HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-17; City Council; ; Consider an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Site Development Plan and State Density Bonus Allowing the Construction of a Four-Story, 23-unit ResidenMeeting Date: Nov. 17, 2020
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Chris Garcia, Associate Planner
chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov, 760-602-4622
Subject: Consider an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Site
Development Plan and State Density Bonus Allowing the Construction of
a Four-Story, 23-unit Residential Apartment Project, including Three
Affordable Housing Units, on Property at the Southwest Corner of
Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street
Project Name: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Project No.: SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
Recommended Action
That the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal and
upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a site development plan to
construct a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project, which includes three inclusionary
housing units, on property located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar
Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
Executive Summary
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 20, 2019, regarding an
application for a site development plan and a state density bonus1 proposal to allow the
construction of a 23-unit residential apartment project on a vacant site located at the
southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to approve the project. A community member appealed this decision to the City
Council on March 28, 2019.
The City Council considered the appeal on June 11, 2019. Following public testimony, the City
Council discussion focused on traffic and geotechnical concerns and questions were raised
about whether the property qualified for the in-fill exemption in the California Environmental
Quality Act.2
1 A density bonus allows a developer to increase the overall number of housing units of a project in return for
including more affordable housing units in the project. (California Government Code Section 65915)
2 Infill development generally refers to building on unused and underutilized land in keeping with existing
development patterns, typically but not exclusively in urban areas.
CA Review RK
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 1 of 612
The City Council ultimately voted to remand the project back to the Planning Commission,
requesting an analysis of how the project conformed to the environmental quality act and the
preparation of an environmental impact report focused on geotechnical and traffic impacts.
Following the City Council direction, the applicant prepared and provided additional
geotechnical information and a transportation impact analysis that the applicant contends
further supports staff’s original determination that the project qualifies for a categorical
exemption under CEQA. The project, with the additional information, was presented to the
Planning Commission for reconsideration on July 15, 2020. After hearing public testimony, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project.
A community member appealed this decision to the City Council on July 27, 2020, and the
matter is being brought before the City Council for decision.
Discussion
Background
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 20, 2019, to consider the
Romeria Pointe project. Prior to that hearing, the city planner had determined that the project
belonged to a class of projects that the state secretary for resources has found do not have a
significant impact on the environment, so it was categorically exempt from the requirement for
the preparation of environmental documents under Section 15332, In-Fill Development
Projects, Class 32 categorical exemption of the state CEQA guidelines. The Planning Commission
voted unanimously to approve the project.
As summarized above, on June 11, 2019, the City Council considered an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s approval of an application for a site development plan and state density bonus to
allow the construction of a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project on the southwest
corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street, in the city’s Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
After deliberations, the City Council voted to remand the item to the Planning Commission,
requesting that a CEQA analysis and an environmental impact report focused on traffic and
geotechnical be performed on the project. (4-1, Hall voting no. Refer to Exhibit 6 for the City
Council staff report with additional information on the project and Exhibit 7 for the City Council
meeting minutes with the City Council direction.)
Following the City Council direction, staff informed the applicant of the required steps and
processes required to return the project to the Planning Commission. The applicant moved
forward in preparing technical studies and analysis of the traffic and geotechnical issues and
began discussions with staff on the preparation of a focused environmental impact report. In
correspondence with the city, the applicant indicated that the completed technical studies
confirmed that there would be no adverse environmental impacts from the project, so an
environmental impact report is not warranted. (Correspondence from the applicant can be
found in Exhibit 8.)
Planning Commission’s reconsideration
The Planning Commission reconsidered the Romeria Pointe Apartments project on July 15,
2020. (Exhibit 3 is the staff report presented to the commission). The issues raised at the
hearing by those in opposition to the project included concerns with geotechnical issues,
potential damages to surrounding property, the proposed method of construction, traffic,
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 2 of 612
parking, wildfire concerns, building height, loss of natural light, and unit quantity and size.
There was also opposition to the CEQA exemption that had been proposed. (The public
comments are attached to this staff report as Exhibit 13.)
The applicant and staff responded to the issues raised before the commission, many of which
were cited in the appeal and are discussed further below. Following discussion and
deliberation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to affirm its previous decision
approving the project and finding the project was subject to the CEQA exemption for infill
projects. A community member appealed this decision to the City Council on July 27, 2020.
Issues cited in appeal
An appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project was filed July 27, 2020, raising
concerns about the following issues:
Geotechnical issues,
geology Traffic CEQA
exemption Storm water
Topography Wildfire hazard Growth
management
The appellant’s position and staff’s response are summarized in turn below.
Geotechnical issues, geology
Appellant’s position
The appellant contends that the use of cast-in-drilled-hole piles is an unusual
construction method and the site has a documented history of poor soil conditions
given past soil issues with surrounding projects.
Staff’s response
Since the City Council appeal hearing on June 11, 2019, the applicant prepared and
submitted a letter containing a geotechnical report (Exhibit 10). The document focused
on the concerns raised during the City Council hearing, including soil stability on- and
off-site, reduced service life of sidewalks, increased building height and the use of piles,
given the existing soil conditions on the site. This report was prepared by reviewing the
existing project geotechnical information as well as newly obtained geotechnical
information for the surrounding area that was available from public records, including
soils reports for the surrounding development, various geotechnical maps for the
region, and soils reports and foundation repair information for the development to the
south of the project site. Based upon this information, the report determined the
following:
o Soil instability
Concerns have been raised about existing soil instability issues on the project site.
However, based on a thorough review of the record, there is no data within the
available body of information suggesting the presence of landslide deposits on
the site. Based on site-specific work, the most significant geotechnical factors
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 3 of 612
within the project site that could contribute to soil instability include settlement
of the existing fill material and the potential surficial instability of the existing
1.5:1 slope. The recommendation for cast-in-drilled-hole piles and the slope
regrading will adequately ensure the continued stability of the project site. The
recommendations of the geotechnical study are required to be implemented as
part of the city’s grading plan check and permit issuance process, so the proposed
project will not create an impact on soil instability.
o “Slippage”
Concerns were raised about “slippage” on the adjacent Villa Romeria property to
the south. Residents of the Villa Romeria property discussed previous
geotechnical issues on their property and the corrective work performed. The
proposed project will not induce slippage on the Villa Romeria property because
the project is located downhill and will not surcharge the property – that is, its
weight won’t apply downward pressure on the property – or direct surface
drainage toward the property, which could adversely affect the existing soils.
Temporary shoring and permanent retaining walls will be designed to support the
adjacent fill along the Villa Romeria property boundary. Furthermore, cast-in-
drilled-hole piles3 are proposed for the project’s buildings and site retaining walls
which transfer loads through the existing fill to the underlying bedrock.
Therefore, the proposed project will not result in slope slippage.
o Area prone to soil movement
Concerns were expressed about previous soil movement in the general area,
including a slope failure at the Marbella property in 2005. A direct comparison
between overall stability of the Marbella property and the project site cannot be
made since the Marbella site is located several thousand feet away and is
underlain by a different and relatively weaker sedimentary unit. GSI, the firm that
prepared the geotechnical study, found no evidence of deep-seated slope
instability on the project site based on an on-site subsurface investigation and
literature review. The subsurface investigation consisted of large diameter
borings, that were logged by a geologist, and laboratory testing of soil samples
from the borings.
o Service life of sidewalks
Concerns were also raised about reduced life of sidewalks and walkways which is
outlined in a project geotechnical study by GSI. Sidewalks on residential projects
are not held to the same performance standards as buildings because distress to
them from soil deformations do not constitute a site stability issue. It is not
uncommon in Carlsbad to have distressed sidewalks due to settlement, creep,
expansive soils, and root intrusion. Remedial measures can be implemented for
any sidewalk or walkway construction.
3 Cast-in-drilled-hole piles are reinforced concrete piles cast in drilled holes to predetermined elevations using a
heavy steel casing.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 4 of 612
Increased building height
Issues were raised regarding a difference in the number of stories shown on the
development plans and those described in the 2017 geotechnical update report
prepared by GSI. The change in building height does not alter the conclusions and
recommendations for the proposed project since cast-in-drilled-hole piles have
been used to support much taller and heavier structures. As with all projects that
use these piles, the structural capacity of the piles will be further evaluated
during the preparation of the project construction documents to ensure the
design is adequate to support the vertical and lateral loading conditions.
o Quality of soil requiring unusual pile supports
Opinions were expressed during the City Council hearing that using cast-in-drilled-
hole piles for support of the proposed project and site retaining walls is an
unusual form of engineering mitigation. Cast-in-drilled-hole piles are commonly
used to transfer structural loads through potentially compressible soils and into
suitable weight-bearing earth materials when remedial grading is not practical or
feasible. The potentially compressible earth materials within the project site
extend to depths as great as 35 feet below existing grade. Because of this
condition and the limited space available within the project site for deep material
excavations, full-depth remedial grading would require extensive shoring with
lateral tiebacks that would extend onto neighboring properties. Furthermore,
there is insufficient space to temporarily stockpile the excavated materials. This
full-depth remedial grading is not practical from both logistical and financial
perspectives. The use of cast-in-drilled-hole piles is less invasive than full depth
remedial grading and will provide adequate support of the proposed buildings
and site retaining walls. Using these piles is a standard building method under
certain site conditions and it has been used on other project sites in Carlsbad,
including portions of buildings on the ViaSat campus and The Hamptons
residential project above the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Traffic
Appellant’s position
The appellant contends that had an analysis of vehicle miles traveled been conducted
instead of an analysis of roadway level of service, it might have shown significant
environmental impact from the project.
Staff’s response
o Traffic Impacts
Since the City Council appeal hearing on June 11, 2019, the applicant prepared
and submitted a traffic impact analysis (Exhibit 11). Based on the analysis, the
project will be served by two full-access unsignalized driveways to Romeria
Street. The project study area includes four intersections, including two future
project driveways and three street segments. The project is calculated to
generate 138 average daily trips with 11 total morning peak hour trips and 12
total evening peak hour trips. The report evaluated the effect of the project
using the two distinct analyses needed to meet the requirements of both the
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 5 of 612
City of Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan and CEQA. A multi-modal level of
service analysis, which covers all forms of transportation, was also conducted for
Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street based on city guidelines.
As its criteria for measuring traffic impact, the analysis used the significance
thresholds described in the commonly used SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic
Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, March 2000,4 which the city has
historically relied upon. The analysis found that no significant project impacts to
vehicular queueing at signalized intersections were identified under the traffic
impact analysis guidelines in the Growth Management Plan and no significant
project impacts were determined using the regional SANTEC/ITE significance
criteria. Romeria Street and La Costa Avenue is the only signalized intersection in
the project’s required study area, and it operates at level of service B or better
for existing and cumulative conditions.5 The project will make improvements to
address pedestrian facility deficiencies identified in the multi-modal level of
service analysis. The project will replace the sidewalk ramp along the front of the
property at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street,
improving it to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act. The
project will also add a streetlight at this corner. With these improvements,
pedestrian conditions are expected to meet city standards and improve the
multi-modal level of service from a C to an A.
o Vehicle miles traveled
Regarding the concerns about the vehicle miles traveled analysis, CEQA sections
15007(b) and 15064.3(c) state that amendments to the guidelines must be
applied prospectively. Vehicle miles traveled analysis, as required by the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, will only be mandatory for projects for which the
lead agency, the City of Carlsbad, makes a CEQA determination on or after July 1,
2020, which was approved in City Council Resolution 2020‐114 on June 16, 2020.
In this case, the city planner made a CEQA determination for this project on
November 5, 2018, so the project is not subject to the vehicle miles travelled
analysis requirements. Fairness and the need for finality require that the
propriety of an agency’s action be determined under the regulations in effect on
the date on which the final CEQA document is presented for public review. (Long
Beach Savings and Loan Association v. Long Beach Redevelopment Agency (1986)
188 Cal. App. 3d 249, 261). In keeping with this ruling and state law, the project
complies with all applicable traffic analysis requirements.
4 The San Diego Traffic Engineers’ Council, or SANTEC, worked with the local branch of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, or ITE, to prepare guidelines for traffic impact studies in the region.
5 Under the Mobility Element of the city’s General Plan, roadways are evaluated for their level of service for
vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit, ranging from a level of service A to F. LOS A reflects a high service
standard for a travel mode while LOS F would reflect a poor service standard.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 6 of 612
Growth Management & Density Bonus Units
Appellant’s position
The appellant felt that the Planning Commission erroneously approved a transfer of
density inconsistent with the City Growth Management Plan, as approved by voters as
Proposition E.
Staff’s response
The city has a growth management ordinance approved by voters and known as “Prop.
E.” Under this ordinance, when individual projects build fewer dwelling units than
allocated by the General Plan, these units are held on account in an excess dwelling unit
bank, and later can be applied to another project. According to City Council Policy No.
43 – Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, an allocation of excess dwelling units to a project is a
density bonus “incentive,” as defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.86.020A.12
and Government Code Section 65915(k). The applicant has requested to withdraw nine
units from the excess dwelling unit bank as one of its permitted incentives or
concessions allowed under state density bonus law and CMC Chapter 21.86 –
Residential Density Bonus and Incentives or Concessions. The transfer of the units is
consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the municipal code. There are
available units in the excess dwelling unit bank in the Southeast Quadrant to allocate
nine units to this project. According to the city’s Quadrant Dwelling Unit Report dated
August 31, 2020, 307 units remain available for allocation in the Southeast Quadrant.
Building height
Appellant’s position
The appellant contends that the project is not consistent with zoning because the
building height is higher than the maximum allowed by the Residential Density –
Multiple (RD-M) zone.
Staff’s response
The RD-M Zone currently restricts building height to 35 feet. The applicant is requesting
an allowance for increased building height as a waiver under CMC 21.86.060. As
discussed above, a density bonus project may qualify for waivers or reductions of
development standards under this code section. As discussed in the findings of the
Planning Commission resolution approving the project (commission Resolution No.
7324), increased building height is an appropriate waiver for the requested density
bonus because it results in identifiable cost reductions that allow the builder to develop
the project at the density and affordability authorized under state law. (A summary of
the project’s density bonus request is included in Exhibit 14.)
Topography
Appellant’s position
The appellant contends that the site’s topography is an unusual circumstance because
the site’s slope, and a slab-on-grade foundation is not proposed.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 7 of 612
Staff’s response
Topographically, the site has two existing relatively flat pads approximately 77 feet and
91 feet above mean sea level, with an intervening slope between the two lots. Both lots
sit above existing lots to the north and west, below the lot to the south, and similar in
elevation as the lots to the east. As discussed in the geotechnical section above, cast-in-
drilled-hole piles are commonly used to transfer structural loads through potentially
compressible soils and into suitable weight-bearing earth materials when remedial
grading is not practical or feasible. Many lots in the surrounding area have been
developed with similar topography, so this is not considered an unusual circumstance.
Wildfire Hazards
Appellant’s position
There is an unusual circumstance in that the project is near a high fire hazard area.
Staff’s response
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection maps the potential threat of
wildfires throughout California. CAL FIRE ranks fire threat according to the availability of
fuel and the likelihood of an area burning, based on topography, fire history and
climate. The rankings are little or no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire
threat. The large amounts of open space and wildland make Carlsbad susceptible to
brush fires year-round. The proximity of native vegetation and the climate of the region
contribute to a moderate to high threat of wildfires in the city, as illustrated in Figure 6-
10 of the city’s General Plan Public Safety Element. Most of Carlsbad has only moderate
fire threat, however, there is high and very high fire threat in the central and eastern
portions of the city. The project site is within the moderate fire threat area and
approximately 500 feet from a very high fire hazard zone.
Urban fire risk in Carlsbad is greatest in older structures and neighborhoods built before
modern building codes for fire safety and building systems were in place. Other factors
affecting urban fire risk and relative likelihood of loss of life or property include building
age, height and use, storage of flammable material, building construction materials,
availability of sprinkler systems and proximity to a fire station and hydrants.
The construction of a new residential project within a moderate fire threat area is
common in the City of Carlsbad and, therefore, is not an unusual circumstance. The
project will be required to comply with all applicable building and fire safety codes in
applying for building permits. This includes but is not limited to fire sprinklers and
smoke alarms in each unit.
Storm water
Appellant’s position
The city issued a contract in excess of $400,000 to address storm water issues.
Staff’s response
The city did issue contracts for storm drain repairs this year on State Street and for
several other locations throughout the city as a matter of course for aging
infrastructure. None of this storm drain repair work was in the area of the proposed
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 8 of 612
project and the appeal does not provide additional explanation on what relevance the
contract has with this project. The proposed project will adhere to all city, county and
state laws and regulations on storm water to avoid increased urban run-off, pollutants
and soil erosion.
CEQA exemption
Appellant’s position
The proposed project does not meet all the qualifications for an exemption under CEQA
Guidelines sections 15192 - Threshold Requirements for Exemptions for Agricultural
Housing, Affordable Housing, and Residential Infill Projects and Section, 15193 -
Agricultural Housing Exemption, 15194 - Affordable Housing Exemption and 15195 -
Residential Infill Projects.
Staff’s response
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 requires the city to review and determine whether a
project is exempt from the act before conducting an environmental analysis. Section
15061 lists a hierarchy for the exemption review and determination process starting
with statutory exemptions (Article 18), categorical exemptions (Article 19), a common-
sense exemption under Section 15061 or special situations (Article 12). As detailed in
the environmental evaluation section below, the project is categorically exempt from
CEQA under Guidelines Section 15332 (Exhibit 15). (This section is within CEQA Article
19 - Categorical Exemptions. CEQA Section 15192 and the related Sections 15193, 15194
and 15195 are within CEQA Article 12 - Special Situations.) Because the project was
determined to be exempt under the second step in the exemption review process, a
review under Section 15192 was not required and is not applicable to this project.
Standard of review for appeals
This item is before the City Council as an appeal of an approval of the site development plan by
the Planning Commission and a determination by the Planning Commission that the project was
exempt from CEQA review.
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.150(c) outlines the procedures for appeals of Planning
Commission decisions and the city planner’s CEQA determinations and states:
“Grounds for appeal shall be limited to the following: that there was an error or abuse
of discretion on the part of the planning commission in that the decision was not
supported by the facts presented to the planning commission prior to the decision being
appealed; or that there was not a fair and impartial hearing.”
Section 21.54.150(c) goes on to state that the City Council’s consideration is “de novo” (that is,
“like new”) but limits the consideration to “only the evidence presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration in the determination or decision being appealed.” That means
the City Council’s consideration on the appeal is confined to only the issues presented to the
Planning Commission that were also raised in the appeal. Any matters that were presented to
the Planning Commission but that were not specified in the appeal are considered to have been
approved correctly and supported by substantial evidence.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 9 of 612
The City Council may uphold, modify or overturn the Planning Commission’s and the city
planner’s decision. The decision of the City Council on this matter is final.
Letter from the state Department of Housing and Community Development
On Sept. 18, 2019, the city received a letter from the California Department of Housing and
Community Development regarding compliance with the Housing Accountability Act and the
Romeria Pointe Apartments project (Exhibit 12). The letter provides information on the Housing
Accountability Act and areas in which the city may be deficient in complying with state laws as
it relates to the Romeria Pointe Apartments project. Specifically, the City Council neither
accepted nor denied the appeal and no written findings were made.
The Housing Accountability Act creates substantive preconditions for the delay and disapproval
of housing. If a housing project “complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and
subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that
the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete,” the Housing
Accountability Act requires jurisdictions to make specific findings when “the local agency
proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a
lower density” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)). In particular, the local agency must
determine, in writing, that “[t]he housing development project would have a specific, adverse
impact upon the public health or safety” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A)) and “[t]here is no
feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact” (Gov. Code Sec.
65589.5(j)(1)(B)).
Fiscal Analysis
None.
Next Steps
If the City Council denies the appeal, approving the project, staff will follow up with the
applicant to ensure all of the project’s conditions are satisfied and that its development permits
comply with all applicable regulations and laws.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Following a review of the original environmental analysis conducted by staff and having
considered the additional geotechnical, traffic and other information described above, the city
planner confirmed the original determination that the project meets the requirements for a
Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects, exemption pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines Section
15332. Because the project meets the requirements for a categorical exemption, the
preparation of an environmental impact report is not required by CEQA. Also as detailed below
and in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377, the city planner and the Planning Commission
have found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not
apply to this project. A notice of exemption will be filed by the city planner if and when the
project receives its final approval.
Public Notification and Outreach
The project is not subject to City Council Policy No. 84 – Development Project Public
Involvement Policy, because applications for the project were filed prior to the effective date of
that policy. Information regarding public notification of this item such as mailings, public
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 10 of 612
hearing notices posted in a newspaper and on the city website are available in the Office of the
City Clerk.
Exhibits
1.City Council resolution
2.Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
3.Planning Commission staff report dated July 15, 2020 (without exhibits) (on file in the Office
of the City Clerk)
4.Planning Commission minutes dated July 15, 2020 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
5.Appeal form dated July 27, 2020
6.City Council staff report dated June 11, 2019 (with exhibits) (on file in the Office of the City
Clerk)
7.City Council minutes from June 11, 2019 meeting (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
8.Applicant (Streamline Development Group) letter dated Nov. 11, 2019 (with exhibits)
9.Allen Matkins letter dated March 25, 2020
10.Geotechnical letter report dated Nov. 20, 2019
11.Transportation Impact Analysis dated March 9, 2020 (with appendices)
12.California Department of Housing and Community Development letter dated Sept. 18, 2019
13.Correspondence received as of 12 p.m. Nov. 12, 2020 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
14.Density Bonus Summary
15.CEQA Guidelines Section 15332
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 11 of 612
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-223
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 23-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT
PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES THREE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS, ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
ROMERIA STREET AND GIBRALTAR STREET WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASE NAME: ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
CASE NO.: SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on March 20, 2019, hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider Site Development Plan No. SDP 2018-0004, as referenced in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7324 approving the project; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2019, the appellant, Susan Ortman, timely filed an appeal with the city as
provided pursuant to Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2019, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve said Site Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council remanded the project back to the Planning
Commission with the direction that a CEQA analysis be conducted and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be
prepared that focused on geotechnical and traffic impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that pursuant to
the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on July 15, 2020, upon remand of
the project from the City Council, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
Site Development Plan No. SDP 2018-0004, as referenced in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377
approving the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2020, the appellant, Eileen Donovan, timely filed an appeal with the city
as provided pursuant to Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 12 of 612
WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve said Site Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision is denied, that all matters not
specified in the appeal have been supported by substantial evidence with findings and approved by the
Planning Commission, and that the findings and conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7377 on file in the Office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the
findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The
Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 17th day of November, 2020, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel.
NAYS: Schumacher.
ABSENT: None.
MATT HALL, Mayor
PA-a1/7 -0f13-
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
CA/V/
J--• • '''''''''
• .......•••••••.. '.7 f C.)
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 13 of 612
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7377
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, UPON REMAND FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND
RECONSIDERATION, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SOP 2018-0004
TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 23-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT
PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES THREE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS, ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROMERIA
STREET AND GIBRALTAR STREET WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 6.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO.:
ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
WHEREAS, BNR Investment & Development, LLC, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 393 and 394 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
6600, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
March 10, 1970
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan and
residential density bonus as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" -"00" dated March 20, 2019, on file in the Planning
Division, SOP 2018-0004-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS as provided by Chapters 21.06 and 21.86, and
Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on March 20, 2019, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider Site Development Plan No. SOP 2018-0004, as referenced in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 7324 approving the project; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2019, the appellant, Susan Ortman, timely filed an appeal with
the city as provided p·ursuant to Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
EXHIBIT 2
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 14 of 612
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2019, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve said Site
Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council remanded the project back to the
Planning Commission with the direction that a CEQA analysis be conducted and an Environmental Impact
Report {EIR) be prepared that focused on geotechnical and traffic impacts; and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2020, upon remand of the project from the City Council, the
Planning Commission reconsidered Site Development Plan SDP 2018-0004 based on the supplemental
geotechnical and traffic analysis provided and a new CEQA analysis conducted by the city planner; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony .and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Site Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
A) · That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
APPROVES SOP 2018-0004 -ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
Site Development Plan, SDP 2018-0004
1. That the proposed development or use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
master plan or specific plan, complies with all -applicable provisions of Chapter 21.06 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, and all other applicable provisions of this code, in that the various goals
and objectives of the General Plan will be implemented as the proposed project is consistent
with the General Plan, which allows for a mixture of residential uses, including multiple-family
residential, within the R-23 Residential Land Use designation. Although the project's density of
31.9 dwelling units per acre is above the maximum R-23 Residential density of 23 du/ac as the
project includes a request for a residential density bonus, the 23-unit residential apartment
project can be found consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policies as discussed below and
PC RESO NO. 7377 -2-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 15 of 612
in Section A and Table 5 of the project Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March
20, 2019.
2. That the requested development or use is properly related to the site, surroundings and
environmental settings, will not be detrimental to existing development or uses or to
development or uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed development or use
is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that
multiple-family residential is a permitted use within the Residential Density -Multiple (RD-M)
Zone and is compatible with the other multiple-family residential uses surrounding the project
site. The residential apartment project will not adversely impact the site, surroundings, or traffic
circulation. The existing surrounding streets have adequate capacity to accommodate the 138
Average Daily Trips {ADT) generated by the project with lltotal morning peak hour trips and
12 total evening peak hour trips. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared by Linscott, Law &
Greenspan, Engineers on March 9, 2020, and determined that the project does not create any
significant traffic impacts. There will be no significant project impacts to vehicular queueing at
signalized intersections and no significant project impacts per regional SANTEC/ITE significance
criteria. With the provision of city-required street improvements, the TIA's multi-modal analysis
indicates that the project will improve pedestrian level of service (LOS) from LOS C to LOS A.
Furthermore, city staff and athird-party geotechnical engineering consultant have reviewed the
geotechnical study and supplemental geotechnical information and concur with its technical
analysis and geotechnical. recommendations for the project. Since all recommendations in the
study will be implemented, the project will not adversely impact its surroundings as further
described in the CEQA findings below. With exception to the allowance for increased building
height through the density bonus process, the project complies with all minimum development
standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including but not limited to the RD-M Zone, and the
project is adequately parked on-site and does not result in any environmental impacts.
3. That the site for the intended development or use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the use, in that with exception to the allowance for increased building height as discussed in the
project staff report, the residential apartment project complies with all remaining development
standards of the Residential Density -Multiple (RD-M) Zone and all other applicable sections
of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the
requested development or use to existing or permitted future development or use in the
neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that with exception to the allowance for
increased building height the project complies with all remaining development standards (i.e.
front, side and rear setbacks, lot coverage, parking) of the Residential Density -Multiple (RO-
M) Zone and all other applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping along the outer
edges of the property, including the areas along Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street, will be
provided consistent with the requirements of the city's Landscape Manual.
5. That the street systems serving the proposed development or use is adequate to properly handle
all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the project will take access off Romeria Street
with vehicles traveling to and from the project on Gibraltar Street as well. Romeria Street and
Gibraltar Street are identified as local streets, designed to adequately handle the 138 Average
Daily Trips generated by the 23-unit residential apartment project.
PC RESO NO. 7377 -3-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 16 of 612
Residential Density Bonus, CMC Chapter 21.86
6. The project is consistent with the provisions of CMC Chapter 21.86 in that the proposed
residential apartment project meets all of the standards, including the requisite 35% of "very
low-income", deed-restricted inclusionary housing. In addition, increased building height is an
allowable concessi~n.
. .
7. The requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and
actual cost reductions in that the allocation of excess dwelling units allows for a financially
feasible project by sharing construction costs among all units including the land, permitting and
construction costs. The allowance for increased building height allows the project to provide ·
three stories of economically viable units since the ground floor is mai•nly dedicated to parking.
8. The requested ihcentive(s) or concession(s), and/or waiver(s) or reduction(s) of development
standards is not contrary to state or federal law in that increased number of units and a waiver
from a development standard (building height) is clearly laid out as an incentive and concession
for density bonus projects in California and pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.86.050 and
Government Code §65915(k) and (o).
City Council Policy No. 43, Allocation for Excess Dwelling Units
9. That the city's Housing Policy Team recommended approval of the request for an allocation of
nine (9) units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank on January 22, 2019.
10. That the project location and density are compatible with the existing adjacent residential
neighborhoods and/or nearby existing or planned uses in that the project includes a request for
a 35% density bonus pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.86, Residential Density Bonus and Incentives
or Concessions. The project meets the applicable findings associated with the proposed density
bonus request. Adjacent land uses include two-and three-story multi-family residential. The
proposed four-story multi-family residential apartment project is compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
11. That the project location and density are in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
General Plan and any other applicable planning document, in that a residential apartment project
is consistent with the R-23 Residential General Plan Land Use designation and the proposed
35% density bonus is consistent with the provisions in CMC Chapter 21.86.
12. That the project complies with the findings stated in the General Plan Land Use Element for
projects that exceed the growth management control point for the applicable density range in
that the project qualifies for and will receive an allocation of excess dwelling units pursuant to
City Council Policy No. 43, the Southeast Quadrant dwelling unit limit will not be exceeded as a
result of the proposed project, and all necessary public facilities will be constructed or are
guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this
development.
13. That there are an adequate number of units in the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank in the Southeast
Quadrant to remove nine (9) units. Per the city's Quadrant Dwelling Unit Report dated May 31,
2019, 316 units remain available for allocation in the Southeast Quadrant.
PC RESO NO. 7377 -4-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 17 of 612
California Environmental Quality Act:
14. The city planner has determined, and the Planning Commission finds, that the project belongs to
a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant
impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 -In-Fill Development
Projects of the State CEQA Guidelines as an infill development project. In making this
determination, the Planning Commission finds that the criteria listed in Section 15332 of the State
CEQA Guidelines have been met and that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the State
CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code requires the State CEQA Guidelines to include a list
of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the
environment and which shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Section 15332
is one of 32 classes of projects that have been identified as categorical exemptions. Each of the
criteria set forth in Section 15332 is set out below and an explanation is provided demonstrating
how the project meets and satisfies the criteria. In addition, each applicable exception to the
categorical exemptions is set out below and an explanation provided demonstrating how the
exception does not apply to the project.
(a) The project meets the threshold criteria set forth in {CEQA Guidelines] section 15332.
{b) An exception listed in Section 15300.2 does not apply to the project.
Section 15332 Compliance
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 sets forth additional criteria which must be met for a project to
be exempt from CEQA. In order to qualify for an exemption, an in-fill development project must
meet all of the threshold criteria set forth below.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general
plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
Finding: The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is R-23 Residential, which
allows residential development at a density range of 15-23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
In order to construct 23 units, the applicant is requesting approval of a density bonus
· pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.86, the Residential Density Bonus and Incentives or
Concessions Ordinance. CMC Chapter 21.86 was established as a means to implement state
law, and the goals, objectives and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan which
includes the provision to provide housing affordable to lower-and moderate-income
households. As further detailed in this resolution and the project's March 20, 2019, staff
report, the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
PC RESO NO. 7377 -5-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 18 of 612
Finding: The proposed development is located within the current city limits of the City of
Carlsbad on a 0.72-acre site. The undeveloped project site is bordered by multiple-family
residential developments to the south and west, with Romeria Street to the east and
Gibraltar Street to the north. Addi~ional multiple-family residential is located across the
street to the east and north. Therefore, the proposed development is within the city limits
on a site no more than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses.
( c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
Finding: The project site is previously graded, disturbed land. The 0.72-acre site is
surrounded by existing residential development and does not contain any sensitive habitat.
No riparian, aquatic or wetland habitats are located onsite nor adjacent to the project site.
Therefore, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to (i) traffic, (ii) noise,
(iii) air quality, or (iv) water quality.
Findings:
(i) A traffic impact analysis was prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers on March
9, 2020. The city's traffic engineer has reviewed the traffic analysis that was prepared for
the proposed project and concurs with the technical findings and determinations that the
project does not create any significant traffic impacts pursuant to CEQA or the city's Growth
Management Plan. No traffic mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the project will
not result in any significant effects related to traffic.
(ii) A noise study by Rincon Consultants, Inc, dated January 2017, was provided. The
apartment project does not have any required exterior private recreation areas and
therefore is not subject to the maximum 60 dB(a) CNEL noise level. Given the exterior noise
levels and modern building construction that meets or exceeds the 2016 California Green
Building Code requirements, the project will experience interior noise levels below the city's
required 45 dB(a) CNEL interior noise level. The project will have temporary noise impacts
associated with the construction of the project. However, the project is located within an
urban area and the city regulates construction noise by restricting the allowable hours of
construction. Construction can occur Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and
Saturday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.; no work can be conducted on Sundays or on federal holidays.
Once constructed, the apartment project will not produce any significant noise. Therefore,
the project will not have any significant effects related to noise.
(iii) The project involves the development of 23 apartments, which include emissions
associated with grading and construction. Emissions would be minimized through standard
construction measures, would be minimal, temporary and localized, resulting in pollutant
emissions that are not anticipated to significantly contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation. Vehicle trip emissions associated with travel to and from the proposed
apartments will result in 138 Average Daily Trips (ADTs). Vehicle trip emissions associated
with the project are minimal and not anticipated to significantly contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a
cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As
PC RESO NO. 7377 -6-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 19 of 612
described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be
minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air
quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented.
According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the proposed project's incremental
contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the
project will not produce any significant effects related to air quality.
(iv) The project has been conditioned to comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations and
implement best management practices at all times, complete and submit to the city a
Determination of Project's SWPPP Tier Level and Construction Threat Level Form, and
submit the appropriate Tier level Storm Water Compliance form and appropriate Tier level
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The project is subject to 'Priority
Development Project' requirements and a Storm Water Quality Management Plan
(SWQMP) will be prepared.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Finding: The project will develop 23 apartments, which is consistent with the General Plan
and therefore will not affect the provision and availability of public facilities (water,
wastewater, fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, etc.). Through the
Carlsbad Growth Management Plan and Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP),
the impacts of development on public services were analyzed and the project has been
designed and/or conditioned to provide adequate public services to meet the needs of
development. The project is conditioned to comply with the Zone 6 LFMP performance
standards to ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided prior to or
concurrent with the development. Since multi-family residential development was
anticipated and analyzed by the General Plan and Zone 6 LFMP for this site, the project will
be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Section 15300.2 Compliance
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be
located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a
particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply
in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous
or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by
federal, state, or local agencies.
Finding: The project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption and therefore this exception is not
applicable.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemption for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative
impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
Finding: The San Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG) projects regional growth for
the greater San Diego area, and local General Plan land use policies are incorporated into
SAN DAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm
water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management
PC RESO NO. 7377 -7-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 20 of 612
standards, etc. are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the
region. All of the city's development standards and regulations are consistent with the
region wide standards. The city's standards and regulations, including grading standards,
water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource
protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the
city will not result in a significantly cumulatively considerable impact. The project is subject
to city standards and regulations which will ensure that development of the site will not
result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts.
(c) Significant Impact. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances.
Finding: As detailed in the July 15, 2020, project staff report, opinions were expressed
during the City Council hearing on June 11, 2019 that using cast-in-drilled-hole piles for
support of the proposed project and site retaining walls is an unusual form of engineering
mitigation. Cast-in-drilled-hole piles are commonly used to transfer structural loads through
potentially compressible soils and into suitable bearing earth materials when remedial
grading is not practical or feasible. The potentially compressible earth materials within the
project site extend to depths as great as 35 feet below existing grade. Because of this
condition and the limi.ted space available within the project site for deep material
excavations, full-depth remedial grading would require extensive shoring with lateral
tiebacks that would extend onto neighboring properties. Furthermore, there is insufficient
space to temporarily stockpile the excavated materials. This full-depth remedial grading is
not practical from both logistical and financial perspectives. The use of CIDH piles is less
invasive than full depth remedial grading and will provide adequate support of the
proposed buildings and site retaining walls. Additionally, opinions were expressed during
the City Council hearing on June 11, 2019 that traffic could be a significant impact since a
traffic impact analysis was not prepared for the project. Since the City Council hearing, a
traffic impact analysis was prepared and reviewed by the city's traffic engineer. Staff
concurs with the technical findings and determinations that the project does not create any
significant traffic impacts pursuant to CEQA or the city's Growth Management Plan.
Therefore, there is not a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect
on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in
damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock
outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic
highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted
negative declaration or certified E/R.
Finding: The project site is not located within or adjacent to a highway officially designated
as a state scenic highway. Therefore, this exception is not applicable.
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a
site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
PC RESO NO. 7377 -8-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 21 of 612
General
Finding: The project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5
of the Government Code.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Finding: The project site has been previously graded but undeveloped. No historical
resources exist on or around the project site.
15. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with
the Elements of the City's General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated
March 20, 2019 including, but not limited to the following:
a. Land Use & Community Design -The 23-unit residential apartment project is consistent with
the elements and objectives of the General Plan as discussed in Section "A" of the project
staff report. The proposed 23-unit residential apartment project qualifies for an allocation
of excess dwelling units pursuant to City Council Policy No. 43 since the project includes the
required inclusionary housing units required by CMC Chapters 21.85 and 21.86 and the
project is conditioned to execute affordable housing and density bonus housing
agreements. There are currently excess dwelling units available in the Southeast Quadrant
as a result of residential projects approved at densities below the GMCP. All necessary
public facilities required by the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan will be
constructed, or are guaranteed to be constructed, concurrently with the need for them
created by this development and in compliance with adopted city standards.
b. Mobility -The proposed project has been designed to meet applicable circulation
requirements, which include two driveway access points from Romeria Street. In addition,
the applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of a building permit
that will go towards future road improvements. The proposed project will maintain an
existing sidewalk along Romeria Street and ~ibraltar Street which will provide pedestrian
access to and from the project.
c. Noise -The project consists of 23 residential apartments located in two buildings. A noise
study by Rincon Consultants, Inc, dated January 2017, was provided. The apartment project
does not have any required exterior private recreation areas and therefore is not subject to
the maximum 60 dB(a) CNEL noise level. Given the exterior noise levels and modern building
construction that meets or exceeds the 2016 California Green Building Code requirements,
the project will experience interior noise levels below the required 45 dB(a) CNEL interior
noise level.
d. Public Safety -The proposed structural improvements are required to be designed in
conformance with all seismic design standards. In addition, the proposed project is
consistent with all of the applicable fire safety requirements.
e. Housing -The proposed project includes 15%, or three, inclusionary units which will be
required to be rented to very low-income households. The provision for inclusionary
PC RESO NO. 7377 -9-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 22 of 612
housing will contribute toward achieving the city's Regional Housing Needs. The project
has been conditioned accordingly to require the approval of an Affordable Housing
Agreement prior to building permit issuance.
16. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 6 and all City public policies and ordinances. The project includes
elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and
improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire;
schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and
open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or
concurrent with need. Specifically,
a. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Encinitas Union School District
that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
b. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior
to the issuance of building permit.
c. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 6 is required by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
17. That the project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual and Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance {Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.50).
18. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree
of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of a
grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. All findings and conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 7324 are superseded by the findings and conditions
contained in this resolution.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the city shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further
condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained
by Developer or a successor in interest by the city's approval of this Site Development Plan.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and
modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur
PC RESO NO. 7377 -10-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 23 of 612
substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this
approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any
fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged,
this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such
condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council
determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and
costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the city arising, directly or indirectly,
from (a) city's approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan, (b) city's approval or issuance
of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use
contemplated herein, .and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility
permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by
the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives
until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the city's approval is not
validated.
6. Prior to submittal of the building plans, improvementplans, grading plans, or final map, whichever
occurs first, developer shall submit to the City Planner, a 24" x 36" copy of the Site Plan,
conceptual grading plan and preliminary utility plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final
decision making body. The copy shall be submitted to the City Planner, reviewed and, if found
acceptable, signed by the city's project planner and project engineer. If no changes were required,
the approved exhibits shall fulfill this condition.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Building
Division from the Encinitas Union School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part
of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to
the issuance of building permits.
9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within
24 months from the date of project approval.
10. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and
sewer services to the project provides written certification to the city that adequate water service
and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the
building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until
the time of occupancy.
PC RESO NO. 7377 -11-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 24 of 612
11. Developer shall pay the Citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the
License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD
#1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone
6, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If
the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall
become void.
12. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan
showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape
Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final
Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash,
and debris.
13. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape
plancheck process on file in the Planning Division and accompanied by the project's building,
improvement, and grading plans.
14. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of an exterior lighting plan including
parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on
adjacent homes or property.
15. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance
as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development.
16. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the city a. Notice of
Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed
in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a(n) Site
Development Plan by Resolution(s) No. 7377 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note
the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions
of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The City Planner has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice
which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
17. No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so
required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and the City Planner of
an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan.
18. Prior to the recordation of the parcel map for any phase of this project, or where a parcel map is
not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer
shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement and Density Bonus Housing Agreement with
the City to provide and deed restrict three (3) inclusionary dwelling units. Specifically, three (3)
units shall be rented at a price affordable to very low-income households at· 50% or less of the
San Diego County Area Median Income for 55 years, in accordance with the requirements and
PC RESO NO. 7377 -12-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 25 of 612
process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing
Agreement and Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the City Planner no later
than 60 days prior to building permit issuance. The recorded Agreements shall be binding on all
future owners and successors in interest.
Engineering:
General
19. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within
this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer for the proposed
haul route.
20. The project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for
the development of the subject property, unless the district engineer has determined that
adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of permit issuance and will continue
to be available until time of occupancy.
21. The developer shall complete processing of a lot line adjustment between lot 392 and lot 393 as .
shown on the site plan.
22. The developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in
accordance with City Engineering Standards. The property owner shall maintain this condition.
23. Property owner shall maintain all landscaping (street trees, tree grates, shrubs, groundcover, etc.)
and irrigation along the parkway frontage with Gibraltar Street and Romeria Street as shown on
the Site Plan.
Fees/ Agreements
24. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation,
the city's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
25. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation
the city's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement.
26. Developer shall cause property owner to submit an executed copy to the city engineer for
recordation a city standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice
Maintenance Agreement.
27. Developer shall cause property owner to apply for, execute, and submit, to the city engineer for
recordation, an Encroachment Agreement covering private enhanced pavement located over
existing public right-of-way as shown on the site plan. Developer shall pay processing fees per the
city's latest fee schedule.
PC RESO NO. 7377 -13-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 26 of 612
Grading
28. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site plan,
a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and
technical studies/reports as required by city engineer, post security and pay all applicable grading
plan review and permit fees per the city's latest fee schedule.
29. If needed, as determined by the city engineer, upon completion of grading, developer shall file
an "as-graded" geologic plan with the city engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as
exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and
must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan
shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted
on a 24" x 36" mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record.
30. Prior to approval of the grading plans, the applicant shall submit a Construction Plan to the city
engineer for review and approval. Said Plan may be required to include, but not be limited to,
identifying the location of the construction trailer, material staging, material deliveries, bathroom
facilities, parking of construction vehicles, employee parking, construction fencing and gates,
obtaining any necessary permission for off-site encroachment, addressing pedestrian safety, and
identifying time restrictions for various construction activities. All material staging, construction
trailers, bathroom facilities, etc. shall be located outside the public right-of-way unless otherwise
approved by the city engineer or Construction Management & Inspection engineering manager.
31. Concurrent with the grading plans Developer shall include shoring plans as part of the grading
plans to the satisfaction of the city engineer and building official. Structural calculations for all
shoring shall be submitted for review and approval by the building division. Developer shall pay
all deposits necessary to cover any 3rd party review.
Storm Water Quality
32. Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall
implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are
not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during
construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the
discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the
maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants of the above
requirements.
33. Developer shall complete and submit to the city engineer a Determination of Project's SWPPP Tier
Level and Construction Threat Level Form pursuant to City Engineering Standards. Developer shall
also submit the appropriate Tier level Storm Water Compliance form and appropriate Tier level
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Developer
shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per the city's latest fee schedule.
34. The project is subject to 'Priority Development Project' requirements. Developer shall prepare
and process a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), subject to city engineer
approval, to comply with the Carlsbad BMP Design Manual latest version. The final SWQMP
PC RESO NO. 7377 -14-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 27 of 612
required by this condition shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer with final grading
. plans. Developer shall pay all applicable SWQMP plan review and inspection fees per the city's
latest fee schedule.
35. Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans (grading plans, improvement plans,
landscape plans, building plans, etc.) incorporate all source control, site design, pollutant control
BMP and applicable hydromodification measures.
Dedications/Improvements
36. Developer shall design the private drainage systems, as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction
of the city engineer. All private drainage systems (12" diameter storm drain and larger) shall be
inspected by the city. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection
fees for private drainage systems.
37. Prior to any work in city right-of-way or public easements, Developer shall apply for and obtain a
right-of-way permit to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
38. Developer shall prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to city engineer
approval of said plans, shall execute a city standard Development Improvement Agreement to
install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 for public
improvements shown on the site plan. Said improvements shall be installed to city standards to
the satisfaction of the city engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to:
A. Driveways, sidewalk, and curb ramps,
B. Sewer laterals, water services and water meters,
C. Irrigation services and fire services,·
D. Curb outlets,
E. · Street trees, and
F. Streetlight
39. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees in accordance with
the fee schedule. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval
of the development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
40. Due to access by Waste Management trucks, developer shall design, and obtain approva·I from
the city engineer,· the structural section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in
accordance with city standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an
ADT greater than 500. Prior to completion of grading, the final structural pavement design of the
aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information subject to the
review and approval of the city engineer.
41. Developer shall be responsible to ensure utility transformers or raised water backflow preventers
that serve this development are located outside the right-of-way to the satisfaction of the city
engineer. These facilities shall be constructed within the property.
PC RESO NO. 7377 -15-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 28 of 612
Utilities
42. Developer shall ·meet with the fire marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows,
fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if
proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to
the satisfaction of the district engineer.
43. The developer shall agree to design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a
source and prepare and submit a colored recycled water use map to the Planning Division for
processing and approval by the district engineer.
44. Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at locations
approved by the district engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
45. The developer shall agree to install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the city
engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
46. The developer shall design and agree to construct public water, sewer, and recycled water
facilities substantially as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction of the district engineer and city
engineer.
47. The developer shall meet with and obtain approval from the Leucadia Wastewater District
regarding sewer infrastructure available or required to serve this project.
48. The developer shall submit a detailed potable water study, prepared by a registered engineer that
identifies the peak demands of the project (including fire flow demands). The study shall identify
velocity in the main lines, pressure zones, and the required pipe sizes. Said study shall be
submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the district engineer.
Code Reminders:
49. Developer shall pay planned local area drainage fees in accordance with Section 15.08.020 of
the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
50. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section
13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and
floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the site plan are for planning purposes
only.
51. Developer shall pay Bridge and Thorou~hfare District #1 fees based on Section 20.08.140 of
the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
52. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees in accordance with Section 20.44 of the City of Carlsbad
Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
PC RESO NO. 7377 -16-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 29 of 612
53. Prior· to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall pay a Public Facility fee as required by
Council Policy No. 17.
54. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall pay the Local Facilities Management
fee for Zone 6 as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050.
55. Developer shall pay a landscape plancheck and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
56. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable city ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance,
except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
57. This project shall comply with the latest nonresidential disabled access requirements pursuant to
Title 24 of the California Building Code.
58. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 17.04.060.
59. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with
the city's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the City Planner prior to
installation of such signs.
60. All required parking shall be made permanently available and be permanently maintained for
parking purposes. A garage may be used for limited storage provided that the number of
vehicles the garage is designed for can fit in the garage and provided that the limited Storage
does not create a fire hazard.
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's
decision. Pursuant to Ca rlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in
writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal
prior to any judicial review.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collec;:tively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from date offinal approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest
them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the
protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent
legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
PC RESO NO. 7377 -17-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 30 of 612
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT
APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other
similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any
fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute
of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on July 15, 2020, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chair Anderson, Commissioners Geidner, Lafferty, Luna, Meenes, Merz and Stine.
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
~~rfe,l<IW
VEL YN ANDERSON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
City Planner
PC RESO NO. 7377 -18-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 31 of 612
EXHIBIT 3
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 32 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 33 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 34 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 35 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 36 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 37 of 612
July 15, 2020
CALL TO ORDER: 3:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Anderson, Geldner, Lafferty, Luna, Meenes, Merz, and Stine
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion by Commissioner Meenes, seconded by Commissioner Lafferty, to approve the June 3, 2020
meeting minutes, as amended. Motion carried 6/1 (Commissioner Luna abstained.)
Motion by Commissioner Meenes, seconded by Commissioner Stine, to approve the June 17, 2020
meeting minutes, as amended. Motion carried 7/0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
None
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING:
Chair Anderson directed everyone’s attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the
Commission would be following for that evening’s public hearing.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing for Item 1.
1.SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) – ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS – Request to reconsider upon
remand from the City Council, and approve, a Site Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-
unit residential apartment project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property
generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street within Local
Facilities Management Zone 6. After conducting a new environmental analysis, the city planner is
recommending that this project be found to be exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 “In-Fill Development Projects” of the
State CEQA Guidelines because it will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment.
City Planner Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Garcia would make the staff
presentation (on file in the Planning Division.)
DISCLOSURES:
Commissioner Merz, Stine, Meenes and Chair Anderson disclosed they drove by and walked the site.
Commissioner Geldner disclosed she read through CEQA, researched several technical articles on pile
construction, and read on a few government websites about grants on safe routes to school.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION & QUESTIONS:
Applicant John Allen gave a presentation (on file in the Planning Division.)
EXHIBIT 4
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 38 of 612
Commissioner Lafferty asked if underground parking was considered.
Mr. Allen stated that it was not considered an option due to the amount of grading and shoring that would
be needed and it was financially infeasible. He stated the piles are going to require less grading, less dirt
to haul away, and less traffic for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Lafferty stated she feels that underground parking would have been feasible and is
concerned that it is not part of the project.
Andy Guatelli, Engineer from Geosoils, stated that some of the shoring for underground parking could
have been as high at 30 feet. He stated that it is not only financially very high, that it would be a risky
design.
Mr. Allen added that at the request of staff and suggestions from the community, they have done grading
to lower the pads which will reduce the perspective of the height of the building. He stated they have
stepped back the upper floors and reduced the size of the units as a result of input from the neighbors.
Commissioner Meenes asked for a brief explanation of the storm water treatment plan for the project.
Mr. Allen explained that all of the storm water will be gathered on site, contained, treated, and slowly
released into the storm drain system.
Commissioner Stine asked about some “cracks” he saw in the soil at the site and if that is a sign of
instability.
Mr. Guatelli explained that with fallow sites those are called desiccation cracks. He explained that when
the property is developed, that those would not occur and they are not a sign of instability. He stated
that grading would remove the fine soils on the top and those cracks would no longer be visible. There
will be recompacted soils on the surface, landscaping, as well as sidewalks and driveways.
Commissioner Stine asked if the piles being used have been used on any other local projects.
Mr. Guatelli stated that the same type of piles were used for the Jefferson Street bridge widening project.
He stated the piles provide a tremendous amount of support in urban areas with a minimal amount of
grading. He stated using piles lower the seismic risk as well.
Mr. Allen added that these types of piles are routinely used in residential building when the property is
close to the beach or sitting on a slope. He stated the drilling company they will be using recently did local
projects on two homes in La Jolla, one is San Clemente, and a multi-family residential project in Vista.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated that CIDH piles are common for this type of development and stated
the proposed foundation is a superior method.
Chair Anderson stated she knows of a church and condominium development in Carlsbad that are both
built on piles and that the method is used more then most people know.
APPELANT PRESENTATION:
Chair Anderson welcomed the appellant to make her presentation. Appellant Sue Ortman gave a
presentation.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 39 of 612
Commissioner Merz commented that the only result he can see by the installation of the retaining wall
and piles is stabilizing potential slippage of the soil, which would be a benefit to Ms. Ortman’s property.
He stated that is based on the presentation from the applicant, the testimony of the engineer and his own
experience in working in the industry of pile installation. He asked Ms. Ortman if she had any comment
on that matter.
Ms. Ortman stated they have no idea what the drilling will do to their building and she stated the applicant
does not know either. She stated the proposed building will be close to the property line where they will
be installing piles about 20 feet from her building.
Commissioner Merz stated the engineer from Geosoils explained that the drill has a low vibration and is
used to build buildings next to existing ones to avoid disturbing the existing building.
Ms. Ortman stated they don’t know exactly what might happen. She stated it is also the traffic, the height
of the building, and other components.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Chair Anderson asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the project. She
opened public testimony at 4:18 pm.
Residents Chad Peck, R. Stuart Knecht, Susan Simmonds, Warren Simmonds, Mary Anne Orcutt, Beth
Citrano, and Eileen Donovan submitted comments concerning the meeting format being virtual and not in
person, limited parking in the neighborhood, increased traffic, fire hazard areas close by, the height and
mass of the proposed building, the lack of areas for children to play, water quality issues, instability of the
land/soil issues, environmental impacts, and noise pollution that would be created by the now 23 unit
development. They are requesting the applicant complete a partial CEQA.
Diane Nygaard, of Preserve Calavera, submitted comments concerning traffic and would like to see a VMT
and GHG analysis done. She stated the staff report fails to support the conclusion that there are no adverse
impacts from traffic on GHG.
Steve Linke, resident and City of Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commissioner submitted comments
requesting that comments received after the staff report be distributed be posted to the website prior to
the hearing. He stated it would have been more appropriate for the applicant to conduct a vehicle miles
traveled analysis instead of level of service. He stated his concern that Transportation Impact Analysis or
TIA guidelines are not being followed and would like to see further traffic analysis be conducted.
Chair Anderson asked if there were any additional members of the public who wished to speak on the
project Seeing none, she closed public testimony at 4:54 p.m.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Stine asked the applicant’s engineer for feedback on the appellant and public comments.
Mr. Guatelli stated they do know what will happen when they start drilling as they have conducted
research and analysis on what material they will be drilling into. He re-stated the drilling method causes
very low vibrations and is used in constructing new buildings next to existing ones as to avoid disturbing
the existing building. He stated there will be quality control procedures during drilling and construction
to include city staff inspections and monitoring.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 40 of 612
Engineering Manager Geldert stated that there have not been any professional opinions provided to
support the opposition. He stated he is confident in the method the applicant is proposing.
City Planner Neu commented on requests from the public for a VMT analysis. He stated the application
for this project was complete prior to the VMT requirement taking effect at the state level and that is why
a VMT analysis is not required.
Commissioner Geldner asked if the applicant plans to follow the recommendations from Geosoils when it
comes to drilling and construction.
Mr. Allen confirmed that they absolutely plan on following all of the recommendations related to drilling,
quality control, and construction.
Commissioners Geldner, Lafferty, and Chair Anderson stated support for the project. They stated the
traffic analysis and geotechnical study conducted support the findings provided by staff and the project
does not require any further CEQA analysis to be conducted. They agreed that the foundation work and
the type of construction, using piles, is not unusual and is a regularly used method.
