for both safety and optics.
Safest for non-motorists and fewer traffic lights
nothing
Roundabouts are cheaper than traffic signals.
Slows down traffic, decent for pedestrians. Addressing sea-level rise. 2 lane road - more coastal access - safer for pedestrians and bikes Terrible concept. Leave the road alone.
Nothing.
This seems like the best option.
Nothing
Roundabouts
Na
Yes, leave that stretch of Carlsbad as it is.
The best option with safety, bike paths, walkways and no stop lights for drivers.
No - compared to other areas in Carlsbad this is the least of the community’s concern. Please do nothing.
Don’t like it unnecessary!
No change needed on the 101
roundabounts and 2 lanes
This option provides lots of options for those not driving cars.
Traffic flows, no stop lights.
Roundabouts keep traffic flowing and overall safety.
I don’t like it. I prefer the land to stay as is
Slower and quieter traffic, safest option, most resilient to sea level rise Same bike lanes as #1.
Roundabouts Slows down traffic Reduces car noise
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 165 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
There needs to be improvements to safety for bikers along the coast and around Carlsbad but I’m not sure this is it.
Bad Idea Bottle neck like Leucadia 2 lanes are now
Nothing
Provides a better balance between options
No!
Just leave the highway alone and as is. No need to make it the Blakespear of death road or waste money to change it. The road is beautiful as it currently is so don’t make any changes to it’s current state/today so don’t do design 1 and/or design 2.
not much
Please stop this fixation on roundabouts! They are unnecessary and ridiculous. We live near the one on Kelly drive and it's nothing but a hazard.
don't
Basically, everything. This is the best solution. I live at Solamar and I agree that a roundabout at our intersection is the right way to go.
Okay but dont like long lights
Simplicity, environmental benefits.
It appears to be the optimal solution.
Separate path near ocean for pedestrians etc and still sidewalks along main road over bridge also pre serve existing parking
Retention and not expansion of parking. Separated walking path away from traffic.
Removes traffic lights
rounda bouts to slow traffic and enhance walking areas
Better traffic control (slower speeds), safer pedestrian/ bicycle access and I happen to like traffic circles for continuity of flow.
Better flow with round abouts, but there are too many too close together Should be easy to get used to because the traffic slows just north of there. Much safer for pedestrians and cyclists.
Maintains the two vehicle travel lanes per direction.
2 lane road instead of 4 lane
Nothing
I don't like it. I hate round abouts.
Yes
SAME AS OPTION1
Nothing
reduces car noise
nothing!
Bike paths and sidewalks, 2 lanes—which means slower traffic, safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Roundabouts as traffic calming.
some of the items said this was "best" for certain things Nothing
I don't like option 2 due to the round-about but do like we've retaining parking area Like the pedestrian walk on the existing road. Like the roundabouts to keep traffic moving It will look pretty but won’t function well as a coastal thoroughfare. The public will complain about traffic build up.
Keeps parking and coastal access
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 166 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Bike option
I like round abouts
roundabouts
This is my preferred option. It s÷ms safer than the others Very little
Nothing
Still not the best route.
Roundabouts keep traffic moving and look nice
Love splitting traffic from pedestrian/bikes!
Slows cars. Pedestrian access good.
coastal street features.
Nothing
Improves pedestrian access to beach area.
Best choice. Like the efficiency of the traffic circles on all intersections.
Nothing
Better balance with pedestrian needs
Roundabouts
Nothing
Bike lanes and pedestrian path
Nothing
Nothing
2 lanes
Nothing
It’s fine but people simply don’t know how to drive correctly round roundabouts. They certainly don’t use their indicators and that is important in a roundabout
Nothing
There is nothing I like about this as well as option 3. For my reasoning previously I don't. see below
not much.
I don't like anything about option 2.
A balance between traffic and pedestrian safety and environmental protection.
Roundabouts, parking, safe biking. Best option
Roundabouts are good ways to transition from one direction to another.
Slowest and safest for pedestrians and residents
it's better than option 1
Car owners pay road taxes, bicycle riders don't pay road taxes but they should. Sidewalks need to be on one side of the street only.
I don’t really like option 2.
my favorite option by far ... slows traffic, removes 'starts/stops' and reduces risk of cars racing...less noise & pollution.
I think it will reduce the speeds and provide better safety. I think option 1 would be a disaster and encourage speeding/racing along the coast, also more cars.
Single motor vehicle lane each direction. Sidewalk. Roundabouts.
Nothing in particular.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 167 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Seems that it best meets the objectives.
If traffic flow can be maintained, traffic circles seem a good way to go. I can't imagine, however, that a Palomar Airport Rd and SR101 intersection as a round-a-bout is going to work well, unless its a dual lane roundabout.
Not much
Narrower roadways, roundabouts
I prefer traffic circles to traffic lights. I also like that more of the land is devoted to bikes and pedestrians, less for cars.
I don't like it at all
Roundabouts keep traffic moving!!! Also more room for alternative transportation. (What exactly is a Class 1 path?)
Two lanes more practical on this narrow road
Don’t like
Not much. There is too much traffic in the area for only 1 lane in each direction. And while I am a fan of roundabouts, people n the US do not know how to use them and they way they are built in Carlsbad and Encinitas makes them dangerous for cyclists. Cars do NOT want to let cyclists merge and forcing us on to the sidewalk is sometimes even more dangerous when peds and other users are too busy playing with their phones, dogs, kids, etc.
Nothing
Slows down traffic. Important when biking with young kids. nothing, restricting traffic lanes harms drivers and City access, roundabouts cause accidents The roundabouts should help improve traffic thought intersections. I like the general design ok
Not much. I don't believe in AGW, dangerous sea level rise, or any related nonsense. Therefore, I prefer not spending any of my tax dollars.
Retained parking
slower traffic, safer
Like 2 lanes. Don't mind roundabouts.
nothing
Full utilization of traffic circles. Buffer Zones [thermo makings vs. channelizers/bollards across the options is SIGNIFICANTLY safer.....thank you]
Not much.
Roundabouts will make the street safer for cars and pedestrians and I think this is the best option.
Not much
The roundabouts are more efficient.
Roundabouts
not much
I like the protected bike lanes and single lanes for less through traffic The roundabouts will greatly improve overall traffic flow and improve safely. Will slow traffic speeds WITHOUT slowing down overall traffic flow. Also safer for cyclists.
Pedestrian path. Bike path. Best at slowing traffic. Best at reducing noise.
Good , safe , friendly
Nothing
Traffic circles somewhat appropriate for asymmetric cross-traffic.
Nothing
Best for walkers and bikers
Nothing
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 168 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Nothing
Roundabouts will reduce and slow traffic. "Commuters" will rather take the I -5. Reduction to 2 lanes leaves more space available. Like the bike and pedestrian paths.
Nothing. Increase traffic congestion.
Nothing. I only like option 1 due to all I've written in response to that one.
Round-abouts
Nothing
8' bike lane + multiuse path. Best option for safety . I like roundabouts That it doesn’t destroy the current free parking spots on the cliff
NOTHING
Option two is the best in every way. Best for safety, aesthetics, sea level rise, pedestrians and cyclists. I am imagining walking in the area with my two little kids, and it would be terrific to have the option number 2. 4 lanes ie. option #1 would merely induce demand. Folks that want to drive fast can take the 5 Nothing
Will slow traffic
roundabouts at intersections
Greatest traffic calming measure potential, safest option, bike/ped infrastructure Walking & bike lanes.
I don't
Prefer Roundabouts over Traffic lights, safer and cost effective Roundabouts to better move traffic
two lanes with roundabouts to slow traffic
Round abouts
Everything
Roundabouts make things so much easier and more cars can travel through without having a back up of cars waiting for a signal light to turn.
Nope
I like the round about. I find they make traffic better most of the time and Encinitas will has the 101 plan to put many in so that will have a consistent "feel".
I know from reading in the UT that the traffic circles moderate speed and create safer driving conditions. It appears that there is more of a buffer to protect cyclists Nothing
Nothing
It’s better then option 1
I like that it has dedicated pedestrian space.
Not much. Do not like roundabouts. Most people don’t know who to navigate them.
Nothing. Just a lame attempt to sneak something past the citizens of Carlsbad just like Mayor Mall did before.
Roundabouts slow down traffic but keep the vehicles moving. No upkeep of traffic signals and people have to pay attention while driving. Enhanced pedestrian paths and k eep existing parking.
I like the roundabouts, it keeps traffic flow moving. Reduces traffic noise No lights less lanes. Still sucks keep it the way it is Nothing
Pedestrian pathways & roundabouts
Enhanced bicycle safety
Nothing
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 169 of 241
What do you like about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
I would prefer this option with less noise, roundabouts to slow traffic down and enjoy coastal look, pedestrian pathway on beach.
Roundabouts are better than stop lights but are very dangerous to cyclists. Leave it as is.
The safety features for vehicles, pedestrians & bicyclists. The roundabouts are proven to slow down traffic and keep traffic moving.
its better then option 1
Paths, roundabouts, safer, traffic reduction
nothing really
Safest
Nothing. Round abouts create accidents and traffic jams Slows down traffic to a more consistent speed without the stop lights. Should minimize noise and improve safety. Better quality of life for those living nearby.
I don't
Slows traffic down, safest option and this is my preferred option Don't like it
Less lanes
Safest
No stop lights
I don't. Streets are for cars.
safer
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 170 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
on the 1 side, not including the bike lane, there are 3 lanes that take up 28', if i'm reading this right.
That seems like a lot of space to take up on one side of the street. The round about at the northern end of Palomar Airport rd seems unnecessary and too much traffic slowing. Symbols don't seem to match anything on the drawing.
Parking in coastal hazard zone. People don't know how to drive in round abouts.
Parking. I’d like to take advantage of this beautiful new space you are creating. But where will we park? Also traffic. We drive 101 everyday. We are concerned about traffic if we go to one lane.
Already there are problems at Palomar Airport Road and 101 at times.
People can't drive in roundabouts, they just don't seem to know what to do. I feel that would be such a mess on the coast.
roundabouts are confusing for most people, sidewalks increase number of people but not enough crossings?
lowers utility of roadway for autos
Traffic
I think there are too many decisions to be made at the round abouts for them to function safely. For example at Island you have a Time Share , a small neighborhood, the State Park entrance, and people leaving the beach. Not to mention you are at the top of a hill.
Should also contain enhanced pedestrian options in option 3 None
I am concerned about the use of round-abouts on such a busy highway. It will take time for tourists and "locals" to get used to such a maneuver and WILL contribute to traffic/accident issues.
I do not think the roundabouts are a good solution for this application. The roundabouts appear to be too small and tight to allow traffic to flow. In Europe and in the Eastern US roundabouts are often two lanes in width so entering vehicles do not have to stop but merge into the circle. Same comment as option 1 obstruction the flow to PAR and the continuation down Carlsbad Boulevard with a roundabout.
none
NO ROUND ABOUTS!!!!
Will create massive traffic especially in summer months.
N/A
More pedestrian safety would be good.
Pedestrian options
None
need additional parking
Roundabouts are a hazard in SoCal.
This does not seem to address the problem of sea level rise and the chronic erosion of our coastal cliffs. I believe more can be done to protect this unique area by possibly moving boulders in to break up surf action at the lowest point of the road as well as along the entire cliff area. I see these boulders near the Encina Creek bridge and it seems to be helping. If this project is truly aimed to adapt to sea level rise, the current/remaining road changed to pedestrian/bike path and the remaining parking areas are still in danger.
Too many roundabouts contested traffic.
See answer # 1.
not enough coastal accseses
Development
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 171 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
No barrier separation of north and south bound traffic.
Not sure
None
roundabouts are challenging for bikes and pedestrians
Pedestrians. The purpose of a roundabout is to keep traffic moving.
While roundabouts can work if people know how to use them properly, I have not found that to be true in Carlsbad. I use a roundabout near the intersection of Legoland Drive and Cannon, and it's pretty clear that folks have trouble giving the right of way to the vehicles that should have the right of way. I'm not in favor of a roundabout.
That this lame survey didn't include an option to leave things the way they are now so that our tax dollars aren't wasted just so Matt Hall and his pals can ram through some new development instead of giving us a REAL park, which is what we deserve.
none
Terrible traffic
Encroaches too much onto the beach
Visitors will be confused with roundabouts. Ever car will stop first with caution as most tourists are unfamiliar with this format. During rush hour it will be stop and go - inching along.
N/A
see above
Overall good design. Roundabouts need to be designed with good pedestrian safety in mind.
None
Option #3 offers more for pedestrians and bikes
People can be confused on how to use one
That Matt Hall wants to leave his legacy...the Matt Hall Linear Park. I'd be okay with the Matt Hall Memorial Public Restroom, but not his phony "park" that is only intended to pave the way for massive development on our precious coastline.
Roundabouts don't work well when the traffic is heavy -- Carlsbad blvd is heavy. Also, roundabouts are more dangerous for pedestrians. Island way has no bypass for pedestrians, and it gets a lot of pedestrian traffic. Roundabouts are difficult for bikes. I regularly ride up to Oceanside, and the one roundabout is my toughest obstacle.
Too many roundabouts will slow traffic too much
I dislike what looks like an uniterruped pedestrian pathway at solamar. I can't tell how you drive your car to the existing parking at Solomar or Island.
No dedicated bike lane
None. Looks great!
None…build it!
Congestion & flow along coast
american are finally learning to use round abouts!! LOL With only 2 lanes, I'm concerned with the heavy traffic. none
The roundabouts, less lanes for traffic. It will be a parking lot.
Not enough lanes and some people don’t do well with roundabouts.
Congested traffic with only two lanes
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 172 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Main roadway is still too wide. I would like to see a roadway more like the 30mph work currently being done in Leucadia. Something that naturally slows and calms the traffic speed. Bike and walking lanes should be only along the western portion of the area, not part of the main roadway.
Not a fan of round-abouts.
Has runabouts
Two traffic lanes will create traffic backups
The two lanes will be tough on peak hour traffic. What will happen to the campgrounds. I would hate fir the city to take it over and loose that resource.
You're using the excuse of sea level rise and walkability to try to deceive people into the real reason for this change...Matt Hall wants to create a bogus park and then open the door to developers to build monstrous shopping/condo/timeshare/mixed use/tourist-serving projects that WE DO NOT WANT AND DO NOT NEED!!!
Pedestrian crossing could be hazardous
Please rethink this position as it would be a disaster for Carlsbad Coast Highway! Only 2 lanes without additional safety measures. Not a fan of roundabouts.
None
1. Cost. 2. No need for signals, traffic flow is at 30 mph. 3. Beach side Reflective bike road path (green bike path flooring) so cars can SEE BETTER AT NIGHT.
With only two lanes might create traffic bottleneck
I think the off ramp to Palomar airport road heading eastbound from the north pain carlsbad blvd should be retained to alleviate traffic at the roundabout obnoxious
Round-abouts do not work for too many people. Don't use them, especially on coast highway. I'd rather see the lights to slow traffic. There are many other ways to slow traffic as well.
Extreme traffic congestion during summer due to I-5 slowdowns or closure due to accidents.
Roundabouts They do not make any sense in the planned areas None
Don’t want roundabouts
None, it's my favorite option.
None
Long lines of cars cos volume of traffic too much for the roads to handle Shared lane, too dangerous
Reduces lanes for traffic
It is not the best option in terms of sea level rise
only 2 lanes
Roundabouts. Are there going to be businesses or new homes put in, i hope not, I want it to stay as the only undeveloped scenic coastal drive in our city.
N/A
Two lanes, too many roundabouts. That area is too crowded for roundabouts. I think there will be more accidents.
No concerns.
need to have pedestrian flashers so it is safe for walkers Roundabouts are less safe than stoplight
None
Really don’t
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 173 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
More places for the homeless to loiter -Possibly resulting in a greater chance of approval of the proposed development behind the Cape Rey Hotel by removing the "not enough park area" argument. -Negative impact on emergency response time -Making the area more attractive to non- locals by providing more parking -Fear that this may result in commercial use along the road I do not like the round abouts
Will have to educate public about newer options not currently available. Learning curve.
Roundabouts are notorious for misuse and misunderstandings. They may slow traffic, but they also cause aggressive and offensive driving with people cutting in and not paying attention, to or not even using, blinker signals.
I do not like idea of putting a roundabout outside 55+ community and hotel! I have major concerns for families and mature people to walk across road. I would not trust the traffic at all, we need traffic lights on Solomar! I have observed with other roundabouts that no-one knows how to use one! How to indicate when exiting a roundabout! Traffic needs to be stopped so pedestrians can be totally safe!! Also there are no coastal accesses
Encinitas wannabe
Roundabouts and the speed of traffic with no police presence is 60 + mph in this area. fewer lanes.
May be too many roundabouts in too short a span
Extent of paving, seems like a lot to have 16'-22' of paving for side by side bike and pedestrian paths.
Can some of this expanse be a non-pavement alternative to manage heat island and drainage? not enough traffic lanes
Being able to enter heavily trafficked roundabouts
Roundabout at Solamar Dr. is a very bad idea. Those exiting or entering Solamar Dr will have great difficulty dealing with backed up traffic on N/B Carlsbad Blvd. and to a lesser extent on S/B traffic for those endeavoring to make a left turn out of the Hilton or mobile home park Needs to be sufficient options for pedestrians
See above
#1: 2 lanes is not enough infrastructure to support vehicle traffic in the area. Making it difficult for residents to actually use the road for transit purposes puts a greater load on I-5 and El Camino Real.
