Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-07-15; Planning Commission; ; SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) - ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
Item No. Application complete date: October 12, 2018 P.C. AGENDA OF: July 15, 2020 Project Planner: Chris Garcia Project Engineer: Jennifer Horodyski SUBJECT: 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. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377 APPROVING Site Development Plan SDP 2018-0004, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On Feb. 21, 2018, the applicant submitted an application for the construction of two, four-story residential apartment buildings containing 23 total units on a 0.72-acre project site at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street that includes a state density bonus1 (refer to Attachment 2 for additional project information.) Over an eight-month period, staff reviewed the proposal to ensure the project complied with local and state codes and regulations. After this review, staff determined that the project qualified for a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as an in-fill development project2 (CEQA Guidelines Section15332, In-Fill Development Projects). The in-fill exemption is allowed so long as the following qualifications are met: • Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. • The exemption cannot be used for an activity that has a reasonable possibility to have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. 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 In-fill refers to the development of vacant parcels within previously built areas. These areas are already served by public infrastructure, such as transportation, water, wastewater, and other utilities. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report . 0 SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) – ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS July 15, 2020 Page 2 On March 20, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the application. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the project. The owner of a nearby property had expressed concerns about the project at the hearing and appealed the Planning Commission’s 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 questioned the use of the in-fill CEQA exemption. The City Council ultimately voted to remand the project back to the Planning Commission, requesting an analysis of how the project conformed to CEQA, as well as an environmental impact report (EIR) focused on geotechnical and traffic impacts (4-1, Hall voting no). Refer to Attachment 2 for the City Council staff report and Attachment 3 for the City Council meeting minutes with the City Council direction. The applicant then 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. Taking the additional information into account, staff conducted a new environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 5 (which includes Sections 15060 to 15065). Since staff already determined that the project is subject to CEQA per Section 15060, Section 15061 establishes that the first step in the environmental analysis process is to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA. Based on the new analysis, the city planner determined the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 - “In-Fill Development Projects” and exceptions to the use of the exemption do not apply. Because the project is exempt, the preparation of an EIR is not warranted or justified. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission find that the project is exempt from CEQA as further outlined in Resolution No. 7377 and approve the project. III. ANALYSIS The project’s conformance to applicable codes and development standards was previously analyzed and is outlined in the staff report with attachments in Attachment 2. The following analysis focuses on the additional environmental information provided by the applicant and staff’s CEQA analysis. A. Subsequent Interactions with the Applicant Staff informed the applicant of the City Council direction for additional CEQA analysis and to prepare a focused EIR on the project, and explained 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 EIR. In correspondence with the city, the applicant said the company’s completed technical studies indicated that there would be no adverse environmental impacts from the project. These findings are summarized in the sections below. (Correspondence from the applicant can be found in Attachment 4.) B. Supplemental Project Information On March 25, 2020, the city received a letter from the applicant’s legal counsel requesting that the city reconsider the project because, as noted above, the applicant’s geotechnical and traffic analyses had shown that the project’s impacts did not warrant a focused EIR (Attachment 5). A summary of the geotechnical and traffic conclusions on specific areas of concern is provided below. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) – ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS July 15, 2020 Page 3 Geotechnical Report: Since the City Council appeal hearing on June 11, 2019, the applicant prepared and submitted a letter containing a geotechnical report (see Attachment 6). The letter report 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-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: • Soil Instability Concerns were voiced 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 within the project site. Based on site specific work, the most significant geotechnical factors 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 (CIDH) 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. Therefore, the proposed project will not create an impact on soil instability. • “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. • 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. 3 Cast-in-drilled-hole piles are reinforced concrete piles cast in drilled holes to predetermined elevations using a heavy steel casing. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) – ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS July 15, 2020 Page 4 • 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. • 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 utilize 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. • 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 (CIDH) 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 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 CIDH piles is less invasive than full depth remedial grading and will provide adequate support of the proposed buildings and site retaining walls. Traffic Analysis: A traffic impact analysis was prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers on March 9, 2020 (see Attachment 7). The associated CEQA analysis is based on Carlsbad’s historic use of the Significance Thresholds described in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, March 2000.4 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 separate 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 on the existing and the existing plus cumulative baselines using the two distinct analyses needed to meet requirements for both the City of Carlsbad’s growth management requirements and CEQA. A multi-modal level of service analysis was also conducted for Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street based on city guidelines. 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. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) – ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS July 15, 2020 Page 5 What the analysis found was that no significant project impacts to vehicular queueing at signalized intersections were identified per city traffic impact analysis guidelines (in the Growth Management Plan) and no significant project impacts were determined using 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 LOS 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 its frontage at the southwest corner of Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street, improving it to meet ADA requirements. The project will also add a streetlight at this same corner. With these improvements, pedestrian conditions are expected to meet city standards and improve level of service from LOS C to LOS A. Conclusions: City staff and Hetherington Engineering, Inc., a third-party geotechnical engineering consultant, have reviewed the supplemental geotechnical study and concur with its technical analysis and geotechnical recommendations for the project. All recommendations in the study will be implemented when detailed grading plans and additional technical studies and reports are submitted as required by the city engineer before the city issues a grading permit for the project. Additionally, 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. The only improvements being required of the project are the addition of a corner crosswalk ramp and a streetlight. These improvements are not related to traffic impacts but are required to meet city standards. Based on the supplemental information provided, staff is recommending that the project will not result in any significant geotechnical or traffic impacts and the project qualifies for a CEQA Categorical Exemption under Section 15332, In-Fill Development Projects. C. Letter from State Department of Housing & 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 (Attachment 8). 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 Sec. 65589.5(j)(1)). In 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 LOS A to LOS F. LOS A reflects a high service standard for a travel mode while LOS F would reflect a poor service standard. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) – ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS July 15, 2020 Page 6 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 Sec. 