Commissioner Luna explained that when an application is deemed complete, any laws in place at the time
are applicable. Any laws that take effect after the application is deemed complete, cannot be added on
or enforced. She stated that would be unfair and cause a never ending cycle of requirements for a
development project. She wanted to help the public understand that is the reason a VMT analysis was
not conducted. She stated the project is a great opportunity for the city to gain some much needed
affordable housing units. She agreed with Engineering Manager Geldert that there are not any
professional reports to support an unusual circumstance that would sway her original decision to support
the project.
Commissioners Meenes, Merz and Stine all agreed with Commissioner Luna’s comments and support the
project.
Chair Anderson requested a condition be added that states garages are to be used for parking vehicles
and not used solely for storage.
Associate Planner Garcia stated there is verbiage that covers that in the municipal code and will draft
language to add if the commission desires. He stated it can be added as a code reminder to the resolution.
ACTION:
Motion by Commissioner Stine, seconded by Commissioner Luna, to adopt Resolution No. 7377 as
amended. Motion carried, 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS:
Commissioner Luna and City Planner Neu gave a brief update on the Housing Element Advisory Committee
and the plan to go to city council for direction on some possible strategies of the housing plan.
CITY PLANNER REPORTS:
None
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS:
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 41 of 612
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Anderson adjourned the duly noticed meeting at 5:38 p.m.
Melissa Flores - Minutes Clerk
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 42 of 612
EXHIBIT 5
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 43 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 44 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 45 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 46 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 47 of 612
CA Review
~ CITY COUNCIL
~ Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
Project Name:
Project No.:
June 11, 2019
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Chris Garcia, Associate Planner
chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov or 760-602-4622
Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a
Site Development Plan to allow the construction.of a four-story, 23-unit
residential apartment project which includes three affordable, rent-
restricted housing units, on property generally located at the southwest
corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street.
Romeria Pointe Apartments
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
Recommended Action
That the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal and
upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve SDP 2018-0004.
Executive Summary
On March 20, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding a request
for a Site Development Plan and density bonus to allow the construction of 23 residential
apartments on two vacant lots. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the
project (7-0). An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted on March 28,
2019, by Susan Ortman. The property is not located in the coastal zone.
Discussion
Project Description and Background:
The proposed project consists of re-grading two previously graded lots and the construction of
two, four-story residential apartment buildings containing 23 total units. The 0.72-acre project
site consists of two legal parcels that are conditioned to be merged prior to development. The
site has street frontage on Romeria Street to the east and Gibraltar Street to the north.
Topographically, the site has two existing pad levels of approximately 77 feet and 91 feet above
mean sea level (AMSL), with an intervening slope between the two lots. Both lots sit above
existing lots to the north and west, below the lot to the south, and similar in elevation as the
lots to the east. Grading for the proposed project includes 12,000 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut, 500
c.y. of fill, with 11,500 c.y. of export. The grading still results in two, split level pads that are
slightly lower in height than existing grades. A grading permit is required for the project.
EXHIBIT 6
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 48 of 612
Pursuant to Chapter 21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), the applicant is requesting a
35 percent density bonus which requires a minimum of 11% of the base units as inclusionary
(i.e., rent-restricted) units affordable to "very low-income households." With this density
bonus, the maximum number of units allowed for the 0.72-acre site is 23 units with two units
required to be affordable to "very low-income" households. Since the project is also required to
comply with the city's minimum inclusionary housing requirement of 15% affordable, the
project is providing a third unit available to "very low-income" households.
As part of the density bonus request, up to three incentives or concessions may be requested
(CMC Section 21.86.050). Accordingly, the applicant is requesting the allowance for increased
building height and requesting units from the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB). Section
"A" of the Planning Corri mission Staff Report dated March 20, 2019, and Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7324 provide a detailed discussion on the density bonus request.
As a density bonus project, the City Council's discretion to grant the appeal and thereby deny
the project is governed by State Law as described in Government Code Section 65915, attached
as Exhibit 7.
Planning Commission Hearing:
The Planning Commission considered the Romeria Pointe Apartments project on March 20,
2019. Prior to the public comment period, Assistant City Attorney Ronald Kemp clarified the
findings to deny concessions requested under density bonus law (building height, dwelling units
from the EDUB). During the public hearing, three people submitted written opposition to the
project through public speaker slips and two of the three people spoke directly to the Planning
Commission, including the appellant. The issues raised by those in opposition were
geotechnical, potential damages to surrounding property, building height, loss of natural light,
and unit quantity and size. The applicant responded to the geotechnical concerns and city
Engineering Manager Jason Geldert also responded to geotechnical questions from the
Planning Commission. In addition to the concerns raised at the hearing, additional written
comments were received prior to the Planning Commission meeting regarding parking, traffic,
views, trash, and pedestrian safety. These comments are attached to the Planning Commission
Staff Report.
Standard of Review for Appeals
This item is before the City Council as an appeal of a final approval of the Site Development
Plan by the Planning Commission and a determination by the City Planner that the project was
exempt from CEQA review.
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.54.150{c) outlines procedures for appeals of
Planning Commission decisions and City Planner's CEQA determinations, and states:
"Grounds for appeal shall be limited to the following: that there was an error or abuse
of discretion on the part of the planning commission in that the decision was not
supported by the facts presented to the planning commission prior to the decision being
appealed; or that there was not a fair and impartial hearing".
Section 21.54.150(c) goes on to state that the City Council's consideration is "de nova" (or "like
new") but limits the consideration to "only the evidence presented to the Planning Commission
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 49 of 612
for consideration in the determination or decision being appealed." The City Council's
reconsideration on the appeal is limited to only the issues presented to the Planning
Commission and raised in the appeal. Any matters that were presented to the Planning
Commission but were not specified in the appeal are considered to be approved correctly and
supported by substantial evidence. Thus, no new information may be considered by the City .
Council that was not presented to the Planning Commission. The City Council may uphold,
modify or overturn the Planning Commission's and the City Planner's decision.
Project Appeal and Response:
The appellant is basing their appeal on a few points including that "The Planning Commission
erroneously approved the city's first density bonus project by relying on self-certification by city
staff that the project proposes no environmental impact and awarded density bonus
concessions based on Prop E." Specifically, the appellant describes potential geotechnical issues
and suggests that the project should not proceed without an Environmental Impact Report, an
engineering study, soil sampling, and a traffic study.
The Land Development Engineering Division has reviewed the preliminary geotechnical reports
for the project. Furthermore, the preliminary geotechnical reports were reviewed by a third-
party consultant under contract with the city. The project will not be issued grading permits
until final engineering reports are completed. However, all preliminary reports prepared by and
reviewed by professionals describe a geotechnically feasi,ble project.
Regarding traffic, the city requires Traffic Impact Studies for new developments that exceed
500 Average Daily Trips (ADT), which is derived from the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic
Impact Studies in' the San Diego Region. The proposed project has an estimated 184 ADT for the
23-unit residential project. Therefore, a traffic study was not required since the project is well
under the 500 ADT to warrant such a study.
The city has a growth management ordinance approved by voters and known as "Prop. E."
According to City Council Policy No. 43 -Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, an allocation of excess
dwelling units to a project is a density bonus "incentive," as defined in CMC Section
21.86.020A.12 and Government Code Section 65915(k). The applicant has requested to
withdraw units from the EDUB as one of their permitted incentives or concessions allowed
under State density bonus law and CMC Chapter 21.86 -Residential Density Bonus and
Incentives or Concessions.
Government Code Section 65915 states cities shall grant the concessions unless the city adopts
written findings based on substantial evidence presented at the hearing of the specific, adverse
impacts on public health and safety. A specific, adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable,
direct and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety
standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed
complete. Inconsistency with zoning or general plan land use is not a specific, adverse impact.
As mentioned previously, all preliminary geotechnical reports have been reviewed and a
feasible option to mitigate any potential geotechnical impacts to neighboring properties has
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 50 of 612
been provided. Furthermore, all final engineering reports and documents are required to be
completed prior to commencement of on-site grading.
Staff recommended approval of the project and concurs with the Planning Commission's
decision on March 20, 2019, to approve the Site Development Plan and density bonus request.
The project, Romeria Pointe Apartments, meets the objective standards of all applicable plans,
policies, and regulations, and will not produce any significant impacts to the public's health,
safety and/or welfare. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission's decision and deny the appeal.
Fiscal Analysis
If approved, all required improvements to serve this project will be funded and/or constructed
by the developer.
Next Steps
The City Council's action on this item is final.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
The City Planner has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State
Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it
is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental
documents pursuant to Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) Class 32 Categorical
Exemption of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project is consistent with the General Plan as well
as with the Zoning Ordinance. The project site is within the city limits, is less than five acres in
size, and is surrounded by urban uses. There is no evidence that the site has value as habitat for
endangered, rare, or threatened species. Approval of the project will not result in significant
effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and the site can be adequately
served by all required utilities and public services. In making this determination, the City
Planner has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do
not apply to this project. The only exception that could apply upon review is 15300.2(c) -
whether there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the
environment due to unusual circumstances. In order to grant the appeal, the council must apply
a two-part test. First, it must decide whether the project presents unusual circumstances which
differ significantly from other projects that have been covered by this exception. If not, the
analysis ends there. Second, the council must find there is a reasonable possibility that a
significant environmental impact will result from the identified unusual circumstances of the
project.
A Notice of Exemption will be filed by the City Planner upon final project approval.
Public Notification and Outreach
The project is not subject to City Council Policy No. 84 -Development Project Public
Involvement Policy, since the project was filed prior to the effective date of the policy.
Information regarding public notification ofthis item such as mailings, public hearing notices
posted in the newspaper and on the city website are available in the Office of the City Clerk.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 51 of 612
Exhibits
1.City Council Resolution.
2.Location Map.
3.Planning Commission Resolution No. 7324.
4.Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 20, 2019 (without Planning Commission
Resolution and Full Size Exhibits "A" - "OO" dated March 20, 2019).
5.Planning Commission minutes dated March 20, 2019.
6.Appeal Form dated March 28, 2019.
7.Government Code Section 65915 relating to Density Bonus.
8.Public Comments.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 52 of 612
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
. TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 23-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT
PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES THREE AFFORDABLE, RENT RESTRICTED
HOUSING UNITS, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROMERIA STREET AND GIBRALTAR STREET
WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
CASE NO.: SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that pursuant to
the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on March 20, 2019, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider Site Development Plan No. SDP 2018-0004, as
referenced in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7324 approving the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2019, the appellant, Susan Ortman, timely filed an appeal with the city
as provided pursuant to Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve said Site Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision is denied, that all matters not
specified in the appeal have been supported by substantial evidence with findings and approved by the
Planning Commission, and that the findings and conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7324 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings
and conditions of the City Council.
3. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The
Provisions of Chapter 1.16 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 53 of 612
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the_ day of ___ � 2019, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
MA TT HALL, Mayor
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 54 of 612
Exhibit 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7324
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 2018-0004 TO
CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY, 23-UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT PROJECT
WHICH INCLUDES THREE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS, ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROMERIA STREET
AND GIBRALTAR STREET WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
CASE NO.: SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
WHEREAS, BNR Investment & Development, LLC, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified
,
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 393 and 394 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
6600, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
March 10, 1970
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan and
residential density bonus as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" -"00" dated March 20, 2019, on file in the Planning
Division, SDP 2018-0004-ROMERIAPOINTE APARTMENTS as provided by Chapters 21.06 and 21.86, and
Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on March 20, 2019, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
the Site Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 56 of 612
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
APPROVES SDP 2018-0004 -ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
Site Development Plan, SDP 2018-0004
1. That the proposed development or use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
master plan or specific plan, complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter 21.06 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, and all other applicable provisions of this code, in that the various goals
and objectives of the General Plan will be implemented as the proposed project is consistent
with the General Plan, which allows for a mixture of residential uses, including multiple-family
residential, within the R-23 Residential Land Use designation. Although the project's density of
31.9 dwelling units per acre is above the maximum R-23 Residential density of 23 du/ac as the
project includes a request for a residential density bonus, the 23-unit residential apartment
project can be found consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policies as discussed below and
in Section A and Table 5 of the project Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March
20, 2019.
2. That the requested development or use is properly related to the site, surroundings and
environmental settings, will not be detrimental to existing development or uses or to
development or uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed development or use
is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that
multiple-family residential is a permitted use within the Residential Density-Multiple {RD-M)
Zone and is compatible with the other multiple-family residential uses surrounding the project
site. The residential apartment project will not adversely impact the site, surroundings, or traffic
circulation in that the existing surrounding streets have adequate capacity to accommodate the
138 Average Daily Trips {ADT) generated by the project. With exception to the allowance for
increased building height through the density bonus process, the project complies with all
minimum development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including but not limited to
the RD-M Zone, and the project is adequately parked on-site and does not result in any
environmental impacts.
3. That the site for the intended development or use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the use, in that with exception to the allowance for increased building height as discussed in the
project staff report, the residential apartment project complies with all remaining development
standards of the Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) Zone and all other applicable sections
of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the
requested development or use to existing or permitted future development or use in the
neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that with exception to the allowance for
increased building height the project complies with all remaining development standards (i.e.
front, side and rear setbacks, lot coverage, parking) of the Residential Density -Multiple {RO-
M) Zone and all other applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping along the outer
edges of the property, including the areas along Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street, will be
provided consistent with the requirements of the city's Landscape Manual.
PC RESO NO. 7324 -2-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 57 of 612
5. That the street systems serving the proposed development or use is adequate to properly handle
all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the project will take access off Romeria Street
with vehicles traveling to and from the project on Gibraltar Street. as well. Romeria Street and
Gibraltar Street are identified as local streets, designed to adequately handle the 138 Average
Daily Trips generated by the 23-unit residential apartment project.
Residential Density Bonus, CMC Chapter 21.86
6. The project is consistent with the provisions of CMC Chapter 21.86 in that the proposed
residential apartment project meets all of the standards, including the requisite 35% of "very
low-income", deed-restricted inclusionary housing. In addition, increased building height is an
allowable concession.
7. The requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and
actual cost reductions in that the allocation of excess dwelling units allows for a financially
feasible project by sharing construction costs among all units including the land, permitting and
construction costs. The allowance for increased building height allows the project to provide
three stories of economicc1lly viable units since the ground floor is mainly dedicated to parking.
8. The requested incentive(s) or concession(s), and/or waiver(s) or reduction(s) of development
standards is not contrary to state or federal law in that increased number of units and a waiver
from a development standard (building height) is clearly laid out as an incentive and concession
for density bonus projects in California and pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.86.050 and
Government Code §65915(k) and (o).
City Council Policy No. 43, Allocation for Excess Dwelling Units
9. That the city's Housing Policy Team recommended approval of the request for an allocation of
nine (9) units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank on January 22, 2019.
10. That the project location and density are compatible with the existing adjacent residential
neighborhoods and/or nearby existing or planned uses in that the project includes a request for
a 35% density bonus pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.86, Residential Density Bonus and Incentives
or Concessions. The project meets the applicable findings associated with the proposed density
bonus request. Adjacent land uses include two-and three-story multi-family residential. The
proposed four-story multi-family residential apartment project is compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
11. That the project location and density are in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
General Plan and any other applicable planning document1 in that a residential apartment project
is consistent with the R-23 Residential General Plan Land Use designation and the proposed
35% density ·bonus is consistent with the provisions in CMC Chapter 21.86.
12. That the project complies with the findings stated in the General Plan Land Use Element for
projects that exceed the growth management control point for the applicable density range in
that the project qualifies for and will receive an allocation of excess dwelling units pursuant to
City Council Policy No. 43, the Southeast Quadrant dwelling unit limit will not be exceeded as a
result of the proposed project, and all necessary public facilities will be constructed or are
PC RESO NO. 7324 -3-
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 58 of 612
guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this
development.
13. That there are an adequate number of units in the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank in the Southeast
Quadrant to remove nine (9) units. Per the city's Quadrant Dwelling Unit Report dated January
31, 2019, 327 units remain available for allocation in the Southeast Quadrant.
California Environmental Quality Act:
14. The City Planner has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State
Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is
therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental
documents pursuant to Section 15332 -In-Fill Development Projects of the State CEQA
Guidelines as an infill development project. In making this determination, the City Planner has
found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines do not apply to
this project.
General
15. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with
the Elements of the City's General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated
March 20, 2019 including, but not limited to the following:
a. Land Use & Community Design-The 23-unit residential apartment project is consistent with
the elements and objectives of the General Plan as discussed in Section "A" of the project
staff report. The proposed 23-unit residential apartment project qualifies for an allocation
of excess dwelling units pursuant to City Council Policy No. 43 since the project includes the
required inclusionary housing units required by CMC Chapters 21.85 and 21.86 and the
project is conditioned to execute affordable housing and density bonus housing
agreements. There are currently excess dwelling units available in the Southeast Quadrant
as a result of residential projects approved at densities below the GMCP. All necessary
public facilities required by the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan will be
constructed, or are guaranteed to be constructed, concurrently with the need for them
created by this development and in compliance with adopted city standards.
b. Mobility -The proposed project has been designed to meet applicable circulation
requirements, which include two driveway access points from Romeria Street. In addition,
the applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of a building permit
that will go towards future road improvements. The proposed project will maintain an
existing sidewalk along Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street which will provide pedestrian
access to and from the project.
c. Noise -The project consists of 23 residential apartments located in two buildings. A noise
study by Rincon Consultants, Inc, dated January 2017, was provided. The apartment project
does not have any required exterior private recreation areas and therefore is not subject to
the maximum 60 dB{a) CNEL noise level. Given the exterior noise levels and modern building
construction that meets or exceeds the 2016 California Green Building Code requirements,
PC RESO NO. 7324 -4-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 59 of 612
the project will experience interior noise levels below the required 45 dB(a) CNEL interior
noise level.
d. Public Safety -The proposed structural improvements are required to be designed in
conformance with all seismic design standards. In addition, the proposed project is
consistent with all of the applicable fire safety requirements.
e. Housing -The proposed project includes 15%, or three, inclusionary units which will be
required to be rented to very low-income households. The provision for inclusionary
housing will contribute toward achieving the city's Regional Housing Needs. The project
has been conditioned accordingly to require the approval of an Affordable Housing
Agreement prior to building permit issuance.
16. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 6 and all City public policies and ordinances. The project includes
elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and
improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire;
· schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and
open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or
concurrent with need. Specifically,
a. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Encinitas Union School District
that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
b. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior
to the issuance of building permit.
c. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 6 is required by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
17. That the project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual and Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.50) .
.18. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree
of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of a
grading or building permit, whichever occurs first.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the city shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further
condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
PC RESO NO. 7324 -5-
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 60 of 612
record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained
by Developer or a successor in interest by the city's approval of this Site Development Plan.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and
modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this
approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any
fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged,
this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such
condition is determined to be invalid, this approva·1 shall be invalid unless the City Council
determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and
costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the city arising, directly or indirectly,
from (a) city's approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan, (b) city's approval or issuance
of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use
contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility
permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by
the facility of electromagnetic fields or dther energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives
until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the city's approval is not
validated.
6. Prior to submittal of the building plans, improvement plans, grading plans, or final map, whichever
occurs first, developer shall submit to the City Planner, a 24" x 36" copy of the Site Plan,
conceptual grading plan and preliminary utility plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final
decision making body. The copy shall be submitted to the City Planner, reviewed and, if found
acceptable, signed by the city's project planner and project engineer. If no changes were required,
the approved exhibits shall fulfill this condition.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Building
Division from the Encinitas Union School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part
of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to
the issuance of building permits.
9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within
24 months from the date of project approval.
PC RESO NO. 7324 -6-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 61 of 612
10. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and
sewer services to the project provides written certification to the city that adequate water service
and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the
building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until
the time of occupancy.
11. Developer shall pay the Citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the
License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD
#1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone
6, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If
the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall
become void.
12. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan
showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape
Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final
Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash,
and debris.
13. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape
plancheck process on file in the Planning Division and accompanied by the project's building,
improvement, and grading plans.
14. Developer shall submit and. obtain City Planner approval of an exterior lighting plan including
parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on
adjacent homes or property.
15. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance
as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Community and Economic Department.
16. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the city a Notice of
Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed
in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a(n) Site
Development Plan by Resolution(s) No. 7324 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note
the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions
of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The City Planner has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice
which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
17. No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so
required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and the City Planner of
an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan.
PC RESO NO. 7324 -7-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 62 of 612
18. Prior to the recordation of the parcel map for any phase of this project, or where a parcel map is
not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer
shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement and Density Bonus Housing Agreement with
the City to provide and deed restrict three (3) inclusionary dwelling units. Specifically, three (3)
units shall be rented at a price affordable to very low-income households at 50% or less of the
San Diego County Area Median Income for 55 years, in accordance with the requirements and
process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing
Agreement and Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the City Planner no later
than 60 days prior to building permit issuance. The recorded Agreements shall be binding on all
future owners and successors in interest.
Engineering:
General
19. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within
this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer for the proposed
haul route.
20. The project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for
the development of the subject property, unless the district engineer has determined that
adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of permit issuance and will continue
to be available until time of occupancy.
21. The developer shall complete processing of a lot line adjustment between lot 392 and lot 393 as
shown on the site plan.
22. The developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in
accordance with City Engineering Standards. The property owner shall maintain this condition.
23. Property owner shall maintain all landscaping (street trees, tree grates, shrubs, groundcover, etc.)
and irrigation along the parkway frontage with Gibraltar Street and Romeria Street as shown on
the Site Plan.
Fees/ Agreements
24. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation,
the city's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
25. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation
the city's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement.
26. Developer shall cause property owner to submit an executed copy to the city engineer for
recordation a city standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice
Maintenance Agreement.
PC RESO NO. 7324 -8-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 63 of 612
27. Developer shall cause property owner to apply for, execute, and submit, to the city engineer for
recordation, an Encroachment Agreement covering private enhanced pavement located over
existing public right-of-way as shown on the site plan. Developer shall pay processing fees per the
city's latest fee schedule.
Grading
28. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site plan,
a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and
technical studies/reports as required by city engineer, post security and pay all applicable grading
plan review and permit fees per the city's latest fee schedule.
29. If needed, as determined by the city engineer, upon completion of grading, developer shall file
an "as-graded" geologic plan with the city engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as
exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and
must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan
shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted
on a 24" x 36" mylar or similar drafting film format suitable for a permanent record.
30. Prior to approval of the grading plans, the applicant shall submit a ~onstruction Plan to the city
engineer for review and approval. Said Plan may be required to include, but not be limited to,
identifying the location of the construction trailer, material staging, material deliveries, bathroom
facilities, parking of construction vehicles, employee parking, construction fencing and gates,
obtaining any necessary permission for off-site encroachment, addressing pedestrian safety, and
identifying time restrictions for various construction activities. All material staging, construction
trailers, bathroom facilities, etc. shall be located outside the public right-of-way uriless otherwise
approved by the city engineer or Construction Management & Inspection engineering manager.
31. Concurrent with the grading plans Developer shall include shoring plans as part of the grading
plans to the satisfaction of the city engineer and building official. Structural calculations for all
shoring shall be submitted for review and approval by the building division. Developer shall pay
all deposits necessary to cover any 3rd party review.
Storm Water Quality
32. Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall
implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are
not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during
construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the
discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the
maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants of the above
requirements.
33. Developer shall complete and submit to the city engineer a Determination of Project's SWPPP Tier
Level and Construction Threat Level Form pursuant to City Engineering Standards. Developer shall
also submit the appropriate Tier level Storm Water Compliance form and appropriate Tier level
PC RESO NO. 7324 -9-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 64 of 612
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan {SWPPP) to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Developer
shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per the city's latest fee schedule.
34. The project is subject to 'Priority Development Project' requirements. Developer shall prepare
and process a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), subject to city engineer
approval, to comply with the Carlsbad BMP Design Manual latest version. The final SWQMP
required by this condition shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineerwith final grading
plans. Developer shall pay all applicable SWQMP plan review and inspection fees per the city's
latest fee schedule.
35. Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans (grading plans, improvement plans,
landscape plans, building plans, etc) incorporate all source control, site design, pollutant control
BMP and applicable hydromodification measures.
Dedications/Improvements
36. Developer shall design the private drainage systems, as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction
of the city engineer. All private drainage systems (12" diameter storm drain and larger) shall be
inspected by the city. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection
fees for private drainage systems.
37. Prior to any work in city right-of-way or public easements, Developer shall apply for and obtain a
right-of-way permit to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
38. Developer shall prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to city engineer
approval of said plans, shall execute a city standard Development Improvement Agreement to
install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 for public
improvements shown on the site plan. Said improvements shall be installed to city standards to
the satisfaction of the city engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to:
A. Driveways, sidewalk, and curb ramps,
B. Sewer laterals, water services and water meters,
C. Irrigation services and fire services,
D. Curb outlets,
E. Street trees, and
F. Streetlight
39. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees in accordance with
the fee schedule. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval
of the development improvement agreement or such othe.r time as provided in said agreement.
40. Due to access by Waste Management trucks, developer shall design, and obtain approval from
the city engineer, the structural section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in
accordance with city standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an
ADT greater than 500. Prior to completion of grading, the final structural pavement design of the
aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information subject to the
review and approval of the city engineer.
PC RESO NO. 7324 -10-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 65 of 612
41. Developer shall be responsible to ensure utility transformers or raised water backflow preventers
that serve this development are located outside the right-of-way to the satisfaction of the city
engineer. These facilities shall be constructed within the property.
Utilities
42. Developer shall meet with the fire marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows,
fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if
proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to
the satisfaction of the district engineer.
43. The developer shall agree to design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled .water as a
source and prepare and submit a colored recycled water use map to the Planning Division for
processing i)nd approval by the district engineer.
44. Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at locations
approved by the district engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
45. The developer shall agree to install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the city
engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
46. The developer shall design and agree to construct public water, sewer, and recycled water
facilities substantially as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction of the district engineer and city
engineer.
47. The developer shall meet with and obtain approval from the Leucadia Wastewater District
regarding sewer infrastructure available or required to serve this project.
48. The developer shall submit a detailed potable water study, prepared by a registered engineer that
identifies the peak demands of the project (including fire flow demands). The study shall identify
velocity in the main lines, pressure zones, and the required pipe sizes. Said study shall be
submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the district engineer.
Code Reminders:
49. Developer shall pay planned local area drainage fees in accordance with Section 15.08.020 of
the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
50. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section
13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and
floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the site plan are for planning purposes
only.
51. Developer shall pay Bridge and Thoroughfare District #1 fees based on Section 20.08.140 of
the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
PC RESO NO. 7324 -11-Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 66 of 612
52. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees in accordance with Section 20.44 of the City of Carlsbad
Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
53. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall pay a Public Facility fee as required by
Council Policy No. 17.
54. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall pay the Local Facilities Management
fee for Zone 6 as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050.
55. Developer shall pay a landscape plancheck and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
56. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable city ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance,
except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
57. This project shall comply with the latest nonresidential disabled access requirements pursuant to
Title 24 of the California Building Code.
58. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 18.04.320.
59. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with
the city's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the City Planner prior to
installation of such signs.
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's
decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in
writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal
prior to any judicial review.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest
them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the
protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent
legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
PC RESO NO. 7324 -12-
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 67 of 612
(i) PLANNING COMMISSION .
Staff Report
.
Exhibit 4
ltemNo.o
P.C. AGENDA OF: March 20, 2019
Application complete date: October 12, 2018
Project Planner: Chris Garcia
Project Engineer: Jennifer Horodyski
SUBJECT: SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) -ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS -Request for
approval of a Site Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-unit residential
apartment project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally
located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street within Local
Facilities Management Zone 6. The City Planner has determined that this project is
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15332 "In-Fill Development Projects" of the State CEQA Guidelines
and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7324 APPROVING Site
Development Plan SDP 2018-0004, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed project consists of re-grading two previously graded lots and the construction of two, four-
story residential apartment buildings containing 23 total units. The 0.72-acre project site consists of two
legal parcels that are conditioned to be merged prior to development.
In December 1998, the Planning Commission approved an 11-unit residential condominium project on the
site. In May 2004 and January 2007, the Planning Commission approved a nine-unit residential
condominium project on the site: However, all previous approvals have expired and the project site
remains vacant.
The site has street frontage on Romeria Street to the east and Gibraltar Street to the north.
Topographically, the site has two existing pad levels of approximately 77 feet and 91 feet above mean sea
level (AMSL), with an intervening slope between the two lots. Both lots sit above existing lots to the north
and west, below the lot to the south, and similar in elevation as the lots to the east.
Grading for the proposed project includes 12,000 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut, 500 c.y. of fill, with 11,500 c.y.
of export. The grading still results in two, split level pads that are slightly lower in height than existing. A
grading permit is required for the project.
The project consists of two, four-story buildings with a driveway for each building from Romeria Street.
The ground floor of each building contains enclosed two-car garages and some unenclosed parking spaces
as well as trash and utility areas. Building "A" contains five units on t he second and third floors and two
units on the fourth floor, for a total of 12 units. The second and third floors of Building "B" contain four it, "•,;"
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 69 of 612
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 2
units each, as well as a leasing office and community room. The fourth floor contains three units for a
total of 11 units in Building "B".
A breakdown of each type of unit is summarized in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1-DETAILS FOR UNIT TYPE
Unit# Quantity Size Bedroom/Bathrooms Parking Spaces Per Unit
Al, A2, A7 3 641-678 SF 1/1 1 (Affordable)
A6 1 667 SF 1/1 1
A3,A8 2 1,661-1,819 SF 3/2.5 2
A4,A9 2 1,872 -1,914 SF 3/3 2
AS, AlO 2 1,823 -1,844 SF 3/3.5 2
All, A12 2 2,008 -2,019 SF 3/3.5 2
Bl, BS 2 1,795 -1,809 SF 3/3 2
B2, B6 2 1,694 -1,723 SF 3/2.5 2
B3, B7 2 1,810 -1,827 SF 3/2.5 2
B4, B8 2 719 SF 1/1 1
B9 1 l,749SF 3/3 2
Bl0 1 942 SF 1/1 1
Bll 1 1,933 SF 3/2.5 2
Building "A" is located on the southern half of the site and is approximately 45 feet in height as measured
from the new, lower; finished grade. Architectural features and elevator tower elements extend to
approximately 48 feet in height. Building "B" is located on the northern half of the site and is
approximately 48 feet in height as measured from the new, lower, finished grade. Architectural features
and elevator tower elements extend to approximately 51 feet in height. The fa<;ade consists of a series of
angular private balconies alternating between living spaces that are designed to maximize access to sun
and views offered by the raised corner lot. A common landscaped courtyard with seating areas, a
barbeque, and a fire pit is located between the two buildings. Parking areas and garages are ventilated by
use of metal louvers which also reduce impacts from vehicle headlights on neighboring properties.
Pursuant to Chapter 21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), the applicant is requesting a 35 percent
density bonus which requires a minimum of 11 percent of the base units as inclusionary (i.e., rent-
restricted) units affordable to "very low-income households". With this density bonus, the maximum
number of units allowed for the 0.72-acre site is 23 units with two units required to be affordable to "very
low-income" households. Since the project is also required to comply with the city's minimum inclusionary
housing requirement of 15 percent affordable, the project is providing a third unit available to "very low-
income" households. Including the density bonus and the inclusionary units, the 23-unit project has a
proposed density of 31.9 dwelling units per acre. As part of the density bonus request, up to three
incentives or concessions may be requested (CMC Section 21.86.050). Accordingly, the applicant is
requesting the allowance for increased building height and requesting units from the city's Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank. Section "A" provides a detailed discussion on the density bonus request.
Table 2 below includes the General Plan Land Use designations, zoning and current land uses of the project
site and surrounding properties.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 70 of 612
SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) -ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 3
TABLE 2 -SURROUNDING LAND USE
Location General Plan Designation Zoning
Site R-23 Residential Residential Density-
Multiple (RD-M)
North R-23 Residential RD-M
South R-23 Residential RD-M
East R-23 Residential RD-M
West R-23 Residential RD-M
Current Land Use
Vacant
Multi-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Public comments have been received by surrounding residents, property owners, and interested parties.
Concerns include but are not limited to parking, traffic, density, height, views, trash, and pedestrian safety.
These comments have been attached to this staff report (Attachment 4).
Ill. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations:
A. R-23 Residential General Plan Land Use Designation and Density ~onus Ordinance (CMC Chapter
21.86);
B. Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.24);
C. Qualified Development Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.06);
D. lnclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC Chapters 21.85 and 21.86); and
E. Growth Management Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.90) and Local Facilities Management Plan Zone
6.
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency
with the applicable regulations and policies. The project's compliance with each of the above regulations
is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. R-23 Residential General Plan Land Use Designation and Density Bonus Ordinance (CMC Chapter
21.86)
The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is R-23 Residential, which allows residential
development at a dens ity range of 15-23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a Growth Management
Control Point (GMCP) of 19 du/ac. Table 3 below identifies the permissible density range for properties
designated R-23 Residential.
TABLE 3-DENSITY
Gross Acres Net Acres R-23 Residential Allowable Density
Range : 15-23 du/ac
0.72 0.72 Minimum: 15 x 0.72 = 11 dwelling units
GMCP: 19 x 0.72 = 14 dwelling units
Maximum: 23 x 0.72 = 16 dwelling units
The proposed project entails a request to construct a 23-unit apartment project. As summarized above,
the maximum number of units for a 0.72-acre parcel at 23 dwelling units per acre is 16 dwelling units. In
order to construct 23 units, the applicant is requesting approval of a density bonus pursuant to CMC
Chapter 21.86, the Residential Density Bonus and Incentives or Concessions Ordinance. CMC Chapter
21.86 was established as a means to implement state law and the goals, objectives and policies of the
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 71 of 612
SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e4
Housing Element of the General Plan which includes the provision to provide housing affordable to lower-
and moderate-income households.
Specifically, the applicant is requesting a 35 percent density bonus pursuant to Table A of CMC Section
21.86.040. In exchange for the 35 percent density bonus, the applicant is required to designate 11 percent
of the base number of units, or two units, as inclusionary units. The inclusionary apartments are required
to be rent-restricted and affordable to "very low-income households". Pursuant to CMC Section
21.86.020, a "very low-income household" is defined as a household whose gross income equals fifty
percent or less of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Although CMC Chapter 21.86 requires 11 percent or two inclusionary units for this proposed project, CMC
Chapter 21.85 requires a minimum of 15 percent inclusionary units for projects requesting an incentive
(increased building height and excess dwelling units). Therefore, the project is satisfying both
requirements by providing three inclusionary housing units.
Summary of density bonus request:
Base maximum density: 23 dwelling units per acre
Base maximum units: 0.72 acres x 23 = 17 dwelling units (round up per CMC
21.86.040(G))
(15% or three units required to be inclusionary units)
35% density bonus: 17 + 35% = 22.95 = 23 units (round up per CMC 21.86.040(G))
23 units Proposed number of units:
Proposed density: 23/0.72 = 31.9 dwelling units per acre
Table 4 below summarizes the standards required for a density bonus.
TABLE 4-CMC SECTION 21.86.090 -DENSITY BONUS HOUSING STANDARDS
Standard Analysis
A. Required target dwelling units shall be constructed The three affordable units will be built
concurrent with market-rate dwelling units unless concurrent with the market rate units.
both the final decision-making authority of the city
and the developer/applicant agree within the
density bonus housing agreement to an
alternative schedule for development.
B. Whenever feasible, target dwelling units and The inclusionary units will be built on-
density bonus dwelling units should be built on-site and located within a building that
site (within the boundary of the proposed includes market rate units. In addition,
development) and, whenever reasonably possible, the units will be distributed
be distributed throughout the project site. throughout the building on floors two
and three.
C. Whenever feasible, target dwelling units should be The proposed project is located within
located on sites that are in proximity to, or will 1.5 miles from two bus stops (El
provide access to, employment opportunities, Camino Real/La Costa Avenue &
urban services, or major roads or other Rancho Santa Fe Road /La Costa
transportation and commuter rail facilities (i.e., Avenue) which currently connect to
freeways, bus lines) and that are compatible with transit stations. In addition, the
adjacent land uses. project site is located within 1.5 miles
of urban services. The proposed
Complies?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 72 of 612
SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 5
Standard Analysis
' project is compatible with existing
surrounding multi-family land uses.
D. Whenever feasible, target dwelling units should The inclusionary housing includes
vary in size and number of bedrooms, in response three one-bedroom units that range in
to a"ffordable housing demand priorities of the size from 641 to 678 square feet.
city.
E. Density bonus projects shall comply with all With exception to the allowance for
applicable development standards, except those increased building height, which is a
which may be modified as an incentive or permissible concession, the project is
concession, or as otherwise provided for in this consistent with all applicable
chapter. In addition, all units must conform to the development standards. Further, the
requirements of the applicable building and design of the target inclusionary units
housing codes. The design of the target dwelling will be the same as the market rate
units shall be reasonably consistent or compatible units as they will be incorporated
with the design of the total project development within a building also containing
in terms of appearance, materials and finished market rate units.
quality.
F. No building permit shall be issued, nor any A density bonus agreement is required
development approval granted, for a development to be recorded prior to building permit
which does not meet the requirements of this issuance. The agreement will include
chapter. No target dwelling unit shall be rented or details as specified pursuant to CMC
sold except in accordance with this chapter. Section 21.86. 130.
G. Upon the request of the applicant, the parking . Table E requires one parking space per
ratio (inclusive of handicap and guest parking) for unit for units with zero-to one-
a housing development that conforms to the bedroom, two parking spaces per unit
requirements of Section 21.86.040(A) shall not for units with two-to three-bedrooms,
exceed the ratios specified in Table E or as noted, and two and a half parking spaces per
below. If the applicant does not request the unit for units with four or more s parking ratios specified in this section or the bedrooms.
project does not conform to the requirements of Seven, one-bedroom units
Chapter 21.86.040(A), the parking standards 7 units x 1 space/unit
specified in Chapter 21.44 of this code shall apply. = 7 spaces
16, three-bedroom units
16 units x 2 spaces
= 32 spaces
7+32 = 39 spaces required.
41 spaces provided.
1. If a development includes the maximum l.N/A
percentage of low-or very low-income units
provided for in Chapter 21.86.040(A) and is
located within one-half mile of a major transit
stop, as defined in the state Public Resources
Code (subdivision (b) of Section 21155), and
Complies?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 73 of 612
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) -ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 6
Standard
there is unobstructed access to the major
transit stop from the development, then,
upon the request of the developer, the city
shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio,
inclusive of handicapped and guest parking,
that exceeds 0.5 spaces per bedroom. For
purposes of this subsection, a development
shall have unobstructed access to a major
transit stop if a resident is able to access the
major transit stop without encountering
natural or constructed impediments.
2. If a development consists solely of rental 2. N/A
units, exclusive of a manager's unit or units,
with an affordable housing cost to lower
income families, as provided in state Health
and Safety Code (section 50052.5), then, upon
the request of the developer, the city shall
not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive
of handicapped and guest parking, that
exceeds the following ratios:
a. If the development is located within one-
half mile of a major transit stop, as
defined in state Public Resources Code
(subdivision (b) of section 21155), and
there is unobstructed access to the major
transit stop from the development, the
ratio shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit.
b. If the development is a for-rent housing
development for individuals who are 62
years of age or older that complies with
state Civil Code (sections 51.2 and 51.3),
the ratio shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per
unit. The development shall have either
paratransit service or unobstructed
access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus
route service that operates at least eight
times per day.
c. If the development is a special needs
housing development, as defined in state
Health and Safety Code (section 51312),
the ratio shall not exceed 0.3 spaces per
unit. The development shall have either
paratransit service or unobstructed
access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus
route service that operates at least eight
times per day.
Analysis Complies?
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 74 of 612
SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) -ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 7
Standard
3. If the total number of parking spaces required 3. N/A
for a development is other than a whole
number, the number shall be rounded down
to the next whole number.
4. For purposes of this section, a housing 4. N/A
development may provide "on-site" parking
through tandem parking or uncovered
parking, but not through on-street parking.
5. The applicant may request parking incentives 5. N/A
or concessions beyond those provided in this
section, subject to the findings specified in
Chapter 21.86.050(A) (2).
6. Notwithstanding subsections G.1 and G.2 of 6. N/A
this section, if the city or an independent
consultant has conducted an area-wide or
jurisdiction-wide parking study in the last
seven years, then the city may impose a
higher vehicular parking ratio not to exceed
the ratio described in Table E, based upon
substantial evidence found in the parking
study, that includes, but is not limited to, an
analysis of parking availability, differing levels
of transit access, walkability access to transit
services, the potential for shared parking, the
effect of parking requirements on the cost of
market-rate and subsidized developments,
and the lower rates of car ownership for low-
and very low income individuals, including
seniors and special needs individuals. The city
shall pay the costs of any new study. The city
shall make findings, based on a parking study
completed in conformity with this paragraph,
supporting the need for the higher parking
ratio.
Analysis Complies?
Pursuant to CMC Section 21.86.050 (A)(3)(c) of the Density Bonus Ordinance, for a project which
designates at least 15 percent of the total units for very low-income households, a total of three incentives
or concessions shall be granted.
An incentive or concession may include any of the following:
a. A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design
requirements (excluding State Building Standards), that results in identifiable, financially sufficient
and actual cost reductions. A reduction/modification to standards or requirements may include,
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 75 of 612
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 8
but is not limited to, a reduction in minimum lot size, setback requirements, and/or in the ratio
of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required.
b. Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing development if: (i) commercial,
office, industrial or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development; and (ii) the
commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing development
and the existing or planned future development in the area where the proposed project will be
located.
c. Other regulatory incentives or concessions that result in identifiable, financially sufficient and
actual cost reductions.
d. The city council may, but is not required to, provide direct financial incentives, including the
provision of publicly owned land, or the waiver offees or dedication requirements.
The applicant is requesting the following concessions/incentives:
1. Allowance for increased building height: The RD-M Zone currently restricts building height to 35
feet. The applicant is requesting the allowance for increased building height as a concession
pursuant to the above-noted options. As discussed in the findings in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7324, increased building height is an appropriate concession for the requested
· density bonus in that it results in cost reductions to enable the provision of housing affordable to
the designated income group.
2. Request for excess dwelling units: Since the project proposes to construct more units than
permitted at the city's Growth Management Control Point (GMCP), the additional residential units
must be withdrawn from the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB). The EDUB is implemented
through City Council Policy No. 43. Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 43, an applicant for an
allocation of dwelling units shall agree to provide the number of inclusionary units as required
pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.050 and shall execute an affordable housing agreement (AHA)
prior to building permit issuance pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.140. As discussed in Section C
below, the proposal to construct 23 units, including three inclusionary units, is consistent with the
inclusionary housing requirement as set forth in City Council Policy No. 43.
In approving a request for an allocation of excess dwelling units, the project shall meet the
findings identified in City Council Policy No. 43. Specifically, the project location and density shall
be found to be compatible with adjacent land uses and the project to be consistent with the
General Plan and any other applicable planning document. As discussed in the attached Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7324, the proposed project meets these findings.
The following Table 5 describes how the proposed project is consistent with the various elements of the
Carlsbad General Plan.
TABLE 5 -GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES & COMPLY? OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
Land Use Policy 2-P.8 The proposed 23-unit residential Yes
Do not permit residential apartment project qualifies for an
development to exceed the allocation of excess dwelling units
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 76 of 612
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151}-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 9
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES &
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
applicable Growth pursuant to City Council Policy No.
Management Control Point 43 since the project includes the
(GMCP} density unless the required inclusionary housing units
following findings are made: required by CMC Chapters 21.85
a. The project qualifies for and 21.86 and the project is
and will receive an allocation conditioned to execute affordable
of "excess" dwelling units, housing and density bonus housing
pursuant to City Council agreements. There are currently
Policy No. 43. b. There have excess dwelling units available in
been sufficient residential the Southeast Quadrant as a result
projects approved at of residential projects approved at
densities below the GMCP so densities below the GMCP. All
the citywide and quadrant necessary public facilities required
dwelling unit limits will not by the Citywide Facilities and
be exceeded as a result of the Improvements Plan will be
proposed project. c. All constructed, or are guaranteed to
necessary public facilities be constructed, concurrently with
required by the Citywide the need for them created by this
Facilities and Improvements development and in compliance
Plan will be constructed, or with adopted city standards.
are guaranteed to be
constructed, concurrently
with the need for them
created by this development
and in compliance with
adopted city standards.
Policy 2-P.9 The proposed 23-unit residential
lncentivize development of lower-apartment project includes three
income affordable housing by inclusionary units which will be
allowing residential development required to be rented to very low-
above the GMCP and maximum income households. The multi-
densities permitted by the General family residential land use is
Plan, subject to the findings consistent with the adjacent multi-
specified in 2-P.8, above, and an family residential development.
evaluation of the following: (a} the The project site is conveniently
proposal's compatibility with located a block from La Costa
adjacent land uses, and (b} the Avenue which is a neighborhood
project site's proximity to a connector street providing vehicle
minimum of one of the following: and pedestrian access to
freeway or major street; commercial commercial centers and bus stops
center; employment opportunities; within 1.5 miles of the project site.
city park or open space; or
commuter rail or transit center.
Mobility Policy 3-P.5 The proposed project has been
Require developers to construct or designed to meet applicable
pay their fair share toward circulation requirements, which
COMPLY?
Yes
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 77 of 612
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 10
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES &
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
improvements for all travel modes include two driveway access points
consistent with the Mobility from Romeria Street. In addition,
Element, the Growth Management the applicant will be required to
Plan, and specific impacts associated pay traffic impact fees prior to
with their development. issuance of a building permit that
will go towards future road
improvements.
Goal 3-G.3 The proposed project will maintain
Provide inviting streetscapes that an existing sidewalk along Romeria
encourage walking and promote Street and Gibraltar Street which
livable streets. will provide pedestrian access to
and from the project.
Noise Goal 5-G.2 The project consists of 23
Ensure that new development is residential apartments located in
compatible with the noise two buildings. A noise study by
environment, by continuing to use Rincon Consultants, Inc, dated
potential noise exposure as a January 2017, was provided. The
criterion in land use planning. apartment project does not have
any required exterior private
recreation areas and therefore is
not subject to the maximum 60
dB(a) CNEL noise level. Given the
exterior noise levels and modern
building construction that meets or
exceeds the 2016 California Green
Building Code requirements, the
project will experience interior
noise levels below the required 45
dB(a) CNEL interior noise level.
Public Safety Goal 6-G.1 The proposed structural
Minimize injury, loss of life, and improvements are required to be
damage to property resulting from designed in conformance with all
fire, flood, hazardous material seismic design standards. In
release, or seismic disasters. addition, the proposed project is
consistent with all of the applicable
Policy 6-P.6 fire safety requirements.
Enforce the requirements of Titles
18, 20, and 21 pertaining to Further, the project has been
drainage and flood control when conditioned to develop and
reviewing applications for building implement a program of "best
permits and subdivisions. management practices" for the
elimination and reduction of
Policy 6-P.34 pollutants which enter into and/or
Enforce the Uniform Building and are transported within storm
Fire codes, adopted by the city, to drainage facilities.
COMPLY?
Yes
Yes
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 78 of 612
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 11
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES &
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
provide fire protection standards for
all existing and proposed structures.
Policy 6-P.39
Ensure all new development
complies with all applicable
regulations regarding the provision
of public utilities and facilities.
Housing Goal 10-G.3 The proposed project includes 15%,
Sufficient new, affordable housing or three, inclusionary units which
opportunities in all quadrants of the will be required to be rented to
city to meet the needs of current very low-income households. The
lower and moderate income provision for inclusionary housing
households and those with special will contribute toward achieving
needs, and a fair share proportion of the city's Regio11_al Housing Needs.
future lower and moderate income The project has been conditioned
households. accordingly to require the approval
of an Affordable Housing
Agreement prior to building permit
issuance.
Goal 10-P.15
Pursuant to the lnclusionary Housing
Ordinance, require affordability for
lower income households of a
minimum of 15 percent of all
residential ownership and qualifying
rental projects. For projects that are
required to include 10 or more units In approving a request for an
affordable to lower income allocation of excess dwelling units,
households, at least 10 percent of the project shall meet the findings
the lower income units should have identified in City Council Policy No.
three or more bedrooms (lower 43. Specifically, the project location
income senior housing projects and density shall be found to be
exempt). compatible with adjacent land uses
and the project is consistent with
Policy 10-P.18 the General Plan and any other
Adhere to City Council Policy applicable planning document. As
Statement 43 when considering allo-discussed in the attached Planning
cation of "excess dwelling units" for Commission Resolution No. 7324,
the purpose of allowing the proposed project meets these
development to exceed the Growth findings.
Management Control Point (GMCP)
density, as discussed in Section 10.3
(Resources Available). With limited
exceptions, the allocation of excess
dwelling units will require provision
COMPLY?
Yes
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 79 of 612
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 12
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES &
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
of housing affordable to lower
income households.
B. Multiple-Family Residential (RD-M) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.24)
COMPLY?
The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable use and development standards of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) including the Residential Density -Multiple (RD-M) Zone (CMC Chapter
21.24).
The 23-unit residential apartment project meets or exceeds the requirements of the RD-M Zone, except
building height, as outlined in Table 6 below.
TABLE 6-RD-M ZONE COMPLIANCE
R-3 Standards Required Proposed Comply
Setbacks Front (Gibraltar): Front (Gibraltar): Yes
20'; or ?_10' With landscaping:
15' provided carport or garage openings 13' to retaining wall.
do not face onto the front yard; or 19' to planter.
10' provided carport or garage openings 25' to main building wall.
do not face onto the front yard and the
remaining front yard is landscaped.
Interior Side: Interior Side:
5' 5'
Street Side: Street Side:
10'; or >5' with landscaping
5' provided parking spaces do not open
directly onto the street and the side yard
is landscaped.
Rear: Rear:
10' ?_10'
10' to parking garage.
16' to main building wall.
Lot Coverage 60% 59.5% Yes
Building Height 35' Building A Yes*
45' with projections to
48' * Density
Building B Bonus
48' with projections fo Concession
51'
As summarized in Table 7 below, the proposed residential apartment project is consistent with the parking
requirements pursuant to the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 80 of 612
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) -ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 13
TABLE 7-PARKING ANALYSIS
USE Ratio REQUIRED PROPOSED COMPLY?
Residential One bedroom: One bedroom: 7 17 two-car garages= 34 spaces. Yes
Apartments 1 space/unit 7 units= 7 spaces
developed 5 covered parking spaces.
pursuant to the Three Three bedroom: 16
Density Bonus bedroom: 16 units= 32 spaces 2 van accessible spaces.
Ordinance. 2 spaces/unit
TOTAL REQUIRED: PROPOSED: Yes
39 41
C. Qualified Development Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.06)
Pursuant to Section 21.53.120 of the CMC, a Site Development Plan (SDP) is required to be processed for
this 23-unit apartment project pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.06, the Qualified Development Overlay Zone.
As demonstrated in Table 8 below, all of the required SDP findings can be made.
TABLE 8 -SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS
FINDING
That the proposed development or
use is consistent with the General Plan
and any applicable master plan or
specific plan, complies with all
applicable provisions of Chapter 21.06
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and
all other applicable provisions of this
code.
That the requested development or
use is properly related to the site,
surroundings and environmental
settings, will not be detrimental to
existing development or uses or to
development or uses specifically
permitted in the area in which the
proposed development or use is to be
located, and will not adversely impact
the site, surroundings or traffic
circulation.
PROJECT CONSISTENCY
The project is consistent with the various elements and
objectives of the General Plan as discussed in Section "A" of the
project staff report. The various goals and objectives of the
General Plan will be implemented as the proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan, which allows for a mixture of
residential uses, including multiple-family residential, within the
R-23 Residential Land Use designation. As discussed in Section
"A" above, although the project's density of 31.9 dwelling units
per acre is above the maximum R-23 Residential density of 23
du/ac, the 23-unit residential apartment project can be found
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policies as discussed
in Section "A", Table 5 above.
The proposed multiple-family residential use will not be
detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in
the area in which the use is located in that multiple-family
residential is a permitted use within the Residential Density -
Multiple (RD-M) Zone and is compatible with the other multiple-
family residential uses surrounding the project site. The
residential apartment project will not adversely impact the site,
surroundings, or traffic circulation in that the existing
surrounding streets have adequate capacity to accommodate
the 138 Average Daily Trips (ADT) generated by the project. With
exception to the allowance for increased building height as
discussed in Section "A" above, the project complies with all
minimum development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code, including but not limited to the RD-M Zone, and the
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 81 of 612
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 14
project is adequately parked on-site and does not result in any
environmental impacts.
That the site for the intended The subject site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
development or use is adequate in the proposed 23-unit residential apartment building in that with
size and shape to accommodate the exception to the allowance for increased building height as
use discussed in Section "A" above, the residential apartment project
That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences,
landscaping, and other features
necessary to adjust the requested
development or use to existing or
permitted future development or use
in the neighborhood will be provided
and maintained
That the street systems serving the
proposed development or use is
adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use
complies with all remaining development standards of the
Residential Density -Multiple (RD-M) Zone and all other
applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance, as demonstrated in
Table 6 above.
With exception to the allowance for increased building height as
discussed in Section "A" above, the project complies with all
remaining development standards (i.e. front, side and rear
setbacks, lot coverage, parking) of the Residential Density -
Multiple (RD-M) Zone, as demonstrated in Table 6 above.
Landscaping along the outer edges of the property, including the
areas along Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street, will be provided
consistent with the requirements of the city's Landscape
Manual.
The project will take access off Romeria Street with vehicles
traveling to and from the project on Gibraltar Street as well.
Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street are identified as local
streets, designed to adequately handle the 138 Average Daily
Trips generated by the 23-unit residential apartment project.
D. lnclusionary Housing (CMC Chapters 21.85 and 21.86}
The lnclusionary Housing regulations, specifically CMC Chapter 21.85, shall apply to any new construction
of rental units where the developer receives offsets or any incentives of the type specified in the density
bonus law pursuant to the provisions of CMC Chapter 21.86 and the developer agrees by contract to limit
rents for below market-rate rental units. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.030, not less than 15 percent of
the total units approved shall be constructed and restricted both as to occupancy and affordability to
lower-income households. To satisfy this requirement, the applicant proposes to designate three units as ·
inclusionary units. The city's Housing Policy Team recommended approval of the request on January 22,
2019 ..
As required by CMC Chapters 21.85 and 21.86, the project has been conditioned to require the approval
of an Affordable Housing Agreement and Density Bonus Housing agreement, respectively, prior to building
permit issuance.
E. Growth Management (CMC Chapter 21.90)
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 in the Southeast Quadrant of
the city. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted
performance standards, are summarized in Table 9 below.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 82 of 612
SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
March 20, 2019
Pa e 15
TABLE 9 -GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
STANDARD IMPACTS
City Administration 81.35 sq. ft.
Library 43.39 sq. ft.
Waste Water Treatment 23 EDU
Parks 0.16 acres
Drainage 3.3CFS
Circulation 138 ADTs
Fire Station 6
Open Space n/a
Schools E: 2.51, M: 2.53, H: 2.53
Sewer Collection System 5,060 GPO
Water 5,750 GPO
COMPLIANCE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
n/a
Yes
Yes
Yes
The project proposes 23 dwelling units and tl]e unit yield at the GMCP ofthe property is 14 dwelling units.