This is poor quality of life for actual residents, creating a gridlocked nightmare for anyone who isn't a tourist with unlimited time to sit in traffic. Carlsbad is not Disneyland, it is a city with over 100K residents. Please consider that many of us live here because we love being close to the beach, makeing the coastal drive and access an ordeal affects our quality of life. AND WE VOTE. 2.: This plan also creates a public safety issue. In the event of a fire, tidal event or other natural disaster or freeway disaster the plan does not allow for enough vehicular traffic for safe evacuation. 3. This plan will frustrate those that are driving along the PCH, they will exit Carlsbad Blvd at frustrated driver speeds to access either I-5 or El Camino. This influx of frustrated drivers onto the East-west streets increases the traffic load and the danger to all who use them or live nearby.
VERY CONCERNED THIS PLAN IS NOT WORKABLE.... Locals and tourists alike will be frustrated by the single lane each way & combine that w/ Roundabouts.??..My opinion is that Road rage and accidents will occur daily
bottlenecks at roundabouts
none
Reduced lanes of traffic could create high traffic wait times during certain times of year (we already see this going North where there are two lanes).
Too many roundabouts
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 174 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
I'm not a big fan of roundabouts. People get confused and don't know how to navigate them properly.
I'd be curious to know how the one at the north end of Carlsbad is working? None.
not enough traffic lanes during the busy summer holiday season, will increase idling emissions along CB and increase impacts to GHG
the round-a-bouts cause problems with auto and bicycles meeting up in the circle Added Traffic Signals and 4 lanes.
I hope that the roundabouts are big enough. If they are too small, it ends up being like a messy inefficient stop sign.
Some folks do not understand roundabouts.
Hate roundabouts.
how will pedestrians cross the street to get to the bluff with no stop light walking indicator = safety issue
roundabouts are much less effective than traffic lights when cars are merging. roundabouts are much less effective at moderating traffic flow.
Unless designed carefully, roundabouts can create confusion and traffic snarls.
Reducing driving lanes increase driving times. We are already sitting at red lights due to traffic signals not being sequenced in Carlsbad. This will only makes the flow worse.
No roundabouts
I think the roundabouts will create traffic
I had thought it might have been a bit further inland. (after writing that, I realize that is probably not possible with existing development)
Few beach access points and no additional parking for beach access.
Drivers understanding the simplicity and ease and comparative utility of roundabouts... people, generally, are not stupid. This does not mean that people, generally, do not act stupid. lack of traffic capacity
No one likes roundabouts, even the minority that know how to use them properly.
I am not in favor of any more roundabouts. The one on CPH on the north side of town is terrible. It's too narrow, and people do not know how to drive through these, and don't understand who has the right of way
Roundabouts are not a good option based on ones installed in district 1 I don't like interference with the natural habitat between Solamar Drive and Island way which is noted as Las Encinas way. I would like it to remain as it is today.
None
none
None
Two lanes with Roundabout
People won't understand how to use a roundabout, specifically tourists None
Cannot good to two lanes - from 4… too much traffic already & growth. Like Encinitas it will cause additional backups - especially if bikes are allowed in the only lane None
Nothing
No pedestrian crossing
Is it enough
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 175 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Too many round abouts. People get confused
Sea level rise could be faster than predicted by current models.
One lane going each way is not enough. We have to live with the traffic mess that this will create.
Please make sure that the roads can handle the population, especially in the summer. We DON'T want more traffic!!
Roundabouts log jam traffic. Worst idea ever.
None
This plan destroys the one last piece of Coastal highways in Southern California. Roundabouts impact emergency response times for fire and EMT'S. Why change something that has worked so well for years in Carlsbad?
Only 2 lanes. Too much priority to bikes and pedestrians Nothing
Na
Traffic
Not best sea level rise improvement
Several roundabouts in sequence can be confusing to some people People don’t know how to use traffic circles, will create more traffic.
Americans are not savvy nor experienced enough in roundabouts to make this option viable. roundabouts will have traffic backed up in all directions Will be a traffic nightmare
Too many roundabouts going to cause more accidents. Not enough lanes.
Need to be careful and judicious about construction and expansion. Keep nature in mind.
I feel the traffic circles for this south costal area of CB will create a bottleneck with losing out on two lanes going north and south.
Roundabout at Paloma’s Airport Road.
If only second best for climate adaptability.
X
Cost
With only one lane in each direction, traffic could back up, especially when I-5 is congested, and or overflow into residential areas. Also, traffic circles are difficult for drivers not used to them.
None
None other than safety for pedestrians
Don’t like or want roundabouts. Very unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists No improvement for bikes and pedestrians
will cause traffic jams
Growth, do you think two lanes in five years from now will be enough on a Friday night? I do not think there should be 4 round abouts. Way to many. People do not know how to drive with round abouts
Still would like a pedestrian access to the coast
Roundabouts can be problematic. Not clear who has the right-of-way.
Round about nest Solamar and PAR are close. Traffic might backup from one to the other on busy days.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 176 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
With all the dividers for bikes and cars, I’m concerned about limited options to avoid hazards in the road or make evasive moves to avoid other bikes and cars. If there is an accident, won’t this bottleneck and be less safe?
One lane in each direction is inadequate for the population in this area. There are very few North/South roadways in the coastal area so deliberately reducing capacity is foolish, particularly since public transportation is highly inadequate.
I’m nervous that areas that already have four lanes will go down to 2.
Too confusing for most drivers
The population in Carlsbad and majority of visitors I've seen trying to navigate traffic circles near Legoland, Kelly School, Trader Joes/Bressi Ranch and Carlsbad Bl/Buena Vista Lagoon have trouble figuring out when to stop and go in traffic circles and chaos ensues. Not sure that they are a practical solution without educating drivers cruising through Carlsbad.
Why are roundabouts considered safe? Roundabouts, such as those in Leucadia on Leucadia Blvd, seem very dangerous and hard to cross for bikes and pedestrians.
Don’t like this approach
None
Bumper to bumper i live on the coast.Hard to get home due to only one route.
Leave it alone
Nobody knows how to use roundabouts. Will cause more accidents On a really busy traffic day along the coast, will the round abouts really allow people to get in and out of the side streets?
not my choice
Concern about traffic jams or crashes w roundabouts
still a problem north of Solamar traffic slowing down and backing up going north Roundabouts are not wide enough. Distance between enter/exit streets need more distance.
Dangerous as many cars enter roundabout assuming that car will exit when it may be continuing within circle. Make the roundabouts wider in circumference and they are safer. Scary option for bicycles to travel in.
Roundabouts suck
No traffic study provided that identifies the traffic delay/congestion impacts of eliminating 1/2 of PCH capacity. Particularly long-term future impacts Reducing PCH travel lanes at a congested location (i.e Terra mar) that has no alternative routes to avoid the congestion. The lane reduction will backup traffic more and will be only get worse as time goes by. No consideration as to congestion from Palomar Airport Road & Avenida Encinas intersection design/capacity and congestion on 2-lane bridge of railroad tracks. No consideration of widening the the 2-lane bridge over the railroad tracks to provide the same type of Bike and pedestrian facilities as proposed on PCH.
See my previous comment.
Increase in traffic
Traffic congestion due to 2 lanes
2 lanes may create congestion and lack space for emergency vehicles.
No bike or pedestrian benefits
No concerns.
Two lanes will not accommodate the immense flow of traffic that will back up. Roundabouts are confusing to drivers, as shown at the one at the border of Oceanside and Carlsbad. Cars stop when they should continue, causing back ups. Terrible idea!! Roundabouts on Cassia we’re a failure and had to be removed!
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 177 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
NA
I don't like roundabouts
2 lanes
Will slow traffic TOO MUCH
The option does not load, it just keeps buffering. So I am unable to make my own decision based on comparison. Your 1 page DECK sums up the Better vs Best. It favors this option.
Preestrians
Besides the traffic snarling? As much as I love roundabouts, most drivers here in the U.S. do not know how to use them. In addition, unless the lanes are carefully planned, they can be very dangerous for cyclists as well. Look at Leucadia. What a joke that is turning out to be. And then they want to shoehorn in 94 apts, 34 more hotel units, and thousands of square feet of mixed use and commercial space. Guess what road is going to be used to get there? This one, running right through Carlsbad.
The land is limited. It cannot hold all the development developers want and still serve the community.
California is unique in that the Coastal Commission ensures the coast is for everyone. Let's keep it that way. Parks and open space. Create inland shuttle lots to bring people to the beach and the village.
Stop putting in developments that add thousands of car trips per day (e.g., apartments, hotels, and restaurants).
The coastal access and safety of the bluff.
None
Crossing Carlsbad Blvd if you take out lights and put in roundabouts.
Traffic
too many roundabouts may confuse drivers
Would like to see more Roundabouts on Carlsbad Blvd. Other than that, looks very good.
Too slow
Signal.
None
possible congestion caused by the roundabouts
Worried cars can get onto bike/ped lanes.
Need roundabouts
More traffic congestion
Traffic congestion
Roundabouts - no good.
roundabouts are awful.
It is removing one of my commuter lanes that I use as a resident in this area. none
The 2-Lane Road provided by option 2 is highly concerning considering the current number of vehicles currently accessing and utilizing the current coastal roadway. We believe a 4-Lane roadway with traffic signals is much safer than the 2-Lane roadway with roundabouts proposed in option 2. We also believe the information provided in the roadway option comparison chart for option 2 is biased and flawed.
The pathway in option 2 is the least streamline. The tweaks to the pathways and room along the roadway don't offset the benefits of moving traffic through the area with more lanes. Would still like to see a connection to more parking to the east by a pathway access under the bridge.
Is there too much space allocated to roadway that could be used for other things If roundabouts can handle heavy traffic.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 178 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
May not b safe enough for pedestrians
Rather than moving traffic more smoothly on that busy stretch, 2 lanes & roundabouts will only bog down the traffic. The roundabout on 101 in Leucadia is a nightmare!! Total traffic congestion.
None
Hope the round abouts shown will be better constructed than the one at the north end of Carlsbad - it's too narrow, forcing cyclist into dangerous situations.
Roundabout at Solamar too close to cliffs. Roundabout at Island will be too congested.
I don't like the roundabouts. They confuse drivers and slow the flow of traffic. I can understand if you have parking on the east and west side of the road but if not there is no need. some of option 3 rate better
Access to parking across from Solamar. Could access drive be directly off of the round about so that when drivers exit the lot, they can go north or south?
Locals will have nowhere to go when they want to enjoy the beach none
Traffic circles present a great salmon run for motorcycles and racing cars Right now there are often motorcycles and cars going over 100 miles per hour between Palomar Airport Rd and Poinsettia.
There do need to be pedestrian crosswalks at all these intersections, particularly Island Way and Solamar because of the hotels. Also for surfers. Speed needs to be no higher than 35 at least to Island Way
Not sure
Slow (stopped) traffic movement on busy days.
I am not in favor of roundabouts at Palomar and Solimar. The layout of the sample maps are confusing.
That it is not necessary and will be tied to an attempt to allow rezoning in order to satiate the greed of the tourism industry who control City Council
None
Will beach access from pathways be enhanced?
none
It has roundabouts.
Lack of relocating the campgrounds and parking at the site as well state park landward to guard all recreational infrastructure from SLR.
Make walkways wide, smooth, beautiful for everyone to enjoy. Provide ample parking please.
Please add an off leash dog area
none
Physical barrier separating bikes from traffic. Study bike path concept in Netherlands.
NA
Three roundabouts in close proximity will cause traffic to back up and may be a source of irritation to visitors in this area.
Drivers tend to have issues with roundabouts if there is no education, so make sure to have a public education program in place re: their proper use.
Two lanes. Should keep consisent (four) from La Costa to town. A patchwork of two lane / four lane sections creates irratic flow, which in turn causes bottleneck and and "drag race back to speed".
The residential area is restricted by the train tracks and industrial area - result in the road being primarily a "transit corredor". There is not that much side street traffic to warrant roundabouts.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 179 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Roundabouts may be an issue for some drivers but as they are more frequently being used drivers should become more skilled in using them.
Moving the road away from the ocean makes no sense
Are bike lanes separated from cars or adjacent to them? It would be safer if they are separated by trees and a raised barrier, so kids can ride here too
consider putting the LID area between the travel lanes and the bike lanes to create a class IV facility instead of buffered class II. Might make the bike facility more comfortable and protect bicyclists from drifters who may be looking at the ocean or their cell phones.
It restricts people, cars and elderly from beach access. Also, concerns about emergency vehicles not being able to access the beach in congested hours of the day. Look at the leucadia situation- a mess! Roundabouts and 2 lanes will slow traffic to a crawl and frustrate people. Plus its hard to cross the street at a roundabout with drivers and pedestrians and bicycles having to constantly look in all directions. I've tried to cross the street at the roundabout at the other end of Carlsbad Blvd and it's scary!
none
See above. I love driving on Carlsbad Blvd now. I’m not wild about roundabouts.
None
The unnecessary roundabouts.
None
It would cause significant traffic slowdown and congestion, and make it miserable to visit the beach.
The rise in water level is extremely slow and this radical approach isn't necessary.
One lane in each direction may cause increased traffic congestion.
Causes more traffic congestion and will confuse visitors.
That Matt Hall and his pals in the Chamber of Commerce and the tourism industry are going to use this as part of a plan to justify their "visitor-serving/commercial" land use rezoning and foist upon us some nightmare development that we neither need nor want the need for four lanes for autos.
Impact to traffic flow.
onlyl two lanes
Typically, traffic circles are too small to allow for adequate reaction time to tell if opposing traffic is going straight or turning left. Can lead to accidents. Only one lane of traffic in each direction will lead to congestion. No parking along the street for beach access.
Reducing from 4 lanes to 2 lanes could lead to traffic jams, especially with slow vehicles "cruising" the coast highway. Roundabouts may be more dangerous for bike riders Two lanes with round abouts will cause more traffic congestion. Round abouts cause cars and bicycles to merge in the round abouts.
This option is not sufficient to handle traffic, particularly in the summer, when it will be bumper to bumper between the campgrounds and Palomar Airport Road. I hate roundabouts, and they will have the added hazard of slowing down emergency vehicles which will have a difficult time getting through traffic on a one-lane road and navigating a roundabout.
At this time, my family and our neighbors do not have any concerns about option two. We strong recommend that the policymakers and other decision makers support the second option to reinforce Carlsbad's standing as an exceptional coastal city.
Are there more accidents when using these?
The current roundabouts in Carlsbad have been very poorly designed, usually with inadequate space and often with entry points that result in cars going straight through the roundabout rather than Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 180 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
merging (see Kelly Drive @Park and @Hillside). Also, Carlsbad drivers are very ill-informed as to the laws governing roundabouts and the etiquette for using them, i.e., respecting "Yield" signs! As much as I like roundabouts in Europe, they are a disaster as currently in use in Carlsbad.
None
Roundabout. I live near the current roundabout and many drivers do not understand how to use.
Also concerned about not adding additional lanes to improve traffic flow.
Getting bicyclists killed or maimed.
The closeness of the roundabouts between Solamar and Palomar will make cycling tricky. Cyclists following the road will merge with traffic, negotiate the first roundabout, get back in the bike lane, then immediately need to merge again with traffic and negotiate the second roundabout. This increases bicycle/vehicle conflict. The multi-use class 1 path also ends at the sidewalk at Solamar and then begins again afterwards. There will be lots of various different users, from skateboards to strollers to pedestrians, crowding that sidewalk as they go around the west side of the Solamar roundabout. There will be a higher potential for crashes here. not sure if everyone understands roundabout yield protocol Potential future issues with sea rise
None
Based on what I could see from the PDF, the protected bike lanes terminate at each roundabout, requiring cyclist to merge into traffic with cars, trucks, and motorcycles. If that's the case, it's a horrible design.
Roundabouts are not the solution.
None
No change option
A two lane road is not what we need. Roundabouts will increase traffic. 2 lanes is a joke. Why don't we reduce north Carlsbad 101 to 2 lanes. Why don't we reduce Carlsbad Drive to two lanes with turnabouts. This would be a disaster. There is just too much volume to restrict it to one lane each way. The traffic would be backed up for miles. Then you will reduce Avenida Encinas to one lane to destroy the flow. You can't do this and call it progress. 2 lane road is not enough to handle the traffic at peak hours. A 2 lane road roundabout is not large enough to keep traffic moving. People simply do not know how to drive a roundabout. It's treated like a boulevard stop. After years of having the roundabout at the north entrance to Carlsbad, people still do not know how to drive it.
All concerns. Roundabouts are confusing to most drivers. They ruin what should be a relaxing drive Anything but a 4-lane road will severely limit traffic flow compared to current. This section does not have residence or commerce right on road, such as Leucadia. Thus, slowing traffic is not a priority.
Need to understand costs and payment.
We the people can't wait to see Matt Hall retire so that OUR voice can be heard. And no your hand- picked replacement is not going to win.
Drivers don't know how to use roundabouts. Using a roundabout to merge traffic on Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Blvd could be an issue during rush hours. Pedestrian crossing at the Hilton Garden Inn would be nice.