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)). Staff finds no evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety; therefore, staff is recommending approval of the project. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Following a new environmental analysis conducted by staff based on the additional geotechnical and traffic information described above, the city planner 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. The project 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. Because the project is exempt, the preparation of an EIR is not warranted or justified. 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 is Section 15300.2(c) - whether there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. To reject the in-fill CEQA exemption based on Section 15300.2(c), the Planning Commission would have to 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 Planning Commission must find there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental impact will result from the identified unusual circumstances of the project. Based upon review of the additional information in light of the project as a whole, the city planner recommends that the Planning Commission find the project is exempt from CEQA. Detailed findings supporting the CEQA exemption are included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377 (Exhibit 1). A Notice of Exemption will be filed by the city planner upon final project approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7377 2. City Council Staff Report dated June 11, 2019 (with exhibits) 3. City Council minutes from June 11, 2019 meeting 4. Applicant (Streamline Development Group) Letter dated Nov. 11, 2019 (with exhibits) 5. Allen Matkins letter dated March 25, 2020 6. Geotechnical letter Report dated Nov. 20, 2019 7. Transportation Impact Analysis dated March 9, 2020 (with appendices) 8. California Department of Housing and Community Development letter dated Sept. 18, 2019 9. Public Comments June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 1 of 143 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY COUNCIL Staff Report Meeting Date: To: From: Staff Contact: June 11, 2019 Mayor and City Council Scott Chadwick, City Manager Chris Garcia, Associate Planner chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov or 760-602-4622 CA Review µJI( Subject: 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. Project Name: Romeria Pointe Apartments Project No.: SOP 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 SOP 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 develo_pment. 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 2 of 143 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 Commission 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 novo" (or "like new") but limits the consideration to "only the evidence presented to the Planning Commission June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 3 of 143 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 11The 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 feasible 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 requ ired 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 4 of 143 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 of this 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. 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 5 of 143 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 6 of 143 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: CASE NO.: ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS SOP 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. SOP 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: 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) June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 7 of 143 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 8 of 143 GOLF COURSE SITE MAP • N NOT TO SCALE Romeria Pointe Apartments SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Exhibit 2 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 9 of 143 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 10 of 143 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, SOP 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 thatthe 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 ~ated 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 impactthe 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- June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 11 of 143 S. 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 economically 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 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, ai:,d all necessary public facilities will be constructed or are PC RESO NO. 7324 -3- June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 12 of 143 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- June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 13 of 143 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- June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 14 of 143 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- June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 15 of 143 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- June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 16 of 143 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- June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 17 of 143 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 perthe 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 m~asures 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- June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 18 of 143 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 other 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- June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 19 of 143 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 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 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- ' ' June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 20 of 143 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- June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 21 of 143 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 March 20, 2019, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chair Luna, Commissioners Anderson, Geidner, Lafferty, Meenes, Merz, and Stine NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU City Planner PC RESO NO. 7324 -13- June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 22 of 143 Exhibit 4 ltemNo.Q 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 the 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 {'\ ■+;' June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 23 of 143 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 A1,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 A11,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 1,749 SF 3/3 2 BlO 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 24 of 143 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 density 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 25 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 26 of 143 SDP 2018-0094 (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 affordable 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 proj"ect 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 ~equirements 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 J 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 1. 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 27 of 143 SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) -ROMER IA 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 handica·pped 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 maj or 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? June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 28 of 143 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, June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 29 of 143 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 ?nd 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 of fees 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 Growt h 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 l and 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 30 of 143 SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) -ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS March 20, 2019 Pa e9 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 riecessary 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 residenti~I 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 Requ_ire developers to construct or designed to meet applicable pay their fair share toward circulation requirements, which COMPLY? Yes June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 31 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 32 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 33 of 143 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 34 of 143 SOP 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 (SOP) 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 SOP 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 35 of 143 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 36 of 143 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 the unit yield at the GMCP of the 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 37 of 143 GOLF COURSE SITE MAP • N NOT TO SCALE Romeria Pointe Apartments SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Attachment 2 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 38 of 143 Attachment 3 ,({j,. (_ City of Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT P-1(A) Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760} 602-4610 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, addr~sses 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 of2 Revised 07/10 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 39 of 143 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non- profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust________ Non Profit/Trust _________ _ Title Title __________ _ -------------- Address Address __________ _ ------------- 4. Have you had more than $500 worth of businass transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes ~ No If yes, please indicate person(s): __________ _ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date Ram Setya Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent P-1(A) Page 2 of 2 Revised 07110 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 40 of 143 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 that 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 41 of 143 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 10'. 