Therefore, a total of nine (9) dwelling units are proposed to be deducted from the City's Excess Dwelling
Unit Bank. Pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 7324, the allocation from the EDUB can be
supported since 327 units are available for allocation in the Southeast Quadrant according to the city's
Quadrant Dwelling Unit Report dated January 31, 2019.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City Planner has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary
for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore
categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to
Section 15332 {In-Fill Development Projects) Class 32 Categorical Exemption of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The project is consistent with the General Plan as well as with the :Zoning Ordinance. The project site is
within the city limits, is less than five acres in size, and is surrounded by urban uses. There is no evidence
that the site has value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Approval of the project will
not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and the site can be
adequately served by all required utilities and public services. In making this determination, the City
Planner has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply
to this project. A Notice of Exemption will be filed by the City Planner upon final project approval.
The 23-unit apartment project is not subject to Climate Action Plan measures because the project is below
the 70-unit multi-family housing screening threshold listed in the city's Climate Action Plan (Section 5.3).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7324
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Public Comments
5. Reduced Exhibits
6. Full Size Exhibits "A" -"00" dated March 20, 2019
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 83 of 612
Attachment 3
ji)t-'
{_ City of
Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
P-1(A)
Development Se r vices
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602-4610
fEB 2 ZG'8
www.carlsbadca.gov
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will
require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission
or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project
cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county,
city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit"
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant .and property owner
must be provided below. · ·
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a
financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership,
include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the
shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE
INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned
corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A
separate page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Ram Setya Corp/Part BNR Investment and Development
Title Managing Memeber Title --------------Address 23800 Via Del Rio, Yorba Linda CA 92887 Address 23800 Via Del Rio, Yorba Linda CA 92887
2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
P-1(A)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any
ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal
ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the
ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of
all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE
THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE
SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and
addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Ram Setya
Title Managing Memeber
Address 23800 Via Del Rio,
Yorba Linda CA 92887
Corp/Part BNR Investment and Development
Title _____________ _
Address 23800 Via Del Rio,
Yorba Linda CA 92887
Page 1 of 2 Revised 07/10
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 85 of 612
Chris Garcia
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern:
Heather Lindsey • ,_ -"' -_,_ ->:-.::; ·· -" ---· ·
Thursday, July 19, 2018 8:34 AM
Chris Garcia
SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
Attachment 4
I am against the increase in the size of this proposed project. The size of the units has decreased, the number of units
has increased and the parking is insufficient. This neighborhood already suffers from a lack of a parking. The parking
may be complaint with the Density Bonus Laws but that does not mean t hat it works with the current demands of the
neighborhood. This will be overly burdensome on this neighborhood.
I am against the increase in height as it adds to the bulk and mass and impacts the light received by the neighboring
properties. Furthermore, the structure is not consistent with the look and feel of the neighborhood and also adds bulk
and mass.
As an owner of several units to the west of the project, I am against any variances on the set-backs to the west especially
given the size of the project even prior to the modification. Although we met with the owners of this proposed project,
we reviewed the old plans. At that point, bulk and mass were a concern as was parking. This additional increases
proposed under this modification are unacceptable.
There are several tranches for affordable housing. I am in favor of affordable housing, but do not feel that this project is
appropriate for the maximum amounts. Furthermore, this neighborhood's mile radius has many affordable housing
units, and therefore, the bulk and mass and pressure this modification will put on the neighborhood is not balanced with
the neighborhood nor the rest of the City. This area has been very supportive of affordable housing, but should not be
punished by unnecessary large and looming buildings for having done so.
This project exemplifies maximizing size, scale, and density while using the affordable housing variances. If this project
did not have affordable units attached, the City would not accept anything near the size, density nor the height being
proposed here. This project needs some balance, especially given that only 3 out of the 23 looming units are affordable.
Thank you,
Heather Lindsey, Esq.
1
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 87 of 612
Chris Garcia
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
dave burkle <
Saturday, July 21, 2018 4:06 PM
Chris Garcia
Fw: Romeria Pointe Apartments
RE: Project# SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
Hello -
As a condo owner in the Golfcrest Units, which is next door to the proposed referenced project, I
would like to express my strong disapproval of the request to modify the project that was originally
submitted. The new proposal requests a concession to increase the building height to 44.5' from 35',
and the retaining wall height from 6' to 1 O'.
I believe this increased project and building size will be detrimental to our own building. It will
tower above us, blocking sunlight, ruining views, reducing airflow, and will increase the risk of
improper drainage and erosion, potentially causing damage to our own building footprint and retaining
walls. The benefit of building 3 affordable rate units does not compare to the damage and detriment
created to many more neighbors.
We support the need for more housing and the project as originally proposed and hope that the city
will keep the developer to this proposal.
Sincerely
David & Penny Burkle
Owners of:
Carlsbad, CA 92009
1
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 88 of 612
o Please consider'the number of units submitted in 2ndset of plans, which was to build 16 units. These units are
very small; perhaps consider fewer, larger units are better. I would be in support of that project rather than this
one.
Thank you for your consideration .
Respectfully,
Lucille Lindsey
Owner at Golfcrest
2
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 91 of 612
From: Heather Lindsey ~
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 1:00 PM
To: Don Neu <Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov>; Planning <Planning@CarlsbadCA.gov>
Cc: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; James Wood <James.Wood@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) March 20th hearing
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm writing you in regards to Romeria Pointe Apartments, the 4 story project that will be built on nearly a
20' pad, essentially making it a 6 story building on the corner of Romeria and Gibralter streets. I am
writing in opposition to this project.
As a resident in the area, we have the following concerns:
1. With 23 total apartments (20 of which are 3 bedroom), we are estimating an additional
30+ children that will move into the neighborhood. This project is designed to attract
large families with children but lacks the open space that will put those children at risk
due to hazards in the nearby creek. Because there are no parks or play area in the
complex, the creek is the only greens pace left for children to go. This area is already a
known risk for the City. The only greenspace left is the creek (and the La Costa Golf
Course) that runs just north of Gibralter. There are already children that play, fish, and
loiter near that creek. The water runs under a spillway via a VERTICAL pipe (before
turning into a horizontal pipe) which has no cover on it. This is certainly a tremendous
liability concern as a child could easily fall into this as the circumference of this pipe is
plenty big to accommodate even an adult. The spill way also slopes aggressively into the
water which is also a hazard.
2. This spillway area is also home to many rattlesnakes in the Summer.
3. There is currently zero parking left at night on the streets of Romeria and Gibralter. As
a result, the additional units will require more cars and will actually eliminate at least 4
spots on Romeria to accommodate for entry points for this apartment
complex. Additionally, the parking allotment for the project may be inline with state
requirements, but is less than city requirements, this illustrating that this will congest and
already congested parking situation.
4. There is currently no bus service for the elementary school. These 30+ new children
will have to cross La Costa Avenue which has two lanes that merge into one at the corner
of La Costa and Romeria. This is an extremely dangerous area as these lanes merge on a
downhill slope very close to this traffic light. Traffic on La Costa Avenue is already
challenging. There are no calming devices to slow traffic and we are concerned about the
large number of children that would be walking and crossing the road to go to
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 95 of 612
neighboring schools. We want to ensure there is a plan in place to protect pedestrians
and children in the community. I do not know whether this might require use studies.
5. An additional 23 units built four stories high with balconies, walkways and staircases
will negatively impact surrounding property owners with increased noise, light, traffic
circulation, sightlines, and invasion of privacy. We want to ensure mitigation efforts are
part of any planning process. Currently, the new apartments will look down on the
bedrooms and bathrooms of the homes next door. Additionally, car light and noise from
the parking could impact these homes as well.
6. The developer wants to use the buildings as retaining walls. Because of known water
and erosion issues in this area, it's concerning that a 4 story complex will be built on a
pad that is already elevated 15'-20'. This year, the Los Angeles Times featured stories
about several apartment complexes in California that experienced similar collapses of
hillsides after heavy rain. The La Costa area has had these same issue in the past and we
want to be sure that extensive engineering and soil reports have been done to ensure
buildings will not slip onto Gibraltar, the adjoining complexes or the La Costa Golf
Course.
7. The design would seem to trigger bulk and mass concerns.
Ideally, this spot could be a park. If this is not feasible, then perhaps the developer should consider
returning to his previous designs that were smaller in scope, less likely to attract families and still offered
housing. Regardless, please have the developer and/or City resolve the aforementioned issues prior to
approval.
Thank you in advance,
Heather Lindsey
Next door owner
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 96 of 612
Carlsbad, CA 92009
February 12, 2019
Dear Carlsbad Officials
I am writing to you in opposition to the multi-family project being considered on
Romeria Street and want this letter entered into the record.
Our group of concerned residents in the La Costa area recently learned about
the 4-story project that is proposed on the corner of Romeria and Gibraltar
streets. With 23 total apartments (20 of which are 3 bedroom), we are estimating
an additional 30+ children that will move into the neighborhood and add 50-60
additional vehicles onto already overcrowded parking situation.
As a resident in the area, we have the following concerns:
1. This project will dramatically negatively impact property values. The
project includes a 90+ year deed restriction that will prohibit changing from
apartments to condos.
2. The fact that the proposed apartment buildings will be built on nearly a 20'
pad essentially makes them 6-story buildings. This is inconsistent with the
character of the neighborhood.
3. There is currently no parking left at night on the streets of Romeria and
Gibraltar. The additional units will bring more cars and will actually
eliminate at least 4 current parking spots on Romeria to accommodate
entry points for this apartment complex. As a result, the parking problem
will increase exponentially. Even if parking garages are included in the
new complex they normally on allow for 2 cars. Many of the families in the
area have 3 cars and rely on street parking. In addition, many of the
current residents use their garages for storage and rely 100% on street
parking. Even today it is often difficult to find street parking. I can't imagine
what it will be like with 23 more apartments!!
4. There is currently no bus service tor the elementary school. The
estimated 30+ new children will have to cross La Costa Avenue, which
has two lanes that merge into one at the corner of La Costa and
Romeria. This is an extremely dangerous area as these lanes merge on a
downhill slope very close to this traffic light. Traffic on La Costa Avenue is
already challenging. There are no calming devices to slow traffic and we
are concerned about the large number of children that would be walking
and crossing the road to go to neighboring schools. We want to ensure
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 98 of 612
there is a plan in place to protect pedestrians and children in the
community.
5. An additional 23 units built four stories high with balconies, walkways
and staircases will negatively impact surrounding property owners with
increased noise, light, traffic circulation, sightlines, and invasion of privacy.
We want to ensure mitigation efforts are part of any planning process
6. The developer wants to use the buildings as retaining walls. Because
of known water and erosion issues in th is area, it's concerning that a 4
story complex will be built on a pad that is already elevated 15'-20'. This
year, the Los Angeles Times featured stories about several apartment
complexes in California that experienced similar collapses of hillsides after
heavy rain. The La Costa area has had these same issue in the past and
we want to be sure that extensive engineering and soil reports have been
done to ensure buildings will not slip onto Gibraltar Street, the adjoining
complexes or the La Costa Golf Course.
We would prefer that this project never be built; however, do understand the
need for additional housing in our City. Before this project is approved, I'm
asking that the City consider purchasing this property with the intent of officially
making this a park. If this is not feasible, please have the developer and/or
City resolve the aforementioned issues prior to approvaL
~~~~~r ~ur consid~ration
@hn & Ci;d~~r~
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 99 of 612
1. ALL v,.,QRK SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL BUILDING CODES
AND REGULATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PERMITS
APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC TRADES OR SUBCONTRACTORS
2. CONTRACTOR 'MLL HAVE EXAMINED THE PREMISES ANO SITE SO AS TO COMPARE
THEM 'MTH THE DRAWINGS AND WILL HAVE SATISFIED HIMSELF AS TO THE
CONDITION OF THE EXISTING WORK AN ADJACENT PROPERTY PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF BID. NO ALLOWANCES WILL SUBSEQUENTLY BE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE CONTRACTOR BY REASON OF ANY OMISSION ON HIS PART TO INCLUDE THE COSTS OF ALL ITEMS OF WORK, EITHER LABOR OR MATERIALS, WHETHER THEY ARE
OR ARE NOT SHOWN OR NOTED BUT WHICH ARE IMPLIED OR REQUIRED TO ATTAIN
THE COMPLETED CONDITIONS PROPOSED IN THE DRAWINGS.
3. ALL SUBCONTRACTORS TO THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE
AND SHALL CONVEY ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING DESIGN INTENT ANDS COPE OF
VI/ORK TO THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID AND PRIOR TO COMMENCING VI/ORK.
. -< ANGLE . "
~'i ~ii~~E
IE! EKISTIMJ
... ev "BOVE ... e ... NCHOReOLT :g~~s ;;;i~iFJeLKJNa
:go :~~=~
:~: :~~i~mw ,._FF ,._1101/EF~FLOOR ti·
114 BUII.OINOACCESSORV
:~E :~~gl,A FOOTING ELEVATION BIJ BUMPERGUARO 811 B11UMINOUS BKT BRACl<ET BLOG BIJIUll~ BLKG BLOCKING :~w :~
BO BY OWNER BOF Bl'OWNER~UTURE BOT BOTTO!A BR BEOROOM BRO BEA!IINO
BSMT B"8Er.1ENT ITWN BETWEEN But.L BIA.LETIN BUR BUl!.T-UPROOFING
C CHANNEL COISPCUPOISPEMSER CAB CABINET CANTLCANTl.EVER CAP CAPACITY CAT CATEGOll"f CO COIINERGUARO CH COATHOOI{ CJT CONTROi.JOiNT Cl CONSTRUCTION
f-~ •• ~,,~diog~G~nd~lin-,-, --~---~~.,-~~,,~ •• ~c~,.-.,~-------l a.o ~~~
A (Cb,d-...cl r-Revl-No, ~R ~1:i::TION 0-R.-ltlMq>lbi .. ) & CO CASEOOP'ENIHO ---~~ ii:•r1F 0
Window Symbol Malchline ~:: gg::~rc~~
;-RoomNo. r=:::' ~~TCON~=TION
ISh•dndJIO'li""---GSIM CONTR CONTRACT/OR '--1nr111>e1No. ~':;dr;::dl Ai'o1 Lsr.,....o:w ~fR ~~W" Typlcal(TYP.t CT CEIM,MICTILE
Door Tag ~~~--------,CHI CENTER
Room No Room Labf!J .,,,,,,..-NA'-IE g~tK ~l~~~R~~~E,l,TER ~ . NAME -NU!.IBER r:N CURTAINWALL
5, CONTRACTOR TO ASSUME SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS / ~,ltn~t No, ] ARe! SJ_ AREA ~ ~~~~ER
INCLUDING SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY FOR THE DURATION OF THE ( '1 o OEPTHOR DEEP
PROJECT. -----~-------i-------------40E"10 OEI.IOUTION Typical Wall Typn wan Tag Detail Callout Delol No. DPR OEPAESSION
6. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEOIATEL Y ANO PRIOR TO ORDERING OF ALL __e-J-~IM ggT DE PAA TM ENT
LONO LEAD ITEMS ANO OF APPROXIMATE DELIVERY OATES = l!".:.i!ii!I -~ ~lh 1 OF
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE WORK OF THE VARIOUS TRADES AND
SUBCONTRACTORS AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ACTS, OMISSIONS, OR
ERRORS OF THE SUBCONTRACTORS AND OF PERSONS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
EMPLOYED BY THEM.
7. ALLCONSTRUCTIONMATERIALSANDSUPPUESTOBESTOREO,HANOLEDAND ~ ~ ~ Twe =--Allll SIIHI,..._ • ::0 ~ INSTALLEDACCORDJNGTOMANUFACTURER'S'RECOMMENOATIONS ------+-------1!--------------j:.' g Roof Tag Floor Tag Building Section O&SP DISPENSER R 8. IF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS ARE FOUND IN THE DRAWINGS, THEY SHALL BE BROUGHT SecOcn Na. 01ST DISTRIBUTION $' TO THE ATTENTION TO THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. ~ ; Anllh ~ = T~ ~ E. 5:;EtaNG
I 9. ~:~~<;,~~~~Tl~~~~~~~R~~~~~~g~~~L:~~~~~~~CTOR ~ R'"'1.,lllnc• A sr.ttNo. ~ I ~ =~ABlE i ADJUSTMENTS TO sE NECESSARY TO MEET THE DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND SHOULD ------'--------l;==========~=========~OR =ION ~ CONSIDERSUCHAOJUSTMENTSASINCLUDEOINTHESCOPEOFVIIORK. ElderioTElevatio~1 ElwNo. r FloorLevel ~ ~J~~~
~ 10. WHEN SPECIFIC FEATURE Of" CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT FULLY SHOWN ON THE Olobal Elevation I Project ElevaUon owo OAA\M~ ii DRA'MNGS OR CALLED FOR IN THE GENERAL NOTES, THEIR CONSTRUCTION SHALL 1 AIOI 1 ~ol•_N<>le OIM.li DOWELS i BETHESAMECHARACTERASSIMILARCONDITIONS 1 51\fftNo. ~~:1::--s o!}."=, y ~ ~?c1TAICc.o.FJINET
; 11• ~~~~T~~~ENST~'!.::~~616~¢~~ ~::rr6~~~:~g ~f:Ti~~~~Lg~~S~g:~~~~~IFIC Interior Elevation North Arrow !tr i~t;J~~~CMllT
I WORK. SEE SPECIFICATIONS AND GENERAL NOTES IN THE SUBSECTIONS OF THESE :i----Elev No. ~ T,uoNOftl ELEC ELECTIIICAL
DRAWINGS e-ShHINo. Pre!oc\ncrlh ~~~ClEL~tl~ENCY
1 A1,1 ENCL ENCLOSURE I 12. ~~~1Ru~cRTgs~ !~~~LE~~~~~~YEsRHEg;,t~~~~1~;:~tci\!ERM:oou~~:6 :¢~~~E~1~ l--------'=------1-------------j ~grR ~~J~t~~iLouTLET 'e AND STATE REGULATIONS. Celllng Height Dimension String ~gUIP ~gt:~~ENT
] T 1• Fl I h ES ENOSECTION "" 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE WEATHER PROTECTION FOR THE / Cellng Ht!Ghl o Slruclure ,o n 5 EWC ELECTRIC WATER J BUILDINGANDITSCONTENTSDURlNGTHECOURSEOFWORK. (ID f14!,112· L 314" L l~I tr.' I s..· I ~~ ~~~i~.t.~OI-ICN
SDP 2018-004
0,._ GAUGE G,._L GALLONS G-'<LV GALVAN!ZEO Ge GRAOEBEAM GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR GEN GENERATOR GEN OENERAL Gl GI.ASS GW!o. GENERALWORK "~ GR GRAOE GVB GVPSUMBOARO GVPSKTO GVPSUM SHEATHING
H HEIGHTIH!GH
H!I HOSt:Ble l-0 1-U.NOORVER """""'""" tlJR HEADER 1-«M!I-WllMINlE Ht.I HOLlOWMETAl HORIZ HORIZOOTAL HPT HIGHPOWT ~ --"' """"' HTR HEATER ;:~~~NG
IC INTERCOM 10 INSIOEOWAETER IN !OCH INSULINSUI.ATIOfl INT INTERIOR ISO ISOLATION
JAN JANITOR JB JUNCTION BOX JST JOIST JT JOINT
VV VVATORV LB POUND ~rr
1,1 MIOOtE MAN MANUAL MAR W.TE.RIAL MAX MUIMUM MBD MARKER80ARD MC MEoic..lECAlllNET MECHMECHo>.NICAl MEl!B MEMBRANE MEU IAEZZAlllNE MFR M,._NUFACTURER ~IIN M!Nf!AU~!
MIR MIRROR MISC MISCELLANEOUS !~~ !!!]~~;:
NA NOTAPPUCAeLE NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NO N\!MBER NOM NOMtNAL NRC OOISEREDUC:TION COEHlCIENT Nt NOTE NTS ttOTTOSCALE
OC ONCENTER
00 OIJTSIDEOIAl,IETER Off OfflC:E otl CIVERHE.AO OP OPERABlE PARTITK»I OPER OPERATOR DPNQ OPENING OPP OPPOSTT£ oao CIVERROWROOF """"
R RISER RA RETURN AIR R,._D RADIATION RB RESlllENTBASE RD ROOFORAIN RE RELOCATE EXJST1NO REC RECESSED REF REFERENCE ~EFR REFRIOEMTOR :::f ~~~=~E~~
~~OD~=~ If 1~;;,:
S SINl<ISIJPPLVFAN SCHEO SCHEOUI.E SO SHOWER DRAIN SOIA SMOKE C.-.MPER SDISP SOAPDISPENSEA SECT SECTION SECY SECRETARY SF SOUAREFOOT SFG STOREFRONT GLASS SH SHOWER $HO SHOWERI-IEAO SITT SHEET SHTG SHE.ATHl'-'G SIM Sl~,llA.R Sl SE.ALER
SLllT SE.Al.ANT SLV SLEEVE SM SURFACE MOUNTED 600 SVBONORADE SP ST ... NOPIPE SPEC SPECIFIC,O,TIONS SPR SINGLEPLVROOF SO SOU ... RE SOVOSQUAREVARO 55 SERVICESINI( SST ST,._INLESSSTEEL ST STREET sn liTONETILE STC SOONO TRANSMISSION STOSTAN0,1.RO $TL STEEL STN STONE STNL STONE LEOGE STOR STORA(;E STR STRUCTVR,._l STS STEELSTRUCTIJAE SUPV SUPERVISOR SIJSP SUSl'ENOEO SW STEELWINOOWS SW SWITCH = ,onwooo SVM SVMUETRICAl
T TOP l-'N TAHOENT TBO TACK.IIOARO TCAII TO'NEL.CAIMNET TOISP T1SSLIEOISPEHSER TOR TRENCHDAA!N lEL lELE.PHON'E TEMPTEMPERATURI! TEA lERRAZZO TG TONGUE& GROOVE THREli"IHREliHOLD TPH TOILETP ... PER HOt.DEA lR TREAC TR ... NSF TR ... NSFORMER TS TUBE SECTION TV lELEVISION l"YP l"YPICAL
U URINAL UC UNDERCUT UFO UNOERFt.OOR =, U0 UNOEROROO~ UH UNITHEATER
~lli~~::o
VC VAlVECA81NIET VENT VEt-lTlATION VERT VERTICAi. VEST VESTll!t.l.E V1ll VENTTHROVOli .. ,o,
W WIOEFI.ANGE ~ =-w,o mTHOUl PB PUSH BIJTTON WC WATER CLOSET
~T ~~~~f~fETE a ~~ER~
~~ ;~~~INAlE ~ ~:tt~~NT Pl.6 PVS"IER WHCH WHEEi.CHAiR PlW PLYWOOD WNTR WAlER HEATER PNI. PANEL WPR WAlEFiPROOF PR PAIR WR WASTE PREUM PRELIMINARY RECEnACLE PRESS PRESSURE WS WEATHERSTRIP ~~~ ;~~~N ~CT ~A=T
PT PAINT TREATr.lENT
PVC ~t~t~l ~ =~~DOW
WI-IF ~BL~Dl'>'IAE
b~ ~e ··! •• lh !I ~~~ ;~s ;~i•i;~ ~~i~~il~i Z§ ~t . • is s~~!
i~ Iii lg ~-lg!U! ~m;i 1~~ih ~mu ~~.!~~ s,~fo
~ w • ~ ! ~ ~~ ~ {56! ~ o< 0 zu ~ <o ~ ~! ~ ~§
l ' ' ' ' F+"-+=--1 1 GENERALNOTEs[ sYMsoLSI ABBREVIATIONsj IA 1o710212ou1
~ g
~ ~
g
h
t t~; §;~ ,,::;
i '~
i. ~~ ~~ 0.
! _PROJECTADDRESS _C.LJENT ORAWINOSET llarc1,n,,ct,.-e 39"2c.r>lnodoulrefa~!IJ25300l~,1• 1703 • :l4M:,i:JI" • A SI\H1T\h_ ShNINl.ffl~ar I-REVISIONDATE j ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ~~Cs~t~~~=LTAR, BNRDEVELOPMENT ~~~:,TIONARY ::::;111,,; ~~72 ~~-a11 : 1I1:0191:13:oo j DISCRETIONARY TITLE02 G-002 REVISION DATES
ii. ' S PM REVIEW01
I I I I I
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 101 of 612
CONSULTANTS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
SUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS, INC.
34197 COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 200
DANA POINT, CA 92629
PHONE: 949.443.1446
FAX:949.443.1631
CONTACT: PAT MURPHY
ARCHITECT
FOXLIN ARCHITECTS
392 CAMINO DE ESTELLA
SAN CLEMENTE, CA. 92672
PHONE: 949.325.3001
CONTACT:JUINTOWLIN
CIVIL ENGINEER
MLB ENGINEERING
404 SOUTH LIVE OAK PARK RD.
FALLBROOK, CA. 92028
PHONE: 760.731.6603
CONTACT: MICHAEL BENESH
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
KURT FISCHER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
17547 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE302
ENCINO, CA. 91316
PHONE: 816.874.1445
CONTACT: KURT FISCHER
CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND LEGEND
NOTES
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LABOR, TRANSPORTATION, MATERIALS, AND SERVICES NECESSARY TO FURNISH AND INSTALL ALL CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS AS
SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFIED HEREIN.
2. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A C,/11.JFOANIA UCENSED CONTRACTOR
3. CONSTRUCT/ON AND INSTAUATION OF ALL LANDSCAPE fTEMS SHAU. BE ACCORDING TO
STATE, COUNTY AND LOCAL CODES, ORDINANCES AND UP TO CAL-OSHA SAFETY ORDERS REGARDING PERFORMANCE OF WORK.
4, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING HIMSELF FAM/UAR WITH THE
NATURE AND LOCATION OF Ail UNDERGROUND UT/UT/ES, PIPES AND STRUCTURES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE SOLE RESPONSIBIUTY FOR ALL COSTS INCURRED DUE
TO DAMAGE AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF SAJD UT/UT/ES, INCLUDING DELAYS.
5. ANY DISCREPANCIES BE1WEEN THE FIELD CONDITIONS AND THE CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS AND/OR THE DESIGN INTENT AFFECTING THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION AND COST OF THE PROJECT SHAU. BE REPORTED TO THE OWNER (JOB
SUPERINTENDENT) AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. ALL WORK RELATED TO THE PROBLEM AREA SHALL CEASE UNTIL THE DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEEN RESOLVE:O BY
THE OWNER (JOB SUPERINTENDENT) OR I.ANDS CAPE ARCHITECT IN WRfTING. /WY CONTINUATION OF WORK PRIOR TO THE RESDUmoN OF DISCREPANCIES IS AT THE
CONTRACTOR'S RISK AND EKPENSE.
LEGEND
t,
C, es ,w ~ .. ~ M " " " "' U' " "' " " '"" ..
-·-
@
°"'""" fHSHHOOREI.EVATIO.~ GAIIAGEFlOOREl£VA110>1 ;~~~~~ Er!J£~!ta£VM~
OOTTOI.IOfSTEP CATCHBASIII FtllSHGflAOE ~=,a lO'NPOOIT
fl.OOU~ ~r:'~<tl lOPOFGAATEElEVAlDI IINEJITaEY/itlON IIOHDSfA\ID.EVATlON
:!~~':nONTM.DIST.-1«:EFERl'OF
Undorgro1..nd Borvlc• Alorl
@ c,n, TOU. FREE
1•800 422-4133
~ ITT "" "'" " " " .
" " -"'" ~ ,.,
~ w
"' .. "'' 0
0
EXISTI~GS?OTEtEVATlOH PROPOSEOSPOTE!.!:VATIOH "80ITT BEGINNIIIGOFCOOBRADllS rnoOFCURBRAOOS TOPOFCURB BOTTOl.!OFCllllB EXPANSiOIHOJrr SCOREJQj~
SAWCIJT '""' '""""' HEAOER
""""''""""" 1.11110 .......
""'""' """'--"""" """'""...,. FACEOF6Ul.Dtki
,--J,_,,,,,. l'IKl'OSEOCOllTOlll
,--J,_,,,,,. EXISTl«ltall"Olll
(.f_~~!·~T~ e -OETALREFER~
-Sf!E.ETLOCATIOII
~-SECTIO>IREFERE!tt
v""-s~ETLOCATlOll
CLIENT
ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS BNR DEVELOPMENT
23800 VIA DEL RIO
YORBA LINDA, CA 92887
(714)692-9120
ROMERIA STREET & GIBRALTAR STREET
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA DRAWING INDEX
SHEET SHEET DESCRIPTION
VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP TITLE SHEET
Qr, " OC'-'""" l ,,
l1,j'
I
'' \ ' ... ~ ;-,. .... -...... ,-.. SIT_: I
', ' -' ' ' ' ...... , ~=-
CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT PLAN
CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT PLAN
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
""·'\\', --
, ..
I
r;
----:::::...i,
PROJECT•~
···\) ✓• ... _,o
\ O'•'·•~':",_., •• ..,...~ .. ~, ½;?
·~•·"
I o .. ~~-......... ,. ; 'Ii .,,/-~ .. ' \
10
11
12
13
14
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBLY PLAN
TREE PLANTING LAYOUT PLAN
TREE PLANTING LAYOUT PLAN
SHRUB PLANTl°NG LAYOUT PLAN
SHRUB PLANTING LAYOUT PLAN
PLANTING DETAILS
PLANTING NOTES
IRRIGATION TITLE SHEET
IRRIGATION HYDROZONE PLAN
CITY or ENCINITAS
PROJECT SITE
CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARD NOTES
DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE:
CONSISTBIT ~ CURRENT STANDARDS.
'HEREBY DCCI.ARE lllAT I AM rne LICENSED DESIGNER or WORK FOR TIUSPAOJECT, ntATl HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSl!LE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN Of TI11S PAOJECT AS DEFINEO IN SECTIOr-16703 Of TilE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS COOEANO THAT TliEOESIGN IS
IUNOERSTANOTliATTHE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS ANO SPECFICATIONSBVTHECITVOF CARLSB.-.O ANO s.-.N DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IS CONFINED TO" REVIEW ONLY ANO DOES NOT RELIEVE ME, .-.s THE LICENSED OESIGNER OF WORK, OF MV RESPONSIBILfTIESFORPROJECTDESIGN.
THESE PLANS HAW BEEN PREP.-,RED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WtTH TliEAPPROVED LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN, WATER CONSERVATION Pl.AN, FIRE PROTECTION Pl.AN,AND ALL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RELATED TO LANDSCAPING.
ev: PATRICK C.M. MURPHY (\__lt-._ ~
PHONE NO: J!!t_ 443-1446
REGISTRATIONNO: _18_,1 __ ~ EXPIRAT!ONOAT£: JULY31, 2020 (j
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE DECLARATION:
I AM FA.MN.WI WITH THE REOUIREMEITTS FOfl U.NDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS CONTAINED IN me arv OF CARI.SBAO'S lANOSCAPE I.IAHUAL & WATER EFFJCIENTU.NDSCAPE REGULAIDNS. I KA.VE PREPARED THIS
Pl.AN INCOMPI.IANCE WITH THOSE REGUI.ATJONSANO THE LANDSCAPE tMNIJAI.. ICERTIFY"TWiTlHE Pl.AN lMPl.llMEUTSTHOSEREGUl.ATIONSTOPROVIDEEFFICIENTUSEOFWATEf\_ LI
BV: PATRICK C.M. MURPHY ~ ~
PHONEMO: ~ 443-1446
REGISTRATIONNO: _10_,1 __ _ EXPIRATiotHlATE: JULY31.2020 ()
_S_t,JBSURFACE IB._RQATIQN NOTE:
THIS Pl.AN SHA\.\. PROVIDE TKl<T ONI.V SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION SHAU. BE USED TO IRRIGAT'EA>N V.:GeTAT10N WITHIN "TWENTY-FOUR INCHES (24") OF AMY IMPERMEABLE SURFACE UNLESS THEAOJ.1,.Cerf IMPERMEABLE SURFACES ARE OESlGNEO ANO CONSTRUCTED TO CAUSE WATER TOOR-'IN Et-l'"MELVINTO A LANDSCAPED AREA.
SMP
.,_.
I
BACKFLOW PREVENTER TESTINGl
ALL IRRIGATION IIJICKFLOW PREVENTERSSHAU. BE TESTED BV A CERTlflEDTESTER ANO RESULTS l,IUSTBE
GIVENTO THE CITY ANO THE CAALSB.A.0 MUNICIPAL. WATER DISTRICT. PIPEBETWE£NTHEMETER AND BACKFLOW PRE\/cNTER SHALL BE "SCHEOUIJaK HARO COPPER".
APPROVEO CONTRACT BACKFLOW TESTERS CAN BE FO\Jml ON TI,E CITY WEB SITE AT: HTTl':UW,i.W.CARI.SMOCAGOVISERl'li::ESJDEPAATl.!ENTSIWAnAIOOCUI.IE/ITS\CIECYCIEOW,<TE/lMCKFLOWTESrERUST.POI' FORRECVCLEOOR HTTP:IM'l'.W.CAlll.SSI.DC.<.GOVISERVK:E-S'OEPAATMEHl".S.M'ATER,OOCUl,/!'NT&WAl"EllMCKFl.OWTESTEllUST.POF FOR POTABLEORCALL(760)43&-2122.
INSPECTION PROCEDURES:
INSPECTION PROCEOURES: INSPECTION OF TliE PROJECTSHl<LL BE PERFORMED BVTHE U.NDSC.oJ'E ARCHITECT OF WORK, OR HIS OESIGNATf:0 AGE ITT. REFER TO TIIESP£ClFICATIONS FOR THE SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ANO REQUIRED llUSMITTALS. FOLLOWING
COMPLETION OF THE WORK, THE WJDSCAPE ARCHITECT OFTHEWORKWILLCERTIFVTliAT TI1E INSTALU.TlON HAS BEEN COMPLETED BV SUBMITTlNC THE "CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION"
FORM. A REQUEST FOR A FINAL lANDSCAPE INSPECTION EIVTHECTTYMUST ALSO BE MADE BV CALLINGTHEINSPECTIONREOUESTLINE.
"CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION" FORM FAX TO: neO\ IM4-IIIM3.
LANDSCAPE INSPECTION REQUEST PHONE LNe:f7MJ~602.
PRIOR TO BEGINNING LANDSCAPE WORK:
nfE CONTRACTOR BH"LL CONTACT THE OESIGNEJil or WORK
~~~:L~G!=~C~~==OF
REVISE Pl.ANS ACCOAOINGL V TO F\Jll V 9CR£EM ALL IIT1LfTES
FROM \'1EW ANO PROTECT ALL UTILITIES (A90VE & BELOW GRADE) FROM INVASIVE Pl.ANT GROWTM N-40 ROOTS.
MAINTENANCE NOTE~
HOME OWNERS ASSOCL'ITION tKOA) Wll.L BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MA.ltfTENA.NCEOFALLLANOSCAPEAREAS.
;=;==
I -f--~ (0 ~ ~
~ u ~ 0
~I
V)~ ~ ~
["'ml I CITY OF CARLSBAD 11 '""" I f--j--+----------j--+--+--+--ILJ_J_ PV,NNIN<H>M:IIOPI • 14
ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
23800 VIA DEL RIO TITLE SHEET
YORBA LINOA CA. 92887 APPROVED: I
111NMUlll,IIIR~lfY&,ARTHE!IS.INC. M1tlPACIFICCW.STHWY.SIJl1Elm llAIU.POINTCA121211 (MiJ"4)-1"41
BNR DEVELOPMENT ~~l~~~~~~~~~~~i~i~§~~~ ROMER/A AND GIBRALTAR, CARLSBAD
I TELEPHONE: 714.692.9120 ~~~"~"§""';;;~;~;;~~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;-=!-I ~ I OATEPLANPREPARED: ,nRuAIIY».:a,. ~~ DATE -DATE HTW. 11JWN1m -~-11 PROJECTNO. I~ ev: GLU.1L11S11.1un,nv&,..,.,,....5.tHC. DUIGH(ROI'-REVISION DESCRIPTION OTH!R...,.~0¥111. crr,......,IIDVAL "c·==:;,=• =':'=• =Jl., _____ J!L _______ _J_J
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 127 of 612
I. GENERAL
A.~IRelaUonshlp
In lhe perform.ince of this contract, Contractor shan hold landscape Architect and Owner
hannlessfromanyandaDl!ablilly,costsandchargesarlslngoutol,orlncormecllonwllh,
conlraclors,amployaes,orft'sagent'snegllgence,omlsslons,errors.
B. ErrorsorConnlc\s
lfanyerrorsoroonTilclsaredlscoveredlnlheplansornotes,lheyshaUbelnlerpreledsoas
loaccompllshtherealpurposeorlhoseplansandnoles.
C. Add!llons,DevlatlonsandAlleraUons
Nodevlatlonsoralteratlonsfromtheplansandspecll)caUonswlllbepermlUedunless
authorized by lhe Owner or lhe landscape ArctillecL Should devlaUon from plans and notes
become necessary due to connlcUng site condlUons, Owner and landscape Architect shall
approvelnadvanceanysuchdevlaUon. Noaddltlonalworkwllbeaulhorizedwllhoulthe
e)(presswrittenaulhorlz:atlonfromthe0111ner. D. lnlerpre!atlon
The Contractor shall comply with the obvious Intent and meaning ol lhese plans and
speclflcalionswhlchshallbeconstl'\Jed1olncludeall1abor,material,toolsandequlpment
necessary to complete lhe work speclfled herein in a wolkmanllke manner !n e!rlct
accordancewi!hplansand notes, Should any questions arise as to the Intent and
lnlerpretalionorlheseplansandnotes,ContraclorshaUrefertoOwnerandLandscape
Archltectwhosededslon1hereonshanbeftnal.
E. ObservaUon and Rejection of Materials and Worl<manshlp
All materials and worl<manshlp furnished or performed by Contractor shaD be subject to flnal
observallonandacceplancebyOwnerandlandscapeArchltectuponcompleUonofan
conlract111or1<whelherprevlouslypaldforornot.AtanyandallUmesduringlheperformance ollhlsconlract,ContractorshallmakeevallablerorobservaUon,testandapproval,materials
andworkmansh!p.Fallureofsuchobserverstomakeobservalion,testsorapprovalsshallnol
prejudlcetherighloflandscapeArchltactorOwneronfinalobservalion.Contractorshall
prompUy replace any and all material. worl<manshlp and equipment which does nol conform
totheplansandnotes.Allmaterialsusedonthlsconlractshanbenewandlhebestmalked qualityunlessspecifledolheiwisa. F. Samples
When so required by the Owner or landscape Archllect. Contractor shall submit lor approval
sempl!!soflhevariousmaterials,andspeclfyfln!shlhereon.
G. localCodes
An construction shall conform to all local building codes and ordinances. I! ls Conlraclo(s
responslbnlty to verify all codes prior to commencing woril,
H. UUlllles
ContraclorshatlberesponslblelorverlfylnglhalocatlonofallundergroundulffiUes,electric
cables,condulls,sprinklerllnesandallulll!tyl!nespriorloanyoonstl'\JCUon.
I. RemovalofDebrisandaean-Up
Contractorshalllhoroughlycleanandkeeprreeofdebrisandwastemalerialanllre
constructlonareatothesalisfacUonoflheOwner. J. General
The general cond1Uons and any special condlllons that Owner may require shaU apply wllh
lhasamarorcaandeft'ectaslhoughwrittenlnfuUherelnforanconslnJCUonsecUons,
II. SITE EXCAVATION AND ROUGH GRADING
Scope of Work -Provide all labor, materials, tools, equlpmenl lransportaUon and necessary lncldenlalsforlhecompleUonofallclaaring,slrlpplng,e)(cavallng,backmllng,gradlngand
rel a led work as shown on lhe drawings, Including but not llmlled lo the fol!owlng:
A, ProtecUon of all curbs, walks, waits, Sll'\Jclures and olher exlsllng walk which Is to remain.
B. Clearingandslripplngslleorbrush,debrisandolherforelgnmalerlalsasoullinedlnlhe drawings.
C. EJ<cavaUonforanroundaUonsandfooUngstolhedlmens1onanddeplhshownonlha
drawings. BoUomsofe)(cavaUonsshallbesmoo\handlevel.AllloosemalerialshaTibe
removedlherefrom,
D. Subgrades shall be watered and compacted lo a relaUve compacUon of 95%. E. SubgradesunderaUpavlngshallbelruelogradeandcrosssecllon,herd,unlformand
smoolhprlorloplacemenlofbasemalerial.
F. Backnlllng or all e)(cavaUons and trenches after placemen! of foundallons, walls, walks,
utlHUes,elc.,asou\Jinedonlhadrawings.Compacllonorbackmlshallb1:1lnaccep1anc1:1wlth
Englnee(sspecificaUons.
G. Gradlngofareas!ndlcatedlnthedrawlngslnclud!ngbrlnglngeJ<lsUnggrades\owl(hln 1/10
foolplusorm!nus.F!naldeslgngradesaslndlcatedonthedrawlngs.
H. Stockplnngolexcavallonmaterialorlmporllopso!lmJandsandshallbeasouUlnedonlhe
drawlngsorasapprovedbylandscapeArch!lect.
I. Clean up and remove an debris and surplus material and remove from site.
111. DRAINAGE
Scope of Wolk-Provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment, transporlaUon and necessary
lnclden1als for the completion of all drainage sys le ms as shown on the drawings, Including but
nolllmltedtolhefollowJng;
A. Materials
1. Aaylonlta Bu ta lane -Styrene (ABS) Schedule 40 drain pipe, perforated or non-perforated In diameters shown on the drawings.
2. BaslnsandDralns-HlghlmpactplasllcStyrenedralnbaslns,cetchbaslnswllhgrates,hlgh
lmpactplastlcStyrenedeckdralns,and/orprecastconcreledralnbo)(andcatchbaslnsand
cast Iron grate In diameters and sizes as shown on lhe drawings. Stainless steel or brass deckdralnslnhardscapeasshownonlhedrawlngs.
B, TrenchlngandlaylngPlpe
1. Trenches to pitch a minimum-of 1/8" per loot unless olheiwise Indicated on 1he drawings,
Contraclortoverifyal!lnverlelevallonsandtrenchdepthpriortoe)(cavaUon.
2. Bollom of trench shall be smooth and conllnuous to flow direction. A hollow shall be made lo
recelvebellofp!pasolheJolntwlllnotbearuponlhesubgrade.Adjustmenlslollneandgrade
shallbemadebyscraplngawayorfilllnglnwllhbackfiflunderlhebaseoftneplpeandnolby
wedglngorblocklng.
3. Trench material shaU be used for backml. However, no rocks or lumps shall be used. Welded
Jolntsshallbeglvenatleast15mlnutesselupbeforahand11ng.Abovelhelevelofln1Ual
backfill,the!nlnchmaybebackfilledwllhlrenchma1erial.
4. Compacfion -CompacUon by tamping shan not be done In layers exceeding e!ght Inches In
loosedeplhwllheachlayerlhoroughlycompactedbetween.
c. Clean-UpandTesUng
1. Priorlocoveringoftrenches,dralnllneandbas!nsshalbecheckedtolnsureproperllowand
watertlghlness,
2, Theplplngsystemsshanbenushedandcleanedprior1oconnecl1ngloexlstlngdralnline,
calchbaslnorslormdralnsystems.
3, Upon compleUon of walk, remove debris, tools and surplus ma!erial from slle.
IV. CONCRETE
Scope of wolk -Provld1:1 all labor, materials, tools, equipment, transporlaUon and necessary
lncidenlalsforlhacompleUonoranconcrelenatwolkasshownonthedrawlngslnciud!ngbut
nolllmlledlolhefollowlng:
A. Materials
1. Cement-Standard Portland Cement, perdeslgneUon C-150 of the ASTM Type II, 111, orv," low alkali, slng!e brand throughout. Rarer lo Soll Eng!nee(s Report for RecommendaUons.
2. Aggrega1e -ASTM Spec!flcallon C-33 3/4" maximum site. Decorallve aggregates or pea
rock as shown on drawings. Fine natural sand, well graded conforming lo ASTM C-144,
3. Waler-Walerusedshallbeorpo!ablequal!ly.
4. Steel-Relnlorclngsteelfordecksandwalkslobelnlermedlalegradedeformedbars
conforming to ASTM A-615 and/or Grade 40. Mesh ASTM A-496, site where shown on
drawings. 5, E)(panslon Joints -Asphall lmpregna\ed fell. Polyle!t Elhafoam as lndlcaled on Iha drawings.
6. Con!roIJoln1s-Sawcutjolnl1/4ofslabthlckness. Handloo!edscore/olnls1/4"deep
minimum where shown on lhe drawings·.
7. Cold Joints• Bult type, butt type wllh dowels. Screed key joint as Indicated on lhe drawings.
8. Joint Sealant-Two parts Po!ysulRde sealant as manufactured by Thiokol, Class AS, sell level!ngormulU-parlpolyurelhaneconstrucUonsealanlbyl.M.Sconeld,lnma!ch)ngcolor.
9. Curing Ma(erial -Hunts process MD7C, 'Uthochrome' color wa)( for color cond!Uoned
concrelebyl.M.Scofleld,lnmalchlngcolorofconcreleaslndlcaledonlhedrawlngs.
10, Color Cond1t1oned Concrete -'Chromlx' admixtures for Integral colored concrete by l.M.
Scofield Company.
11. Dust-On Color. 'Ulhochrome' color hardener by l.M. Scofield Company.
12. Surface Retardant-'Ulhotex' tap surface retarder as manufactured by l.M. Scofield
Company, or'Slka' surface retardant or 'Rugesol' as manufactured by Slka Corporatlon.
B, Subgrade
Grade all subgrades to a uniform depth and compaction. Mols1en all subgrades prior to
pourlngofconcrele.
2. Cuta!lfooUngslnundlsturbedorcompactedsoll.
3. Place sand or aggregate base as shown on the drawings and as speclflad by a Solis
Engineer.
C. Forms
1. Useonlyflnlshedlumber. Setallformstruelogradeandposltlon.
2. Molstenallformspriortopouringofconcreteoruseapprovedformreleaseagenls.
D. E)(panstonJolnts
1. Placeaxpanslonjo!nlslnconcreleatln\ersecUonofconcreteandflxedstruclures,1.e.,
garage,walls,baseofsleps,poolbondbeamaslnd!catadonthadrawlngs,
2. Placeconlroljolntlnconcrelenotloe)(ceedahoriz:onlalspacingasspecl!ledbyasolls
engineer.
3. PlaceconslrucUon/olntslnconcretewherecaslingonconcrelelslobestoppedand
subsequentcasUnglstobeslarled.
E. Concrete
1. ClassAconcreteshanconta!nnotlesslhanSsacksofcemenlpercublcyardandbe
proportioned to attain a ma)(lmum cylinder strength of 3,000 PSI In 26 days. Compressive
strengths are to be delermlned In accordance with ASTM C-39. The slump shall not exceed 4".
2. Concretem!J<lng-Alltransrtmlxedconcreleshallbemlxedenddeli-..eradlnaccordancewlth
lhe requirement of Standard Speclncallons for ready ml)(ed concrete ASTM C-94.
F. ConcreleFlnlshlng 1. Broom Finish -Tamp fresh con ere le with heavy melal grid. Screed wllh straight edge to
removeall!rregularitles. Ffoetloesmoolhsurface,steellrowel,andedgetoanevenhard
surface. Score as Indicated on drawings. Use a new man Ila hemp brisUe broom. Brush
mar1<Ingsonslab!nunlformfashlonasshownonlhedrawlngs.
2. Rock Salt Finish -Tamp fresh concrete wllh heavy melal grid. Screed w!lh stralghl edge lo
removealllrregularilles.Floatloasmoolhsurface,steeltrowe1andedgetoanevenha1d
surface. Score es Indicated on drawings. Hand broadcast rock sail In even distribution and
\ampfn.Washoffconcretewllhenoughpressuretodlssolverocksallallerconcretehassel.
3, Pea Rock Retarded Finish-Tamp fresh concrete with heavy melal grid. &:reed 1111\h straight
edgetoremovealllrregulariUes.Floalloasmoolhsurface,sleellrowelandedgeloanevan
herd surface. Applysurfacerelardanttoflnlshedsurface,priortolnlUalsetpermanufacture(s
recommendations, l.M. Scofleld, using sprayer, providing even dlslrlbullon. Revaal aggregate
byuslngwater)etandcoarseflberbrushtoremoveretardantpaslelromsurface,wash!ng
thoroughlyunlllsurfacelscleanandexposuralscomp!etaandunlform.
4. Hand Seeded Aggregate Finish -Tamp fresh concrete with heavy metal grid. Screed with
stra1ghtedgaloremovealllrre_gularllles. Floattoasmoothsurface.Handseedsurlaceln
unlformfashlonoverenUreareakeeplngstone112"mlnlmumfromedgesande)(penslon
Joints. Tamp aggregate to a uniform depth below concrete surface. 5. Stamped Concrete -Tamp fresh concrete with heavy melal grid. Screed with straight edge lo
removaalllrregularitles.Floattaasmoolhsurfece. App!ycolorhardener'Lllhochrome'by l.M. Sconeld by lhe dry shake method using a minimum ol 60 pounds per 100 square feel.
Apply In 2 or more shakes and float after each shake. Trowel only alter nnal floailng whl!e concrete Is sllll plasllc using Imprinting tools lo make pattern as shown on the drawings.
Apply color curing compound 'Ulhochrome' color wax by l.M. scone Id Company using roller
or sprayer. lf'BomacfOn' type surface Is shown on drawings, a release agent must be applied priortolexlurlnglheconcrele, ColorcuringcompoundmaybeopUonal,aslndlca1edonlhe
drawings,
SMP
~UMMEll,.,MOIIPHV & P_.,IUHEIU, ll,IC J••erPAClFICCOASTKWY,SIJIT!,200 OA~POINTCAi2821l (!MUJ◄ •J..1◄•6
6. Sand Finish-Tamp fresh concrete with heavy metal grid. Scre1:1d wl(h straightedge to
removea11Irregu1arilles.Floatloasmoolhsurface,slae1lrowelandedgetoanevenhard
surface. Prlortosel,Ughllyspongesurfacelorevealsmallsurfaceflneswhllenolexposlng
aggregate. Altemalemethod,allerlnlUalsel,suriacelobewashedwllhadUuledsolutJonol
murlaUcecidandwater,andbl'\JshedlorevealsurfaceHnes. SurfacemuslbeconUnuously wettoavo!dacldbum.
F. Clean-Up
Upon compleUon of work, remove ell forms, debris, materiel and tools from site.
V •. BLOCK MASONRY
Scope or Wolk-Provide an labor, materials, tools, equipment, transportallon and necessary
lncldenlalsforthecomp1aUonofallblockmasonryasshownon\hedrawlngs,lnciudlngbu1 notl!mltedtolhefonowlng:
A, Malerla!s
1. Slump block unlls meeUng grade A, ASTM C-90, concrete block units Grade A, ASTM C-90.
2, Cement-S1andard Portland Cemen1 ASTM des!gnaUon C-150 Type I or II, low alkalJ.
3. Sand-Clean, well graded ASTM designation C-144.
4. Water-Waterusadshallbeofpotablequallty.
5. Stael -Relnrorced steel for wan to be Grade 40 deformed bars ASTM deslgnaUon A-165,
6. Concrete -Class A concrete minimum 2,000 PSI at 26 days.
7. Mortar• by volume, freshly prepared, un1formly mixed In ratio 1 part cement, 1/2 part Hrna
putty, 4-1/4 parts sand, conforming to ASTM C-270. Omit Mme putty If p!asUc cement Is used.
8. Grout-byvolumafreshlyprepared,unlfom,lyml)(ed1parlcement,3partssand,2partspea
gravel.
B. Laylngo!Masonry 1. layalfmasonryslra!gh\and1ruetoQnewlthvertrcal/olntsplumbovereacholher.Horizonla1
Joints shan be level. Headers and comer units to show finished faces where exposed. Joints
andbondpallemlobeasshownonlhedrawlngs.
C. Reinforcing
1. All bars In masonry shall be lapped a minimum of 40 bar diameters. Dowels for walls and
columns to be same size as waH relnlorclng. Refer to Sll'\Jc\ural Englnee(s speclncaUons for
alls!ee!slzesandlocatlons.
D. CulllngofMasonry
1. No cutting of masonry units shall be allowed unless shown on Iha drawings.
E. GroullngofMasonry
1. Groutallcellswllhvertfcalstealsolldasshownonlhedraw!ngs.
2. Groutallcellsbelowgradesolld.
3. Provide minimum 3/4~ between steel reinforcing and blocks.
F. Weepho!es
1. Open joint weep holes at 32" O.C. ma~lmum on bottom course or retaining walls with 1 cubic
foot gravel If shown on drawings or approved drainage system per Structural Englnee(s
spedncaUons.
G. Expans!onJolnts 1. Provldevertlcale)(panslonjolntslnwallperlocalcodeandSlrucluralEnglnee(s
speciflcallons.
H. Waterproofing
1. Waterproof all retaining walls below grade with asphalt emulsion, 2 coals.
I. Cleaning
1. Clean an masonry wor1<, remove all morlar stains.
2. Upon complellon ofwor1<, remove ell mortar droppings, debris, materiels and tools from site.
Vl. BRICK MASONRY
Scope or Wor1< -Provide aa labor, materials, tools. equipment, transportallon and necessary
lncldenlals for Iha complet!on of ag brick or stone masonry as shown on Iha drawings,
lnciudlngbutnotl!mlledlolhefollowlng:
A, Materials
1. Brick or stone conforming to ASTM A-62 grade MW as shown on lhe drawings.
Cement-S!andard Port!and Cement ASTM ~eslgnatlon C-150, Type II, Ill, or Vlow alkaH
s!ngle brand throughout. Reier to Sol!s Englnee(s report for recommendations.
3. Sand -Clean, well graded ASTM deslgnaUon C-144,
4, Water-Waterusedshallbeolpotablequaity.
5. Steel• Reinforced sleet for walls to be Grade 40 deformed bars ASTM deslgnaUon A-165.
6. Mortar -by volume, freshly prepared, uniformly mixed In ratio 1 part cement, 1/2 part ~me putty, 3 parls sand, conforming lo ASTM C-270. Omit llme putty !f plasllc cement Is used.
7. Grout -by volume, freshly prepared, uniformly ml)(ad In ratio 1 part cement, 3 parts sand or 1partcemant,3partssandand2partspaagrevel.
B. lay!ngofBrick
1. layaDmasonrystralghtandlrualolinewlthbrickvertlcal]o!ntsplumbovereacholhar.
Horlzonlal Joints shaD be level. Headers and comer un!ls to show Hnlshed faces where e)(posed. Jolnlsandbondpattemlobeasshownonthedraw!ngs,
C. Reinforcing
1. All bars In masonry shall be lapped a minimum of 40 bar diameters. Dowels for walls and
columns lo be same size as wall reinforcing. Refer lo Slruclural Englnee(s speclncaUons for
allsleelslzesandlocallons,
D. CutllngofMasonry
1. UsemasonrysawforbrickculsunlessspeclHedolheiwise.Brickscullesslhan 1/2Ienglh
shannotbeused. S!onelobeculwllhchlselandhammer.
