HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-09; City Council; ; Deficiency and Exemption Determinations for Four Street Facilities and Expediting Capital Improvement Program Project No. 6094CA Review RK
Meeting Date: June 9, 2020
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works paz.gomez@carlsbadca.gov, 760‐602‐2751
Subject: Deficiency and Exemption Determinations for Four Street Facilities and
Expediting Capital Improvement Program Project No. 6094
Recommended Actions
Adopt three resolutions to:
1.Determine the following street facilities to be deficient because they do not meet the
vehicular level of service component of the city’s circulation performance standard required
by the city’s Growth Management Plan:
Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
2.Determine the following street facilities to be built out and exempt from the vehicular
LOS performance standard, in accordance with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3‐P.9:
Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
3.Expedite Capital Improvement Program Project No. 6094, to improve traffic circulation by
widening northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive
Executive Summary
After a discussion of how major roadways performed under the standards defined in the
Growth Management Plan on May 5, 2020, the City Council directed staff to return to the City
Council with the three resolutions recommended in this report.
The three resolutions address deficiencies in four street facilities1 that were identified in the
Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal year 2017‐18 as not meeting the
1 A street facility is a planning and traffic engineering term for a section of roadway that shares the same roadway
characteristics, and that is composed of one or more street segments, the portions of a street facility between two
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 1 of 47
vehicular level of service that is required in the circulation performance standard contained in
the city’s Growth Management Plan.
Staff is recommending the City Council find the street facilities listed above to be deficient in
meeting this vehicular level of service (Exhibit 1). This recommendation is supported by the
results of the fiscal year 2017‐18 Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report.
Staff also recommends that the City Council determine those four street facilities to be built out
and exempt from the level of service performance standard defined in the General Plan’s
Mobility Element Policy 3‐P.9, which outlines the city’s authority to determine individual street
facilities to be exempt from the city’s vehicular level of service standards. (Exhibit 2).
The third recommended resolution would expedite Capital Improvement Program Project No.
6094, to widen northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive. (Exhibit
3).
Discussion
This is the fourth of four City Council staff reports stemming from a discussion at the July 16,
2019, City Council meeting on eight street facilities that had been identified in the Annual
Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal year 2017‐18 as falling short of the level of
service performance standard, as mentioned above.
At a meeting on Dec. 17, 2019, the City Council determined that four of these street facilities
were deficient under the vehicular level of service required in the city’s circulation performance
standard and that three of these street facilities were built out and exempt with the fourth
street facility’s deficiency resolved by an expedited Capital Improvement Program project.
This report deals with the remaining four street facilities:
1.Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
2.Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
3.Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
4.Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
(Exhibit 5 is a map with their locations.)
The City Council considered determining these four street facilities to be deficient, built out and
exempt in the last City Council discussion on this topic, on May 5, 2020. (The May 5 staff report
on this item is attached as Exhibit 4. It includes information on such related issues as the
proposed extension of College Boulevard and traffic and development in the area around these
street facilities.) The City Council ultimately directed staff to return to the City Council with
three revised resolutions for the City Council’s consideration.
intersections. A street facility includes not just the street itself, but all the other elements of a roadway, including
sidewalks and crosswalks, traffic lights and street lights, the median and even landscaping.
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 2 of 47
In the first resolution being recommended (Exhibit 1), the City Council is being asked to
determine that deficiencies in meeting the required vehicular level of service performance
standard exist at each of the remaining four street facilities listed above based on the results of
the fiscal year 2017‐18 Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report, in accordance with
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.130.
The second resolution (Exhibit 2) would determine that the four street facilities are built out
and exempt from the level of service performance standard for vehicular travel in keeping with
General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3‐P.9 (d).
The third resolution (Exhibit 3) would direct staff to expedite Capital Improvement Program
Project No. 6094, which would widen approximately 0.45 miles of northbound El Camino Real
from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive by one lane to partially address the roadway’s
identified deficiency in meeting the level of service performance standard.
Traffic and Mobility Commission input
Staff made presentations on these issues to the Traffic and Mobility Commission on March 2,
2020 and April 6, 2020 (See the May 5 staff report, Exhibit 4, for additional information on the
commission’s actions on this issue.). The Traffic and Mobility Commission chair also presented
their recommendations at the May 5 City Council meeting.
Fiscal Analysis
CIP Project No 6094 is expected to cost $4 million, which has not been appropriated. Staff will
adjust the project costs as part of the fiscal year 2020‐21 CIP approval process or separately for
consideration and approval of the City Council. (The May 5 staff report, Exhibit 4, provides
additional information.)
Next Steps
If the City Council directs staff to expedite CIP Project No. 6094, staff will return to the City
Council to present potential funding sources for the council’s consideration. Staff is in the
process of preparing the fiscal year 2018‐19 Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report,
which is expected to be presented to the City Council in Summer 2020.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Vehicular levels of service issues and traffic congestion are no longer considered an
environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. [Citizens for Positive
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 3 of 47
Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609; Pub. Res. Code §
21099(b)(2)]
CIP Project No. 6904 will be subject to environmental review once the scope of the project is
developed. This action simply seeks to advance the project on the CIP schedule.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. City Council resolution, declaring street facilities deficient
2. City Council resolution, determining street facilities built out and exempt
3. City Council resolution, expediting CIP Project No. 6094
4. City Council staff report, dated May 5, 2020 – (on file in the office of the City Clerk)
5. Map with street facility locations
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 4 of 47
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-104
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING DEFICIENCIES OF FOUR STREET FACILITIES
ACCORDING TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN VEHICULAR LEVEL OF
SERVICE STANDARD BASED UPON THE FY 2017-2018 ANNUAL MONITORING
REPORT
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, in 1986, the city adopted Proposition E (Growth Management Plan), which amended
the city's General Plan to "ensure that all necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with
need to serve new development ... In guaranteeing that facilities will be provided emphasis shall be
given to ensuring good traffic circulation, schools, parks, libraries, open space and recreational
amenities;" and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Plan is implemented through Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 21.90 and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; and
WHEREAS, the GMP makes the approval of new development contingent upon adequacy of
public facilities, based on performance standards for eleven identified public facilities incorporated into
the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Mobility Element and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements
Plan (CFIP) include the City's GMP circulation performance standard, which was updated in 2015 to
comply with new state planning laws; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted the Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358), which requires
General Plans "to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all
users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the
rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan;" and
WHEREAS, the Legislature also adopted SB 375 in 2008 which calls public agencies to consider
changes in residential development patterns which provide expanded transit service and accessibility,
walkable communities, access to non-vehicular modes of transportation resulting in reductions in
Vehicle Miles Traveled; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted SB 743 in 2013, which explains that "It is the intent of the
Legislature to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build infill
housing and mixed-use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit facilities,
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 5 of 47
Exhibit 1
downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these
sometimes competing needs" (Gov. Code§ 65088.4(a)); and
WHEREAS, the State Legislative Analyst's Office 2015 Report on California's High Housing Costs,
explains that "Workers in California's coastal communities commute 10 percent further each day than
commuters elsewhere, largely because limited housing options exist near major job centers;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City amended its General Plan and CFIP Circulation Performance
standards to incorporate these new transportation planning strategies to provide access for multi-
modal circulation, which have the benefits of improved air quality, reduced GHG emissions, and
reduced trip generation; and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City's CFIP Circulation Performance Standard was revised to state
"Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system -vehicles,
pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS Dor better for all modes that are subject to this
multi-modal level of service (MM LOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility
Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City's CFIP Circulation Performance Standard was also revised to further
state: "The city's approach to provide livable streets recognizes that optimum service levels cannot be
provided for all travel modes on all streets within the city. This is due to competing interests that arise
when different travel modes mix. Therefore, the General Plan Mobility Element intends to provide a
balanced mobility system that identifies, based on the type of street (street typology), the travel modes
for which service levels should be enhanced and maintained per the multi-modal level of service
(MMLOS) standard specified in the city's Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 Mobility Policy 3-P.9 was adopted and states in part that the City may
"Develop and maintain a list of street facilities where specified modes of travel are exempt from the
LOS standard (LOS exempt street facilities), as approved by the City Council. For LOS exempt street
facilities, the city will not implement improvements to maintain the LOS standard outlined in Policy 3-
P.4 if such improvements are beyond what is identified as appropriate at build out of the General Plan.
In the case of street facilities where the vehicle mode of travel is exempt from the LOS standard, other
non-vehicle capacity-building improvements will be required to improve mobility through
implementation of transportation demand and transportation system management measures ... ;" and
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 6 of 47
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, in 2015 North County Advocates filed a lawsuit against the City of Carlsbad
challenging the amendments to the General Plan and the CFIP, alleging that they violated the City's
Growth Management Plan (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (San Diego County Superior
Court Case No. 37-2015-00035458-CU-WM-NC.); and
WHEREAS, in 2017, North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad {San Diego County Superior
Court Case No. 37-2015-00035458-CU-WM-NC) was settled and dismissed with prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the 2017 Settlement with North County Advocates acknowledged "As part of the
development review process the City shall evaluate all discretionary projects for consistency with
applicable General Plan policies and CAP measures and actions that aim to reduce roadway congestion
and vehicular miles traveled (VMT), through Transportation Demand Management (TDM techniques
and multi-modal improvements.") Within twelve {12) months, the City shall update is Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, incorporating multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) analysis to address
vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes of travel, and including transportation demand
management (TDM) trip reduction methodologies and best practices to reduce automobile trips and
improvement travel model shift. The updated TIA Guidelines will also be used to determine
requirements for offsetting project impacts and evaluating opportunities for improving project-level
connections for all travel modes (vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit). Within twelve (12) months
of the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issuing final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines
regarding the use of VMT as the primary metric to analyze transportation impacts rather than vehicle
level of service (LOS), the City, in collaboration with SAN DAG and applicable working groups, will revise
the updated TIA Guidelines to be consistent with OPR's final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines"
{2017 North County Advocates Settlement, Section 4.3.6); and
WHEREAS, the GMP requires annual monitoring to measure adequate performance of various
public facilities, including circulation; and
WHEREAS, the FY 2017-2018 annual monitoring report was released in July 2019, and identified
the following eight street facilities within Zone 15 as not meeting the vehicular LOS component of the
City's Circulation performance standard, including:
(1) Southbound El Camino Real from the Oceanside city limits to Marron Road;
(2) Northbound El Camino Real from Marron Road to the Oceanside city limits;
(3) Southbound College Boulevard from Aston Avenue to Palomar Airport Road;
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 7 of 47
Exhibit 1
(4) Southbound Melrose Drive from the Vista city limits to Palomar Airport Road;
(5) Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard;
(6) Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road;
(7) Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard;
(8) Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real;
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2019, city staff presented recommended actions to City Council to
address the vehicular LOS performance standard deficiencies identified in the FY 2017-2018 annual
monitoring report for the above-described street facilities, and City Council returned the item with
direction for staff to formulate alternate solutions; and
WHEREAS, when a performance standard is exceeded, Carlsbad Municipal Code§§ 21.90.080
and 21.90.130 state "If at any time after preparation of a local facilities management plan the
performance standards established by a plan are not met then no development permits or building
permits shall be issued within the local zone until the performance standard is met or arrangements
satisfactory to the city council guaranteeing the facilities and improvements have been made;" and
WHEREAS, the City interprets Carlsbad Municipal Code § 21.90.080 and § 21.90.130 as
providing the City a reasonable period of time for addressing such deficiencies, in keeping with Gov.