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 42 of 143 Chris Garcia From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Chris, Aaron Rumley < Monday, July 23, 2018 1:34 PM Chris Garcia Romeria Pointe Apartments As an owner of a condo in the Golfcrest Community, I am concerned about the height increase and the retaining wall increase. This seems like a very tall building for the area. The number of units increasing will also impact parking and street traffic in the area. If there is someone else I need to send this too, please let me know. Sincerely, Aaron Rumley ( .. 1 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 43 of 143 Chris Garcia From: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:00 PM Chris Garcia To: Subject: SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Dear Mr. Garcia: As a direct neighbor to SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151), I wish to express a few concerns with the ever-increasing scope and bulk and mass of the project. I live at Golfcrest (14 units directly to the west). • As the highest building in the area, the project will directly impact the light. 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 on the half of the Golfcrest 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 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 increase·d 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. • There is no area for play for kids, and I worry that they will end up playing in the unsafe areas on our slope. 1 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 44 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 45 of 143 Chris Garcia From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Chris, Kay Colvin · Tuesday, September 18, 2018 5:10 PM Chris Garcia Romeria Pointe Apartments project I was given your contact information by one of the other concerned residents on Romeria Street. Although not currently a homeowner here, I've been the property owner's property manager, resident and proxy while he's been living abroad for the past several years. Since 2011 I've become attached to the neighborhood and have been seriously considering purchasing a home here when the time comes. However, I have serious concerns about the potential negative impact on the neighborhood that will be caused by the proposed behemoth apartment project across the street from Meadowview Condominiums. The parking situation is already often challenging, a problem which would certainly increase exponentially if 23 new units were to be added to the street. Simply by adding two driveways, we will be losing at least 4 parking spaces that local residents currently depend on. The proposed height of the structures would unquestionably overwhelm the neighborhood. I invite you to visit our street to see firsthand how the proposed number of units and structure heights would have a seriously detrimental impact on the Romeria/Gibraltar neighborhood and implore you to have the City do the right thing here. Please let me know what can be done to change the course of the project. Sincerely, Kay Colvin 1 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 46 of 143 Chris Garcia From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: BGRIESER < Sunday, October 28, 2018 2:12 PM Chris Garcia lgrieser201 O@gmail.com Romeria Point Apartments My comments concerning subject apartments do not support the present concept. At this time J won't discuss the projects height; although it certainly appears to be excessive given the surrounding area, especially on a corner of the street. What appears to me as incompatible is the parking spaces. Life styles may have changed since the minimum "The Density Bonus law" requirements were established, When you applied it to the existing apartment buildings. It appears that there are more than 2 cars to an apartment in this area. Especially, in units larger than one bedroom. Frequently, one must wait for a departing parked car to have a parking space on Gibralter street. Even on North Romeria, where this plan will be developed; most of the parking spaces are taken each night. I'm not sure what the mix of the 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms units are but we are not talking about owners. These are renters in an expensive area who might sublet to spread the cost of renting and thus, 41 parking spaces will never satisfy their needs. It is the responsibility of all of us to accept a plan that can blend into the community for every one's sake. Sincerely, Brian and Joan Grieser 1 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 47 of 143 From: Roberta Murphy Date: Thursday, December 13, 2018 Subject: Save Batiquitos Lagoon To: priyabhatpatelforcarlsbad@gmail.com Thank you Priya ! And please feel free to share the letter with whomever you wish. Additionally, Vladimir Shepsis will be here some time in January and might be willing to meet with you and others in the city. Also, there is a group of very concerned citizens in La Costa who are very worried about a planned 4-story apartment building that may go up on Romeria--which raises a number of concerns: 1. Loss of views for many. 2. Increased traffic in an already congested area and also severe lack of parking. 3. Additional school children who will have to cross La Costa Avenue to get to La Costa Heights Elementary. There is no school crosswalk on La Costa, which has long been a concern. (3-bedroom units are planned} There is a meeting at 4:30 on Monday at Greg Murphy's home on Romeria. Might you and possibly Patty Segovia-Krause be able to attend? Thank you! Roberta PS: This email does not work with gmail: priya bhat-patel@carlsbadca.gov. Roberta Murphy CRS, GRI, ABR, e-PRO Broker Owner www.SanDjegoPreviews.com www LaCostaOolioe com www LuxuryHomeDigest com www.Al!TopCarlsbadHomes com June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 48 of 143 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: SOP 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 estimat ing an addit ional 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 t he nearby creek. Because there are no parks or play area in the complex, the creek is the only greenspace 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 in line 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 t raffic and we are concerned about the large number of children that would be walking and crossing the road to go to June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 49 of 143 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 cou ld 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 50 of 143 From: Paul Reuter Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 12:45 PM To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; Planning <Planning@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Don Neu <Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov>; Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov>; James Wood <James.Wood@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Proposed Apartment Construction on Romeria St. To whom it may concern; This letter is about the proposed multi-family project being proposed on Romeria St. I am opposed to it, obviously. I own a townhome on Romeria St. and have watched the neighborhood develop over the past 6 years. I have a vested interest in seeing my community continue to be a clean, quiet, safe, and enjoyable one in which I feel comfortable to take an evening stroll without having to worry about stepping in dog feces, or if I choose to host a dinner party, to have a place where my g·uests can find a parking space for the evening. Unfortunately, over those past 6 years, I've watched as both of those concerns have grown into material issues. When the La Costa Bluffs, so-called luxury apartments, welcomed their first tenants, I was reserved. It didn't take a week before the sidewalk along La Costa Ave became an unnavigable mess of dog droppings and doggie waste bags thrown carelessly alongside the road. Within a month, the whole loop around Gibraltar, Romeria, and La Costa Ave was a litter box for dogs. On a hot day, the walk is further burdened by the intolerable odor. These are bad neighbors. What is a luxury apartment complex? These units are nothing more than a hacienda house subdivided much too tightly for the 3-car families that moved in. Yes -the parking is already such that these families simply park their cars in front of their garages because there isn't enough space for them at times. Let me emphasize the point about having 3 cars. These are apartments, which presumably means that the occupants are either trying to save money to buy their own home, or can't afford one. In either case, every member of the household tends to have a car to drive to work or school. Adding further density to this area is simply adding more suffering for those who should not be spending so much money to barely make ends meet. Let me touch on the concept of the Broken Windows Theory. The neighborhood around Romeria St. consists of home owners who risked the largest portion of their wealth and labor to lay roots in a community of similarly established individuals. When renters move in, these community standards decay. Once renters start treating the neighborhood as a parking lot and doggie bathroom, it creates a catalyst for 2 things. 