I have the same concerns for all 3-why is there no plan for a safe sidewalk along South Ponto Beach- from La Costa Blvd to Ocean Blvd? I hate that I have to walk on the busy 101 with my small dog because beaches are all dog-unfriendly in Carlsbad. I live near Ponto and would love to be able to walk my dog there safely. What is the plan for that area? When will there be a dog-friendly beach? I mean I will keep his leash on but there is such a long stretch of rarely used beach that would be Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 181 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
perfect for dogs. It is dangerous to put us on the streets. I live in an area where there are many coyotes and they have attacked small dogs on leashes so I need to walk him where there are no coyotes. Please, please, please consider letting us bring our dogs on the beach on leash from Ponto to Terramar. Please.
Possibly too many roundabouts
Increased traffic, emissions, and break dust. Also an inefficient use of valuable Coastal land with an excess of landscaped road areas
Reducing lanes from 4 to 2. I wonder what the 2d and 3rd order effects might be….same as Leucadia? It would be preferable to have a physical barrier between bikes and cars like they have in between Cardiff and Solana Beach.
installing roundabouts in 50 mph zone seems unsafe. Approach speed is 15-20 mph. in order to enter roundabout a lot of braking would be required
Roundabouts are not sized well to allow traffic to move without people stopping all the time trying to figure them out. Traffic will back up causing more pollution and more difficulty trying to cross.
None.
Only one lane in each direction will disrupt traffic flow. The current one-lane sections nearby, such as south PCH north of Cannon, are traffic bottlenecks.
Roundabouts = Danger to Cyclists. I've traveled Europe extensively and know how to navigate roundabouts. In my experience in the USA, most American motorists have no clue. As a result, every time I ride my bike on the coast road (every day) and have to navigate the existing roundabout between Carlsbad Village and Oceanside or the new one in Encinitas, I feel at risk because bikes are forced to move from a relatively protected bike lane into the main traffic lane to pass through the roundabout. I've had too many close calls to count involving cars or trucks that refused to allow me to merge safely, ran me off the side of the road, almost hit me from behind, or stopped in front of me suddenly instead of entering a clear roundabout. I would much rather stop at a light, sip from my bottle, then spin up to speed on green than take my chances in an American roundabout.
Too many roundabouts.
Leave it as is. Dont want to become like cardiff/encinitas. Its a beautiful drive and doesnt need redevelopment for monetary gain.
None
People suck at using roundabouts
Too much development. Will create traffic for cars and cyclists to negotiate. two lane road causes more traffic to back up and people around here are terrible at round abouts so that will only cause more traffic and pedestrian issues How about Option 4, do nothing. Leave it alone.
Many out of state drivers going to beach have no concept how roundabouts works Decreased capacity for beach traffic and locals
Leave it as it is until you listen to citizens of Carlsbad, and do as we wish That it is just an excuse to allow developers to ruin our coastline Roundabout at Solamar serves only a small number amount of cross traffic and is an inefficient use of the right-of-way.
My only concern is the need for more safety improvements. I would suggest the addition of several synchronized, light controlled 'raised crosswalks' between each cross street. This would prevent speeders from racing light to light, ala 'drag racing'. A great example of this if in Encinitas / Leucadia.
Roundabouts
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 182 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Big traffic problems in afternoon and weekends, turnarounds bad really slow traffic and problems for pedestrians crossing
Same concerns as option1. Tell Hall's buddies to go away Circles still confuse some people. Will it be a challenge to get onto PCH from Palomar? roundabouts are confusing for drivers, especially non-locals but even locals None
No major concerns though I think I like option 3 the best as it states that it adds an enhanced pedestrian crossing.
2 lanes, reduced traffic flow, more expense and disruption during development phase limited pedestrian crossing between Solamar Dr and Island Way I wish it was more adaptable to coastal sea rise than year 2100! I’m not a fan of round-abouts, they slow the flow of traffic.
Nothing
Do nothing
A lot of people don’t understand how to use roundabouts.
I think traffic will be backed up, and there will be continuous problems going through the roundabout.
I understand the need for traffic calming but going to 1 lane each direction is going to create a traffic nightmare when I5 backs up. Also, bike lane is too close to traffic. Suggest moving bike lane closer to sidewalk. Maybe swap LID and Bike?
Not sure that a roundabout at Solamar Dr. will allow for egress of hotel & Solamar residents during peak traffic times. Lowering the road level in front of the Solamar community would help create a more pleasing environment for the Solamar community both for noise and view.
None
Will slow traffic on weekends and holidays until people get used to using traffic circles. Locals will love it.
Traffic jams --- means more horns.
I dislike round-abouts. Extremely confusing especially for tourists.....who will access the Hilton and travel the Coast Hwy. Totally against the round-about for Solamar.
Backing up of traffic during rush hour traffic due to roundabouts. No lights to cross Carlsbad Blvd.
Roundabouts will be an absolute hell during rush hour traffic for anyone trying to deal with Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Blvd. It will back up all the way to Island Way. People will not be able to access the hotel and manufactured home park at Solamar easily. Residents will be stuck in their tract at Island Way.
Are there too many roundabouts?
Do not like 'roundabouts'. Not needed in this area.
none
too many roundabouts roundabout at access point from the "turnaround" parking lot is unnecessary? Yield instead? roundabout at Solamar Drive excessive? Concerned as a cyclist for safety about the roundabout for Palomar Airport road traffic Not sure about pedestrian pathway going up / down to the road at the Encinas Creek Restoration area.. what's the point of that? Open space no linear park
none really
nothing
Only 2 lanes for cars in a popular beach area
none
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 183 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Too restrictive with only two lanes.
Traffic circles are an impediment.
Having traffic narrowed down to one lane in each direction will cause large back up of cars Traffic would increase due to roundabouts and the reduction of lanes. It is already impacted during peak hours whenever the freeway is congested and drivers use Carlsbad Blvd as an alternate route.
I want a clearer understanding and a conceptional drawing of the class 1 path and landscape improvements that will replace the current South-bound road. I'm concerned that area will just be turned into additional concrete parking lots. In addition to the class 1 multi-use walking and bike trial, what landscape improvements are planned? I would like to see some open space with stationary fire pits surrounded by adirondack chairs to gather with friends to enjoy the gorgeous ocean views. The fire pits could be reserved or rented for a small fee. A few gourmet specialty shop (s), that do not obstruct the view, would be nice too. Such as; a coffee shop, ice cream, convenient specialty store that sells wine/beer, charcuterie boards, cheeses, gourmet sandwiches, firewood and s'mores kits for all to enjoy while enjoying the beautiful coast.
none
I worry about the traffic. I like to have two lanes so I can go slow in the right lane and enjoy the view.
Not clear on pedestrian usage
None
slower traffice
too many roundabouts
none
There will be so much and constant traffic the entire stretch - all summer long and at rush hour throughout the year.
Too many roundabouts in close proximity (3 between Manzano and Solamar) 0 Where is the street parking? the lots are always full in the summer.
Leave the coast as it is.
Hate only having 2 lanes total. Too much traffic for that. Hate roundabouts they don't work well for all the tourists who would get confused. Hard to get out of side streets. (They tried that on Cassia and had to take them out.)
Will there be options for pedestrians to cross?
Option 2 should account for the current bus stops on the street It’s all an eye sore leave it alone and stop trying to change everything and wasting money.
Excessive traffic circles, poor utilization for residents.
How many roundabouts on PCH?? That road is far too busy for that many! I like that it helps pedestrians cross, but really, how many pedestrians actually need to cross in this area? There aren’t even homes! Is that worth it to slow traffic that much? too many roundabouts that may confuse people how to drive them. Roundabouts seem to be the newest trends around the country.
See above
None
Does not have four lanes. Has too many roundabouts.
I believe there are too many traffic control round abouts. I think 2 controls would work perfect. But that would depend on what is decided for area around road Leave Coast Highway alone
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 184 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Pedestrian crossing at roundabouts creating a chaotic traffic situation further stopping the flow of traffic
none
I hate those turn a-bouts.
None
Earthquake or fire causing the need for many emergency vehicles and residents & tourists to evacuate on a 2 lane road with so many traffic circles. makes no sense
Roundabouts. People don't know how to use them.
None
Vehicular traffic is only 1 lane in each direction and combined with traffic circles will result in traffic congestion on the road.
Not enough lanes
Round abouts
Losing 2 lanes of travel
Reduction in the number of lanes. The public is very poorly educated on the use of round-abouts and I dislike seeing these in the plan.
Bringing into much traffic In this area and ruining the unspoiled land.
Traffic
Too much emphasis on bike lanes over existing car traffic. Move bike lanes over adjacent to the pedestrian pathway and retain 4 car traffic lanes. Roundabouts don’t make sense here, tourists won’t know how to maneuver
everything
Giving up a lane to bikes, so traffic can get pretty congested. what will be done with the land free up by this design? None
Leave as is-no linear park
I surf down that way every day. Nothing wrong with 101 there now.
Traffic circles are not understood by many people especially tourists. Bicyclists will cross into the car lanes when they want to pass a slower cyclist or travel conversing with fellow cyclists. (This happens often in the share-o lanes!)
Traffic flow
Might slow down traffic but that’s a good thing. You’re driving the coast. Why such a hurry? Worried about ever increasing traffic and the congestion that can build up. Roundabouts are nice but require more decision making by drivers and pedestrians. Often, the simplest solutions work the best and I would argue that everybody understands signals more than roundabouts. Especially during the summer tourist months when we are blessed to receive so many more visitors in addition to the already robust local population.
Ruining one of the few pristine spots to see the beauty of our Coastline which sadly is fleeting with more and more hotels, leave as it is for locals we live here I have observed that generally the drivers on roads with roundabouts are not as likely to share with cyclist and make it unsafe for the cyclist.
Option 2 seems like the best of the three.
make the round about a big circle so traffic flows. Look at how they do them in France or the UK.
Introduce the zipper system for merging in and out of it. Works well Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 185 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Roundabouts are hard for pedestrians and bicycles
Not a fan of round abouts, AKA, traffic circle
See previous comments about drivers, accidents and long lines of slowing cars No
cutting down to 2 lanes might get clogged with traffic.
Impeads flow of traffic
None
👎
Leave the road as it is. We do not want it changed. You were told that many times by the residence of Carlsbad.
Stupid drivers
No
Reduced roadway gives opportunity for high rise retail & hotels. Carlsbad does not want that on their coast Hwy
No
See above: I despise roundabouts that are too small.
The same concerns expressed above about 2-lanes in stead of 4-lanes, i;.e., the negative impact on traffic flow, negative impact on emergency vehicle access, and dangers it will increase in emergency situations such as fires.
I would like a park in the land.
Traffic. People get confused with this design
None.
majority of users are negatively impacted for the benefit of weekend cyclists.
Not sure why cars need this stretch of the road at all with an wide, empty road to the east.
People aren't good at using roundabouts. I don't want to see traffic slowed in the area Two lanes are not enough to accommodate existing traffic. Roundabouts are never friendly for bikers
Only one lane in each direction? Also, I don't want to slow traffic. Slowing traffic is a negative, not a positive. We want to get around quickly and efficiently. Also, as things get more crowded with tourists and new housing, we need something that is going to accomodate more people, not less.
Stated in Ques 3
I cannot support a 2-lane road in this location.
I hate roundabouts- I think they are better than traffic lights but they impede moving traffic Roundabouts are dangerous
Land use
Round abouts may cause accidents.
None.
Roundabouts, cost and disruptions
two-lane traffic could result in traffic flow issues (but I think this should be the last concern and is actually a good thing since through traffic might divert itself to the highway) waste of money
None
I'm a little concerned that having a roundabout at Solamar drive makes it harder for cars leaving the roundabout to see pedestrians at the cross-walk. I like the cross-walk design in option 3 better.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 186 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
none
Terrible concept. Leave the road alone.
I hate any option where a roundabout exists on this coastal stretch of road. Simplicity goes a long way. I think the summary tables says they are safer, but I disagree.
It's hard or see the difference in 2 and three.
Don’t change anything please
None
Yes, leave that stretch of Carlsbad as it is.
Roundabouts will slow traffic down...may be back-ups.
No - compared to other areas in Carlsbad this is the least of the community’s concern. Please do nothing.
safety in roundabouts.
Leave it the way it is.
none
This may lead to frustrated drivers who will use the bike lane to pass.
Airport road joining the 101 will be a major pinch point. Currently that flow splits to north and south bound traffic prior to hitting 101. Now it would hit 101 together and then have to yield to 101 traffic.
This will turn into a massive line of cars backed up to avenida encinas and beyond. Seems like at least a north bound dedicated lane is needed for airport road traffic.
Some questions about seal level impact and durability
Too much development and destruction of land. Too congested. only 2 lanes--backup of traffic
Only two lanes will slow down traffic coming north from La Costa. Roundabouts will also slow traffic Narrow bridge with only two car lanes. No one likes traffic circles, and Americans don't know how to use them, and they are death traps for bicyclists.
Only two lanes of traffic Roundabouts and the cyclist traffic may not be a good mix Don’t see improved safety for bikers. I believe roundabouts don’t help biker safety.
Bottle neck like Leucadia 2 lanes are now
It will allow for more density along the coast
Concerned about the two-lane concept and traffic
Just leave the highway alone and as is. No need to make it the Blakespear of death road or waste money to change it. The road is beautiful as it currently is so don’t make any changes to it’s current state/today so don’t do design 1 and/or design 2.
This area gets alot of traffic at times, and people don't know how to yield in roundabouts don't do it
I want to see the excessive speed out on the roadway to be stopped. 35 mph maximum. The roundabouts will curtain that problem along with addition of speed bumps like in Encinitas.
None
Not walking or biking friendly.
Do not like roundabouts.
Drivers who are not familiar with roundabouts - but they can learn. Not the best solution for sea level rise. May cause traffic backups.
Some drivers don’t seem to understand roundabouts
None
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 187 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Traffic congestion due to two lane road and roundabouts. Cost is likely more than option 1? I have a concern about some of the elevation differences along the road such as getting to and over the RR tracks and onto Palomar Airport Rd. Access to some of the existing parking areas seem tight and unclear about turn around areas. Can these areas actually be constructed? The proximity of the 3 roundabouts on either side of Paloma’s airport will be a cluster in early days when people are still getting used to them
Visitors getting used to roundabouts could be a challenge.
Drivers and bicyclists do not navigate traffic circles well which creates a safety issue in the circle.
Traffic congestion
I prefer stop lights to round abouts. Please keep the stop lights. Palomar airport Road is far too busy to have a round about!
Keeping with the infrastructure that we haven’t caused bad should be aesthetic to the present construction site
ROUNDABOUTS DO NOT PROVIDE A SAFER COMMUTE. THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE OF ACCIDENTS DUE TO PEOPLE NOT KNOWING WHEN TO YIELD AND PEDESTRIANS WALKING IN THE MIDDLE. ALSO IT IS HARDER FOR LARGER VEHICLES TO MAKE THE TURNS.
It does not facilitate a greater flow of traffic
only two lanes and people don't know how to use roundabouts dangerously narrow
Enhanced pedestrian crossing (flashing lights, etc), protected bike lanes roundabouts can be fun, but sometimes they are also annoying.
The cost of the project that the taxpayers have to pay for.
Bottle necking around the round ablauts and harder for pedestrians and cyclists to utilize.
Might get stuck behind slooow ocean-watching traffic.
That the public does not understand that this option of one lane in each direction will cause major traffic jams for locals as tourist continue to drive the coast.
Roundabouts are NOT bike friendly. Roundabouts will likely increase the number of bike accidents on this route.
Needs to be 4 lanes
Most Californians don't know how to properly drive through a round about no enhanced pedestrian crossway
Traffic jams due to fewer lanes will cause stress & Round Abouts aren't efficient, expense concerns I dread roundabouts whenever I run into one/make me nervous/People hesitate at roundabouts, don’t know what to do, fail to yield the correct way- slows down flow too much and can cause accidents. The one by Legoland is between my house & Costco and it has always caused anxiety for me going through it.
no concerns it’s just not the best
1too many turnarounds
None
do not like roundabouts
I believe the roundabouts will slow down and confuse MANY visitors to Carlsbad. Residents might get used to it but all those tourists will make it hard for traffic to flow consistently Not much change from existing road except for making an existing road a pedestrian path.
Hope Carlsbad funds this project in my lifetime
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 188 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Too many lanes. High traffic. This is a scenic route and should be enhanced to the greatest extent possible.
Should still have some pedestrian crossings
NA
Roundabouts are awful.
Roundabouts don’t work.because of confusion and indifference about right of way.
Traffic backing up to Poinsettia due to reduced traffic lanes. 2 Lanes will be traffic NIGHMARE!!!
Less traffic flow capacity.
None
too slow
The roundabouts - Americans dont know how to drive on them Waste of money
Everything. Safety issues, roundabouts, traffic gridlock will only intensify while coastal Carlsbad businesses will see losses of revenue in their businesses We need to separate the bikes from traffic. The bike traffic on coast highway is getting ridiculous, especially on weekends. Bikes, cars and roundabouts is an accident looking for a reason. Have you even been to the one entering Carlsbad on coast highway between Oceanside and Carlsbad??? its always a mess, and especially when entitled bikers are involved.
Not liking roundabouts and only one lane. Will create more backups and accidents (at the roundabouts)
Car and light truck traffic will be bottleneck stop and go on work morning and evenings and on weekends.
Won't provide the longest-term environmental protection needed for our fragile coastal environment. Not a great place for a roundabout with the current 55 mph speed limit right before this area headed northbound.