E. GroullngolMasonry
1. Groulcorewaasso!ldasshownonlhedrawlngs.
2. Provide minimum or 2-1/2" grout space between double bllck wans. Provide minimum 314" belweensleelre!nforcingandbrick.
H. Wa!erprooflng
1. Waterproof ell rala!n!ng wans below grade with asphalt emulsion, or other as specified by
Soils Engineer.
I. CleanlngandSeallng 1. Clean ell masonry work. Remove ell mortar stains. Remove a\kell wllh soluUon or muriaUc
acid and waler. Apply clear sealer lo exposed surfaces If shown on the drawings, 2. Upon comple~on of wor1<, remove all mortar droppings, debris, materials and tools from slle.
VII. CARPENTRY
Scope ofwolk-Provide aU labor, materials, tools, equipment, transportation and necessary
Incidentals for completlon of all carpentry as shown on Iha drawings.
A, Materials
1. Wood -rough sawn, resawn, surfaced 4 s!des where shown on Iha drawings, straight,
sound,lree lrommalks,plnheadknols,sappockets,sllvers,andchecks, Se!actgradaor betlarwhereshownonlhedrawlngs,
2. Douglas Fir, Redwood, Weslem Red Cedar or as shown on the drawings.
3. Posts, Plates and other at-grade connections to be Redwood, Weslem Red Cedar or
pressurelrealedDouglasF!rasshownonlhedrawlngs.
Hardware -column bases -'Simpson S!rong Tie' or equal. Post caps and strap Ues -'Simpson S!mng Tie' or equal Joist hangers and heavy angles -'Simpson Strong Tie' or
equal. Screws, hinges, nails, bolts, and washers. All hardware material to be galvardz:ed.
5. Slalnandpalnt-asselectedandshownondrawlngs.
6. Concrete• Class A minimum 2,000 PSI at 28 days.
B. RoughCarpentry
1. Set aD posts, beams, ralls and framing plumb and true 1o line as shown on lhe drawings.
2. ConnecUons -make all connecUons as shown on the drawlngs.spnce lumber at posts only.
UUl\zeallnalland/orbollholesforallhardware.
3. Ease all lop edges or exposed lumber for bench lops, low wells, etc., where surface contact Is
provided.
4. Post base -set post column base as shown on drawings, providing minimum 1" dear all sides
fromflnlshedpostbaselotopofpavlng.
5. Counterslnknallsandbo11slnalllocallonswharesurfacaconlactlsprovlded,l.e.,benchlop
etc.
VII, METAL WORK
Scope of Wor1< -Provide all labor, materials, loo ls, equipment. transportaUon and necessary lncldenlals for compleUon of aU metal work where shown on the drawings, Including but not
llmlled\olhefoQowing:
A. Materials
1. Steel lubing In sizes shown on Iha drawings ASTM deslgnaUon 500 and/or hand forged, cold
rolfedwroughllronlnslzesasshownonlhedrawlngs.
2. Hardware -hinges, latches, bolls, washers, screws, ale., to be heavy duty.
3. Concrete • Class A concrete minimum 3,250 PSI al 26 days and/or 'Par-Rock' as shown on
Iha drawings.
4. Paint -Zfnc Chromate primer, 'Rus1oleum' finish surface coats or equal. 'Melallzlng' or galvanfzlng or powder coating II shown on the drawings.
B. FabrlcaUonandlnstallaUon
1. Contractor shall make an measuremenl for fabricaUon In Oeld prior to starting work.
2. Horizontal bars to !aper w!lh grade or step with grade as shown on lhe drawings. Vertlcal
bars to be plumb.
C. Welding
1. Wei ding to comply with the requirements of slandard code for ARC and gas welding.
2. Weldtoonlyciean,rusl-lreesurface.
3. All welds to be conUnuoua and free of cracks, craters and poro~lty. Teck welds not
acceptable.
4. Gtlndsrnoothallexposedwalds,matchadjo1nlngsurfaces.
5. Plugallopenendsandtops,andweld.
D. Painting
1. Prime an metal won< with one coat Zinc Chromate primer.
2. Paint an metal work wllh 2 coats 'Rustoleum' In semi-gloss or flat as shown on Iha drawings,
Paint to be 4 mlls minimum dry thickness each.
3. Primeandpalnlperabove,a\lfle!dwelds.
E. ProlectlonandCleanup 1. Prolecla!le,dsUngworilfrompalnloverspray.
2. Oblaln Fire permit where required for on-slle welding,
3. Upon complellon of wor1<, remove all scrap Iron, debris, materials and tools from site.
~1 CITY OF CARLSBAD I['"'"' I ~===i===~====================i===t===+===t==1 ~. P1.ANHIHllDMS40M . 14 r---t--+-----------t--t--+--t--ill.ANDSCAPEIMPROVEMENTPL.ANSFOR:
ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS B~:8~~~~=~~~ j R~"b~R;~:~gT~~~i:~1~•1~:i~~~D
YORBA LINDA CA, 92887 [APPROVED: II -------''""""'-'"'""'·'='" ~-=$"~"'~""~~;;;;;;~~;;;;;,;;;;;;;J. I
DATEPLANPREPARED: FEIIRUA11Yi,,mo ~ o.o:n; IHJTI.'\. llATl1 l'lTIAI. IIIW>IIN: :~: II PROJECTNO. IIDRAWINGN0.111
BY: sumIERSIU\JRPHYlPARTtlEllS,mc. DtslGNEROFworuc REVISION DESCRIPTION orn~RAPPROV-'1. CITY•••ROVAI. ~)==~~--='"=' =H .. _____ Jl ____ _JI I I
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 131 of 612
I, GENERAL SITE PLANNING
The Owner shaU have a soll analysis made Eifler compleUon al the rough grading. Toe Contractor shall
Incorporate all soil amendments and fertilizers prescribed herein. The so11 preparaUon specified below sha!lbeadjustedaccordlngtot11eanalysls,afterapprovaltromlandscapearcflllact.
A. Weed Control for Lawn, Shrub & Ground Cover Areas (Except Slopes)
1. Remove all existing weeds from surface. Remove all roots of Bermuda.Johnson Grass, etc. anddlsposeofolfslte.
2.lnstalllrrlgatlon.
3. Fertillzeallshrub/groundcoverareas. Apply10lbs.of16-20-0commerdallertlllzerper1,000
sq.ft.orasdlrectedbysollsreport.
4, Water all shrub/ground cover areas for three (3) weeks lo QBrmlnate weed seeds. Apply water atlowratetoavolderoslon.
5. Licensed applicator shall apply systemic weed killer to all p!anUng areas per
manufacturer'sspadncauons.
B. SollPreparallon&FlnlshGradlng
1. Rough grade; Sile to be received by Landscape Contractortowllhln 1/10100! plus or minus
byownerbaseduponClvilEnglneer'sgradlngplan.
2. FJn!shgrade: Flnlshgradlnglocons!slofgradlng,raklngandhandworknecessaryto
achlevedeslredcontourandllowllnepatterns, bosaduponClvilEnglneer'splans,resulllng
lnevenlyllnlshedsurfacesfreeoldebtlsandllller,
3. Spreadoveralllawn,shrubandgroundcoverareas,amendmenlsandfertll!zerp<escrlbedln
soils report. Thoroughly mix Into soil to depth to of 6' or more and fine grade. Shape
mounds as shown on plans. Contractor lo lmpor1 soil necessary to attain design grades and
berms, all Import soil shall be free of we ads, debris, ar,d have balanced Ph. Smooth and even
gradlngwlthouldepresslonsorhlghspots,toprovidesmoo!handevensurlaceslorproper
drainage. Final grade shall be 1• below walk/top of curb. Remove from ttie slle ell stones
over2'Jnslze.
C. PlanUng
P!anttrees,shrubsandgroundcoverascalledforwherelndlcatedonPlanUngPlanandasdetalledon
Planting Detail sheet
Subslllul!ons ol plan ls will not be accepted unless approved by Landscape ArdillecL
1. GroundCover-Flalsand/orCulUngs
AllplanlmalerlalsspeclnedasrooledcullingsorllalstockonPlanUngPlanshanramalnlnlhe
flatsunlllllmeoftransplanUng. Thenatsollshallcontalnsufflclentmo!sluresolhatsolldoesnot
fallapartwhenlllllng p!anlfrom Ila!. Groundcovarplantssha/lnotellowedtodryoutbeforeor
whllebelngplanled. Roo!sshallnolbeexposedlolhealraxceptwhlleacluallybelngplanled.
W!ltedplantswlilnolbaaccaptad. AltheUmeofplanling,!hesollaroundeachplantshallbe
flrmedsufnclentlyto force outafrpockels, Plants lobeplantedlntrlangularspacfngasspeclITed
O.C. (On Center), All cuttings shall be minimum ol 6' long. Install plants In 6' X 6" plan ling plls.
Water Immediately after each planl!ng un111 one Inch of waler penetration Is obtained. Care shall
be exercised at all times lo protect the plants after planting. Any dEIIT'lage lo p!en\s by lrampUng or olheroperaHonsofthlscontrnctshallberepalredlmmedlate\y.
2. Shrub&Trees
Planlallconlalner-grownplantslnplanUngplts, two(2)1imeswlderandtwo(2)1imesdeeperlhan
the container, as directed on PlanUng Detail sheet. Thoroughly-mix 1/3 organic backllll (Nitroll~ed
Redwood Shavings or equal) and the amendments speclAed In the soHs analysis with lhe site solt,
ptlor to backfill Ing of planting pits. Install Plant Tablets, par lha manufai:ture~s lnstrucUons and as
detalledonPlan11ngDela11Sheet. Contractorshatlconstructbe.slnsaroundalltreesnotlnlawn
areas;baslnsshallnotexceadlopofrootballcrown.
3. Top Dressing
Top dress all ground cover and shrub areas wllh 2' lh!ck layer of OGC (Organic Ground Cover), to
bespecJnedoneilplanUngplans.
4. Slaking
StakealltreesasdetalledonPlanlingDetallSheel.
D. SpeclalBackflllMlxes
1. A:.:aleas-Use 80%coarsePealMoss,alld20%cleanlopsoll.
2. Camernas & Fems • Use 50% Peat Moss, 25% Forest Humus and 25% Site Soll
3. Pots Bild Planters• Use Kellogg's Indoor Planter Mix.
E. Sod-SeePlanllngDetallsSheetlorsodtypa.
1. Areassha11haveasmoolhendoontlnualgradabatweenexlstlngorlixedcontrols,suches:
walks,curbs,catchbaslns. Roll,scarify,rakeend!evelasnecessarytoobtalntrue,evensoll
structure.
2. Apply fertlllzers as spec!ned on PlanUng Oelall Sheet and m!K Into ttie soil.
3. Sodshellbalnstalledlhasamedayltlsdellvered. Sodshallnotbeleftonpelletslnthehot sun. Contractor shall be responsible for any and all damage lo sod not lnstaned on day of
de~very.
4, Unrollsodcarefullyandplacefnstaggeredpattemofslrlps. Sodshallbelnstal!edagalnst
adjacantstrlpstoellmlnatejo!ntsandedges.
5, TrlmsodtoconformtolawnshapesdeslgnaledlnlhePlanlingPlan.
6. Aller sod Is laid, II shall be lrtlgated lhoroughly to provide mo!slure
pem,tratlontoatleastB"lntopreparedsoll.
7. All sod In sodded areas shall be handled end laid In a high standard workmanship manner.
Allends,Jolnts,andcutssha!lfillighllysothatttiarearenovoldsandlhefinaleppearance
lsoneofaconllnuouslawn.SecUonsofsod!esslhan1S'longor9'wldeshallnolbaused,
8. NosodareawlllbeacceptedunlllapprovedbylheL.andscapeArchitect.
F. HydroseedTurf
Hydroseed a\l areas designated as 'Hydroseeded Turi'. See Plantlng Oela\l Sheet for type and quallty
ofseedmlx,ferllllzerandaddlll□nalamendmenls.
1. AppHcatlon
a. Equipment Hydraullcequlpmen\usedlortheeppllcaUonoflhelertlllzer,seed,andllberpulp,
shall be of the 'Super Hydro-Saade~ type as approved by the Landscape Architect This
equlpmenlshallhaveabullt-lnagltatorsyslemandoperaUngcapocftysufficlenttoeg!tate, suspend, and homogeneously ml~ a slurry conta!n!ng not less than 40 lbs. of fiber mulch plus a
combination 017 lbs. fertlllzer solids lor each 100 go1llons or water. The slurry d!strlbuLion lines shell belargeenoughtopreventsloppageandshallbeequlppedwlthasetofhydraulcspraynozzles
whlchshallplacethes!urrytankandspraynozzlewilhlnsufflclentproxlmltytobeseeded.
b. P1eparaUon: Theslurrypreparatlonshal!takeplaceatlhaslteofworkandshallbeglnby
addlngwatertothetankwhenlheenglnelsathelflhrottle.Whenthewalarleve!hasreo1chadlhe
helghtsoltheaglletorshan,goodclrculallonshallbeeslabllshedandallh!slimelheseedshallbe
added. Fertll!zer shall then be added, followed by fiber mulch. The fiber mulch shall be added to
the mixture afler the seed and when tile tank Is at least one-ttilrd Mlled with water. All fiber mulch
shall be added by the time the tank ls two-thirds 10 lhraa-rourths full. Spraying shall commence
lmmeclla1elywhentanklslull.
c. AppllcaUon: Apply hydro-mulch In the form of a slurry conslsUng of wocxl cellulose fiber, seed,
chemical additives, commercial fertlllzer and water. When hydrauUcally sprayed on lhe soll
surface, the hydromulchlng shall !orm a bfoller-llke ground cover Impregnated uniformly wllh seed
and!ertlllzerandshallallowlheebsorpUonor molslureandralnfallandpercolaUonlolhe underlying sol!. Remove construction. Leave site broom-clean.
II, GENERAL SLOPE PLANTING
The Owner shell have a soil analysis made alter completion of rough grading. The Contractor shall
Incorporate all sotl amendments and ferllllzers prescribed herein. The soll preparation spaclned below
shallbeadjustedacoordlnglylotheanalyslsaflerapprovallromlhelalldscapearchllect
A. PlenllngPrepereUon
1. SlopaTextutlng
a. CutSlopes: ThesesurfacesshallberoughanedlnahorizontaldlrecilonfolllllNfngthecontourof
the slope. The roughened texture shall be made by hend raking or slmllar mechanfoal means.
b. FIii Siopes; Thesesurfacesshallbecompactedandfinlshedendalsoroughenedlnahorlwntal direction following the contour of the slope. The roughened tal!lure shall be made by hand raking
ors!mllarmechanlcalmaans.
2. Weed Eradication Procedures
a. Manuallyremovealle~lsllngvegetaUonanddlsposeoll1oll-slte.
b. Fer1111zeallp!anllngareaswllhfer1111zerbasedonSolllabsrecommendaUons,(SeePJanUng
Detail She el). Add any end all soil amendments as required, per lhe sell analy6ls. Begin watering processtoacUveleferllllzerandaddlUvechemlcals.
c, Waterallplantlngareaslhoroughlyandcontlnuouslyforaperlodoftwo(2)consecutlveweeks.
The Landscape Architect shall approve specific watetlng dura11on and frequency program designed
togermlnateal!resldualweedseeds.
d. Discontinue watering process for two (2) days, ttien app!v recommendeUon by licensed
appl!calor,Uperennlalweedsappearonthe6lopas. !fannualweedsappearuseslralghlcontacl
herb!cldeasperlhepeslconlroladvisor'srecommendaUons. Nowalershallbeapplledfora
m!nlmumolfour(4)daysfollowlngappficaUonofcon!ac\weedklller.
e. Allow sufnclenl period of lime to Insure that all weeds are dead.
f. Water all p!anllng areas lhoroughlv and conUnuously fore period of three (3) weeks. A shorter
watering period may be permlsslble at the dlscreUon of the Landscape Architect end/or the pest
controladvlsor.Dlscontll'\ue1hawateringprocessforona(1)daypriortolhesecol'\dappllcaUonol
theherblc!despraylng. Re-applythespraylngoperatlonwllhastralghtcontactweedklller,asper
Iha past control advisor's recommendetlons. Allow a minimum of four (4) days without lrrlgaUon,
loraftecUveflnelweedidll.
g. Clearalldeslccatedwaedsfromlheslopestolheflnlshedgrade.
h.WaterallplantlngareasontheregularlrrlgaUoncontrollerscheduleforlhree(3)consecullve
deysprlorlottiehydroseedlngopereUon.
Styl-P
~~g~~:~l~R;_:;S~~~~':~I;~
OA11,0,POINTCA&:1&2i (~&)4◄3-14◄0
I. Thena!lowplanUngareasollsurfacetodryoutlorone(1)dayonly, priortolhehydroseedlng
appllcalion. Care must be taken not to allow Iha soil surtace lo be super-saturated with water prlor
to the hydroseedlng Installation. At the same time, the soil surlace should not be dry. There should
besomeres!duelmolslurewlttilnlheftrsl1/2'ofsollsuriece.
J. BegfnlhehydroseedlngoperaUonlnallareas,asspeclfled.
3. PlanUng
Planttreesandshrubsescalledoutwherelnd!caledonPlanUngPlanandasdetalledonPlanUng
De1ei1Sheet.Subslllutlonsofplan!swlllnotbeaccaptedunlessapprovedlnwrltlngbylandscape
Architect. lnslallplentlng tabletsascalledlorlnlegend.Plenlallcontalnergrownplantslnplanllng
plls two (2) times wider end two (2} !Imes deeper than the container. Thoroughly mbc !he specified
malerlalsfoundlnthesollanalyslsandthosespec!nedlnttiePlanHngDe1ellSheet,wllhlheslte soll,prlortobackfllllngolplanUngplls.
4. PlantlngTab!ets{SeePlantlngOetaflSheet)
5. HydroseedlngSpeclncaUonsForSlopeAreas
Hydro seed mix and mulch shall be amended lo suit specmc slle condlUons. Verlfy hydroseed mbc
with the Landscape Archllect and Soils Report, upon results of the soil analysis.The mix shall be
e.pp\ladtoallslopeareasdlrectlyafterlhelnstallatfonofellplanlmaterlalsasnnaldresslng.See
Plan Ung Dela!I Sheet for type and quanUly of seed mbc, lerllllzer, and addl\lonal amendments.
6, AppUcatlon Refer to Hydrosead Lawn Notes for hydro seed appUcatlon.
Ill, GENERAL NOTES
A. Clean-Up
1. After all lnstallaUon operations have been completed, remove all rubbish. excess soil, empty
plantconte!nerandtrashfromthesitedally. Allscers,rutsorolhermarkalnlhee.reacaused
bythlsworkshallbe repalredandlhegroundtenlnaneat,ordertycondlUon. Leaveslleln
broom-cleancondlllonatlheando!eachworklngday. Hosedownall pavedareaa,lncludlng
walkaandpafos,uponcompleUonofellwork.
B. Malntenenca
1. The Contreclor shall maintain during lnstallatlon a sufficient number of men end adequate
equipment to perform lhe work herein specified. Plant maintenance work shell consist of applylngwater,waedlng,carlng olplents,fncludlnggroundcovers,shrubs,vlnesandtrees,
edging and mowing lawns, fertlllz!ng, control of pests and diseases, end melntelnlng walks freeofdebrlsanddlrt. Uponcompletlonofeachereaof lnsla!lallon,thaConlractor,
LandscapeArchltectandO\lmershall conductanlnspecUonofcompletedaiea,alongwlth
the Owne~s maintenance representaUve, Al this time, a 11st of corrections, If any, shall be
madewhlcharetheresponslbllltyof!heContractor.
2. After al! work has been completed, Inspected end accepted, all areas wlll be maintained for a
petlodolnlnety(90)calendardeysoraslong asfsnecessaryloestabllshthrMnglrees,
shrubs, turf, and ground cover without bare spots.
3. Keepellareasweed-free,adequatelywatered,andneatlycumvaled for\henlnety{90)day
period. Remove all debris from site and keep 1he enUre site broom-clean. Mow turl areas
weekty.Hydroseededlurf areasshellbelrrlgetedeftertheslurrymulchhasbeeneppUad
and allowed to set for one (1) day. The soil surface must be kepi mo!st at all times during lhe
germlnallonpetlodtoavolddeslccallonolseedllngs.
4. Re-seed all bare spots In tur1 areas at two (2) week Intervals end malntalll unUI an even stand
ofturf,wllhoutbarespols,!sobtalned. Re-seedallslopeareasthatlalltogermlnateeven!y.
RepalrellerodedsuriacesatnocosttolheOwner.
5. Damage to any planted area shall be repaired Immediately. Depressions caused by vehicles
or fool traffic shall be nlled with topso11, leveled and replanted. EKlermlnate gophers, moles
and1epalrdamage.
6. The project shall be so cared for that a neat, clean condition wlll be presented al all Umes lo
lhe satisfaction o! Iha OwllBr and Landscape Architect. The Landscape ConlrBCtor shall be
expected lo make a minimum of one weekly visit for maintenance purposes.
7. Atlhee11dollhemalntenanceperlod,allareas1hathavebeenplanled shallbelertlllzedwllh
commerclalfer1lllzer,analyslsandrateo1 appllcatlonshallbeperlhesollsreport.
8. TheContrectorsha/lrequestallnalsllevlsltseven(7)daysprlortothe endollhe
maintenance period. This request shall be written and directed to the Owner and Iha
Lend scape Architect. Upon written acceptance of the project, the Contractor shall be
rellevedolanyfurtllermalntenance.
C. Guarantee
All turf, hand-plan1ed and hydroseeded ground cover, and shrubs shall be guaranteedtollveand
grow lo a period of ninety (90) days efter lnstelle.Uon and acceptance bylhe Owner. Trees shall be
guarenteed for one year. Any matarlal that falls to grow through Iha speclned maintenance and
guarantee period shall be replaced bylhe Contractor a! no cost to Iha Owner.
D. Observation
·1. Observallonvls!tsspecllledhere!nshallbemadebylhelandscape Archflectorh!s
representatlve. The Contractor shall request observation at least two (2) working days In
advanceolthet!melhatthe observellonlsrequested.
2. Observallonvls!lsaresuggasledlorlhelolllJINfngpartsorttiework:
a, UponcomplellonofgradlngandsollcondJUonlngprlortoplantJng,
b.When\reesarespottedforplanllng,butbeforeplenUngholesareaxcavated.
c. Wrlllen ecceptance of Iha project to release lhe Contractor from further maintenance shall
occurallerFfnalObservaUonwlllllheOwnerorh!srepresenlallveatlhaendofttie
mafnlenanceperlod.
E. Vermcal!onolDfmens!ons
1. All scaled dimensions are approximate. Before proceeding wilh any worl<, ttie Conlractor
shallcerelullvcheckendverlfyelldlmenslonsandquanllUas,andshelllmmed[atelynoUfy
lheLandscapeArchllectofanydlscrapancybelweenlhedrawlngsand/orspec!ncaUonsand
actualcondllions. NoworkshallbedonelnanyareewherelherelssuchadlscrepancyunUI
approvallorsamehasbeenglvenbythelandscapeArdiltect
F. UUliUes
1. TheConlreclorshallberesponslbleforverllylngttieloceUonofall undergrounduUBtynnes
prlortoanyconstructlon,solhatproper precau\JonsmaybetakennottodEIIT'lagesuchllnes and plant locallons, promptly noUfy lhe Landscap·e Architect who wlll erral'\ga ror r~locaUon
oroneorlheother. Falluretolollowlhlsprocedurap!acesuponthe Contractorthe
respons!blllly for, at his own expense, making any end ell repalrs for damages resulllng from
h!swork.
G. EklstrngTreas
1, Contrectorlstolnsurethepreservallonofanyeidsllngtreesontheslte.DEIIT'lageorlossof
thesatreeswlllresultfnreplacementofequalslzebythelandscapeCon1ractor.
H. SeePlanllngDetallSheetforaddlUonalnotes.
fsii"'7 I CITY OF CARLSBAD 11 '""" I ~===1;:==t====================1~==+===1===t==-,~L..!£J. PL,lllllll!<lOMSION . 14 r-----i~-+-------------,r---+--+--+--i ILANOSCAPEIMPROVEMENTPLMISFOR:
ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
8NR DEVELOPMENT I ROMER/A AND GIBRALTAR, CARLSBAD
23B00 VIA DEL RIO PLANTING NOTES
YORBA LINDA CA. 92887 u,o,,nvi:n•
TELEPHONE; 714,692,9120
~~;'°PLAN PREPARED: s""mERSJMURP11:~:Au:,~:!~~~~~ ~ REVISION DESCRIPTION o::AP:::~ ::AP~~:: l~=f~ +II PROJECT NO. IIDRA'MNGNO.!
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 138 of 612
Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2019 Page2
1. CDP 2018-0038 (DEV2018-0103) -ALLANSON-SELVIDGE CARLSBAD RESIDENCE -Request for
approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to allow for the demolition of an existing single-
family residence and the construction of a 3,381-square-foot, two-story single0family residence with
an attached two-car garage along with 771-square-feet of second-floor deck.sand a 564-square-foot
roof deck within the Mello II Segment of the city's Local Coastal Program located at 5170 Carlsbad
Boulevard within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. The project site is not within the appealable
area of the California Coastal Commission. The city planner has determined that the project belongs
to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact
on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15303 (a), construction of a single-
family residence, of the State CEQA Guidelines.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Anderson and duly seconded by Commissioner Stine to Adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 7323 APPROVING Coastal Development Permit CDP
2018-0038, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
7-0
Chair Luna, Commissioners Anderson, Geidner, Lafferty, Meenes, Merz, and Stine
None
Chair Luna closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1.
Chair Luna opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 2.
2. SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)-ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS-Request for approval of a Site
Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment project which includes
three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria
Street and Gibraltar Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. The City Planner has
determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 "In-Fill Development Projects" of the State CEQA
Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment.
City Planner Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Garcia would make the staff
presentation (on file in the Planning Division).
DISCLOSURES:
Commissioner Stine stated he visited the site.
Commissioner Geidner stated she visited the site several times including in the evening.
Commissioner Meenes stated he visited the site and drove around the neighborhood.
Commissioner Anderson stated she drove by the site.
Commissioner Merz stated he drove by the site both early in the morning and afterhours in the evening.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 143 of 612
Planning Commission Minut,..._ March 20, 2019 Page 3
Commissioner Lafferty stated she drove by the site and walked the area including the creek and the
watershed that is across La Costa.
Chair Luna stated she walked the site and neighborhood including the area where the drainage comes out
in the culvert at San Marcos Creek.
STAFF PRESENTATION:
Associate Planner Garcia gave the presentation.
Chair Luna stated there were 11 emails received about the application. She asked if there were any
questions for staff.
Commissioner Meenes asked if Mr. Garcia could explain the current topography of the site when looking
at building height.
Associate Planner Garcia stated the pads would be graded down about 5 to 8 feet essentially lowering
each pad level.
Commissioner Geidner asked for clarification from the civil engineering report about removing soil and
the note in the same report stating that re-compaction would not occur.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated the developer added a sentence stating they are going to use piles
instead of doing remedial grading.
Commissioner Anderson asked for further information about the site in relation to the state density bonus
and the number of units that are going to be on the site.
Associate Planner Garcia stated the applicant requested 35% over the maximum density which would
require 11% of the units to be at the very low-income level or 2 units. He stated the city has a 15%
inclusionary requirement which pushed it up to 3 units. The total project is 23 units.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the 3 very low-income level units would still be required if they did not
use the density bonus.
Associate Planner Garcia stated he is not sure if rental units are required to meet the 15% affordable
housing city ordinance, however because they are getting units out of the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank,
they are required to meet the affordable housing requirement on rental projects.
Commissioner Lafferty asked what the CEQA report would tell us that the findings don't include.
Associate Planner Garcia stated that the project qualifies for the infill exemption and that there are no
significant environmental impacts including traffic. The project is also consistent with our ordinances.
Commissioner Lafferty asked if the tributary across La Costa going into the San Marcos creek would be a
factor environmentally in relation to the development of the vacant lot.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated the offsite conduit for storm water would not be evaluated under
CEQA for this project. He stated the storm water flowing on the property is what is being evaluated.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 144 of 612
Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2019 Page 4
Commissioner Lafferty asked how grade was determined for the building maximum height.
Associate Planner Garcia stated the building height is measured from existing or finished grade whichever
is lower. He stated the pads for this project will be lowered and that is the point where building height is
being measured from.
Commissioner Lafferty asked if the piles would make a difference of where the measurement would begin.
Associate Planner Garcia stated the structures below the pad grade would not change where the
measurement starts.
Commissioner Anderson asked for further explanation on the State's Density Bonus Law.
Assistant City Attorney Kemp stated that law states that cities shall grant the concessions unless written
findings based on substantial evidence show a significant quantifiable direct and unavoidable impact
based on standards that already exist at the time the application came in.
Commissioner Anderson asked if fire trucks can reach the top of the building considering it is on a slope.
Associate Planner Garcia stated the Fire Marshall did review the plans and there were no specific concerns
with the design as far as access.
Commissioner Meenes asked if the applicant applied for the density bonus or if it was imposed upon the
applicant.
Assistant City Attorney Kemp stated he is not sure if the applicant applied but assumed they did. The
language in the state's law says once they apply, it shall be granted unless substantial evidence on the
record can be found related to health and safety. He stated the State has taken the control away from
municipalities to control density.
Commissioner Geidner asked if this was the law that went into effect this year.
Assistant City Attorney Kemp stated these are laws that were already in effect but are evolving and
becoming more restrictive each year.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there is a limit on the height the applicant can request.
Assistant City Attorney Kemp stated the concessions need to show sufficient and actual cost reductions
so in this case they're asking to add on another story to add additional units. He stated they can only get
a 35% density bonus if they provide very low-income housing. The General Plan Land Use allows 17 units,
with the bonus they are allowed 23. The allowed height for 23 units would then be determined by the
design.
Commissioner Merz asked for further description on how the profile of the top story was reduced to·
mitigate the appearance of the increased height of the building.
Associate Planner Garcia stated the top floor is stepped back from the floors below. He pointed out on
the exhibits where the elevations show the step back on different areas of the top floor.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 145 of 612
Planning Commission Minut~ _ March 20, 2019 Page 5
Commissioner Merz asked for further explanation on if the grade was going to be determined by the drive
access.
Associate Planner Garcia stated that in order to lower the pads the drive access would need to extend
further into the site creating more undevelopable area for parking on the ground floor. He stated the
slope of the driveway and the amount of parking for the project had to be balanced to meet pll
requirements.
Commissioner Geidner asked for further information on how the drainage on the site was going to work
and how much storm water collection was going to occur.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated all the storm water will be collected on the site then treated and a
good portion of it will be stored and let out slowly. He stated it is called hydro modification.
Commissioner Lafferty asked what the height of the building is from the bottom of Gibraltar to the top of
the building.
Associate Planner Garcia stated it is about 63 to 65 feet to the tower on top of the building. He stated he
did not think you will be able to see the top of the tower from the bottom of Gibraltar.
Commissioner Lafferty stated it will cast a shadow on the other building and that is a concern.
City Planner Neu stated the code is based on existing or finished grade to try and be more sensitive on the
way grading is done. He stated the intent is to penalize a project if it was filling and raising the pad height.
Chair Luna asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
John Allen, Developer for Rqmeria Pointe Apartments, made the presentation and stated he would be
available to answer questions. He stated he wanted to clarify one question from Commissioner Meenes
that they did apply for the density bonus on their own. He stated the owner has owned the property for
15 years and had many proposed developments that were unfeasible. By applying for the density bonus,
they were able to make the project feasible.
Chair Luna asked if there were additional questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Merz asked for further details on previous projects and what was not feasible in the design
of those projects. He asked what about this project was different.
Mr. Allen stated the previous development proposals were not feasible due to the existing site conditions.
He stated there will have to be extensive remedial grading or that CIDH piles will need to be utilized. He
stated both of these options provide the builder a huge cost that can only be satisfied by providing the
density required to pay for that cost.
Commissioner Lafferty asked if the applicant has received the letters from the public.
Mr. Allen stated they did receive all the letters from the public and he reached ou~ to every person and
had spoken to many. He stated they set up a couple of meetings with some neighbors.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 146 of 612
Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2019 Page 6
Commissioner Lafferty asked Mr. Allen what stood out to him in the letters.
Mr. Allen stated the most pressing concern from the surrounding neighbors was the building height, the
traffic and erosion control. He stated they made modifications in the building height, provided as many
parking spaces as they could, going over the minimum requirement, and are using the piles to ensure the
integrity of the building will withstand even if the earth falls out from underneath.
Commissioner Merz asked for additional information on how the setback of the top floor will affect
shading on other buildings.
Mr. Allen stated it was about 10 feet that was set back on all sides. He stated they did not do a shading
study but in the 3D rendering they were able to use the architecture software to virtually walk around the
building and that you couldn't see the top level from the ground level.
Commissioner Stine asked Mr. Allen to describe any specific modifications made because of concerns from
neighboring properties.
Mr. Allen stated the 10-foot step back was one of the modifications made as a result of the neighbors'
concerns. He stated they modified the parking by eliminating office space on the ground floor to maximize
the amount of parking and stretched the buildings footprint.
David Miller, Architect, stated they added louvers to the parking garages to mitigate a concern of
headlights going into the neighbor's windows and changed the colors of the buildings to better blend into
the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Allen stated they looked into providing underground parking and it would have proven difficult both
psychically and financially.
Commissioner Meenes asked if the grade required for the driveways caused the building location to be
moved back from the street.
Mr. Allen stated yes, they had to move the building further away from the street.
Commissioner Geidner asked what they have planned for lighting along Gibraltar.
Mr. Allen stated one ofthe concerns from the neighbors was light pollution. He stated there will be a lot
of down lights and one condition for a street light to be added at the corner. He stated there will be site
lighting around the landscaping.
Commissioner Lafferty asked if they have considered pushing the building to the setback.
Mr. Allen stated they are using the setback area on Romeria as the storm water detention facilities and
landscaping.
Commissioner Lafferty stated she is concerned with a higher density project that there is a balance of
safety and security.
Juintow Lin, Architect, stated that if the building was moved closer to the road it would be hanging over
the pad.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 147 of 612
Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2019 Page 8
Commissioner Anderson asked where the water is going now. She stated there is a culvert coming down
Romeria to catch groundwater and how is that water being mitigated.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated there was no ground water found in the soils report. He stated if
there is groundwater encountered during construction then that will have to be addressed.
Commissioner Meenes asked what drainage improvements would o.ccur on the property.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated the property is currently undeveloped and that all drainage would
be brand new. He stated they will be required to capture all drainage, clean it, detain it and let if off site
at a certain rate that does not affect downstream.
Commissioner Geidner asked how deep the piles would be.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated the estimate is 16 to _37 feet below existing grade. He stated
bedrock ranged from 12 to 24 feet below ground level elevations. He stated the piles will go into
bedrock several feet.
Commissioner Geidner asked why soil would be moved off the site.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated the soil is being moved off the site due to the pads being lowered
quite a few feet. He stated a slope to the north is being reduced which tends to provide more stability
to the slope when soil is removed.
Commissioner Geidner stated she read somewhere that the quality of the soil is not good.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated that typically topsoil quality is inadequate for taking a load or for
holding a building without settling or other issues. He stated that is the reason for the piles in this case.
Commissioner Lafferty asked if there is an erosion hazard.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated they do not anticipate any erosion issues and that water will be
captured on the site.
Chair Luna asked for details of the construction process.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated it starts with project design and detailed plans will be provided
when it comes to the issuance of permits. He stated the construction management team will monitor
the construction of the project throughout that phase. He stated there is a design engineer, soils
engineer and geologist that are responsible for the construction.
Chair Luna asked if there are performance bonds posted.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated there are performance bonds to ensure the work is done and
completed·.
Assistant City Attorney Kemp stated typically the bonds secure the construction of any required public
improvements.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 149 of 612
Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2019 Page 10
Commissioner Anderson asked how fluid climate actions plans are.
Senior Program Manager Grim stated he reports to the City Council annually on new technologies and
issues.
Commissioner Meenes asked if other jurisdictions are following the mandates.
Senior Program Manager Grim stated a lot of jurisdictions are adopting a Climate Action Plan although
there isn't any legislation that requires it. He stated many jurisdictions are going above and beyond what
the state building code is requiring.
Commissioner Meenes asked if there was state oversight on the cities' climate action ordinances.
Senior Program Manager Grim stated there is no regulatory authority over the implementation of the
ordinances. He stated the city has to report to the state each year.
Commissioner Lafferty asked if the Climate Action Plan involves any food recycling.
Senior Program Manager Grim stated it currently does not but our sustainability general plan element
does.
Economic Development Manager Marcella and Engineering Manager Geldert made a staff presentation
on Transportation Demand Management (on file in the Planning Division).
Commissioner Anderson asked for additional information on how HOAs fit into Transportation Demand
Management.
Economic Development Manager Marcella stated the City Council directed staff to have the consultant
that is looking at the business community also look into how HOAs could assist is creating ride share
programs within their community or providing shuttle services.
Commissioner Meenes asked if the program was enforceable.
Engineering Manager Geldert stated the program is voluntary however the part of the ordinance that is
enforceable is the requirement of having a written plan.
Chair Luna asked if there were additional questions from the commission. Seeing none, she closed the
public hearing on Agenda Item 3.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS:
Commissioner Anderson stated the City of Livermore presented at the Planning Commission Academy and
wants to look into adopting city wide design standards.
Commissioner Geidner suggested adding an agenda item to a planning commission meeting to discuss
design guidelines for the city.
Commissioner Stine stated the presentation on land use from a fire expert at the planning commission
academy was eye opening.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 151 of 612
Subject of the Appeal:
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Planner's
Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple applications,
(such as a Coastal Development Pennit, Planned Unit
Development, Minor Conditional Use Permit, etc) please list all
of them. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action,
please state that here. Please see fee schedule for the current fee.
This appeal is regarding the Romeria Pointe Apartment
Complex SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) which came before
the Planning Commission on March 2ou,, 2019. This appeal is
being submitted by Susan Ortman on behalf of the residents in
the adjacent areas to this project that live on Romeria and
Gibralter Streets.
The Planning Commission erroneously approved the city's first
density bonus project by relying on self certification by city staff
that the project poses no environmental impact, and awarded
density bonus concessions based on Prop E.
Reason(s) for the Ap_peal: PLEASE NOTE: The ap_peal shall
£peciticallY-state the reason(£) for the ap_peal. Failure to
£pecifY-a reason maY-result in denial of the a1.1peal, and Y-OU
will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting
Y-Our ap_peal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision-maker err? What about the
decision is inconsistent with local laws, plans, or policy? Please
see Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.54.140(b) for
additional information ( attached). Please attach additional sheets
or exhibits if necessary.
The Planning Commission erroneously approved the city's first
density bonus project by relying on self certification by city staff
that the project poses no environmental impact, and awarded
density bonus concessions based on Prop E.
The City Planner and Engineer testified this project also
qualified for "in-fill exemption" as "no extraordinary
circumstances
1
exist". Testimony provided in writing bv Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 154 of 612
surrounding property owners and by speakers at the meeting
contradict this finding. In addition, City Staff, knew or should
have known significant environmental and engineering concerns
exist as the City of Carlsbad was involved in lengthy and costly
litigation regarding slippage of multi family dwelling units in
the area, and expended considerable public dollars to resolve
them.
Specially, significant environmental issues exist on Romeria
Street, as the City issued a contract in excessive of $400,000 to
address storm water issues. In addition, the Condominium
complex immediately adjacent to the project site suffered
"slippage" and had to be lifted. Extensive engineering, soil
sampling, and geotechnical work had to be completed with
oversight by the city.
This information was critically i1nportant in helping the
commissioner making a ·decision as the proposed project calls
for removing 5 feet of soil and denuding a portion of the hill to
collect, treat, and store stormwater.
CEQA review, an BIR, an engineering report, soil sampling and
a traffic study are warranted. Two Commissioners questioned
the lack of a CEQA or environmental review and were
repeatedly told the city could self certify'. At no time where the
past and existing dangers of slippage and the actions taken by
the city were shared with the a Commissioners to help them
make an informed decision
The developer obtained concessions :fr9m the city based on
questionable policy. Without these concessions, the maximum
amount of units allowed on the site would be 17 and the
maximum height would be 35 feet Because concessions were
awarded, the maximum height will now be 71 feet and 23 units
will be built on the site.
Commissioners relied on staff testimony and PowerPoints that
concessions were being granted as the project was "getting
unit's out of city's bank." The underlying principles behind
Proposition E, establishing policy for number and allocation of
excess dwelling units has been the subject of recent court
decisions. Continuing a policy that is contrary to court decisions
and awarding concessions is contrary to public policy and
exposes the city to legal and fmancial liability.
CEQA, an BIR, an engineering study, traffic study and soil
samolimr are warranted and the oroiect should not oroceed Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 155 of 612
without them.
The proposed site is on a slope on two elevated plots approx 20
feet from street level. The plan calls removing 12,000 cubic
yards of soil -appx 5 feet of top soil to hold two building with
heights between 48 feet and 71 feet -The current max height in
the city is 35 feet. (See attached slide from March 20, 2019
Planning Meeting)
As shown, the buildings would be built close to property lines
and would serve as retaining walls. These massive structures
would be supported by drilled piles driven 16-3 7 feet into
bedrock and from street level would appear to be approximately
seven stories tall.
The City Engineer testified " Quality of soil is not adequate to
hold load of building" and said it was unusual to have these piles
supporting the entire structure.
Knowing the massive disturbance of soil, the known slippage in
the area, stormwater issues, and its proximity to the La
Costa/Romeria preserve, we respectfully request review and
proper environmental, and engineering testing before proceeding
forward.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 156 of 612
Law section Page 2 of 10
(B) Five percent of the total units of a housing development for very low income households, as defined in Section
50105 of the Health and Safety Code.
(C) A senior citizen housing development, as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the Civil Code, or a mobilehome
park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section 798.76 or
799.5 of the Civil Code.
(D) Ten percent of the total dwelling units in a common interest development, as defined in Section 4100 of the Civil
Code, for persons and families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code,
provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase.
\
(E) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for transitional foster youth, as defined in Section
66025.9 of the Education Code, disabled veterans, as defined in Section 18541, or homeless persons, as defined in
the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 11301 et seq.). The units described in this
subparagraph shall be _subject to a recorded affordability restriction of 55 years and shall be provided at the same
affordability level as very low income units.
(F) (i) Twenty percent of the. total units for lower income students in a student housing development that meets the
following requirements:
(I) All units in the student housing development will be used exclusively for undergraduate, graduate, or
professional students enrolled full time at an institution of higher education accredited by the Western Association of
Schools and Colleges or the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. In order to be eligible
under this subclause, the developer shall, as a condition of receiving a certificate of occupancy, provide evidence to
the city, county, or city or county that the developer has entered into an operating agreement or master lease with
one or more institutions of higher education for the institution or institutions to occupy all units of the student
housing development with students from that institution or institutions. An operating agreement or master lease
entered into pursuant to this subclause is not violated or breached if, in any subsequent year, there are not
sufficient students enrolled in an institution of higher education to fill all units in the student housing development.
(II) The applicable 20-percent units will be used for lower inc9me students. For purposes of this clause, "lower
income students" means students who have a household income and asset level that does not exceed the level for
Cal Grant A or Cal Grant B award recipients as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) of Section 69432. 7 of the
Education Code. The eligibility of a student under this clause shall be verified by an affidavit, award letter, or letter
of eligibility provided by the institution of higher education that the student is enrolled in, as described in subclause
(I), or by the California Student Aid Commission that the student receives or is eligible for financial aid, including an
institutional grant or fee waiver, from the college or university, the California Student Aid Commission, or the federal
government shall be sufficient to satisfy this subclause.
(III) The rent provided in the applicable units of the development for lower income students shall be calculated at 30
percent of 65 percent of the area median income for a single-room occupancy unit type.
(IV) The develbpment will provide priority for the applicable affordable units for lower income students experiencing
homelessness. A homeless service provider, as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 103577 of the
Health and Safety Code, or institution of higher education that has ·knowledge of a person's homeless status may
verify a person's status as homeless for purposes of this subclause.
(ii) For purposes of calculating a density bonus granted pursuant to this subparagraph, the term "unit" as used in
this section means one rental bed and its pro rata share of associated common area facilities. The units described in
this subparagraph shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction of 55 years.
(2) For purposes of calculating the amount of the density bonus pursuant to subdivision (f), an applicant who
requests a density bonus pursuant to this subdivision shall elect whether the bonus shall be awarded on the basis of
subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) of paragraph (1).
(3) For the purposes of this section, "total units," "total dwelling units," or "total rental beds" does not include units
added by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this section or any local law granting a greater density bonus.
(c) (1) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure, the continued affordability
of all very low and low-income rental units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus for 55
years or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage
insurance program, or rental subsidy program. Rents for the lower income density bonus units shall be set at an
affordable rent as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and county shall ensure that, the initial occupant of all
for-sale units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus are persons and families of very low,
low, or moderate income, as required, and that the units are offered at an affordable housing cost, as that cost is
defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code. The local government shall enforce an equity sharing
agreement, unless it is in conflict with the requirements of another public funding source or law. The following apply
to the equity sharing agreement:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes _ displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV §io... 5/28/2019
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 159 of 612
Law section Page 3 of 10
(A) Upon resale, the seller of the unit shall retain the value of any improvements, the down payment, and the seller's
proportionate share of appreciation. The local government shall recapture any initial subsidy, as defined in
subparagraph (B), and its proportionate share of appreciation, as defined in subparagraph (C), which amount shall
be used within five years for any of the purposes described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the Health and
Safety Code that promote home ownership.
(B) For purposes of this subdivision, the local government's initial subsidy shall be equal to the fair market value of
the home at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate-income household, plus the amount
of any downpayment assistance or mortgage assistance. If upon resale the market value is lower than the initial
market value, then the value at the time of the resale shall be used as the initial market value.
(C) For purposes of this subdivision, the local government's proportionate share of appreciation shall be equal to the
ratio of the local government's initial subsidy to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale.
(3) (A) An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any other incentives or concessions under this section if
the housing development is proposed on any property that includes a parcel or parcels on which rental dwelling units
are or, if the dwelling units have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application, have
been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and
families of lower or very low income; subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid
exercise of its police power; or occupied by lower or very low income households, unless the proposed housing
development replaces those units, and either of the following applies:
(i) The proposed housing development, inclusive of the units replaced pursuant to this paragraph, contains
affordable units at the percentages set forth in subdivision (b).
(ii) Each unit in the development, exclusive of a manager's unit or units, is affordable to, and occupied by, either a
lower or very low income household.
(B) ·For the purposes of this paragraph, "replace" shall mean either of the following:
(i) If any dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) are occupied on the date of application, the proposed housing
development shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size to be made available at affordable
rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as
those households in occupancy. If the income category of the household in occupancy is not known, it shall be
rebuttably presumed that lower income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of lower
income renter households to all renter households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently
available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy database. For unoccupied dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) in a development with
occupied units, the proposed housing development shall provide units of equivalent size to be made available at
affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income
category as the last household in occupancy. If the income category of the last household in occupancy is not
known, it shall be rebuttably presumed that lower income renter households occupied these units in the same
proportion of lower income renter households to all renter households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the
most recently available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy database. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units
shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units
shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed development is for-sale
units, the units replaced shall be subject to paragraph (2).
(ii) If all dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) have been vacated or demolished within the five-year period
preceding the application, the proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of
equivalent size as existed at the highpoint of those units in the five-year period preceding the application to be
made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same
or lower income category as those persons and families in occupancy at that time, if known. If the incomes of the
persons and families in occupancy at the highpoint is not known, it shall be rebuttably presumed that low-income
and very low income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of low-income and very low
income renter households to all renter households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently
available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy database. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the
next whole number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded
affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units replaced shall
be subject to paragraph (2).
(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), for any dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A) that is or was, within the
five-year period preceding the application, subject to a form of rent or price control through a local government's
valid exercise of its police po wer and that is or was occupied by person~ or families above lower income, the city,
county, or city and county may do either of the following:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes _ displaySection.xhtml ?lawCode=GOV §io... 5/28/2019
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 160 of 612
Law section Page 4 of 10
(i) Require that the replacement units be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and
occupied by, low-income persons or families. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall
be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed development is for-sale units,
the units replaced shall be subject to paragraph (2).
(ii) Require that the units be replaced in compliance with the jurisdiction's rent or price control ordinance, _provided
that each unit described in subparagraph (A) is replaced. Unless otherwise required by the jurisdiction's rent or price
control ordinance, these units shall not be subject to a recorded affordability restriction.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, "equivalent size" means that the replacement units contain at least the same
total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced.
(E) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an applicant seeking a density bonus for a proposed housing development if
his or her application was submitted to, or processed by, a city, county, or city and county before January 1, 2015.
(d) (1) An applicant for a density bonus pursuant to subdivision (b) may submit to a city, county, or city and county
a proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant requests pursuant to this section, and may
request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. The city, county, or city and county shall grant the
concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written
finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
(A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision
(k), to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for
rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse inipact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d)
of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed
in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate
or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-
income households.
(C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.
(2) The applicant shall receive the following number of incentives or concessions:
(A) One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 10 percent of the total units for lower income
households, at least 5 percent for very low income households, or at least 10 percent for persons and families of
moderate income in a common interest development.
(B) Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income
households, at least 10 percent for very low income households, or at least 20 percent for persons and families of
moderate income in a common interest development.
(C) Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30 percent of the total units for lower income
households, at least 15 percent for very low income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families of
moderate income in a common interest development .
. (3) The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city, county, or city and county refuses to grant a requested
density bonus, incentive, or concession. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a requested density bonus,
incentive, or concession is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees
and costs of suit. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive
or concession that has a specific, adverse impact, as defimfd in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5,
upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate
or avoid the specific adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to
grant an incentive or concession that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the
California Register of Historical Resources. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for
carrying out this section, that shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section.
(4) The city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or
incentive.
(e) (1) In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or
with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. An applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and
county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically
precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the
concessions or incentives permitted under this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and
county. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards is in violation of this
section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. Nothing in this subdivision
shall be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if the waiver or
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes _ displaySection.xhtml ?lawCode=GOV §io... 5/28/2019
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 161 of 612
Law section Page 5 of 10
reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5,
upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate
or avoid the specific adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to
waive or reduce development standards that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or
federal law.
(2) A proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards pursuant to this subdivision shall neither reduce
nor increase the number of incentives or concessions to which the applicant_is entitled pursuant to subdivision (d).
(f) For the purposes of this chapter, "density bonus" means a density increase over the otherwise maximum
allowable gross residential density as of the date of application by the applicant to the city, county, or city and
county, or, if elected by the applicant, a lesser percentage of density increase, including, but not limited to, no
increase in density. The amount of density increase to which the applicant is entitled shall vary according to the
amount by which the percentage of affordable housing units exceeds the percentage established in subdivision (b).
(1) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the
density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Low-Income Units
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
Percentage Density Bonus
20
21.5
23
24.5
26
27.5
30.5
32
33.5
35
(2) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the
density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Very Low Income Units
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Percentage Density Bonus
20
22 .5
25
27.5
30
32.5
35
(3) (A) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the
density bonus shall be 20 percent of the number of senior housing units.
(B) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the
density bonus shall be 20 percent of the number of the type of units giving rise to a density bonus under that
subparagraph.
(C) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (.F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the
density bonus shall be 35 percent of the student housing units.
(4) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the
density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Moderate-Income Units
10
Percentage Density Bonus
5
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes _ displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV §io... 5/28/2019
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 162 of 612
Law section Page 6 of 10
11 6
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35
(5) All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. The granting
of a density bonus shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local
coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.
(g) (1) When an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or other residential development approval
donates land to a city, county, or city and county in accordance with this subdivision, the applicant shall be entitled
to a 15-percent increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density for the entire development, as
follows:
Percentage Very Low Income
10
11
12
13
14
Percentage Density Bonus
15
16
17
18
19
http ://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes _ displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV §io... 5/28/2019
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 163 of 612
Law section Page 7 of 10
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 31
27 32
28 33
29 34
30 35
(2) This increase shall be in addition to any increase in density mandated by subdivision (b), up to a maximum
combined mandated density increase of 35 percent if an applicant seeks an increase pursuant to both this
subdivision and subdivision (b). All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next
whole number. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of a city, county,
or city and county to require a developer to donate land as a condition of development. An applicant shall be eligible
for the increased density bonus described in this subdivision if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The applicant donates and transfers the land no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map,
parcel map, or residential development application.
(B) The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are sufficient to permit
construction of units affordable to very low income households in an amount not less than 10 percent of the number
of residential units of the proposed development.
(C) The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units,
has the appropriate general plan designation, is appropriately zoned with appropriate development standards for
development at the density described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, and is or will be served
by adequate public facilities and infrastructure.
(D) The transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other than building permits, necessary for the
development of the very low income housing units on the transferred land, not later than the date of approval of the
final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application, except that the local government may
subject the proposed development to subsequent design review to the extent authorized by subdivision (i) of
Section 65583.2 if the design is not reviewed by the local government before the time of transfer.
(E) The transferred land and the affordable units shall be subject to a deed restriction ensuring continued
affordability of the units consistent with paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (c), which shall be recorded on the
property at the time of the transfer.
(F) The land is transferred to the local agency or to a housing developer approved by the local agency. The local
agency may require the applicant to identify and transfer the land to the developer.
(G) The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if the local agency agrees,
within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development.
(H) A proposed source of funding for the very low income units shall be identified not later than the date of approval
of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residentia l development application.
(h) (1) When an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to the requirements of
subdivision (b) and includes a child care facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to,
the project, the city, county, or city and county shall grant either of the following:
(A) An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than
the amount of square feet in the child care facility.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes _ displaySection.xhtml ?lawCode=GOV §io... 5/28/2019
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 164 of 612
Law section Page 8 of 10
(B) An additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction
of the child care facility.
(2) The city, county, or city and county shall require, as a condition of approving the housing development, that the
following occur:
(A) The child care facility shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of
time during which the density bonus units are required to remain affordable pursuant to subdivision (c).
(B) Of the children who attend the child care facility, the children of very low income households, lower income
households, or families of moderate income shall equal a percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage
of dwelling units that are required for very low income households, lower income households, or families of
moderate income pursuant to subdivision (b).
(3) Notwithstanding any requirement of this subdivision, a city, county, or city and county shall not be required to
provide a density bonus or concession for a child care facility if it finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the
community has adequate child care facilities.
(4) "Child care facility," as used in this section, means a child day care facility other than a family day care home,
including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and schoolage child care
centers.
(i) "Housing development," as used in this section, means a development project for five or more residential uriits,
including mixed-use developments. For the purposes of this section, "housing development" also includes a
subdivision or common interest development, as defined in Section 4100 of the Civil Code, approved by a city,
county, or city and county and consists of residential units or unimproved residential lots and either a project to
substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use or the substantial
rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 65863.4, where the result
of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential units. For the purpose of calculating a density
bonus, the residential units shall be on contiguous sites that are the subject of one development application, but do
not have to be based upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. The density bonus shall be permitted in
geographic areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units for the lower income households
a re located.