1) Some home owners sell their property, looking to find a suitable neighborhood that maintains the community standard that existed before the decay. 2) Those who were otherwise good renters see no reason to maintain the standards that came before. They don't have to worry about anything other than the monthly rent. In fact, it's in their best interest to misbehave just enough such that the community does not further gentrify, allowing rent to remain flat for as long as possible. These "broken windows" motivate home owners to sell before they lose all oftheir life's savings on an upside- down mortgage -which further degrades the character of the community. Please consider duplexes or single family homes instead. We can manage those. Also, please enforce litter laws and noise ordinances. Thank you, Paul Reuter June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 51 of 143 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 for 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 52 of 143 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 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· 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 approvaf. \}~~'f ~rJt>ur consid~ration @ hn & Ci;d;s J.r~ June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 53 of 143 i VICINITY MAP ( ~ ••OJEC'T I l0CAT'1)ff J ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS --T05fVW I PROJECT DATA .,.., MULTI ,AMIL Y DV\l!LUNGS l.li!i&. QH !:i81t:Il9~· ,.,..,S), 218-301),12(0, 216-300-1300 : OCCVPNfCY OOOW': ., 1YPt Ol"CONS'TfUJCTIOH: VA.ovt5RTVPEI ~ Zot-lNG: .,,.. RESID£NT!Al OWSl'TY• MULT1Pl£ i DENSITY: IS.23clli9c LAND USE: .,, = LOT COUNT! I LOT. COM6JNED LOTS-a~ o.nau, LOTAAEA'. 31,430Af ~ Pfl:o,iosm LOTOCNEA,AGE; ...... STOR:IES! . ~W.1,tQUNrfSt 8UILDINOA• 12 UNffS. 8UltDlt.CB,11UNff!. GROWTH MCMT. CNTL P0CHT TOTAl.•23UNITS 11dll'ea CM'ELLIHO IJHRS I ACRE.: l1.t«.v,c(2Jul'lbt.nec-.1J lt&Rltm ~11- FROM flN"ISH GltADE: &vll.DINOA: "7·11" BUIU>llfOB: 50'•11" FROM EXISTINO ORAOE. BUllOINOA: .,._,. BUllDIHe8: ,,•,o- ZONING INFORMATION SETl!!ACKS fROWTYMO IOfT """""""'°"""' IHTUIOftSIOE:YARQ: sn ~ TOSHlttf SFT (NOPAA~ TCM'AAOS.sT'1ttT) R!AJIYAAt►. 10FT PARKING DATA REQ\/lREO! TYolOPE".AlffOQ1$U~IT$ )Z ONEPfltl8£007UNITS 7 TOTN. 38 COVERED " ROMERIA AND GIBRALTAR, CARLSBAD 216-300-1200, 216-300-1300 ~ RAMSETYA 8NR OE\IELOPMEHT 23800\MDU RIO YORBAUND,\.CA.t28a7 ~-1·2104 MM&£TYAOQ.'MJl.COM ~ JUINTOWUN fOXLDIAACt1n'ECTS 302 CN.tlNO DE ESTRELLA SM CLEMEITTE. CA 92ffl ~325-3001TEL (9,49)l03"3339FAX INfoOfOXLIN.OOM LUIOSCAPE AIICt:!!f~ PATMURPHY SMP aMRON. DE~H 6UITE 200 34117PAC:IF1CCO,,S.llNN DNfA POINT. CA tMZI ~-•-INFQOSM~ET Gil.I. RYAtil lOHM°' OEOSOIUJ 57•1 PA.lMER WAV CARLS8A.0, CAi2010 (7S0,0841SS GfOSOILS.coM ~ MICHA.E.LBENESH ML8 ENGINEERING • 4°" .S. LIVE 0-'K PARK Rew> FALL.BROOK. CA N021 (7$'.1)731-6$)l ML6[J,jl;Sij@PAC8El.LNET MfCHAHICAL fbtCIBICAL ~ ~ ""'°"" 190HORiffASHWOOO!+,l/f.. VEHTVRA CA. 13000 --RJHCOMC()HSlUTAATS.COM ~ 111':PMUt.'£ OiVE.OPMilNT 22180RAllOAVEHUE.•2l. ~ DC!GO, CA, ~lot (CHI)~ JOHl<tfl$tltEAMUN£0EV£LO Pt,t!.HTGftOUP.COM SERVICES DIRECTORY -WASTE-MAAAGEMillT WATER Pf51'Rl£n CARL.SIW) MUKlctPltL §£W5R D!STRJCT; LEUCADIA WAKr!.W1',T!,t DISTRICT N:)A VAN NXl:8816"£ 1 PER Bi.DO, : MAXlOfOOVU.-.OE -35FT lTOTAL §OHOOf.-PISIBICJ! !NCI NIT AS UN'JH£0 SCHOOl DfSTRIC.T i; HEJGH'l\AIIT t ....,..,.m LOT COVERAGE I SCOPE OF WORK ::t::: ~ LOTS3-APH:l1834X)1200• 11,.llt SF Ml;R~T\\OPARCE:1.SoFLAND,N"NS216-300-12-40 TOTN. •1 LQTffl::Af'H?JQIPtlX!• Ja1Qt3' AND•13-00, TOTAt.Hlll,4Xl$0UM!:fUTf).T2ACAIES)f'.OA TOTAL ,. Sl.430 SF j TICE PURPOSIE OfCOHSTAUC.TWG lWONEW APMTMDff COMPACT 0 } ~~~~R~==J!Nu:~~-.:~:::s:1s ~RED : 1 ==~~~=:~: !·!: :: I MAAXETRATEUNrT$AH03AFf0RtM.81..Elmns.aoTH ADAV~ACCESSIBt..E IPERBLDG, lOTAl.LOTCOVl!JtAGl: • ta.ms, BULDtNGS ME A.PODIUM DISIGN 1N1Tl1 PAIUQNO OH THE 2: TOTAi. ~OFl00ftANO'JHREE.STORIESOHMtroA.A!AA80Vt,. CQVUAOE'5,; 1&.?3S~J:J1.C!IHlf • M,,$11, I "''"""°'°""""'!Y•OONSP""'8AADAW'""""""' WIOSCAAJ<G"' ,,_..,.,,,,..,..,. "°-"' EXISTING CONDITIONS SCAlE: 1"•4U WO EXISTl~G FACJLme.s OM SITE / 100' FROM PRCIP£RTY UHE Attachment 5 SOP 2018-004 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 54 of 143 . -~ .. ,~ ;i ;-.;.o--· ttl Ulllltto _, Ml MCHOIIIIOU ~;;~~m Mt MICA~ -----N>-1 ~1AM ~=,:,.~COIi :'i' :':~'"' MLMM~ ~~ -""" ..,,. '"' SOP 2018-004 C --G ...,._,. ::.u.,=..,ION INT ftl(IIIO!t .., _,,.,. ::-~~IIOX ~· = 'lO ••~ an HUI. UN HOlil. ::~::~= ::.v~~ --· = ~MltJOWII =:=.. ' ... ,,.,,. tANCIEff Ito 1~ J'CAI, TOWB.CAIIM!T lWl'fllM-'i~ ~~ aw TDWtlt4TUl'II. ~ ~ .. lit,,,,IY lJW,i#Ofll!IE)I 11 n..HC11Qtf N 11ll,.(V9)1f l'l'P nl'ICl'1 :, ~ ;.fii ~ .. =.., 'IC Willll'ECAIIIC'I \l9IT VDnUTKlh' =~~ '\/TII~~~ June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 55 of 143 I i I J ,.,..-- E'IOSbNG PADS • ·Si.£ CML ENO. ORA_DEO TO N'EW / DRAWING$ ,OA $Riff L!VEUPfllOA:TO / Al,iDMDliWi\l.KlYPtCAl. COMMENCEMaff DETAILS, JIYCM02t.•5.1«1 ~-----~ SEECML.ENG. ORA WINOS ,OR !RUT ANO SlDl:WAU< TYPtCAL DETAIL.$, SEE GRADING PU.NS ,:oR ADJACIENT TOPOORAPKY StTEL.lGEOO ~ SOP 2018-004 II L ____ l:===============:::;;;:;;;;;::;:;;;;;;;;;;;:::==:;;;;;t=~===::;;"";';• .. ;;;:===;;;;;;;:===============:::::::::::::::::=r.:=:~:=::;~-;:;---L~;;;;;;-----==;._Jl~;~M~:~~::~:~: ~;: PRO.IECTA~S CUENT DRAWINOSl[T ~ ~1 ................. :»1 .. , ..... • ft0:) ll 2A"'Jt)t,~ • C • 11:EYIS:tOMOATE ... ~-': ~»:.r. "' • I I ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS =~t~::~TAII, DNADMalOPl,\E'1T =llOtWlY -.._ ... ! ~.,,,,,..,,,,.. ~~~•AAY 61TEPW< A-011 RE\1St0t,IO,.Tt.$ I I I I I June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 56 of 143 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 57 of 143 SDP 2018-004 7 I i ! I ~ I h I le! a~ 7. 0~ ! h ~ ~!.1 ~ ~3 i ~ mi m. ~u';j §Ha ,,,.) 88; j m Uh : I t f l I j I t L ------------------------,.=..,,=«"'TCCADDO=°" ... ;:----:eu'"'.,.,-=------, ... =w"'1"'NO"'s"'..-.------,,...,.,,,r-_-----------.-,_-:---:.-_:--:--,..:=,,.::,.,::,--:_:::-r.l .:---:::,,-::.,--:,:---:::,.-:::.-,::,.::. -.---;c::---'_J·•-;.ii--·-----.-=-=--'7 I ... ., _.._, -:m:mti. 11; • I f RQMERJA POINTE APARTMENTS ROV..CIUAANDGIBRALTAA, 8NROOV£LOPMENT ~~~v ___,. -an =--f .,11,i(t2:01tt;1);l0 ! DISC,--~wET 03 IO.NARY SrTEROOFPLAH A~13 REVlSIOfio,.TES i (:,AAl,.8$AO¢A,920(19 I ~I I I • I c.v11;. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 58 of 143 s I I ' : I t I i ' " ['-1:--n-:T ! ,.,.., -.. j I I ~-----------------------J A•~EVE.L 4111 ~~ ~I, I '78SF N7Sf" L-----------------------~ N ffi A-LEVR<I-PLA.NHIHG ,-•!Cr# 3 ( I : I I I I I I Uil o!I.U l '41 Sf' 5'58f L _______________________ J I ' I L'----------.....J A• L.tVEL 1 ~ SDP 2018-004 i!i d 511 ii ~ ,~1~1 mm ffi 9UI\Dll'\"GA·LIEVE\.2AN03 hllf4' 2 N 111---------------------------------------t----------~---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-,.-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-=~-c-;,::-_~_;;;_;-_,_-:--'-;;::_;;;_~;;;7:r..,;.:-;.,:-:-_,_r_1_~l,$0Jl"''!¥.',.,,.,,.~:iia~'ii~";;;;;, A•lEVE\.1-PlANHINQ f'•O.V 1 A .01.IOV20UI PAOJl"OT.IJlOR&:H CLIUfT DRAWIHQ.UT --=~• .... ::::-i no, i 24-0 .-., C .,...,_ • AE"MIOND4TE ~-RQMERIA POINTE APARTMENT$ AOMERIAAJ:DoteAALTAR, BNRD£'m.OPMENT OISC,r.,!~ :::.,. -..n =~--a 11W20J9,;13;HI I OfSCPl:rnoHAll'f ffi .. CAIU.~CA..9200fl CVICH 5 PM I ltEVtEWOl A-111 Pl:.E.VISION OATES I I l I I June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 59 of 143 I I I I _,__ _____________ a_,_a_•-~-'-"-°""~-~---·-~~3~dL ,-~ ij QIIJWilEJit,1\,IW,.Yl),"flAJIC)NTAel.l',;~A N!IIIWfflllw.ll.AltfA: MCYM!l-...U.~ MOUIIGiWIII· ._..,., CJSTflllUfll)liO,.WM.I,~ == - .. .. ,. AU.--"~OAIUoOf.000.Aolllll!llAo: ....... Xl'lli~lfTVIID All .. ,-UIIOltWJrtU..--.:J'IIL,Wlil:lll,I/EMTU,lt0 I I I I •, I I I L __ _ SDP 2018-004 n -r ,,I •!-□ •I. 1-2:cr=coi 3/ ~ 04 A•i.rvEl.1•11UtL0tPK) REVISIOHDAT£S June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 60 of 143 I I 1 § I I jUN.IT AS j 8> ,-,MXtM•ATH I I El -!la----------------------------------------------------I @ N G:) A.•l..£V(l2•8UILDIP..'O ~•NT 1 SOP 2018-004 ~11.0Jt. ~°"""""~t,W,1.11',W-,ICIC,t'!'HT, lllll.~~~f"'4UWACU..w..191 =:.~~":~~TIO!IS, ~~~~'=~ ~OCWMJll'OIAIAHlilllWi1,f!:,HfAtUWII -._ .. ':r!JII, e ; ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ii I ~ g~ !! ~i I h . ~ ~ . Ui It mi IC~lij •• n 1h t l-------------------~'-----+------------------------r-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_~-::_-::_-::_::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_~-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_1~~~~-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-~~~~~-=--=-~1~c?~~•"i•~=;'i,~i';i•1•-:;,;-;._-J A. J§f102120UI I PROJECU.00fl:U$ CUlNT ORAWINL3HT ~ !!=:••====-j 1703 i )ll"'xM• • C ..,..,., ti ll!VISfONMTI! i ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS =:~=-TA•. ·••0M1."""'"' ='""'"" =:... --=-! ~-'""" J =~''" 8tJIL<l!N(;A•""'"' . A-113 """"""OATI,S 1 1 I I 1 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 61 of 143 i ;; ~ ! , I ~ I i t I l ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS Eb PRo.-ct ~s ROM£R~ AH00ISRALTAA, CAALG8AOCA.92009 . • BNR DEVELOPMENT DRAWTt«ls&T ~RETIONAAY '""!W • ~ ~ El ~ A•lEV'fL3•11Ult.CINO W• r.fr 1 SDP 2018-004 Iii Ii 1,,q1 i hid . . 11 i hilil pPi~ lo§ i ; U!111 !! ~ s,::, •. 5 g ~ 3 DCX»~l-«;"l',,ll)CMll'Wf'(Q, iii~ ............ I 1~ i CN.U~HAL.Cf'EN!ll~aJU»GfXTDIIOIII IWORGll!I.Al'OtOl"IIIIM)flA/ltN&.f""-fOC. • ~-ECt.lftfQ.NIIOwa._.._...,IIOl<I ~~"""'-Lt.5.-~llltlll00J"NCI s si oll,J.