Code § 65860(c); and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-270, which
determined street facilities (1) -(4) above deficient under the vehicular LOS component of the
Circulation performance standard, and determined the street facilities identified as 1, 2 and 4 above to
be built out and "exempt" from the vehicular LOS performance standard pursuant to Policy 3-P.9.
Transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) strategies
now apply on those facilities. The council also expedited two Capital Improvement Program {CIP)
projects for street facilities 3 and 4 above. The deficiency reported for street facility 3 would be resolved
by the expedited CIP project approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, as described in the subsequent recitals, the City Attorney and the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) do not believe the City has the authority
to implement a moratorium in response to the vehicular LOS exceedances at roadways 5, 6, 7, and 8,
as contemplated as an option under CMC §§ 21.90.080 and 21.90.130; and
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 8 of 47
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 4,999
residential units (General Plan Housing Element, table 10-1) which it has not yet been fulfilled, and
Zone 15 within the City of Carlsbad would allow development of approximately 1,406 dwelling units;
and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 166 of 2017 states that "Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure
that its housing element inventory ... can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its
remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584" and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has taken the position that
exceedances of vehicular Level of Service standards cannot constitute a basis for implementing a
moratorium that precludes attainment of a City's RHNA Allocation (Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, states that where housing is an
allowable use, the City is prohibited for enacting a "development policy, standard or condition" that
would have the effect of "imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing
development ... other than to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of
persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium ... ," and any
moratorium adopted pursuant to such an exemption would require approval from HCD (Gov. Code, §
66300(b)(l)(B)(i) and (ii)); and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2020 the City of Carlsbad received an opinion from HCD (Exhibit A) which
states in part that "the housing moratorium adopted pursuant to the City's GMP would be
impermissible under Government Code section 66300 ... HCD does not consider, however, that general
concerns about the health and welfare of the citizenry-including traffic conditions that cause minor
delays-present an imminent threat to health and safety ... ln this case, the City's proposed moratorium
would prohibit the issuance of any development or building permits in Local Facilities Management
Zone 15 ("LFMZ 15") until four (4) identified street facilities meet the vehicle level of service ("LOS")
performance standard of Dor the necessary improvements are guaranteed. (See City of Carlsbad Mun.
Code, § 21.90.080.) LOS D simply refers to the rate at which traffic flows on a roadway, and at LOS D
there is no longer free flow of traffic but instead congestion that borders on unstable flow ... While such
congestion may be uncomfortable, there is no indication in the City's GMP or in the City's
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines that such a standard represents an imminent threat to the
health and safety of the residents of LFMZ or those in the immediate area. Accordingly, HCD is of the
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 9 of 47
Exhibit 1
opinion that such a moratorium cannot permissibly be adopted or enforced consistent with
Government Code section 66300;" and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as
findings set forth in full.
2. The City finds that Gov. Code§ 65863(a) (SB 166 [2017]) and Gov. Code,§ 66300(b)(1)(B)(i)
(SB 330 [2019]) preempt the City from implementing a moratorium pursuant to Carlsbad
Municipal Code§§ 21.90.080 and 21.90.130 and GMP regulations;
3. That the City Council determines a deficiency ofthe vehicular LOS component of the City's
Circulation performance standard exists for the following street facilities based on the
results of the FY 2017-2018 growth management annual monitoring report:
a. El Camino Real southbound from Cannon Road to College Boulevard (referenced above
as Street Facility No. (5))
b. El Camino Real northbound from College Boulevard to Cannon Road (referenced above
as Street Facility No. (6))
c. Cannon Road eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard (referenced above
as Street Facility No. (7))
d. Cannon Road westbound from College Boulevard to El Camino Real (referenced above
as Street Facility No. (8))
4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase ofthis resolution is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the
resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 10 of 47
Exhibit 1
Exhibit A: April 17, 2020 Opinion from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) Regarding Senate Bill 330
Exhibit B: January 2, 2018 HCD Letter to City of Redondo Beach Regarding Senate Bill 166
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 9th day of June 2020, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher.
None.
None.
MATT HALL, Mayor
-{,r ~tk&br ~mez1 D!fJVlj
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk C1~
. (SEAL) C/II✓
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 11 of 47
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453www.hcd.ca.gov
April 17, 2020
Celia A. Brewer, City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Celia Brewer:
RE: Housing Crisis Act of 2019, Request for Opinion Under Government Code Section 66300 et seq.
The purpose of this letter is to assist the City of Carlsbad (City) in the implementation of
the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code, § 66300) as requested in your letter dated
February 27, 2020. In that letter, the City requested the California Department of
Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) opinion as to the enforceability of a
moratorium proposed pursuant to the City’s Growth Management Program (Proposition
E or GMP). For the reasons explained below, HCD finds that the housing development
moratorium adopted pursuant to the City’s GMP would be impermissible under
Government Code section 66300. Should the City decide to adopt a moratorium,
notwithstanding this opinion, HCD reminds the City that it cannot legally enforce such a
moratorium before obtaining HCD’s approval pursuant to Government Code section
66300, subdivision (b)(1)(B)(ii).
HCD’s opinion is based on the mandatory criteria established by the Legislature with the
passage of SB 330 in 2019, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which added
section 66300 to the Government Code. The State of California is experiencing a
housing supply shortage of crisis proportions. To address this crisis, the Legislature
declared a statewide housing emergency until 2025, and suspended certain restrictions
on development of new housing during the emergency period. (Housing Crisis Act of
2019, Chapter 654, Statues of 2019, section 2(b).) Among other things, the Legislature
suspended the ability of cities and counties to impose moratoria on housing
development, including mixed-use development, “other than to specifically protect
against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium.” (Gov. Code,
§ 66300, subd. (b)(1)(B), emphasis added.)
Exhibit A
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 12 of 47
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 does not define “imminent threat to the health and
safety of persons.” HCD does not consider, however, that general concerns about the
health and welfare of the citizenry—including traffic conditions that cause minor
delays—present an imminent threat to health and safety. The word imminent suggests
something that will happen in the very immediate future. (Black’s Law Dictionary (11th
ed. 2019) (“Imminent” means “threatening to occur immediately; dangerously
impending” or “[a]bout to take place.”); Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed.
2010) (“Imminent” means “likely to happen without delay; impending; threatening”).)
Imminent threats to the “health and safety of persons” implies an impending or
immediate threat to human life, human health, or human safety. It is a much narrower
consideration that notions of “health and welfare” that motivated the adoption of the
City’s GMP.
The City’s GMP appears to be designed to assure that housing development in the City
and the provision of public services are closely aligned (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code, §
21.09.010.) Nothing in the City’s GMP or in its Growth Management Ordinance (City of
Carlsbad Mun. Code, Chapter 21.90) indicate that they were adopted with the intent to
avert imminent threat to the health and safety of the residents of Carlsbad. Neither do
the GMP or the Growth Management Ordinance indicate that imminent threats to health
and safety are a mandatory consideration in deciding whether to impose such a
moratorium. The purposes of the ordinance are reflected in its placement in the
Municipal Code. The ordinance is housed in the Zoning Code, under the chapter for
Growth Management, rather than under, for instance, Health and Sanitation, which
includes Emergency Services and Health and Sanitation. The overall purpose of the
Zoning Code is described as “to provide the economic and social advantages resulting
from an orderly planned use of land resources.” (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code, §
21.02.010.)
In this case, the City’s proposed moratorium would prohibit the issuance of any
development or building permits in Local Facilities Management Zone 15 (“LFMZ 15”)
until four (4) identified street facilities meet the vehicle level of service (“LOS”)
performance standard of D or the necessary improvements are guaranteed. (See City of
Carlsbad Mun. Code, § 21.90.080.) LOS D simply refers to the rate at which traffic
flows on a roadway, and at LOS D there is no longer free flow of traffic but instead
congestion that borders on unstable flow. (City of Carlsbad, Transportation Impact
Analysis Guidelines (April 2018), p. 22.) While such congestion may be uncomfortable,
there is no indication in the City’s GMP or in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines that such a standard represents an imminent threat to the health and safety
of the residents of LFMZ or those in the immediate area. Accordingly, HCD is of the
opinion that such a moratorium cannot permissibly be adopted or enforced consistent
with Government Code section 66300.
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 13 of 47
Thank you for reaching out to HCD for this guidance. We look forward to hearing from
the City as to the action it takes on its proposed moratorium. Please contact Melinda
Coy of our staff, at Melinda.Coy@hcd.ca.gov with any questions.
Sincerely,
Zachary Olmstead
Deputy Director
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 14 of 47
Exhibit B
STATE Pf CAUf QBNIA -61/§!NE§§ CONSUMER SERVICE§ AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
January 2, 2018
Mr. Joe Hoefgen, City Manager
City of Redondo Beach
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Dear Mr. Hoefgen:
RE: Redondo Beach's 5th Cycle (2013-2021) Adopted Four-Year Housing Element
Update
Thank you for submitting the City of Redondo Beach's housing element adopted
September 19, 2017 and received for review on October 4, 2017. The Department also
received Ordinance No. 3174-17 pertaining to zoning for emergency shelters on
December 20, 2017. Pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65585(h), the
Department is reporting the results of its review.
On July 20, 2017, the Department found the City of Redondo Beach's draft housing
element to meet most statutory requirements. The Department also found the element
would comply with housing element law once the City has completed zoning
amendments to permit emergency shelters and submitted the adopted element. While
the City has completed zoning for emergency shelters and submitted the adopted
element, the Department understands the City, sometime shortly after July 20, 2017, has
adopted an ordinance imposing a moratorium on mixed use development, including
multifamily. The moratorium significantly limits the availability of sites identified in the
element to accommodate lower-income households and constrains a variety of housing
types, including multifamily and supportive housing. As a result, the element does not
comply with housing element law and the following revisions are necessary:
1. Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites
and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of
zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3)). The
inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that
can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2).
The City has a total regional housing need of 1,397 units, including 595 for lower-
income households. To accommodate the projected housing need for lower-income
households, the City identified a capacity for 938 to 1,290 units with appropriate
densities to accommodate lower-income households. However, the recently imposed
moratorium precludes multifamily development on over two-thirds (640 units) of the
identified capacity for lower-income households. Further, the remaining identified
capacity for lower-income households appears attributed to Site #5 where the
Department understands the City is processing a residential development application.
While the Department acknowledges the City's efforts to process a residential
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 15 of 47
Mr. Hoefgen, City Manager
Page 2
development application, the Department understands the application does not
include housing for lower-income households; leaving potentially no capacity
remaining to accommodate lower-income households. As a result, the element must
list and analyze sufficient and suitable sites to accommodate the regional housing
need for lower-income households and include program(s), as appropriate, to
address a shortfall of capacity. The site listing and analysis and programs must
address all the requirements of GC Section 65583.2. For more information, see
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml.