U) (1) The granting of a concession or incentive shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a
general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, study, or other discretionary approval. For
purposes of this subdivision, "study" does not include reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for the
concession or incentive or to demonstrate that the incentive or concession meets the definition set forth in
subdivision (k). This provision is declaratory of existing law.
(2) Except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e), the granting of a density bonus shall not require or be interpreted
to require the waiver of a local ordinance or provisions of a local ordinance unrelated to development standards.
(k) For the purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive means any of the following:
(1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design
requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards
Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code,
including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular
parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for
affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted
units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(2) Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other
land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land
uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the
proposed housing project will be located.
(3) Other regulatory ince·ntives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that
result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5
of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(I) Subdivision (k) does not limit or require the provision of direct financial incentives for the housing development,
including the provision of publicly owned land, by the city, county, or city and county, or the waiver of fees or
dedication requirements.
(m) This section does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal
Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Any density bonus,
concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which the applicant
http:/ /leginf o .legislature. ca. gov /faces/ codes_ displaySection.:xhtml ?lawCode=GO V §io... 5/28/2019
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 165 of 612
Law section Page 9 of 10
is entitled under this section shall be permitted in a manner that is consistent with this section and Division 20
(commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code.
(n) If permitted by local ordinance, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a city, county, or city and
county from granting a density bonus greater than what is described in this section for a development that meets
the requirements of this section or from granting a proportionately lower density bonus than what is required by this
section for developments that do not meet the requirements of this section.
(o) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Development standard" includes a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height
limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a parking ratio that
applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or
other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
(2) "Maximum allowable residential density" means the density allowed under the zoning ordinance and land use
element of the general plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, means the maximum allowable density for the
specific zoning range and land use element of the general plan applicable to the project. If the density allowed under
the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the
general plan density shall prevail.
(p) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and
county shall not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, of a development
meeting the criteria of subdivisions (b) and (c), that exceeds the following ratios:
(A) Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space.
(B) Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces.
(C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development includes the maximum percentage of low-income or very low
income units provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (f) and is located within one-half mile of a major
transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and there is unobstructed
access to the major transit stop from the development, then, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or
city and county shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, that exceeds
0.5 spaces per bedroom. For purposes of this subdivision, a development shall have unobstructed access to a major
transit stop if a resident is able to access the major transit stop without encountering natural or constructed
impediments.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development consists solely of rental units, exclusive of a manager's unit or
units, with an affordable housing cost to lower income families, as provided in Section 50052.5 of the Health and
Safety Code, then, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not impose a vehicular
parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, that exceeds the following ratios:
(A) If the development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section
21155 of the Public Resources Code, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the
development, the ratio shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit.
(B) If the development is a for-rent housing development for individuals who are 62 years of age or older that
complies with Sections 51.2 and 51.3 of the Civil Code, the ratio shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit. The
development shall have either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route
service that operates at least eight times per day.
(C) If the development is a special needs housing development, as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and
Safety Code, the ratio shall not exceed 0.3 spaces per unit. The development shall have either paratransit service or '
unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per day.
(4) If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number
shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a development may provide onsite
parking through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through onstreet parking.
(5) This subdivision shall apply to a development that meets the requirements of subdivisions (b) and (c), but only
at the request of the applicant. An applicant may request parking incentives or concessions beyond those provided
in this subdivision pursuant to subdivision (d).
(6) This subdivision does not preclude a city, county, or city and county from reducing or eliminating a parking
requirement for development projects of any type in any location.
(7) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3), if a city, county, city and county, or an independent consultant has
conducted an areawide or jurisdictionwide parking study in the last seven years, then the city, county, or city and
county may impose a higher vehicular parking ratio not to exceed the ratio described in paragraph (1), based upon
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes _ displaySection.xhtml ?lawCode=GOV §io... 5/28/2019
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 166 of 612
Law section Page 10 of 10
substantial evidence found in the parking study, that includes, but is not limited to, an analysis of parking
availability, differing levels of transit access, walkability access to transit services, the potential for shared parking,
the effect of parking requirements on the cost of market-rate and subsidized developments, and the lower rates of
car ownership for low-income and very low income individuals, including seniors and special needs individuals. The
city, county, or city and county shall pay the costs of any new study. The city, county, or city and county shall make
findings, based on a parking study completed in conformity with this paragraph, supporting the need for the higher
parking ratio.
(8) A request pursuant to this subdivision shall neither reduce nor increase the number of incentives or concessions
to which the applicant is entitled pursuant to subdivision (d).
(q) Each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units
shall be ·separately rounded up to the next whole number. The Legislature finds and declares that this provision is
declaratory of existing law.
(r) This chapter shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.
(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 937, Sec. 1.3. (SB 1227) Effective January 1, 2019.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§io... 5/28 /2019
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 167 of 612
From: Heather Lindsey <
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:09 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe: SOP 2018-0004/DEV2017-0151
Members of City Council, "Council@carlsbadca.gov" <>
EXHIBIT 8
I am opposed to Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151). Although I
have many concerns, after the last public hearing, it appears that only public safety concerns
are relevant. Therefore, my concerns on this point are as follows:
-The units/bedrooms in this development will attract families. There is little to no outside
space for playing in this development. Kids already trespass on dangerous land west of this
development. This will only get worse and injuries will occur. The developer should be required
to make space for kids to play/be outside in his development.
-This area of the City has unstable soil. Golf crest, the development directly west of Romeria
Pointe, has had the hill behind it slide into its driveways. Villa Romeria, the property behind the
proposed site, is slipping down towards this project and has had already had to spend funds to
fix what happened in the past. The issue at hand is not just the stability of the project being built,
but the impact on the stability around the property as well.
- I do not believe there is a crosswalk at Romeria and La Costa Ave, so the kids will cross
illegally to get to school. There is one at the next intersection, but it is unlikely they will walk to
make the crossing legally.
I am also opposed to the development due to:
-height ( As I understand it, the highest point of their building is 72 feet higher than
Golf crest's highest point. The bottom of their garage 30 higher than
Golfcrest's highest point. The garage is at 86 feet and ours is around ground level.)
-# of units
-bulk and mass
-out of character with the rest of the neighborhood
-drainage issues
-parking shortages
I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the
Council. ·
Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
H. D. Lindsey
Golfcrest Owner, Gibraltar Street
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 168 of 612
From:
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 3:34 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carls badca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I write to you regarding Romeria Pointe Apartments. This project was approved by City Planning on
March 20th, 2019. I appreciate you taking the time to hear my concerns regarding this project as an
appeal was filed.
This land has NOT been developed on previously because of the quality of the soil. All proposals up
to 3/20/19 have been denied by the city. Many ofus in the neighborhood assumed this would be the
case on the evening of the 20th. However, we now understand that with Bonus Density Credits the
developer has had many previous obligations and standards "waived" allowing for this project to be
approved.
Outside of the obvious shortcomings of two 4 story buildings being built in a neighborhood mostly
comprised of 2 story buildings, I feel that this development is a detriment to public safety.
I own at Villa Romeria which is the property that sits right next to the proposed
development. In 2013, our property was showing distress. Floors were buckling, huge cracks were
appearing on walls. We hired American Geotechnical, Inc. to come access our property. This led to
us hiring Eaglelift, Inc. to come and stabilize our foundation with push piers. The cost of the lift was
close to $25,000. We are only 5 units so this was a HUGE expense for us to incur.
American Geotechnical, Inc. reviewed our property this week. As of May 16th, 2019, our property is
level and sits in good standing. We have been instructed that if we see the slightest crack, buckle, or
ANY signs of distress we are to notify them IMMEDIATELY.
It is known that there is a soil issue in this area. This is evident based on Villa Romeria's foundation
issues mentioned above as well as the sliding that occurred at Marbella condo's on La Costa Ave.
several years ago. There is great concern that the extreme slte work taking place such as mass
excavation and piles drilled down into bedrock will disrupt "mother earth" leading to public safety
issues such as sliding properties. Several times in the developers geotechnical report they mention that
uneven flatwork may create trip hazards. John Allen, the developer for Romeria Pointe, on March 20th
states that "the buildings are designed that even if the earth fell away below the entire pad, the buildings
would still be standing". Earth falling away below a entire pad does NOT sound safe!
As for parking, there is already a major parking issue in this neighborhood. This project has NO visitor
parking. It is NOT required. Plus, the existing street spots will be reduced as the new project needs
entrances into the development taking way valuable curb space for parking. Villa Romeria has 3 visitor
spots that are visible from the street. As it is, we have an issue with people parking on our property
that are not visiting Villa Romeria residents. This is unsafe for residents at Villa Romeria. This is
considered trespassing which is a public safety issue.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 169 of 612
City Planning has made it very difficult for me to obtain copies of the geotechnical report done for
the developer by GeciSoil, Inc. Chris Garcia and I spoke on the morning of April 29th. He informed
me that I could review the geotech report on premise at City Planning. If I wanted a copy I would
need to get a bonded blue print company to do so for me. This report is on standard 8.5" x 11"
paper. On May 2nd, I went to the planning office to review the documents. I asked the women who
gave me the reports ifl could bring a copy machine in and copy them myself. She said she couldn't
see why not. Based on that information, I returned the following week on May 9th with my
printer. I got the report and explained to them that I was told the previous week I could bring in a
printer. I asked where I could set up. At that point a little "committee" was formed behind the
counter. I was politely told after much deliberation I could not make my own copy. I understand the
City Manager is looking into the issue.
On 5/8/19 I left Jennifer Horodyski, Associate Engineer, a message regarding getting architectural
plans. Today, 5/17/19, I finally received a return call back from her.
I did get a chance to review the GeoSoil, Inc. rep01i at City Planning. There is supplemental report
in the binder dated September 12, 2018. This appears to be the most recent geotechnical review of
the project. Under "Proposed Development" on the second page, first full paragraph states the
following: "Based on our review of the architectural plans prepared by Foxlin Architectural Design
& Consulting ([F AD&C], 2017), GSI understands that the residential buildings will be up to 3
stories in height." I'm VERY confused. At the March 20th meeting the slide Chris Garcia presented
stated it would be two 4 story buildings. Further discussion was had that Building A was going to be
45' with projections to 48'. Building B was 48' with projections to 51 '. This is VERY concerning to
me. Was this entire report based off this project being NO larger then 3 stories? Is there other
incorrect information? Finding incorrect information regarding this project in regards to
geotechnical recommendations is alarming and concerning. Especially since as stated above there is
a known soil issue.
In closing, I would like to express my concern that this project does not follow Carlsbad's core
community values stated on the city's website:
1. Small town feel, beach community character and connectedness
2. Prioritize protection and enhancement of open space and the natural environment. Support and
protect Carlsbad's unique open space and agricultural heritage
Please help keep my neighbors and I safe as well as stay in line with Carlsbad's core values. Keep us
safe. Give us space. Let us breathe.
Thank you for your time.
Beth Citrano
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 170 of 612
From: John Sturgeon <
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 10:03 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@ca rlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Objection to the Romeria Point project
Dear Carlsbad City Council and Mayor
I am writing you today to express my objections to the proposed development called
Romeria Pointe. (located on the corner of Romeria and Gibraltar). I live across the
street from this proposed project. One of my greatest concerns is how it will affect public
safety. Street parking is already very difficult and the new apartments have no visitor
parking. The new apartment buildings will cause extreme congestion and a safety
hazard. There is not enough parking now for the current residents and if the proposed
apartments are allowed it will be nothing short of a nightmare. To make matters worse
more parking spots will be eliminated because of the new entrances to the apartments.
In addition an apartment complex does not fit into our community. Most all the
surrounding buildings are townhouses and these apartments will definitely devalue the
surrounding properties. Several home owners have lost sales of their homes because of
this proposed development
Thank you for listening to my concerns. Once again I urge you to not support this
project. Its the wrong project in the wrong place.
I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to
the Council. ·
Best regards
John Sturgeon, (home owner)
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 171 of 612
From: Meghan Carey
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 11:54 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCou ncil@carls badca.gov>
Subject: Construction on Romeria and Gibralter, La Costa
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to
council.
I write to you regarding Romeria Pointe Apartments. This project was approved by City
Planning on March 20th, 2019. I appreciate you taking the time to hear my concerns regarding
this project as an appeal was filed.
I am a single mother of 2 young boys (ages 2 and 6) that live across the street of proposed
apartment complex. Because I am single and only have 1 income, I am basically stuck in my
condo if I want my son to keep attending his school. Which is no problem, except for the
planned apartments.
I understand that California is in need of a housing, if anything desperately. However, adding
that many people to such a small space, is not only unsafe, it is dangerous. There are already
issues in the neighborhood with parking, speeding, running stop signs. I have difficulty turning
left out of my driveway as it is. Not having a yard, my children (along with several other children
in the complex) play in the driveway. People turn around in my driveway constantly for parking
and recklessly cross the sidewalk. It terrorizes me as a mother.
With the addition of other apartment complexes in our neighborhood, things have only gotten
worse. Literally not a day passes that I don't pick up an alcohol bottle from the side of the road ,
or step in vomit. Yes, that is correct. Vomit. Pizza boxes. Used condoms. Smashed glass
bottles. Piles of cigarette butts. My neighbor witnessed a cat get hit by a car.Not to mention the
dog feces issue. I picked up 13 pieces of it within a block radius 2 days ago. I also was hit by a
car running (thankfully I was OK, but it was frightening). Does this sound like a neighborhood
needing 23 more apartment units? That would be 50-60 more people, 50-60 more cars(??!!),
more noise, more congestion.
So if you please can understand why I am concerned about this property and please reconsider
the building going in and its size, it would be so, so greatly appreciated. It would be appreciated
as a parent, as an investor to this neighborhood, as someone who lives paycheck to paycheck
to stay here, as a human being, please just put yourself in the shoes of the people that live
here. I know you are all busy and I do appreciate your time. Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Meghan Carey
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 172 of 612
From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 11:49 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my opposition to Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SOP 2018-0004
(DEV2017-0151). Although I wrote and spoke to address my concerns with this project a few
months ago, I wanted to emphasize my concerns around public safety. I would like this email to
be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. I am a homeowner
at Golfcrest, which is the 14 units to the west.
My understanding is that the land around this development is unstable. Villa Romeria, the
property behind the proposed site, was slipping down towards this project. Additionally, in the
past, we have had the hill behind us slide down into our driveways. Although the developer
states that his property will be built to survive, that is not the case for the projects around it,
especially given the potential soil instability that could be caused. This would constitute a public
safety issue for the occupants of Villa Romeria. This should be considered in regards to
approval of the project. Additionally, perhaps the developer should be required to create a
reserve for Villa Romeria shou ld the building settle or construction impact an already unstable
situation.
My understanding further is that in the developer's GeoReport discusses public sidewalk lifting
that will occur as a result of the development. This creates a public hazard. Are there
requirements or reserves to ensure that this can be addressed in the future?
Kids playing below Villa Romeria and above Golfcrest is an ongoing issue. The new
development suffers from a lack of outdoor space but is designed for families, so these kids will
default to playing and trespassing on downward slopping hills.
Furthermore, the City of Carlsbad has plenty of other undeveloped sites where a development
can take advantage of the affordable housing allocation and still be safe. This is not one of
those sites. Instead, the affordable housing allocation is being used to make a previously
unbuildable lot buildable.
It would be nice if the City could guarantee us that this site is safe for this size development
prior to approval.
Additionally, I would like to repeat my non-public safety concerns, which would otherwise be
taken into consideration:
Golfcrest's second story windows are around 55 feet. The parking structure of this
proposed development is at 86 feet with the top of the building being at 127 feet. The project
will directly impact the light and privacy on the half of the Golf crest units' bedrooms and
bathrooms. I am also concerned about the light on the Golfcrest pool.
I am concerned with parking. This area suffers from a lack of parking already. Although,
because of the inclusion of low-cost housing, perhaps this plan meets the needs of the state, it
does not meet the requirements of the city, and most definitely does not meet the requirements
of the neighborhood. There, as I understand it, are 41 spaces, 2 are accessible which means
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 173 of 612
that there are no guest parking spots. The city would have required 49 at a
minimum. Furthermore, because I believe this area has other similar projects that have
increased the pressure on the parking, this will unfairly congest an already congested area.
This development suffers from bulk and mass. It may be the law, but it is not in character
with the neighborhood. This is not compatible with the neighborhood.
Given the density bonus, increased landscaping should be a requirement. As the project
sits now, there is no landscaping at one point in between our buildings.
I believe that the development should be set to the current pads. This is an issue of height
and width. The width should be re-examined.
Half of these units, including one of mine, will be looking at a high wall of parking. I have
concerns with light and noise from the parking structure especially as the height of the parking
lot will be the closest to the GolfCrest units. Please ensure the parking building is closed so that
headlights and noise do not wake us. I understand that this may mean they need alternative
ventilation, but also it is the City's job to protect the neighbors who are already there.
Given the size and proximity of the development and that it abuts on bedrooms, I ask that
the lighting restrictions be respectful of developments that are already there.
I ask that the decks that give out to the west and look over Golfcrest be reduced. The decks
are very large and this square footage is not necessary and will allow the owners to look down
into bathrooms.
I ask that special attention be paid to the drainage, compaction, and slippage potentials.
This area has suffered from runoff, slips, and drainage issues in the past.
Respectfully,
Lucille Lindsey
Golfcrest, Gibraltar Street
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 174 of 612
-----Original Message-----
From: Citrano CTR Thomas G
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 12:30 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc:
Subject: Memorandum for the Record Regarding the Construction Permit for Romeria Pointe
Apartments
From: Maj Thomas G. Citrano, USMC (Ret)
-Carlsbad, CA -92009
Owner/Landlord -Carlsbad, CA -92009
To: Carlsbad City Council
SubJ: Memorandum for the Record Regarding the Construction Permit for Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear Carlsbad City Council, I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff
reports submitted to council. I am writing to you to express grave public safety concerns regarding the
approval to develop a multi-story structure known as Romeria Pointe Apartments. I cite the following
information to support my concerns.
A GeoSoils report dated November 21, 2017 states, "GSI does not consult in the field of corrosion
engineering. Thus, consultation from a qualified corrosion consultant may be .considered based on the
level of corrosion protection required for the project, as determined by the Project Architect, Structural
Engineer, Civil Engineer and Plumbing/Mechanical Engineers. On a preliminary basis, site soils require
mitigation for Exposure Classes "SO, "WO, "C2" per Table 19.3.2.1 of ACI (318-14). Additional soil tests
are recommended based on the level of development proposed for the site." I would like to know if
these recommended tests have been conducted, and if
they have, what were the findings? If the studies deem that there is
instability, which has been the case for Villa Romeria, and in Carlsbad writ large, this presents a
significant public safety concern.
Additionally, the same report cites, "Site soils are considered erosive.
Surficial slope stability has been evaluated to be a long term geotechnical concern on all planned
finished slopes." What mitigation measures has the developer presented to council to ensure slope
stability, not only for Romeria Pointe, but the surrounding Romeria properties, which we know have had
issues in the past? The potential for a slide poses a public safety risk to the denizens in and around
Romeria St.
In 2014, Villa Romeria hired American Geotechnical Inc. to investigate soil erosion that was causing our
foundation to buckle and crack. We hired Eagle Lift Inc. to come in and stabilize the back slope. Five
years post work, Villa Romeria is constant and has experienced no additional damage or slippage. This
was confirmed by American Geotechnical, Inc. (AGI) on May 16th, 2019. When AGI completed their
May study, they cited several public safety concerns in the geotechnical reports done by GeoSoils, Inc.
This report has led to more questions than answers. I would like the Council to address the following
issues listed serially below:
1. Who will pay to repair Villa Romeria property or surrounding property if there is damage from
Romeria Pointe development?
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 175 of 612
2. What if so much damage is done to surrounding property, Mr. Allen and BNR Development file for
chapter 7 /11 protections?
On a personal note I would like to add that a four-story structure in this neighborhood is antithetical to
the Carlsbad aesthetic, and will be a colossal eyesore. If its allowed to proceed, I can assure you it will
be remembered come election season.
Sincerely,
Maj Thomas G. Citrano, USMC (Ret)
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 176 of 612
From: Kay Colvin <
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 5:32 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear Mayor Hall and City Council Members,
As a resid~nt of Romeria Street in Carlsbad, I would like to express my concerns regarding the
proposed Romeria Pointe Apartments.
I was present on March 20th, 2019 when the Planning Commission approved the project,
despite numerous uncertainties. Soon thereafter a group of concerned neighbors pooled
resources to file an appeal. I am hoping that City Council will take into consideration many
concerning issues when making decisions for the future of our neighborhood.
I, as well as many others, understand the urgent need for housing in our city and the pressure
the City must be under to fill this need. We understand that local development standards are
being waived to encourage new residential development as quickly as possible. However,
waiving standards that will ultimately impact the health and safety of those living near the project
does not seem pragmatically sound.
It is widely known that the soil in this area is unstable, as exemplified by the slippage of a
building in the Marbella complex on La Costa Avehue several years ago. More recently, the
unstable soil caused foundation issues at the Villa Romeria complex resulting in costly repairs.
The proposed Romeria Point Apartments would be directly adjacent to Villa Romeria and would
share the same soil issues, as confirmed in the geotechnical report dated September 12, 2018.
I am not a developer, but as a layman reading the geotechnical report, several issues were
clear. The report was based on the assumption of two structures consisting of three stories, not
the four stories that were approved by the Planning Commission. I noted during the March
Commission hearing that the city planner stated the actual proposed height of the north building
as a full 65 feet above Gibraltar Street, which is the equivalent of a typical six-story building.
Due to hasty decisions currently being made under duress, this behemoth complex would
negatively impact the neighborhood ... results that neighbors would be forced to live with far into
the future.
The geotechnical report also states that due to unstable soil conditions; vehicular and
pedestrian pavements may need to be replaced every 3 to 10 years and uneven pavements
may create trip hazards within one year following installation. The report goes so far as to
recommend that this situation be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. This expression of
concern about soil instability should be taken into serious consideration.
We Californians live with the constant awareness that an earthquake could happen at any
moment. The proposed four-story buildings, a mere 20 feet from the residences to the south
and immediately across the street from my home to the east, will certainly create a safety
concern for neighboring residents.
An apartment complex consisting of 16 three-bedroom and 7 one-bedroom units will bring many
additional cars to this small neighborhood. Traffic will increase exponentially, which could
potentially threaten the safety of our children .
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 177 of 612
In addition to matters of health and safety, our small street already has a shortage of parking,
which is often a problem. The addition of many cars to the neighborhood will undoubtedly
exacerbate the situation. Not only does the proposed apartment complex fail to provide visitor
parking for its 23 units, but will also remove a minimum of four currently existing parking spaces
on Romeria Street due to the proposed development's two driveways.
The quality of life and safety of our neighborhood would be inestimably reduced by the
proposed buildings.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns regarding the proposed project. I hope
you will take this opportunity to make wise decisions regarding this complex matter that will
impact the lives of many residents for countless years to come.
Please include this email in the public record and in staff reports submitted to City Council.
Sincerely,
Kay Colvin
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 178 of 612
Sheila Cobian
From: Chris Garcia
Sent:
To:
Monday, June 03, 2019 8:37 AM
Sheila Cobian
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Sheila,
Can you please include the email below in the Romeria City Council Staff Report?
Thank you,
(cityof
Carlsbad
Chris Ga rcia
Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave .
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .ca rlsbadca .gov
P: 760-602-4622
F: 760-602-8558
chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov
Appointment-Based Submittals and Resubmittals are required.
Appointments can be made by Phone: 760-602-2723 or Email: devappt@carlsbadca.gov
From: Council Internet Email
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 9:17 AM
Cc: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov>; Jennifer Horodyski <Jennifer.Horodyski@carlsbadca.gov>; Jason Geldert
<Jason.Geldert@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments
From: Tim Clark
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 5:18 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 179 of 612
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning
recently approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is
putting Carlsbad citizens safety at risk.
It is known that this area in LaCosta has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for Romeria
Pointe is extreme. This project will only add additional problems to the ones already in existance with land
slippage and sink holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Tim Clark
Carlsbad, CA 92009
2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 180 of 612
Tammy McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Council Internet Email
Monday, June 3, 2019 8:34 AM
City Clerk; Chris Garcia
Subject: FW: ROMERIA POINTE APARMENTS
Please see the email below related to the above reference Council agenda item. FYI per Sheila, the Clerk's office will
attach this to the staff report.
From: smacnabb
Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2019 6:48 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: ROMERIA POINTE APARMENTS
Dear city council members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this email to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council. I am writing to you
today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning recently approved the building
of (2) 4-story buildings. known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is putting Carlsbad citizens welfare and safety, at
risk. It is known; that this area, in La Costa, has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for
Romeria Pointe is extreme.This project will only add additional problems to one's already, in existence with land slippage
and _sink holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death, to Carlsbad
citizens. Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask; that you do not
allow this project to continue or built. Thank you very much; for your time. Sincerely,
Valerie MacNabb. , Carlsbad 92009
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 181 of 612
Tammy McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Council Internet Email
Monday, June 3, 2019 8:36 AM
Chris Garcia; City Clerk
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments
FYI for June 11. Per Sheila, the Clerk's office will attach to the staff report.
-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Boniface [mailto:li
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 10:12 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Re: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Councils Members and Mayor Hall
I would appreciate this email to be included in your public records and all reports submitted to the Council
I live at Villa Romeria which is situated right next door to the proposed development. Back in 2014 we suffered severe
subsidence issues to the building due to the well-known problems with the soil in this area and we had to spend a huge
amount of money carrying out stabilisation of the property.
As a matter of safety we are extremely concerned about the safety issues surrounding the proposal. I cannot believe
that any construction work carried out on the next door plot is not going to cause damage to our property. There is no
question in my mind that this is going to create additional subsidence (again) as there is a history of the poor quality of
the soil.
There is also the problem regarding the infrastructure in the area, there is insufficient parking and any development is
going to cause an immense safety issue for the residents and children in the area.
I do sincerely hope that you will take our grave serious concerns into consideration and review all the reports that have
been submitted to you as it appears that they are primarily directed at a three storey building and not FOUR storey
building.
Your acknowledgement of my email would be greatly appreciated.
Yours faithfully
Liz Boniface
Sent from my iPad
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 182 of 612
Tammy McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Council Internet Email
Monday, June 3, 2019 8:43 AM
Chris Garcia; City Clerk
Subject: FW: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
FYI for June 11. Per Sheila, the Clerk's office will attach to the staff report.
From: Penny Carrasco
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 8:09 PM
To: Council Internet Email <City·council@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: Penny Carrasco
To: Council@carlsbad.ca.gov
Cc:
Bee:
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 12:56:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Opposition to the Proposed Construction of Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad 92009, Corner of
Gibraltar and Romeria.
From: Carol (Penny) Carrasco, 7527 Jerez Ct. #F, Carlsbad, CA 92009.
Letter #1, dealing mostly with Soil Issues, Erosion over time, Steady
Slippage in the area and Drainage Problems (made more difficult since this
area is "Downstream" ....
Dear Mayor Hall and City Council Members,
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS AND IN STAFF REPORTS
SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL.
I have been a long time resident/homeowner in North County. First home in
1982 in Leucadia. Current Jerez address in Carlsbad for 16 years.
Therefore, I have observed the increased development in this area of North
County. Some areas well-planned and developed with one of the primary
concerns to provide Safe, Attractive & Healthy neighborhoods. Others,
where "high density" City zoning and "Bonus Density Credit" to developers
have resulted in Public Safety & Health and Welfare Issues.
Before sending this email, I spent the last few weeks walking around the
Lacosta area, primarily from El Camino to Romeria; and, on Pueblo (next
to the small community park, so that I could go into the Park and the
Overlook into the canyons. There is also a dog park in that residential
area above the Tennis Courts.)
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 183 of 612
My La Costa walk --
On La Costa , Marbella (even after all the excavation in 2005), is still
dealing with Erosion and Soil problem. Costa Pointe -which is next to
Marbella, was allowed to build backing up to that same shifting hillside;
and, once again, it is easy to see how they are still dealing with soil,
slippage and drainage issues.
La Costa Avenue in area of Open Land prior to Marbella, then Marbella
and Costa Pointe has continual problems with the road full of breaks,
cracks, and larger fizzures. The hillside in that area continues with its
erosion and slippage and downstream drainage, affecting the stability of
the land and the road.
I deeply care about "quality of life" and living in a "sustainable
environment" --Public Safety being of utmost importance ---not only for
the present time;, but also, the future for 'our' children, and their
children, etc ..
In Summary, my concerns on PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH & WELL-BEING:
1) SERIOUS SOIL, DRAINAGE AND SLIPPAGE ISSUES ON LACOSTA, AS WELL AS
GIBRALTOR, ROMERIA AND JEREZ. The following are only a few examples of
what has occurred in this area:
(a) Gibraltar Cul-de-sac by Canyon -7495 to 7501 required major excavation
b) Bella Vista 7506 Gibraltar redid the landscaping in the back and front
of these apartments. In addition they built retaining .walls to hold back
the soil.
c) Golf Crest has also dealt with hillside issues behind their condos
d) La Costa Bluffs on Lacosta, 2930-2936 and 2940-2946 had to redo their
drainage systems after building were completed and rented (after the first
big rain; in addiition, they are still dealing with slippage from the
hillside behind them. This hillside is the Open Area on the corner of
Gibraltar and Jerez. The slippage of that hillside is very apparent.
e) Recent large sink hole under home at 7543 Jerez Ct.
f) 7570-7572 Gibraltar. Condos. High Structure into the hillside area
which has caused more erosion about those buildings. Affects that address
and the condos to their right. After the recent heavy rains, for about 2
weeks crews were working on the retaining wall(s) area behind these units
and erosion and drainage on the hillside.
Final 'thoughts' for the issues in Letter #1...
In "good faith" practices, I believe that the City Officials, the City
Engineers, the Land Developers, etc...have a responsibility, if not an
obligation, to notify Homeowners of serious erosion and soil slippage
issues. This way Homeowners can choose do their own
intervention/prevention maintenance on their own property.
If members of City Councvil could make the time to do a "walk about" in
this area, they could easily see the serious problems that I have mentioned
in this email. And, also be able to
-----Message truncated -----
2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 184 of 612
1
Sheila Cobian
To:Sheila Cobian
Subject:FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Council Internet Email
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 2:11 PM
To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov>; Jason Geldert <Jason.Geldert@carlsbadca.gov>; Jennifer Horodyski
<Jennifer.Horodyski@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Regarding agenda item on June 11.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Forge House
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:50 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall.
I would like this email to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to the Council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning recently
approved the building of 2 x 4 storey buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this putting Carlsbad citizen safety at
risk.
It is known that this area in La Costa has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for Romeria Pointe is
extreme. This project will only add additional problems to the ones already in existence with land slippage and sink
holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Yours faithfully
Carol Franco‐Kovacik
Romeria Street Resident
Sent from my iPad
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 185 of 612
1
Sheila Cobian
To:Sheila Cobian
Subject:FW: Romeria Pointe Proposed Project
From: Council Internet Email
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 9:06 AM
To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Jason Geldert <Jason.Geldert@carlsbadca.gov>; Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov>; Jennifer Horodyski
<Jennifer.Horodyski@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Proposed Project
From: Kara Brem
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 7:28 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Proposed Project
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall, I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
Romeria Pointe Apartments was approved by City Planning on March 20th, 2019. I appreciate you taking the
time to hear my concerns regarding this project. All projects up to March 2019 for this land had been denied by the city because of soil issues. Those of us in the neighborhood assumed this would be the case on the evening of the March 20th and not enough of us came forward to express our concern. We were shocked when it was approved!
There is great concern that the extreme site work taking place like mass excavation and piles drilled down intobedrock will disrupt near by land leading to public safety issues such as slippage.
The GeoSoils Inc. report dated November 21, 2017 states the following which addresses our concern of soil and slope stability:
"On a preliminary basis, the feasibility of storm water infiltration at the subject site is considered very low, owing to the fine-grained nature of the onsite earth materials and the occurrence of relatively dense formational materials underlying the existing fills, and extending to depth. If storm water were to infiltrate, it would most likely perch upon till lifts or the Santiago Formation and migrate laterally, This may have detrimental effects (i.e, distress) on onsite and offsite improvements, including public and private underground utility trenches, and
slope stability, The potential for onsite storm water infiltration to induce offsite damage is considered moderate for the site." Please keep us safe. Please support our appeal.
Kara Brem
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 186 of 612
2
“Hustle and heart is what sets me apart”
Kara Brem
For the Love of North County
Realtor®
Windermere Homes & Estates
DRE# 01939667
m: 831-818-3050
w: www.karabrem.com e: kara@karabrem.com
See what my past clients have to say at:
https://www.zillow.com/profile/karabrem/#reviews
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 187 of 612
1
Sheila Cobian
From:Tammy McMinn
Sent:Wednesday, June 05, 2019 2:17 PM
To:Sheila Cobian
Subject:FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments: Detrimental Effects
FYI
Kind regards,
Tammy McMinn, CPMC, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
760‐434‐2953
From: City Clerk
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 2:09 PM
To: Tammy McMinn <Tammy.Cloud‐McMinn@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments: Detrimental Effects
Hello,
Please see the below correspondence to the City Council.
Thank you,
Hector Gomez
Deputy City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008‐1949
www.carlsbadca.gov
760‐434‐5021 | hector.gomez@carlsbadca.gov
From: Council Internet Email
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 2:06 PM
To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov>; Jason Geldert <Jason.Geldert@carlsbadca.gov>; Jennifer Horodyski
<Jennifer.Horodyski@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments: Detrimental Effects
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 188 of 612
2
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 12:56 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments: Detrimental Effects
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
This is a follow up e-mail addressing additional items for your review prior to next weeks City Council
Meeting regarding the Romeria Pointe Appeal.
I hope by now you have had a chance to review the geotechnical report by GeoSoil, Inc. Specifically,
the report dated November 21, 2017. (Received by City Planning July, 2, 2018) This report is
specifically referenced in the Priority Development Project (PDP)/Storm Water Quality Management
Plan (SWQMP) report prepared by MLB Engineering. This report dated January 10, 2019.
I contacted City Planning on May 23rd looking for information on storm water. In a voice message
back I was told that since this area was “very constrained” they had a 3rd party review the project. I
was intrigued so I reviewed the (PDP)/(SWQMP) report at City Planning.
Under "Other Site Requirements and Constraints" in the (PDP)/(SWQMP) report, please note the
following was stated:
The site is uphill from a steep slope and infiltration is not recommended by the soils engineer due to
potential for DETRIMENTAL impacts downhill of the project. See GeoSoils Inc. Geotechnical Update
Evaluation dated November 21, 2017. The report includes the following recommendation:
"On a preliminary basis, the feasibility of storm water infiltration at the subject site is considered very
low, owing to the fine-grained nature of the onsite earth materials and the occurrence of relatively
dense formational materials underlying the existing fills, and extending to depth. If storm water were
to infiltrate, it would most likely perch upon till lifts or the Santiago Formation and migrate laterally,
This may have detrimental effects (i.e, distress) on onsite and offsite improvements, including public
and private underground utility trenches, and slope stability, The potential for onsite storm water
infiltration to induce offsite damage is considered moderate for the site."
Definition of "detrimental" is tending to cause harm. Synonyms: harmful, damaging, injurious, hurtful,
dangerous, disastrous
At the March 20th meeting Chris Garcia, City Planner, presented this project as two 4 story
buildings. Further discussion was had that Building A was going to be 45' with projections to
48'. Building B was 48' with projections to 51'. Lots of inconsistency.
1. The geotech report by GeoSoil, Inc. dated September 12, 2018 states "we understand that the
residential buildings will be up to 3 stories in height." However, I understood it to be 4 per the
presentation on March 20th.
2. Notice of Public Hearing sent to residents dated Friday, May 31, 2019 states "a" four story building
23 units will be built. This indicates one building. However, I understood it to be 2 buildings, A and B
per the presentation on March 20th.
3. (SWQMP)/(PDP) dated January 10, 2019 states "proposed project includes the construction of a
16 unit apartment complex in 2 buildings". However, I understood it to be 23 units per March 20th
meeting.
I was trying to understand what discretionary plans Fire Prevention reviewed. As indicated above
was it: One (4) story building? Two (3) story buildings? A 16 unit apartment complex in two
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 189 of 612
3
buildings? What was proposed on March 20th two (4) story buildings? OR something else? I was
provided the following information:
Per Brianne Daley from the Fire Department, Fire Marshal’s Office does not prepare written reports
for discretionary project reviews. Any comments Fire Prevention may have regarding project
deficiencies are submitted electronically to the assigned Planner for inclusion in the Discretionary
Plan Report produced by the Planner.
City Planning indicated that the project was resubmitted and routed to the Fire Marshal on July 2018
and comments were provided on 7/25/18 as follows: “Information only to applicant: NFPA 13R Fire
Sprinklers required. Fire Alarm required. Fire lane plan shall be submitted to fire as delayed submittal
for location, markings & signage. Fire access looks ok. No corrections required to plan.”
Insufficient Fire Protection would be a public safety issue. I still don't have an answer to what the Fire
Marshal reviewed July 2018. Was the reviewed project 16 units? 23 units? 3 stories high? 2
buildings?
On May 28th, 2019 City Planning contacted Pilot Property. This is Villa Romeria's property
management company. Villa Romeria being the condo complex that sits adjacent to the proposed
Romeria Pointe. A copy of the City Permit from the work we had done by Eagle Lift in 2014 was
requested. I'm trying to understand how it is that the city is reaching out to our Property Management
company for a document that came from the city??? It did not take days, weeks, or months for them
to receive the requested document but rather hours. This is the first request to better understand what
work was done on our property several years back.
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
Please keep this neighborhood in Carlsbad safe!
Thank you again for your time.
Beth Citrano
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 190 of 612
To the members of the: '°kl y COUNCIL :)ate \ \C\CA ✓ CC ✓
1\11 {_ COO ✓ DCM (3) V,
Council Memorandum
June 11, 2019
To:
From:
Honorable Mayor Hall a
Scott Chadwick, City M na
bers of the City Council
Gityof
Carlsbad
Re: the June 10 City Council Briefings
Agenda Item No. 12 -Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Approve Romeria Pointe
Apartments Project '
Question 1: Please provide a copy of the TIA Guidelines.
Answer: Please see attached.
Attachment: City of Carlsbad Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, April 2018
cc: Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Elaine Lu key, Chief Operations Officer
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
City Manager's Office
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2820 t Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 191 of 612
Ccityof
Carlsbad
CllY OF CARLSBAD
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
GUIDELINES .
April 2018
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 192 of 612
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES ----------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CCityof
Carlsbad
Ca!ifo1nia
1. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 3
2. PURPOSE & OBJECTIVES OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSES .............................................................. 5
3. TIA SCOPING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 9
4. SCENARIOS TO BE STUDIED ......................................................................................................................... 16
5. TRAFFIC GENERATION ................................................................................................................................. 17
6. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 19
7. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 20
8. SIGNIFICANCE OF AUTO IMPACTS TO CONSIDER MITIGATION .................................................................... 29
9. SIGNIFICANCE OF PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPACTS TO CONSIDER MITIGATION ...... 33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Types of Transportation Impact Analysis Report Required & Elements to be Included ............................... 13
Table 2: Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 4: Roundabout Level of Service Thresholds ...................................................................................................... 22
Table 5: MM LOS Level of Service Thresholds ............................................................................................................. 24
Table 6: Measure of Significant Project Traffic Impacts Roadways Subject to the Vehicle MMLOS Standard ........... 30
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: MMLOS Required Analysis by Mobility Element Roadway .......................................................................... 11
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Scoping Agreement
April 2018 2 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 193 of 612
CCityor
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad ----'--------------------------------Ca Ii f o, 11 ia
1. BACKGROUND
Projects in the City of Carlsbad may require an analysis and evaluation of project-specific transportation
impacts to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City regulations. These
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines provide direction for this review consistent with the General
Plan Mobility Element vision that "seeks to enhance vehicle, walking, bicycling, and public transportation
systems options within Carlsbad, and improve mobility through increased connectivity and intelligent
transportation management." The Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines define the process used to
review projects to reflect the Carlsbad Community Vision core values related to sustainability,
neighborhood revitalization, access to recreation, active transportation, and healthy lifestyles.
The Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines eliminate the requirement to evaluate intersections using
methodologies based on auto delay that have historically been used in the City of Carlsbad consistent with
the following statement taken from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research website:
Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which creates a process to change
the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA. Specifically, SB 743 requires OPR
to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation
impacts. Particularly within areas served by transit, those alternative criteria must "promote the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks,
and a diversity of land uses." (Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1).) Measurements of
transportation impacts may include "vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita,
automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated." {Ibid.) Once the CEQA Guidelines
are amended to include those alternative criteria, auto delay will no longer be considered a
significant impact under CEQA. {Id. at subd. (b}(2}.) Transportation impacts related to air quality,
noise and safety must still be analyzed under CEQA where appropriate. (Id. at subd. (b)(3).)
(http://www. opr. ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-7 43/)
While the analysis of auto delay will no longer be required to comply with CEQA, the Growth Management
Program (GMP) established by the City of Carlsbad in 1986 requires an evaluation of roadway facilities.
The GMP ensures that "development does not occur unless adequate public facilities and services exist or
will be provided concurrent with new development." The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (last
amended August 22, 2017) states that "when individual development projects are considered, a public
facilities adequacy analysis will be provided as part of the report on the project to ensure that it is
consistent with both the Citywide and Local Zone Plan." The Transportation Impact Analysis reports on
the adequacy of the transportation facilities according to the following performance standards
established in the current Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan:
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.
These concepts are codified in Section 21.90.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management)
that states:
April 2018 3 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 194 of 612
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
~ityof
Carlsbad -----------------------------------
If at any time after preparation of the 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 improvement have been made.
An annual Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) was also established as part of the Growth Management
Plan to monitor the transportation facilities according to the established performance standards at that
time. The TMP historically evaluated key intersections and roadway segments using traffic data collected
each summer reflecting traditional morning and afternoon peak hour traffic conditions. The findings and
recommendations were summarized in an annual TMP report, which provided the basis for determining
if the annual growth in traffic was compliant with the GMP. The GMP monitoring program will be updated
to be consistent with these Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
In 2015, the City of Carlsbad adopted the General Plan Update (GPU) Mobility Element, which includes a
"Livable Streets Vision and Strategies" section. It is consistent with the California Complete Streets Act
(AB-1358) which requires cities in California to plan for a balanced, multi-modal transportation system
that meets the needs of all travel modes. It is a fundamental shift in how the city will plan and design the
street system viewing streets as a public space that serves all users of the system (e.g., elderly, children,
bicycles, pedestrians). The Mobility Element recognizes that each street within the city is unique given its
geographic setting, adjacent land use, and the desired use of that facility. It identifies a street typology
(Fig. 1) appropriate for the uniqueness of the street and identifies which modes of travel (pedestrian,
bicycle, vehicles, transit) should be accommodated on that street. According to the Mobility Element,
vehicular level of service "will be determined by the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual."
The Mobility Element also established a new Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) methodology for
pedestrian, bicycle and transit transportation modes.
The Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines provide a detailed description of the methodology to be
followed in identifying project impacts for applicable transportation facilities in compliance with
applicable federal, state and local requirements (e.g., CEQA, GMP and the 2015 General Plan Mobility
Element).
Apri/2018 4 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 195 of 612
CCityor
__ T_RA_N_S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_NA_L_Y_SI_S_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_ES ______________ Carlsbad
California
2. PURPOSE & OBJECTIVES OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSES
2.1 Purpose of Transportation Impact Analyses
Transportation Impact Analyses (TIA's) forecast, describe, and analyze the effect a development will have
on the existing and future circulation infrastructure for all transportation modes. The purpose of the TIA
is to assist engineers and planners in both the development community and public agencies when making
land use and other development decisions. A TIA quantifies the changes in traffic levels and translates
these changes into transportation system impacts in the vicinity of a project. These findings can then be
used to determine project specific improvements or mitigation measures to offset the project's impacts
to the transportation system. If certain circumstances are met the General Plan Update allows some street
facilities to be exempt from the LOS standard as approved by the City Council.
2.2 Objectives of TIA Guidelines
The following guidelines were prepared to assist the City of Carlsbad in promoting consistency and
uniformity in TIAs. All Mobility Element roadways, all State routes and freeways (including metered and
unmetered ramps), and all pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities that are impacted should be included
in each study.
The following Mobility Element Implementing Policies provide direction for the Traffic Impact Analysis
Guidelines:
• Apply and update the city's mu/ti-modal level of service (MM LOS) methodology and guidelines .... Utilize the
MMLOS methodology to evaluate impacts of individual development projects and amendments to the
General Plan on the city's transportation system. (Policy 3-P.3)
• Implement the city's MM LOS methodology and maintain LOS Dor better for each mode of travel for which
the MMLOS standard is applicable ... (Policy 3-P.4)
• Require developers to construct or pay their fair share toward improvements for all modes consistent with
this Mobility Element, the Growth Management Plan, and specific impacts associated with their
development. (Policy 3-P.5)
• Utilize transportation demand management strategies, non-automotive enhancements (bicycle, pedestrian,
transit, train, trails, and connectivity), and traffic signal management techniques as long-term
transportation solutions and traffic mitigation measures to carry out the Carlsbad Community Vision. (Policy
3-P.8)
• Develop and maintain a list of street facilities where specific 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 os appropriate at build out of the General Plan ... (Policy 3-P.9)
• Require new development that adds vehicle traffic to street facilities that are exempt from the vehicle LOS
standard (consistent with Policy 3-P.9) to implement (Policy 3-P-11):
April 201s 5 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 196 of 612
{9ityof
__ T_RA_N_S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_NA_L_Y_SI_S_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_ES ______________ Carlsbad
California
Transportation demand management strategies that reduce the reliance on single-occupancy
automobile and assist in achieving the city's livable streets vision.
Transportation systems management strategies that improve traffic signal coordination and improve
transit service
Caltrans has slightly different LOS objectives for State highway facilities. For example, Caltrans has a target
LOS "C" standard for State highway facilities. Caltrans may defer to the lead agency to determine the
appropriate target LOS consistent with the following Mobility Element Implementing Policy:
• Encourage Ca/trans to identify and construct necessary improvements to improve service levels in Interstate-
s and State Route 78. (Policy 3-P.7)
These guidelines are subject to update as future conditions and experience become available.
2.3 Analysis Strategy for Transportation Impact Analysis
The General Plan Update (GPU) Mobility Element states that:
The transportation system envisioned in the 1994 General Plan has largely been realized, with the majority
of the street infrastructure constructed to its ultimate configuration. As the city looks increasingly to infill
development rather than outward expansion, the primary transportation issues relate to protecting and
enhancing the community's quality of life, as reflected in the core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision.
The community's vision includes better pedestrian and bicycle connections between neighborhoods,
destinations, and different parts of the community, and a balanced transportation system rather than a
singular focus on automobile movement.
Increasing regional travel demand leads to more trips using City of Carlsbad roadway facilities that neither
originate nor terminate within the City limits (i.e., "cut-through" or "bypass" traffic). The GPU Mobility
Element acknowledged that policies aimed at continuing to expand our roadway facilities to meet ever-
expanding demand is counterproductive and likely to conflict with competing community values and
objectives listed in the city's Climate Action Plan (CAP). Rather, the City of Carlsbad should best manage
and maintain the transportation facilities planned for and constructed consistent with the City's General
Plan. As noted above, "auto delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEo.A."
Intersection analysis based on auto delay used for planning purposes have been found to produce:
recommended mitigation measures that induce traffic and therefore increase congestion
recommended mitigation measures that do not directly resolve a project's specific impact
questionable nexus studies
questionable estimates of reserve capacity
very specific, but highly inaccurate results (especially in forecasted scenarios)
2.4 Basis for Limiting Delay-Based Intersection LOS
The intersection level of service methodology according to the Highway Capacity Manual involves an
evaluation of the average delay experienced by all vehicles using the intersection. The accuracy of these
average vehicle delay calculations is directly related to the accuracy of very specific traffic data. This
methodology reflects a snapshot in time and is highly appropriate for evaluating intersection geometrics,
determining intersection signal timing, or evaluating design alternatives. However, the generalized traffic
Apri/2018 6 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 197 of 612
{9ityof
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad -----------------------------------(11 I ifor n id
data available for planning level decisions does not provide the precision required for this specific level of
service calculation, and may yield unreliable or inconsistent results. That is, it is unrealistic to accurately
forecast the numerous variables that are required to ~alculate level of service based on delay. Variations
in input variables, variations in peak hour volumes and other factors can result in fluctuations in
intersection level of service from one study to another and across different study scenarios for a given
project.
The delay-based intersection LOS analysis has a critical limitation; it cannot adequately determine how
close traffic volumes are to an operational capacity. The estimate for average delay is related to so many
independent variables that it is not designed to determine when an intersection will reach a specific LOS
threshold. Specifically, the impact of increased traffic volume depends on what movements are impacted.
This means that an intersection experiencing an increase of 10 vehicles turning left at an intersection
could result in a failing LOS result, while an increase of 100 vehicles turning right could improve the overall
intersection LOS (i.e., the added right turn traffic experiencing below average delay offsets the few
vehicles expected to experience above average delay). As noted below, this is the reason why mitigation
measures for traffic impacts to signalized intersections often implement improvements to the right turn
movements.
Using average delay to evaluate transportation impacts to an intersection tends to identify mitigation
measures that don't directly address the main cause of congestion. Furthermore, the proposed
improvements may not directly correlate to the traffic generated by the specific project. For example, a
significant impact is reported for a proposed project because the traffic at an intersection is forecasted to
increase the average delay beyond the LOS E threshold. For this example, the direct project impact is
identified to be an excessive queue in the westbound left turn lane. However, to reduce the project's
impact to less than significant, an improvement is identified for the southbound right turn movement
even though it does not have a queuing problem; that is a southbound right-turn overlap improves overall
delay but does not address the excessive queue for the westbound left turn movement. Although the
overall delay in this example is reported to fall below the level of significance, the proposed project does
not include a mitigation measure that directly addresses the project's impact.
These are the primary reasons why the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines transitioned from the
granular detail of the intersection LOS methodology based on the Highway Capacity Manual. The City
Traffic Engineer/ City Engineer will retain the discretion to add specific intersections to the study area to
be analyzed using a methodology consistent with the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual.
2.5 New Approach for Evaluating Traffic Impacts
These guidelines shift the focus of auto level of service from the subjective nature of intersection delay
calculations to an approach evaluating traffic impacts using two methodologies:
• a corridor operations analysis based on roadway capacity according to the Highway Capacity Manual and
subject to the LOS standard; and
• a turning movement needs assessment for intersections.
Evaluating corridors allows the City to assess the ability for the existing and future facilities to carry
through traffic (i.e., how is the experience of drivers traveling through several intersections along the
corridor). The methodology proposed for analyzing corridors includes factors that reflect the
Apri/2018 7 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 198 of 612
CCityof
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad _ _;_..,;_;,;_..:..:....;._;;_;_ ______________________________ ca Ii f o, 11 i a
understanding that signalized intersections tend to be the controlling factor for determining a roadway's
capacity. The corridor analysis is focused on identifying the need to add travel lanes necessary to serve
the mainline traffic; and a separate evaluation is needed of the capacity of the side streets and turning
lanes at intersections along a corridor.
To address potential operational and capacity issues at signalized intersections, TIA's will be required to
include an analysis of the queues for left and right turning movements. The queue analysis will determine
if adequate turn lanes and adequate qu~ue storage is provided at the signalized intersections within the
project study area. Queues that exceed capacity affect the carrying capacity of the roadway (i.e.,
automobiles that can't queue up in the turn lane will block the lanes serving through movements and
reduce main-line capacity). The queue analysis will determine where new turn lanes are needed and
where existing turn pockets may need to be lengthened to improve corridor performance and address
potential safety issues. As stated above, transportation impacts related to safety must still be analyzed
under CEQA where appropriate.
Traffic signal warrants will also need to be conducted for unsignalized intersections in the study area.
2.6 Approach to Mitigating Impacts
The corridor LOS analysis coupled with a turning movement needs assessment will identify the
appropriate roadway facility improvements needed to be identified in the TIA according to the city's GMP.
The City of Carlsbad recognizes that trying to build its way out of congestion is unsustainable and may
conflict with objectives in the Climate Action Plan and General Plan. The General Plan allows for
exemptions to the levels of service standards when specific criteria are met. Theses exemptions require
mitigation measures that rely on management tools that include: a) Transportation Demand Management
(TDM)1 strategies that provide goods and services to the public in a way that reduces the demand for auto
travel-especially during peak periods; and b) Transportation Systems Management (TSM}2 strategies that
improve traffic flow so that people can travel in autos more efficiently without widening roadways. TIAs
are expected to include mitigation measures that support TDM objectives to provide viable options to
single occupancy vehicle trips and TSM measures that improve the efficiency of the existing roadway
system.
The General Plan prioritized shifting travel modes away from the single occupancy vehicle to shared
mobility choices, such as vanpool, carpool, walking, bicycling and taking transit. These Transportation
Impact Analysis Guidelines integrate the new MM LOS methodology that will be used to determine gaps
in the existing infrastructure for all modes. It also identifies requirements for mitigating project impacts
and providing enhanced and expanded vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities adjacent to the
project site.
1 Also known as "Travel Demand Management" and ''Traffic Demand Management"
2 Also known as ''Traffic Signal Management" and ''Traffic Systems Management"
April 2018 8 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 199 of 612
(]:ityof
__ T_;,;_RA_;,;_N-'--S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_I_M_PA_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_L_IN_ES ______________ Carlsbad
California
3. TIA SCOPING REQUIREMENTS
Prior to initiating a TIA, a scope of work shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by City staff. Special
situations may call for variation from these guidelines, which will be discussed du ring the scoping process.
When state facilities are included within a project study area, Caltrans and the City of Carlsbad should
agree on the specific methods used in TIAs involving any State Route facilities, including metered and
unmetered freeway ramps.
3.1 Scoping Agreement
Early consultation among the development community, City of Carlsbad, other affected jurisdictions, and
Caltrans is required to establish the base input parameters, assumptions, and analysis methodologies for
the TIA. A Scoping Agreement with City of Carlsbad shall be filed prior to initiating the Transportation
Impact Analysis report (refer to Appendix A of these guidelines).
The Scoping Agreement ensures an understanding of the level of detail and the assumptions required for
the analysis. Always check with City staff for their concerns prior to preparing the initial Scoping
Agreement. For straightforward studies prepared by consultants familiar with these TIA procedures, a
telephone call or e-mail may suffice. For consultants unfamiliar with City requirements or for more
complex projects, a project initiation meeting is recommended prior to submitting or concurrently with
the submittal of the initial Scoping Agreement.
3.2 Facilities to be Included in the Study Area
All projects access points and on-site circulation will be identified in the study area. The geographic extent
of the study area is described for each mode that is subject to evaluation below. All TIAs shall include a
project study map according to Section 3.3 that defines all transportation facilities to be evaluated
according to this section.