~nw,IIHOIM,IU,l&Zltl.M'"O,C.. ! H I ~ --~CWNI.MICM08"1'll.lEM'lHICIC. JYNT. lllt.l.O'!l'NWNOOlll'V.IT£11-..,M:Ulll<Yol1M IMOOTM,CJOlftM,IOW.f!IUCl'IWnlll'l'ClQI$ lh ,.__._.TMIIO....._..--OIC1$,U.0.K IOUN:ll'flOOl'llil,.,..,.Ol"fYICOMJTIIUCJ~ IMCI.UDN»~lW.MUANOl'\OOQA"K-r.rt ~TOI. Ht ._ ........ m; .. 11'.Clil Fl~~~"-•• u Hi MJILDIHGA, LEVU 0, A-114 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 62 of 143 l t I SOP 2018-004 Olmn,donSlrln,g To S!ri.dur,i \IJ"OIIOU,lTOl'IO-,.-rAll!N1llll,\ll0N. 'AHEIIEll:lOUIIIEl),~WMM..U.iltUI.All)M IJl'lt,UAT€1(JEJUOIIIIWtoU.i,IJ'ilil~"IIOO!'NQ ,....,...,._ MlWliU.,l'WoUIIOlfW.Lll!ZIC40 '11"0.C.. .. IIIM.U.OJt. =l'9UIIIOloJll:i~l'W..Lll!M0l~fl'f't"Y', AU.O'l'l'MINN«IIClll:l'WTflllltlNl>U&..W.1.1.M: =~~~=-bf~.~rd~fm._ «lU'GMOOfAU.<UIU.SOf'NEWCOJl5111!JC'110111, NOlLQHQ AI..LWMilAIIOA.oo,i1qnc,£OIJV fll!HOYAIDM. ~«-usl'IONI-FCll:VU.t!~lbto WI tl"'f.QlttiOnowotnll~lltHf I 1 L----------------------=-_j_ _________________________ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-T-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_,\--~-c~----_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-.... -=-::-:~-:-::~----_tl~~j"i'l,l'iia~!ll""'~~:t:;;;;;;_ 1 L ----------------------,=====---==-------;c.===-----,,., """''• • REVISIO DA.TE MoJ£cT AODflEs.s cUEHT DRAWING sn ;;:-!:=:" ..... •:::: ::--i nOl t u~ • w i C i ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ROMERIAAHO ........ TAA, BHROE\11'10PMEJIT OISCR<TIONAAV --· --=-! "'"'°"""" f DISCR<TIOHARY 8UIUllKGA-LEV£104 A-115 j CAAlSeADCA,.92009 RE\.1EW 1 1 ~ 1 1 • REV1EW1XJ R£\l'ISIOt,IDATES June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 63 of 143 ~;.r ... -<,::J""' ... <.:::f ..... <:T""-c:-:::~ ',-----r---,----,• ' ' I l.tt WQ_ I : 17•9SF IM2U ~ ' .-~--...,~ ' ----. ,, l I I I I I I I ._ __ '--------' !, L!\ltl. 4~ ~t~it/.•z · !:f~i;)f' / ''\[@$;_,. ':i~•$,~·-~··· SDP 2018-004 IJ , lfdh 1·PP 1iil1I i sd~ ' ~ 5 . ~ ~ ~lg,. ~ G ~ © 2 ~1 ~ ~;ii 8Utl0tNG t!I O LE\l!L 2 AHO 3 r • .,,.. 2 ~ ~ I g .. m June 11, 2019Item #12 Page 64 of 143=-,c, .,..,_, ~~~ .... --m ,._ .,, ·--__ ..,,... -&al.QI!>~ ~~ .. ------m"""' :. =i: ~ :_o.,i "' ,.,. .. ....... WIU._,.., BUILDING A ~-"TUU,tl/EffU-:Dl/l'a& ---.aAllill-..~ -., °E~~~; -.tU....,._"COMMll!o:lCal~ ........ "'°'"'T'l...l.:&I -'lJ.~..c&.s-----~lU> u LClo"'l' ... ----~ =~ C ~-COill"UC:1' -__ ,... =..~IIOIU "' '"'"""' ::.=.w-~~-~~~ v:x -~aQ' 11£-lDIQ.c:.T ---1Ul~"OI ~ ::::r-nc,,.rm --.:G &.MOIIIOIW)I[ ~ ~~ --.... __ --·-----·------· --------------··· .......... --------· t I O • ,i /i / !j I ""fLLLL--'---L--'--....JJ/J' .6 / • I I I I I I f 1--------------------l-------------------------------------------------•:..·.cl&E1=:..'_·-=:..-..c.1._•_·_·_..,...l.-'1C., l I ; ! I J SDP 2018-004 e i ~ ! ll ~ . t • i it ~ ~ jji ~:s; :< ~! ~ I :1, !! ~ §~ ! u. -·' n. UiJ H ~ ~ii.I •• H n HI ll l------------------+---------------------------------------------------------t-----------1!',U!.!!=~~,.!!..--:1 ~AOCl!IIIE.SS CUENT ::::..:°.--,. • C • lt£vm:>w~TE • ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS "'""'"""'" ....... T""-... """""""' -·-· :=.. =,-:_:;_:-• ""' ,..,_. i ...._ •. ..,....., A-122 ...,,,....,._,.. ,;! CARt.SaAOCA.,1121:D REVIE.'N ........,__ ! :4'20111:1J:315. l :w~ '' June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 65 of 143 l • . f --COMMON ~ loO,l,,IJWIA ABBRIMATIONS ~ =:tl"'~ Al'IWl(APPllQll;l,!Atl """' IQ ffOMtf.lt l0f IV~RIIINITuJI! ~:n_~i...OOA!fO etlt tnffEfl, CIP: oow,rfflt!ll.N( ~ °"'-lollEflft --~ affUA:11: 011,11 Olli&DlliKIN "" ---~ ~ ~c :X~~~~ ruV' (1.¢VA1Qlt .. ,_ ~ =~'= ~=~ OVPtlU\IIWAUIQ...o " """'' lfN MGfWJ<IUI ........ ..,.. lifl'EM)tl ~ --...... Lf lJGI-IJ LTO UIJHIW(J """ IWQ'~l\)l'IOI' WI) YIDO\t lifN .,,._.11111 ~ :;:~ lffS IIOfTO«;H..t .... ~~ ..... ltAi 111(1\lflN,ull Mf ~LOU1(0:1$TM; ,,u ftE10!SICI" "t:00 N:QUllttO ... ..,,,. ~ ~~IIM)! 1M -..WAtt'/IICUlfO 11'1:C tn~I :t." ~=--Slta. tTII .t()H[ Vflt \'t,IITtWIOUCIH,too, 'ftC Wo.lCIIOlOSC.1 Mllilt WATtllftl!JII(" PIii &'nlllt•ll;Al ~ ~OEtlJO,lll,EO 8•lEVH2•BUILDING W•f.//f' 1 SOP 2018-004 :n;:::tdna To Fir.I•" ~ ~~ .. v~,1n·,,L 31,r ~ ~-W - ~ i I ! ~ ~ ~ ui It m1 II!~~, •• H lh June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 66 of 143 COMMON ABMIMA~S = =-"=f! N, ~tllltlMA.OCM ~=J! '""" IIO 9'1'011',1,1!11 ao, .... ~,.,.,..,.~ :ii':' :r:!:IIOOl'WO g:.c =.,,-f.1181NC CM ~WI ... __ w, Cln'\IKII ... ...._ ~ -............ ~ =IHO (U:c n«:111~1"'4 ~ ~""=.OWi ~ ~ ~ =:':' ::, =~ J'Q ,M.tor GY4 ~W'oU.eoMO ::01:r: ilHT Mlffl:IDIII .. .aJNC!IONIOX " .... LTO l.l!)N'tN) "'" .........urACll,IIIWI =~ = :~=~=~ Ill. NDTIOK:AII. N,.O.-fll.Allffl OC ~C(...,..CII' IL'ltt ,t.'W'IIODD Pll(Ulll'III(~ ::., ~~11&:tftCATtO 11 11151!11 11A •~n..itc-111! IIElOCAf!DJITNG IICF flE~ lltoO JltQUlilfO IIIE"J llt\lK .., ...... .oa llMOftOIV,OE ... SIAtfJICEIIOUffi) ~:?':;'a :: ~~Mt.,li. ~~l[~IW(O V'1t "1:HT~l«lOI' ==It=== SDP 2018-004 I.IIAAllON. .... M:lllllitllliOUflllE~l'lt(NQ;W~NWV,TQt ==-(IIIClfll:WlA.U,NIOlt.JIIIKIIIOOfMIO AU.YMIJ,,l'IU,IINl91M.1,art7.Ue.-o.c.. IIID,IWJll,U.Q,N. :t:;,rl'SUY-,i_o-u.11,s.-tNCX,. N,C T , AI.I.G'll'.WWA>OQ/tf~l[ll'fUIIM(;U--.M =~==~~:ro.~Effl0--~l"IIIOCl'"AU.Mltt,,$0f'ICWCCNS"fllu:11CN, ~ic:tw,,u.t,tMDfl.OCllt.ntetEOll'f ~~~--=~:&rlC,l,.T1ltWII ANl~t1TO,tl"IOY10tO,ltOMIINKl.lltQIW(JU.. IMIIClflY,..,,on.u1o(IMYW4tWEll"TANll.lolO mCIC!flt,tMDao.itlTOQIIAIKIC~lt. L~~~~.l:'r"'• June 11, 2019Item #12 Page 67 of 143SOP 2018-004 TeStruclwe. To~nd,, El I ! l S.•LE\9..4~-...C:.O t I J J't===============t=======:===::;::::::========:===:::;::================~=====:::====:j::~====::=~~~·ii,,,..,.i .. t~ ,.,.,..-crAZl0111£ss a.JUT DIUillll9IOSU • _ :=:--::::--;,mj >r,.-. C • ~DATE i ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS =,,~=-'"" _............., =-:.. --==--I ~-.,,-I :."':"""' ~l,-L.a'El.OI A-125 .....,...,..,.. I I I I I June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 68 of 143 0-½n-~JL--- 0*1~ .. --- BOUr.DMYst"CTIOH08ULDINOANOl'TKOZ W-•f'.f? 3 r •W•Y [( ~ n..JL"<l-11!.--_ c_,,...;:-=====~=::;::::;;:=::::;:::::=::::::!:::::::!::=:J VTOl'•S' 0-,f VU• 0-¾~ ___ ,✓_i 11 a ~ 0-W'.itlll.... --l l'-=;::::=:::::;;:;::;:::::=!;!=::=:::;;::;~:!==;::::::::=~~~+=; /'..,-..:::7 -----__ _( -__,_.. ___ .., 0-~J~. l--.... =======!a!···e~-;;;;;;;,;!!!!l!!,.!!!!,! ...... ~!!J!!!!i!~Si=~ ~--.,_,,, ---,,,,,,,.,., . ·:,;:t--,,,.,,,,,. ______ .,..,,,. SOP 2018-004 IOlFNOAAYSICTIOHQBUI.OSNOAHOflTHOI w,rq 2 _1,:LII ii---~- q ~1-/111~ ;;,;~;!! r.11 I! i! r·-flT !~?! , ,_11 • fi ,! !! H ~ I ~ ~ ~m i ~ !~ ~ ~i I I~~ E ~! I ~ ., hr It m1 .:.:Iii! •• H u lh •<• June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 69 of 143 1 ~----------..:.•::.:M=l""=Cl..:.•~.:::AOE=°':i.w_•..:.••_:_ .. ~4 i i i ...... '"""° IWILC.Na ,. • CROSS BECTlON os w. r.o-3 Jl1f0, ..... -~~ ........ --.a-==-;-i.-......i.~, -~ --~ IWILOlt.fGA-CROSS SECllOH 02 W• Nr 2 LJ ' . ,}11nj1ll,I 1; SOP 2018-004 . . 1; I h,ni iH!ll I 11!;11 i s,: • ' ~ I ~ iii I ~ g~ ~ !j ~ ffi :5~ ~ ~3 ii ~ Ur u. m1 .. ~, •• u m 1 t-----------=====---=---==+--------------------------------------=========-rnr--------7£c~,~"'!!'..,.~"--j RAILl:-IOOFACAOEOI W•r.(I' 5 BUILDIOOA•LOf«lS[CTIONOI W•I\O' 1 A ,0'7i'Ol/ZG1e ;,; , . TT;+~~'i~~~\f~. _ .. i~~~~:~~¥~:~;~~44:~T~;¥i:f¥;~:~:i{~~i;I~~~~ .._, ~... t,t __ n,n,_,.._ t lll ,r i ! PAOJi:QTAOORl:$1" CUENT OR.AWJHGSET • .,.,_. --•-u.,.,l1211:IIIO,...., • 111)) t 24• 36., C .,_.,. I "-E\IISIOPfDA.Tii RoMERIA Po1Nre APARTMENTS =cs:~~TAR, 0NR0EVELOPMENT :;J1"'V,RV ....... -ml': ~-I.I 1 ~"10181:13;51 1 ~~,;:-~ARY eullD!NGA·SECTK)NS A-311 REVISION DATES I 0 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 70 of 143 SOP 2018-004 A1'0•W•~ ~ ··-·-·::.:..::i)_ ~~ ~~ ·.=-. [□---... --... ---... """"--....... -'~ -0 1; I elJILDING A• LONG SECTION 04 I/ff• 1'4' 2 ·• j I J.-t•'•----------,,-.. 111111 - -~~-~ ~:;_;;;:1 ~ .. _____ I_-~--... __ fWISl'IUAI)( -:::,,._ '"W-:'J~ REVISION DA.TU June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 71 of 143 j I i I J r•··(~ ,) I ! [ ' ,,./ ,,. ,~.,,.--~-!111-i!!-...-i~ .. ~""""'""""" ... ,-;;;.,,nH~ri~l.1l/ff-J1~n1 :·1~J11111 ~1111 1rl11,n1Hi11\J1ml.3nV rd ....... , S(t "'°31~P'Ollt -ONOIOMlliT'l'.lN cw.. SEC'flOH 83 1•·• r.a-2 ll':!P'O•U•r _L~ -'iW!'~ SDP 2018-004 l I ---------------------------:=::::::::r'.::-:'.::T,,+----------------------------,;;,:;;;;;;;;~;:-;;;-,,,r--------1;.c~u:gmno~••~-I ' S!C110N oo .... ,.. 3 SECllC>N ., .... ... 1 , .,,,,,,.,,. ~ PROJECT ADDR<Ss cumT OOAWIN\UET • :::',:"'" ::=::-•::::=:;:;-; "" ; ,.. , ,.. • C • •EW•»mm ; ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ~:C,AAJ,=LTAR, 8.MR~VELOPMENT ~~=~'( ---~ICI,, =--I :~1'1l1'~7 ·1 ~~T~AAY BUt~B-SECT!Om. A-321 ftEVISl~DATES I I I I I June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 72 of 143 C '[EB E] □ ~ t:;;l=~=;;=:::::==:;;::=11•----•11111--.... -11111----.. ~~ I □ __J.~~ ~: SOP 2018-004 SECTION 87 w~ r-v 2 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 73 of 143 : i t I j 0-t~~ft§._ -- -- 0-~~:r.y_ -- - - ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS 8Ufl.01NOA PROJti:CTAODRUS ROMUllA.ANDGIE!RALlAA, CN11.88AOCA, 92009 8.M" 0£\fELOPflfNT [I] en D D 8UIU)ING8 SOP 2018-004 s.co..--UIIIII . ~. I ........... _I ~ ''W'.'i!& SllEELEVATK>N•EMT ir•Nr 2 2 i ~ r ~ 5 i ~ i I! I ~ 2 s ii I ~ ~ ~3 I ~ ,. m It mi .:ell .. n Ill ______ ___i~~ ----,. •• m, .... ~ -- SITE ElEVATION • NORTH W' • Nr 1 A 102/ZOt& ll!otl,,. • ft[WK)H D'lf'E tifTE ELEVATION'S A-801 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 74 of 143 SDP 2018-004 __________________________________________ _JE™ June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 75 of 143 j I ! i l ~I,?. """'""""' 0 lEVELAI .... ~ 0-tW.16---r01~---f ~,ro .. ••r 0-ti~I'--- ~-LldN ""' SOP 2018-004 ....... """"'' JI I --------------------------------------+--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-r.~----_--:----_-_-_-,..---,..