None, please do this one
None
The parking at Solamar will be a nightmare. Cars backing out and then make a U-turn over the cyclists and pedestrians. It's ugly now, but this would be a real CF Needs pedistrian over/under passes Drivers will not use rotary properly; bicyclists will become disrespectful Less lanes more backup of traffic
Not a fan of roundabouts, and there are multiple proposed in option 2. none
None at this time.
None.
Reduced flow of traffic with only one lane in each direction and use of roundabouts.
None
Too many round-a-bouts in too short a distance.
Round abouts.
No pedestrian crossing
None
4 lanes is too much traffic, noise, and more accidents
none
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 189 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
I do not like roundabouts. They impede traffic flow in my opinion.
Slowes traffic even more than now
See above. It won't support traffic and is dangerous for cyclists.
Roundabouts are never good for drivers. They slow traffic way too much for a main highway None.
causes traffic jams & accidents
This is absolutely going to ruin traffic at Palomar airport road. The traffic light at Avenida Encinas already backs up to the bridge.
Is 2 lanes enough to handle the amount of traffic we get on Carlsbad Blvd? The 5 north is frequently jammed and is not a viable option for me to go north. Carlsbad Blvd is 4 lanes north of Tamarak and I wonder if we should have 4 lanes here? I live on Carlsbad Blvd and Breakwater none
Not much. I don't believe in AGW, dangerous sea level rise, or any related nonsense. Therefore, I prefer not spending any of my tax dollars.
2 lanes seems unsafe due to population growth and the 101 is a major route. Should there be a fire or mass evacuation, two lanes seems dangerous. I think of Paradise and people who perished in their cars as they sat in a traffic jam trying to evacuate.
where do bikes go on round abouts? Is there a special bike lane still? Roundabouts at Pal. Air. Rd and Solamar are too close.
elitist social engineering
Nothing really but I have not seen the ADT [peaks] numbers so I'll assume that has been considered by the City
If you take away the direct, unregulated connection of Carlsbad Blvd with Palomar Airport Road, then that intersection will become a traffic chokepoint. We already have enough of those in Carlsbad.
None
Roundabouts are terrible. People don’t know how to use them and as a rule they don’t work.
I would like to see lights on the pedestrian crossing.
Pedestrian access and safety
no one seems to know how to use the round about at the coast highway Carlsbad/Oceanside Buena Vista Lagoon area- this is going to be an accident waiting to happen there may be some pedestrian traffic which disables the roundabout during some times.
Local residence may be opposed to the roundabouts (in appropriately....). Roundabouts are proven safer and provide better traffic flow.
That is will do an adequate job slowing traffic. That the bike and pedestrian paths will be safe so that drivers who are not paying attention cannot easily hit pedestrians/cyclists.
Do not have pedestrian crossing and it has only right lane turns and I do not see where it is.
Roundabouts
Poor utilization of right-of-way. Poor safety and flow due to traffic circles. Way more dangerous for bikes due to pushing sparse traffic and bikes closer together. Makes Carlsbad seem poorly designed as a city to fall for such gimmicks.
Have you driven thru Leucadia and Encinitas? It’s absolutely terrible.
None
Leave SB 101 alone and where it is now. I object to moving the highway at all. It is historic and outreach to the public say no one wants this.
It only makes another part slow down. Not a good long term solution Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 190 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Need more parking areas. Need more beach access ways. Add bike racks at beach access points.
Need plan for how the new open areas will be used.
See above
Not pedestrian friendly
Slow down of traffic and on and on...We are a high density area thanks to Carlsbad's aggressive emphasis on building more housing despite the water shortages and drought. Oh, and love that the "newbies" get to plant grass and water draining foliage! 2- lane road will create congestion
Too much of a traffic bottleneck.
not the best for adapting to sea level rise
That it is only 2 lanes, causing a bottleneck and slowing traffic to a crawl during busy summer months and rush hour.
Reduce and slow down traffic that will become frustrating and will not be able to enjoy our coast line as we currently do. Cyclists will take up bike and roadway. Impact emergency response none
Traffic will be terrible, worse than today!
Not enough safety for bikers and pedistrians.
Entrance to existing parking lot near Solamar St could create conflict; no mention of transit facilities Reduces movement of traffic.
I'm not a fan of roundabouts. I prefer traffic lights. Pedestrian crossings? Bicycles? I think this will slow the flow of traffic for those of us who live at one end of carlsbad yet frequently drive to the other end for shopping or doctors.
Ability to see open parking spaces from roadway and limited access points to parking None
Pedistrians
None
Cost because it is the best
That it will be adopted
That the 2 lanes will provide for enough traffic flow.
Confusion for both cars and cyclists at roundabouts
Don't like it.
Too many roundabouts. Traffic will be congested just as it is in Leucadia and we whom lube in the houses along the road will hear more noise because of cars going slower & stopping & starting, and we will be breathing in more pollution from those same slowed down cars.
We need a pedestrian crossing
I'm concerned that with just one lane in each direction, summertime traffic could be a bear. I realize it goes to one lane in Terramar, but people are not always familiar with how to use roundabouts.
Roundabouts do not work. North Carlsbad is a nightmare with one on the coast hwy.
See above. Nothing should be done until we get the park we are entitled to in this part of Carlsbad Only 2 lanes
No need for this
Roundabouts. No traffic signsls
None
Roundabouts would adversely hamper traffic flow.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 191 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 2?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Too many roundabouts
There needs to be increased level of parking access for residents, as it once existed with the parking at Ponto. Street safety crossing over to access the pathway. Concerns of traffic levels at roundabout on Palomar Rd.
Gridlock on purpose - you must work for the Government. Stupid. Greatly increased danger to cyclists
Going to two lanes on a busy highway is crazy.
still to much traffice
None
The vehicle traffic will be horrendous with only one lane in each direction. Super bad idea Cost
Rounds about are a nightmare
2 lanes vs. 4 means fewer cars can travel, which may increase congestion.
It gets rid of lanes
None
Traffic backing up
Unfortunately many people don’t know how to drive in roundabouts.
Crossing the street
Pedestrian hybrid, right turn only confusing
Increased car traffic, negative affect on local businesses and homeowners none
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 192 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Same as option 2
Beautiful walkway
The pedestrian pathway
sidewalks, less roundabouts and lanes than 1 and 2
nothing
In general I think all the designs are taking away the beauty of the existing roadways and Coastal feeling. The sidewalks being proposed are more for residential areas. This area has long lengths of roadways and no houses My observation is you see some occasional runners and that's it. They can share the bike lanes.
Two lanes are no longer an option, have a full time bike & pedestrian lane. Speed needs to be 30 mph max.
Simple and low impact
Same with Option 2 but, with the benefit of a dedicated pedestrian crossing.
The right in right out for Solamar Drive allows traffic to flow. I would also suggest right in right out for t he north parking lot.
Big improvement over current road.
I have similar comments about this option and option 2, but it seems this option has one less roundabout. I am in favor of more roundabouts.
Nothing
Meets everyone’s needs whether you’re driving or walking. Good option.
Roundabouts and pedestrian system
Two Lanes vs four but option 2 best in all categories
sidewalks for walking safely
None
This is similar to option 2 and my comments are the same. The description of an enhanced pedestrian walkway is not clear. What would this be? I think a roundabout with crossing walks are adequate. I am relieved to see NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. This area needs to be protected in its natural state.
Slower traffic and with the subtraction of 1 roundabout and enhanced pedestrian crossing it will cause less accidents and less dangerous for pedestrians.
See answer # 1
nothing
Nothing. This is all about development.
Round abouts, road share with bikes and pedestrians in coastal area.
Nothing
That it has fewer roundabouts than 2
seems to have nice flow of traffic and crossing opportunities Nothing
Nothing....it creates a more dangerous situation for pedestrians and vehicles. 0 the roundabouts
Nothing
Appears to have the smallest footprint
None
traffic circulation, best for sea level rise
again, doesn't matter what anyone says. It will suck.
One less roundabout and the additional pedestrian crossing.
Same benefits as Option 2
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 193 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
It balances safety, pedestrian and bikes. It would be a real addition to the community Nothing
Nothing
Solamar doesn't seem to justify a roundabout, so better than option 2, I guess.
Good compromise to other options
round abouts and uninterrupted pedestrian walkway at solamar / ocean side roundabouts enhanced pedestrian crossing
I love the roundabouts in the options but let's get the bikes off the road Similar to option 3, I like that it reduces the car lanes to two lanes which should help reduce speeds and make it safer. I also like the roundabouts to help slow down traffic and make it more aesthetically pleasing. I like the separate sidewalk for pedestrians and bike lane which should help improve safety.
Same comments as option 2…I like providing the parking and enhanced pedestrian improvements and mobility along the coast
Slows traffic
Its ok but I prefer #2
I like the pedestrian walkway & the roundabouts.
safety
Nothing
Don’t like it.
Roundabouts. I don't see on the map where the enhanced pedestrian crossing is or the right turn -only exit.
Sounds like a good idea though.
It is friendly to local residents both vehicle and pedestrians.
I am not a fan of round-abouts. Option #3 has a better flow of traffic much better, pedestrian crossing and RT turn only
Nothing
Nothing
It takes up less space so cheaper. Traffic will suffer on any reduced lane roads. Traffic lights make it worse for peak hour and summer time traffic b
Nothing
This is preferred option of the three proposed. It should provide the most efficient traffic flow and allow for a safe pedestrian crossing.
Nothing!
Enhanced pedestrian safety, parking access.
Buffer between bikes and cars. Slower speed. Pedestrian paths away from road.
All.
Slows down traffic
It’s my least favorite
It keeps the flow of traffic moving. No unnecessary stop signs. People can cross safely. The trail for pedestrians.
Sidewalks and bike lines along the road. The crossing will make it easiest for people to cross. best option for drivers and pedestrians slows traffic and provides safety for walkers I don't like this option, especially with no explanation of what 'hybrid intersection control' might end up being.
And 'right turn only exits' are only going to cause drivers to make illegal U turns at another point, or cut up a side street to try to turn around.
Sidewalks and somewhat slower due to roundabouts
I cannot express any likes
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 194 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Again hard to understand the graphic. I want sea level rise protection safe pedestrian use slower traffic natural beauty
Nothing
Single lane and round abouts
No
Round abouts
Same as for option 2
Pedestrian access
Roundabouts and pedestrian pathway. Buff between vehicles and bike lane Nothing
It is the best option in terms of sea level rise
do not like
I don’t like it.
I like the addition of the pedestrian cross walks
0 Nothing
There are numerous roundabouts.
enhanced pedestrian aspect-
Nothing
It fine with the pedestrian crossing
Nothing
not as good as option 1
Safe passages, most ped centric with options for cars.
NOTHING.
Nothing
Nothing. (and what "coastal access" is there)?
side walks and paths
Seems like a better solution than all signals or 4 roundabouts Good compromise, option 2 is the best
too much traffic for 2 lanes
Best of 3
Slows traffic. Reduces noise. Adequately protects pedestrians endeavoring to cross Solamar Dr. or Carlsbad Blvd. Does not impeded traffic flow out of/into Solamar Dr. as would a roundabout Still has two lanes of traffic which isn’t optimal
Once again, no image🤨
NOTHING
Better than option 2, but still too slow...
Similar to option 2
I like the enhanced pedestrian crossing at Solamar and it seems that it would be a long term solution without concern for water rises.
Retains existing parking
With one less roundabout, I suppose I like it better than option 2.
Improves safety.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 195 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
This is my choice as the best option for public access and It is the most concerned about preservation, even restoration of our coastal environment and provides for a place for us to enjoy the coast Safety!!
open with limited circles
Bike lanes and roundabouts.
This plan looks great too. I like that this is the best for climate action. I vote for option 2 or 3.
Seems safe enough.
Most reasonable.
roundabouts are great, but how many lanes for cars will be there?? Nothing at all
Same positives as options, with the addition of the safe pedestrian crossing.
I vote for this option
I do not like this option.
You need more pedestrian crossings along Carlsbad Blvd
I like the pedestrian cross walk.
It retains much of option 2.
fewer roundabouts.
if traffic will flow better at Solamar than with the roundabount in option 2, I would prefer that.
Only the claim of sea level adaptability, if actually true. enhanced pedestrian crossing
Best option
My favorite w/ enhanced pedestrian crossing.
Traffic flow looks a bit more difficult.
Good hybrid but I prefer option 2
Similar to option 2
Nothing
I like this also but opinion 2 seems to be better to slow traffic and keep pedestrians safest Slower traffic than option 1
Best option for anticipated rise in sea level
Good for pedestrians
Safer that Option 1
I love it!
Because of the roundabouts, it would probably slow traffic the most.
Pedestrian crossing v extra round about
Best for sea level rise
Best upgrade for Carlsbad. This is the option I would choose.
It's obviously the one that the committee wants. Please make sure that it will meet the needs of the community first. ie: no more traffic.
Nothing. No roundabouts!
I prefer option 2
There is not much to like about this option either. It is better than Option 2.
Roundabouts
Roundabouts and plenty bike and pedestrian access
More biking
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 196 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Nothing
Improved safety
Combines the other options
Sidewalks and bike paths
Nothing
nothing
It seems to be the best option
Nothing. Too developed. Keep it natural, open like the drive through Cardiff.
Nothing
Don’t like it. You are taking away the existing lanes. Traffic will be much worse.
Many of the same advantages of option 2, but #2 is still better I like all the features to make it more accessible for pedestrians.
Roundabout at Island Way.
Best for future ocean rise (it's going to happen).
Once again I like the usage of roundabouts and the minimizing a vehicular activity.
I don't like it.
Nothing
Not much. If eliminates some traffic lights, but traffic circles are difficult for drivers not used to them. They can be problem in themselves.
RoundAbouts with focus on pedestrian crossing
Flow of traffic, safe crossing for pedestrians, walking and bike paths Has bike lanes, but they should be wider
Everything. Flow, design and aesthetics with walking and biking options 0 Pedestrian crossing, this should be included in what ever plan you choose.
The bike , walking lane and only 3 round abouts
Pedestrian coastal access in multiple areas
The enhanced pedestrian crossing.
Roundabouts
Simpler than Option 2 and I think it will work well for pedestrians, bikes and cars.
Very little. One lane in each direction is inadequate for the population in this area. There are very few North/South roadways in the coastal area so deliberately reducing capacity is foolish, particularly since public transportation is highly inadequate.
Roundabouts should move traffic more smoothly. I like that it keeps 4 lanes No
Same as above
Coastal access features.
No
Not a bad option and definitely better than option 1.
Nothing
Preserves existing parking
1. Pedestrian access 2. roundabouts for controlling traffic 3. right turn only Pedestrian crossings
roundabouts in the right places to keep traffic moving
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 197 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Separate bike and pedestrian path from roadway
good
traffic circles
Another moronic idea. Why do you need more pedestrian crossing s? I see pedestrians cross every single day as I drive the blvd every day. I see not reason for any enhanced pedestrian crossings.
No traffic signals and more pet crossing
Decrease in noise
Indifferent but prefer 2
Coastal erossion buffer and roundabouts.
I like the traffic calming round about and pedestrian improvements Roundabouts and access to beach.
Nothing!!
Separate pedestrian pathway
Don't care for it
traffic control
Unable to view it.
Best option
I do not like this option very much. Traffic will come to a standstill. In the area north of Manzano Dr where the road narrows, we already find traffic backing up most times of most days. Shoehorning traffic in this stretch will make things worse. Now you have idling and slow cars adding even more carbon emissions to the environment.
This will make drivers even more hostile than they already are, creating dangerous situations for cyclists and pedestrians. No. Just No.
Roundabouts and pedestrian crossing access. Better protection for the bluff.
Like the entire concept with roundabouts & better crossing for humans. Hope the people crossing would have warning lites flashing in pavement & lights flashing eye level so ALl drivers are alerted of humans crossing . The beach crossing doesnt have enough flashing lites to warn drivers of folks crossing..too many car fly though where folks in crosswalks...a safety hazard in my opinion Looks like there is more enhanced crossing. Also like pedestrian trails and rounda bouts to keep traffic moving.
Nothing
Clear seperation of pedestrian traffic from main road
I like this design which was VERY similar to Option 2.
Best of both worlds balance traffic and pedestrians
I like the two lane concept and the roundabouts will definitely help control the the completely out of control speeding, drag racing and associated noise. More importantly, move this concept to Pine to Tamarack! Roundabouts
Everything
Nothing. Pedestrian walk way not neede. Too much money.
I like the sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the road Not as good as 2.
Slows traffic but allows flow
Will slow traffic more than 4 lanes
Parking
Fewer roundabouts than option 2
Not much.
N/a
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 198 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
uses less open space, roundabouts slow down traffic, good for sea level rise mitigation.
Nothing, other than 1 fewer dangerous roundabout than option 2.
Streamline pathways for the different levels of users, pelotons, e -bike traffic, runners, walkers, walkers on a leash.
Retains some parking, less traffic, less roundabouts, pedestrian walk way Has a lower footprint/takes up less public space. I like the roundabouts because they reduce traffic (people don't have to spend time waiting at stop signs), and I think we should have more of them.
The Roundabouts
I think this is best option
Nothing
DOA, same response as option 2
This is a big improvement over today. I can imagine some folks will want a pedestrian crossing with a signal and that’s OK
Enhanced pedestrian crossing - would like to see the design in more detail No traffic signals. The bridge is long overdue and will help Encina Creek environment. Slower traffic will be nice for cruising, this is one of the last cruising sea views in SoCal. This looks to be the best option but it still needs work.
roundabouts and safety
Roundabouts, buffers & landscaping
Nothing
roundabouts!