The modes that will be evaluated are based on the street typology for roadways connecting the project
to the citywide transportation system and the location of the project. Figure 1 on the following page
illustrates the mode analysis required for each Mobility Element roadway in the City of Carlsbad. The
extent to which the analysis is conducted is described later in these guidelines. The following outlines the
guidelines for determining the geographic area to be examined in the studies:
AUTO:
INTERSECTIONS: All intersections within 0.25 miles of a project access points serving vehicles will be included
in the study area. Additional intersections within 0.25 to 0.5 miles from the project access points may also be
added to the study area at the discretion of the City Engineer/ City Traffic Engineer.
ROADWAY SEGMENTS:
• Non-freeway roadway segments that are subject to Auto MMLOS Criteria and expected to experience an
increase in project traffic equal to 50 or more peak-hour trips in either direction of travel.
• Freeway Mainline Segments where the project adds 50 or more peak-hour trips in either direction of travel
• Freeway Entrance and Exit Ramps where the proposed project will add 20 or more peak-hour trips and/or
cause any traffic queues to exceed ramp storage capacities.
Apri/2018 9 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 200 of 612
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
~ityof
Carlsbad --------------------------------------, a I if or n i.,
PEDESTRIAN:
• All pedestrian facilities that are directly connected to project access points will be included in the study area
• All pedestrian facilities adjacent to the project development site that provide direct pedestrian access to
the project site will be included in the study area.
• The analysis of each pedestrian facility will extend in each direction to the nearest intersection or
connection point to a multi use trail or path. The study area will extend from the project site (northbound
and southbound OR eastbound and westbound) until a Mobility Element Road or Class I trail is reached in
each direction.
• Pedestrian facilities shall include all existing and proposed sidewalks, crosswalks, signalized pedestrian
phases, and ADA-compliant facilities.
• Pedestrian analysis need only be conducted for the side of the street where the project is located unless
the project is located on both sides of the street, in which case both sides of the street should be studied.
• Pedestrian analysis shall be conducted for all roadway segments included in the study area that are subject
to the Pedestrian MM LOS standards (see Figure 1).
BICYCLE:
• All facilities that bicyclists can legally use shall be included in the study area from each project access point
extending in each direction of travel to the nearest intersection, dedicated bicycle facility, or connection
point to a multiuse trail or path. Inventory and evaluation shall include all off-street and on-street bicycle
paths, lanes and routes.
• Bicycle analysis shall be conducted for both directions of travel (e.g., both sides of the street) of each facility
included in the study area.
• Bicycle analysis shall be conducted for roadway segments subject the Bicycle MM LOS standards (see Figure
1).
TRANSIT:
• All existing transit lines and transit stops within a ½ mile walking distances of the project site shall be
included in the study area.
• If the roadways within the study area are not subject to Transit MM LOS standards (see Figure 1) no further
transit analysis is required.
• All transit lines located within a½ mile walking distance of the project site will be analyzed according to the
Transit MMLOS
• All pedestrian routes linking the project site to a transit line within the¼ mile walking distance boundary.
• If no transit lines are provided, but the roadways within the study area are identified as subject to transit
MM LOS, the project shall complete the MM LOS worksheet for "No Transit Located within½ Mile Walk from
Subject Site or Roadway Segment".
• Transportation Demand Management Measures shall be identified for the project, which may include on-
demand transit, flex or other measures.
Apri/2018 10 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 201 of 612
CCityor
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad _....:..:_.::...::..:..=..:.--=-:..:..:...:....:..:....:..:::..:..:....:..:.:.;;.:._;_:.=..;_..:...;_;_.:.:....:.:::..:...:;_:..:.__:...:..cc::....::..=.:..:..=.:: ________________ C a Ii f o, n i a
i :·' 7
t 1.J
\ (
I
Figure 1: MMLOS Required Analysis by Mobility Element Roadway
Apri/2018 11 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 202 of 612
{"Cityof
__ T_RA_N~S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_NA_L_Y_SI_S_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_ES ______________ Carlsbad
Ca I i r or n i"
3.3 Project Study Area Maps
The project study area shall be clearly reflected in a map included in the TIA report and shall be provided
with the Scoping Agreement. Depending upon the size and complexity of the study area, the study area
map may need to be represented on multiple figures (study roadways, study intersections, etc.).
Facilities that the City Council have identified as exempt from LOS standards must be clearly identified in
the project study area map.
3.4 Vehicle Traffic Data Collection
The vehicle traffic data used in the TIA should generally not be more than 2 years old and should not
reflect a temporary interruption (special events, construction detour, etc.) in the normal traffic patterns
unless that is the nature of the project itself. If recent traffic data are not available, current counts must
be made by the project applicant/consultant. Use of traffic data that does not conform to this
requirement must be approved by the City Engineer / City Traffic Engineer as part of the Scoping
Agreement prior to inclusion in the TIA.
3.5 Report Categories
The type ofTIA required for a project is based on consistency with the General Plan, Specific Plan or zoning
as well as the number of vehicular trips generated by the site. The type of TIA required will be determined
during the Scoping Agreement phase of the project.
Table 1 outlines the ADT volume threshold requirements used to determine the type of TIA required and
the elements included in each level of TIA.
Apri/2018 12 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 203 of 612
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
Table 1: Types of Transportation Impact Analysis Report Required & Elements to be Included
1---
Forecast Project Generated Auto Trips
-----~ --
I
---------
<500 ADT 500 to 1,000 ADT 1,000 to 2,400 ADT >2,400 ADT
I or or or 01
Land Use I <SO peak hour trips I 50 to 100 peak hour trips 100 to 200 peak hour trips >200 peak hour trips
Conforms to Approved Specific Level I Plan or Master Plan
Conforms to General Plan or Level I Level Ill Level V Level VII Zoning
Does not Conform to General Level II Level IV Level VI Level VIII Plan or Zoning
Scenarios to be Evaluated
Trip Regional
MMLOS Trip Distribution & S1gnal12ed Uns1gnal1zed Ex1st111g Cumuldt1ve Horizon T1avel
(ped, bike, Study Area Generation Assignment Intersection Intersection Cond1t1ons Cond1t1ons YCtU Demand
transit) Map Table Figure Analys,s Analys,s Analysis Analysis Anr1lyc;1c;; Model Run
Level I • • • Level II • • • • • • • Level Ill • • • • • • • Level IV • • • • • • • • Level V • • • • • • • • Level VI • • • • • • • • • Level VII • • • • • • • • • • Level VIII • • • • • • • • • •
Secl1011 Sectron Section Sect IOll ~cct1on :icctron Sect1011 Sect1011
Re','r ,•nee 7 b 3 3 5 0 (, l) 7 l 7 2 4 U
--
{city of
Carlsbad
C • I I ( o r n 1 .t
LFMP
Spec1fll TIA
•
•
•
•
Sect 10n
J 7
Note: All TIA's will require MM LOS Analysis. The modes evaluated for each study will be determined by street typology and project location, not total vehicular trips. Refer to Section 3.2
for additional information.
March2018 13 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 204 of 612
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
CCityof
Carlsbad ----------------------------------ca I, for nl a
3.6 VMT Analysis
In September 2014, the California Governor signed Senate Bill 743 (SB743), which requires the use of
methods other than LOS to define Transportation Impacts in environmental documents. SB743 Guidelines
published by the Office of Planning and Research has recommended the use of Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) as the replacement for LOS. At the time these guidelines were published, the CEQA checklist had
not been updated to reflect this transition from LOS to VMT. And the San Diego Region had yet to adopt
a method for calculating and reporting impacts related to VMT.
In November 2017, the Governor's Office of Planning & Research (OPR) released Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which provides guidance in evaluating transportation impacts
under the SB743 changes to CEQA. The document includes a two-year transition period, which will allow
regional and local agencies to establish methodologies and metrics for identifying impacts using VMT.
Hearings related to the amendments and additions to the State CEQA Guidelines, including changes
related to SB743, will occur in March 2018. Following the hearings, the Natural Resources Agency will
consider all comments and make appropriate changes. The Natural Resources Agency will then consider
the adoption of the new CEQA guidelines.
Local agencies in San Diego County are working toward developing regionally accepted guidelines for
conducting VMT analysis consistent with the requirements of SB743. The SANTEC/ITE Transportation
Mobility Task Force has established a SB743 working group that is drafting and testing methods for
evaluating VMT at both the regional and project level. In addition, SAN DAG has published a white paper
on VMT modeling in the region. At the time these Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines were
published, a methodology for evaluating impacts and thresholds of significance related to VMT had not
been adopted for the San Diego region. Until the methodology and thresholds are adopted,
Transportation Impact Analysis reports in the City of Carlsbad may not be required to submit VMT with
their technical analysis. However, the need for and approach to VMT analysis may be required for large
scale projects, specific plans or project that are anticipated to result in a significant change in community
VMT. The need for VMT analysis shall be discussed during the approval of the Scoping Agreement.
The U.S. Department of Transportation published the report Evolving Use of Level of Service Metrics in
Transportation Analysis-California Case Study stating: " ... while VMT is a useful umbrella metric for
transportation impacts, it is not designed to be a performance metric for the functioning of the
transportation system. Operating an effective transportation system requires a focus on accessibility for
people and goods to reach destinations in an efficient manner."
3.7 Local Facility Management Zones
There are 25 local facility management zones in the City of Carlsbad. Each zone has an adopted Local
Facility Management Plan (LFMP), which outlines how the zone will be developed, how it will comply with
the Growth Management standards, and what public facilities will be provided. In addition, the plan
outlines how the facilities will be funded.
Projects that amend the General Plan must conduct an LFMP Specific Traffic Impact Analysis to evaluate
the impacts of the General Plan amendment on the facilities located in local facility management zones.
The study area for the LFMP Specific Traffic Impact Analysis report will be defined as: a) the entire local
facilities management zone where the general plan amendment is located and b) all intersections and
March2018 14 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 205 of 612
CCityof
__ T----RA __ N----S_P_O_R_TA_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_L_IN_E_S ______________ Carlsbad
C 4 I i f o r n i a
roadways in other local facility management zones expected to have auto traffic increase by 20% or more
due to trips generated by the General Plan amendment. The SAN DAG Regional Travel Demand Forecast
Model shall be used to determine the extent of the 20% threshold. The scope and extent of the LFMP
study area shall be discussed and confirmed with city staff prior to proceeding with the technical analysis.
All technical analysis for intersections and roadway segments within the LFMP Specific Traffic Impact
Analysis shall conform to the methodologies outlined in these guidelines.
Apri/2018 15 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 206 of 612
{:Cityof
_ _:_T....:..RA....:..N....:..S....:..P..::.O....:..RT..:...;A_T_IO....:..N_;_:_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_AL_Y_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_ES ______________ Carlsbad
California
4. SCENARIOS TO BE STUDIED
After documenting existing conditions, both near-term (within approximately the next five years) and
long-term (usually for a 20-year planning horizon or build-out of the area), analyses are needed. All of the
following scenarios shall be addressed in the TIA (unless there is concurrence with the City Traffic Engineer
or City Engineer that one or more of these scenarios may be omitted):
• Existing Conditions -Document existing traffic volumes and peak-hour levels of service in the study area.
The existing deficiencies and potential mitigation should be identified.
• Existing + Proposed Project -Analyze the impacts of the proposed project on top of existing conditions.
This scenario is typically evaluated to determine if the addition of project traffic to existing traffic will
directly impact the existing roadway network.
• Cumulative Conditions-Analyze the cumulative condition impacts from "other" approved and "reasonably
foreseeable" pending projects that are expected to influence the study area as identified by City staff (e.g.,
application on file, project in the pipeline). This is the baseline against which project impacts are assessed.
City of Carlsbad should provide copies of the TIAs for the "other" projects if available. If data is not available
for near-term cumulative projects, an ambient growth factor should be used.
• Cumulative Conditions+ Proposed Project-Analyze the impacts of the proposed project on top of existing
conditions and near-term projects (along with their committed or funded mitigation measures, if any).
• Horizon Year (Baseline Condition)-Identify Horizon Year (20+ years) future conditions through the output
of the most recent SANDAG Regional Transportation Demand Model or the model approved by the City
Engineer/City Traffic Engineer in the Scoping Agreement. For projects less than 2,400 new project trips per
day, no new model runs are required. Baseline Horizon Year volumes can be determined using existing
available Horizon Year model data provided by SAN DAG for the City of Carlsbad. If the proposed project is
consistent with the land uses represented in the model, the project traffic should be removed from the
Horizon Year forecast volumes to establish the baseline condition. For projects with more than 2,400 new
project trips per day, a new model run will be necessary for the "baseline condition".
• Horizon Year+ Proposed Project -For projects with less than 2,400 new project trips per day, the project
trips shall be added to the Baseline Horizon Year volumes based on trip distribution and assignment
approved by the City Engineer/ City Traffic Engineer in the Scoping Agreement. For projects with more
than 2,400 new project trips per day, a new model run will be necessary for the "with project" conditions
to determine both the distribution of traffic (select zone model run) and Horizon Year volumes
In order to use LOS criteria to measure traffic impact significance, proposed model or manual forecast
adjustments must be made to address scenarios both with and without the project. Model data
should be carefully verified to ensure accurate project and "other" cumulative project representation.
In these cases, regional or sub-regional models conducted by SANDAG need to be reviewed for
appropriateness.
Aprl/2018 16 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 207 of 612
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
CCityof
Carlsbad -------------------------------------
5. TRAFFIC GENERATION
Use of the SAN DAG "Traffic Generators" manual and "(Not So) Brief Guide ... " trip generation rates shou Id
first be considered. Next, consider rates from ITE's latest "Trip Generation" manual or "/TE Journal"
articles. If local and sufficient national data do not exist, conduct trip generation studies at sites with
characteristics similar to those of the proposed project. If this is not feasible due to the uniqueness of the
land use, it may be acceptable to estimate defensible trip rates -only if appropriate documentation is
provided. Refer to the section below on special generators and non-conforming land uses for further
information on methodology for conducting trip generation studies.
Reasonable reductions to trip rates may also be considered, including:
• Pass-by and Diverted Traffic on Adjacent Roadways: SANDAG trip reduction factors may be used.
• Transit Oriented Development Transit Trip Reductions: SANDAG trip reduction factors may be used
for developments within a ¼ mile walking distance to a local transit station. This includes this
Poinsettia, Carlsbad Village and The Shoppes at Carlsbad Transit Center.
• Mixed-use Development Trip Reduction: SANDAG MXD and/or ITE Mixed Use trip reduction methods
may be used for projects where multiple, compatible land uses are located within a project site, within
a densely populated region of the city or within a ¼ mile walking distance of compatible supporting
land uses. It should be noted that a project may be considered mixed use based on the surrounding
environment in addition to the land uses·within the project boundary. For example, a retail project
located within a high density residential area may be considered "mixed use" if the site is accessible by
bicycle and by foot and is within ¼ mile of the high density residential area. The applicant shall work
with City staff to determine if a project is considered mixed use and must demonstrate using GIS or
other land use evaluation tool to determine the potential for mixed use trip reduction credits. (e.g. If
a restaurant reduces vehicle trips by SO patrons, then applicant must show there are SO residents
within walking distance of the restaurant use).
Caltrans or adjacent jurisdictions may use different trip reduction rates. Early consultation with all
reviewing agencies is strongly recommended. All trip reduction factors shall be discussed in the Scoping
Agreement with justification for the trip reduction approach and application.
Special generators and non-standard land uses are land uses not included in either the SANDAG "Traffic
Generators, (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates", (April 2002, or most recent
addition) or the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation Manual" (most recent
edition). They may also be defined as land use types included in these manuals, but the project may have
special circumstances that make the trip generation for the proposed facility unique compared to those
included in these standardized manuals.
For projects with special generators or non-standard land uses, a trip generation study will be submitted
to the City with the scoping letter documenting the proposed trip generation rates. The trip generation
study will include data collected for a similar use within the region or other credible information that can
clearly quantify the trips that may be generated by the proposed use. The data collection methodology
shall be in compliance with ITE Trip Generation Study methodologies outlined in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual Volume 1: User's Guide and Handbook. Preparers are
Apr/12018 17 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 208 of 612
CCityof
__ T_RA_N_S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_NA_L_Y_SI_S_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_ES ______________ Carlsbad
Calirotnia
encouraged to contact City staff prior to conducting the trip generation study to confirm assumptions and
methodology. The City will review the trip generation study with the Scoping Agreement and may provide
feedback or request additiona I information as appropriate prior to accepting the special generator or non-
standard land use trip generation rates.
Apri/2018 18 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 209 of 612
CCityor
__ T_RA_N_S_P_OR_T_A_T_IO_N_I_M_PA_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_L_IN_E_S _____________ Carlsbad
Callfocnia
6. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT METHODOLOGY
Project trips can be assigned and distributed either manually or by the SAN DAG model based upon review
and approval of the City Engineer / City Traffic Engineer. The magnitude of the proposed project will
determine which method is employed. All projects generating more the 2,400 new vehicle trips per day
will be required to use SANDAG's Regional Transportation Demand Model for a select zone analysis to
determine trip distribution. Projects generating less than 2,400 new vehicle trips per day will use the
manual trip distribution method.
If the SANDAG model is used, the centroid connectors should accurately represent project access to the
street network. Preferably the project access points would be consistent with the traffic zone connectors
used in the model. Some adjustments to the output volumes may be needed (especially at intersections)
to smooth out volumes, quantify peak volumes, adjust for pass-by and diverted trips, and correct illogical
output.
If the manual method is used, the trip distribution percentages should be derived based on existing traffic
patterns, similar projects or studies conducted within the study area and professional judgement. Trip
distribution will be submitted with the Scoping Agreement and approved by the City Engineer/ City Traffic
Engineer prior to including in the TIA.
April 2018 19 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 210 of 612
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
(City of
Carlsbad ---------------------------------------,. I If or n I •
7. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The TIA shall determine the effect t hat a project will have for each of the previously outlined study
scenarios. Analyses for freeways, roadway segments, intersections, and freeway ramps must be
conduct ed to determine the transportation impacts associat ed with planned development or projects and
are pertinent to t he credibility and confidence the decision-makers have in the res ulting findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
Table 2 out lines the City approved methodologies for TIA analysis to be used along w ith some suggested
software packages and options. Any deviations from Table 2 must be included in the Scoping Agreement .
Table 2: Analysis Methodology
Appropriate Software or
Study Location Methodology Application
Signalized Intersections Queue & Storage Analysis Refer to Section 7.1
Unslgnalized Intersections Warrant Analysis MUTCD-CA (latest edition)
Refer to Section 7.2
Roundabouts Delay and queue analysis SIDRA or Rodel, coordinate
directly with City Staff
Refer to Section 7.3
Arterial and Local Streets 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Capacity Tables
Urban Street Methodology Refer to Section 7 .4
Freeway Segments Caltrans District 11 freeway analysis Caltrans Guidelines
methodology (peak hourV/C) Refer to Section 7.5
Freeway Ramp Metering Regional Transportation Impact Caltrans Guidelines
Analysis Guidelines/Caltrans Refer to Section 7.5
Methodology
Transit, Pedestrians, and Bicycles City of Carlsbad MM LOS Worksheets City of Carlsbad MMLOS Tool
Refer to Section 7.6
Note: Neither the City of Carlsbad nor Ca/trans officially advocate the use of any social software packages, especiolly since new ones are
being developed all the time. However, consistency with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is required based an the City's General Plan Mobllity
Element. The above-mentioned software packages have been utllized locally and found ta be consistent with the latest version of the HCM. Because
it is so Important to have· consistent end results, always consult with all affected Jurisdictions, including Ca/trans, regarding the analytical
techniques and software being considered (especially if they differ from above) for the TIA.
Apri/2018 20 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 211 of 612
~ityof
__ T_RA_N_S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_AL_Y_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_L_IN_E_S ______________ Carlsbad
Cal1fo1nia
7.1 Signalized Intersections
All signalized intersections within the study area are subject to the signalized intersection analysis. The
analysis will address the adequacy of the signalized intersection geometry to serve the existing, forecast
and project traffic through the intersection. As stated previously, all signalized intersection within 0.25
miles ofthe project auto access driveway or intersection shall be evaluated if the project adds trips to the
left turn or right turning movements at the intersection. The signalized study area will be based on trip
generation and trip assignment for the project. Analysis will be based on the following criteria:
• Left turn queue assessment: Compare the left turn volume with the length of the left turn pocket(s). A
general rule of thumb of one foot per left turning vehicle per lane may be used for this analysis.
• Left turn volume: If the left turn volume exceeds 250 vehicles per hour, a second left turn lane is
recommended.
• Right turn volume: If the right turn volume exceeds 150 vehicles per hour, a dedicated right turn lane is
recommended.
7.2 Unsignalized Intersections
Unsignalized intersections located along corridors subject to Auto MM LOS within the project study area
may require a traffic signal warrant analysis. A warrant analysis is required if:
• The unsignalized intersection provides direct access to the project site, or
• The unsignalized intersection provides direct access to a cumulative project considered in the
Transportation Impact Analysis, or
• The unsignalized intersection has been identified by the City as a potential signalized intersection.
A warrant analysis is not required for right turn in/right turn out only intersections or driveways that are
physically restricted by raised center median.
7.3 Roundabout Analysis
Should a project recommend the construction of a new signalized intersection, the intersection shall be
further analyzed using Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) methodology. If the analysis
indicates that a roundabout should be evaluated, analysis shall be conducted using one of the following
methodologies: SIDRA or RODEL. Both programs provide queue and roundabout performance data that
should be integrated into the traffic analysis report for roundabout controlled intersections. Both
programs provide results that are compatible with HCM 2010 and HCM Edition 6 roundabout capacity
models, allowing the results of this analysis to be consistent with the requirements of the City General
Plan Mobility Element.
According to the Highway capacity Manual, roundabout operations are defined solely on the control delay
of the intersection which is calculated for each approach as well as for the overall intersection. If the
volume to capacity ratio of an approach exceeds 1.0 however, the overall intersection operation is
determined to be LOS F. Table 4 defines the levels of service for roundabouts.
Apri/2018 21 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 212 of 612
CCityof
__ T_RA_N_S_P_O_R_TA_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_L_IN_E_S ______________ Carlsbad
Ca I i f o r n i a
Table 4: Roundabout Level of Service Thresholds
0-10 A F
>10-15 B F
>15-25 C F
>25-35 D F
>35-50 E F
>SO F F
Source: Highway Capacity Manual
7.4 Local & Arterial Street Operational Analysis
Vehicular LOS is a general measure of vehicle traffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade, from
LOS A (no congestion) to F (high levels of congestion), is assigned. The flow of vehicles without significant
impediments is considered "stable" whereas when traffic encounters interference that limits the capacity
acutely, the flow becomes "unstable." These grades represent the perspective of drivers only and are an
indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving, as well as speed, travel time, traffic
interruptions, and freedom to maneuver. The level of service grades are generally defined as follows:
• LOS A represents free flow travel for vehicles. Individual users are virtually unaffected by other vehicles in
the traffic stream.
• LOS B represents stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable.
• LOS C represents a range in which the influence of traffic density on operations becomes noticeable. The
ability to maneuver within the traffic stream and to select an operating speed is now clearly affected by the
presence of other vehicles.
• LOS D borders on unstable flow. Speeds and ability to maneuver are severely restricted because of traffic
congestion.
• LOS E represents unstable operating conditions at or near the capacity level where maneuverability is
severely limited.
• LOS Fis used to define forced or a breakdown traffic flow.
Roadways within the project study area subject to Auto MM LOS standards shall be evaluated using the
most current version of the Highway Capacity Manual, as outlined in the City's General Plan Mobility
Element (2015). Roadway Capacity Tables derived from the Highway CaJ:)aci!Y._Manual were developed
specifically for each roadway subject to MM LOS in the City of Carlsbad. The specific capacity calculated
for each roadway takes into account key geometric and operational factors including number of lanes,
type of facility, intersection cycle length, distance between intersections, and other factors related to lane
capacity and signal operations. The capacity for each roadway segment was calculated using the ARTPLAN
software, which was developed using the capacity calculations outlined in the HCM. The ARTPLAN
software package is used nationally as a planning tool, but alternative methods can be used to calculate
roadway segment capacity.
Apri/2018 22 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 213 of 612
CCityor
__ TR_A_N_S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_I_M_PA_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_ES ______________ Carlsbad
Caldornla
The City of Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables provide the directional capacity for each roadway segment
subject to MMLOS analysis in the General Plan Mobility Element. To evaluate the operating conditions
along a study corridor, peak hour volumes should be compared to the Roadway Capacity Tables to
determine the segment operating conditions. The LOS for each segment shall be reported for all study
scenarios in the TIA. Roadway Capacity Tables shall be provided by the City Engineer/ City Traffic Engineer
at the time of project initiation when the Scoping Agreement is approved.
7.5 State Owned Facility Level of Service (Freeways, Interchanges, Ramps, Ramp Meters)
Analysis of State Owned facilities will be conducted in compliance with District 11 Transportation Impact
Analysis requirements. At the time the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines was published, the Guide for
the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002) was the guiding documents for State Owned
facilities in San Diego County and it called for applying the following methodologies:
• Freeway Segments -Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), operational analysis
• Weaving Areas -Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM)
• Ramps and Ramp Junctions -HCM, operational analysis or caltrans HDM, Caltrans Ramp Metering
Guidelines (most recent edition)
7.6 Pedestrians, Bicycles and Transit Level of Service Analysis
The City's MM LOS methodology provides a qualitative "grade" assigned to travel modes, ranging from a
level of service (LOS) A to LOS F. LOS A reflects a high service standard for a travel mode (e.g. outstanding
characteristics and experience for that mode) and LOS F would reflect a poor service standard for a travel
mode (e.g. congestion for vehicles, inadequate bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities, etc.). The City's
General Plan established a standard of LOS Dor better only for the travel mode(s) subject to the MM LOS
standard for the designated roadway typology as identified in the table below consistent with Mobility
Element Table 3-1.
In 2016, the City developed a method for evaluating MMLOS. Each non-auto travel mode (pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit) receives its own LOS score and corresponding letter grade as shown in Table 5. The
City strives to maintain LOS D or better on each roadway for each mode of travel that is subject to this
standard.
As part of the City's Mobility Element, streets were classified into typologies as illustrated previously in
Figure 1 consistent with Table 3-1 of the Mobility Element. As stated in the Mobility Element, the typology
of the roadway section determines witch modes of travel are subjected to the LOS D standard. The intent
is to provide a balanced mobility system that emphasizes primary users as opposed to always providing
ideal level of service for all modes on every facility.
Apri/2018 23 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 214 of 612
~ityof
__ TR_A_N_S_PO_R_T_A_TI_O_N_IM_PA_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_U_N_ES ______________ Carlsbad
Califo,nia
Table 5: MMLOS Level of Service Thresholds
90-100 A
80-89 B
70-79 C
60-69 D
50-59 E
0-49 F
Source: City of Carlsbad, MMLOS Worksheet
Street typologies are provided on the following pages.
The City has developed a detailed MM LOS Tool to aid in MM LOS analysis methodology. The City Engineer/
City Traffic Engineer shall provide the most current version of the electronic tool at the time the Scoping
Agreement is approved. The following is a brief description of the MMLOS methodology and criteria.
outlined in the City's MM LOS Tool: .
Pedestrian MMLOS for pedestrian priority streets, the MMLOS criteria evaluates the quality of the
pedestrian system (e.g. number of vehicle lanes that need to be crossed and the speed of adjacent traffic;)
and the friendliness of the infrastructure at intersections (e.g. pedestrian countdown heads, dedicated
pedestrian phases [e.g. a scramble phase], curb extensions, refuge median). In addition, the connectivity
and contiguity of the pedestrian system along street sections (particularly ADA-compliant
connectivity/contiguity) is a critical component of pedestrian priority streets.
Bicycle MMLOS for bicycle priority streets, the MM LOS criteria evaluates the quality of the bicycle system
(e.g. bicycle route, bicycle lanes, or bicycle pathway; presence of bicycle buffers from the vehicle travel
way), the amenities of the system (e.g. presence of bicycle parking), and the friendliness of the
infrastructure (e.g. bicycle detection at intersections, pavement conditions, presence of vehicle parking).
In addition, the connectivity and contiguity of the bicycle system along street sections is a critical
component of pedestrian priority streets.
Transit MMLOS for transit priority streets, the MMLOS criteria evaluates the transit vehicle right-of-way
(e.g. dedicated or shared, signal priority), hours and frequency of service (e.g. weekday/weekend hours,
peak period highway); performance (e.g. on-time or late); amenities and safety (e.g. lighting, covered stop,
bench, on-board bike/surfboard storage); and connectivity (e.g. to other transit routes, employment
areas, schools, visitor attractions, and other major destinations).
Apri/2018 24 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 215 of 612
(City of
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad _ ____;_.:..;;_~:..:..._:;_;.;..:.:....:..:....:...:.:.:....:.----------------------------------Ca 1 Jr o t n I a
STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES
ACCOMMODATED SUBJECT STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES
MODES TOMMLOS
STANDARD (YIN)
Freeways
& y • HlgMpeed facilities designed to accommodate vehicles and bUHS moving through the
city and region
oiiiiiiiiiiiii; y • Blcydes and pedestrians are prohibited
Arterial Streets
y • These are the primary vehicle routes through the city for both local and regional whlde
trips.
• Designed to safely ITICMI ell modes of travel while effldently moving vehicles and buses
throughout the city . ----------·----... ---
N • T...ttk signals shall .be t00rdinated to optimize vehicle movements
• Bi(ycle lanes shall be provided and can be further enhanced or complemented by other
facilities 0t off-street pathways
• Pedestrian facilities to be provided consistent with ADA requirements
N • Mid-block crossings should not be provided
• On-m-eet perking should be prohibited along these torrldors
• Vertlcal traffic calming techniques (such as speed tablu, humps. etc.) should not be
considered ---a y • Special considerations can be considered on arterials within proximity to schools to
enh1nat Safe Routes to Schools for pedestrians and blcydlsts.
----------·----·--. ---
Identity Streets
Ii;. N • 11-streets provide th• primary aCXfls to ■nd from the i-t of the city • the Vill■g■
• Designed to safely move all modes of trftel whlle enhancing mobility for pedestrians
and bicyclists
• Vehlde speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bleyde mowment
• No pedestrian shall aoM more tha, five vehicular trawl ■nd/or turn lanes
• In add"itlon to ADA compliant ramps and sldew11lks, sidewalks should support the adja•
c»nt land uses as follows:
~ y -Adjacent to retell uses, modifledhlew sldewalks should generally be a minimum of
10 feet (12 feet preferred) In width where fusible and taking Into consider.tlon the
traffic volumes of the adjacent roadway, and allow for the land use to utlllze the
sidewalk with outdoor SNting and other activities
-Adjacent to residential uses, modified/new sidewalks should be a minimum of 5ix
fNtlnwidth
El"8Where, modified/new sldewallcs should be a minimum of eight feet In width
16 y • Where feasible, bicyde lanes should be provided
• Vehld• Sl)ffds should complement the adjac»nt land uses
• Bicycle parking should be provided In retail areas
• Bike racks should be readily provided within the public right-of-way and encouraged on
private property
• Traffic calming devices, such as curb extensions (bulbouts) or enhanced pedestrian
aossings should be considered and evaluated few Implementation
oiiiiiiiiiiiii; N • Strfftfumiture shall be orl,nwd toward the busillflHI
• Mid-block. pedestrian croulngs could be provided at appropriate loations (e.g. where
sight distanm Is adequate and speeds are appropriate)
• On-street vehicle parking should be provided. In areas with high parking demand, in-
novatlve perking management techniques should be Implemented/ a>Midered
• Pedestrians should typically be •buffered• from vehicle traffic using landscaping or
parked vehicles
Apr/12018 25 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 216 of 612
(Cityof
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad ____ .:....;:._;,___---'------------------------------,•Ii r o, n I a
STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES
ACCOMMODATED SUBJECT STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED AllRIBUTES
MODES TOMMLOS
STANDARD (YIN)
VIiiage Streets .-. N I • Primary purpoH Is to mCIIII! people throughout the VIiiage; pl'OYiding aa:en to bus!-
! nenes, residences, transit and reaelltlon Within the Village area.
• Designed to safely move ell modes of trawl while enhan<ing mobility for pedlftriens
"'
y and bicyclists.
• Vehicle $peed$ should be rqneged to promote s.fe pedestrian imd bicycle mtJWment
• Promote pedestri.n and blcyde connectlvlty through short blodt lengths
~ y • Blcyde lanes should be provided ..
I • Blcyde boulevards tan be con51dered
I
• Pedestrians should be l«Offlmodeted on sidewalks adjacent to the travel way (mini-
I mum 5' wide $1d9Walk)
~ N • Mid-block pedestrian crossings and trllffk: calming devices should be considered, but
I only et locations with high ~ri.n actMty levels or major destinations/attractions
• On-street parking may be provided
ArterlalConnecmrStreets
I .. y • Primary purpose Is to (Oflnect people 10 different al'ffS end lend uses of the dty by cx,n--I
nectlng toffrorn arterial strfftl 1
• Designed to safely move all modes of trav.l while enhancing mobility for pedestrians I
"'
y and blcycllsts and effklently moving vehicles b.twffn arterial stlffts.
• llk:yde lanes should be provided
t y • Pedestrians should be ac.c:ommodeted on sidewalks adja(lent to the travel way Cminl-
! mum s• wide sld-allc)
l ---·-· --·-----. • Mid-block pedestrian aosslngs and traffic calming devices should be considered, but
I ___, N only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major destinatlonslattractlons
• On-strN\ parking may be provided ~----·· •--•-. --•-·•
Neighborhood Connector Strut -N • Primary pufPOM rs to (Oflnect people to different neighborhoods and land um of the
dty
• Designed to safely mova all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestriam ----·----------•-•--·•-·-· --
I $t y end bicyclists.
• Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and blcyde movement
·---·-· ·-· • Blcyde lanes should be provided
A y • Bkyde boulevards can btt considered
• Pedestrians should be aca>mmodated on sidewalks adjacent to the travel way (mini-
mum 5' wide sidewalk)
.;iiiiiiiiiiiii N • Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be oonsldered, but
only et loattJons with high pedestri.n activity levels or major destlmrtlons/attractlons
• On-street parking may be provided i
Apr/I 2018 26 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 217 of 612
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
(City of
Carlsbad ---------------------------------------( a 1J f o I' o I I
STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES
ACCOMMODATED SUBJECT STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES
MODES TOMMLOS
STANDARD (VIN)
Employment/Transit Connector Streets ... N • Prlmuy purpose 11 to connect people to ind from the employment ar11s of the city, u
-II • Important dnti111tions and major transit fac:llltles.
-------• Designed to safely move 111 modes of travel whUe enh1ndng mobility for pedesttians
~ y end bkydlm end effldentty moving buses to employment. transit stations and major
destinations.
------f----··-··-• Vehlde speeds should be m-ged to promote safe pedest1h1n ind blcyde movement
.'1· y • Direct connections to bus stops should be provided
• Enhlnced bus stops should be comld■red that include sheltlers, benches, end llghting
---•-··• • Bl~le lanes end sldewelks should be provided --, l y
• Pedestrian crossing distances should be minimized
• On-street par1clng may be provided
CoUUI Street~ -I N • Primary purpose Is to move people along the dty's OCHn waterfront and connect I p■ople to th• beach, recrutfon, buslnlSleS and resldenats In dose proximity to the
waterfront. The rtrNt MMtS as a destination for people who seek to drive, walk ind
blcyde along the 00Nn waterfront.
I • Designed to safely move ell modes of travel while enhlndng mobility for pedestrians
' end bkydlsts.
1-t I y • Vehkle speeds shall be man19ed to support uses along tht co11t
• Enhanced blcyde and pedestrian crossings should be provided, including:
-High visibility cro5SW1lks
-En"-nced pedestriln notlfkatlons (e.g. responsive push-button devices) ---------Enhanced blcyde detection A y
I
-Blcyde lana shell be provided end Clfl be further~ or complemem.d by
other fecllltles {wch es bkyde line buffers or off-street pattiw.ys)
• Pedestrian facllltlel should bee minimum of flw feet ind shill strlvll for six to eight
feet In width and shell conform to ADA r■qulrements
~ N • Pedestrian ao551ng dbtal!C95 should be minimized
• Trell facilities should be encouraged
• Opportunities for mid-block pedestriln crossings should be rnvest1g1ted
I • On-street p1r1'1n9 should be provided
• Tr1nslt facility and operation lmprovemenu should be 1ncour1ged
April 2018 27 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 218 of 612
(c iryor
__ T_RA_N_S_P_O_R_TA_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_L_IN_E_S ______________ Carlsbad
C ol i f otnl a
STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES
ACCOMMODATED SUBJECT STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBllrES
MODES TOMMLOS
STANDARD (YIN)
School Streets
N • Primary purpose ls to connect people to schools from nNrby residential neighbor•
hoods.
• Designed to safely move 111 modes of travel with an emphllsls on prCJYldlng safe pedes-
trlan and bicycle access for students traveling to and from nearby schools.
ij y • Vehlde speeds shall be man.gee! to support school UHS (typlally 25 MPH)
• Enlwnced blcyde and pedestrian crossings should be provided, lndudlng:
-High vlslbillty Cl'OSSMllks
-Enhanced pedestrian notlflatlons (e.s. responsive push-button devices)
i y · -Enhanc.d blcycla detection
-Blcycle i.nes $hill be provided imd can be further enhanc.d or complemented by
other flldlltles or off-street pathways
·------• Pedistrlan fldlltles should be a minimum of six feet and shall strive for eight feet In , N width and shall <X>nform to ADA requirements
• Pedestri.n aosslng di5bnces 5houkl be minimized
• Opportunities for mid-block pedestrian crossings should be lnvastlgat'ed
• Traffic calmlng devices that improve service levels and 51fety for pedin1Jlans and blcy-
dlsts shoukl be comiderwd ~--··--·-· -·---·---------Industrial Streets .. y • Primary purpose is 110 connect people to busln-withln the city's Industrial parks.
• Designed to~-■II modes of tram while effldently moving vehldes and bU5es
$.f N from ■rterial streets and employmentnr..sit connector streets to businesses.
• Traffic calmlng devices are generally dlsa>uraged given the propensity for larger trucks
and heavy vehicles ln this area
lb N • On-ttreet parking may be provided as long H It does not interfere with the tu ming
r■dil of huvy whldes.
~ y
Local/Neighborhood Street
' N • Prim11ry purpose is to connect people to and through residential neighborhoods end
local •ea of the city.
• Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians -------and blcydlsts. t, y • Vehicle speeds 5hould be m■n■ged to promote 51fe pedestrian and bicyde movement
• Pedestrians should be acx:ommodated on a sidewalk or soft surface trail (such as de-
00fflposed granite} unless tho5e fadlltles are Inconsistent with the exlstl.ng desirable
t y neighborhood character
• Bkydes c::an be aa:omrnodeted with a blcyde lane or route If vehicle volumes and/or
speeds necessit■tr. otherwise bicycles ain 5here the strfft
~ N
• Bkyde boulevards can be considered
• Traffic calming meuures should be considered when supported by the neighborhood
or when wur■nted for s■fety l'MSOns
• On-street parking should be considered
Apri/2018 28 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 219 of 612
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
(City of
Carlsbad -------------------------------------,•I If o r n i •
8. SIGNIFICANCE OF AUTO IMPACTS TO CONSIDER MITIGATION
8.1 Thresholds of Significance
The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program "Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (last
amended August 22, 2017}" states that the performance standard for the circulation system is as follows:
Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves a/I users of the system -vehicles,
pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS Dor better for a/I 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.
Section 21.90.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management) states t hat:
If at any time after preparation of the local facilities management plan the performance standards
established by a plan are not met then no development permits or building permits sha/1 be issued within
the local zone until the performance standard is met or arrangements satisfactory to the City Council
guaranteeing the facilities and improvement have been made.
To comply with the Growth Management Program, all roadway facilities identified as not meeting the
performance standard (LOS D) in the existing conditions scenario (see Section 4) must be fully mitigated
regardless of the project impact to that facility, or the TIA must request an exemption from the LOS D
standard according to the Mobility Element Implementing Policy 3-P.9:
Aprl/2018
Develop and maintain a list of street facilities where specific 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 outlines 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 made of travel is exempt from the LOS standard, other nan-vehicle
capacity-building improvements will be required to improve mobility through implementation of
transportation demand and transportation system management measures as outlined in Policy 3-P.ll, to
the extent feasible, and/or to implement the livable streets goals and policies of this Mobility Element.
. Evaluate the list of exempt street facilities, as part of the Growth Management monitoring program, ta
determine if such exemptions ore still warranted.
To exempt the vehicle mode of travel from the LOS standard at a particular street intersection or segment,
the intersection or street segment must be identified as built-out by the City Council because:
29 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 220 of 612
{Cityof
__ T_RA_N_S_P_O_R_TA_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_L_IN_E_S ______________ Carlsbad
C•l\fo t nl t
a. Acquiring the rights of way is not feasible; or
b. The proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment in an
unacceptable way and mitigation would not contribute to the nine core values of the
Carlsbad Community Vision; or
c. The proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other community
values or General Plan policies; or
d. The proposed improvements would require more than three through travel lanes in each
direction.
The project causes a significant impact to the transportation facility in the study area if one or more of
the following criteria is met:
• The roadway facility is projected to exceed the LOS D standard (see Section 7.4) and the project's traffic
meets or exceeds the t hresholds of significance listed in Table 6; or
• A ramp meter delay exceeds 15 minutes (see Section 7.5) and the project's traffic meets or exceeds the
thresholds of significance listed in Table 6; or
• The addition of project results in a change in LOS from acceptable (LOS Dor better) to deficient (LOS E or F)
on a roadway segment, freeway segment or ramp; or
• The project results in a change in conditions on a roadway segment, freeway segment or ramp that exceeds
the allowable thresholds (outlined in Table 6) for locations operating at a deficient LOS without the project
(baseline conditions).
Table 6: Measure of Significant Project Traffic Impacts Roadways Subject to the Vehicle MMLOS
Standard
.,,, ..... ~ . ---11 .. ,.,,,l,rn•la.■ ~ 1artut1.., . ·-· .,. ... .
Any trip added to a segment forecast to operate at deficient LOS requires project
Roadway Segment mitigation; Project mitigation will be determined based on project contribution to the
identified impact.
Freeway Segment 1% increase in V /C or 1 mph decrease in speed
Ramp Meter 2-minute increase
The project can have either a direct or cumulative impact as follows:
• Direct Impacts: any significant impact identified under existing conditions. Direct impacts shall be fully
mitigated by the project.
• Cumulative Impacts: any significant impact identified under Cumulative and Horizon Year conditions.
Aprif 2018
Cumulative impacts may be mitigated through fair share contribution. Projects identified for fair share
contribution should be included in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) or Transportation Impact
Fee (TIF) program.
30 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 221 of 612
(Cityof
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad _;_ __________________________________ ( a I If Of n I a
Any roadway section that is identified as having a significant impact must either:
• Mitigate the traffic impact to pre-project conditions, or
• Request LOS exemption from City Council for the LOS standard and identify feasible TSM & TDM mitigation
8.2 Mitigation
The TIA report shqll identify mitigation measures for all identified significant impacts. The TIA must
demonstrate that the mitigation measures project that the roadway facilities in the study area will meet
the applicable auto LOS standard under all scenarios studied (see Table 1 and Section 4).
The project can request the roadway facility to be exempt if the request complies with Mobility Element
Implementing Policy 3-P.9. Exemptions are considered and approved by City Council. Should the
exemption be granted by City Council, mitigation will include appropriate Travel Demand Management
(TDM) and Transportation System Management (TSM) measures. Examples of TDM measures will be
provided by the City Engineer/ City Traffic Engineer at the time the Scoping Agreement is approved.
If the project adds traffic to a facility that has been previously classified as exempt from the auto LOS
standard, project mitigation will include appropriate Travel Demand Management (TDM) and Traffic
System Management (TSM) measures. Examples ofTDM measures will be provided by the City Engineer
/ City Traffic Engineer at the time the Scoping Agreement is approved.
8.3 State c;>wned Facility Mitigation
In addition, the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element requires
future development projects, which are determined during
site-specific environmental review to have a significant
impact on freeway facilities (1-5 and SR-78), to participate
in a freeway traffic mitigation program that has been
approved by the city that will avoid, reduce or offset the
increase in freeway traffic directly attributable to the
proposed project or the impact will be considered
significant and unavoidable. The mitigation program may
include, but is not limited to, payment of a fair share fee to
Caltrans for necessary improvements to affected freeway
facilities or to NCTD or such other transit agency for
improvement of public transit on affected freeways, or
such other activities as will avoid, reduce or offset the
project's significant impacts on freeway facilities.
Note: It is the responsibility of Ca/trans,
on Ca/trans initiated projects, to mitigate the
effect of ramp metering, for initial as well as
future operational impacts, on local streets
that intersect and feed entrance ramps to
the freeway. Developers and/or local
agencies, however, should be required to
mitigate any impact to existing ramp meter
facilities, future ramp meter installations, or
local streets, when those impacts are
attributable to new development and/or
local agency roadway improvement projects.
8.4 Transportation Demand Management & Transportation System Management
Not all mitigation measures must directly Improve the facility directly impacted by the project (e.g., add a
new lane to increase roadway capacity). Technology improvements that expand the transportation
system capacity may also be considered as project mitigation. For example, the installation of adaptive
signals that can be controlled from the City's Transportation Management Center (TMC) may be a feasible
mitigation along one of the City's identified adaptive signal control corridors. Payment toward a TSM
project may be considered feasible mitigation.
Apri/2018 31 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 222 of 612
(City of
__ T_RA_N_S_P_O_R_TA_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_L_IN_E_S ______________ Carlsbad
C1llfo,n f a
Other mitigation measures may include financial participation in Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) strategies. Examples of these TDM projects include transit facilities, bike facilities, walkability,
telecommuting, traffic rideshare programs, flex-time, carpool incentives, parking cash-out. Additional
mitigation measure may become acceptable as future technologies and policies evolve.
8.5 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Operational Improvements
Operational improvements may be necessary at signalized and unsignalized intersections that have been
identified as exceeding the operational standards outlined in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. The following will be
used to determine the need for operational improvements at intersections Included In the study area:
Signalized Intersections: The project will identify specific operational issues (e.g., queues projected to exceed
storage capacity). Working with the City Traffic Engineer / City Engineer improvements will be identified to
address the operational Issues.
Unsignallzed Intersections: The project will identify if signal warrants are met for all project scenarios evaluated.
Based on the findings of the warrant analysis and the timing of the warrants met, the City Engineer/City Traffic
Engineer will determine if a traffic signal is needed and the project responsibility for contributing or constructing
the traffic signal.
Apr/12018 32 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 223 of 612
(City of
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad
-----------------------------------( 11 I f or n i a
9. SIGNIFICANCE OF PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT SYSTEM. IMPACTS TO CONSIDER
MITIGATION
This section presents the methodology to identify project-related impacts to pedestrian, bicycle and
transit systems that would require mitigation measures. The following criteria are used to identify
pedestrian, bicycle and transit system impacts in the defined study area:
• Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities within the study area (as defined in Section 3) where the existing
condition is LOS E or F; or
• Identification of any "gaps" in the pedestrian and bicycle networks
Potential mitigation measures could include constructing or a fair share contribution toward the financing
of feasible capital improvement projects related to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Where
applicable a project could contribute a fee toward local or citywide transit capital improvements, or
participate in TOM measures that support transit operations.
Because of the qualitative nature of the MM LOS methodology, a project impact is significant if an existing
pedestrian, bicycle or transit facility is determined to not meet the LOS D standard regardless of the
forecasted number of project trips expected to use the facility. An impact occurs and is deemed significant
if:
• an existing facility in the project study area does not meet the pedestrian, bicycle or transit LOS standard,
or
• the project causes a standard facility to become substandard (e.g., removal of an existing bike lane or bus
stop, or blocking pedestrian access), or
• a gap is identified in or directly adjacent to the study area reiated to pedestrian, bicycle or transit service
to the project site.
Apr/12018 33 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 224 of 612
(City of
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad ---------------------Ctll fotnl•
Aprtl 2018
APPENDIX A
SCOPING AGREEMENT
34 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 225 of 612
(City of
__ T_RA_N_S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_L_IN_E_S ______________ Carlsbad
CI 11 r O ( n I ,1
Apri/2018
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPING AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
This letter acknowledges the Qty of carlsbad Traffic Engineering Division requirements for the transportation
Impact analysis of the following project. The analysis must follow the latest City of cartsbad Transportalon
Impact Study Guidelines dated September 2017.
Case No.
Project Name:
Project location:
Project Description: ______________________________ _
Related Cases •
SP No.
EIR No.
GPA No. _______________________________ _
CZ No.
Consultant Developer
Name:
Address:
Telephone: _____________ _
A. Trip Generation Source: _________________________ _
Extended land Use _________ _ Proposed land Use ____________ _
Extended Zoning Proposed Zoning
Total Daily Trips Forcast Dally Trips ____________ _
(Attach a trip generation table. Describe Trip Reduction Factors proposed and lnduded In the trip generation table.)
B. Trip Distribution: D Select Zone (Model Series __ )
(Provide exhibit for detailed trip distribution and assignment.)
C. Background Traffic
Phased Project D No 0 Yes Phases: -----------------
Please contact the Engineering Devision or use the most recentiv provided data
Model/Forcast Methodology: __________________________ _
35 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 226 of 612
CCityof
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad _ __:_...:...::_..:;,_:_~..:::..;c....:......,;_;_....:....___;___;___;'-"------------------------------, a Id or n i 9;
Apri/2018
D. Study Intersections: (NOTE: Subject to revision after other projects, trip generation and distribution are
determined, or comments)
1.
2.
3.
4.
---------------
5. -----------------
6. -----------------
7. -----------------
8. -----------------
E. Study Roadway Segments: (NOTE: Subject to revision after other projects, trip generation and
distribution are determined, or comments)
1.
2.
3.
4. ----------------
F. Other Jurisdictional Impacts
s. -----------------6. ________________ _
7. -----------------
8. -----------------
Is this project within any other Agency's Sphere of Influence or one-mile radius of boundaries? D Yes D No
If so, name of Jurisdiction: ----------------------------
G. Site Plan (Attach a legible ll'X17' copy)
H. Specific issues to be adressed in the Study (in addition to the standard analysis described In the
Guidelines) (To be filled out by Engineering Devision)
Recommended by:
Consultant's Representative
Scoping Agreement submitted on
Scoping Agreement Resubmitted on
Approved Scoping Agreement:
City of Carlsbad
Traffic Engineering Division
Date
Date
Date
Date
36 I Page
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 227 of 612
Morgen Fry
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments proposal
· From: MaryAnne Orcu_tt
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 8:00 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments proposal
To: Council@Carlsbadca.gov
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
All Receive -Agenda Item# .kl,
For th~ Information of the:
·····: · -~-Dateitl/i}J~~!\£-tl -----•·
CM _l[_ ~00 ti DCl\f(3) _!l.
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to ·
council.
Romeria Pointe Apartments was approved by City Planning on March 20th, 2019. I appreciate
you taking the time to hear my concerns regarding this project.
All projects up to March 2019 for this land had been denied by the city because of soil
issues. Those ofusin the neighborhood assumed this would be the case on the evenip.g of the
March 20th.
There is great concern that the extreme site work taking place like mass excavation and piles drilled
down into bedrock will disrupt near by land leading to public safety issues such as slippage.
The GeoSoils Inc. report dated November 21 , 2017 st!ltes the following which
addresses our concern of soil and slope stability:
"On a preliminary basis, the feasibility of storm water infiltration at the subject site is considered
very low, owing to the fine.,.grained nature of the onsite earth materials and the occurrence of
relatively dense formational materials underlying the existing fills, and extending to depth. If
storm water were to infiltrate, it would most likely perch upon till lifts or the Santiago Formation
and migrate laterally, This may have detrimental effects (i.e, distress) on onsite and of:tsite
improvements, including public and private underground utiHty trenches, and slope stability, The
potential for onsite storm water infiltration to induce offsite damage is considered moderate for
the site."
Please keep,us safe. Please support our appeal.
Also, I am very concerned about parking and noise. Already, Gibraltar Street is very crowded with cars, and although we
have a driveway and a two car garage, there are times that cars are blocking our driveway, and there are certainly no
other places on the street for our guests to park. How can this be made worse with 23 additional units?
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 228 of 612
We bought our property because the street was very quiet. I am very concerned that the noise will increase significantly
with this overcrowding. Why would Carlsbad approve a building project this large for such a small lot? There are no
other 4 story buildings on the street, all the other buildings are one and two stories. I fear that this will lower the value
of our property.
' '.
Please reconsider at minimum the density, if not the whole project.
Thank yciu for ·your rionsideration. ·f ~ • • ~
r' •-· f
Sincerely,
Mary Anne Orcutt
Carlsbad, CA 92008.
2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 229 of 612
Morgen Fry
Subject: FW: re-Romeria Pointe Apartments
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 6:45 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: re-Romeria Pointe Apartments .
To all Members,
We sincerely ask your good judgment on this situation!
This area is already congested-parking is a real problem! Builders are not concerned about what
they are doing to the neighborhood!
Will you please not allow this to happen here!! Thank you,
Sammy Jo Reeder- Carlsbad, Ca
.. ---·-··-··-..... -·-~--------------
_. e Virus-free. www.avast.com
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 230 of 612
Morgen Fry
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments
From: John Cornacchione
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 9:32 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
. Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
. Romeria Pointe Apartments was approved by City Planning on March 20th, 2019. I appreciate you taking the
time to hear my concerns regarding this project.
All projects up to March 2019 for this land had been denied by the city because of soil issues. Those ofus in
the neighborhood assumed this would be the case on_ the evening of the March 20th.
There is great concern that the extreme site work taking place like mass excavation and piles drilled down into
bedrock will disrupt near by land leading to public safety issues such as slippage.
The GeoSoils Inc. report dated November 21, 2017 states the following which addresses our
concern of soil and slope stability:
"On a preliminary basis, the feasibility of storm water infiltration at the subject site is considered very lo~,
owing to the fine-grained nature of the onsite earth materials and the occurrence of relatively dense formational
materials underlying the existing fills, and extending to depth. If storm water were to infiltrate; it would most
likely perch upon till lifts or the Santiago Formation and migrate laterally, This may have detrimental effects
(i.e, distress) on onsite and off site improvements, including public and private underground utility trenches, and
slope stability, The potential for onsite storm water infiltration to induce offsite damage is considered moderate
for the site."
Please keep us safe. Please support our appeal.
John Cornacchione
Carlsbad, CA 92009
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 231 of 612
Morgen Fry
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments
From: hen <
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 10:01 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments
THANK YOU FOR READING THIS
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
Please include this email into the Public Records and Staff Reports
My name is Susan Ortman and I live at 7551 Romeria Street, Carlsbad 92009. My property is adjacent and next door to
the pending Romeria Pointe Development of the Four Story 23 Apartments.