~---_-_-_-_-_;;-~~;~;;;;-~.;_;;-:__~;--~,;;_;;;;_~,;;~~~l_-1_t•~c;"j•~11fii,~.,,.,~,~•;,;~ I-we.5TUE\IA1ION•81Jll.OINQA W•r_. 1 : ::~:: 1 1 OAAWINO .,. c • • ""'""' ' PROJ£CTA~S CU~T 5 .. ~. :=:--:::::er--i 110l J u~ .ar • ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ...... TM OISCRETIOIUIRY :.... ......... axn ....,__.. J A 803 REVIS«)ffOAlfS • . ~i's~~; • BNROf.VUOl'MEl<T ftMEW ---! 141-"""•" =~:w-y 81/1\Dlf<OA-ELEVATlOOS • I I I I I June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 76 of 143 I I i ~ i j D D ....,.. __ _ ,,..,..,_LW'rl --- ,..llrilll-o,,,t, o,., .... D D D D D D ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS """'"'""'"°"" ..... - fl WEST El£VATIOH. 8lJU,OING 8 W• r-o-3 PROJECT ADORESS AOMERIAANDOIBRALTAA, CAALSS,.DC,,,..92009 CUDf1 BMR OEVELOA.tENT OJSCRET10NAAV .. - --a..,..- [[JJ □ □ □ □ ·--- MEfM.~~~Y,,Tll.'IMI •·c•~~ :~.i:-----:::::::r-l nn J ?A•wM· • C SOP 2018-004 l~ l~ l~ --~ l~ -tlU'] ....._._ j ~_. ! ~001i1:18;SO J ~-~~.-,tty 8UllDING8°£LEVATD,iS A-804 I I I I I ;~~ 12 l;I d ~11 ~; 1~i1111 tlMg1 REVISION DATES June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 77 of 143 Se&flon,f ..,,.,..,..... 4 4 I --I - ' -i--_ -:::--"',-------:. ~::----1:::.. ~~r-rr~: TypfcoJ Se.etlon,: &ibrolt41" Strut ..Of lbsutl Cll'r 1W OCUIIS!Dt " .. VICINITY MAP ! mP:rsrJ0s.: '°"''T,. ~l,NJl"N(I.S_ tN 1141ctrvc,~.~C#SANolffO. 5TAlt'M~ ·••«Clflltm .. ,o..,., fHBll!OI' NO.UQ0,'11.l!!lllH'll1tOl'flaC,,'flC""-""V ~Of~b:ffO«AJttrY,~I0,"70.. ProJtct Address: 7Ufi&Ql.ifl3TWt CAltSIAb.tA,mo, !ZztR:::n~"'-~' UIOO'itl,08.tlIO 'l"Oll1Al.U,lb"'""n"1 (1l,)Mt.fll0 =:»~f\A1"5WA$fEM;ltAT~tY'laO .51.A>R;MnMOl>S,-O,,,lUl'Ol.lMTIONMllUE0ONMPru.11'.111 ll,.lOl71VMl.li[J,.lf~ f~~~!IOM ~TO~n'-»-IAl.»' UQA.AO'st<l~S. ~J:r,~;IOW'JTM1U ~!.,Ml9.M..llllW t111->00-1t•u. n. C'AUFOll:MIA COOlltll>:AT'f: DOE)( OI' l'lQ.S PIIOJ'i&q I$,, N)Mff7 ~i.Hn'l' EOAltlCffts:: ~TI<lf'll.Tn.f'«JNIA~IJIEI.J"AW<4°"'fTTilf I.IKlltf(l,AfetlA~T U,l0Jlf01t™1$flt0."Kf,Qa;n11HO. 0Ql0tn,..n1-0a-l'U. net Alf NO LU&l(tll'SO,tfGQaD et.. -""""'"'- TOTM.LOTNIEA• 0..7ll4'U.S TOfAlOJ:,\~ttl)M:l'Jt•~lACIIU r,i,tl.J AllfA !NtUM.$ tu1' l~NOTUMnlb TOO,F..sll"f: WQt( WQ.IA>U..l'IAU( ~$A,.~'fbli~ .M.04ASY0Uo..f,U,Q~ srA6i.WJ~fd. ~WOOXlll,OOT1'4m(,.501VfQ.A....,_,:t.U, VllUTYll:~,1.-.nnu~S.u.baoN!a't'NAV!.) TOTll.t~B'lAoGOUIHA.Vl.~AAII._• 0¥ JOTAt.l'IIOf'OJCtWOl~AAfJI• 11.))'•V 8ct1ehmork: --., ..... IKJO W/U.tSt~lSUIUfT UO' W,lil(MUJUA .fn.ttT Ot.l $. stototu,~T.,11.1/&1,A.!t'IAO:Olt\.Qtl. LOC,1,1'10H;U.'f »°m'Ol-'qitt'lll lCNl-11l'l4"q.Ht4JW =.n:o~:sr~~n:'="1~C:~~ ~UCH~ai:.110,L11.Ct»rAA~!o·u.o:«o.llt. HCIOltlll0110$ l1l11 IUVAOON IC6,4H WIN6l~lt LEGENO, (CltlC.fA'>'tllb(tt1fCl"lONTOI( ttrrl!llllll""'o•vsoa.u, .. w~i WAI.CWA'tOllATlOC,<II.AlDIAl,.64, roa~mu.t<e.Kn!l'\A.MSI -~ __ . __ . Ql,IANTtnliAtt: ~'Oil tot,t,~ON,'¥,<CNJ'I.Aa(lt;1.$~QKll WI Ql,l,INl'Tr.t"SftllJU.M, ••• .-u~af~t0OIIAWJMWAA!AS"'°"'CIEttr.NaAN0l£ofOtt"1<lNo'll.$'rAMl.-.ett OU~lH.USOnowuf~ Eciirthworfc Quafttffic.s: "'""'' VO'Oltfl n~c-r ~t,\u ocw-- •11St~U.6!,_lltffeltfb11fEO~tE.lll?l.lt,11, nEMOl'O.sEb •vn.OOIIIS.. llETAlNDII WALLS_, AHt> flltt,.,STA,"-OU,16Wo\UAWW.. M.l'POltrtb avu.aT,IM41UU.ftt-MOI.I (ClbH)Pll.6ANO/OlWIIIO'%turltoNA.frfll(MOVM..At4:lllt«:OM.'ACnON0,1HfPJSTVft l'llJ. &OU.,lLlNOf'lt~MG. I.NAOl>fT'tON, TO't'4:KIO'C~ ttlJl.o.tMIS.lffAlt41Mt W'AU,.S,ANl)f'fft,-iST~U.WAU..$,lollN:Ol'OSfbEXT!JtIOlt!.TAWA5!8AMlloom!UOlt .JfA;IU.5f1,,11tC)r,-IIS.si,QA,.OM'9.#fOIITEb•'fQbWt1Lf.5ANlltolVltfl0'1aS.l~A&.AM U:COiWACTlOHO, TMI wan,.,. m.&. IOaSWJU. NGT" NUl'«>OIT,\.l:OI, Wotub&rnonds: ,...,.,..t,.a;,L....,•~(A1>01,t,o.,.,._,.,...,,_.n_ •• anor ..... o,,.. ,_........,.,._,u ~,.op•ur u,,1...,w« .. .,_1,1J,71f,l,lhl. Scwu Ge.nuotkln: ;,; .. Nlf'"'1ty,..;;:;(AiifiJ•U0 ...... ,... .. ,_11i1"'""••~P•OJJtl!IIIIMI ._..,f),ely"-t•M-.:0.oo5M6Cl•O.OUN,kJ e il~ato'l'fOlt4.ClllllffOI.TSWfJIIE11tU'AllnKllllMl.5ffl"f,. R'OSOtU.l/C, •tJIOlltr OAlm ~Mt$ ll..l'011, «oS01Y.IIC.IIIJ($T0Attb~18114.to07, ~.SOl\$,IMl:.lill'tOIITOATeFflilt.Wl'i'U,1001 HOJQJU1,l>C.UIOltTt1AT'tDOCTOtOtU.lUMo. H0$0A.$,.l>tt,~CIAflttJ\4Y~•.~ ~llC,l""1JITOAft'DIU.:r:n,20e»,. fie0$0l\.5.u«=',le,m:TCIATt'l)~•.MIO!I. ff0501l.5.1NC.~8'CITCIATIDWTttuaV,m:M. l'REUMINARY GR:ADING Pl.AN ROMERIA POINTE TITI.£SHEET 1 REVl.90N DC50S'1lON 7WllOMB?AatUET,~,CA »t-ft.Z:ll-)r;Jo,lfAl ... .k0,1~ June 11, 2019Item #12 Page 78 of 143....,_, ~~=tw,,:,,.i~ .tl.f'•ST""""'-19t" ... -JlfttlEUJl..tH!'O'"JI ,--IRB.LIUNAllY&RAl)lNO;PI.AN RO/,\ERIA POINTE 6AAl)INl;ft.AN 2 3 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 79 of 143 8uildiOQ A Onvcway Detail -0£.bf.S' Bullding B Drivt;W1:1y t>c.tcil W.OC!-.S BMP~l. Z & 3: B!oflftrotion Plo,,tcr-w/Cistcrn BMP-◄: Bfoflltrotloll Plonter-;;;it riHGti ftrnSION DESCRIPTION PAel.lMlNAA.Y GIUbING PLAN ROMERIA POINTE CETAll.S nl1l0,l,IEUA6l'l!EET."'-l!Ll.Mb,£<i ,_,,..li..JQ0,,12<lll6-JOO,IJ 3 3 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 80 of 143 CONSULTANTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WMME;t-!S MUAPKV & PAM'NEIG. WC. 34197 COAST HIGlfNAY, SUITE 200 DANA.P'OINT,CAD2629 PHONE: fM-9.4'3.1.WS FAX: 9'9.4~.1631 CONT A~ PAT MURPHY ARCHITECT FOXllN ARCHITECTS m C:.V,JNO OE ESlEU.A S1'N~E.CA.92e72 fl'HONe!IM9.32UOOI CONTI\.CT:JI.IN'l"CM'LIN CIVIL ENGINEER Ml! OIGINl;ERJNG 40' SOUTH LN£ OAK PARK RO. FALLBROOK. CA. 92024 PHOtE:~0..731.€1603 CONTACT: M!CliAS. BENE.SH STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KURT FISCHER &'fROCTUAAl !NGl~ING 176,tl VENl\JRA BLVD., SlITE 302 EHCII-K,. CA 11316 PH0t£1e1a.a1<1.144s CONTACT: KURT ASCHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND LEGEND NOTES I, 1HECOHTAACTCHfSIW.l.PA<MOf'M.LI.MOA,TRANSPORTAT10H,M4TERW.$.AND SEA¥!Cl:S Hf.CES$.MY 10FtJANISHNIO lliSTAU. AU COll$TAI.JC1POHEU~MSA$ SHOWN ON 1HE ORAWWGS NID Sl'ECIF1£D HfAEJH, Z. .-.U.WMKSllALLMPHl,f(JIIMtU,OYACMJICANJAUCIN$£0co,trFW;t()fl 3. CONST1WC1IONANO INS1N.UaTIOHOFALI.LANOSCN'£fllMSSFWL8EACIXJRIJI.A'O TO STATE, (X)lJttrr AND lOC4l.. coo es, Oltt>IN,tHCESNID UP Jt)CM..,()SICASAIETV OAOERS REGN¥lM)PfNOAMAHCE 0, l'l'ONC'. 4, THf CO,.'TAACTOR SHN.L BE RESPON$J8U HJR MAUK; HtMSEJJ fAAMJM vm'H THE NATURE AND I.OCA110N Of NJ. UliOEAGROt.WD V1JUT1ES. PflES AND STMC1URES. 1HfCONTfl.AC10ll$™'LL TM't$0UflE$/IOH$1EJIUT'(FOIIALL.COS'r$111CcJRREOWE. TO~ Ah'f)IOA RfPiNXNENrOf.SNO UTIJTIES, IICLUOIHO DflA.'tS. 6. Nit' DISCM/IJ.HCIE$ BETWEEN 1HE HEW OONDtrtONS AHO TkE CONTMCT OOCUMfN1S AHOl()lt 1Hl" OESIGNMENT NFECTlNG 1Ht SuoctWt,t. co,,u>t.tTl(JN NIO COST OI THE PftOltCt $.IWL BE R£.POPU1D TO THE <:NINER U0B SLff1W,ITENDfNTA'IDUHOSC»EAACWTECT~1lLY. ALL'NORJ(ltELATEOTO THEPROBUMMEJ.SHAU..CEASEUNnt. THEO&$CIIEPANCIESHAVE"BEENAE$(X.\Wlff THE c,,,mER (JOf/ SUPfOOl1ENOf.NT) OR 1.MOSCAP£ AitCHITECT IN VtRf1WO. ANY CC'H11NUATION OFWOMPNOR TO THE RESOI.J.mONOFDISCREPNlaES fSAT THE CONTIIACTOR$ Al$KANI> 01'EN$L LEGEND t. ...,.. fN!MI\CICll~fl'.:w ~ """"'~~Tl;JIII ~4:Jll['(llitnl .... ..., [ IOll'Ol,OOINGCl.t'Witolll :If:: " CATCH..._. ~ --,_.., .. --... E:~ R " ~ IQPO,Glklllll\ll,TDI .... , ...... -,,.,KAMD.l'W,71:11 loMQU'llil...U~ «,ll'Q:f'~~ANl:fl"ftl'C, ~'ll'rl;-'C,!9ikl' -·---"- Ollil((lJ)ol(lll,\Olfl, ........... 0 ~ ... ~.t,tl'le•AINI C.lo lOU fR£1! 1-800 422•4133 .... OB~~~ ::-~$1P0:10h..'1CIII 5-iw::MU .. "' ~ 10,0,Q.1111 " _.,_ ~ --~ ="QI{...,. ~ ="' :! ,_..,.,.. -... -w ___ , ... ,_ .. ~.::c "" 0 --0 ----------""""""""' ~ =';:., e-Dct/i,L!IUl'.IIOICt -D&Jl«.lti!IW ~_,....,, __ -PUfUXilliTDI ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ROMERIA STREET & GIBRALTAR STREET CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARD NOTES DECLARATION Of RESPONSIBLE CHARGE: •~~THIITIAMT'eEUC£t4Ei00E&IGJClll<,IWC,W,.l~~Jllf/fOlltff.fM,1,JI '4AIC'-X!AIC!amilll~~OIUICEllWlt?Hlot:SlCl40,fl.tsflilllQJEICTM0991EDN $11CTICH~Ol'TNl~NCl"'°'r.ssl)N$QOCll...,,,C,n..Tnc~■ lut«l'ISTNC'J'TKAtTMI Q£Q; Of" FROliCT OAA·""""'5 N4P lfU;lFICAl10tG1l'fTl1CCl!YO-CAALS&AOAIClaAl\l01l'.0000UNNOEAUITWHTO,~NT""-~nt■COWNB)T04 M\CW°"''l',U,O,OQNt'QTfr(UMl~-'Sffll,UHWO~OIWOIW.C#l.l'i ~tlHl'Oll'l'IIOJlCTDU131l 'tHUePI.N.K/IVV.KtH,.,,.,,,MCCI .. SUN"TA!tttAI.GOllf'C!IIIMMCll~M~ UJI08CU'II!:~ "-'",~ATER eotm.llVATJ0Ml"I.AH..IW!f'~Tl!Cl'IONP\Nf,N«J~ COtlOfflONS<:K'~Ml.Af@TO~ (\ "" PATRICK C-" MURPHY I<'=> L ~ M:lHlrNO:: .!!!.. ~ IIE<IISTRATIONHO: ..!!lL---DJ'fto\TIONMff: AJLY;)1 2020 WATER EF~CIENT LANDSCAPE OECLARAltON.: ,,._.,,...,,.,wtWl'TWTMIM_Ol,tiilllD,IE!rff.tft:IA~~N.IDIAIIICAn::,,IKA,!dCOeff~IYl'HeCff'f<YI CAII.MAO"t~WIHIIM,l'WATtl'I ~V,~~ JH,M,C~™-fll\,#Jl~~'MTH~MOl.UTIOHS~THl~~ ICEflfr.'llM.f™f:l"VH MU,~T1'11<$1.llt(QUIAn011110~UflCIPlfUUO,WA 9't'I PATRICK C.M. MURPHY f"HOHl~.!!L~ ,W,:l&T1"110HH0:..!!lL--- SUBSURFACE IRRGAT,ON NOTE: Mfflf,.AMIM'C.~'flOYICC1MATONl.'l'tuOSl.lll'ACllll~Tl(N~--OTONIICIA,TI!#4¥ VE.CltTA.110N'MJHlfl'l,Off't',f~IDIUC;l4")0fN«M"OIM(A&E.....-/la.lH.tlS™'!AO,lll,Ctln i~l!IUlll'~NU!tltllO,l[t!Atl:)COMffltuCTm10CNJ61!.WATUTO~DnWttl.YM04 -- j BACKFLOW PREVENTER TESTING: ,'U../IIQAl'll>IMC:lt"1.(IWl'M\l!Utffl91fWJ.811!1U1't(l,l"t'•r.l!ll'Tn!D1Df!ll:"""'lllea.4.ft..u&11E ~~==-...~=-::~*'·""~,..--~N.o ~OCUffR4CfMCKA.OW TUlVISCAHl&~CWT"41cnY'AQ,n.Al: ..,,...-.,,.~~~~~~~rtAIITXJI' r011;11(CV(U0011 ~-.~~.._~-rE.'IMOVtOWl'ur-..,.,.,, rOftf'OTMIUOIICAlltiw,i-QWn:z. INSPECTION PROCEDURES; 9'IIP(CTION""OClOUIIUtlWW'tCflC:iNOflfl4'1lOAC'T~ll,O,CMtDIV"'f LAMMCN'l!ARCHlffCTOFWOAt(.OftHIIDHIGN,l,ffOAGENT. IIO'SITOnfl!Fll!Cn;,\TlOIG ,(lltTM!;$1CH(DU.aO,ll,(QUllll(O~IQNSAN0~0$.1111141ffAU. fCIUOY,N) cot,!R(TIONOF THl'iWOAX. n&I.NID9CN'eAACHl'1:Cf<:K'l'l_,WORIC,.,U.CCl'ttF'I' lW.T llC NflM.LAl'ICWW.S IUNCOW'l.lr1'0 rr.--.mt.'I. ~ "CfJfflFICAflOIIClcc»MUTl0N" FOflM. A.~KlllA~~HUtCllOHIV'O.Q'11' ...... Al.$01eUAtc:tlV CM.I.NO THE. INSl'iCl10lii MOLIUT L.N. ~fll!KU/Jlla PRIOR lO BEGINNING LANDSCAPE WORK: '11-00Jt~SI-W.1.