In addition, please be aware housing element law and other housing related laws
have been changed or added and take effect January 1, 2018. For example, no net
loss law (GC Section 65863) was amended to clarify "At no time, ... shall ... " a local
government take action to cause an inventory to be insufficient to accommodate
housing for lower-income households. In addition, housing element law was
amended regarding analysis and programs related to the suitability and availability of
sites (AB 1397). For more information, see the Department's website at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/lhp.shtml.
2. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land-use
controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other
exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures
(Section 65583(a)(5)).
Taking actions to prohibit, even temporarily, multifamily development is viewed as a
serious constraint and contrary to planning and zoning law, particularly housing
element and related laws. This is particularly important since the recently adopted
element makes no mention of imposing a moratorium, nor was the Department made
aware of this crucial information prior to its July 2017 findings. Further, GC Section
65858 was amended in 2001 for the purpose of heightening the standard of findings
when imposing moratoriums on multifamily development. The City's findings do not
appear to meet this heightened standard. For example, the City appears to be
merely relying on a level of service (LOS) standard as a proxy for having a "specific,
adverse impact upon the public health or safety standards" with little or no analysis to
support making such a finding. Given the importance of encouraging multifamily
development and not imposing constraints, the element must be revised to analyze
the moratorium as a constraint on the cost, supply and timing of housing and include
programs as appropriate to address and remove the constraint.
3. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters
and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups
of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide
for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 16 of 47
Mr. Hoefgen, City Manager
Page 3
residential use by right, including density and development standards that could
accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low-and low-income
households (Section 65583(c)(1)).
The housing element shall contain programs which address, and where appropriate and
legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing (Section 65583(c)(3)).
As noted above, the element does not list and analyze sufficient sites to
accommodate the regional housing need and does not include analysis of imposing a
moratorium as a potential constraint. Based on the results of complete analyses, the
City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning
available to encourage a variety of housing types and address and remove
governmental constraints.
Once the element has been revised and adopted to address the above requirements, it
will comply with State housing element law. For more information or assistance, please
contact Greg Nickless, of our staff, at (916) 274-6244.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Seeger
Assistant Deputy Director
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 17 of 47
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-105
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, EXEMPTING STREET FACILITIES FROM THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN VEHICULAR LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD, PURSUANT
TO MOBILITY 3-P.9, THEREBY REFOCUSING PLANNING EFFORTS AT THESE
STREET FACILITIES TO TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES TO REDUCE OVERALL TRIP GENERATION, AND ADOPTION OF
CEQA FINDINGS.
Exhibit 2
WHEREAS, in 1986, the city adopted Proposition E (Growth Management Plan), which amended
the city's General Plan to "ensure that all necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with
need to serve new development ... ln guaranteeing that facilities will be provided emphasis shall be
given to ensuring good traffic circulation, schools, parks, libraries, open space and recreational
amenities;" and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Plan is implemented through Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 21.90 and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; and
WHEREAS, the GMP makes the approval of new development contingent upon adequacy of
public facilities, based on performance standards for eleven identified public facilities incorporated into
the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Mobility Element and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements
Plan (CFIP) include the City's GMP circulation performance standard, which was updated in 2015 to
comply with new state planning laws; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted the Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358), which requires
General Plans "to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all
users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the
rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan;" and
WHEREAS, the Legislature also adopted SB 375 in 2008 which calls public agencies to consider
changes in residential development patterns which provide expanded transit service and accessibility,
walkable communities, access to non-vehicular modes of transportation resulting in reductions in
Vehicle Miles Traveled; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted SB 743 in 2013, which explains that "It is the intent of the
Legislature to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build infill
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 18 of 47
Exhibit 2
housing and mixed-use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit facilities,
downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these
sometimes competing needs" {Gov. Code§ 65088.4{a)); and
WHEREAS, the State Legislative Analyst's Office 2015 Report on California's High Housing Costs,
explains that "Workers in California's coastal communities commute 10 percent further each day than
commuters elsewhere, largely because limited housing options exist near major job centers;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City amended its General Plan and CFIP Circulation Performance
standards to incorporate these new transportation planning strategies to provide access for multi-
modal circulation, which have the benefits of improved air quality, reduced GHG emissions, and
reduced trip generation; and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City's CFIP Circulation Performance Standard was revised to state
"Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system -vehicles,
pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS Dor better for all modes that are subject to this
multi-modal level of service (MM LOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 ofthe General Plan Mobility
Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City's CFIP Circulation Performance Standard was also revised to further
state: "The city's approach to provide livable streets recognizes that optimum service levels cannot be
provided for all travel modes on all streets within the city. This is due to competing interests that arise
when different travel modes mix. Therefore, the General Plan Mobility Element intends to provide a
balanced mobility system that identifies, based on the type of street (street typology), the travel modes
for which service levels should be enhanced and maintained per the multi-modal level of service
(MMLOS) standard specified in the city's Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 Mobility Policy 3-P.9 was adopted and states in part that the City may
"Develop and maintain a list of street facilities where specified modes of travel are exempt from the
LOS standard (LOS exempt street facilities), as approved by the City Council. For LOS exempt street
facilities, the city will not implement improvements to maintain the LOS standard outlined in Policy 3-
P.4 if such improvements are beyond what is identified as appropriate at build out of the General Plan.
In the case of street facilities where the vehicle mode of travel is exempt from the LOS standard, other
non-vehicle capacity-building improvements will be required to improve mobility through
implementation oftransportation demand and transportation system management measures ... ;" and
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 19 of 47
Exhibit 2
WHEREAS, in 2015 North County Advocates filed a lawsuit against the City of Carlsbad
challenging the amendments to the General Plan and the CFIP, alleging that they violated the City's
Growth Management Plan (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (San Diego County Superior
Court Case No. 37-2015-00035458-CU-WM-NC.); and
WHEREAS, in 2017, North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (San Diego County Superior
Court Case No. 37-2015-00035458-CU-WM-NC) was settled and dismissed with prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the 2017 Settlement with North County Advocates acknowledged "As part of the
development review process the City shall evaluate all discretionary projects for consistency with
applicable General Plan policies and CAP measures and actions that aim to reduce roadway congestion
and vehicular miles traveled (VMT), through Transportation Demand Management (TDM techniques
and multi-modal improvements.") Within twelve (12) months, the City shall update is Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, incorporating multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) analysis to address
vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes of travel, and including transportation demand
management (TDM) trip reduction methodologies and best practices to reduce automobile trips and
improvement travel model shift. The updated TIA Guidelines will also be used to determine
requirements for offsetting project impacts and evaluating opportunities for improving project-level
connections for all travel modes (vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit). Within twelve (12) months
of the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issuing final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines
regarding the use of VMT as the primary metric to analyze transportation impacts rather than vehicle
level of service (LOS), the City, in collaboration with SAN DAG and applicable working groups, will revise
the updated TIA Guidelines to be consistent with OPR's final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines"
(2017 North County Advocates Settlement, Section 4.3.6); and
WHEREAS, the GMP requires annual monitoring to measure adequate performance of various
public facilities, including circulation; and
WHEREAS, the FY 2017-2018 annual monitoring report was released in July 2019, and identified
the following eight street facilities within Zone 15 as not meeting the vehicular LOS component of the
City's Circulation performance standard, including:
(1) Southbound El Camino Real from the Oceanside city limits to Marron Road;
(2) Northbound El Camino Real from Marron Road to the Oceanside city limits;
(3) Southbound College Boulevard from Aston Avenue to Palomar Airport Road;
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 20 of 47
Exhibit 2
(4) Southbound Melrose Drive from the Vista city limits to Palomar Airport Road;
(5) Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard;
(6) Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road;
(7) Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard;
(8) Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real;
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2019, city staff presented recommended actions to City Council to
address the vehicular LOS performance standard deficiencies identified in the FY 2017-2018 annual
monitoring report for the above-described street facilities, and City Council returned the item with
direction for staff to formulate alternate solutions; and
WHEREAS, when a performance standard is exceeded, Carlsbad Municipal Code§§ 21.90.080
and 21.90.130 state "If at any time after preparation of a local facilities management plan the
performance standards established by a plan are not met then no development permits or building
permits shall be issued within the local zone until the performance standard is met or arrangements
satisfactory to the city council guaranteeing the facilities and improvements have been made;" and
WHEREAS, the City interprets Carlsbad Municipal Code § 21.90.080 and § 21.90.130 as
providing the City a reasonable period of time for addressing such deficiencies, in keeping with Gov.
Code § 65860(c); and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-270, which
determined street facilities (1) -(4) above deficient under the vehicular LOS component of the
Circulation performance standard, and determined the street facilities identified as 1, 2 and 4 above to
be built out and "exempt" from the vehicular LOS performance standard pursuant to Policy 3-P.9.
Transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) strategies
now apply on those facilities. The council also expedited two Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
projects for street facilities 3 and 4 above. The deficiency reported for street facility 3 would be resolved
by the expedited CIP project approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, as described in the subsequent recitals, the City Attorney and the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) do not believe the City has the authority
to implement a moratorium in response to the vehicular LOS exceedances at roadways 5, 6, 7, and 8,
as contemplated as an option under CMC §§ 21.90.080 and 21.90.130; and
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 21 of 47
Exhibit 2
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 4,999
residential units (General Plan Housing Element, table 10-1) which it has not yet been fulfilled, and
Zone 15 within the City of Carlsbad would allow development of approximately 1,406 dwelling units;
and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 166 of 2017 states that "Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure
that its housing element inventory ... can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its
remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584" and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has taken the position that
exceedances of vehicular Level of Service standards cannot constitute a basis for implementing a
moratorium that precludes attainment of a City's RHNA Allocation (Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, states that where housing is an
allowable use, the City is prohibited for enacting a "development policy, standard or condition" that
would have the effect of "imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing
development ... other than to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of
persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium ... ," and any
moratorium adopted pursuant to such an exemption would require approval from HCD (Gov. Code, §
66300{b){l){B)(i) and (ii)); and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2020 the City of Carlsbad received an opinion from HCD {Exhibit A) which
states in part that "the housing moratorium adopted pursuant to the City's GMP would be
impermissible under Government Code section 66300 ... HCD does not consider, however, that general
concerns about the health and welfare of the citizenry-including traffic conditions that cause minor
delays-present an imminent threat to health and safety ... ln this case, the City's proposed moratorium
would prohibit the issuance of any development or building permits in Local Facilities Management
Zone 15 {"LFMZ 15") until four (4) identified street facilities meet the vehicle level of service ("LOS")
performance standard of Dor the necessary improvements are guaranteed. (See City of Carlsbad Mun.