I like the enhanced pedestrian crossway idea.
Opportunity to upgrade and improve the Carlsbad scenic area.
A hybrid approach to the traffic intersections. Dedicated pedestrian crossing.
Roundabout at Island Way. Pedestrian path.
Nothing
Enhanced pedestrian
Think it’s the best of the 3.
roundabouts
similar to option 2
Nothing.
Good SLR protection. Good ability of all 3 options to combine with relocation of the campgrounds.
Roundabouts seem good. Please add an off leash dog area similar to option 2
NA
Fewer roundabouts that option 2.
Looks roughly the same as option 2 but slightly different at Solamar Dr. It is not apparent from the rendering what the difference is between the option 2 roundabout at Solamar and what option 3 is showing there instead.
Assuming it's an "enhanced pedestrian crossing" but I see not details.
Nothing
This option seems the most "user friendly." The concern as the highway is now is that at Island Way north to Palomar, there is little pedestrian passage way. As a walker, it would be nice to feel safe being ab le to walk this road without being scared of getting hit by a vehicle. However, where do we park? If we don't live in the area, how does one visit these walking spots?
Addresses many of the current and future issues. May be able to be built at a lower cost than option two.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 199 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Nothing - why would you possibly move the road away from the ocean? I am all for safer and better pedestrian a bicycle access but don’t move it away from the ocean
Can you describe what you mean by "enhanced pedestrian crossin g?" I like two lanes and the roundbouts.
Nothing
There seems to be a traffic signal for pedestrians, not all roundabouts It's good , but not as good as option 2
Enhanced pedestrian crossings
Best option for sea level
Nothing.
It theoretically has the best adaptability to sea rise.
Nothing.
Nothing
Option 4
the limited roundabouts
chart too small to read comfortably, PLEASE do not use those round -abouts. You will have visitors with long motor homes and long trailers going to the campground. They will have problems with the round-abouts Bike lanes maintained.
One less round about
Roundabouts will achieve smoother traffic flow on the highway. One less roundabout than option 2, which is better (Solmar Street) is a low usage road.
Two lanes will take up less space.
nothing!
Similar to the second option, me, my wife, and our neighbors like the third option because it includes a roundabout at Island Way, which is the entrance that we take to get to our homes on Surfside Lane. While all of us think that the second option is the best for our community and Carlsbad as a whole, option three is still an outstanding choice.
seems like it could work but only if it would be safer with the traffic signal I do like roundabouts, and I feel that the city has already decided on either Option 2 or 3, and that Option 1 is going away no matter what I say. That said, send the engineer to Europe to see how they design their roundabouts and how the drivers use them.
Landscaped separation of bike land and Class I. HAWKs. Roundabouts.
Coastal street features and safe crossing.
nothing
Option 3 is by far the best from a cycling and pedestrian point of view. Cyclists no longer need to negotiate two roundabouts in quick succession, and pedestrians and other slower users can stay on the class 1 path near the Solamar intersection. Drivers exiting Solamar heading south can easily turn right and loop around the Palomar roundabout. Everybody wins. I would anticipate the cycling experience with option 3 to be excellent. The views will be thrilling, the sight lines good, and no need to stop at stoplights. A calm and pleasant stretch.
Parking areas are off on their own and not along the roadway, so no need to nervously scan for cars mo ving out.
A single lane of traffic that will naturally want to travel slower. Bravo. This section in Carlsbad is already some of the best cycling along the coast. Option 3 not only preserves that experience but makes it much better.
Please, for cyclists, option 3.
I believe this is the best option overall for sea level concerns Addresses sea rise
Pedestrian crosswalk & roundabouts = MY FAVORITE OPTION Pedestrian bridge Allows for rising tides
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 200 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Hard to tell what an enhanced pedestrian crossing, but it's probably better than a roundabout or traffic light.
Not a fan of roundabouts
Tooooo complicated
No change
I need to understand what is hybrid intersection control.
It is a terrible Idea
I like nothing about a 2 lane road.
Nothing
My least favorite. Does accomplish conservancy but excessively slows traffic. I am suspect it is the right answer and worth cost.
Not a freaking thing
2 lanes are good. One less roundabout. Traffic light at the Hilton Garden Inn will help pedestrians crossing the road.
I love that the sidewalk is along the cliff.
Reducing the amount of roundabouts with a pedestrian friendly crossing opportunity while not delaying vehicular travel
I don't think option 3 is an efficient use of space
I like option 2 better.
The best option. Anything that prioritizes people over cars is preferable.
Fewer roundabouts, clear pedestrian crossing area
It’s Okay, but traffic will not flow as well as option 2.
The enhanced pedestrian crossing will provide better flow for cars and pedestrians than the roundabout.
Bike lane, fewer traffic lanes, slower speed limit.
Seems to be the best option for all cars, bikes, and pedestrians Nothing. Leave it as is. Dont want to become like cardiff/encinitas. Its a beautiful drive and doesnt need redevelopment for monetary gain.
Nothing
Fewer roundabouts and retains beach access.
Better than option 1
doest look much different than option 2... it would be nice for the differences to be clearly marked. I have clicked back and forth many times to try and see a difference and am not sure where the hybrid/enhanced pedestrian walkway is.
00000
Nothing
Nada
In addition to the features that I liked in Option 2, I like the pedestrian bridge to accommodate foot a nd traffic and the elimate the round-about.
It does partially help with the speeders and noise pollution.
Nothing
Same sa 2
Nothing
I like the pedestrian focus
best at adaptability
Allows for traffic to flow, provides for pedestrian access Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 201 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
I think this is my favorite as it favors bike and pedestrian traffic over fast vehicles. Also, traffic circles will serve to keep things moving as best they can for a given volume of traffic.
Good ped xway. Seems like the best design overall
same as Option 2
Option 3 is a good one as well, but rates lower in the "Better" categories than Option 2.
I am somewhat torn between options 2 and 3. Option 3 might incentivize more pedestrians to the area with the enhanced pedestrian access area (it's a little difficult to distinguish b/w options 2 and 3 but it looks like one of option 2's roundabouts has been replaced with this enhanced pedestrian crosswalk.
Nothing
Roundabouts and the extra bike paths and walkways.
I don’t like option three
Least desirable of alternatives.
Like the roundabouts at Island Way & Palomar Airport and the enhanced Pedestrian Access at Solamar.
The best option
Traffic circles are better than signals.
Retains parking lots and no red lights
Nothing.
Appears one roundabout eliminated
Coastal access would be nice. Has been promised for many years. I am assuming the 'coastal access' means a stairway to the beach. Would protect the cliffs.
meh... I don't see tons of pedestrians there, so likely no need for th at.
This is the best of the 3. Like retained parking, pedestrian pathway away from traffic Like 2 lane traffic and roundabouts. I hope the speed limit along this stretch is reduced and I would like to see it reduced all the way along to La Costa Ave.
Open space no linear park
didn't understand the difference between 2 & 3 but this option was better than 1 Second best option to number 2. Still a decent way to move traffic and control speed with beach access.
Roundabouts
the rounabout
The bridge.
Nothing
I feel option 3 is better then option 1. However, I feel option 2 is the best choice. Fewer lanes and additional roundabouts will help increase the flow of traffic but reduce speed and noise while increasing safety and aesthetics. I also like the addition of the landscape improvements. roundabouts
Two lanes and more pedestrian friendly
Also fine, roundabouts keep traffic flowing!
Roundabouts
best use of roundabouts, lights and pedestrians walking paths for all to enjoy. and of course the improved in/out of the Palomar/ Coast parking
not sure whether you need a bridge?
Use of roundabouts
Best
It is better than option 1.
Nothing - leave the coast as it is.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 202 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Nothing. Hate it.
It is safer than what we have now.
Option 3 is safer than option 1, but not as safe as option 2 Also terrible. A money waster and eye sore on CBad. You sure destroying a once great small town and it’s pathetic.
More pedestrian and bicycle options.
Also not a fan.
Retains parking
It is difficult to understand how option 3 is better than 2. I guess we take your word for it. Enhanced crosswalk is always a plus
Again reduces lanes. Not and option.
Do not like
This is the best option. Just the right amount of round abouts and has cross ing to people. The coast is not meant to be a 4 lane hwy.
Nothing, leave Coast Highway alone.
I like the roundabouts to control but allow flow of the traffic through the interchange at Palomar Airport Rd. it's better than 1 but not as good as 2
None.
Safe, nice looking
Not much really.
nothing
Nothing
Slows traffic, crossing
Similar to option 2
Dedicated pedestrian path near the ocean and away from traffic.
Nothing
Nothing
I don’t like this option
Pedestrian bridge provides enhanced safety for pedestrians.
Horrible idea. Way too much! Ruining the rural area.
Nithing
Retains existing parking and beach access
nothing
Better than oprtion 1, but not as good as option 2. Could live with this option if option 2 was not approved.
Same as option 2. Keeps traffic moving but safer and preserves parking and access best
Nothing
Nothing.
Like that there are actual sidewalks for foot traffic.
Nothing
Same reasons as option 2, except don’t really like the crossing at Solamar as much. Think it could lead to accidents b/c it’s different than the other intersections. Make them all consistent and drivers won’t have to adjust differently to the Solamar crossing
Probably my second favorite option as I am a big believer in favoring and encouraging the ever growing pedestrian population wherever possible.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 203 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Nothing
Separated traffic from walkways
Option 3 is very similar to Option 2, the only difference that I see being that, at Solamar Drive, there would be a pedestrian crossing (compared to Option 2 where there would be a roundabout at that location). nothing, overkill
Retains parking
Keeps only 2 lanes
Not much, same outcome as option 2
No
I don't really understand option 3
None
Again the round abouts and no addition of additional lanes 🤑
Absolutely nothing. Leave the road as it is! Stop trying to shove a linear Park down our throats! We don’t want it and we told you that loud and clear!
None
Nothing. I want coast Hwy roadway to remain as it is now No
I don't. I would prefer leaving the roadway as is, in its current position! Anything that improves pedestrian safety is good. Carlsbad is, in not general, not pedstrian friendfly because of no parkways or barriers between pedestrian pathways/sidewalks and traffic. too much traffic.
Nothing
It appears to be the safest option
Traffic will move slower and pedestrial crossover is improved. This ranks No. 1 with me. nothing
Dedicated road for cars.
Same as Option 2
It also has roundabouts instead of stoplights.
Pretty much the same as Option 2.
There is nothing here to support that can overcome losing the 4-lane road.
Roundabouts reduce speeds while allowing smooth traffic flow. not much
It’s ok
I like the roundabouts and the scale of the road. It's friendlier and attractive .
No changes
Not much. Roundabouts will cause problems here.
This is my second choice due to safety.
Increased non-motorist safety
nothing
It says it is the safest plan.
Slows down traffic, safe for pedestrians. Addresses sea-level rise.
Same likes as 2 but liked also liked right turn only on Solamar Terrible concept. Leave the road alone.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 204 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Nothing. Better than option 2 as there is one less roundabout, but still terrible.
Nothing
Roundabouts
Yes, leave that stretch of Carlsbad as it is.
No - compared to other areas in Carlsbad this is the least of the community’s concern. Please do nothing. sidewalks
Unnecessary leave it alone big waste of money.
No change is needed on the 101
roundabouts and 2 lanes
Same as number 2.
Better flow removing the hotel entrance round about, don't make everyone slow down for the dang hotel.
Best for sea level rise
Nothing. I prefer that the land stay as is.
Slower and quieter traffic, safe option, resilient to sea level rise. Very similar to option 2 Same bike lanes as #1
Roundabouts Slows down traffic Reduces car noise
There needs to be improvements to safety for bikers along the coast and around Carlsbad but I’m not sure this is it.
possible 2nd choice to option 1
Nothing
No!
Just leave the highway alone and as is. No need to make it the Blakespear of death road or waste money to change it. The road is beautiful as it currently is so don’t make any changes to it’s current state/today so don’t do design 1 and/or design 2 and/or design 3.
pedestrian bridge
No Not with the roundabouts again
don't
Similar to Option 2, but not as good as far as I am concerned.
Signal not changing quick enough like the one at lacosta. The resort greem stays on when no one is there. This is nit fair to loxate residents
Options for everyone.
Overall a good solution. Best for sea level rise and pedestrians.
Best for sea level rise Separate path for pedestrians etc along ocean Retains existing parking Modified roundabouts
Retention and not expansion of existing parking. Enhanced pedestrian accommodations Don’t like. Same as option 2 but with added cost of pedestrian crossing. this is the best option - more walkign areas, slowing traffic, and addign the roundabouts are excellent and will really imporve this area
Same as two. Unclear about enhanced pedestrian crossings.
Best one. Maintains ped crossing at a frequently used spot by the hotel and makes healthy use of roundabouts Safer for pedestrians and cyclists than current road.
There is nothing to like about option 3.
2 lane road
Nothing
I don't like it, round abouts are awful
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 205 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
No
SAME AS OPTION 1 AND 2
Nothing
The road is separate from pedestrians and bikes
nothing!
Same as 2
enhanced pedestrian crossing
Nothing
The enhanced pedestrian crossing.
Like the pedestrian walk on the existing road and roundabouts The separated ped/bike pathway.
Keeps coastal access and parking
Nice bike patgs
Same as the others, I really like the separate are for pedestrians roundabouts and enhanced pedestrian crossing
I am just not in favor of this option.
Not much
Nothing
roundabouts and large path
Roundabouts
Love it. Perfect combo of the three
Roundabouts
Simpler design. fewer roundabouts
Nothing
Roundabouts in better areas. Access to beach at Solamar is excellent.
Option 2 is best
Everything! Looks great
Prioritizes pedestrians
Roundabouts
Nothing
Pedestrian paths and bike lanes
Nothing!
Nothing
2 lanes and pedestrian crossing
nothing
Again, fine
Nothing
Nothing as stated in option 1 and 2
none
not much
I don't like anything about option 3.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 206 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Best balance of long-term environmental protection, traffic relief, and pedestrian safety without adding another roundabout in an awkward location. If we don't build environmental protection into our civic designs now, when?
the roundabouts and bike lanes
It is clearly second best.
fewer lanes
Better than 2 (fewer lanes)
Option 1 is the best option.
Not a fan of option 3.
traffic signal
That it is only 2 lanes.
Two lanes for motorized traffic. Roundabouts. Sidewalks.
Not sure, perhaps the enhanced pedestrian crossing, although I’d need to understand better how it will work.
Like that we reduce number of round-a-bouts here. But it's NOT clear what vehicular traffic will do when exiting Solomar Southbound or entering Northbound will do to traffic flow on a 2 land highway. Seems you'll need at least a turn and merge middle lane for that intersection.
Not much
Pedestrian crossing
I prefer traffic circles to traffic lights. I also like that more of the land is devoted to bikes and pedestria ns, less for cars.
I like it as the best option all around. Sea level, pedestrian crossing, bike and walking paths.
It looks like less is going on in front of the hotel. The other 2 options still seem more liable to sea level rise because they get closer to the bluff.
Nothing
Don’t
Not much. There is too much traffic in the area for only 1 lane in each direction. And while I am a fan of roundabouts, people n the US do not know how to use them and they way they are built in Carlsbad and Encinitas makes them dangerous for cyclists. Cars do NOT want to let cyclists merge and forcing us on to the sidewalk is sometimes even more dangerous when peds and other users are too busy playing with their phones, dogs, kids, etc.
Nothing. It’s terrible.
Not ideal, but better than option 1.
pedestrian crossing is nice but should be on Option Plan 1 At least it has one less roundabout.
I like the improved pedestrian access. My wife and I walk this stretch of the highway several times a week and is not currently safe. This is a big improvement. We also need some separation from bicycles and they frequently travel at high rate of speeds and we have come close to getting hit several times redundant
Not much. I don't believe in AGW, dangerous sea level rise, or any related nonsense. Therefore, I prefer not spending any of my tax dollars.
Retained parking
this seems safer with the cross walk
Like 2 lanes. Like the crossing (but don't understand if a light remains) @ Solamar. Roundabouts seem well placed
nothing
It's better than Option 1 but not as good as Option 2
Very little.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 207 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Safer for pedestrians and cars than Option 1. Least vulnerable to future sea level rise.
Not much
The roundabouts.
Pedestrian safety
Not very clear- but appears that bikes and pedestrians will be away from cars- and not creating a traffic issue I like the protected bike lanes and pedestrian improvements Uses roundabouts.
Pedestrian path. Bike path. Reduce traffic.
Good , safe
Nothing
Traffic circles somewhat appropriate for asymmetric cross-traffic.
Nothing
Nothing
Parking
Roundabouts will reduce and slow traffic. "Commuters" will rather take the I -5. Reduction to 2 lanes leaves more space available. Like the bike and pedestrian paths.
Nothing. Increases traffic congestion.
Everything
Nothing. It restricts motorists, slows down and creates more traffice! It's atrocious Roundabouts
Nothing.
allows for 8' bike lane + multiuse path. good safety features and best at protecting against sea level rise That it preserves free parking on the cliff
NOTHING
Second best design. Best is option #2
Nothing
Provides the highest level of safety for bikers and pedistrians. Will slow traffic. option 2 seems better if we are going to go to 2 lanes
Traffic calming potential associated with roundabouts, bike/ped infrastructure Walking and bike lanes.
nothing
Roundabouts
like option 2 better
Roundabouts
Enhanced pedestrian crossing
I like that it is the next best thing from Option 2. I am assumming it cost less Nothing. It’s insane
Same as second option
I can't determine much difference from option 2.