«IHTll(;.Tf!4~~~ fflJDRro~~WORKHfOMOQOIEROI ~$W,U.lllt',tE.wlMIIIIIICIJl!et'llllJ'l"'U)CA.1Gl!.NfO l'IEYIKP\NQ!AOOOADINGLY'RJl'\.UYIOll:«HAl.l.llTUl'IEI ,IIIOM .... "'AN0f'AOttCTA.U.vnunts~lll1DW GMCIE>fFIOl6NVASIYCPUNT~NQACIOt'$. MAINTENANCE NOTE.; HOdOMENAMOC14TIOH~l'#l.l.llE~FOfl-MlriNTtl'WUO#'ALL~AA04, IJNA: OEVl:.LOPME::NT CLIENT BNR DEVELOPMENT 23800 Vt.\ D£L RIO VOR8AUNO.\.CA"2&87 (114}692..SIZO DRAWING INDEX SHEET 7 • 9 10 11 12 13 .. SHEET DESCRIPTION TTTLESHEET CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT PLAN CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT PLAN CONSTRUCTION OETALS CONSTRUCTION SPEClFICATIONS MAINTENANCE RESPONSlBL Y Pl.AN TREE PLANTlNO LAYOUT Pt.AN TREE Pl.ANTING LAYOUT P1.AN- SHRU8 PLANTING LAYOUT Pl.AN SHRUB PLANTING LA VOUT PLAN Pl.ANTING OETAllS Pl.ANTING NOTES IRRIGATION TITLE SHEET IRRIGA TK>N HYOROZONE PLAN June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 81 of 143 \ ,· . \ --0. ~~~>~~ \ \ ~/ _,..~ \\ • 1>~. • \ /_ ~~/ \ \ ./ 07 ... .-· / \ \ / ~~~-/ . \ + _.,/ \ \ \:· '\ \ ~--.: . \ . \ \ -··· . i \ -,;· ... --- .---· _ .. -- __ . ----1 --~---~-4-~ ~------------------< 1, OONTIW:tOII SWoll. \VIIJY 1,1.L ,.~........r-tnAIJol9IO -· ' :t. , ... YIIIGCOHTNIICTQll-..._~tt....nM~00Ntfl,lctOII, 11111:M»,l'IOH to!t!IUiC'fCll AHO fl..KIIIICWtlO lNSUlle TH,o,T AU. IUE\IUA!G at05SlliQI /lltll. ~Of'llll(lllt 10,u,,et,,::1 o,.,.wwc, CCINOHII!, EiC. ~ IIPlN*tH'lt!E~CIIOIIJ~UTl«lolU.DfCIIII-IHfCIIIOAMSE '-"'YU'1Mt,,al,\N11Amat,£n:~f0ftW...U.:.S.llt<l'IM,fC011NCt,lTC. N,T PROOUCTION CON-CRER; IIDlWAU( ,iu~mcr....ero1WEERSPVHJ THIS SHEET NCJ.~=tASOl\lll'I' ,.11,·\lllfC ~C(Ntt.ACCINr&AMDI IIT~~i:a•ck~P\N48 '":J'i&l9NOI & 'Tlt"'1tfl[CU't'ACWI IK~.wr.m.o~.;~lUlltOIIU,lllMI It .. ff...Jco~~~~~N'f'l.l!DNG ~~T4NUOClNffil Vf.Al'IC"'-JOUJfl',_..WALLl'IITntaA.ll!l&U,SNTWO .......... ltAIIEOKAffftll'W•U. ......... DllCOltATMIWM.1.Altf ... 'fl!fJVll0flO(IIG'Q EIGl~~~m, ... Wri!O ,u~~/w.u.LWl'fMG\IIWUle~K<ot w.w~ IU~~~&IUIH:OCWIYD)l'UJffill IKCOIUllVl:~...CCW.\U.OMSUlFC ~'::vgit~..:::;~~Pftf8-t,1&Jt ~MI~~~1r~a ""~'f111CVJW~~ A~:J,;,Af"&CMW:WMJ. NCO. M.lliSCIHt't',trlUTM. ,A\'WG& Cotfe.A.CCllfflllMlat:I ... _.. Ol,COlt,\1T.1!A1ttSC~tlJNt1NRMltQII\MWI R.A!M.O~Vf).U. CWl~D,t~~~PVNS •":.:,WW,=:r~~•111.ottf0 o«oAAtM!eCUM.C~ lt&L90JCCLIIITlfllLOCATIOM ..... _ DUCAATMSlfAOlf&I.Jt.CWU11£,11,Cl'lilSTIIIIMll<lfflNO tilA.ffl'~N-l'lf&NfTSU.TINCl 'lim¥~~.~Am~ :_~r ~~; :~ -··-1---E~!~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~§~~~i~~~§;:;~~.~l~c~11Y~~~c~~::::=~::;s~eAD~l~rirl;;;;4~• _ -O'~-r--t--+-----------+--+--+--1-----i w,il)SC,,l,Pf;~fiOI.ANSrOft C .. TOU. FllEE 1"-800 4U◄1n 8NR OEVELQPMEtfT '3800Y1-'rltlf00 RIMSIOM OESCRF'TlON ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ROMERIA AHO G/8RAt.TAA, c-.w...sMC> CONSTRUCTION lAYOl.11' P'LAM June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 82 of 143 Ul'ld1r1f0Vftd 8et,IC• Al■rl .,.. TOU.. FIE£ EE 1-100 422•413J NORTH ~-'-'--••..,._,_,._ :MtVf'Aml!l(l(Dlldl_.,,_,..I_ --a.-1,91....-u--CM.T'E'1.Ml'ffll'Nlm "' BNR~OPMEfff 23800 VI-' OEl. RIO YORBAUNOJ\ CA, 928S7 114 ffl.9120 11 I I I I I I Ill II I I 11 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: SYMBOL LEGEND 8'0.18Q.. OUCIIPnoN --.............. ~~ -,,, .. ,~~~ """"' --""""""' Cl:1J ll'TIUTYlOCll.noN ~TYll!IG ? ll"'"1"LIGl-ff -·- ~\IIS:IOH 0£~1PTJOH "" THIS SHEET "~g:c=::r::~ ~..&:$~~"y , ... Vl!f<I .. CIMC.A«Vff Mlm •~ttl,-ClffiY-r'..'Jr..:caq;~, ,ltOfOIITYWALLIR,HCl!fl3 'rr:/~61'1~1'1E""ACI.D ot:~~~~~ll.llNilUOOIAI !L.~~c~~u .. U'PlBNIJ Olll'~LT.-. NOCOIIP 'IIJl~~orrrM4WALLwmilWl!l&UOlfflll0 .AA%?o=HWAU. ou_:1r:,~&~ Etfltl~t,IE'TfPAwte ·%'4\!~W,l,U.""1fMCUIN'lO■Qf:)!~T ... ":~ ..,._~..,.~SOICII &IWRl>CUIIYUPUIITVt OECOltA'TM!~Wlt,Ll.OtllLOl'I! UO-=-J:t98'&-t~Ulta~=~rll)l,W.fl(IMM,U:lf a:~~:C=1 ni:~W~"&'mt~~ni~, ACC.Jr=&CIIW(WAH ~0.. .. .A~l'mHTALl' ... VINO&(:OtlC.AC'CilffH HDIHCI """"""' ~0:IIA"fT.-.iAJtrScikll'HittlMlt.USID"-AMtlllt ~o~w.w.. G,AJl;Aot! OAIYEWII.V & .M"IIIOII ,i(fEllllOQ,IW,.~(jlM6lflll'V,NI MAIIT\IElff0oUIMU!IUA!lflllEtff81&.0INO '1EFElilJOARCHIIECTUIW.PVrHS OC.C(ll[ATMIOLU.A'OUIIKT~ ~~eo:~lCA LOCATIOfl MCOAATMi StlAOI! 141..cwot-.i.O'o\llllfftlllO UOMlNG ~~_,.IT&IOl"TIEATI!tl3 .,fiiit~il~~~-~ ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ROME~ AHO GIBRALTAR cw..sBAO COM51'RUCflOill LAYOUT PLAN June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 83 of 143 C-0·•- NOTE: :---AU PRO.ET SIGNII.GE AHO MONUMEHT'S SHAU. Rf:OUIAE AS!PAAAl'I: Pl:RMIT~C.1:;R'fHe CITVOf CAR~S8AO ~Re\lll;W PRQCDS, £lFVATJON Vll§W SCM.E: 318' • l"-0" A CORNER SIGN WALL ~ =:::=~t==t=---.l-,r::J.~-----T--07 SECTION VlfW • A SCALE: 3.,,1• • 1"-0" B COMBO WALL / VIEW FENCE ==:"d:s~ ::;::~ ':; IJr,IU.l'OWJU,QII\II 11"'5'.0.-Olli"1lHC1'~ ~-----+--•• -+"-----/---M -.:i:.L _ _:::::,.L_ __ .. ElEVATION 'JlfW SCAU:3'4"• l'-3" ~R DEVELQA.!EtfT 23000 YIA DEL RIO YORBA Ld>A CA. ffl87 714,692.9120; ., ., ,, SECTION VIEW -A .SCALE;aa.--•1·,0- .RevlSIONoesc~H LEGEND I. DECORATIVE WAI..L CJ.P -REFER TO FINISH SCHEDU\..E 2'. fllrk:$ CMLI BLOCK~ SOUO AU. VOIDS. AEFEA TO smucr~ ENGaNeER'S OETAU. TYP. 3. WM.I. FltflSH-REfER lOFNSHSCHEOUL£ 4. Pl~ET STEEL leTTEAS 1,\ITH UP.t.lGfffiNG 5, F~:st,,IEOGRA.CIETOHA.VEt(4llJRALIZEOCONTOURED GRADNG 15. CO&APACTED SU9GAAOE 7, WATEA~~G, TYP. 8. FRENCH DRAIN-OJNNECT IN'TOORAIH SYSTEM I. ~FORCEDCONCRFTI!: FOOTING,RUE.R TO $1'RUCTURAL EHG(NEER'$ OETAU, TYP. 10. A.0.1.-.CENT A.RCti~~-StEF'EA TO AACHITECTUIW. PLANS ~ • REFER TO STRUCTUAAI. £:NGlHEER'S OE'TAll.6 & CALC\AATIOtfSfORAU. CON,,.ECTIONS, FOOrt'G, HIO RE1NFOOCINQ INF-ORMATIOH • LEGEND 1. 3'00. TU8ESTEELPOS'f-OIBEOOEOIHTOCMIJWAt.L -REFER 10 STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR EMBED MCOMMEOATIOMS 2, 1/T SO. STt8. PICKET, 4" 0.C, Sf>A(:~G MAX. 3, 2"SO. i\JBE STEEUfOR1ZONTAL. TOP Nm BOTTOM R,AlL. 4. hSlr:U! CMU BLOCtc -GROUT SOLID ALL VOIDS, REfEA TO STRIJCT\JAAI. ENG!t,11;.f;R'S DETM.S, TYP. -Rl::F'E.A TO f-lNJSH SCHE:OUt.t ~OR 81.0¢1( l~OA.MATION ti. T Ct.lJ PRECISIOH CAP-MF ER TO Flt«SH SCHEDULE 6. FttMH GRAD£. T'YP. 7. REINFORCED CONCRETE FOOTING-REFEA TO STRUCTURAL ENGINtEA'S OETAU, TY'P. 8. WATERPRoor...a,. TYP. SI. FA~ OAAIN ,CONIE.CT INTO ORA!M SYSTEM NOTES: :---ALL T\JBUI.AR STEEL PIECES TO BE METAUIZED METAUZA.TIONTO 8E ZINC HOT DIPPED OR APPROVED """"' TReA,T Fll;l.0-wf;U)S TO PR,EVl;t./T RUST REFER TO STRUCTURAL ero!MEER"S DETAILS i, CALCllATIOMSFORAl.1. CONNECTIONS, ,oomo.M«> Al;tNFQRClt«JINFORMA.TIOM. 1711 CITY ~~$BAD lt!rl ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ROMERfA.AHO GIBRAL TAA. CAAt.SBAO CONSTRUCTION DETAILS June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 84 of 143 L ~ I>.. Conlnu:ll.NIIIRtl~ Ir! U.. pe,f,orinel!Ct ol Nt Cl)IW8cl. COl'dtador INI tdd lalid9CIIIJO An:fdlc<:t ardO- Nl'Tllleu rrom eNt llr>d •I llltely, <:O&tS llr'ld chargts lri.-ig OL1l ~o, lh~ •. connc1on.~.«ll'a~~ .. am1,ilbl1, llff(lf1.. e. fmw«CCl'lnldl 1181'1f«rvtS or oodllc:b:•1• ~ tl'\flt-CM'lt« l'df:a, ~ atial t,., ~so ,11 IO.ooo~hreal ourpoetd tlOMpbm..ndnalfl. c. ~ OM&tlol'II and~ Nl)de-.iilfor'IS or .ali.nl0N lroml,e pa.n, a,-ICI &pe,cltcelon1 .. be~ l.fllan .11t:.1ttorhodbtflt-.0.W.oi1"-~At'Ct'k:I. S"'°"lddt'ofililcrlftt11nplarneondltOIH l)~r.«:Kl9l\'M 10con!lcllnode~O..,w111dU~"°'P6Mhll6Ctlh,I 1wrove-lnadvanoellff.$VchdllvlallM. No3ddl:mlwodii .... N1~lilttlOUClhl ox~W!tt.,\IIU!lv;•tulblrromlhot°""""'. D. lf'llef'pfet8111:iri TI'4Coinnc:lor'1'1elcomp+,v.t.Jl lhitobYlousWtnl#ldmodig o,lflcs.pl.o,111-, ~dlJl'Jt'4'NchlhalbeC'D!llruedlohdudo..alabof.m,1,vW_tc,ol14nd~I NICC!9UIIYIO ciorrc,lete t!tlworll !Jl)odJlcdhcrtdn fn a v.orti:m.nr.:. m&nner fnNb 11c00rdwav.flh plD,-.,v;t; noi.,.. $1oi.Ad1"(qvHl(QN &Ilse e, lol'ie lntffltand Herp~cilth1Hpkn1and nolot, COl'llract«ahll 1'11fetlo0..n.. and ~rmape Aldlli.ctwl\ol,ecredlkln'hHGrlffllllN""'- E, 0t1HN11Jonarc1~orMat1111kandWoncm,nsffp Alirn.l&etlaAJ-,d'\',IO(qMr\~~«perbmedbtf~rlNlbeMAlfleilolhl ~ ~ ~ti'f~r end Land'tceptAtd'Jltlcl~ponCDfll)letlon or Ill OOAhd WM 'M'llf'lef l)f'tyloutly pitld fol' ornat. Al any and al II-dudnQ fi•~ Clftft«Nect.~~~•WbttlFol'obwtv,tlon,iestand~.~• ard~Falur•olwchotiwrv.sklrnH11~.1..etorl1Pllf'OWlll'1liallnoe pi.).idloethllllglllofl..lnlflCIPl'Md\111cto,o..nwcinarwobHrv•lol\.Conlraclol'dld plOl'nptf ~~end all mM:rW. woctrnitl'lllflip endl eQuiprf..n& ¥itlictld0k nottonbm loSl,t_,.U\dnol"-Ml'l\tlWll11ud«1tllltcot1111.clllldtNirwwllidlho~1na1,:od qua,i.,n1t11~ollvw,,.fs .. F. Sitr.f!IN Whenaor9qulred~thto-.n.tor Lltld~ArdlllKl ~&Nlllvbd:br~al s.;1i-.oftt.,.vlflou11n1ie!Wa.Wld1Ptdfrtilhfl..-.ot1. Q, Local OOd.s Al COMIM:llontl'iilll conbm lo •I locll l)l/ldln;J codes 11nd orclhanc.e9.. I ls ConlradDI"• r"~bllykl ve,tfyeffco4e:tpilof»~wotk. H. UllmN Cori'.tec.1of!ll,lllter~for~ lhl~«•ll.lnd«ilf"G'IIMullNa1.Mcilfc Glbln.corllkk~.,1,•Mfdutltyh$~lo 8/'ffCCt'IWudM. I. Rtn'l(lltllldDtbrllll'ld~ Connctoral'lell lhotou,,...,dun ilfldkn:pt-oloebrls.and~rT1111.W_.., Clllll$U\KilnnernkllhtufsfadorlolhOIWW. J.-ThttgtnenilUll'ICUonsAnd.ny~lciordbillht,IOwrlll'ff'Oll/reqi.hihe! •• ,,,.,, INI Nfflll locte _,d•lttd H tna,!J5'1 'MfllM In IUI tleilll'I IOI' •lctt'lllrucllon Mdor'lf._ IL SIT£ EXCAYAf1DN AND ROUGH GRAm.lG ~orWOfk. Piiowlelll.ibor, iN~ k>Cb,eq~ lr~9"6 rlllOHnlY lndd,enlafor !tio tofl'lpl~ a,ltill~ s~m:eolne,bW:D'C!,tlflclnOll'ld rd&&tld'MJIIIH1~011fl•la"~~b11tnoclmlledklh~ A. ~clallcuit,1, wtb,WIIII, tll\lchl'e.~ohr e,ilsll'lgWOft""JchlllotefflPI. 8. Oe-emQ end llt'fC)plng •otbn,d,, dabril ~ Ollwtorclgn malMWI a 01,111na,d ~ ht ·-c. ~ro,,.a~,_,ot~lolhed~snd~IN!ll,t'lm•ia dr~ ~ol~•lloNtNllbe1IY'IOOU'lellClleYel.AlllooN~ttl'lilllbe remowdfliM .. 'rom. O, ~, .. W..........,lnd~IObrci;)llveCOIT!l1,Dctlonof9S"-, E. ~•Ulldw■lp1W!gsf'llllbe1t11ologr~llndi:,oss~hartl,Ldlc.wm.flld ~prlorlO~loft-.."1,lt,erii,L F. 8dtlbgof-11l~~.,r'ldlrencl,t1111e!'pliClfrltnlOfilouM61Mt,wa,b,welli:1, ua11a, &. u c.iliMdonti•~Com~ ofbaditl.i-.,titlf'la~v.fth ~ipodlc:d::ins. G. Gradlrigot.,..,hlq~lnlhedll.-.wlgJ~l)flrlglng~11r~ab...tl!ll'ltltQ -••ornilnut.FNldfflgl'lgrac!NtihdllelMdonhch~•. H, ~ol.