Due to circumstances which I will outline I am asking the Council to take a further look into this development.
Five years ago our small five unit town home complex had to undergo an extensive lift on the Northside of our
building. This was due to land slippage and movement in the area. Our geologist stated that this particular area is
unstable which has been verifired by the Geologist that was hired by the Romeria Point Development. I would also like to .
point out that that report was done on THREE Stories and not four.
There is also a water run off area that I believe is part of the Storm Water system that has not been addressed by the
Council. An extensive $400,00 project was completed on the corner of La Costa Ave and South Corner of Romeria but it
has not been extended to the North side. The building below us Gulf Crest gets problems from the storm water channel
which runs alongside the building plots. There is a hill that runs that side too which all presents safety issues. Fortunately
to date there have been no accidents.
If this project is allowed to continue under its present guise then I fear there will be severe problems that will only come to
light once the project has commenced. I believe there needs to be more due diligence done and investigation by the
Council.
Thank you for taking the time to read this
Sincerely,
Susan Ortman
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 232 of 612
Morgen Fry
Subject: FW: Public Hearing for Lots 393 and 394 of La Costa South Unit No. 5
From: Reta Mercedes Parker
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 10:24 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Public Hearing for Lots 393 and 394 of La Costa South Unit No. 5
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
Romeria Pointe Apartments was approved by City Planning on March 20th, 2019. I appreciate you taking the time to
hear my concerns regarding this project.
All projects up to March 2019 for this land had been denied by the city because of soil issues. Those of us in the
neighborhood ass.urned this would be the case on the evening of the March 20th.
There is great concern that the extreme site work taking place like mass excavation and piles drilled down into
bedrock will disrupt near by land leading to public safety issues such as slippage.
The GeoSoils Inc. report dated November 21, 2017 states the following which addresses our concern of soil and slope
stability:
"On a preliminary basis, the feasibility of storm water infiltration at the subject site is considered very low, owing to the
fine-grained nature of the onsite earth materials and the occurrence of relatively dense formational materials underlying
the existing fills, and extending to depth. If storm water were to infiltrate, it would most likely perch upon till lifts or the
Santiago Formation and migrate laterally, This may have detrimental effects (i.e, distress) on onsite and offsite
improvements, including public and private underground utility trenches, and slope stability, The potential for
onsite storm water infiltration to induce offsite damage is considered moderate for the site."
In addition, the last thing we could want happen is a hillside incident during a heavy rain season, similar to what happen
back in 2005 at the Marbella condominium complex down the street.
Please keep us safe. Please support our appeal.
Reta Mercedes Parker
Carlsbad, CA 92009
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 233 of 612
Morgen Fry
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apts
From: Carmen Altamirano
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 10:56 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Apts
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
Romeria Pointe Apartments was approved by City Planning on March 20th, 2019. I appreciate you taking the time to
hear my concerns regarding this project.
All projects up to Ma,rch 2019 for this land had been denied by the city because of soil issues. Those of us in the
neighborhood assumed this would be the case on the evening of the March 20th.
There is great concern that the extreme site work taking place like mass excavation and piles drilled down into
bedrock will disrupt near by land leading to public safety issues such as slippage.
The GeoSoils Inc. report dated November 21, 2017 states the following which addresses our concern of soil and slope
stability:
"On a preliminary basis, the feasibility of storm water infiltration at the subject site is considered very low, owing to the
fine-grained nature of the onsite earth materials and the occurrence of relatively dense formational materials underlying
the existing fills, and extending to depth. If storm water were to infiltrate, it would most likely perch upon till lifts or the
Santiago Formation and migrate laterally, This may have detrimental effects (i.e, distress) on onsite and offsite
improvements, including public and private underground utility trenches, and slope stability, The potential for
onsite storm water infiltration to induce offsite damage is considered moderate for the site."
Please keep us safe. Please support our appeal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Carmen Altamirano
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Sent from my iPhone
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 234 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 235 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 236 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 237 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 238 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Stuart Knecht <
Monday, June 10, 2019 8:23 AM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe Apartments Appeal
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall:
All Receive -Agenda Item # l1--
For the Information of the:
t;:IT'( COUNCIL
Pere "'L!e\u ca ✓ cc v
CMJL._COO ✓ocM{3) ✓
I am writing to urge you to overturn the previous approval of the Romerio Pointe Apartments project. As you
are most likely aware, the November 21; 2017 report by GeoSoils, Inc. raised concerns about soil and slope
stability. It is my understanding that all proposed projects prior to the current project had been denied by the
city because of soil issues. As an attorney, I suspect the city could face liability, or, at the least, litigation should
this project proceed and adjacent properties be adversely affected.
In addition, as a property owner on Gibraltar Street, I am greatly concerned about the adverse impact of this
proposed project on existing property owners. Parking on this street is already greatly congested to the point
' ' '
that some parkers have actually blocked our access to our driveway. In addition, the noise, traffic and -
overcrowding that wil.l be caused by this proposed project will significantly diminish the quality of the existing
neighborhood.
For these reasons, I strongly urge you to reconsider the approval of this project and to reverse that decision.
I request that this .email be included in the public records and staff reports submitted to the Carlsbad City
Council.
Sincerely,
R. Stuart Knecht
Carlsbad 92009
Sent from my iPad
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 239 of 612
Andrea Dykes,
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mary Surdy
Monday, June 10, 2019 6:22 AM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe Apartments
I am writing to express my opinion on the construction of the Romeria Pointe Apartments in Carlsbad. This issue is being
heard at the Council meeting tomorrow at 4:00 PM. Although I have seen the meeting on video where the majority of
Councilpersons say they drove by and viewed the land for development, no one ever mentioned the overcrowded, high-
density area it is located in . I am not against the development of this vacant lot. I am, however, against the number of
units that are being planned for this property. The current number is 23 units with 39 parking spaces. I believe the
original number of units being planned was 15 and now it's 23. If built as is (23 units and 39 parking spaces, there will be
an overflow out to our streets which are already extremely crowded). There are one, two and three bedroom units
being constructed which will have more than one car per u'nit, sometimes up to three and then their visitors.
On any given day, whether it be in the early morning, early evening and weekends, there are "NO" parking spaces for
guests visiting the area. They sometimes have to park south of La Costa Avenue (blocks away in some cases). Anytime a
guest arrives at our condominium complex, they comment on the number of cars on the street and the crowded
conditions. What adds to this,. even more, is the recent "red curb" striping on Gibraltar, Romeria and Jerez. Although I
understand the need for this, this striping again takes away available parking spaces.
I truly hope you will consider the many requests for residents and homeowners in our community to consider reducing
the number of apartments in this development and/or making it a park.
Thank you for our time and consideration.
Mary Surdy
President/Roundtree Homeowners Association
2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 240 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Liz Ingle
Sunday, June 9, 2019 8:$5 PM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning recently approved the
building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is putting Carlsbad citizens safety at risk.
It is known that this area in LaCosta has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for Romeria
Pointe is extreme. This project will only add additional problems to the ones already in existance with land
slippage and sink holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Li_z Ingle
Carlsbad Ca 92009
Sincerely,
Liz Ingle
Im
3 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 241 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sunday, June 9, 2019 7:37 PM
Council Internet Email
Romeria project
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning recently
approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is putting Carlsbad citizens
safety at risk.
It is known that this area in Lacosta has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for Romeria Pointe is
extreme. This project will only add additional problems to the ones already in existance with land slippage and sink
holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank yc:iu very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Swanson's
4 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 242 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Margaret Dupree
Sunday, June 9, 2019 5:48 PM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall, _
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City
Planning recently approved the building of two 4-story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe
this project is putting Carlsbad citizens' safety at risk.
It is known that this area in La Costa has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for
Romeria Pointe is extreme. This project will only add additional problems to the existing ones with
land slippage and sink holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do NOT allow this project to be
built.
Thank you very much for time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Margaret Dupree
.
Carlsbad,CA 92009
5 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 243 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:.
Subject:
Nataliia Chishcheva
Sunday, June 9, 2019 5:45 PM
Council Internet Email
Planning
Concern --Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
It has come to my attention that City Planning recently approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria
Pointe. I believe this project is putting Carlsbad citizens safety at risk.
There is currently no parking left at night on the streets of Romeria and Gibraltar. The additional units will bring more
cars and will actually eliminate at least 4 current parking spots on Romeria to accommodate entry points for this
apartment complex. As a result, the parking problem will increase exponentially.
There is curren_tly no bus service for the elementary school. These 30+ new children will have to cross La Costa Avenue,
which has two lanes that merge into one at the corner of La Costa and Romeria . This is an extremely dangerous area as
these lanes merge on a downhill slope very close to this traffic light. Traffic on La Costa Avenue is already challenging.
There are no calming devices to slow traffic and we are concerned about the large number of children that would be
walking and crossing the road to go to neighboring schools. We want to ensure there is a plan in plac_e to protect
pedestrians and children in the community.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Nataliia Chishcheva
6 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 244 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Trey Spurlock
Sunday, June 9, 2019 5:24 PM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning
recently approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I beHeve this project is
putting Carlsbad citizens safety at risk
It is known that this area in Lacosta has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for Romeria Pointe is
extreme. This project will only add additional problems to the ones already in existence with land slippage and sink
holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Trey Spurlock .
, Carlsbad Ca 92009
7 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 245 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members,
Tetyana Pelypenko
Sunday, June 9, 2019 5:21 PM
Council Internet Email
Planning
Re: Romeria Pointe Apartments
I am writing to you in opposition to the multi family project being considered on Romeria Street and want this letter
entered into the record.
Our group of concerned residents in the La Costa area recently learned about the 4-story project that is proposed on the
corner of Romeria and Gibraltar streets. With 23 total apartments (20 of which are 3 bedroom), we are estimating an
additional 30+ children that will move into the neighborhood.
This project is designed to attract large families with children but lacks the open space that will put those children at risk
due to hazards in the nearby creek. Because there are no parks or play area in the complex, the creek is the only green
space left for children to go.
This area is already a known risk for the City.
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
Tetyana Pelypenko
, Carlsbad, CA 92009
8 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 246 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Andrew Chishchevoy
Sunday, June 9, 2019 5:16 PM
Council Internet Email
Planning
URGENT: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning recenW
approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is putting Carlsbad citizens
safety at risk.
It is known that the Lacosta area has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of this project is massive. There is
already currently issues with water and land slippage in this neighborhood with new development. These issues could
cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens. ·
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Andrew Chishchevoy
9 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 247 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Bergseid <
Sunday, June 9, 2019 2:49 PM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe Development
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City. PJanning
recently approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is
putting Carlsbad citizens safety at risk.
It is known that this area in LaCosta has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for Romeria
Pointe is too much. This project will only add additional problems to the ones already in existence with land
slippage and sink holes.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Mark and Jacqueline Bergseid
Bergseid
10 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 248 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kim Ikehara
Sunday, June 9, 2019 2:40 PM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning recently
approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is putting Carlsbad citizens
safety at risk.
It is known that this area in Lacosta has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for Romeria Pointe is
extreme .. This project will only add additional problems to the ones already in existance with land slippage and sink
holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
) Sincerely
Derek and Kimberly Ikehara
Carlsbad CA 92008
11 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 249 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marshall Spevak
Sunday, June 9, 2019 2:20 PM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning
recently approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is putting
Carlsbad citizens safety at risk.
It is known that this area in Lacosta has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for Romeria
Pointe is extreme. This project will only add additional problems to the ones already in existance with land
slippage and sink holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Marshall Spevak
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 250 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Council Planning Department:
Ann Scott
Saturday, June 8, 2019 8:07 .AM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe apartment Proporal
We live on Gibraltar Street; Carlsbad and are objecting to the large apartment building proposal that is before
Council.
Parking and traffic on both Gibraltar and Romeria Streets are already at a high and we feel adding an
additional 23 family dwellings would cause more chaos and unsafe pedestrian and traffic areas.
There clearly is not enough space for so many more families in this area.
Thank you for considering,
Ann & Jack Scott
Sent from my iPad
13 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 251 of 612
. Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Chad
Friday, June 7, 2019 7:54 PM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad and as a resident/ owner at 7557 Romeria Street,
directly adjacent to the planned construction. It has come to my attention that City Planning recently approved
the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is putting Carlsbad citizens
safety at risk
It is known that the La Costa area has poor soil and storm water issues. The·scope of this project is massive. Our
property was lifted in 2014 costing $25,000. Extensive work will be done for the new project such as MASS
EXCAVATION and piles drilled down into bedrock. Our property is known for.its instability and therefore, could be
dangerous for our persons and property. There is already currently issues with water and land slippage in this
neighborhood with new development, which is of larger scale than originally planned. The Marbella condo
complex on La Costa Ave cost the city millions of dollars after the big rain in 2005 caused eight homes to start
sliding off the hill. The Rose Canyon Fault runs up to Carlsbad and the extent of this development will weaken our
foundation. This could lead to seismic hazard. Past attempts to build have been denied because of the poor soil and
the excavation and subsequent settling could create uneven flatwork which may create trip hazards and
other damage foundations , flat areas of pavement. These issues could cause harm or death to Carlsbad
citizens. There is already a major parking problem in the area, this project adds even more cars
and congestion. Villa Romeria has 3 visitor spots that we already have issues with. New development has NO
VISITOR PARKING. The project has NO visitor parking because of Bonus Density which does not take into account
the existing populations lack of available parking which currently exists. As it is, we have an issue with people
parking on our property that are not visiting Villa Romeria residents. This is unsafe for residents at Villa
Romeria. This is considered trespassing which is a public safety issue. This issue will be multiplied by the
aforementioned issue plus the fact that spots will be taken away on street as the new project needs entrc1nces onto
property.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Chad Peck
Carlsbad, CA 92009
14 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 252 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Penny Carrasco
Friday, June 7, 2019 2:17 PM
Council Internet Email
Re: Automatic reply: Romeria Pointe Apartment -Corner of Gibraltar and Romeria
My email. went forward before its completion. I was in a hurry to finish it as I have to pick up my grandkids. I am unable
to retrieve it. My email was close to closure and I was making corrections. Please send the incomplete email forward
to the Mayor and the City Council. I will send a short last paragraph this evening.
Sincerely,
Carol (Penny) Carrasco
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:13 PM Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Thank you for your email. We value your opinion and we appreciate thetime you have taken
to share it with the Carlsbad City Council. If an action is required from your email, the
appropriate person will be in contact with you soon.
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 253 of 612
'Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Penny Carrasco
Friday, June 7, 2019 2:13 PM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe Apartment -Corner of Gibraltar and Romeria
From: Carol (Penny) Carrasco, Carlsbad, CA92009
2nd Letter
Dear Mayor Hall and City Council Members:
I would like this e-mail (my 2nd email) to be included in the Public Records and in Staff Reports submitted to Council.
My first letter, dated Friday, May 31, contained an ERROR in the section of the email that specifically named various
condo and apartment erosion, water drainage & slippage. I referred to the apartment on Gibraltar as "Bella Vista" It
should have stated "Bella La Costa.".
_Summary from my first letter 5/31/17 _________ _
I am still highly concerned about: a) Slow and Steady Erosion in this canyon area of La Costa b) Water 'down-stream"
and drainage issues c) Street safety in regards to : Less & less on street parking. Many areas red-lined because drivers
complain about the speeding and the visibility when they trying to get access to the main street "Blind Spots". d) More
and more speeding in a marked 25 mph zone and failing to stop at the Stop Sign on Romeria and Gibraltar (sign put in
after a bike rider was hit by a car.) d} Recent "High Density" Building. There is a growing need for 'Open Space" in and
around apartments. e) Roof decks are beginning to be like a 3rd or 4th story. But, although they may benefit adults and
give more space, they are not made to be "playgrounds" for children. Often kids are left to play in the driveways which
are also hazardous. Animals have to be taken out to pee and poop on neighbors property ..
Protect our Public Safety, Health and Welfare: EVEN 1 LIFE IS WORTH SAVING ---NO ONE SHOULD BE IN HARM'S WAY.
This Letter -#2 Additional PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE issue and personal concern.
The type of location and the structure & size of Romeria Pointe Apartments.
Low Income/Affordable Housing needs to be planned carefully and thoroughly. This type of Housing Development
should not only help families SURVIVE; but, more importantly, help them to THRIVE.
There is no doubt in my mind that this type of Housing is needed in every community. I have always been a
supporter. However, building "high density" 3-4 story buildings, crammed together, and no additional on-site Guest
and/or Personal Parking, (where parking is already a serious street issue) doesn't seem like the BEST plan for the lot on
the corner of Romeria and Gibraltar. In addition, not providing significant .'open space" within the apartment
community will not help to build "community character and connectedness."
As Carlsbad moves forward to provide adequate low income/affordable housing, (see CARLSBAD MAGAZINE -MAY
/JUNE 2019, P. 16 ..
"CITY MATTERSll by Christina Ray.
This is a though-provoking actide. It is my hope that the. City Council will continue to support and stand for #1 on the list
of Carlsbad City Council 9 Core Values ... " keeping ... a small town feel, beach community character and connectedness"
I encourage City Officials and City Council and/or Planning Department to visit Poinsettia Station Apartments on
Embarcadero Lane, Carlsbad , 92011. It is a Well-planned "community" with a safe environment. If definitely addresses
#1 of the City's core values.
2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 254 of 612
The leadership of the Site Manager, Kathi Miller-Rivera, is Exceptional. I am sure she would be willing to show City
Council members (and other city employees) around the Poinsetta Station Apartments.
I believe that Bridge Housing planned this particular Housing Community with INTEGRITY AND AN
I encourage City Officials & City Council
3 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 255 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nancy Stephenson
Friday, June 7, 2019 1 :46 PM
Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe Project -letter for public record-request to stop project
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to the council.
I am writing today as a concerned citizen and home owner in Villa Romeria, next to the Romeria Pointe project.
I am not that familiar with all the technical details of the project but I know we have a lot of extremely concerned home
owners around us that, in their eyes, might be fighting for the security and value of their property.
For most of us, our home and property is the biggest investment of our lives and anything that even has the potential to
take away value is a big concern. NO one knows exactly what will happen if this project goes through but there is
potential for damage and wasted time and money.
I do know that Villa Romeria paid 32k in 2014 for a geotechnical project and that the area is notorious for unstable soils.
We need to know all unknown factors are accounted for by the builder and that someone is liable for any and all
damages that occur to our building at Villa Romeria.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Nancy Stephenson
.
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
4 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 256 of 612
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jason stephenson
Friday, June 7, 2019 1:28 PM
Council Internet Email; Council Internet Email
Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today regarding Romeria Pointe building project on Lots 393 and 394 in La Costa.
I am the president, home owner, and concerned neighbor at Villa Romeria, the most adjacent property just to the
south of Lots 393 and 394.
As well as being a concerned home owner I also hold a geology degree which ads another layer to my concern
knowing the history of our building and the surrounding problematic soils.
As stated in the initially geotechnical report done by GeoSoils for the Romeria Pointe project, soils were an issue
and the building plans changed to incorporate and much more elaborate scheme to build a proper foundation to
secure such a large·building at Romeria Pointe.
Taking off significant more overburden and drilling down to bedrock to secure the foundation will certainly cause
some disruption to the nearby soils, including Villa Romeria and others. The disruption to unsteady geology of the
area will shake causing some level of liquefaction, turning the soils to a more mobile "liquid" state during the removal
of overburden and definitely during the drilling and underpinning that is needed to hammer down to the depth of the
bed rock.
No doubt the construction of this massive underpinning and foundation will take months if not a year which would
put not only local strain on the soils but a long period of time that can compound the effect to the point where the
soils underneath Vila Romeria would be dramatically affected.
This disturbance to the geology not only affects Villa Romeria but may ultimately lead to an unstable condition
underneath the Romeria Pointe project. ·
As stated by others in Villa Romeria we have undergone 2 different geotechnical projects to resecure our
foundation, the most recent in 2014 just from normal seasonal wear and tear to the soils underneath our building.
Not to mention the disaster that happened down La Costa Ave. at the Marbella condos in 2007. ·
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Regards,
Jason Stephenson
Carlsbad, CA 92009
5 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 257 of 612
Morgen Fry
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Morgen,
Please distribute.
Andi
Council Internet Email
Monday, June 10, 2019 10:58 AM
Morgen Fry
Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia
FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments
From: Chris Salazar
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 10:29 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments
All Receive -Agenda Item# ( ·"?'
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL ✓
Date Ulill'\=A ✓CC_
CM .Jl coo L DCM (3} .JL
I am writing today as a concerned homeowner that overlooks this proposed project. We have been a homeowners for
32 years and familiar with the soil problems as we built an addition many years ago and the city required mulitiple
engineering professionals before approving a small project and explained the complex soil problems. This 4 story
building will create difficult problems, parking, noise, slippage and environmental issues from the extreme digging that
this project. This area has seen extreme growth and LA Costa Ave has become a major thoughfare with terrific traffic
problems and noise for many years. Do we really need more cars on this road to travel to this huge apartment complex?
PLEASE reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe, NO 4 story project PLEASE,
Christine CormierSalazar and Richard Salazar
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 258 of 612
Morgen Fry
To:
Subject:
Council Internet Email
RE: Romeria Pointe
From: carrie vander woude
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 10:10 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to
council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad and as a resident/ owner at 7557
Romeria Street, directly adjacent to the planned construction.-It has come to my attention that City
Planning recently approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I
believe this project is putting Carlsbad citizens safety at risk
It is known that the La Costa area has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of this project is
massive. Our property was lifted in 2014 costing $25,000. Extensive work will be done for the new
project such as MASS EXCAVATION and piles drilled down into bedrock. Our property is known for
its instability and therefore, could be dangerous for our persons and property. There is already
currently issues with water and land slippage in this neighborhood with new development, which is
oflarger scale than originally planned. The Marbella condo complex on La Costa Ave cost the city
millions of dollars after the big rain in 2005 caused eight homes to start sliding off the hill. The
Rose Canyon Fault runs up to Carlsbad and the extent of this development will weaken our
foundation. This could lead to seismic hazard. Past attempts to build have been denied because of
the poor soil and the excavation and subsequent settling could create uneven flatwork which may
create trip hazards and other damage foundations, flat areas of pavement. These issues could
cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens. There is already a major parking problem in the area,
this project adds even more cars and congestion. Villa Romeria has 3 visitor spots that we already
have issues with; New development has NO VISITOR PARKING. The project has NO visitor parking
because of Bonus Density which does not take into account the existing populations lack of
available parking which currently exists. As it is, we have an issue with people parking on our
property that are not visiting Villa Romeria residents. This is unsafe for residents at Villa
Romeria. This is considered trespassing which is a public safety issue. This issue will be multiplied
by the aforementioned issue plus the fact that spots will be taken away on street as the new project
needs entrances onto property.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow thi_s project to be
built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Carrie Vanderwoude
Carlsbad, CA 92009
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 259 of 612
Morgen Fry
From: Council Internet Email
Sent:
To:
Monday, June 10, 2019 11 :57 AM
Morgen Fry
Cc: Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments
From: Elena Karavodin
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 11:39 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included.in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning recently
approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is putting Carlsbad citizens
safety at risk.
It is known that this area in Lacosta has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for Romeria Pointe is
extreme. This project will only add additional problems to the ones already in existance with land slippage and sink
holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Elena Michels
Carlsbad, CA 92009
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 260 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 261 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 262 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 263 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 264 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 265 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 266 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 267 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 268 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 269 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 270 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 271 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 272 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 273 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 274 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 275 of 612
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 276 of 612
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
MEscobarEck
Tuesday, June 11 , 2019 5:41 PM
citycou nci l@carlsbad.gov
City Clerk
Subject: SUPPORT Romeria Pointe Apartments Proposal --Item 12 Agenda (6/11 /2019)
Honorable Mayor Matt Hall and members of the City Council:
Please accept this letter in SUPPORT of the proposed 23 unit development known as Romeria Pointe Apartments
located on the corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar. I tried to change my schedule so I could attend the hearing
tonight but I was not able to. I apologize t his letter is so late.
I live a block away on Solano Street. My family and I have been residents of Carlsbad for almost 30 years. It saddens me
tremendously to see the rabid NIMBY opposition to this project. It is a modest 23 unit development with much needed
on-site affordable housing in area that is surrounded by multi-family development. I became aware of the proposed
4 STORY
BUILDING
i)
PUBUCSAFm
S1,Jw,1.~1YQ111•ld1 tOM
oi,IMl~?NOI ~•tit
anv,,wtl
ATTENTION
SAY NOTO
NEW CONSTRUCTION
to Romerla Pointe Apartments
lhefe is a City C.ouncil Mtt!lin& on June
11th. 2019 to STOP this p,o~ct from moYln&
fOfWard.
• • · • sc.>nd .1n c--mait ··iiiMiiilli------===-
® e
NO MOR£ PARKING READY FOR NOISE? Oov,,.,o,.,.....,g __ ftN'llS o,I n _ ,,.,,t;.
llt~I p;/1~•"115,ty ,.1,'1.htll)'/0\ISUylwlkt
t~• 1W
£V[RY VOICE mrr TO STOP CONSillUCTION
MATTERS
egregious traffic issues on· this portion of La Costa Avenue.
1
development when I received this
inflammatory and egregious scare tactic flyer
on my front door on Sunday night.
Th e arguments against the development
presented in this flyer are flat out lies and
scare tactics. I took the time to go on-line on
Sunday night and I read the extensive back-up
material for t his project. The absurdity of the
arguments raised by the opposition are
astonishing. The only issue that I think merits
careful consideration is the geologic condition
of t he site. As a former City of Carlsbad staff
member, I have no doubt that your
professional staff has taken great care to
ensure t hat all health and safety issues
associated with the development have been
properly addressed.
When you read the majority of the shell letters
provided to oppose this project they focus on
issues that do not exist in our community. Of
note is the fact that many of the letters of
opposition are from folks that live much further
away from the proposed development than our
block (Solano Street). I would also like to state
that I spoke with many of my immediate
neighbors on Solano street and they had zero
concerns about the proposed development.
1. Traffic: There are no Traffic jams and
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 277 of 612
2. Safety: Most of the kids that go to La Costa Heights (sadly) don't walk to school, they get driven to school. The
few that do walk actually go to the one light that exists at the corner of Romeria and La Costa Avenue to cross
the street.
3. Light and Air: All the issues raised about blocking air and light are really issues about blocking their private golf
course view.
4. Dog Poop: The issue of rampant dog poop on the sidewalks is hardly a reason to deny housing. It is a reason to
have a dialogue with your neighbors about being responsible and kind dog owners.
5. Crime: To suggest that this modest development will be the cause of rampant crime as suggested in the flyer is
completely disingenuous.
6. Parking: I went out and counted the available street parking on Sunday night at 8 p.m. There were no less than
10 open curb spaces in the half block adjacent to the proposed project. All the projects in the area have garages
(many of them filled with storage).
My husband and I have raised three children in Carlsbad and had the good fortune of having our parents reside in
Carlsbad until three of them passed away. My 80 year old mom still lives in Carlsbad close to this area. The sad thing is
our children cannot afford to live in Carlsbad. Opposition to responsible development projects such as this one are a
large part of the reason that our housing crisis has reached an all-time high.
Please ask your staff about the Geology questions that have been raised so you can be satisfied that they have been
addressed and see that the issues are red herrings raised by the opposition.
I respectfully urge you to support this project and help us start providing more housing opportunities for our kids.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marcela Escobar-Eck and
Keith Eck
30 year residents on Solano Street
2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 278 of 612
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
-----Origina I Message-----
Council Internet Email
Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:07 AM
City Clerk
Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia
FW: Romeria Pt 4 story Development
From: Catherine
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 4:22 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pt 4 story Development
Dear Council Members,
As a concerned citizen of Carlsbad and long time resident in the Romeria area I would like to voice my opinion on the
proposed 4 story development.
This proposed project is out of place and nothing short of a disaster for the already overbuilt area. More development
at the proposed site would add more traffic congestion to our school area. This neighborhood is not suited for a 4 story
monstrosity, practically or visually.
Dear members, please make all efforts to keep our neighborhood safe from all the potential problems with this
proposed development.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Catherine Belderes
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 279 of 612
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
City Council Members,
Council Internet Email
Wednesday, June 12, 2019 8:56 AM
City Clerk
Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia
FW: SUPPORT Romeria Pointe Apartments Proposal --Item 12 Agenda (6/11/2019)
This email came in late, but it is regarding Agenda Item 12.
Andi
From: MEscobarEck@
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 5:45 PM
To: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Attorney <attorney@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Council Internet Email
<CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: SUPPORT Romeria Pointe Apartments Proposal --Item 12 Agenda (6/11/2019)
Honorable Mayor Matt Hall and members of the City Council:
Please accept this letter in SUPPORT of the proposed 23 unit development known as Romeria Pointe Apartments
located on the corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar. I tried to change my schedule so I could attend the hearing
tonight but I was not able to. I apologize this letter is so late.
I live a block away on Solano Street. My family and I have been residents of Carlsbad for almost 30 years. It saddens me
tremendously to see the rabid NIMBY opposition to this project. It is a modest 23 unit development with much needed
on-site affordable housing in area that is surrounded by multi-family development. I became aware of the proposed
development when I received this inflammatory and egregious scare tactic flyer on my front door on Sunday night.
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 280 of 612
4 STORY
BUILDING
i)
PUBUC SAFElY sr.,.,~t yov, lldJ to M
OIICkk!? Noc ~•"f
611'/ff\Ott!
SAY NO
to Romerla Pointe Apartments
Thete is a City Counal Me@tl"8 on June
11th, 2019 to STOP'thlJ p,oj,ec:t from mcJYing
forward.
® e
NO MORE PARKING R~Y FOR NOISE?
Oo"°"or \'<Mlf Cu,nti \fM' lfN"Uq(2Jr-=II
i~1p;1d,na>S.-, .. lltfp '/OIi iu, .... u ~· i•n
EVUlY VOICE HXT TO >TOP CONSTIIUCTl()N
MATTERS
The arguments against the development
presented in this flyer are flat out lies and
scare tactics. I took the time to go on-line on
Sunday night and I read the extensive back-up
material for this project. The absurdity of the
arguments raised by the opposition are
astonishing. The only issue that I think merits
ca reful consideration is the geologic condition
of the site. As a former City of Carlsbad staff
member, I have no doubt that your
professional staff has taken great care to
ensure that all health and safety issues
associated with the development have been
properly addressed.
When you read the majority of the shell letters
provided to oppose this project they focus on
issues that do not exist in our community. Of
note is the fact that many of the letters of
opposition are from folks that live much further
away from the proposed development than our
block (Solano Street). I would also like to state
that I spoke with many of my immediate
neighbors on Solano street and they had zero
concerns about the proposed development.
1. Traffic: There are no Traffic jams and
egregious traffic issues on this portion of La
Costa Avenue.
2. Safety: Most of the kids that go to La
Costa Heights (sadly) don't walk to school, they get driven to school. The few that do walk actually go to t he one
light that exists at the corner of Romeria and La Costa Avenue to cross the street.
3. Light and Air: All the issues raised about blocking air and light are really issues about blocking their private golf
course view.
4. Dog Poop: The issue of rampant dog poop on the sidewalks is hardly a reason to deny housing. It is a reason to
have a dialogue with your neighbors about being responsible and kind dog owners.
5. Crime: To suggest that this modest development will be the cause of rampant crime as suggested in the flyer is
completely disingenuous.
6. Parking: I went out and counted the available street parking on Sunday night at 8 p.m. There were no less than
10 open curb spaces in the half block adjacent to the proposed project. All the projects in the area have garages
(many of them filled with storage).
My husband and I have raised three children in Ca rlsbad and had the good fortune of having our parents reside in
Carlsbad until three of them passed away. My 80 year old mom still lives in Carlsbad close to this area. The sad thing is
our children cannot afford to live in Carlsbad. Opposition to responsible development projects such as this one are a
large part of the reason that our housing crisis has reached an all-time high.
Please ask your staff about the Geology questions that have been raised so you can be satisfied that they have been
addressed and see that the issues are red herrings raised by the opposition.
2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 281 of 612
I respectfully urge you to support this project and help us start providing more housing opportunities for our kids.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marcela Escobar-Eck and
Keith Eck
30 year residents on Solano Street
3 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 282 of 612
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Council Internet Email
Wednesday, June 12, 2019 8:57 AM
City Clerk
Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia
FW: Proposed Apartments on Romeria
City Council Members,
This email came in late, but it is regarding Agenda Item 12.
Andi
From: Keith Halsey
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 2:22 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Apartments on Romeria
To whom it may concern:
I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted
to the Council.
Cindy Sturgeon
Carlsbad, CA 92009
This email is in regards to the proposed 4 story building on Romeria St. I have many
concerns on how these developments will have a negative impact on our neighborhood.
Please take the time to consider the following reasons.
PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS:
Villa Romeria Lift: Our property was lifted in 2014 costing $25,000. Extensive work will
be done for the new project such as MASS EXCAVATION and piles drilled down into
bedrock. Our property is known for its instability. Could be dangerous.
Soil Problems: Property has known soil problems which could lead to slippage. Past
attempts to build have been denied because of the poor soil. Settling, etc. could create
uneven flatwork which may create trip hazards.
Trespassing: Villa Romeria has 3 visitor spots that we already have issues
with. New development has NO VISITOR PARKING.
Marbella: Marbella condo complex on La Costa Ave cost the city millions of dollars after
the big rain in 2005 caused eight homes to start sliding off the hill.
Child Safety: No greenbelts left to play except in the creek across the way
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 283 of 612
Increased Traffic: More accidents, etc. If you know of accidents, etc. please site them.
Earthquake: Rose Canyon Fault runs up to Carlsbad. The extent of this development
will weaken our foundation. This could lead to seismic hazard.
Crime: More people, more crime. Carlsbad PD has told someone that crime is easy in
our area with the golf course. Easy escape.
OTHER CONCERNS
Eye Sore: Will Block light in the day. Car lights at night will be bright.
Parking: There is already a major parking problem in the area. This project adds even
more cars. Project has NO visitor parking because of Bonus Density. Spots will be taken
away on street as the new project needs entrances onto property.
Community Values (from City website):
Small town feel, beach community character and connectedness.
Prioritize protection and enhancement of open space and the natural
environment. Support and protect Carlsbad's unique open space an agricultural
heritage.
Habitat is disturbed: Hawks frequent the Construction site often and nest in those trees
on the site.
I thank you for your time, and look forward to attending the public hearing today.
Sincerely,
Cindy Sturgeon
2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 284 of 612
Morgen Fry
Subject: FW: Proposed Apartments on Romeria
From: rebecca sierer
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 1:20 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Ryan Sturgeon
Subject: Proposed Apartments on Romeria
To whom it may concern:
a ~MY (1•~~---
For tht1 Lifu, :n.;,,,in of the:
Date ~JI~ /11~~: ·'~L L ;
CM V coo _¥-:JCM (3) V
I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council.
Rebecca Sturgeon
St
Carlsbad, CA 92009
This email is in regards to the proposed 4 story building on Romeria St. I have many concerns on how these
developments will have a negative impact on our neighborhood. Please take the time to consider the following reasons.
PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS:
Villa Romeria Lift: Our property was lifted in 2014 costing $25,000. Extensive work will be done for the new project
such as MASS EXCAVATION and piles drilled down into bedrock. Our property is known for its instability. Could be
dangerous.
Soil Problems: Property has known soil problems which could lead to slippage. Past attempts to build have been
denied because of the poor soil. Settling, etc. could create uneven flatwork which may create trip hazards.
Trespassing: Villa Romeria has 3 visitor spots that we already have issues with. New development has NO VISITOR
PARKING.
Marbella: Marbella condo complex on La Costa Ave cost the city millions of dollars after the big rain in 2005 caused
eight homes to start sliding off the hill.
Child Safety: No greenbelts left to play except in the creek across the way
Increased Traffic: More accidents, etc. If you know of accidents, etc. please site them.
Earthquake: Rose Canyon Fault runs up to Carlsbad. The extent of this development will weaken our foundation. This
could lead to seismic hazard.
Crime: More people, more crime. Carlsbad PD has told someone that crime is easy in our area with the golf
course. Easy escape.
OTHER CONCERNS
Eye Sore: Will Block light in the day. Car lights at night will be bright.
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 285 of 612
Parking: There is already a major parking problem in the area. This project adds even more cars. Project has NO visitor
parking because of Bonus Density. Spots will be taken away on street as the new project needs entrances onto
property.
Community Values (from City website):
Small town feel, beach community character and connectedness.
Prioritize protection and enhancement of open space and the natural environment. Support and protect Carlsbad's
unique open space an agricultural heritage.
Habitat is disturbed: Hawks frequent the Construction site often and nest in those trees on the site.
I thank you for your time, and look forward to attending the public hearing today.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Sturgeon
2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 286 of 612
Morgen Fry
Subject: FW: Proposed Apartments on Romeria
From: ryan sturgeon
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 1:47 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Re: Proposed Apartments on Romeria
To whom it may concern:
I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council.
Ryan Sturgeon
Carlsbad, CA 92009
This email is in regards to the proposed 4 story building on Romeria St. I have many concerns on how these
developments will have a negative impact on our neighborhood. Please take the time to consider the following reasons.
PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS:
Villa Romeria Lift: Our property was lifted in 2014 costing $25,000. Extensive work will be done for the new project
such as MASS EXCAVATION and piles drilled down into bedrock. Our property is known for its instability. Could be
dangerous.
Soil Problems: Property has known soil problems which could lead to slippage. Past attempts to build have been
denied because of the poor soil. Settling, etc. could create uneven flatwork which may create trip hazards.
Trespassing: Villa Romeria has 3 visitor spots that we already have issues with. New development has NO VISITOR
PARKING.
Marbella: Marbella condo complex on La Costa Ave cost the city millions of dollars after the big rain in 2005 caused
eight homes to start sliding off the hill.
Child Safety: No greenbelts left to play except in the creek across the way
Increased Traffic: More accidents, etc. If you know of accidents, etc. please site them.
Earthquake: Rose Canyon Fault runs up to Carlsbad. The extent of this development will weaken our foundation. This
could lead to seismic hazard.
Crime: More people, more crime. Carlsbad PD has told someone that crime is easy in our area with the golf
course. Easy escape.
OTHER CONCERNS
Eye Sore: Will Block light in the day. Car lights at night will be bright.
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 287 of 612
Parking: There is already a major parking problem in the area. This project adds even more cars. Project has NO visitor
parking because of Bonus Density. Spots will be taken away on street as the new project needs entrances onto
property.
Community Values (from City website):
Small town feel, beach community character and connectedness.
Prioritize protection and enhancement of open space and the natural environment. Support and protect Carlsbad's
unique open space an agricultural heritage.
Habitat is disturbed: Hawks frequent the Construction site often and nest in those trees on the site.
I thank you for your time, and look forward to attending the public hearing today.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Sturgeon
2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 288 of 612
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
From: City Clerk
Sent:
To:
Thursday, June 13, 2019 10:34 AM
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Hello,
Please see the below correspondence to the City Council.
Thank you,
~ityof
Carlsbad
Hector Gomez
Deputy City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949
www.carlsbadca.gov
760-434-5021 I hector.gomez@carlsbadca.gov
From: Council Internet Email
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 9:56 AM
To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Jason Geldert <Jason.Geldert@carlsbadca.gov>; Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments
From: Shawn Michels
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 9:44 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall,
I would like this e-mail to be included in the public records and in staff reports submitted to council.
I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of Carlsbad. It has come to my attention that City Planning
recently approved the building of (2) 4 story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project is
putting Carlsbad citizens safety at risk.
1 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 289 of 612
It is known that this area in Lacosta has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of work for Romeria
Pointe is extreme. This project will only add additional problems to the ones already in existance with land
slippage and sink holes. This could ultimately cause harm or death to Carlsbad citizens.
Please reconsider your decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do not allow this project to be built.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Shawn Michels
2 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 290 of 612
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO: CITY CLERK
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: "~LJ t>--.0 / /, }_(_)/)
/') . '" . \
SUBJECT: /:'\ C4'Y) ;;;L,G.., ~/"LU7tx. (~r,t•) -. ,-
LOCATION: / ,i-c1.~ (:. c~·12-1j) L), I I c~ F:..JA .
DATE NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS: 5) 3 I /J 9
NUMBER MAILED: _...._/ _•7'--'J-<--------
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am
employed by the City of Carlsbad and the foregoing is true and correct.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
I r,
. / l ,') m ' :f'. I .' , i'r11 / . _.Jl~ h:("'''-"-I). I IL ~14_____..,
(Signature)
SENT TO FOR PUBLICATION VIA E-MAIL TO: 0
(Date)
Union Tribune
~Coast News
PUBLICATION DATE: Union Tribune --------------
Coast News .5 / ?>1/1 ·; 4/S-
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am
employed by the City of Carlsbad in the City Clerk's Office and the foregoing is true and
correct.
Date: _._s-_/_.::i__,i:;__._''"--'/1_0 ____ _
Attachments: 1) Mailing Labels
2) Notice w/ attachments
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 291 of 612
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Cham-
ber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11,
2019, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Site De-
velopment Plan to allow the construction of a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment
project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located
at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street., and more particularly
described as:
Lots 393 and 394 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 6600, filed in
the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 10, 1970
Whereas, on March 20, 2019 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 7-0 to Ap-
prove of a Site Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-unit residential apartment
project which includes three inclusionary housing units, on property generally located
at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street within Local Facilities
Management Zone 6. The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sec-
tion 15332 "In-Fill Development Projects" of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not
have any adverse significant impact on the environment.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the pub-
lic hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after Thursday, June 6,
2019. If you have any questions, please contact Chris Garcia in the Planning Division at
(760) 602-4622 or chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov.
If you challenge the Site Development Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or
in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH:
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
FRIDAY, MAY 31, 2019
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
l \ • .
', \' ',~ ' ~-
e
NOT TO $CALE
Romeria Pointe Apartments
SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
3 col x 8"
24"x $14
$336
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 292 of 612
,---1 I
AVERY 6240 1 L--1 I
25-Feb-19
600' OWNERSHIP LISTING
PREPARED FOR:
BNR INVESTMENT &
DEVELOPMENT LL C
GIBRALTAR & ROMERIA STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DINNEEN J & MARYE ROBERT
9105 W 131ST TER
OVERLAND PARK KS 66213
RICHARDS & ORCUTT MARY A
KNECHT
7661 NORHILL RD
COLUMBUS OH 43235
SAISHO FAMILY TRUST
7559 GIBRALTAR ST
#3
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHOY 1990 FAMILY TRUST
1183 CALLE CHRISTOPHER
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SKA VINSKI KIPRIAN M & BARBARA
H REVOCABLE TR
7559 GIBRALTAR ST
#9
CARLSBAD CA 92009
A P E INVESTMENTS LLC
753 JACQUELENE CT
ENCINITAS CA 92024
FISHMAN NAOMI A REVOCABLE TR
2929 WP ARKRIDGE DR
PEORIA IL 61604
HA TLE DEBRA FAMILY TRUST
1419 DOMINIS ST
#502
HONOLULU HI 96822
Ec1sy Peel Aclclress Lc1bels :
Rend <11011rJ 11th' to •p ,c;t l\111 up td~,, 1
City Clerk Services
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SURPRISE PROPERTIES LLC
3177 WILDFLOWER SMT
ENCINITAS CA 92024
WYNNE E WEISS
7559 GIBRALTAR ST
#1
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SEAN M & MARGUERITE N
TALBOTT
7559 GIBRALTAR ST
#4
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NASSER ATT ALLAH
P OBOX 6835
BEYERL Y HILLS CA 90212
AMERICAN EST ATE & TRUST
7152 ALMADEN LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN C & KAREN SALGADO
7559 GIBRALTAR ST
#13
CARLSBAD CA 92009
YANG JEFF & PEARL TRUST 07-15-11 1
11888 MENDIOLA PT
SAN DIEGO CA 92129
CHRISTINA L CAHALL
7526 JEREZ CT
#3
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Etiquettes d'aclresse Easy Peel :
Go to ave1y.com/ternplc1tes:
JOHN ALLEN
2266 GRAND A VE
STE26
Us 0 \,11 1 lL111nl ill 1JlGU I
SAN DIEGO CA 92109
MARK & KARLA SKOOG
1100 N COUNTRY CLUB DR
SIMI VALLEY CA 93065
LEEPER K RONALD
559 ALAMITOS WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92078
HARRY J & ROBYN CLEVER
7559 GIBRALTAR ST
#5
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NELSON JANE M REVOCABLE TR
3225 NE 84TH A VE
PORTLAND OR 97220
ALLEN AJ FAMILY 2014 TRUST
7559 GIBRALTAR ST
#11
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROSS ROBERT G FAMILY TRUST
80234 ROY AL DORN OCH DR
INDIO CA 92201
RANDALL J & CATT BRENDA K
HOFFIUS
1133 SCRUB JAY CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
GAMUS LIVING TRUST 12-13-01
7526 JEREZ CT
#4
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Allez a avery.ca/gabarits :
~ ' C
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 293 of 612
.-----,7 I
AVERY 6240 :
DARWIN & PATRICIA SCHUSSLER
7528 JEREZ CT
#5
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SYDNEY SERWIN
7528 JEREZ CT
#8
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANDERSON THIO FAMILY TRUST
7532 JEREZ CT
#11
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUSAN C MCBRIDE
7530 JEREZ CT
#14
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHRISTOPHER A JEFFERY
7668 EL CAMINO REAL
#104-6
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEFFREY D & JOANNA E KEEPING
7565 GIBRALTAR ST
#20
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TRACEY P GOLDMAN
7563 GIBRALTAR ST
#23
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROTT HARRY REVOCABLE TRUST
1415 PANTHER LN
#318
NAPLES FL 34109
REEVE LISA TRUST
7520 JEREZ CT
#E
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HUI & ZHANG YAN LI
7514 JEREZ CT
#B
CARLSBAD CA 92009
E,,sy Peel Aclcl1c,ss Lc1bels :
Li,_11,l .ilon(J l111t' tr> ('?IJ(1,1 Pup up r:d~ll I
JAMES C LEE
7528 JEREZ CT
#6
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STANLEY W GEORGE
7532 JEREZ CT
#9
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REBECCA JAVENS
7532 JEREZ CT
#12
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MILLER LIVING TRUST
7530 JEREZ CT
#15
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ABRASSART-SHIMA TERESA A
TRUST
6919 QUAIL PL
#B
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRENDAN & LAMSA KA TE LOPEZ
44870 CAMINO ALAMOSA
TEMECULA CA 92592
MANOJ C & JAGRUTI M MANIAR
11625 ALDERIDGE LN
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
ADAMSEN PAUL B & JACQUELINE H
LIVING TRUST
7520 JEREZ CT
#C
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARON K BENKOVIC
7520 JEREZ CT
#F
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VILLALOBOS FAMILY TRUST
7514 JEREZ CT
#C
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel :
Go to avc1y.co111/lL'rnplzites 1
I
Uc,1 /\.1 I, T, 11\\)I ,t, '.J l ( IJ I
DOTTERRER DAPHNE LIVING TR
16057 KAMANA RD
#A
APPLE VALLEY CA 92307
EICHMAN THERESA D REVOCABLE TR
7532 JEREZ CT
#10
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DANIEL TYLER & ADRIENNE M
BROWN
3993 PRIMA VERA RD
SANT A BARBARA CA 93110
LINDA S PEREZ
20351 ACRE ST
WINNETKA CA 91306
FRIEDBERG MICHAEL S
REVOCABLE TRUST
7565 GIBRALTAR ST
#19
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANDREW J & EVAN M DUFT
7563 GIBRALTAR ST
#22
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARK WASHBURN
7520 JEREZ CT
#A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHIHYENHSU
2020 HANSCOM DR
S PASADENA CA 91030
HECTOR MORALES
7514 JEREZ CT
#A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CATHEY MARGARET TRUST
7514 JEREZ CT
#D
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Allez a avery.ca/gabarits 1
-• I
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 294 of 612
,-----7 I AVERY 6240 1
~ I
ST ACEY D SHEA
7180 AVIARA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
KNIGHT LAURA D TRUST
7533 GIBRALTAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VICKI L MCLUCAS
3 VIAZAMORA
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673
STREET TRUST 10-11-06
7519 GIBRALTAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NOV AK HOW ARD & SUE A FAMILY
BYPASS TR
7513 GIBRALTAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAN & ANNE KLENSKE
7507 GIBRALTAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN & BESH-STURGEON CINDY
STURGEON
4450 SHOSHONI A VE
ANCHORAGE AK 99516
D NM PARKER LL C
PO BOX 1432
GLENDORA CA 91740
PAUL & KANG SUSAN REUTER
7556 ROMERIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHISHCHEVOY FAMILY TRUST
7562 ROMERIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ec1sy Peel Aclclress Lc1bels :
l't:;nl.J,1lonl1l1rll'lo, •po,( f\JI' tJfJEdg,, I
SURDY FAMILY TRUST
7537 GIBRALTAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSE J PADILLA
445 N BEDFORD DR
BEYERL Y HILLS CA 90210
DEAN-ROSS SCHESSLER
7525 GIBRALTAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN A & DEBORAH L HALE
7517 GIBRALTARST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FITZPATRICK JAMES P REVOCABLE
TRUST
635 HUNTER HILLS DR
CLINTON OH 44216
GIBRALTAR STREET LL C
4258 CORTE DE SAUSALITO
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
MEGHAN CAREY
7546 ROMERIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARY & SALDANHA-MARSTON
ELEANORA MARSTON
7552 ROMERIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GREGORY J MURPHY
7558 ROMERIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GRIESER BRIAN & JOAN AB LIVING
TRUST
7564 ROMERIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Etiquettes d'c1dresse Easy Peel :
Go to c1very.corn/tcmplates:
Uc...l' A. ,11, mpl,1k SlGU 1
CORY FAMILY TRUST
7535 GIBRALTAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
N TA ASSOCIATES
7529 GIBRALTAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SIMMONDS LIVING TRUST
170 DEL ORO LAGOON
NOV A TO CA 94949
REEDER SAMMY J TRUST
7515 GIBRALTAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCOTT FAMILY TRUST 0
7509 GIBRALTAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BELLA LA COST A LLC
6965 EL CAMINO REAL
#105-1
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BING & TING SUE ZHU
22900 SHERMAN WAY
WEST HILLS CA 91307
YUJIE & JIA XIANG XIAO
7554 ROMERIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES L & SO LEG ARDNER
JENNIFER L GARDNER
7560 ROMERIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
COASTAL LIVING LL C
25531 COMMERCENTRE DR
#150
LAKE FOREST CA 92630
Allez a avery.ca/gabarits :
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 295 of 612
,-------1 I AVERY 6240 1 l.------' I
400 GIBRALTAR LLC
3525 DEL MAR HEIGHTS RD
#724
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
HAROLD INVESTMENTS LP
10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO
VALLEY CENTER CA 92082
BNR INVESTMENT &
DEVELOPMENT L L C
23800 VIA DEL RIO
YORBA LINDA CA 92887
KAREN INLOW
3004 LA COST A A VE
#A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARTER JAMES B & MARLENE M
FAMILY TRUST
958 CAMINO DEL ARROYO DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92078
JD LL AL RENTALS LL C
PO BOX 2767
DEL MAR CA 92014
BURKLE FAMILY TRUST
27802 HIGH VISTA DR
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
J D L L A L RENTALS L L C
PO BOX 2767
DEL MAR CA 92014
JOHN E & STEPHANIE J
CORNACCHIONE
7546 GIBRALTAR ST
#D
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ERIK M & RYKER-GIST MEADOW GIST
7546 GIBRALTAR ST
#G
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Easy Peel Addi ec,s Labels :
8, ll,J 110 1q Ill' trJ l • ) ) ',( >-U11 up l::cJ..._1, t
LA COSTA A L C L L C
7668 EL CAMINO REAL
#104-4
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HAROLD INVESTMENTS L P
10490 CAMINO DEL VENADO
VALLEY CENTER CA 92082
DERRICO & ASSOCIATES CLERICAL
SERVICES MONEY PURCHAS
92 TERRA VISTA
DANA POINT CA 92629
SMALL LOUISE REVOCABLE TRUST
6552 E SHEPHERD HLS
TUCSON AZ 85710
.PHILIP THAI
3008 LA COST A A VE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
J D L L A L RENTALS L L C
PO BOX2767
DEL MAR CA 92014
ALTAMIRANO CARMEN L TRUST
7538 GIBRALTAR ST
#F
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BONNIE GARCIA
7546 GIBRALTAR ST
#B
CARLSBAD CA 92009
IAN J TYREE
7546 GIBRALTAR ST
#E
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS P & SUSANA ENGER
2914 LA COSTA A VE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel :
) ' • \ > l '
Go to ave1 y.com/ternplates :
~J 1 , , !, 111p: it, J l I () I
HAROLD INVESTMENTS LP
10490 CAMINO DEL VEN ADO
VALLEY CENTER CA 92082
BNR INVESTMENT &
DEVELOPMENT L L C
23800 VIA DEL RIO
YORBA LINDA CA 92887
GUILLERMO F & EDITH M LAZO
3002 LA COST A A VE
#A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
COOPERMAN BRADLEY SEP ARA TE
PROPERTY TRUST
PO BOX 5010
RCHO SANT A FE CA 92067
RETA MP ARK.ER
503 N TREMONT ST
#A
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
LUCILLE A LINDSEY
PO BOX 2767
DEL MAR CA 92014
KARALBREM
7538 GIBRALTAR ST
#G
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETERS DAVID M & JANET M
FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 2326
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
AARON L & CYNTHIA RUMLEY
7581 DELGADO PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEORGE P & ASHLEY CONNORS
2916 LACOSTAAVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Allez a avery.ca/gabarits 1
I
7 ' '
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 296 of 612
.-------i I
AVERY 6240 :
WALOCH ARTHUR A LIVING TRUST
2918 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUNV ALE INVESTMENT LLC
5345 TO SCANA WAY
#549
SAN DIEGO CA 92122
EILEEN V DONOVAN
7555 ROMERlA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LA COST A BLUFFS L L C
25531 COMMERCENTRE DR
#150
LAKE FOREST CA 92630
LA COST A BLUFFS L L C
25531 COMMERCENTRE DR
#150
LAKE FOREST CA 92630
KEVIN STEPHENS
1500 W 11TH AVE
#24
ESCONDIDO CA 92029
HALABUK DANIEL J & JEANETTE C
G FAMILY TR
7607 ROMERlA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHRIGLEY FAMILY TRUST
7604 ROMERlA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KAREN MOSSMAN
3003 LA COST A A VE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PERRY GARCIA
3009 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ezisy Peel /-1cicl1ess Labels :
P,cncJ ,1ICl1H1 l111l to,, 1 F1 ~l., J L n Eel~,· 1
STEVEN A THOMPSON
40047 87TH ST W
LEONA VALLEY CA 93551
ORTMAN SUSAN H TRUST 05-05-98
7551 ROMERlA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHAD J & V ANDER WO UDE CARRIE
PECK
7557 ROMERlA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LA COST A BLUFFS L L C
25531 COMMERCENTRE DR
#150
LAKE FOREST CA 92630
LC INVESTMENT 2010 LL C
4001 MAPLE A VE
#600
DALLAS TX 75219
KEVIN STEPHENS
1500 W 11TH A VE
#24
ESCONDIDO CA 92029
JOHANSEN TRUST
3000 AZAHAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MATTHEW & SONIA STAAB
7602 ROMERlA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RYAN FAMILY TRUST
3005 LA COST A A VE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MCCLELLAN FAMILY TRUST
3006 AZAHAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel :
Go to avery.corn/ternplates :
Uc. 1\ f-"Y 1, 1r1_)1 ,t,. 111U 1
BRANDON JOE
2922 LA COST A A VE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITRANO THOMAS G & ELIZABETH
A REVOCABLE TR
7422 CARLINA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JASON & NANCY E STEPHENSON
7559 ROMERlA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LA COSTA BLUFFS LL C
25531 COMMERCENTRE DR
#150
LAKE FOREST CA 92630
L C INVESTMENT 2010 LL C
4001 MAPLE A VE
#600
DALLAS TX 75219
KEVIN STEPHENS
1500 W 11 TH A VE
#24
ESCONDIDO CA 920-29
CHRJS VIERHEILIG
7606 ROMERlA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARSHALL & ELIZABETH K
SPEVAK
3001 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HODIL CHARLES REVOCABLE
TRUST
3007 LA COST A A VE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAB ANTING FAMILY 2005 TRUST
5020 BALFOUR LN
WOODLAND HLS CA 91364
Allez a avery.ca/gabarits :
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 297 of 612
NICHOLL FAMILY TRUST
3002 AZAHAR ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LINKE STEVEN P & KAREN L
REVOCABLE LIVING TR
7513 QUINTA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WAGNER RONALD & PAMELA LIFE
TRUST
7504 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WEISS BEYERL Y J TRUST
7523 QUINTA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENNIS GEORGIE A FAMILY TRUST
7520 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSHUA S & JAIME A GOLDMAN
7523 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CLARK & ERIN NEWTON
7517 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARINO A M 2008 TRUST
7511 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANTHONY P & MENZEL JESSIE E
VASILAS
7505 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SNYDER BEYERL Y TRUST
7445 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Easy Peel Address Lc1bels :
Gcnd ,dcrnq 1111t' tc., c • posr L J u1 F:cJ91· I
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 FARADAY AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLOUGHBY-GUY FAMILY TRUST
7511 QUINTA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RACKLEY RONALD D & REGINA A
REVOCABLE TR
7506 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DALBY FAMILY TRUST
7521 QUINTA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ASHE-MOENCH REVOCABLE TRUST
7522 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GOLDOJARB/BROWN-GOLDOJARB
FAMILY TR
5178 LOS ROBLES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LOWENSTEIN FAMILY TRUST
7515 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHRISTOPHER E & MATTHEWS
RAEGAN E ROESINK
7509 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARGARETT DUPREE
7503 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENNETH W & GABRIELLE K
AHRWEILER
7443 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel :
7 > > cc,. I--' ::,, , ::, •
Go to ave1y.corn/ternplates:
l,_J '\.' r; 1, rnpi lt• ::-]\ ll I
COFFEY HOW ARD T FAMILY TRUST
7515 QUINTA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HUBBERT STEPHENSON TRUST
7509 QUINTA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSEPH P & MARTHA CORDOVA
115 PRINCEHOUSELN
ENCINITAS CA 92024
STACIE LEE
3005 CANTERO WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MANUEL & NICOLE J MARTINEZ
7524 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD E & CHRISTINE C
SALAZAR
7519 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KEITH FAMILY TRUST
11 PACIFICO
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677
NAIDITCH CANDICE FAMILY TRUST
7507 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILSON SUZANNE L TRUST
7501 SOLANO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS
MANAGEMENT INC
27258 VIA INDUSTRIA
#B
TEMECULA CA 92590
Allez a avery.ca/gabarits :
~ '
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 298 of 612
SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)
Romeria Pointe Apartments –
Appeal
1
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 299 of 612
CMC 21.54.150
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.54.150 outlines
procedures for appeals of Planning Commission decisions, and
states:
“Grounds for appeal shall be limited to the following: that
there was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the
planning commission in that the decision was not supported
by the facts presented to the planning commission prior to
the decision being appealed; or that there was not a fair and
impartial hearing”.