Nothing.
This design at Solmar Dr seems MOST favorable for avoiding undermin ing by sea erosion of intersection.
Nothing
Best design!
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 208 of 241
What do you like about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
I like that it has dedicated space for pedestrians.
Absolutely nothing. Roundabouts confuse people and are dangerous in my opinion.
The ONLY good thing is that it takes into account pedestrians who should have access to both the beach AND the genuine park that we need and deserve
Roundabouts slow down speeders, enhanced paths for pedestrians and enhanced cross walks. Keeps current parking spaces enhanced pedestrian safety at crosswalk.
Best of all options: limiting and slowing down traffic snd providing greatest pedestrian and bicycle access I like the roundabouts to keep traffic moving.
Pedestrian stuff may be ok
Nothing
Roundabouts and traffic flow
Pedestrian crossing.
Nothing
Reduced traffic, roundabouts, safe pedestrian pathway.
NOthing - it stinks and will cause the death of cyclists and gridlock for cars.
The safety features to help slow down traffic.
Minimizes traffic, enhances bike and walking paths
Paths, roundabouts, safer, reducing traffic
not much good about it
Round abouts are terrible
I like the roundabouts for the same reason I stated before, more even flow of traffic means less speeding and racing and revving of engines off the starting line at the light.
I don't
Middle of the road option
Don't like it
Less lanes
Best of both
Roundabout create best flow of traffic
I don't. Streets are for cars.
best option
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 209 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Same as 2.
Same as option 2
Parking. I’d like to take advantage of this beautiful new space you are creating. But where will we park? Also traffic. We drive 101 everyday. We are concerned about traffic if we go to one lane. Already there are problems at Palomar Airport Road and 101 at times.
People can't drive in roundabouts, they just don't seem to know what to do. I feel that would be such a mess on the coast.
are you getting rid of light at Island b/c it is just fine would be nice to have sidewalks all the way up Carlsbad Blvd. in designated areas but not too fancy like path from Tamarack Beach where everyone walks Reduces cars mobility
As a general comment for all 3 ideas, I don't know why you can't push the southbound lanes where all the beach parking is, a little further to the east to get to higher ground. There is an arched culvert that appears to be working fine. The north bound lanes can stay where they are at. Are you going to have a workshop open to the public for Q&A
4 lanes fix nothjng
None
Round-abouts would contribute to traffic and accident increases. This is particularly relevant, as we have so many seasonal visitors and foreign tourists.
I do not think the roundabouts are a good solution for this application. The roundabouts appear to be too small and tight to allow traffic to flow. In Europe roundabouts are often two lanes in width so entering vehicles do not have to stop but merge into the circle. Same comment as option 1 obstruction the flow to PAR and the continuation down Carlsbad Boulevard with a roundabout. none
NO ROUND ABOUTS!!!
Traffic congestion
Adjustment time for everyone. Lighting at night,
It may traffic jam, but I still think it is the best of the 3 Not as visually attractive/appealing as option 2
not enough parking
still ... roundabouts & only 2 lanes
This does not seem to address the problem of sea level rise and the chronic erosion of our coastal cliffs. I believe more can be done to protect this unique area by possibly moving boulders in to break up surf action a t the lowest point of the road as well as along the entire cliff area. I see these boulders near the Encina Creek bridge and it seems to be helping. If this project is truly aimed to adapt to sea level rise, the current/remaining road changed to pedestrian/bike path and the remaining parking areas are still in danger.
Option 3 is my Number 1 Choice! Less accidents, slower traffic and less dangerous for pedestrians.
See answer # 1.
not enough coastal accesses
Everything. Keep the roads as is.
no barrier between north and southbound traffic
Not sure
None
none really
Congestion.
Enhanced pedestrian control creates more of a bottleneck problem at this small intersection for vehicles going in any direction, just waiting for people to cross the street.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 210 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
That this lame survey didn't include an option to leave things the way they are now so that our tax dollars aren't wasted just so Matt Hall and his pals can ram through some new development instead of givi ng us a REAL park, which is what we deserve.
none
Terrible traffic
Encroaches to far onto the beach
Same as option 2
generally not as good (based on table) as option 2
Less roundabouts may encourage higher speeds.
May be best to have all roundabouts and not a traffic light.
There will be slower traffic along Carlsbad Blvd
Nothing
That Matt Hall wants to leave his legacy...the Matt Hall Linear Park. I'd be okay with the Matt Hall Memorial Public Restroom, but not his phony "park" that is only intended to pave the way for massive development on our precious coastline.
Roundabouts don't work well when the traffic is heavy -- Carlsbad blvd is heavy. Also, roundabouts are more dangerous for pedestrians. Island way has no bypass for pedestrians, and it gets a lot of pedestrian traffic.
Roundabouts are difficult for bikes. I regularly ride up to Oceanside, and the one roundabout is my toughest obstacle.
Do not like roundabouts
I can't tell but does the south end of the roundabout on Island not have a crosswalk? the crosswalk is only on the north end of the circle? I can't tell how you drive your car to the existing parking at Solomar or Island.
I still have to ride my bike next to cars
None. Looks great!
None…built it!!!!
Congestion & again no plausible benefits to South Carlsbad communities. Great for the surfing community but offers little improvement to existing issues other than speed/traffic reduction co ntrol of motor vehicles. traffic flow will be interupted
I worry about traffic flow with only 2 lanes.
cars to loud
This will cause many accidents. Carlsbad has such a large traffic flow through this area.
Not clear what the enhanced pedestrian crossing is.
Congested traffic with only two lanes.
Same concerns as above - roadway too wide, bike and walking paths should be along the western edge only Nothing noted.
Currently no concerns.
Has runabouts
Two lanes will create traffic backups
See previous answer.
You're using the excuse of sea level rise and walkability to try to deceive people into the real reason for this change...Matt Hall wants to create a bogus park and then open the door to developers to build monstrous shopping/condo/timeshare/mixed use/tourist-serving projects that WE DO NOT WANT AND DO NOT NEED!!! None
A single lane going North or South would cause such a nightmare with traffic backed up on this section of roadway!
Only 2 lanes.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 211 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Will Solamar exit be confusing for those unfamiliar with road.
None. I vote for this option. For reasons stated: 1. Minimal Cost. Resolving same results. 2. No need for signals, traffic flow is at 30 mph. 3. Beach side Reflective bike road path (green bike path flooring) so ca rs can SEE BETTER AT NIGHT.
Two lanes might not be enough.
Preserving a traffic signal or the enhanced pedestrian crossing at thr solamar property will be confusing for drivers. I think the round about should be retained
none
No clear explanation of what 'hybrid intersection control' might end up being. And 'right turn only exits' are only going to cause drivers to make illegal U turns at another point, or cut up a side street to try to turn around. Not thought out completely with how people use this corridor of street.
Not sure what the enhanced pedstrian crossing actually is. Would be good to see a visual/drawing. Can't picture it from this layout.
Speed of traffic
Roundabouts. They are nonsensical in the designated areas.
What is the hybrid intersection
Don’t like toundabouts
Safety of pedestrians and motorists in crosswalk
Seems like it’s not as good as 2 for sea level rise
Same as option 2. Not sure how the enhanced ped crossing helps Pedestrian Crossing at solamar.
Reduces lanes for traffic
It is not the safest option in terms of people. People first, so: Option 2 is my choice. only 2 lanes
Are there going to be businesses or new homes put in, i hope not, I want it to stay as the only undeveloped scenic coastal drive in our city.
N/a
Two lanes, too many roundabouts. That area is too crowded for roundabouts. I think there will be more accidents.
The roads are limited to only two lanes which will become ever so more crowded and congested due to the increased population in North County and the number of out of town visitors. not enough roundabouts.
Worst hybrid of the other 2
Too many people crossing over to our neighborhood
More places for the homeless to loiter -Possibly resulting in a greater chance of approval of the proposed development behind the Cape Rey Hotel by removing the "not enough park area" argument. -Negative impact on emergency response time -Making the area more attractive to non-locals by providing more parking -Fear that this may result in commercial use along the road
No round abouts
Unique ped crossing places and not as safe for bikes.
Traffic jams and too many cyclists and pedestrians in main traffic even with crosswalks and bike lanes making it unsafe for everyone overall.
Just say no
Roundabouts are no good.
traffic in single lane.
Unclear on what kind (width) of walking trails/sidewalks will be placed there. This is a concern with all of the options.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 212 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Extent of paving, seems like a lot to have 16'-22' of paving for side by side bike and pedestrian paths. Can some of this expanse be a non-pavement alternative to manage heat island and drainage? too much traffic for two lanes
None
Unclear if there will be a traffic signal at the Solamar Dr. intersection or just a pedestrian control button prompting a red light to allow pedestrian passage across Carlsbad Blvd. If there will be a standard traffic signal, then left as well as right turns out of the Solamar Dr. should be permitted. The present descript ion allows only a right turn, which is problematic for those exiting Solamar Dr wishing to go South.
Pedestrian issues
Right turn only off Solamar
#1: 2 lanes is Not Enough INFRASTRUCTURE to support the residential populations vehicular traffic in the area.
Making it difficult for residents to actually use the road for transit purposes puts a greater load on I -5 and El Camino Real. This is poor quality of life for actual residents, creating a gridlocked nightmare for anyone who isn't a tourist with unlimited time to sit in traffic. Carlsbad is not Disneyland, it is a city with over 100K residents.
Please consider that many of us live here because we love being close to the beach, making the coastal drive and access to this beautiful area an ordeal for residents affects our quality of life. AND WE VOTE. 2. This plan also creates a severe public safety issue. In the event of a fire, tidal event, or other natural disaster, or freeway disaster, the plan does not allow for enough vehicular traffic for safe evacuation. 3. Public safety concern number 2. This plan will frustrate those that are driving along the PCH, they will exit Carlsbad Blvd at frustrated driver speeds to access either I-5 or El Camino. This influx of frustrated drivers onto the East-west streets increases the traffic load and the danger to all who use them or live nearby. these single lane each direction plans combined with all the pedestrian, bike traffic & cars coming in/out of parking... Traffic will crawl every day on this stretch causing us to drive more miles on Fwy or thru neighborhoods to try to get around the traffic and avoid this beautiful stretch we enjoy driving now every morning.. With traffic lights & 4 lane road/ 2 lanes each way, traffic can't get stuck behind looks-loo tourists, ppl parking, ppl that don't know how to use Roundabouts, accidents, ..we need the extra lane each way for safe access
bottlenecks at roundabouts
None
Reduced lanes of traffic could create high traffic wait times during certain times of year (we already see this going North where there are two lanes).
None
After reviewing the design, I still don't understand what an "enhanced pedestrian crossing" is. I don't see that label on the design anywhere.
Not clear on hybrid design features to be included.
That it will not be selected due to opposition from business interests that depend on tourists from outside of Carlsbad
Not enough traffic lanes. Only one lane in each direction will create massive traffic jams. Emergency vehicles will be impeded. Will decrease access for tourists to the beach. should be auto only use
I hope that the roundabouts are big enough. If they are too small, it ends up being like a messy inefficient stop sign.
What does the hybrid mean.
Not much.
prefer 2 car lanes only heading either north or one northbound and one southbound... roundabouts are much less effective than traffic lights when cars are merging. roundabouts are much less effective at moderating traffic flow.
Same concerns as option 2 regarding design of the roundabouts.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 213 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
This will increase driving times. We are already sitting at red lights due to traffic signals not being sequenced in Carlsbad. This will only makes the flow worse.
Roundabouts won’t work, neither will 4 lanes. Keep it the same. You’re ruining our town and this is what’s causing traffic.
Same as #2 The roundabouts cause confusion for other drivers.
I don't see the benefit of 3 v. 2. The lack of a traffic circle at Solamar just means a bit more noise and speed...to what benefit?
Not enough coastal parking.
Same as #2, traffic capacity
No one likes roundabouts, even the minority that know how to use them properly.
I am not in favor of any more roundabouts. The one on CPH on the north side of town is terrible. It's too narrow, and people do not know how to drive through these, and don't understand who has the right of way None
I don't like interference with the natural habitat between Solamar Drive and Island way which is noted as Las Encinas way. I would like it to remain as it is today.
Traffic
none
Not clear how it's different from option 2...
Two lanes of traffic.
n/a
Not as safe as option 2
Costly Overkill because pedestrian crossings of 101 are few I prefer Option 2 but this is also good
None
Are there enough pedestrian crossings?
None
It may be the most expensive option. But our inaction on climate change could wind up costing us more in the long run.
One lane going each way may not be enough.
Roundabouts log jam traffic! Worst design ever!
I prefer option 2
Not enough priorities for cars
N/a
More biking
Traffic
Not best improvement for safety and sea level rise
Design.
It is a compromise
Don’t like roundabouts
Just as bad as option 2. Roundabouts are no bueno in America roundabouts will have traffic backed up in every direction Horrible for traffic
Too many roundabouts. Taking away two existing lanes. Traffic will be worse and more accidents especially around roundabouts.
same as #2
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 214 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Again as with Option two giving up two lanes I feel is going to be a real problem for all the beach traffic and tourist we now host. I feel we still need 4 lanes total.
Roundabout at Paloma’s Airport Road.
No roundabout, so not safest for people. Don't put cars first! I would rather the traffic light being removed and another roundabout like option 2.
X
Cost
With only one lane in each direction, traffic could back up, especially when I -5 is congested, and or overflow into residential areas. Also, traffic circles are difficult for drivers not used to them.
None
None. My vote!
Don’t like or want roundabouts. They’re unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.
None other than the time to complete
traffic jams
Growth, do you think two lanes in five years from now will be enough on a Friday night? I would like there to be no round abouts. I wish the bike lane was completely separate from the road. Most cities have completely separate bike lanes , not sharing the road with cars. I would like that.
It is necessary for every pedestrian crosswalk to have the button to light it up. I think all major crosswalks in Cbad should have this. No reason not to!
Roundabouts can be problematic.
Is there a traffic light at solamar? How will tourist cross the road. Traffic on PCH is crazy too many fast drivers and loud motorcycles.
None
One lane in each direction is inadequate for the population in this area. There are very few North/South roadways in the coastal area so deliberately reducing capacity is foolish, particularly since public transportation is highly inadequate.
I’m extremely nervous about roundabouts for 4 lanes. People already have a very difficult time with two lane roundabouts, 4 seems for trouble- especially for the amount of tourists who go through the neighborhood and wouldn’t have experience with roundabouts. Distractability is a HUGE issue in this area already, people are constantly running the light at cerezo, having a roundabout requires people to pay more attention and I’m not sure people are able to do that on that street
Traffic will be too congested
Is the main road/Carlsbad Bl being moved from where it currently runs for any of the above street model options? I'm not keen on creating viable real estate development opportunities along the bluffs that utilmately block the views for pedestrians and other trying to enjoy the splendor that Carlsbad offers with it's iconic views of sunsets beyond the surflines. I don't believe that only a select few are solely entitled to that privilege.
Why are roundabouts considered safe? Roundabouts, such as those in Leucadia on Leucadia Blvd, seem very dangerous and hard to cross for bikes and pedestrians.
No
None
Leave it alone
Drivers and pedestrians and bicycles do not know how to use roundabouts in this town. It will cause more accidents. Don’t change this land!!
On a really busy traffic day along the coast, will the round abouts really allow people to get in and out of the side streets?
none
That it’s only 2 lanes?
With all options why not build a seawall
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 215 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Roundabouts on heavily traveled road with busy intersections; i.e. Palomar Airport Road. Roundabouts need to be wide such that distance between enter/exit points allow motorists to determine with certainty that car is exiting and can safely enter roundabout.
None
same as #2 no need for the pedestrian crossing so near a traffic circle.
None. I hope you get sued.
Traffic flow
None
2 lanes may create traffic congestion and lack emergency access.
None
Enhanced pedestrian across if not necessary.
Traffic congestion with only 2 lanes Confusing roundabouts Besides the freeway, the Coast Highway is a major north south access road. As much as you want to encourage more bikes and pedestrians walking, y ou still have to accommodate cars, which are NOT going away!!!
NA
No input at this time.
None
Besides the traffic snarling? As much as I love roundabouts, mst drivers here in teh U.S. do not know how to use them. In addition, unless the lanes are carefully planned, they can be very dangerous for cyclists as well. Look at Leucadia. What a joke that is turning out to be. And then they want to shoehorn in 94 apts, 34 more hotel units, and thousands of square feet of mixed use and commercial space. Guess wh at road is going to be used to get there? This one, running right through Carlsbad. The land is limited. It cannot hold all the development developers want and still serve the community. California is unique in that the Coastal Commission ensures the coast is for everyone. Let's keep it that way. Parks and open space. Create inland shuttle lots to bring people to the beach and the village. Stop putting in developments that add thousands of car trips per day (e.g., apartments, hotels, and restaurants).
Parking and beach access.
None
Crossing Carlsbad Blvd. If there are no street lights going across that fast and crowded a street, I worry about crossing it even though there are enhanced crosswalks. People still don't stop just because the lights are on. A lot of times pedestrians push the buttons and don't cross so drivers will just ignore the flashing lights.
Traffic jams.
traffic slowdown at solamar
Would like to see more Roundabouts on Carlsbad Blvd.
Noise from fast cars
It is understood that this improvement is needed for flooding issues but the scope needs to be expanded to include the true ‘coastal street’ and residential area between Pine and Tamarack.