Code, § 21.90.080.) LOS D simply refers to the rate at which traffic flows on a roadway, and at LOS D
there is no longer free flow of traffic but instead congestion that borders on unstable flow ... While such
congestion may be uncomfortable, there is no indication in the City's GMP or in the City's
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines that such a standard represents an imminent threat to the
health and safety of the residents of LFMZ or those in the immediate area. Accordingly, HCD is of the
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 22 of 47
Exhibit 2
opinion that such a moratorium cannot permissibly be adopted or enforced consistent with
Government Code section 66300;" and
WHEREAS, city staff recommended addressing the LOS deficiencies at (5) El Camino Real
southbound from Cannon Road to College Boulevard and (6) El Camino Real northbound from College
Boulevard to Cannon Road through an exemption to the LOS D standard pursuant to Mobility Element
Policy 3-P.9 (d), because roadway improvements would require more than three through lanes in each
direction of travel, which is inconsistent with the General Plan Mobility Element, Policy 3-P.9(d); and
WHEREAS, city staff recommended addressing the vehicular LOS deficiencies at (7) Cannon
Road eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard and (8) Cannon Road westbound from
College Boulevard to El Camino Real through an exemption to the vehicular LOS D standard pursuant
to Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a), because roadway improvements would require acquisition of
additional right of way, which would require encroachment into open space for the preservation of
natural resources, the westbound new travel lane would encroach into the road setback of the adjacent
community and large slopes would require considerable grading and a trail easement along the
eastbound lane would need to be relinquished by the city, as well as Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (c),
because the proposed improvements would present unacceptable impacts to the following community
values and General Plan policies: (1) the Carlsbad Community Vision core value of "Walking, biking,
public transportation and connectivity", (2) the Carlsbad Community Vision core value of "Open space
and the natural environment", and (3) General Plan Mobility Element Goal 3-G.6, which calls for the
city to, "Protect and enhance the visual, environmental and historical characteristics of Carlsbad
through sensitive planning and design of scenic transportation corridors;" and
WHEREAS, for the street facilities of El Camino Real southbound from Cannon Road to College
Boulevard; El Camino Real northbound from College Boulevard to Cannon Road; Cannon Road
eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard; and Cannon Road westbound from College
Boulevard to El Camino Real, staff recommended that the City Council determine the deficient street
facility to be built-out and exempt from the vehicular LOS D standard and apply TOM and TSM
strategies to new development that adds vehicle traffic to the exempt street facilities;
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 23 of 47
Exhibit 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as
findings set forth in full.
2. The City finds that Gov. Code§ 65863{a) (SB 166 [2017]) and Gov. Code,§ 66300{b)(l)(B)(i)
(SB 330 [2019]) preempt the City from implementing a moratorium pursuant to Carlsbad
Municipal Code§§ 21.90.080 and 21.90.130 and GMP regulations;
3. That the City Council determines El Camino Real southbound from Cannon Road to College
Boulevard (Street Facility No. (5)) and El Camino Real northbound from College Boulevard
to Cannon Road (Street Facility No. (6)) are built-out and exempt from the Mobility Element
and the CFIP vehicular LOS performance standard pursuant to General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.9 (d), as roadway improvements to address the deficiencies would
require more than three through travel lanes in each direction even after completion of
CIP projects. Any future development which adds vehicle traffic to these exempt street
facilities shall implement TOM and TSM strategies in accordance with General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.11.
4. That the City Council determines Cannon Road eastbound from El Camino Real to College
Boulevard (Street Facility No. (7)) and Cannon Road westbound from College Boulevard to
El Camino Real {Street Facility No. (8)) are exempt from the Mobility Element and the CFIP
vehicular LOS D performance standard pursuant to Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a},
because roadway improvements to address the deficiency would require acquisition of
additional right of way, as well as Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (c), because the proposed
improvements would present unacceptable impacts to the following community values
and General Plan policies: (1) the Carlsbad Community Vision core value of "Walking,
biking, public transportation and connectivity," (2) the Carlsbad Community Vision core
value of "Open space and the natural environment," and (3) General Plan Mobility Element
Goal 3-G.6, which calls for the city to, "Protect and enhance the visual, environmental and
historical characteristics of Carlsbad through sensitive planning and design of scenic
transportation corridors." This is infeasible as stated in the findings above. Any future
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 24 of 47
Exhibit 2
development which adds vehicle traffic to these exempt street facilities shall implement
TDM and TSM strategies in accordance with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.ll.
5. The City further finds that the College Boulevard extension project is currently infeasible
because the private property owners are obligated to build it per the LFMZ 15 Plan and
CFIP but they indicated they will not do so in the foreseeable future.
6. The City finds that exempting these roadways from the vehicular Level of Service
performance standard would not result in any significant environmental impacts because
(1) this would maintain existing conditions and would therefore not result in an
environmental impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2), and (2) vehicular Level of Service
is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §
21099{b)(2)). Therefore, the City finds that exemption of such street facilities from
vehicular LOS standards is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(5),
and CEQA Guidelines§§ 15305, 15061{b)(3)).
7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the resolution. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Exhibit A: April 17, 2020 Opinion from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) Regarding Senate Bill 330
Exhibit B: January 2, 2018 HCD Letter to City of Redondo Beach Regarding Senate Bill 166
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 25 of 47
Exhibit 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on
the 9th day of June 2020, by the following vote, to wit:
AVES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel.
Schumacher.
None.
MATT HALL, Mayor
l~ Hec-J,;r ~me,,1
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk /)e~vi_J
{SEAL) Ci;
CJer✓
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 26 of 47
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453www.hcd.ca.gov
April 17, 2020
Celia A. Brewer, City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Celia Brewer:
RE: Housing Crisis Act of 2019, Request for Opinion Under Government Code Section 66300 et seq.
The purpose of this letter is to assist the City of Carlsbad (City) in the implementation of
the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code, § 66300) as requested in your letter dated
February 27, 2020. In that letter, the City requested the California Department of
Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) opinion as to the enforceability of a
moratorium proposed pursuant to the City’s Growth Management Program (Proposition
E or GMP). For the reasons explained below, HCD finds that the housing development
moratorium adopted pursuant to the City’s GMP would be impermissible under
Government Code section 66300. Should the City decide to adopt a moratorium,
notwithstanding this opinion, HCD reminds the City that it cannot legally enforce such a
moratorium before obtaining HCD’s approval pursuant to Government Code section
66300, subdivision (b)(1)(B)(ii).
HCD’s opinion is based on the mandatory criteria established by the Legislature with the
passage of SB 330 in 2019, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which added
section 66300 to the Government Code. The State of California is experiencing a
housing supply shortage of crisis proportions. To address this crisis, the Legislature
declared a statewide housing emergency until 2025, and suspended certain restrictions
on development of new housing during the emergency period. (Housing Crisis Act of
2019, Chapter 654, Statues of 2019, section 2(b).) Among other things, the Legislature
suspended the ability of cities and counties to impose moratoria on housing
development, including mixed-use development, “other than to specifically protect
against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium.” (Gov. Code,
§ 66300, subd. (b)(1)(B), emphasis added.)
Exhibit A
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 27 of 47
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 does not define “imminent threat to the health and
safety of persons.” HCD does not consider, however, that general concerns about the
health and welfare of the citizenry—including traffic conditions that cause minor
delays—present an imminent threat to health and safety. The word imminent suggests
something that will happen in the very immediate future. (Black’s Law Dictionary (11th
ed. 2019) (“Imminent” means “threatening to occur immediately; dangerously
impending” or “[a]bout to take place.”); Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed.
2010) (“Imminent” means “likely to happen without delay; impending; threatening”).)
Imminent threats to the “health and safety of persons” implies an impending or
immediate threat to human life, human health, or human safety. It is a much narrower
consideration that notions of “health and welfare” that motivated the adoption of the
City’s GMP.
The City’s GMP appears to be designed to assure that housing development in the City
and the provision of public services are closely aligned (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code, §
21.09.010.) Nothing in the City’s GMP or in its Growth Management Ordinance (City of
Carlsbad Mun. Code, Chapter 21.90) indicate that they were adopted with the intent to
avert imminent threat to the health and safety of the residents of Carlsbad. Neither do
the GMP or the Growth Management Ordinance indicate that imminent threats to health
and safety are a mandatory consideration in deciding whether to impose such a
moratorium. The purposes of the ordinance are reflected in its placement in the
Municipal Code. The ordinance is housed in the Zoning Code, under the chapter for
Growth Management, rather than under, for instance, Health and Sanitation, which
includes Emergency Services and Health and Sanitation. The overall purpose of the
Zoning Code is described as “to provide the economic and social advantages resulting
from an orderly planned use of land resources.” (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code, §
21.02.010.)
In this case, the City’s proposed moratorium would prohibit the issuance of any
development or building permits in Local Facilities Management Zone 15 (“LFMZ 15”)
until four (4) identified street facilities meet the vehicle level of service (“LOS”)
performance standard of D or the necessary improvements are guaranteed. (See City of
Carlsbad Mun. Code, § 21.90.080.) LOS D simply refers to the rate at which traffic
flows on a roadway, and at LOS D there is no longer free flow of traffic but instead
congestion that borders on unstable flow. (City of Carlsbad, Transportation Impact
Analysis Guidelines (April 2018), p. 22.) While such congestion may be uncomfortable,
there is no indication in the City’s GMP or in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines that such a standard represents an imminent threat to the health and safety
of the residents of LFMZ or those in the immediate area. Accordingly, HCD is of the
opinion that such a moratorium cannot permissibly be adopted or enforced consistent
with Government Code section 66300.
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 28 of 47
Thank you for reaching out to HCD for this guidance. We look forward to hearing from
the City as to the action it takes on its proposed moratorium. Please contact Melinda
Coy of our staff, at Melinda.Coy@hcd.ca.gov with any questions.
Sincerely,
Zachary Olmstead
Deputy Director
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 29 of 47
Exhibit B
STATE Pf CAUf QBNIA -61/§!NE§§ CONSUMER SERVICE§ AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
January 2, 2018
Mr. Joe Hoefgen, City Manager
City of Redondo Beach
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Dear Mr. Hoefgen:
RE: Redondo Beach's 5th Cycle (2013-2021) Adopted Four-Year Housing Element
Update
Thank you for submitting the City of Redondo Beach's housing element adopted
September 19, 2017 and received for review on October 4, 2017. The Department also
received Ordinance No. 3174-17 pertaining to zoning for emergency shelters on
December 20, 2017. Pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65585(h), the
Department is reporting the results of its review.
On July 20, 2017, the Department found the City of Redondo Beach's draft housing
element to meet most statutory requirements. The Department also found the element
would comply with housing element law once the City has completed zoning
amendments to permit emergency shelters and submitted the adopted element. While
the City has completed zoning for emergency shelters and submitted the adopted
element, the Department understands the City, sometime shortly after July 20, 2017, has
adopted an ordinance imposing a moratorium on mixed use development, including
multifamily. The moratorium significantly limits the availability of sites identified in the
element to accommodate lower-income households and constrains a variety of housing
types, including multifamily and supportive housing. As a result, the element does not
comply with housing element law and the following revisions are necessary:
1. Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites
and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of
zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3)). The
inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that
can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2).