2
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 300 of 612
CMC 21.54.150
Section 21.54.150 goes on to state that the City Council’s
consideration is “de novo” (or “like new”) but limits the
consideration to “only the evidence presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration in the determination or decision
being appealed.”
Therefore, no new information may be considered by the City
Council that was not presented to the Planning Commission. The
appeal is limited to the grounds stated in the appeal. The City
Council may uphold, modify or overturn the Planning
Commission’s decision.
3
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 301 of 612
Procedure
•Staff presentation
•Council opportunity to ask questions of staff
•Appellant presentation
•Applicant presentation
•Mayor opens public hearing
•Council receives comments from speakers
•Mayor closes public hearing
•Council discussion
•Council decision
4
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 302 of 612
Appeal
•Planning Commission unanimously approved the
project on March 20, 2019.
•On March 28, 2019, an appeal of Planning
Commission’s decision was filed.
5
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 303 of 612
Location Map
6
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 304 of 612
7
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 305 of 612
Project Information
•Zoning –Residential Density –Multiple (RD-M).
•GPLU – R-23 Residential 15-23 du/ac.
•Lot Size –0.72 acre or 31,430 square feet.
•Lot Coverage –59.5% (60% permitted).
8
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 306 of 612
Project Information
•23 Total Apartments
–16 three-bedroom units (1,661 – 2,019 s.f)
–7 one-bedroom units (641 – 942 s.f.)
•3 “very low-income” affordable one-bedroom apartments.
•Two, four-story buildings.
•Three stories of residential above ground floor parking.
•Two-car garages or covered parking space.
9
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 307 of 612
Site Plan
10
BUILDING A BUILDING B
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 308 of 612
11
ELEVATION NORTH
ELEVATION EAST
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 309 of 612
12 ELEVATION SOUTH
taroe-e-x;i1/\0lrt~M
nc-•!11"'~lot
olari.t..r19 per
l.Ombecap,nt,1 plen
ox 1n arc~lectvro
design&
COn$Ulting
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 310 of 612
Density Bonus –Intent
•Promote the construction of affordable
housing
•Implement the goals, objectives and policies of
the Housing Element
•Implement California Government Code
•Provide incentives to encourage developers to
construct affordable housing
13
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 311 of 612
Density Bonus – Summary
Base maximum density:23 dwelling units per acre
Base units at GMCP:14 units
Base maximum units:17 units
35% density bonus, CMC Chapter 21.86:6 units
Excess Dwelling Unit Bank: 9 units withdrawn
“Very low-income” inclusionary: 3 units
Total:
17 + 6 = 23 units
Density = 31.9 dwelling units per acre
14
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 312 of 612
Density Bonus - Concessions
Incentives or concessions, as stipulated in the Government
Code include, but are not limited to:
•Reduction in development standards (i.e., setbacks, height,
etc.)
•Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with a housing project, OR
•Any other regulatory incentive which would result in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions to enable the provision of affordable housing.
15
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 313 of 612
Density Bonus - Concessions
Project is utilizing two concessions for:
•Building height to exceed 35’ height limit of the RD-M Zone.
•Units from the city’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB).
Proposed Height:
–Building A: 45’ with projections to 48’
–Building B: 48’ with projections to 51’
Proposed units from EDUB: 9 units
Southeast Quadrant Excess Units: 318 units (as of 5/31/19)16
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 314 of 612
Density Bonus -Findings
•Project is consistent with Density Bonus Ordinance
•Incentives or concessions will result in identifiable,
financially sufficient and actual cost reductions
•Incentives or concessions will not result in any adverse
impacts to public health or safety, the environment or on property registered as a Historic Resource
•Incentives or concessions and/or waiver or reduction in development standards is not contrary to state or federal law
17
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 315 of 612
State Law
•Government Code §65915 states cities shall grant the concessions unless the city adopts written findings based on substantial evidence presented at the hearing of the
specific, adverse impacts on public health and safety.
•A specific, adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable,
direct and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified
written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with zoning or general plan land use is not a specific, adverse impact.
18
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 316 of 612
Density Bonus –Parking
Studio/one-bedroom:1 space per unit (7x1=7)
Two & three bedrooms:2 spaces per unit (16x2=32)
Four or more bedrooms:2.5 spaces per unit (n/a)
Visitor parking: None required (n/a)
Total Required: 39 spaces
Total Proposed: 41 spaces
19
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 317 of 612
Housing Accountability Act (HAA) –Govt
Code Section 65589.5
•A local government shall not disapprove a housing development project or lower the project density if the project complies with all “objective” general plan,
zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria,
including design review standards, in effect at the time the application was deemed complete unless it makes written findings, based on the preponderance of the
evidence in the record that both of the following
conditions exist:
20
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 318 of 612
HAA –Required Findings to Deny a Project
•The project would have a specific, adverse impact
upon the public health or safety; AND
•There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate
or avoid the specific adverse impact other than the
disapproval of the project or approval of the project
at a lower density.
21
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 319 of 612
Geotechnical Review –Qualifications
Jason Geldert –City Engineer
•California registered civil engineer
•11-years of geotechnical engineering
consulting including foundation
design, inspections and forensic
investigations
•13-years of municipal experience
reviewing geotechnical reports and
construction documents
•Court recognized geotechnical
expert witness
Hetherington Engineering
•City contract third-party reviewer
•Carlsbad based engineering firm with
34 years experience specializing in
geotechnical engineering, geology
and hydrogeology
•Third-party geotechnical reviewer for
four cities in southern California.
•Nationally recognized geotechnical
expert
22
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 320 of 612
Geotechnical
Appellant
•Engineering reports and soil
sampling are warranted due
to previous and existing
geotechnical issues in the
surrounding area. Previous
and existing geotechnical
issues in the area were not
disclosed to the Planning
Commission.
Staff Response
•City staff and a third-party
review of the geotechnical
report was completed and
found the project to be
geotechnically feasible.
Final engineering reports
and documents are
required prior to on-site
grading.
23
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 321 of 612
Traffic
Appellant
•A traffic study is warranted.
Staff Response
•Traffic Impact Studies
required for new
developments that exceed
500 ADT. The proposed
project has an estimated
184 ADT which is well below
the 500 ADT to warrant
such a study.
24
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 322 of 612
CEQA
Appellant
•The Planning Commission
erroneously approved the project by
relying on self-certification by city
staff that the proposed project has
no environmental impact.
•Previous and existing geotechnical
issues in the area were not disclosed
to the Planning Commission.
•An EIR is warranted.
Staff Response
•The City Planner is authorized to make the CEQA determination. Staff reviewed the project and found the project would not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
•Geotechnical concerns were raised at the Planning Commission hearing and addressed by the City Engineer.
•The project qualifies for an exemption per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and an EIR is not required.
25
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 323 of 612
Project Consistency
•General Plan – R-23 Residential;
•Density Bonus Ordinance;
•Zoning – Residential Density –Multiple (RD-M);
•Geotechnical Requirements;
•Inclusionary Housing Ordinance;
•Growth Management; and
•California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
•*Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the project
26
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 324 of 612
Recommendation
That the City Council ADOPT a City Council
resolution DENYING the appeal and
UPHOLDING the Planning Commission’s
decision to approve Site Development Plan
SDP 2018-0004
27
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 325 of 612
Thank You
28 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 326 of 612
Backup Slides
29 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 327 of 612
30
ELEVATION NORTH Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 328 of 612
31
ELEVATION SOUTH
large existing tree on
neighbors lot
planting per
landscaping plan
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 329 of 612
32
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 330 of 612
33
property line
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 331 of 612
34
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 332 of 612
35
~Ali - ---
~Ut.!i• ----
~~----
_______ u::~
c.------------~~
i..£1/El~ /"_;;.;;;;:;;,.----;;,~
------~
-------~~
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 333 of 612
36
0 ~:~-
0 ~:i;s-
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 334 of 612
37
ff,------..... ..,_
---i:..: ..,_
.. ,i;;,a,.r
D D D
D D
D
NOIRTHB.EVATION'·SULDN3S W•f.fl 2
c.:
□ □ CD
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 335 of 612
38
-:
:
I _ __, ... -,-. .. ,.~ ... ~ ~ ... .,.. ... ,,., .... -., r·: Bl l _______ ----------______ J .=.-,,..J
A· LEVEL 4 [I] A . USVD. l ffil
'l ... 181'£F ~ ~
____________ m sF __ '61M _.J ~! /L~----------'
A•I.E',,'ELl {§J Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 336 of 612
39
i:,--:.r ...... <:::T ...... <::T""-<::T ...... t::~ , ___________ ,
I o I B•lll-I I o I ~SF \
I / I I L _ --__ w; ____ ../
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 337 of 612
40
=------------Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 338 of 612
Romeria Pointe ApartmentsNov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 339 of 612
Project Introduction
Romeria Pointe Site As-Is
•Remains largely unmaintained
•Dump area for trash and undocumented fill
•Allows for surficial runoff into storm drain system
•Serves no real purpose
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 340 of 612
Project Introduction
Romeria Pointe Developed
•Contained stormwater treatment system
•Project will be a smart, green building with low-eco footprint
•Will include regrading and improving of perimeter slopes
•Increases stock of high quality housing
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 341 of 612
Appeal Discussion
Building Height
•CMC 21.04.065 identifies building height as limited to the vertical
distance measured from existing grade or finished grade, whichever is
lower
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 342 of 612
EB-\tl'\!"---
E!)-$'\I"---
~---
~--
EB-\l?.~ -
EB-\l?,~ -
g:...,. __ """"" .. ~
~· ~···~·
,,.~
.. ~
SITESECTIOf\101~
---~--¾,j)
---~
---~
---~
'---~
C
X 2._
;1100 ,__
SITE SECTIONS
A-301 Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 343 of 612
Appeal Discussion
Building Height
•Building A measures 48’-4”
•Building B measures 50’-7”
•We lowered existing grade between 5-10 feet
•Stepped back the entire fourth floor
•Landscape design helps mitigate first floor
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 344 of 612
Appeal Discussion
Stormwater Treatment
•No denudation of soils for stormwater treatment
•Biofiltration system is used; infiltration is infeasible
•System will remove pollutants, reduce runoff rates, and prevent infiltration and erosion to the steep terrain
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 345 of 612
Appeal Discussion
Geotechnical Engineering
Geosoils, Inc.
•Investigated property for multi-family development in 2004
•Performed supplemental subsurface exploration in 2006
•Prepared updated geotechnical report in 2017 for currently-proposed development
•Prepared an additional review letter addressing project-specific
designs in 2018
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 346 of 612
Appeal Discussion
Geotechnical Engineering
•We reviewed previous geotechnical reports and advanced and down-
hole logged large-diameter borings to evaluate existing fill quality and
geologic structure
•No evidence of deep-seated instability was revealed
•However, lab tests showed soil has potential for high compression
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 347 of 612
~~~~T~==~~-L-~i c---:;::;;:-~ ~~ -:;:=;-~~-~=:-~~==-==·"·-,,If p~I ,d
. H 1·_,-
1_ r
I
)~ ,,, '
. /1$-2~,,,.,:" ...
~ -5HEETS
GRADING PLANS FOR ·
LA COST,.\. SOUTH UNIT Ne:! 5
'SCALE • I"• 40
RICK EN61N£EAING CO. J -3193
DAn: _ GAAOIMG PERMIT N!~
llCll'5k7l' lOll'C/Z.!DMll.tJRA/Xs ~· 5·rl-10 -
o,.,,. NO. \1oq.4A
II
i !
·'-i ;.
l
--,",.
1r~r , II i~
)
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 348 of 612
Appeal Discussion
Geotechnical Engineering
Project Recommendations
1. Completely remove and recompact the existing fill soils (remedial grading)
-OR -
2. Support the proposed buildings on drilled piles to mitigate adverse settlement potential
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 349 of 612
Appeal Discussion
Response to Comments
Marbella Property
•Located several thousand fee to the West of Romeria Pointe
•Underlain by a different geologic formation
•A review of the landslide susceptibility map performed by the State of California Geologic Survey indicates that the Marbella property is at higher risk to landslides than Romeria Pointe
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 350 of 612
,·,, \\ 2·· ,· , -·: ... , , .
, , z ·c·· ·-, . . . r i•e l.·
.. (' r) ~ ----·---~-----~·fil--
( '\' ....... -····· .. 'NI \ ,··, ..... , , /r;,.,, , .. . :,. ,,,
L \NDSLIDE IL\7.A.RDS I N TH~ :-.iOIO'Hl!RN l':\KT o r
'fKE SA.."i' Dll!CO METROPOU TANAkt:A,
S.4;.._ OlECO COUNTY, ('.>).U l!ORNJA
ENC.NITA$ Q\IJ.O:tA).'(;I.E
GRAPHIC SCALE
1000 0 50tJ 1000 2000 !Pt.Al"eOj ----R ...... c;o~r•..e QU.-.O~"li<lLE
lfL\TE El - - -J"=1(J(JO'
IU:L\TI\'L LI.1'"DSUDi Sl"SU!l"l'IKI, .rn·
A.NU I.A,'0),$1,IIIK J)ll;\'JU8Vfl0~ &LU'
sn.u~:n.s <·r--.r-...... ,
(1 .. .L .L.,.J...7' ~tut.lZEON'IEA6CU10,li,kr'
MS..\'T \'5 .. •1'DaU0E !UJCEPllill.JT\' Mll'.a.\C
~-· ,_.., Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 351 of 612
Appeal Discussion
Response to Comments
Adjacent Property – Golfcrest
•Reviewed numerous geotechnical reports for surrounding properties
•Slopes in the immediate area are not subject to deep-seated slope instability
•Planned excavations will reduce driving forces for slope instability
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 352 of 612
Appeal Discussion
Response to Comments
CIDH Piles
•CIDH piles are design features and recommendations that mitigate any
potential issues raised by the public regarding unstable soil conditions
•Reduces remedial earthwork excavations and ground disturbance
•Reduces potential for excessive differential settlement of existing fill
•Designed to sufficiently support a 4-story building
•Avoids loading the slopes, offsite buildings and existing retaining wall
•Does not rely on existing fill
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 353 of 612
CITY COUNCIL
June 11, 2019 4 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: 4:14 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher, Hamilton.
Council Chamber
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONCURRENT MEETINGS: Mayor Hall announced the City Council will be
serving as the Public Financing Authority Board of Directors on Consent Calendar Item No. 7.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the Special Meeting held May 14, 2019.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting held May 14, 2019.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to approve the
minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
Mayor Hall announced that the City Council would be taking items out of order. At 5:40 p.m. a
recess will be declared and at 6:00 p.m. the proclamations and presentations would be made.
PUBLIC REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: None.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Michael Kim spoke regarding trail access and the need to pay more attention to the demographics
and issues of mountain bikers and bike riders.
Mary Lucid spoke regarding issues surrounding the senior center and the need to manage funds
properly for the senior center.
Laurie Boone spoke in appreciation of Magee Park and the Leo CarriJ/o Ranch Historic Park.
Laurenn Barker spoke in support of adding a full-time Public Arts Coordinator to the budget for
the Library and Cultural Arts Department.
Louisa & Tabitha Evans spoke regarding speeding traffic on Tamarack Avenue and the need for
further traffic regulations during and outside school hours.
EXHIBIT 7
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 354 of 612
June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to approve
Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 thru 11. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
1.PURCHASE OF EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-
074 approving the purchase of $43 million of excess liability coverage through California
Insurance Pool Authority (CIPA) for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 in an amount not to exceed
$553,714. (Staff contact: Ed Garbo, Risk Management)
2.PURCHASE OF PROPERTY INSURANCE COVERAGE -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-075
authorizing the purchase of $1 billion of property insurance coverage through Alliant
Insurance Services lnc.'s Alliant Property Insurance Program (APIP) for Fiscal Year 2019-2020
in an amount not to exceed $233,014. (Staff contact: Ed Garbo, Risk Management)
3.RESCIND CITY COUNCIL OPPOSITION TO AB 392 (WEBER) PEACE OFFICERS: DEADLY FORCE -
Rescinded City Council opposition to AB 392 (Weber) Peace officers: deadly force. (Staff
contact: Jason Haber, City Manager Department)
4.SUMMARY VACATION OF PIPELINE EASEMENT, CT 13-03-Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-
076 summarily vacating a pipeline easement over Lots 9, 10, 12, 14 thru 17, and 22 of Map
No. 16091, located at Robertson Ranch West Village, Case Name: Robertson Ranch West
Village, Case No. VAC 2019-0004. (Staff contact: Kyrenne Chua, Community & Economic
Development)
5.SUMMARY VACATION OF PIPELINE EASEMENT, CT 13-03 -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-
077 summarily vacating a pipeline easement over Lots 339 and 347 of Map No. 16092, located
at Robertson Ranch West Village, Case Name: Robertson Ranch West Village, Case No. VAC
2019-0003. (Staff contact: Kyrenne Chua, Community & Economic Development)
6.SUMMARY VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-078
summarily vacating a public drainage easement over Lot 9 of CT 85-35, Aviara Phase 1 Unit A
located at 7130 Kingfisher Lane, Case Name: Four Seasons Residence Club, Case No. VAC
2017-0008. (Staff contact: David Rick, Community & Economic Development)
7.REJECTION OF ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE CROSSINGS AT CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF
COURSE LAKE REFURBISHMENT PROJECT-Adoption of Public Financing Authority Resolution
No. 78 rejecting all bids received for the Crossings at Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Lake
Refurbishment Project (Contract No. PWS 19-690 PKS). (Staff contact: Kyle Lancaster, Parks
& Recreation)
8.PURCHASE OF FIVE MARKED POLICE VEHICLES -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-079
authorizing the purchase of five fully outfitted Ford Police Interceptor vehicles from Jones
West Ford, in an amount not to exceed $337,372. (Staff contact: Cindy Anderson, Police)
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 355 of 612
June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 3
9.AGREEMENT FOR CONSULT ANT SERVICES WITH DELT AWRX, LLC-Adoption of Resolution No.
2019-080 approving a two-year agreement for consulting services with DELTAWRX, LLC in an
amount not to exceed $325,182 to aid the city in acquiring a new public safety computer
aided dispatch (CAD) system. (Staff contact: Cindy Anderson, Police)
10.AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT AMBULANCE AND TWO UTILITY TRUCKS -
Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-081 authorizing the purchase of one replacement
ambulance for $249,060 and two replacement utility trucks for $112,910. (Staff contact:
Shawn Gaskari, Public Works)
11.AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH ARCADIS U.S., INC. AND AUTHORIZE AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
THE AG REEM ENT WITH THE CITY OF VISTA-Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-082 authorizing
execution of an agreement with Arcadis U.S., Inc. to provide construction management and
inspection services for the Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station, Vista/Carlsbad interceptor
sewer reaches VC11B-VC15 and recycled water line, Capital Improvement Program Project
Nos. 3492, 3886 and 3949, in an amount not to exceed $423,589 and appropriating $965,768
in additional funds from the Sewer Connection Fee Fund for changes to the project; and,
Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-083 authorizing execution of Amendment No. 3 to the
agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the City of Vista for the construction of the Agua
Hedionda Sewer Lift Station, Vista/Carlsbad interceptor sewer reaches VC11B-VC15 and
recycled water line, Capital Improvement Program Project Nos. 3492, 3886 and 3949. (Staff
contact: Babaq Taj, Public Works)
ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION: None.
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION: None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
12.APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
PROJECT Adoption of a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a Site Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-unit
residential apartment project which includes three affordable, rent restricted housing units,
on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street
within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Case Name: Romeria Pointe Apartments, Case
No. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) (Staff contact: Chris Garcia, Community & Economic
Development)
City Manager's Recommendation: Take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the
Resolution.
Associate Planner Chris Garcia, City Planner Don Neu and Engineering Manager Jason Geldert
presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation ( on file in the Office of the City
Clerk).
Mayor Hall opened the duly noticed Public Hearing at 4:48 p.m.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 356 of 612
June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 4
Speakers in opposition of City Manager's recommendation: Jerry Surdy; Susan Ortman; Laura
Knight; Jay Brown; Nancy Stuard; Jason Stephenson; Beth Citrano representing a group: {Chad
Peck; Gabe Citrano; Samantha Miller; Kay Colvin); Quentin Citrano; Chris Shea; Thomas
Citrano; Lucille Lindsey; Eileen Donovan; Carol Carrasco.
Submitted speaker cards in opposition of City Mangers recommendation; however, did not
speak: Tetyana Pelypenko; Heather Lindsey.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Hall closed the duly noticed Public Hearing at
5:37 p.m.
RECESS:
Mayor Hall declared a recess at 5:38 p.m.
Mayor Hall reconvened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. for the presentations portion of the meeting.
PRESENTATIONS:
Proclamation in recognition of Carlsbad Historic Preservation Month
Council Member Blackburn presented a proclamation to Deputy Library Director Suzanne
Smithson and Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission Chad Majer in recognition of
Carlsbad Historic Preservation Month.
Third Grade Art Contest Presentation
Mayor Hall introduced Deputy Library Director Suzanne Smithson who acknowledged the
winners of the art contest.
RECESS:
Mayor Hall declared a recess at 6:10 p.m. to allow the recipients of the proclamations an
opportunity to exit the Council Chamber.
Mayor Hall reconvened the meeting at 6:14 p.m.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 12:
12.APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
PROJECT Adoption of a Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a Site Development Plan to construct a four-story, 23-unit
residential apartment project which includes three affordable, rent restricted housing units,
on property generally located at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street
within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Case Name: Romeria Pointe Apartments, Case
No. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) (Staff contact: Chris Garcia, Community & Economic
Development)
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 357 of 612
June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 5
City Manager's Recommendation: Take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the
Resolution.
Associate Planner Chris Garcia, City Planner Don Neu and Engineering Manager Jason Geldert
presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City
Clerk).
Council Member Schumacher stated that the City Council can modify the Planning
Commission's decision based on substantial evidence regarding public health concerns. She
stated that she would like to put together a motion to uphold the appeal but requests that
the developer go through a CEQA analysis and then bring the item back to the Planning
Commission for a decision.
City Attorney Celia Brewer suggested a short recess to further articulate the proper motion
by Council Member Schumacher.
RECESS:
Mayor Hall declared a recess at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Hall reconvened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Minute Motion by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Council Member Blackburn,
remanding the item to the Planning Commission and requesting a CEQA analysis and an EIR
focused on traffic and geotechnical be performed on the project. Motion carried, 4/1 (Hall -
No)
13.PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SALE OF CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3701 CATALINA DRIVE -
Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-084 taking final action and authorizing the execution of a
purchase and sale agreement for city property located at 3701 Catalina Drive, APN 167-154-
20, commonly known as Old Fire Station No. 3, to Charles Colletti. (Staff contact: Curtis
Jackson, Real Estate)
City Manager's Recommendation: Take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the
Resolution.
Real Estate Manager Curtis Jackson and Community Services Deputy City Manager Gary
Barberio presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office
of the City Clerk).
Mayor Hall opened the duly noticed Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mayor Hall closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to adopt
Resolution No. 2019-084. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 358 of 612
June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page6
DEPARTMENTAL AND CITY MANAGER REPORTS:
14.CARLSBAD TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REPORT -Adoption of Resolution
No. 2019-085 approving the Report of the Carlsbad Tourism Business Improvement District
(CTBID) and continuing the CTBID programs and assessments for Fiscal Year 2019-20. (Staff
contact: Cheryl Gerhardt, Administrative Services)
City Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Finance Manager Cheryl Gerhardt and Administrative Services Deputy City Manager Laura
Rocha presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of
the City Clerk).
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to adopt
Resolution No. 2019-085. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
15.CARLSBAD GOLF LODGING BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REPORT -Adoption of
Resolution No. 2019-086 approving the Report of the Carlsbad Golf Lodging Business
Improvement District (CGLBID) and continuing the CGLBID programs and assessments for
Fiscal Year 2019-20. (Staff contact: Cheryl Gerhardt, Administrative Services)
City Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Finance Manager Cheryl Gerhardt and Administrative Services Deputy City Manager Laura
Rocha presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of
the City Clerk).
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to adopt
Resolution No. 2019-086. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
16.MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND CONTRACT FOR FIRST-LAST MILE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PILOT PROGRAM -Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-087
approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the City of Carlsbad, North
County Transit District (NCTD) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for the
purpose of executing a first-last mile transportation pilot program and authorizing the City
Manager to execute an agreement with RideCo, Inc. to provide first-last mile transportation
services in an amount not to exceed $650,000. (Staff contact: Christie Marcella, Community
& Economic Development)
City Manager's Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Economic Development Manager Christie Marcella presented the report and reviewed a
PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk).
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to adopt
Resolution No. 2019-087. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 359 of 612
June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 7
17.PRESENTATION ON TRAFFIC CONTROL, TRAFFIC CALMING AND TRAFFIC SAFETY Receive an
informational presentation describing traffic control, traffic calming and traffic safety efforts
including best practices, standards and programs, and provide direction to staff as
appropriate. (Staff contact: Marshall Plantz, Public Works)
City Manager's Recommendation: Receive the presentation and provide direction to staff.
Transportation Director Marshall Plantz, Senior Engineer John Kim and Police Lieutenant
Christie Calderwood presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation {on file
in the Office of the City Clerk).
Steve Linke representing a group (Kris Wright; Linda Schlesinger; Jan Neff-Sincair) requested
that the City Council empower the Traffic Safety Commission to execute traffic actions or have
them recommend traffic issues directly to the City Council.
Brenda Harai spoke in support of more traffic regulations on Tamarack Avenue.
Quinn Bodon stated that he does not feel safe on Tamarack Avenue and that as a student he
feels his safety is a concern. He also suggested having a stop sign installed.
Minute Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Hamilton, to
perform a comprehensive traffic calming analysis to include what types of traffic calming
measures are currently used in the region, research new approaches to traffic calming and
report what measures are commonly used in the City of Carlsbad. Motion carried
unanimously, 5/0.
Minute Motion by Council Member Blackburn, seconded by Council Member Schumacher,
that staff explore other ideas for traffic calming at the intersection of Tamarack and Valley
since staff determined that a stop sign was not appropriate. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
Minute Motion by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Council Member Hamilton, for
staff to bring back an analysis of changing the physical character specifically for traffic calming
on the following streets: College Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive to Sage Creek High
School, Tamarack Avenue from Skyline Road in the east to Carlsbad Boulevard in the west,
and Carlsbad Boulevard from the Agua Hedionda Trail head to the roundabout at State Street.
Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
18.DISCUSSION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO'S MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER
PLAN UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF A CITY COUNCIL POSITION ON THE SAN DIEGO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' PREFERRED D-111 MODIFIED STANDARDS COMPLIANCE
ALTERNATIVE FUTURE AIRPORT CLASSIFICATION, ALLOWING A RUNWAY EXTENSION UP TO
800 FEET -1.) Engage in a public discussion of the County of San Diego's McClellan-Palomar
Airport Master Plan Update; 2.) Consider taking a position on the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors' preferred D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative future airport
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 360 of 612
June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 8
classification, allowing a runway extension up to 800 feet; and 3.) Approve a motion to
rescind the City Council's May 7, 2019, approval of a Minute Motion to oppose the San Diego
County Board of Supervisors' selected classification for McClellan-Palomar Airport. (Staff
contact: Jason Haber, City Manager Department)
City Manager's Recommendation: Engage in discussion of the County of San Diego's
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update, consider taking a position on the San Diego
County Board of Supervisors' preferred D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative
future airport classification and approve a motion to rescind the City Council's May 7, 2019
approval of a Minute Motion to oppose the San Diego County Board of Supervisors' selected
classification for McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Assistant to the City Manager Jason Haber presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint
presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk).
RECESS:
Mayor Hall declared a recess at 9:12 p.m.
Mayor Hall reconvened the meeting at 9:14 p.m.
Pierre Weinandt spoke in opposition to any airport expansion.
Michelle Saint Germain also spoke in opposition to any airport expansion.
Noel Breen, expressed concerns relating to conflicts of interests regarding the City Council and
the decision on the airport expansion.
Larry Posner stated that the Palomar Airport is a County of San Diego Airport and is regulated
by the Federal Aviation Administration. He stated that the issues at Palomar Airport should
be handled by the County of San Diego. He also spoke on potential conflicts of interests
regarding the City Council and the decision on the airport expansion.
Kristine Wright representing a group {Jan Neff-Sinclair; Diane Rivera; Mary Lucid) also spoke
in opposition to any expansion of Palomar Airport.
Hope Nelson for Citizens for a Friendly Airport spoke in opposition to an airport expansion.
Minute Motion by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, to
rescind Council's Minute Motion to oppose the San Diego County Board of Supervisor's
selected alternative for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
Minute Motion by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, to
direct staff to return to Council with a resolution opposing the County Board of Supervisor's
preferred D-111 modified standards compliance alternative allowing a runway extension of up
to 800-feet. Motion carried, 4/1. (Hall-No).
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 361 of 612
June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 9
Minute Motion by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, to
direct staff to return to Council with a resolution supporting the B-11 enhanced alternative
without a runway extension. -Motion carried, 3/2. (Hall, Blackburn -No).
City Attorney Celia Brewer stated that a group named 'The Citizens for a Friendly Airport' filed
a lawsuit against the City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego challenging the legality of
the approval of the settlement agreement between the parties. Since there is pending
litigation she suggested that Items No. 19 and No. 20 be continued with the commitment that
City Council will return with Item 20 with enough time to place an advisory or ballot measure
on the March, 2020 ballot.
19.CITY COUNCIL INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 172 TO OPERATE THE
EXISTING PALOMAR AIRPORT FACILITY AND CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21.53.015
-VOTER AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED FOR AIRPORT EXPANSION -That the City Council
consider articulating its explicit interpretation of Conditional Use Permit 172 and Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.53.015. (Staff contact: Jason Haber, City Manager Department)
City Manager's Recommendation: That the City Council articulate its interpretation of
Conditional Use Permit 172 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.015.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to continue
Item No. 19 to a date uncertain. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
20.MARCH 2020 PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT: ADVISORY QUESTION REGARDING THE
MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT -Discuss placing an advisory question regarding the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Master Plan Update and Final Environmental Impact Report, in total, on the March
2020 primary election ballot, and provide direction to staff. (Staff contact: Jason Haber, City
Manager Department)
City Manager's Recommendation: Discuss placing an advisory question regarding the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Final Environmental Impact Report on
the March 2020 Primary Election ballot and provide direction to staff.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to continue
Item No. 20 to a date uncertain. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
COUNCIL REPORTS AND COMMENTS:
Minute Motion by Council Member Hamilton, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, to place
on the June 25, 2019 agenda, an item to discuss a time-bound moratorium regarding building
and development in the Village and Barrio Master Plan area. -Motion carried 3/0/2 (Hall,
Schumacher -Absent).
Minute Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Schumacher, for
the City Manager to return to Council with a proclamation declaring June of every year starting
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 362 of 612
June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 10
this year to be celebrated as Pride Month honoring the LGBTQIA community in the City of
Carlsbad. -Motion carried unanimously, 5/0.
Minute Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Hamilton, for the
City Manager to return to City Council with information related to the contracted workforce
regarding job quality standards, working conditions, and compliance requirements. -Motion
carried 4/1 (Hall -No).
PUBLIC COMMENT: Continuation of the Public Comments
Raul Villamar spoke regarding the ineffectiveness of speed humps and recommended speed
bumps instead. He also spoke about vehicle accidents and traffic concerns on Harding Street and
Oak Avenue.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: City Manager Scott Chadwick announced that the June 18, 2019
City Council meeting will begin at 4:00 p.m.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS: None.
CITY CLERK COMMENTS: None.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor Hall adjourned the duly noticed Meeting at 10:08 p.m.
Hector Gomez
Deputy City Clerk
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 363 of 612
• · • ► 1 t " j 1 ' ' . 1 • 1 I j •STREA.MLINE :_ =-
.
,
:
:::::__·_.: 1-,:::.. · ··' · -··-·
Via Email/U.S. Mail
November 22, 2019
Mr. Scott Chadwick City Manager
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Email: manager@carlsbad.ca.gov
Re: City of Carlsbad -Romeria Pointe
Dear Mr. Chadwick:
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and your collea�e, Ms. Brewer, th� CityAttorney, regarding the status of the Romeria Pointe project. We appreciate staff_s perspective, and
while we were disappointed by the City Co�c�l's decis_ion not to appr_ove the proJ�ct o� Jun� 11: and instead direct staff to undertake further llllllted envrronmental review, the applicant s desrre IS to
work with staff to address the concerns raised by the City Council.
As you know, the City Council directed staff to require the preparation of a focused
environmental impact report ("EIR"). After reviewing the issues thoroughly, we do not believe that an EIR is necessary or warranted under the circumstances. In this regard, we are including with this letter additional analysis which we believe adequately addresses the concerns raised by the City Council, including further geotechnical information (Exhibit A) and analysis to address the traffic issues raised (Exhibit B).
In particular, Exhibit A demonstrates that the proposed system utilizing drilled piles wouldbe superior to a standard "slab on grade" system, and that caissons will be sized to accommodate theproposed building height. Moreover, in response to a direct question regarding impacts on adjacent�roperties, City Engineer Geldhart conclusively stated that the design would not result in adverseimpacts. As a result, the unusual circumstances exception to the Class 32 Categorical Exemptionunder CEQA does not apply.
Similarly, �xhi�it B demonstrates compliance with objective public health and safety
standards. 1:h� ProJect 1s expected to generate just 138 average daily trips (ADTs), which falls wellbel?w the_C1ty s st�dard to require a traffic study for new developments exceeding 500 ADTs. Webelieve this analysis confi�s that no unusual circumstances are present that would take the Project out of the Class 32 Exempt10n that was approved by City staff and the Planning Commission. 890546.02/SD 378693-00001 EXHIBIT 8
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 364 of 612
Mr. Scott ChadwickNovember 22, 2019
Page2
In order to move the project forward without further delay, we would like to present
Exhibit A and Exhibit B as part of a further hearing at City Council. Section 1.20.130(]) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code permits the Council to "rescind, repeal, cancel, or otherwise nullify prior council action" as a new item of business "at any subsequent meeting of the council."
I also am enclosing a legal analysis prepared by our counsel, Tim Hutter, applying Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act legislation to the project and the previous City Council
action. Again, our desire is to resolve the concerns of the City Council and move forward with the
project, which we believe, as did the Planning Commission, will be an outstanding housing
development consistent with all applicable regulations. Nevertheless, as the representative of the Applicant, I believe it is important that the City Council consider all of the enclosed information.
Thank you again and we look forward to discussing , matter with you further.
cc: Celia A. Brewer, Esq. Jeffrey A. Chine, Esq.
Timothy M. Hutter, Esq. 890546 02/SD 378693-0000 I ohn Allen
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 365 of 612
(
(
Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail November 22, 2019 Mr. John Allen, Principal Streamline Development Group 2266 Grand A venue, Ste. 26 San Diego, CA 92109 john@streamlinedevelopmentgroup.com Re: City of Carlsbad -Romeria Pointe Dear Mr. Allen: Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, 27u, Floor I San Diego, CA 92 IOl-0903 Telephone: 619.233.I 15-51 Facsimile: 619.233.1158 www.allenmatkins.com Timothy M. Hutter E-mail: thutter@allenmatkins.comDirect Dial: 619.235.15 IO File Number: 3 78693-0000 I /SD889812.06As you know, my law firm represents BNR Investments, LLC, the applicant and owner ("Applicant") of the project known as Romeria Pointe Apartments, project no. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) (the "Project"). As the Applicant's representative, you requested that we provide a legal analysis of the Carlsbad City Council action on the Project at its June 11, 2019 public hearing. You have indicated your intent to share this letter with the City. Moreover, you have provided us a copy of the September 18, 2019 letter to the City Manager from Zachary Olmstead, Deputy Director of the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"), wherein Mr. Olmstead identified a number of procedural problems in the City's processing of the Project. In addition to the points raised therein, this letter addresses the City's potential violations of Government Code sections 65589.5 (the "Housing Accountability Act", or "HAA") and 65915 (the "Density Bonus Law" or "DBL"). A.Procedural BackgroundThe development application for the Project was deemed complete by City staff on October 12, 2018. At that time, City staff also determined that the project was compliant with applicable general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards. On November 7, 2018, Principal Planner Teri Delcamp wrote to Applicant's architect regarding the City's CEQA determination and target decision date for the Project. A copy of Ms. Delcamp's letter is enclosed as Exhibit A to this letter. In particular, Ms. Delcamp stated, without reservation: Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco
-----·------------·-------________ _, __ ,. ____________ --~-------------------------
EXHIBIT A
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 366 of 612
( Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. John Allen, Principal November 22, 2019 Page 2 The Project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Categorical Exemption for In-Fill Development ProjectsState CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. No environmental review is required for the project. At its hearing on March 20, 2019, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the Project, including confirmation of the City's prior determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA. An appeal to the City Council was filed pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 21.54.150, and alleged that the Planning Commission "erroneously approved the city's first density bonus project by relying on self-certification by city staff that the project proposes no environmental impact." At its June 1 i, 2019, hearing, the City Council's review focused on purported geotechnical and traffic concerns that were proffered as potentially undermining the Project's eligibility for the CEQA exemption. The minutes reflect that "Council Member Schumacher stated that City Council can modify the Planning Commission's decision based on substantial evidence regarding public health concerns." The Council voted 4-1 to support Councilmember Schumacher's motion "remanding the item to the Planning Commission and requesting a CEQA analysis and an EIR focused on traffic and geotechnical be performed on the Project." The City Council minutes do not reflect any specific findings made by the City Council to support its decision. When the Applicant's representative contacted Assistant City Attorney Ronald Kemp to obtain greater clarity regarding the City Council's action, Mr. Kemp responded by email on June 20, 2019, stating: The appeal of the decision by the Planning Commission was not neither [sic] granted or denied. The council determined that further CEQA review is necessary. It remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration once a focused EIR has been completed. Since there is no "final" decision yet, there is no need for fmdings at this time. On September 18, 2019, Mr. Olmstead sent bis letter on behalf of HCD addressing the City's non-compliance with the HAA, and confirmed that "no written findings were made by the City." B.City AppealPursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 21.54.ISO(b), when an appeal is filed to challenge a decision of the Planning Commission, the appellant carries the burden to prove by substantial evidence that the appeal should be granted. Grounds for an appeal are limited to one of two reasons: (l)That there was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of thePlanning Commission in that the decision was not supported by theNov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 367 of 612
(
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mr. John Allen, Principal November 22, 2019
Page 3 facts presented to the Plamiing Commission prior to the decision being appealed; or (2)That there was not a fair and impartial hearing.Neither the appellant nor the City Council contend that the Planning Commission failed to conduct a fair and impartial hearing, therefore limiting the grounds for appeal to the first prong. CMC Section 21.54.150( c) clarifies that "the appeal hearing before the city council is de novo; however the city council shall consider only the evidence presented to the planning commission for consideration in the determination or decision being appealed. The city council shall determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the planning commission and are supported by substantial evidence." The City failed to limit the proceedings accordingly. Describing the basis for the appeal, the appellant asserted that the Planning Commission "erroneously approved the city's first density bonus project by relying on self-certification by city staff that the project proposes no environmental impact." As you know, members of City staff routinely assess potential environmental impacts and make determinations about the applicability of CEQA for development projects, just as Ms. Delcamp did here. It simply cannot be true that the Planning Commission's agreement with staffs determination would constitute per se error or abuse of discretion. Moreover, as discussed in greater detail below, the fact that this project utilizes the DBL cannot, as a matter oflaw, subject it to any additional review or different procedure. The two stated bases for the appeal, opposition to density bonus projects and staffs determination regarding the applicability of the CEQA exemption, demonstrate exactly the type of animus toward housing development that the HAA and DBL are designed to mitigate by setting forth strict approval procedures. Unfortunately, those procedures were also ignored in the course of the appeal for the Project. C.Non-Compliance with the BAAAfter the City deemed the Project application complete in October 2018, and determined that the Project was exempt from CEQA on November 7, 2018, the Permit Streamlining Act required the City to act within 60 days of such determination. (Gov. Code§ 65950(a)(5).) Under the HAA, a City's failure to comply with the time periods set forth in section 65950 constitutes disapproval. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5)(B).) Even with supplemental information from the Applicant provided in January, the Project's current status, which the City acknowledges as lacking an approval or denial, constitutes a failure to meet the required timelines. Therefore, the City's actions are treated as disapproval, or denial by delay, under the HAA. In the midst of our current housing crisis, which is described at length in Mr. Olm.stead's letter citing the Legislature's findings, the HAA emphasizes the need for swift approval of housing projects that are compliant with local planning and zoning standards. As a result, in order to Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 368 of 612
(
(
( Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Mr. John Allen, Principal November 22, 2019 Page4 disapprove such a project, the local agency must make written findings, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that:
The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lowet density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete; and
There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
(Gov. Code§ 65589.S(j)(l), emphasis added.) The 2018 amendments to the HAA elevated the standard for local jurisdictions from "substantial evidence" to a "preponderance of the evidence" when making findings as to the disapproval of a housing development project. (Gov. Code § 65589.50).) As further clarification, Assembly Bill 3194, which went into effect on January I, 2019, provides that the "specific, adverse impact" basis to disapprove an HAA project shall "arise infrequently.'' (Gov. Code§ 65589.5(a)(3).)
Given that the City failed to issue arty written findings to support its decision, the City has violated these provisions of the HAA.
The HAA expressly states that litigation regarding the disapproval of a project carries harsh consequences. If the court rules in favor of the petitioner, it must issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with the HAA. If the local agency fails to timely comply with the court's order, the court may impose fines starting with a minimum of$10,000 per housing unit identified in the development application. (Gov. Code§ 65589.S(k)(l)(B).) Moreover, if the court determines that the agency acted in bad faith or failed to comply with a court order within 60 days, it may multiply the $10,000 per unit fine by a factor of five. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(1).) These modifications represent serious consequences for cities that fail to follow the law and find themselves in the midst of litigation over their housing approval processes. Finally, the HAA includes express provisions permitting successful project proponent litigants to recover their attorneys' fees. (Gov. Code§ 65589.S(k)(l)(A.)
D.Non-Compliance with the DBL
Like the HAA, the DBL is intended to aid in the production of housing units, including affordable housing. The Project includes three units designated for very-low income households,
-------····•·--··--•··-··--··· .... . .. .. -.. ---... _ ............. .. .. -....... ,. ............. ,. -··-------
.
... .. ··--------·--··-·-·------.. ------····-·--· --·-•-" .. -··-.......... ___ _Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 369 of 612
( Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mr. John Allen, Principal November 22, 2019
Page 5
and therefore qualifies for the protections of the DBL. Subsection 65915(a)(2) prohibits a local government from "conditioning the submission, review, or approval of an application pursuant to [the DBL] on the preparation of an additional report or study that is not otherwise required by state law." The appellant's justification for the appeal is plainly based on a demand that the Project's use of the DBL should trigger additional environmental review, and the City Council followed that same rationale to reach its decision that the proposed density at this location should require additional investigation and environmental review.
The DBL also contains provisions regarding judicial proceedings where a city refuses to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession in violation of the section 65915. (Gov. Code§§ 65915(d)(3) and 65915(e)(l ).) In such a case, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. The City will bear the burden of proof for the denial of the requested concessions and incentives (Gov. Code§ 65915(d)(4)), and it is not eligible for the exceptions listed in the DBL because it did not issue any written findings in support of its decision.
E.Conclusion
As outlined above, we have concluded, as HCD suggests, that the City's actions in failing to approve the Project run afoul of the HAA and DBL. These actions potentially subject the City to
liability in the event the Applicant and City are unable to reach a resolution acceptable to the Applicant which promptly brings the city into compliance with applicable state housing law.
Sincerely,
�,7C) Timothy M. Hutter
TMH:gst
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 370 of 612
STREAMLINE DEVELOPMENT GROUP
TO: City of Carlsbad
ATTN: City Council
RE: Request for Reconsideration of June 11, 2019 City Council Decision Regarding the Romeria
Pointe Apartments
DATE: 1/23/20
Dear Members of the Carlsbad City Council,
Per our request for reconsideration on the above-captioned 23-unit project at Romeria and Gibraltar, we
would like to take this opportunity to provide some commentary to supplement our findings and reports that have
been submitted to staff and the City Attorney, Ms. Brewer.
First and foremost, it is our primary goal to completely and thoroughly address the issues and concerns
brought up by both the public and the City Council at the original hearing. This request is not intended to
circumvent any previous ruling or transparent review process, but rather to discuss and consider equally-effective
alternative solutions to a focused EIR. The report requested by Council to specifically study traffic and geotechnical
engineering requires numerous steps prior to actually completing the environmental document. After the hearing,
we hired Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) to conduct a traffic study, and paid for an additional study
and supplementary report from GeoSoils, our geotechnical engineering consultant. The geotechnical engineering
report investigated all claims and questions posed by the public and City Council during the hearing, and
conclusively addressed them, indicating that the current recommendations are geotechnically feasible. The traffic
study indicated that there is zero measurable impact on the intersections closest to the proposed project.
While the Council requested an EIR focused only on traffic and geotechnical, the ramifications are still
severe. In nearly every case where it has been determined that there may be potential impact, which was not the
case with this project, an Initial Study must have been completed to determine if there is a potential impact, and
determine if it can be mitigated without the need for an EIR. Only if the Initial Study concludes that the impact
cannot be satisfactorily mitigated using typical mitigation measures will an EIR be needed. Staff and Planning
Commission both concluded that there is no potential environmental impact at all, and City Council felt that only
traffic and geotechnical warranted any additional studies. While the EIR can focus on only those two items, the
remaining environmental issues must be addressed, if only to reference the Initial Study that confirms they have no
environmental impact. The cost burden of completing an Initial Study and, subsequently, a focused EIR will easily
exceed $100,000 and delay us between 9-12 additional months. While it has been seven months since the hearing,
we have used a good portion of that time to organize, plan, meet with city staff, city attorney, and city manager, and
conduct the studies that would be required for the focused EIR, so it’s not as though we could have been close to
finishing a focused EIR document at this point.
However, we feel the most important aspect of this is that, in this case, the EIR won’t actually provide us
with any additional information, and staff will advise the City Council similarly. The focused EIR will only review
the reports and information we already have available, likely by hiring third-party engineering firms to review the
reports to ensure they are done in accordance with current engineering standards and practices. We feel that the
City Council shares our opinion that City Engineer Jason Geldert is equally, if not more, competent than any third
party geotechnical engineering firm we could hire for this, and is also best-suited to ensure the proper reviews of
the geotechnical engineering report. Additionally, LLG is a well-respected and trusted traffic engineering firm
that does a lot of work in Carlsbad. An environmental company in charge of the focused EIR would simply take
EXHIBIT B
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 371 of 612
the geotechnical and traffic reports, go to bid hiring out a third-party traffic engineer and geotechnical engineer to
review them, and report the results.
What we are proposing is to allow staff to conduct this precise scope of work and report directly back to
the City Council. We feel that City Engineer Geldert can conduct his own reviews and hire out his own third-party
engineers to review these reports (paid for by the applicant). He is more than capable of identifying any potential
issues with the reports that may have been missed, and ensuring the project meets all the applicable engineering
standards and guidelines. We would contend that the Council and the concerned citizens of Carlsbad would be
much more comfortable and protected in the hands of its own City Engineer who specializes in geotechnical
engineering than those of an environmental services company that needs to defer these reviews to third party
companies with the lowest bid.
In our opinion, this would be a best case scenario for all parties involved: given the current housing climate
and severe housing crisis in California, the Council would certainly be supportive of the development of new
housing projects; the Council and citizens will have the opportunity to weigh in and question the technical reports
provided for the project in a public forum, ensuring they are protected; and the applicant can address all potential
issues brought up during the City Council hearing, without the need to spend a significant amount of time and
money conducting relatively unnecessary studies.
Thank you for the time and consideration of this request, and we appreciate the chance to discuss it further.
Please feel free to reach out with any questions you may have regarding this project or the attached technical
reports.
Best regards,
John Allen
Principal, Streamline Development Group
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 372 of 612
(
Allen Matkins
March 25, 2020
JeffMurphy Director
City of Carlsbad
MAR 312020
Community Development
Department
Community Development City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 90228
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, 27th Floor I San Diego, CA 92101-0903 Telephone: 619.233.1155 I Facsimile: 619.233.1158 www.allenmatkins.com Jeffrey A. Chine E-mail: jchine@allenmatkins.comDirect Dial: 619.235.1525 File Number: 378693-00001/SD896308.01Re: Romeria Pointe -CEQA Compliance
Dear Jeff:
Initially, congratulations on joining the City of Carlsbad. We have enjoyed working with you in the past and look forward to continuing a productive relationship. As you may know, my law firm represents BNR Investments, LLC, the applicant and owner ("Applicant") of the project known as Romeria Pointe Apartments, project no. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) (the "Project"). The purpose of this letter is to provide a very brief background on the Project, its current status, and a path forward. In particular, I would like to address CEQA compliance.
The development application for the Project was deemed complete by City staff on October 12, 2018. At that time, City staff also determined that the project was compliant with applicable general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards. On November 7, 2018, Principal Planner Teri Delcamp wrote to the Applicant's architect regarding the City's CEQA determination. Specifically, Ms. Delcamp stated, without reservation:
The Project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Categorical Exemption for In-Fill Development Projects-State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. No environmental review is required for the project.
At its hearing on March 20, 2019, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the Project, including confirmation of the City's prior determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA.
An appeal to the City Council was filed pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 21.54.150, on the grounds that the Planning Commission "erroneously approved the city's first Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco EXHIBIT 9
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 373 of 612
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLPAttorneys at Law (Jeff Murphy March 25, 2020Page2density bonus project by relying on self-certification by city staff that the project proposes no environmental impact."
At its June 11, 2019, hearing, the City Council's review focused on geotechnical and traffic concerns that were proffered as potentially undermining the Project's eligibility for the CEQA exemption. The Council voted 4-1 to support Councilmember Schumacher's motion "remanding the item to the Planning Commission and requesting a CEQA analysis and an EIR focused on traffic and geotechnical be performed on the Project."
Since that time the Applicant has submitted additional technical studies addressing both the geotechnical and traffic concerns expressed at the City Council hearing. If you do not have the Applicant's November 22, 2019 letter and accompanying studies address to the City Manager, we can provide them to you. These studies further support the Infill Exemption proposed by staff and adopted by the Planning Commission. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21159.24, subdivision (b ), these materials, and existing studies in City files, demonstrate that there is no "reasonable possibility that the project will have a project-specific, significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." Consequently, the CEQA exemption is appropriate.
( Absent evidence of such a significant impact, the City may not require the preparation of an EIR.
As outlined in the Applicant's letter to Mr. Chadwick, we believe that the additional analysis provided addresses the issues raised by the City Council. Moreover, CEQA does not allow a city to require an applicant to prepare an EIR for a project which qualifies for an Infill Exemption under
the present circumstances. We therefore respectfully request that the matter be docketed for reconsideration by the City Council, and for approval pursuant to the Infill Exemption as further supported by the additional studies.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey A. Chine JAC:rch
Nov. 17, 2020 Item #9 Page 374 of 612