Bike lanes? Not sure if that was addressed.
More parking area
$$$$
Safety for bikers and pedestrians.
Best option
More traffic congestion
Traffic
Roundabouts.
Roundabouts should not be used. Ever.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 216 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
As a senior resident it removes one of my commuter lanes. I do not like round -abouts.
I think this option is complicated at Solamar Dr, option 2 seems to have a better flow.
Once again, the 2-Lane Road provided by option 3 is highly concerning considering the current number of vehicles currently accessing and utilizing the current coastal roadway. We believe a 4 -Lane roadway with traffic signals is much safer than the 2-Lane roadway with roundabouts proposed in option 3. We also believe the information provided in the roadway option comparison chart for option 3 is biased and flawed.
I don't like the under-valuing of moving traffic through the area by reducing capacity to a 2 -lane highway. Like it or not, we are an auto-based society. Every stretch of roadway through Carlsbad that is reduced to 1 lane gets backed up. This will cause drivers to avoid the Carlsbad stretch, and locals to stop driving the coast because we love it. As well, drivers that have been held up will likely be less patient in traf fic circles. I'd like to see a 4-lane version of the traffic circles. The state of Utah has implemented innovative use of them. I'd like to see the traffic along the roadway dedicated to 4 lane auto traffic and no pedestrian traffic, rather the side lanes dedicated for only fast-moving road bikes and e-bikes. I'd like to see the pathways dedicated to running and walking. This would eliminate the pinch points of the "Mixed use" type of pathways we're forced into now. It's frustrating when you're in the bike lane, and some runner is in it because there are tourists walking 4 abreast or dogs on leashes in the walking lane next to the road. What are we doing to help with Parking? There is a large parking area along the railway station, perhaps some area can be captured along the tracks and a pathway along the creek could provide access to the coastal zone. Up Next: Let's do sidewalks and 4 lanes through Terramar!
Na
On the coastal road if the travel speeds would be safe for bikers and wal kers.
Rather than moving traffic more smoothly on that busy stretch, 2 lanes & roundabouts will only bog down the traffic. The roundabout on 101 in Leucadia is a nightmare!! Same response
None
Again, concern regarding round about design.
Is the existing flyover going to be demolished? I hope so. Roundabout at Palomar needs to be larger diameter to allow more time to decide when it is safe to enter circle. "Is that oncoming car in the circl e going to continue or exit?", he asked himself. I think a roundabout at Island will be problematic with all the pedestrian traffic there; might be better to just leave it as it is and visually mitigate traffic control devices. Do something similar to Solamar intersection perhaps. A roundabout at Solamar seems a bad idea. You're going to have four roundabouts in rapid succession, that might make drivers pay heed! Leave Solamar and Island as is and visually mitigate the traffic control devices. Re pedestrians: Maybe someone could come up with a better idea than what exists on Carlsbad Blvd. north of Tamarack. Those strobe lights are inneffective and confusing; I mean what does a white disco-type strobe light mean to most of us? Not stop, that's for sure. Not to mention that rapidly fading flourescent yellow crossing sign nonsense. Standard flashing round red lights and/or a lighted red stop sign would be better. Think of a rail crossing, something similar to that but for pedestrians. No giant cantilevered traffic light structures, please. Send the existing ones to the salvage yard with the power plant scrap. Please try to avoid speed bumps and other clever traffic tricks. Consider that the drive thru Leucadia these days is more roller coaster than road.
Once again the roundabouts and a pedestrian walkway. The only thing by this area is one hotel. I'm not understanding why so many pedestrians. I'm not seeing more parking being adding for the influx of pedestrians.
Don't like sidewalk crossing at Solamar
Tim Stripe is telling Matt Hall what to do when they have their weekly steak dinner will people go too slow
Again speed needs to be no higher than 35
Traffic jams
Not sure.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 217 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Other roundabouts.
That it is not necessary and will be tied to an attempt to allow rezoning in order to satiate the greed of the tourism industry who control City Council
Same as option 1 - maintaining traffic lights (and speed limits, without speed bumps) does not address some of the major safety and noise issues that currently exists.
Beach access from pathways and limited parking that does not ruin natural terrain.
I like the roundabout at Solamar in option 2 better.
It has roundabouts.
Risky to cross BLVD at light. Lack of relocating the campgrounds and parking at the site as well state park landward to guard all recreational infrastructure from SLR.
The more roundabouts the better to slow down traffic. Make walkways wide, smooth, beautiful for everyone to enjoy. Provide ample parking please. Please add an off leash dog area don't understand the pedestrian bridge, where it is located and why it is needed (obviously will cost more and is that best use of the funds)
Physical barrier separating bikes from cars. Separate bike path-not a painted line on the road.
NA
Two lane road will not promote good traffic flow.
I like option 3 best in theory but cannot tell what's going on with the enhanced pedestrian crossing. There are not explanations that I can find.
Roundabouts create very dangerous situations for cyclists. The Leucadia roundabouts force you back into the active lane.
Where do people who want to walk the new path park? Or is it intended only for the very local of residents? Is there anything you can do with the camping ground? How about get rid of the camping spots and make a public parking area like you have at Ponto and Tamarack?
The single controlled intersection is probable not the best option in my opinion. Coastal access may not be as good. Traffic flow may not be as good as option two.
See above
Are bike lanes separated from cars or adjacent to them? It would be safer if they are separated by trees and a raised barrier, so kids can ride here too.
The hybrid pedestrian crossing. Why disrupt traffic and make vehicles stop? Coming northbound, there is a long stretch before you get to this intersection. The roundabout in Option 2 will slow down traffic approaching the intersection. The enhanced crossing will only slow down traffic if the light is activated. However - looking at the plan it's not clear if there's a signal, a hybrid beacon or RRFB? With the speeds in the northbound direction I would be concerned if there wasn't some kind of active control here. Also consider the grade of Carlsbad Boulevard and the line of sight coming up the hill.
Restricts elderly, cars, families, emergency vehicles from responding in a timely manner.
See comments at Option #2
None
Two lanes with roundabouts are not safe for pedestrians.
Doesn’t slow down traffic like option 2
The roundabouts.
Worse than option 2; an unnecessary compromise.
It would cause significant traffic slowdown and congestion, and make it miserable to visit the beach. The rise in water level is extremely slow and this radical approach isn't necessary.
Creates same problems as Option 2.
That Matt Hall and his pals in the Chamber of Commerce and the tourism industry are going to use this as part of a plan to justify their "visitor-serving/commercial" land use rezoning and foist upon us some nightmare development that we neither need nor want
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 218 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
the lack of four lanes.
Traffic flow.
only two lanes
Typically, traffic circles are too small to allow for adequate reaction time to tell if opposing traffic is going straight or turning left. Can lead to accidents. Only one lane of traffic in each direction will lead to cong estion.
No parking along the street for beach access.
Bicycle Safety passing through the roundabouts, increased potential for cars to hit bicycles (when bikes are going straight and cars are turning right from same direction or left from opposite directi on. Reducing from 4 lanes to 2 may impede traffic flow
Two lanes with round abouts will cause more traffic congestion. Round abouts cause cars and bicycles to merge in the round abouts.
A one-lane road is not sufficient to handle the traffic on this st reet, particularly in the summer. One lane plus roundabout will bring this street to a standstill between the campgrounds and Palomar Airport Road.
Comparable to the second option, option three does not pose any concerns to me, my wife, or our neighbors. "Two lanes with hybrid intersection control." What exactly does that mean? We are left to take our best guess, as it was not adequately explained. Like Option 2, it also incorporates roundabouts. Carlsbad roundabouts are very poorly designed, are way too small, and coupled with Southern California drivers' woefully deficient knowledge of how to use roundabouts and respect for "Yield" signs, I think during peak periods, there will be long lines waiting to enter the roundabouts.
None
The roundabout and lack of additional lanes to improve traffic flow.
Roundabouts are especially dangerous for bicyclists!
None
need to have it right away
Has roundabouts and enhanced intersection may be too confusing for drivers Not as many "best" ratings as Option 2
The roundabouts, as designed, are dangerous for cyclists.
Not a fan of roundabouts
Maybe safer but not acceptable—option 2 is best!!
No change option
A two lane road will increase traffic. We are fine with traveling this road the way it is.
First the joke about rising sea levels. Really. Using it as an excuse to screw up the flow of traffic. Costing thousands of hours of peoples lives sitting in a car needlessly because you can't plan a city correctly. There are consequences to your actions. Daily mile long traffic jams at not acceptable. 2 lane road is not enough to handle the traffic at peak hours. A 2 lane road roundabout is not large enough to keep traffic moving. People simply do not know how to drive a roundabout. It's treated like a boulevard stop.
After years of having the roundabout at the north entrance to Carlsbad, people still do not know how to drive it.
Again, roundabouts confuse drivers. Having a roundabout at a busy intersection like Palomar will delaying and annoying
Per above
We the people are sick of being given these ridiculous surveys that are worded in such a way as to make it appear these are the only options. They're not. Come November we will be heard just as we were when Mayor Mall tried to pull a fast one. We are watching.
Drivers don't know how to use roundabouts. Using a roundabout to merge traffic on Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Blvd could be an issue during rush hours.
I have the same concerns for all 3-why is there no plan for a safe sidewalk along South Ponto Beach-from La Costa Blvd to Ocean Blvd? I hate that I have to walk on the busy 101 with my small dog because beaches are all Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 219 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
dog-unfriendly in Carlsbad. I live near Ponto and would love to be able to walk my dog there safely. What is the plan for that area? When will there be a dog-friendly beach? I mean I will keep his leash on but there is such a long stretch of rarely used beach that would be perfect for dogs. It is dangerous to put us on the streets. I live in an area where there are many coyotes and they have attacked small dogs on leashes so I need to walk him where there are no coyotes. Please, please, please consider letting us bring our dogs on the beach on leash from Ponto to Terramar. Please.
nothing
I think there's a more efficient way to use that space than to reduce the traffic lanes and have double the amount of pedestrian and bike lanes. Why not just keep the 4 auto lanes, and make the pedestrian/bike lanes separate along the old road/coast? Reduce the amount of inefficient cu rves and landscape right of ways I prefer the roundabout at Solomar.
As mentioned before, I’m not sure what the “buffer” is between traffic and bikes here, a physical barrier is much safer than paint. Honestly, this stretch of road should be bicycle and pedestrian only in between the parking lots anyways.
Roundabouts are not sized well to allow traffic to move without people stopping all the time trying to figure them out. Traffic will back up causing more pollution and more difficulty tryi ng to cross.
Pedestrian crossing will slow traffic flow.
One lane in each direction will severely reduce traffic flow.
Roundabouts.
None.
Leave it as is. Dont want to become like cardiff/encinitas. Its a beautiful drive and doesnt need redevelopmen t for monetary gain.
Not the best design
People suck at using roundabouts
Still too much traffic. Cyclists will like the roundabouts but not much else.
I still think round abouts are not a great idea. people are already distracted with all the bicycles, ocean view and pedestrians.... so adding a round about that many dont seem to know how to navigate seems like a terrible idea to me.
How about Option 4, do nothing. Leave it alone.
Reduced capacity where’s the park????
I really don't like any of these 'plans'...leave it as it is until you listen to and do as we wish.
That it is just an excuse to allow developers to ruin our coastline It looks to be the best of the three options.
Option 3 does not go far enough to control the car racing that regularly occurs along the coast, especially at night.
None
No access for Solamar residents or Hilton customers, slow traffic in afternoons and weeken ds Same as above. We do not want hotels, malls, time-shares, etc. We want a genuine park that can be enjoyed by the residents of Carlsbad (and others)
None really
roundabouts - drivers don't know how to maneuver around them What is the structure for enhanced pedestrian access, concern it is a structure None
Might be overkill for this area - are there enough benefits to justify no left turn at Solamar Way
None really, just that it rates lower than Option 2 in terms of "Better" and "B est." Again, the round-abouts would cause confusion and congestion.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 220 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
This might be more impactful to traffic than option 2 would be Do nothing
I have vision traffic back ups and problems at the roundabout Bike lane is too close to traffic. Suggest moving bike lane closer to sidewalk. Maybe swap LID and Bike? How will traffic be controlled at the intersection of Solamar Dr. Lowering the road level in front of the Solamar community would help create a more pleasing environment for the Solamar commun ity both for noise and view.
No
Not enough traffic control to allow local residents to get on and off the main road. Traffic Increased traffic --- bottlenecks and more horns.
How are we supposed to get into Solamar or the Hilton?
Backing up of traffic during rush hour traffic due to roundabouts. No lights to cross Carlsbad Blvd. Roundabouts will be an absolute hell during rush hour traffic for anyone trying to deal with Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Blvd. It will back up all the way to Island Way. People will not be able to access the hotel and manufactured home park at Solamar easily. Residents will be stuck in their tract at Island Way.
None
Carlsbad Blvd. serves as an emergency north/south transit corridor. The four lanes seem best. I do not like roundabouts and do not think this design is necessary in this area. none
Not sure about pedestrian pathway going up / down to the road at the Encinas Creek Restoration area.. what's the point of that? roundabout at access point from the "turnaround" parking lot unnecessary? Yield better? Concerned as a cyclist about safety on the roundabout for Palomar Airport Road traffic Open space no linear park
na
I would prefer all traffic circles
Only two lanes for cars. Unsure about beach access locations hear Island way. only 1 pedestrian crossing
Too restrictive with only two lanes.
The single lane roadway is insufficient to handle coastal traffic.
Having only one lane in each direction will cause large back up of cars at all times of day Traffic would increase due to roundabouts and the reduction of lanes. It is already impacted during peak hours whenever the freeway is congested and drivers use Carlsbad Blvd as an alternate route.
I want a clearer understanding and a conceptional drawing of the class 1 path and landscape improvements that will replace the current South-bound road. I'm concerned that area will just be turned into additional concrete parking lots. In addition to the class 1 multi-use walking and bike trial, what landscape improvements are planned? I would like to see some open space with stationary fire pits surrounded by adirondack chairs to gather with friends to enjoy the gorgeous ocean views. The fire pits could be reserved or rented for a sma ll fee.
A few gourmet specialty shop (s), that do not obstruct the view, would be nice too. Such as; a coffee shop, ice cream, convenient specialty store that sells wine/beer, charcuterie boards, cheeses, gourmet sandwiches, firewood and s'mores kits for all to enjoy while enjoying the beautiful coast. lack of additional roundabouts
i think there is too much traffic for ony 2 lanes. It will get crowded, and then get noisy when people get fustrated and start using the horn!
Expense
None
Light and pedestrian walkway
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 221 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
people will need to get use to the reduction from 4 lanes to 2 lanes on the coast highway and this may reduce the number of cars using that route
not sure whether you ne?d a bridge/
Same with option 2. The line of cars throughout the entire stretch will be never ending throughout the summer and in rush hour all year. It will take forever to get through. 4 line is best for traffic flow, especially since Option 1 also includes the separate safe pedestrian trail along the coast.
Traffic congestion during rush hour
0 You need a roundabout at Solamar and parking along the corridor.
Leave the coast as it is.
Hate only having 2 lanes total. Too much traffic for that. Hate roundabouts they don't work well for all the tourists who would get confused. Hard to get out of side streets. (They tried that on Cassia and had to take them out.
That it is not as safe as option 2.
The hybrid intersection increases the danger unjustifiably.
That you just waste money destroying Carlsbad.
How much is this going to cost us???
Same as #2 but enhanced pedestrian access seems to prioritize visitors over residents.
Again, so many roundabouts! If this whole stretch is being looked at to undergo a major change, can’t some of these be tunnels under the highway? I suggest someone go sit here during morning and afternoon rush hour and THEN decide if roundabouts are the answer.
Should have one more roundabout as in option 2
too many roundabouts; not sure about the ___ at Solamar Lanes reduction will create traffic issues
Two lanes instead of four lanes and has two many roundabouts Nothing looks great
Leave Coast Highway alone
I am unsure of what "enhanced pedestrian" crossing is. I am concerned that traffic will be significantly impeded through this.
The lights at the circle. they don't work. nor do they teach drivers how to use traffic circles correctly I still hate those round a bouts
I prefer the second design
Driving west on Palomar Airport Rd just prior to I-5 is already dangerous with a lot of near miss accidents by cars changing lanes last minute to get into the correct lane to get onto I -5 northbound, or just beyond that, to get into the correct lane to get onto I-5 southbound. Then if you are continuing westbound on Palomar Airport Rd you have to make certain that you are in the correct lane before the traffic light at Avenida Encinas. Then you would have a very short distance to accelerate once the signal turns green for you to get to a speed safe for entering a traffic circle. (Traffic circles seem to work best when put in in areas of new developments.) makes no sense
Pedstrian crossing. Is it elevated? Couldn't tell but should be.
Not as non-car friendly as option 2
What particular gains are attained in comparison to option2? Looks just like option 2 but with one less traffic circle. What am I missing here? Issues with vehicular traffic being funneled to one lane each direction and traffic circles will result in traf fic congestion. eliminates needed lanes. Leucadia already ruined it. Keep it the way it is.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 222 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
People riding bikes and walking need to learn how to keep safe. They need to respect the car. This is a nightmare! What about emergency services. What about when the 5 has a major accident! What about a natural disaster! NO NO NO NO NO
Congestion. Not enough flow for cars and traffic lights I do not like the single lane or round-abouts.