The City has a total regional housing need of 1,397 units, including 595 for lower-
income households. To accommodate the projected housing need for lower-income
households, the City identified a capacity for 938 to 1,290 units with appropriate
densities to accommodate lower-income households. However, the recently imposed
moratorium precludes multifamily development on over two-thirds (640 units) of the
identified capacity for lower-income households. Further, the remaining identified
capacity for lower-income households appears attributed to Site #5 where the
Department understands the City is processing a residential development application.
While the Department acknowledges the City's efforts to process a residential
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 30 of 47
Mr. Hoefgen, City Manager
Page 2
development application, the Department understands the application does not
include housing for lower-income households; leaving potentially no capacity
remaining to accommodate lower-income households. As a result, the element must
list and analyze sufficient and suitable sites to accommodate the regional housing
need for lower-income households and include program(s), as appropriate, to
address a shortfall of capacity. The site listing and analysis and programs must
address all the requirements of GC Section 65583.2. For more information, see
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml.
In addition, please be aware housing element law and other housing related laws
have been changed or added and take effect January 1, 2018. For example, no net
loss law (GC Section 65863) was amended to clarify "At no time, ... shall ... " a local
government take action to cause an inventory to be insufficient to accommodate
housing for lower-income households. In addition, housing element law was
amended regarding analysis and programs related to the suitability and availability of
sites (AB 1397). For more information, see the Department's website at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/lhp.shtml.
2. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land-use
controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other
exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures
(Section 65583(a)(5)).
Taking actions to prohibit, even temporarily, multifamily development is viewed as a
serious constraint and contrary to planning and zoning law, particularly housing
element and related laws. This is particularly important since the recently adopted
element makes no mention of imposing a moratorium, nor was the Department made
aware of this crucial information prior to its July 2017 findings. Further, GC Section
65858 was amended in 2001 for the purpose of heightening the standard of findings
when imposing moratoriums on multifamily development. The City's findings do not
appear to meet this heightened standard. For example, the City appears to be
merely relying on a level of service (LOS) standard as a proxy for having a "specific,
adverse impact upon the public health or safety standards" with little or no analysis to
support making such a finding. Given the importance of encouraging multifamily
development and not imposing constraints, the element must be revised to analyze
the moratorium as a constraint on the cost, supply and timing of housing and include
programs as appropriate to address and remove the constraint.
3. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters
and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups
of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide
for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 31 of 47
Mr. Hoefgen, City Manager
Page 3
residential use by right, including density and development standards that could
accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low-and low-income
households (Section 65583(c)(1)).
The housing element shall contain programs which address, and where appropriate and
legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing (Section 65583(c)(3)).
As noted above, the element does not list and analyze sufficient sites to
accommodate the regional housing need and does not include analysis of imposing a
moratorium as a potential constraint. Based on the results of complete analyses, the
City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning
available to encourage a variety of housing types and address and remove
governmental constraints.
Once the element has been revised and adopted to address the above requirements, it
will comply with State housing element law. For more information or assistance, please
contact Greg Nickless, of our staff, at (916) 274-6244.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Seeger
Assistant Deputy Director
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 32 of 47
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-106
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, EXPEDITING CIP PROJECT NO. 6094 (WIDENING NORTHBOUND
EL CAMINO REAL FROM SUNNY CREEK ROAD TO JACKSPAR DRIVE), AND
ADOPTION OF CEQA FINDINGS.
Exhibit 3
WHEREAS, in 1986, the city adopted Proposition E (Growth Management Plan), which amended
the city's General Plan to "ensure that all necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with
need to serve new development ... In guaranteeing that facilities will be provided emphasis shall be
given to ensuring good traffic circulation, schools, parks, libraries, open space and recreational
amenities;" and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Plan is implemented through Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 21.90 and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; and
WHEREAS, the GMP makes the approval of new development contingent upon adequacy of
public facilities, based on performance standards for eleven identified public facilities incorporated into
the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Mobility Element and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements
Plan (CFIP) include the City's GMP circulation performance standard, which was updated in 2015 to
comply with new state planning laws; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted the Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358), which requires
General Plans "to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all
users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the
rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan;" and
WHEREAS, the Legislature also adopted SB 375 in 2008 which calls public agencies to consider
changes in residential development patterns which provide expanded transit service and accessibility,
walkable communities, access to non-vehicular modes of transportation resulting in reductions in
Vehicle Miles Traveled; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted SB 743 in 2013, which explains that "It is the intent of the
Legislature to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build infill
housing and mixed-use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit facilities,
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 33 of 47
Exhibit 3
downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these
sometimes competing needs" (Gov. Code § 65088.4(a)); and
WHEREAS, the State Legislative Analyst's Office 2015 Report on California's High Housing Costs,
explains that "Workers in California's coastal communities commute 10 percent further each day than
commuters elsewhere, largely because limited housing options exist near major job centers;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City amended its General Plan and CFIP Circulation Performance
standards to incorporate these new transportation planning strategies to provide access for multi-
modal circulation, which have the benefits of improved air quality, reduced GHG emissions, and
reduced trip generation; and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City's CFIP Circulation Performance Standard was revised to state
"Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system -vehicles,
pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS D or better for all modes that are subject to this
multi-modal level of service (MM LOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility
Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City's CFIP Circulation Performance Standard was also revised to further
state: "The city's approach to provide livable streets recognizes that optimum service levels cannot be
provided for all travel modes on all streets within the city. This is due to competing interests that arise
when different travel modes mix. Therefore, the General Plan Mobility Element intends to provide a
balanced mobility system that identifies, based on the type of street (street typology), the travel modes
for which service levels should be enhanced and maintained per the multi-modal level of service
(MMLOS) standard specified in the city's Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 Mobility Policy 3-P.9 was adopted and states in part that the City may
"Develop and maintain a list of street facilities where specified modes of travel are exempt from the
LOS standard (LOS exempt street facilities), as approved by the City Council. For LOS exempt street
facilities, the city will not implement improvements to maintain the LOS standard outlined in Policy 3-
P.4 if such improvements are beyond what is identified as appropriate at build out of the General Plan.
In the case of street facilities where the vehicle mode of travel is exempt from the LOS standard, other
non-vehicle capacity-building improvements will be required to improve mobility through
implementation of transportation demand and transportation system management measures ... ;" and
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 34 of 47
Exhibit 3
WHEREAS, in 2015 North County Advocates filed a lawsuit against the City of Carlsbad
challenging the amendments to the General Plan and the CFIP, alleging that they violated the City's
Growth Management Plan (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (San Diego County Superior
Court Case No. 37-2015-00035458-CU-WM-NC.); and
WHEREAS, in 2017, North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (San Diego County Superior
Court Case No. 37-2015-00035458-CU-WM-NC) was settled and dismissed with prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the 2017 Settlement with North County Advocates acknowledged "As part of the
development review process the City shall evaluate all discretionary projects for consistency with
applicable General Plan policies and CAP measures and actions that aim to reduce roadway congestion
and vehicular miles traveled (VMT), through Transportation Demand Management (TDM techniques
and multi-modal improvements.") Within twelve (12) months, the City shall update is Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, incorporating multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) analysis to address
vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes of travel, and including transportation demand
management (TDM) trip reduction methodologies and best practices to reduce automobile trips and
improvement travel model shift. The updated TIA Guidelines will also be used to determine
requirements for offsetting project impacts and evaluating opportunities for improving project-level
connections for all travel modes (vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit). Within twelve (12) months
of the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issuing final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines
regarding the use of VMT as the primary metric to analyze transportation impacts rather than vehicle
level of service (LOS), the City, in collaboration with SAN DAG and applicable working groups, will revise
the updated TIA Guidelines to be consistent with OPR's final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines"
(2017 North County Advocates Settlement, Section 4.3.6); and
WHEREAS, the GMP requires annual monitoring to measure adequate performance of various
public facilities, including circulation; and
WHEREAS, the FY 2017-2018 annual monitoring report was released in July 2019, and identified
the following eight street facilities within Zone 15 as not meeting the vehicular LOS component of the
City's Circulation performance standard, including:
(1) Southbound El Camino Real from the Oceanside city limits to Marron Road;
(2) Northbound El Camino Real from Marron Road to the Oceanside city limits;
(3) Southbound College Boulevard from Aston Avenue to Palomar Airport Road;
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 35 of 47
Exhibit 3
(4) Southbound Melrose Drive from the Vista city limits to Palomar Airport Road;
(5) Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard;
(6) Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road;
(7) Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard;
(8) Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real;
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2019, city staff presented recommended actions to City Council to
address the vehicular LOS performance standard deficiencies identified in the FY 2017-2018 annual
monitoring report for the above-described street facilities, and City Council returned the item with
direction for staff to formulate alternate solutions; and
WHEREAS, when a performance standard is exceeded, Carlsbad Municipal Code§§ 21.90.080
and 21.90.130 state "If at any time after preparation of a local facilities management plan the
performance standards established by a plan are not met then no development permits or building
permits shall be issued within the local zone until the performance standard is met or arrangements
satisfactory to the city council guaranteeing the facilities and improvements have been made;" and
WHEREAS, the City interprets Carlsbad Municipal Code § 21.90.080 and § 21.90.130 as
providing the City a reasonable period of time for addressing such deficiencies, in keeping with Gov.
Code § 65860(c); and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-270, which
determined street facilities (1) -(4) above deficient under the vehicular LOS component of the
Circulation performance standard, and determined the street facilities identified as 1, 2 and 4 above to
be built out and "exempt" from the vehicular LOS performance standard pursuant to Policy 3-P.9.
Transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) strategies
now apply on those facilities. The council also expedited two Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
projects for street facilities 3 and 4 above. The deficiency reported for street facility 3 would be resolved
by the expedited CIP project approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, as described in the subsequent recitals, the City Attorney and the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) do not believe the City has the authority
to implement a moratorium in response to the vehicular LOS exceedances at roadways 5, 6, 7, and 8,
as contemplated as an option under CMC §§ 21.90.080 and 21.90.130; and
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 36 of 47
Exhibit 3
' WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 4,999
residential units (General Plan Housing Element, table 10-1) which it has not yet been fulfilled, and
Zone 15 within the City of Carlsbad would allow development of approximately 1,406 dwelling units;
and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 166 of 2017 states that "Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure
that its housing element inventory ... can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its
remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584" and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has taken the position that
exceedances of vehicular Level of Service standards cannot constitute a basis for implementing a
moratorium that precludes attainment of a City's RHNA Allocation (Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, states that where housing is an
allowable use, the City is prohibited for enacting a "development policy, standard or condition" that
would have the effect of "imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing
development ... other than to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of
persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium ... ," and any
moratorium adopted pursuant to such an exemption would require approval from HCD (Gov. Code, §
66300(b)(l)(B)(i) and (ii)); and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2020 the City of Carlsbad received an opinion from HCD (Exhibit A) which
states in part that "the housing moratorium adopted pursuant to the City's GMP would be
impermissible under Government Code section 66300 ... HCD does not consider, however, that general
concerns about the health and welfare of the citizenry-including traffic conditions that cause minor
delays-present an imminent threat to health and safety ... ln this case, the City's proposed moratorium
would prohibit the issuance of any development or building permits in Local Facilities Management
Zone 15 ("LFMZ 15") until four (4) identified street facilities meet the vehicle level of service ("LOS")
performance standard of Dor the necessary improvements are guaranteed. (See City of Carlsbad Mun.
Code, § 21.90.080.) LOS D simply refers to the rate at which traffic flows on a roadway, and at LOS D
there is no longer free flow of traffic but instead congestion that borders on unstable flow ... While such
congestion may be uncomfortable, there is no indication in the City's GMP or in the City's
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines that such a standard represents an imminent threat to the
health and safety of the residents of LFMZ or those in the immediate area. Accordingly, HCD is of the
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 37 of 47
Exhibit 3
opinion that such a moratorium cannot permissibly be adopted or enforced consistent with
Government Code section 66300;" and
WHEREAS, although it will not fully address the LOS D deficiency at El Camino Real
northbound from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive, city staff recommended implementing CIP No.
6094 to widen northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive (approximately
0.45 miles) to add a third northbound through lane to improve localized traffic congestion at this
location. The City finds that this roadway improvement project is not anticipated to have significant
environmental impacts and would be locally serving, would not induce additional trips, and would
enhance roadway, pedestrian and cyclist safety, including a class 2 buffered bike lane and sidewalk,
however, CIP Project No. 6904 will be subject to further environmental review once the scope of the
project is developed. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, this action simply seeks to
advance the project on the CIP schedule, by initiating additional planning for this CIP Project to further
refine the project description and initiating CEQA review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as
findings set forth in full.
2. The City finds that Gov. Code§ 65863{a) (SB 166 [2017]) and Gov. Code,§ 66300{b)(l)(B)(i)
(SB 330 [2019]) preempt the City from implementing a moratorium pursuant to Carlsbad
Municipal Code§§ 21.90.080 and 21.90.130 and GMP regulations;
3. In relation to the street section of El Camino Real northbound from Sunny Creek Road to
Jackspar Drive, City Council directs staff to expedite the roadway improvements under
existing CIP Project No. 6094 to partially address the identified LOS performance standard
deficiency, by initiating additional planning for this CIP Project to further refine the project
description and initiating CEQA review.
Exhibit A: April 17, 2020 Opinion from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) Regarding Senate Bill 330
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 38 of 47
Exhibit 3
Exhibit B: January 2, 2018 HCD Letter to City of Redondo Beach Regarding Senate Bill 166
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 9th day of June 2020, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher.
None.
None.
MATT HALL, Mayor
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 39 of 47
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453www.hcd.ca.gov
April 17, 2020
Celia A. Brewer, City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Celia Brewer:
RE: Housing Crisis Act of 2019, Request for Opinion Under Government Code Section 66300 et seq.
The purpose of this letter is to assist the City of Carlsbad (City) in the implementation of
the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code, § 66300) as requested in your letter dated
February 27, 2020. In that letter, the City requested the California Department of
Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) opinion as to the enforceability of a
moratorium proposed pursuant to the City’s Growth Management Program (Proposition
E or GMP). For the reasons explained below, HCD finds that the housing development
moratorium adopted pursuant to the City’s GMP would be impermissible under
Government Code section 66300. Should the City decide to adopt a moratorium,
notwithstanding this opinion, HCD reminds the City that it cannot legally enforce such a
moratorium before obtaining HCD’s approval pursuant to Government Code section
66300, subdivision (b)(1)(B)(ii).
HCD’s opinion is based on the mandatory criteria established by the Legislature with the
passage of SB 330 in 2019, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which added
section 66300 to the Government Code. The State of California is experiencing a
housing supply shortage of crisis proportions. To address this crisis, the Legislature
declared a statewide housing emergency until 2025, and suspended certain restrictions
on development of new housing during the emergency period. (Housing Crisis Act of
2019, Chapter 654, Statues of 2019, section 2(b).) Among other things, the Legislature
suspended the ability of cities and counties to impose moratoria on housing
development, including mixed-use development, “other than to specifically protect
against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium.” (Gov. Code,
§ 66300, subd. (b)(1)(B), emphasis added.)
Exhibit A
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 40 of 47
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 does not define “imminent threat to the health and
safety of persons.” HCD does not consider, however, that general concerns about the
health and welfare of the citizenry—including traffic conditions that cause minor
delays—present an imminent threat to health and safety. The word imminent suggests
something that will happen in the very immediate future. (Black’s Law Dictionary (11th
ed. 2019) (“Imminent” means “threatening to occur immediately; dangerously
impending” or “[a]bout to take place.”); Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed.
2010) (“Imminent” means “likely to happen without delay; impending; threatening”).)
Imminent threats to the “health and safety of persons” implies an impending or
immediate threat to human life, human health, or human safety. It is a much narrower
consideration that notions of “health and welfare” that motivated the adoption of the
City’s GMP.
The City’s GMP appears to be designed to assure that housing development in the City
and the provision of public services are closely aligned (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code, §
21.09.010.) Nothing in the City’s GMP or in its Growth Management Ordinance (City of
Carlsbad Mun. Code, Chapter 21.90) indicate that they were adopted with the intent to
avert imminent threat to the health and safety of the residents of Carlsbad. Neither do
the GMP or the Growth Management Ordinance indicate that imminent threats to health
and safety are a mandatory consideration in deciding whether to impose such a
moratorium. The purposes of the ordinance are reflected in its placement in the
Municipal Code. The ordinance is housed in the Zoning Code, under the chapter for
Growth Management, rather than under, for instance, Health and Sanitation, which
includes Emergency Services and Health and Sanitation. The overall purpose of the
Zoning Code is described as “to provide the economic and social advantages resulting
from an orderly planned use of land resources.” (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code, §
21.02.010.)
In this case, the City’s proposed moratorium would prohibit the issuance of any
development or building permits in Local Facilities Management Zone 15 (“LFMZ 15”)
until four (4) identified street facilities meet the vehicle level of service (“LOS”)
performance standard of D or the necessary improvements are guaranteed. (See City of
Carlsbad Mun. Code, § 21.90.080.) LOS D simply refers to the rate at which traffic
flows on a roadway, and at LOS D there is no longer free flow of traffic but instead
congestion that borders on unstable flow. (City of Carlsbad, Transportation Impact
Analysis Guidelines (April 2018), p. 22.) While such congestion may be uncomfortable,
there is no indication in the City’s GMP or in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines that such a standard represents an imminent threat to the health and safety
of the residents of LFMZ or those in the immediate area. Accordingly, HCD is of the
opinion that such a moratorium cannot permissibly be adopted or enforced consistent
with Government Code section 66300.
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 41 of 47
Thank you for reaching out to HCD for this guidance. We look forward to hearing from
the City as to the action it takes on its proposed moratorium. Please contact Melinda
Coy of our staff, at Melinda.Coy@hcd.ca.gov with any questions.
Sincerely,
Zachary Olmstead
Deputy Director
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 42 of 47
Exhibit B
STATE Pf CAUf QBNIA -61/§!NE§§ CONSUMER SERVICE§ AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
January 2, 2018
Mr. Joe Hoefgen, City Manager
City of Redondo Beach
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Dear Mr. Hoefgen:
RE: Redondo Beach's 5th Cycle (2013-2021) Adopted Four-Year Housing Element
Update
Thank you for submitting the City of Redondo Beach's housing element adopted
September 19, 2017 and received for review on October 4, 2017. The Department also
received Ordinance No. 3174-17 pertaining to zoning for emergency shelters on
December 20, 2017. Pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65585(h), the
Department is reporting the results of its review.
On July 20, 2017, the Department found the City of Redondo Beach's draft housing
element to meet most statutory requirements. The Department also found the element
would comply with housing element law once the City has completed zoning
amendments to permit emergency shelters and submitted the adopted element. While
the City has completed zoning for emergency shelters and submitted the adopted
element, the Department understands the City, sometime shortly after July 20, 2017, has
adopted an ordinance imposing a moratorium on mixed use development, including
multifamily. The moratorium significantly limits the availability of sites identified in the
element to accommodate lower-income households and constrains a variety of housing
types, including multifamily and supportive housing. As a result, the element does not
comply with housing element law and the following revisions are necessary:
1. Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites
and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of
zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3)). The
inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that
can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2).
The City has a total regional housing need of 1,397 units, including 595 for lower-
income households. To accommodate the projected housing need for lower-income
households, the City identified a capacity for 938 to 1,290 units with appropriate
densities to accommodate lower-income households. However, the recently imposed
moratorium precludes multifamily development on over two-thirds (640 units) of the
identified capacity for lower-income households. Further, the remaining identified
capacity for lower-income households appears attributed to Site #5 where the
Department understands the City is processing a residential development application.
While the Department acknowledges the City's efforts to process a residential
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 43 of 47
Mr. Hoefgen, City Manager
Page 2
development application, the Department understands the application does not
include housing for lower-income households; leaving potentially no capacity
remaining to accommodate lower-income households. As a result, the element must
list and analyze sufficient and suitable sites to accommodate the regional housing
need for lower-income households and include program(s), as appropriate, to
address a shortfall of capacity. The site listing and analysis and programs must
address all the requirements of GC Section 65583.2. For more information, see
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml.
In addition, please be aware housing element law and other housing related laws
have been changed or added and take effect January 1, 2018. For example, no net
loss law (GC Section 65863) was amended to clarify "At no time, ... shall ... " a local
government take action to cause an inventory to be insufficient to accommodate
housing for lower-income households. In addition, housing element law was
amended regarding analysis and programs related to the suitability and availability of
sites (AB 1397). For more information, see the Department's website at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/lhp.shtml.
2. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land-use
controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other
exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures
(Section 65583(a)(5)).
Taking actions to prohibit, even temporarily, multifamily development is viewed as a
serious constraint and contrary to planning and zoning law, particularly housing
element and related laws. This is particularly important since the recently adopted
element makes no mention of imposing a moratorium, nor was the Department made
aware of this crucial information prior to its July 2017 findings. Further, GC Section
65858 was amended in 2001 for the purpose of heightening the standard of findings
when imposing moratoriums on multifamily development. The City's findings do not
appear to meet this heightened standard. For example, the City appears to be
merely relying on a level of service (LOS) standard as a proxy for having a "specific,
adverse impact upon the public health or safety standards" with little or no analysis to
support making such a finding. Given the importance of encouraging multifamily
development and not imposing constraints, the element must be revised to analyze
the moratorium as a constraint on the cost, supply and timing of housing and include
programs as appropriate to address and remove the constraint.
3. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters
and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups
of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide
for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 44 of 47
Mr. Hoefgen, City Manager
Page 3
residential use by right, including density and development standards that could
accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low-and low-income
households (Section 65583(c)(1)).
The housing element shall contain programs which address, and where appropriate and
legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing (Section 65583(c)(3)).