It will bring in too much traffic and ruin this rural beach area Traffic
Too much emphasis on bike lanes over existing car traffic. Move bike lanes over adjacent to the pedestrian pathway and retain 4 car traffic lanes. Roundabouts don’t make sense h ere, tourists won’t know how to maneuver
everything
Givng up a lane of traffic for bikes can make more congestion.
The pedestrian crossing at Solamar is a concern because it is not a roundabout in a series where there are others. This would seem to present a bigger danger to pedestrians. not as good as option 2.
None
none
Leave as is, no linear park
I surf down that way every day. Nothing wrong with 101 there now.
Traffic circles are not a good choice in tourist areas. Only one lane in each direction for cars. Unless there is a real barrier between bikes and cars, the bikes tend to go the faster way-in the car lanes.
Traffic flow
Like option 2 better.
Same as option 2, regarding the potential traffic congestion and roundabout decision mak ing requirements needed during the busier months of the year.
I do not want the roadway moved, let’s get real about the intent to develop that freed up area Is my concern, can’t we have one pristine spot
Roundabouts.
The Solamar Drive crossing of Option 3 might seem like an invitation to beachgoers to park in the Hilton Garden Inn parking lot or other areas nearby, as it makes it easier for beachgoers to park there and walk across the crosswalk. Might be okay, but some might not feel that it is okay. traffic will not flow and is artificially restricted
Roundabout
Traffic lights can impede traffic on heavy traffic days Same as option 2, hesitant Roundabout drivers, causing accidents and long lines if cars.
No
Impeads flow of traffic
None
🤮
We do not want a living room park! We do not want the road changed! Leave him alone!!!! Traffic
Reduced coast Hwy opens the way for retail & high rise hotels , which carlsbad residents do not want We want a park not a linear park
No
Leucadia's much-disliked "Streetscape," which this design appears to imitate, should not be imposed in Carlsbad as it has been in Leucadia -- most residents don't like it but our wishes didn't matter.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 223 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
The same concerns expressed above about 2-lanes in stead of 4-lanes, i;.e., the negative impact on traffic flow, negative impact on emergency vehicle access, and dangers it will increase in emergency situations such as fires.
Traffic and more people illegally cross the road, more traffic accidents None.
I think the changes should benefit ALL users. - why is it an all or nothing deal - keep 4 lanes for traffic AND ADD bike pedestrian paths.
Crosswalks are a huge hazard with those yellow lights no one understands and stops cars are unprepared for - ridiculous!
same as option 2
Same as option 2. Seems like added cost to benefit only a few.
Same concerns as with option 3: too few lanes, slowing traffing (bad), don't really understand point of this design, as it's basically #2 with one intersection being different. BTW, the Solimar intersection is probably one of the least consequential of main roads in Carlsbad (of which, Solimar Drive is not one).
Will the enhanced pedestrian cause people to wander off into the roadway? People tend to lose common sense when they get close to the shoreline.
I cannot support a 2-lane road in this location.
The roundabouts are my concerns
Where’s the pedestrian crossing?
Landuse
Slowing traffic with roundabouts here is inappropriate. This road is an alternate route when I -5 is backed up, and traffic should flow well. Also, there are large vehicles going to and from the campground, and the 101 bus, and roundabouts may cause accidents.
Not as safe an option or the most compliant
Same as 2. Least favorite.
shared motorist and non-motorist areas
waste of money
None.
None.
none
Terrible concept. Leave the road alone.
I hate any option where a roundabout exists on this coastal stretch of road. Simplicity goes a long way. I think the summary tables says they are safer, but I disagree.
Don’t touch anything please
None
Yes, leave that stretch of Carlsbad as it is.
No - compared to other areas in Carlsbad this is the least of the community’s concern. Please do nothing.
Leave it alone fine the way it is.
none
I can see where the enhanced pedestrian crossings are indicated. Is it at every roundabout? Still just the flow coming off airport rd will be massive. Shoe horning it into round about and they have to yield to north bound traffic will not flow well. Is the idea that less people will use the 101 with slower speed limits? Hybrid ?
I do not want any changes to existing land
only 2 lanes--cause backup of traffic.
Only two lanes will slow down traffic coming north from La Costa. Roundabouts will also slow traffic Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 224 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Narrow bridge with only two car lanes. No one likes traffic circles, and Americans don't know h ow to use them, and they are death traps for bicyclists.
Only two lanes of traffic Roundabouts and the cyclist traffic may not be a good mix Roundabouts are unsafe for bikers.
slows traffic
it will create more density along the coast
Basically traffic congestion on option two and three. Also, while not part of this process, I would like to see balance between the ongoing provisions being made for biker riders while at the same time, Carlsbad bikers notoriously ignore traffic rules (i.e. running red lights through traffic - see El Camino and Cannon on a Saturday); brash and cruel comments/jeers made by them to simple recreational riders, cruisers, tourists, and families not out for a race, More traffic enforcement should accompany s pecial accommodations and this stretch will not be immune to such boorish behavior..
Just leave the highway alone and as is. No need to make it the Blakespear of death road or waste money to change it. The road is beautiful as it currently is so don’t make any changes to it’s current state/today so don’t do design 1 and/or design 2 and/or design 3.
Same as option 2. Roundabouts are not good when traffic is bad don't do it
Nothing really.
None
Right turn only???
Only two lanes and right turn only.
None
None
Cost. Would seem that this is most expensive option.
Same as Two
Only the raised bridge at the low point south of Palomar and north of island way.
Roundabout at Solamar seems safer.
Single lane vehicle pathway per direction and shared pathway with bicycle traffic in the circle will just become a traffic mess.
Traffic congestion
I prefer stop lights to round abouts. Please keep the stop lights. Palomar airport Road is far too busy to have a round about!
Thinking about safety
AGAIN, ROUNDABOUTS DO NOT PROVIDE A SAFER COMMUTE. THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE OF ACCIDENTS DUE TO PEOPLE NOT KNOWING WHEN TO YIELD AND PEDESTRIANS WALKING IN THE MIDDLE. ALSO IT IS HARDER FOR LARGER VEHICLES TO MAKE THE TURNS. PEDESTRIANS DO NOT JUST CRO SS AT CROSSWALKS,
THEY GO WHEN AND WHERE THEY CAN
It does not adequately support the added traffic in the area today, much less in the future. only two lanes and roundabouts
dangerous to go to 2 lanes, emergency vehicles can’t get through, slows down and clogs street I don’t see a difference in #2 and #3
roundabouts can be annoying - and slow traffic down too much The cost of the project that the taxpayers have to pay for.
The round-abouts.
Don’t have much use for the pedestrian bridge
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 225 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Traffic circles are not designed for this level of traffic flow. Again, reducing the coastal route to one lane will severely impact traffic - there will be traffic jams every weekend, all summer long, and on holidays. We MUST keep four lanes.
Roundabouts are NOT bike friendly. Imagine trying to cross 3 cross walks with cars coming in all directions.
Not a 4 lane road
Don't really like that special intersection
Only that the previous option seems to reflect more safety for cars, bikes, and pedestrian s Expense, traffic jams, inefficient Round Abouts
Roundabouts - see answer for concept #2
none
None. Do this one!
No need for a stoplight at Solemar when a roundabout can support the amount of crossing traffic none
I am against any and all roundabouts as it will confuse people and prevent cars to move as some will sit there and wonder when it's their turn to move forward. This works in Europe as they grew up with it and they don't slow down. In US, people will literally stop! Think of all those tourists from all over US who will just stop! Also think about RV drivers and trucks pulling an RV.
Not much different from Option 2.
None. Please go with this desgin
Unclear on crossings
Safest
Roundabouts are awful
Traffic backing up to Poinsettia due to reduced traffic lanes. 2 lanes will be a traffic NIGHTMARE!!!
Less traffic flow capacity than Option 1.
None
Too slow and too complicated.
Roundabouts
Focus on homelessness running rampant in this city
Same as above
same as the previous design.
Not liking roundabouts and only one lane. Will create more backups and accidents (at the roundabouts) Same as option 2. Car and light truck traffic will be bottleneck stop and go on work morning and evenings and on weekends.
It would be nice if better safety (without a roundabout) could be considered, given the expense and permanence of the project, so everyone can be happy.
not enough traffic control (one less roundabout)
a compromise that does not solve all the problems of a change from a four lane with backu-ps more likely.
Need slower and safer for pedestrians
The parking at Solamar will be a nightmare. Cars backing out and then make a U -turn over the cyclists and pedestrians. It's ugly now, but this would be a real CF Needs pedistrian over/under passes Rotary will be even more confusing
Option 1 is best option
Not seeing how this is any better than option 2, and I’m not a fan of roundabouts.
Like option 1...this allows for stops/starts, racing = noise/pollution + risk to pedestrians Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 226 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
That it may not slow traffic down necessarily. I like the roundabouts or the speed bumps in Leucadia, None
Reduced traffic flow due to single lane in each direction and use of roundabouts.
I don't understand the benefit of the improved pedestrian crossing over Option 2 See above regarding vehicle entry/exit crossing traffic from Solomar. 100 yards each direction middle lane for turning and merging may help. Finally, again for all 3 options, it's not clear what happens t o the enhanced walking and bike paths North of the depiction. Just dropping everything onto the dirt shoulder would seem poor way to go...
Round abouts.
Public acceptance of narrower roadways
I don't know what an enhanced pedestrian crossing is.
None
If you're talking about the type of pedestrian crossing in front of the hotel that we have currently between Tamarack and CVD, people get hit in those EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Seriously. My kids and I nearly get hit several times a summer. Build a pedestrian bridge.
Don't like roundabouts
Slowest traffic movement. Really bad design
It won't support the traffic and is dangerous for cyclists.
Way too slow of traffic. Accidents and Emergencies will cause confusion. Fires, tsunami warnings, etc will cause injury or death from an inability to get through.
Not as good as option 2.
reducing restricting roadways two lane cause traffic jams and pollution, accidents at roundabouts Tourists suck at roundabouts.
Same as option 2....should we have 4 lanes? Will this plan handle weekend and afternoon traffic with adding major time delays. 5 North is not a viable option to get to Carlsbad Village don't need the special crossing; not much ped x-traffic Not much. I don't believe in AGW, dangerous sea level rise, or any related nonsense. Therefore, I prefer not spending any of my tax dollars.
2 lanes seems unsafe due to population growth and the 101 is a major route. Should there be a fire or mass evacuation, two lanes seems dangerous. I think of Paradise and people who perished in their cars as they sat in a traffic jam trying to evacuate.
where do bikes go at round abouts? Is there a special bike lane or are bikes supposed to merge into traffic? Concerned about how far Palomar Rd and the new roundabout cut s into Manzano field. Brings traffic closer to residential areas. Bad idea.
more elitist social engineering.
SB traffic queue during pedhead activation at Solamar. Could it extend back to PAR traffic circle? How long is it? 30sec plus delay?
If you take away the direct, unregulated connection of Carlsbad Blvd with Palomar Airport Road, then that intersection will become a traffic chokepoint. We already have enough of those in Carlsbad.
I do not like the right turn only exit at Solamar Dr.
Enough with the roundabouts. They are a terrible option. Road diets are absurd. They don’t calm traffic. They make drivers angry.
I think either Option 2 or 3 will work. I'll go with the experts.
No roundabouts
reduced traffic flow
Roundabouts are improved by chain, when they're disconnected it can reduce their efficiency, like in Encinitas with the interrupting stop signs by two roundabouts.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 227 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Not clear what the value is for the cross walk (only?) at the hotel. Not clear how vehicles will enter/exit the hotel (without a roundabout or traffic signal).
That drivers who are not paying attention will run their cars into cyclists/pedestrians. Will not adequately slow the cars. Will not adequately deal with car noise.
It is the best if they also add extra pedestrian crossing as well.
Roundabouts
Poor utilization of right-of-way. Poor safety and flow due to traffic circles. Way more dangerous for bikes due to pushing sparse traffic and bikes closer together. Makes Carlsbad seem poorly designed as a city t o fall for such gimmicks.
Same as option 2 except worse. Again use Encinitas and Leucadia as an example.
I have a lot of concerns. The Highway 101 SB should not be moved. The redesign opens up the land next to the ocean for hotels since new land designation is Visitor serving commercial.
Better to leave it like it is
Need more parking areas. Need more beach access ways. Add bike racks at beach access points. Need plan for how the new open areas will be used. Not sure how the "enhanced ped cr ossing" will work.
See above.
Not getting done soon enough!
Everything-it slows down traffic and restricts ability of cars to move at an appropriate speed given the density of our population. Hwy 101 in Encinitas thinks that we should live in 1950's tra ffice and, apparently, Carlsbad does, too. It is 70 years later and this design is not appropriate. People who want to live this way should consider relocating to another state. Plenty of people want to move here and pay high prices to buy a house here. 2 lane road will create congestion
Too much of a traffic bottleneck.
not sure what hybrid intersection control is.
That it will slow traffic to a crawl like what happens now on the 101 in Leucadia All the same concerns. Reduce and slow down traffic that will become frustrating and will not be able to enjoy our coast line as we currently do. Cyclists will take up bike and roadway. Impact emergency response Traffic will be terrible, worse than today! Plus the loss of parking is unacceptable in all cases None.
Option 2 seems better if we are going only with 2 lanes. I think Option 1 or 2 seem better Intersection at Solamar, entrance to existing lot near Solamar, and lack of transit facilities Reduces movement of traffic and increases congestion.
I believe roundabouts present difficulties for pedestrians and may be problematic given the additional bikes on our roads. Will this slow traffic for those of us who travel frequently from one end of car lsbad to the other on a regular basis?
Lack of roundabout and enhanced crossing at salomar may cause increased congestion at one location like option 2 better
Lights
Not as good as option 2
None
Insanity prevails in Carlsbad
ditto my comments on #2
Same as my comment 4
Don't like it.
Concern for more pollution going into houses from stop & go traffic and more noise as well. Street in going to be backed up
I love that it has 2 lanes and has a pedestrian crossing.
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 228 of 241
What concerns, if any, do you have about option 3?
Survey results as of 7/21/22
Same as with option 2. I also wonder exactly how the parking access across from the Seapointe resort will work.
Roundabouts concern me. Signals are much more efficient.
Same as above. My concern is that this is all just a trojan horse move to allow more development along the coast so that Matt Hall's pals can get even richer
None
I do not understand the need for enhanced pedestrian crossing.
Same why do any of this
Roundabouts and no traffic signals
None
Too many roundabouts!
Will be same disaster as Coast/State and worse due to multiple roundabouts.
Hybrid intersection controls look like it might create some challenges.
Waste of money causes gridlock terrible
Traffic signals have become optional for too many people lately. With the heavy traffic on the coast, it may increase accidents.
round abouts are not the best design
None
Traffic will be a nightmare with only one lane each direction. Bad idea No round abouts
Fewer cars moving mean possibly more congestion.
It gets rid of lanes
Similar to option 2, but prefer to slow traffic.
Traffic backing up
Unfortunately many people don’t know how to drive in roundabouts.
None
No e
Increased car traffic, negative affect on local businesses and homeowners none
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 229 of 241
Public Works Branch
Transportation Department
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 442-339-2746 t Council Memorandum
July 7, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council From: Nathan Schmidt, Transportation Planning & Mobility Manager Re: Summary of Traffic & Mobility Commission Meeting of July 5, 2022
APPROVAL OF MINUT
ES: By a 5/0/0/2 (Absent: Commissioner Diane Proulx and Commissioner William fowler) vote, the Traffic and Mobility Commission approved the minutes of the May 2, and June 6, 2022, meeting as presented.
1. POLICE REPORT REGARDING TRAFFIC & MOBILITY RELATED MATTERS DURING THE MONTH OF June 2022– Received a report on Traffic & Mobility related matters during the month of June.
2. CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESTRIPING BETWEEN MANZANO DRIVE AND ISLAND WAY, BIKE
LANE IMPROVEMENTS AT FIVE LOCATIONS ON CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND THREE SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN BIKE ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS – By a 5/0/0/2 (Absent:
Commissioner Diane Proulx and Commissioner William Fowler) vote, the Traffic & Mobility Commission provided the following suggestions:
• Staff shall provide notification to residents on Jefferson Street north of Las Flores informing them of the removal of on-street parking on the east side of Jefferson Street • Staff shall ensure that the traffic study for the improvements on Carlsbad Boulevard include analysis of pre-COVID traffic conditions
• After implementation of the proposed improvements on Cannon Road at Paseo Del Norte, staff shall review the project for potential implementation of a bike box at the westbound approach of Cannon Road
• After implementation of the proposed improvements on Carlsbad Boulevard staff shall evaluate options to reconfigure the parking lot north of Island Way to accommodate the maximum number of vehicles
3. PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE SOUTH CARLSBAD BOULEVARD CLIMATE ADAPTATION PROJECT – By a 5/0/0/2 (Absent: C ommissioner Diane Proulx and Commissioner William Fowler) vote, the Traffic & Mo bility Commission provided the following suggestions:
• Recommended that sharrows be provided within the inscribed circle of the roundabouts • The traffic impact analysis results should be provided to the Traffic & Mobility Commission for review prior to going to City Council
• The shared use paths around each roundabout shall be constructed of concrete and not decomposed granite
• Recommended that City Council form an advisory committee for further review of the South Carlsbad Boulevard project
Exhibit 7
Sept. 13, 2022
Item #12 Page 230 of 241
{city of
Carlsbad
Council Memo – Summary of Traffic and Mobility Commission Meeting of July 5, 2022 July 7, 2022