As noted above, the element does not list and analyze sufficient sites to
accommodate the regional housing need and does not include analysis of imposing a
moratorium as a potential constraint. Based on the results of complete analyses, the
City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning
available to encourage a variety of housing types and address and remove
governmental constraints.
Once the element has been revised and adopted to address the above requirements, it
will comply with State housing element law. For more information or assistance, please
contact Greg Nickless, of our staff, at (916) 274-6244.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Seeger
Assistant Deputy Director
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 45 of 47
Exhibit 4
May 5, 2020 City Council Staff Report
DETERMINATION OF FOUR DEFICIENT STREET FACILITIES AND FINANCING PROGRAM OPTIONS,
INCLUDING EXTENSION OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD – On file in the Office of the City Clerk.
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 46 of 47
OCEANSIDE
SAN
M
A
R
C
O
S
ENCINITAS
}}78
MCCLELLAN
-PALOMAR
AIRPORT
Agua Hedionda Lagoon
BuenaVistaLagoon
CalaveraLake
MaerkleReservoir
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
PacificOcean
!"^
?¸
Batiquitos Lagoon
6
25
1 2 7
14
15
5
16
17 1810
1112
8 24
133
2022
9 19
4 21
23
PALOMARAIRP O RT RD
CANNONRD
POINSETTIA LN
LA COSTAAVCARLSBADBL ELCAMINO
REAL
CA
MIN O V IDAROBLE
RA N CHO S A N T AFERDTAMARACK AV
AVIARA
P
YMELROSEDRM ARRONRD
ALGA RDAVENIDAENCINASPASEODELNORTECARLSBADVILLAGEDR
C O LLEGEB LCARLSBADBLOLIVE
N
H
A
I
N
RD
P O IN S ETTIALN
Deficient Street SegmentsWith Local FacilityManagement Zones
Deficient Street Segment
Highway
Major Street
Planned Street
Railroad
Lagoon
J:\RequestsMarch2015\PublicWorks\Transportation\RITM0014205_19\LFMZ+DeficientStreets.mxd
0 3,000
Feet[
EXHIBIT 5
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 47 of 47
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Linke <splinke@gmail.com>
Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1 :42 AM
City Clerk
All Receive -Agenda Item# B
For the Information of the:
. CIJ! COUNCIL ·
Date l.i!j::J__ CA ~c ~
CM -11:CM ....--0CM (3) ;:..,----
Addendum to correspondence for 6/9/2020 City Council Item #8
Please distribute this addendum to my previous letter on Item #8 of the 6/9/2020 City Council agenda
Mayor and Councilmembers:
Based upon further review today of public records of past street facility deficiencies, I believe that council can address
the current deficiencies without invoking any GMP exemptions by simply adopting a resolution that appropriates
funds for the initial engineering study of the College Boulevard extension.
The El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue intersection failed the LOS performance standard in 1997, and there was an
improvement project to address the deficiency. In that case, council declared the intersection in compliance with the
GMP simply by adopting a resolution that (1) appropriated funds for the design study for the improvement project and
(2) directed staff to carry out the project, which was described in general terms in an attached memorandum. The
Agenda Bill stated that additional funds to cover the eventual construction costs would be appropriated at a future date
(Agenda Bill 14,696, 6/2/1998).
In the current case, council has already directed staff to pursue city-led financing of the College extension project with a
corresponding amendment to the LFMZ 15 plan, and the engineering study was discussed as the first step. There is
already $1.2 million earmarked for the study, and there are certainly additional funds available, if necessary (e.g.,
TransNet, up to a $1 million loan from the General Fund, Traffic Impact Fee funds, gas tax funds, etc.).
Optionally, the College extension portions of the LFMZ 15 plan also could be amended immediately to say that the city is
committing to upfront funding of at least the first two lanes, with developers being required to pay their proportionate
shares of those lanes, grading, frontages, two additional lanes, etc. to be determined in the future. That is essentially
how the LFMZs were written for the construction of some parts of Palomar Airport Road. The GMP gives council the
power to create LFMZ plans when developers fail to do so.
Thus, following these past precedents will satisfy the GMP Section 21.90.080 requirement, "arrangements satisfactory
to the city council guaranteeing the facilities and improvements," without the need for exemptions.
Best regards,
Steve Linke
Carlsbad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
1
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Council Internet Email
Monday, June 8, 2020 8:50 AM
City Clerk
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Correspondence for 6/9/2020 City Council Item #8
2020-06-09 CC GMP street deficiencies -Linke.pdf
From: Steve Linke <splinke@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 1:12 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Correspondence for 6/9/2020 City Council Item #8
All Receive -Agenda Item#:;;?
For the Information of the:
c19 COUNCIL .
Date /..p, CA ..........--cc V---
CM_ CM ~(3) .,,/.
Please distribute and include in the public record the attached correspondence for Item #8 on the 6/9/2020 City Council
agenda (GMP street deficiencies).
Thank you,
Steve Linke
Carlsbad, CA
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
1
To: Carlsbad Mayor and City Council
From: St~ve Linke (Traffic and Mobility Commissioner, but submitting as an individual)
Subject: June 9, 2020 Item #8 -Determination of four deficient street facilities
Primary Recommendation: Consistent with the Traffic and Mobility Commission
recommendation and your actions on May 5th, council should again reject the resolution that
would exempt the El Camino Real and Cannon Road street facilities from the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). The exemptions are inconsistent with the GMP, they would be an
unnecessary misuse of the exemption power, and they will jeopardize timely progress and
funding of the College Boulevard extension, as explained below.
Secondary Recommendation: In the unfortunate case that council feels compelled to invoke
the exemptions, please condition that vote with requirements for time-bound completion of
College extension objectives, including immediate initiation of the consultant-based ·
engineering study, crafting of the Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 15 amendment, etc.
Exemptions will jeopardize timely progress of the College Boulevard extension
The GMP creates a legal obligation to complete the extension due to the deficiencies, and the
related Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan {CFIP} prioritizes Capital Improvement
Program {CIP} funding to GMP-deficient facilities. Exemptions would artificially erase the
. deficiencies, thus eliminating these motivating forces-further ensuring that the project will
continue to wither, un-programmed, on the CIP project list. In fact, despite council's May 5th
vote to pursue city-led financing, the preliminary CIP budget presented last week included zero
dollars programmed for the extension. Hopefully, that will be corrected in the final budget.
Exemptions are unnecessary and inconsistent with the GMP
Staff's past legal guidance on the GM Pon this matter indicates that, when a feasible
improvement project exists that would correct a deficiency, council must fund the project or
make other arrangements to have it funded.1 The College extension project (either two or four
lanes) fully resolves the deficiencies on all four street facilities, and council voted on May 5th to
pursue city-led financing and corresponding amendments to the Zone 15 plan, so the project is
now feasible under staff's definition. 2
When the General Plan was updated in 2015, concessions were made by staff to limit the
controversial exemption power to avoid just this type of unnecessary usage. In fact, one of the
concessions was that exemptions would not be done until "[a]fter the College Boulevard
extension .. .[is] completed," but that language was silently removed from the final General Plan
after public review was completed. 3 The street facilities started becoming deficient 10 years
1 See the 12/17/2019 council staff report and Sections 21.90.080 and 21.90.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2 At the 5/5/2020 council meeting, staff asserted that the College extension was "infeasible," because the Local
Facilities Management Zone 15 Plan required developers to fund the project. However, council has now directed
staff to amend the plan to reflect city-led financing, yet the resolution claims the project is still infeasible.
3 During the public review process through the Planning Commission in July 2015, staff agreed to add policy
language to the Mobility Element (3-P.9 and 3.P-10) that delayed the exemption power until "(a]fter the College
1
ago, but that was masked until now by the flawed annual GMP monitoring program that vastly
underreported congestion. 4 So, it will be the height of irony if exemptions now further delay
completion of the College extension and further sweep the deficiencies under the rug.
Exemptions could jeopardize funding of the College Boulevard extension
Senate Bill 330 prevents residential building moratoriums, but it also preserves the right to
charge developers their fair shares for necessary infrastructure improvements. Developments
in any zone that add traffic to the deficient El Camino Real and Cannon Road facilities could be
conditioned to help fund the first two lanes of the College extension street improvement
project-perhaps through the Traffic Impact Fee or another program. It is questionable,
though, whether that would be possible if the facilities are declared exempt, because the
General Plan states that improvement projects will not be pursued for exempt facilities.
On a related note, despite some of the discussion at council's May 5th meeting, exemptions are
not required to allow tools like transportation demand and systems management {TDM and
TSM) to be used. For example, the recently approved Poinsettia 61 project included conditions
to fund (1) a major street improvement {the Poinsettia Lane gap closure), (2) the general TDM
program, {3) specific TDM measures {e.g., transit stops), and (4) a specific TSM project {traffic
signal interconnection)-all without any exemptions. Exemptions only serve to remove the
"street improvement" tool from the congestion relief toolbox.
Commercial development moratorium option
Senate Bill 330 only applies to residential developments and mixed-use developments with at
least two-thirds residential, so a moratorium likely could be applied to all other developments,
as another alternative to the exemptions. The resolution does not address that possibility.
Factual error on the locations of the eight deficient street facilities
It is claimed in the resolution that all eight deficient street facilities reported in the FY 2017-18
GMP monitoring report are located within Zone 15, when, in fact, only one of the eight is
located there {northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road). That
factual error should be corrected.
Conclusion
The exemption resolution should be rejected, and, instead, council's May 5th directions should
be carried out in satisfaction of GMP Section 21.90.080 {"arrangements satisfactory to the city
council guaranteeing the facilities and improvements") and Section 21.90.130 {"amendment to
the city-wide facilities and improvements plan or applicable local facilities management plan
which addresses the deficiency").
Boulevard extension and Poinsettia Lane connections are completed ... " and to require reversal of exemptions that
were found during annual GMP monitoring to be no longer necessary. These were major concessions that were
highlighted in staff presentations at the time. The street completion concession was subsequently silently
removed.
4 See my correspondence on this matter for the 5/5/2020 council meeting.
2
Deficiency and Exemption Determinations
for Four Street Facilities and Expediting
Capital Improvement Program Project No.
6094
Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works
June 9, 2020
Background
•July 16, 2019 –staff presented to City Council eight deficient street facilities as part of FY 2017-18 Growth Management Plan (GMP) monitoring
program
•Dec. 17, 2019 –staff returned to City Council to
present on the first four street facilities
–Facilities were determined to be deficient
–Three were determined to be built out and exempt, one will be resolved by project
2
Background
•May 5, 2020 –staff presented on the second four street facilities
–Council direction on pursuing city-led financing program for College Boulevard extension project
–Council direction on amending Local Facility Management Zone 15 Plan and Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan
–Council request for staff to return with three revised resolutions on the four street facilities
3
4
Four street facilities
1.SB El Camino Real from
Cannon Road to College Blvd1
-Deficient Street Segment
--Highway
~~~~·· .. Planned Street
{°'City of Carlsbad
Deficient Street Segments
With Local Facility
Management Zones
"'---.,, -
5
Four deficient street
facilities
1.SB El Camino Real from
Cannon Road to College Blvd
2.NB El Camino Real from
College Blvd to Cannon Road
1, 2
-Deficient Street Segment
--Highway
~~~~·· .. Planned Street
{°'City of Carlsbad
Deficient Street Segments
With Local Facility
Management Zones
"'---.,, -
6
Four deficient street
facilities
1.SB El Camino Real from
Cannon Road to College Blvd
2.NB El Camino Real from
College Blvd to Cannon Road
3.EB Cannon Road from El
Camino Real to College Blvd
3
1, 2
-Deficient Street Segment
--Highway
~~~~·· .. Planned Street
{°'City of Carlsbad
Deficient Street Segments
With Local Facility
Management Zones
"'---.,, -
7
Four deficient street
facilities
1.SB El Camino Real from
Cannon Road to College Blvd
2.NB El Camino Real from
College Blvd to Cannon Road
3.EB Cannon Road from El
Camino Real to College Blvd
4.WB Cannon Road from
College Blvd to El Camino Real
3, 4
1, 2
-Deficient Street Segment
--Highway
~~~~·· .. Planned Street
{°'City of Carlsbad
Deficient Street Segments
With Local Facility
Management Zones
"'---.,, -
Council Determinations
•Deficient
–Four street facilities do not meet performance standard
•Built out and exempt
–Meet one or more exemption criteria (Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9)
–Determination does not preclude moving forward with Council direction on College Boulevard extension project
–When exemption criteria no longer apply, a future determination that street facilities are no longer exempt can be made (annual GMP monitoring)
8
Recommended actions
Adopt three resolutions to:
1.Determine four street facilities are deficient
2.Determine these four street facilities are built out
and exempt
3.Expedite CIP Project No. 6094, widening Northbound
El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Rd to Jackspar Dr,
by proposing different funding sources
9
Thank you
10
Performance Standard
•In 2015, following performance standard was adopted:
–Implement a comprehensive livable network that serves all users –vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit
–Performance standard for vehicle traffic is Level of Service (LOS) D or better
•Freeways, arterials, arterial connectors and industrial streets
–Maintain LOS D or better for all modes that are subject to multi-modal level of service standard excluding LOS-exempt intersections and streets approved by Council
•If performance standard is not met, facility is deemed deficient
11
Deficiency –Performance standards are not met
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.90.130 (c):
•If City Manager identifies facilities to be deficient:
–City Manager reports the deficiency to Council
•If Council determines a deficiency exists:
–Council adopts an arrangement guaranteeing a feasible project that will achieve performance standard; OR
–Council determines the street facility is built out and exempt from LOS D standard if no project exists to achieve performance standard (TDM/TSM measures required)
•Otherwise, no further building or development permits shall be issued within affected zones until performance standard is met or an arrangement guaranteeing a feasible project is adopted
12
Built-out and Exempt Criteria
General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9:
To exempt vehicle mode of travel from LOS standard, the intersection or street segment must be identified as built-out by Council because:
a.Acquiring the rights of way (ROW) is not feasible; or
b.Proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment in an unacceptable way…; or
c.Proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other community values or General Plan policies; or
d.Proposed improvements would require more than three through travel lanes in each direction
13
Build-out of the General Plan
General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9:
•Develop and maintain a list of LOS-exempt street facilities, approved by Council
•For exempted street facilities,city will not implement improvements to maintain LOS standard if such improvements are beyond what is identified as appropriate at build-out of the General Plan
•In case of street facilities where vehicle mode of travel is exempt from LOS standard, other non-vehicle capacity-building improvements will be required to improve mobility through implementation of transportation demand and transportation system management measures and/or to implement livable streets goals and policies of the Mobility Element
14
Does a project exist to achieve LOS D?
•Yes, the College Boulevard extension project exists in the General Plan which could achieve LOS D, but…
•College Boulevard extension project as it currently exists is not feasible
•It is not feasible based on current City Council
direction (LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP)
15
Current City Council direction
•City Council direction, per LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP, directs private development obligation to construct College Boulevard extension (two lanes only)
•Staff met with property owners in October 2019 –private development construction of College Boulevard is infeasible for foreseeable future
•Normally no building or development permits issued until plan guaranteeing project is adopted
•Senate Bill (SB) 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, effective Jan. 1, 2020, prohibits such a moratorium
16
Senate Bill 330
•Jan. 21, 2020 –informational brief to City Council, Planning Commission, Traffic and Mobility Commission, Housing Commission and Housing Element Advisory Committee
•Feb. 6, 2020 –staff meeting with state Housing and Community Development (HCD) department
–No moratorium and no dwelling unit caps
•Feb. 27, 2020 –City Attorney sent letter to HCD
•April 17, 2020 –HCD confirmed moratorium is impermissible
17
Exemptions
•Staff’s recommendation to determine the four street facilities as built-out and exempt are based on current City Council direction
–College Boulevard extension would resolve deficiencies of the four street facilities; would take several years to construct
–College Boulevard extension project to be funded by private development is infeasible in the foreseeable future
18
El Camino Real at Cannon Rd
19
20
El Camino Real at College Blvd
1. SB ECR from Cannon Rd to College Blvd
•Insert picture/map, including CIP 6071
21
ECR
CIP Project No. 6071
El Camino Real at College Blvd
22
•Exempt per Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(d), three through lanes
•Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 6071 -~$1 million
–Intersection of ECR and College Blvd
–Enhance pedestrian and bicycle forms of mobility
–Upgrade existing curb ramps and crosswalks to meet ADA standards
–Include traffic signal timing modifications
–Spring 2020 –present to City Council for approval of plans and
specifications and authorization to bid
23
1. SB ECR from Cannon Rd to College Blvd
2. NB El Camino Real from College to Cannon
•Insert picture/map, including CIP 6071
24
ECR
2. NB ECR from College Blvd to Cannon Rd
•Exempt per Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(d), three through lanes (currently portions have two lanes, will become three lanes with CIP projects;still deficient)
•CIP Project Nos. 6042/6056 -~$3.5 million
–NB ECR at Cannon Rd
–Improve traffic flow, still not meet LOS performance standard
–Fall 2021 –present to Council for approval of plans and specs and authorization to bid
•CIP Project No. 6094 -~$4 million
–Widen NB ECR from Sunny Creek Rd to Jackspar Dr
–Improve traffic flow, still not meet LOS performance standard
–FY 2025-29 forecast for budgeting; if expedited, staff will return with proposed funding sources; Prop. H requirements if >$1M Gen. Funds
25
CIP Project Nos.
6042/6056
El Camino Real at
Cannon Rd
26
CIP Project Nos. 6042/6056
El Camino Real at Cannon Rd
•Close-up picture of ECR at Cannon
27
N
ECR
Looking West
CIP Project No. 6094
ECR widening from
Sunny Creek Rd to
Jackspar Dr
28
3. EB Cannon Rd from ECR to College Blvd
29
4. WB Cannon Road from College Blvd to ECR
30
3. EB and 4. WB
Cannon Rd from ECR to College Blvd
•Exempt per Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(a), ROW not feasible
–Encroach into open space near ECR and Cannon Rd intersection
–Encroach into road setback of adjacent residential community
–Areas under private ownership
–Trail easement along south side of Cannon Rd
31
3. EB and 4. WB
Cannon Rd from ECR to College Blvd
•Exempt per Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(c), unacceptable impacts to community values and General Plan policies
–Community Vision core values of
•Walking, biking, public transportation and connectivity
•Open space and natural environment
–Mobility Element Goal 3-G.6
•Protect and enhance visual, environmental and historical characteristics of Carlsbad through sensitive planning and design of scenic transportation corridors
32
Recommended actions to City Council
1. Adopt a Resolution to:
A.Determine four street facilities are deficient
B.Determine four street facilities are built out and exempt
C.Expedite CIP Project No. 6094, widening NB ECR from Sunny Creek Rd to Jackspar Dr, by proposing different funding sources
–Prop. H requirements if >$1 million General Funds
33
Next steps
•These four street facilities are in the FY 2017-18
GMP monitoring report
•July –FY 2018-19 GMP monitoring report
presentations to Traffic and Mobility Commission
and City Council
34
Traffic and Mobility Commission
•March 2, 2020 –Motion did not pass (3-3-1)
•April 6, 2020 –Motion passed 5-2 to:
–support staff recommendations regarding points 1A and 1C (deficient facilities and expedite CIP No. 6094)
–reject point 1B (built out and exempt facilities)
–direct a representative of the T&MC to make a presentation to the City Council on the quantitative data and conclusions from the traffic study conducted on College Boulevard extension
–recommend that City Council direct staff to develop a city-led financing program to build the College Boulevard extension
•Chair Mona Gocan
35
Traffic and Mobility Commission
Recommendation: Determination of four
deficient street facilities
City Council Meeting
T&MC Chair Mona Gocan
T&MC Recommendation
•Support staff’s recommendation to determine the facilities to be deficient under the GMP
•Support staff’s recommendation to expedite the widening of ECR
•Oppose staff’s recommendation to find the facilities exempt
•Provide City Council with quantitative data and the conclusion from the traffic study that were completed by a City consultant.
•Recommend that council direct staff to develop a city-led program to build the College Boulevard extension
Northbound El Cam ino Rea l (Jlac_ks»ar-College 5/2019)
3500 ----------------------------------------------
3000
Q) E 2500
;J
g
a, 2000 -u 1860
.c ~ 1500
>
L.
::J 0 1000 ::c
500
0
-LOS A-0 ---LOS IE-F {deficient)
r ......... GMP limit
••••o•u••••••uu•••--••••••••••O•uu,ou,,,,,,,,,,,o,uu,,,u .. ,,, .... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,001u,o,,,ooou••••--•••••u•••••••••••••u•••• .. • .. •••••••••••u• ...... ... , ............................ ,, .....................
I
····--··--·---■ -■11111 1111111111
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M o o ~ ~ N N m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m m o o ~ ~ N N m m v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m m o o ~ ~ N N m m ~ ~· ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N
Time •of day y
10,328 vehicles
{3 h[45 min)
Cumulative average vehicles traveling
under deficient conditions (LOS “E” or “F”)
Street facility
NB ECR {PM)
SB ECR (AM)
EB Cannon (PM)
WB Cannon {AM)
Congested
vehicles
per day
10,328
3,096
3,229
2,660
GJ
E
Cannon Road
3500 ~---------
■ Current
■ +College
3000 -+----------
••••• GMP limit
.,: 2500 +-----------
0 >
GJ u 2000 +-----------·-.s: 1,3,0%
GJ > 1o. 1500 5 1310 •••
.s:
..:.::; 1000
('a
GJ Q.
500
0
Ell Camino Reall
173%
107%
2900
(3 In)
1860
(2 In)
................... 1760
(4 In)
163%
• •••• • 880
(2 In)
Traffic Study Conclusion
•Ultimately, the addition of the College Boulevard extension provides a valuable connection for the City of Carlsbad and for the region and, as shown in the analysis, will effectively redistribute trips throughout the
network to reduce the effect of congestion on
several existing roadway segments in the
project vicinity.