-xcalldonfflliltlillOI lq)GrtlopsOl llland~dVlllt,,.1i;~onlht ~l!IP-or h al)proYod byi..andMllpo N'CMld.. L Clll.nup •nd runc,,,o 111 d9twl• and tl,l{pllA m.tl"'-1 •odl-ttom 11\ft, !JI. DRA.INAG§ SCC(lflOIWtlflt•Pfo~ .. ,.bor,frmkrlab.lools,crqulpmenl.~llontnO neoflAFY lnddtnt.ilslosltltcc,q:,l~d·draN!ge~:nt.•dlO'WIIOfllllw~.~bul ~t~_. .... 'dor,r,tw: A. P.hlll1all 1. ~ Bu!Mtn• • st,r.ne (ABSI Srfiedulii 40 drain pipe, ptl~llld(lf no.n-JJtf$1;Qlfdlfl 6tnft!ln.tv:rr,,-,onh~ 2. 9\'ISI"" 11140r,1n, • High~.-. pl11Uc Styr,tnt dralfl binm. eelch bah .,,.ift v•i.s. high mped O(utlcSlyrM• declc ciVI&, ll'ldtof p,.cada:mc:Madnt! bo:t and a'Cti ~ and CMllr,otlGfll!othdllffle~G ON! <n ipshovfflon hi~ ~..-....AN!lortn"M dt,dcdF11ln1«l ~flu.~ en INdr.-~ 8. T~«idl•)haPpt 1. Tlllf'dle,1op4!di•mlril~o11.19'"perfoo!~o~Nlelllaontwdraw11,g11. C.Onlhdot tu ~trtrr d tw.l'l alelld:ln1 Ind t,end'I~ p,b IDoc:avalon.. i. 8«-oni Of lrencfl,...... bitamooll\1t1dco1111n,JOi.to llowdlretto:NI. A.hDl:M-sl'lill tio rraaeta 1ieoflM bflll od'pip,a so 11'11 joint wll r,ol boar upor1fto NJgr~uM.Aa)u11rNnlt 10 ~ l"d,erwde stulbal'Ndotiyse~l'.IY4fOftllnglJl"'41h~U11dlrilebial,edtbltpip•arldlnolb'f ~~ori:bi:tng. 3. T,.,-:d'\IB;M,Waltill blUMdbrtlacklaHcw..,....norotklOtl.ff.plll'llllbtll.-.:1. Wfloed ~llllllbitgh-ien•IIIIMll~rr6"11.11e1MIUPbllol•~Abo¥ohliil'Cllolk'all becdl,UWtritl'lthMa'/bltba(;lcShd'lliht-ancf'IJTIIIDbL ,. Ctwtt,dori -eon,»ctlonbybtql.-.g $ha I not be dono fn ~UXJNdlog eight lnehl,11~ bose lfqllh ~ Pd! layv lhot'°',Jgt+f~ bittWMrt. C. Clean-Up tnd TNl!nQ I, Pllol'loaw«lrlgorlNIDCMI, dmn IYl•~bllln!oshall)ec:hedc41dlo Nure r-perlowand wai.,Ug111nt11. 2. The~syJM1Mst\albtAu&t-sandclc!MIAdpi«lo~lo~Clr_.h, alt:hb.Dslri«s1onndr•syt1.ernt;. a.. Upon QOffflkttlonolwort:, ~ cftl)lk. bol1 af'ld 1urpl1.111N\allill rrorn Ille, W. CONCRETE Soopea'wtd:•Pmtde.alt&lbor,m1L«lffl,lool8,,~l,hnlpotYIDnandn«:Nt1tY ~d«il.lhbrlMcorttpltbiof•lcmaela~ .. IMwnonU.~nd..lllk,gbut natln'IUedlolta~ .. ,.._.,. 1. CfflKll'll•SWvoan:I Portlllncl c.m.,r, ,.,-d~donC-1500,l!eASTM Tw,a 1i.ao,V." ,C,...,111!111, llngle tll'Wld II~ RflllM loSOI Eti--f• Rep(l'tlor ~ndaib\a. 2. ~•ASTM~C,3:33M•na:dnunlli1t. Da:or...,_ew,~orpc~ rodl..-sd'IOtM'lon~.Rrlen;iD.nl..-,.wdwilded~IQA$TMC-t44. 3.. w_,.w,1mi.-.dll\fllblc>'~\eqw.lfy, 4, &"4d•Rlltll~lr..llb'~111'4'""-'1obeHl!m'Adall-,;radedefonnedbart ~loASTMM1511'ldiot<hde40. MeltlASTMA◄96,llav.flc111sttc,,,,,nm, , ........ 5. E,q)aMlonJcWl!s ,/uphallr'lll)(cgnat.od lca. Polyl'ellEfitfotrnn~ledltlfl lhitdr~ &. CorArd Mil,. S.wcut~ 1/4 cil ~b Slll;mff.._ Hv,d ~ toor4'~ 1/4" d'"fl ~ .......... ,tiownontie~·. 1. ColdJot'oll·&u11type,~U~Wltl dowW.-~INKllutyjoH H lrdealedonhlt1"~'- 8.. Jolnl~lif'l&•Twtli:,a,lt.~s..,l■slTlllnllr~byTiti:olOu•AS.MW levdng or~artp(IIJu~ co,,llruclbn lellllanli tiy LM, Soo.Wd', In ll'll1chh!t color. 9. C~Malctl$1•.._,._~MD7C. ~•cdof~~cdorO>ndilloNCI C011Ct•141tlrL.M,Scoltld,~ff'tlkHl'IOullord~ .. tdcail6dtin'1edl .......... 10, Color Conr.9loned COl'!CtM•"Clwomk' ldn-b.tut'H fer lnteg~ oc:torlldo::inc:re;e b>f UA, SClllaldCo~y. 11, OUsKltl COior • 'Ulhochrof'M"cdof hardener by U,I, Scorh!kl COmpetiy, 12, 5'.NOI R+tef'dlaril•'uthokX"lopturlao.1'11CIJderasmw11,t'acbodby LM.So:illlO CorrlJ1n7.or°Sb's.llriocor4~1 o,~rl qn-.nul'~ by$1foCOll)Ol'ldon. 8, Subgrede 1, Gtaidell1tqncrnta1Wlorrndeplhandcanpadl0n. Mol~lOfldsul,gr.QtlHplb'lo poin'lg ofconcrole. 2. OJI Ill loolini,a h unal!in#bed OJ~ ael. 3-.. F'lao9HM«-1we;llitobMeH""°'"1on .... ~,anc11$~dklb-(aW.. &ig.-iffl". c. ..... 1. UMOfff~llmbet. Sttllfotl'MWIIO",lt-lde#td~ 2. h'.dllal..afotnn.pdorlopouthgolciol'li:rcleoruso~iofflll'l!lea$C~cnls, o. Ellpal'Llllor1./oNs, 1, P\M;e, ex~folntl h CIOI\Cl'el.e •l ~ o, OMCtqanoaced M'\lelurH, Le., oar•111t•"""'·~°'~•poolbcndbl1H't1H~LitdanltllfdrftllilO't,. 2. Piecit conl'OIJM'II 11'1 UlflC1'11\41 l'IOC kl DCNd -~ lflldng b 1pedled bJ I ... .ni;i,o .. ,. .3. Plue C011$1Nc~Jolol$ In o::iroM-..ti«e cu.fng on o:wic,,tle ls lo be lq>ped end S'-tis.quont ar.16v Is 1o be sliwwd. .. ""°""' 1. ca....Acorv:r1te~lc:ont8'nnot-,!J".anl!iMclclofC8'1'18nloetcublr:,yt,1dWldbe p,opc,ta,ned 10•claln1 Mblfflumq,l,'der*irlll'fld3,000 PSlfl'l28da:,s.. Co~ &8'~ llfO lo bo dolCll'Trinoc;I In IKl00f$nt4 with AS™ 0,39. 1N llllttfl 1ti11• not -.«;Md •.. 2. ConcrMfflldrlu·Allr"~INleodconc,et..tJallri.tnllCedll"lddel~t,~\Jilh ller~et'llolS11Rcllf'd ~!t.br lffd)'lrilltdCClnCl•ASTMC!M. F. C,cincR1le fWshlnQ 1. &room~-1"e,np.-W1cor,c:r ... ._.,,t, .. vymtt111silki.ScreedwW11419Ji7,1..r91:10 teffl<Mlallfiagr.lat\Uea. Aot11to•amooll'l&u11aca,MMl.,__~eog.ban6Wl'llwtl ~-SCoteealridl~onM~llff•~~lwnpbJl"8brooff\. 8nlsh m.wlllnr,s otl slabh unlkwm lasHon u dlO'Mloneha ~ 2, lwct:SallF\'lbtl-T811'9lf•ltlCOJICf ... -..i11Nvyffll'lllgrtd, Scrffd"11hmllltlhled!l•IO ran'O'l'itlllllrreQIIMltlles.floelll0•11l'IOCllh~ ••• 1UOWd-'11~1o.,.,..,t.wd 1Wfac& ScotwM:hlc:tladon~. H.andbro-'t.a$1.ruc:k5:1kll'ICt'i1«1d1wb.ilo,.-ld 1,tmp~. Wash~conc:r•-.1•h cnoughptUS\ll'V lo IIIM0"'9 NXt allafl.9tconr:n'8 ~ .... 3, P .. RoctrRwrdedlFH,h-T_,,.hehconctele"'41hti1trtmatllOfl.,_ ScrNd~lwt,;f\l ~loNMTIO~itllll'f~l6iteM.floal IOa a/!11:lOChwr(li»,lfMl~irnd~ loMevan lllfd ..,ifbce_ Acl_,.,surb:e,t,laitdlll"ltlo'k'llshedsi..sttc,o, plor loN!i:lls,c:tpor~• ~allons, LM. ~. u.,!ng...-ycir.~evencW-llullon.RiJIMllll~ O'/usln;~tolenclort¥ffllbetbMh1ofllTIOvt.r~lpa;ale~om~.wuN!lg lhofoQgftj UIIII IIJrlKit .. dun endl ~· -COl1WNI• ar,d unll'Offl\. •· tlwldSNdiedAQo~FltrUll•l•"'flrre!hCDnCtete¥Mrt.111vymelllgrld. Saetd..tli str.1l!ihlod,gob~~lrre,.ltlH, Floetloe$trl001h~t1lll'ICIM90Rlfau1~ UClfornltalNono'Ndee,nl<~ alone 1/TIN!'lltNTI ffOffledQIIS•nd~ Johll. Tlll'fllQ!lrrtp"At.o•i.a'IKorm~pd,belciwCOflO'ete~ 5, Slll!lpedCo!v;.Tele-T..nphshoQOMffCelMlhll•"Ym.Wgi$dl, Scnl1dl•lhloN•6'elo r.mow,alllrrei;µa,tllea.AGMIOeatnOO!hMfeoa. /4#t(:Ob't.rdtll'llr"UtloctlftrM'IJ'f u.1.Sccilltlftrylhied'y1Nleme4!oduslnga,......,.,mor110pcNN1pcr1001QUWCloeL -'t)ply~2otfTIOf91N1kQSiWldblilll9rodi~. T~only11fl.-ftnell'loadng""hlie caroetol,dlpll,sdcLNlfl!;llnl~IR9loolf.bf!IMl'pe,lemN1~crilhitdr~ Afff c!Cllorcumg C0ff1>0Und\Jt,oc:.hrome'mor-bv L.M. scon11c1 c.omc-ru1'-lgldllr 11N' IPf'lyef, l"Bofflacnltl.' twi•~ It~ ori drbotlOt. 1 rclH:M•~l mu~\ be •lded prlat le le:dl.n,g 1h11 mr'PIKI. ColorouMG CW3qraund mll'fbe apl::in;II, H lndlcltloel Clf\ Ille "'-· $. $1,1:ldl Fliwh. TIOl> fmll concrole wllb heavy melalgtld. SC.Nd v.tlh snlghl: ldG• kl relY'!OYI al l!regull11lles.flo.1 II)• tff'CIOlhairiacc, .-i ~rid it«19flc,en~tiM su1eoo. NorloN1.l;ihllytpong9airf.acekl.,.lll-.i-1ecotNl•hllano4~ :;IIIIJIIIJ9ll,e. AJlemAle rne!hod, _..,HIWMl,a1.Wlecitlobew.aahad~adUfldlOMIMol mu!Wc:add•ndw.-i11",ll"IClt:wulhlldlOr....aeurf101ha.. Suff-mualblCCII'~ ¥ffl10.-.'ddtddbum. ··-Upono:,mpirionofl'IQ1f.nmo'l9.lo,m$,4ottHll.,nateJ11tll"IClloolJl'romtllt. Y. "BLOCK MASONRY Scq,oofWolt<• PtoltOoal lab,;rr,nwiw..1oo11. aqulPmM.llrlfllpoNbtilr'lcl 11eC11NrY lndd«1~fofh~d .. ~muonr,a111howncrilhe~'lng,s.lnd;idsigt.il l'IOlllll-'tlldlel!w~: A. Mal.slab ,. Shin\,, blocl; unlls ll'IOOd!'IQ wredilA.. ASTM c-90. ooncme btock ~ GtlldeA.. ASTM C-90. t. Cemanl•S,,.,,diardPort.nc1¢1fflan!ASTMcldgnllbi'IC-tSOTypelorl.b.ro11bl l. S..d·CINl'\welflldedAS'TM~IIMC-14•. 4. Wltaf•WMll'UMdth..it beoCpolaitlequal.,. 5-. SIMI-RIHorCl8d'IIINI lorwallD bl~o4,0dolormad blnASTMdo~A.-16$, f, Cona:ll!G•ct.auA~IIH'nuffli,OOOPSletz&oay._ 1, Mor111r•b)tvckllftll,lfet!M'Pt~N.IMll~fnbtldll'I ralo lpartCIIINtrC, tl2p,11'tlmo pt,l\ly, ·1-114 p,arbaafld.~ lll)ASTM c.270. Omltht PIJ~lrpf.ulr:t;,el?llffl lsu* -8, G!'ctlil • by WIii.im. ftedllyprc~. l.ll'IKorml)'mlxtd l p.-tc;,ernet'II, 3 ~ land, 2 partspaa ....... 8.LS)+lgO,~ t. L~•l'"MClflryanl~INld..,_401newtll\Wftealfc,lnlf.~bOYIJ'NChchl',t1ollZ:cfQI )cih1alhllN~ ttuda'landC01J11iN'Ul'610at!OWIWlhlld'8te1llfl••npoNd.. Joltllll 8/ldtiondPflkl'l'llotMlatllhowl'lont>&drawlr'IQ&t.. C.R,t,- 1. oAlbartl"!rtlMOllryetleGl)&l&~&~ol40baldli~.~lorwablll'HI CCM'lif'ltfObeut'nlllWIHwal~. R.r•t.oSlruchr,tlE'9"ffl"s,podl::ia6:,nt1or ll1W!dattftandtooa6Jn1. D. Culll11t9olM1IOIV'j' t. t-'O~ oltnMMryul'IIIJ: 1t.ltbo allowed IMUll11 ll1IO/ll'I onf,ohwhgs. E. GIVll~dM•~ 1. Gf'OllleleeAlv.ltl....tltal ... eltolld .. llhtw.-tl«iSr•dr~. 2. Groulalc: ... l:,,tlo.gqidelCllld. 3. PIVYlde~Jl4•tittween1!Nlr~endbJo,cQ, ··-,. Openjolntwnplduat32°0.C.ITIDlnimor1botlomCOU1Harret.lH'lg"'·•'fttfh1o.tio loollilt~l~on~or~dralntgt $)'$1tmper Slructinl E/'lgfh,N(1 ·-G._ ...... I. PIO'Adt "'"lltal .xt,iaMIOnt:ihlslr'I wall per local code and SINC.U'rll Englwar'I ·- I, ca.nq 1. Ollt'lalmo~we«.•-ellmottat..._ 2. Ul)Ol'l(J)fJlpla;lc,nCl#W!JR;, 1111JW;1Vt el lllCWkr dtopptnp. Mitt. ffllllMl~lt#ldtaob tltom ._ VL BIUCK MASONRY Seope OolW.Qt\ 0Pe<Mde1llal!or.mat..-lal5. loob.~ lr.ln,pcrtalcntndntCeHilf'J ~1$'°"~~no!elblbrorll.orlemNOr1ryn~Clf\ONI~. lnctJdlflObutnotlmlled ION~: A. Mill.rbils I. 8rtdcOfilone~toASTMM2~r.DcoW/liaturCIYlrf'lanUle~a. ~. Ctmonl•StancifflPcir1Hlnd~A$TMot5lo~C-1~0.T')"p4l,lll,o,Vk11¥_,.. W\gktlltndfirougt,(M. ReftrtoSOIIEtlQl!Wfllfflpc,tilct~t.. 3. satvS·CIHl'\,wel!jlllOtllASTM dletli),.,C-1U. ,. w_..w..ru.ed aMII b.lCl#poillblaqull9y. 5. S4eel· RIWoroed &IHI r«w.11h lo be Oracle -COOflfOf!Md bars ASTMd~ A-165. e. Mctner -by Wllume, rret.hly IK~. IWII~ ,...., lr1 ,.Ila 1 patlCllnW!I, 1'2pllt~ pu,Sy, 3 pills &11nd. otN'!mr~ lo A.STM c-270. OmlLHma p.itty It' pb.a: temeni.la ul.&d.. 7. GrOU( • by'YOlumt, ftu lilr 1:npared, unll'~ lrilrld kl rallo 1 pllll'I ~l 3 pi1!r. ..!d or 1 p!Mt~3p&rll.sand'.,..,:Z pe,Qp.-!iJI'~ 8-. i.eylngot8"ctl ). LW,alMfl&OCW)'~lielghil:41~~11Dh.,b:1d:vwtclljOIIUl)ltintJCIYOl'eKhc#i.Df. Hor.t«rnlll)ctltll$1laltio....,.LMaJit.n.Wldcomo1vnllslo.tlOW~~---IXPOloedl. MIis ancltlcnd pel1.em lo be H •~on 1h11 <I'~ C. Rclriordng ,. Allbittlnmno,wytllrrllbelappedle'"'"""""of-40W~-Oo,,,,,,alllO(wellltld colurM8 tot....-neab:fln'll'II ,olnfo,ct!g.Refflr lo Slldnl~ll)Odlctrllotlll.foi: allalfflekMatldlc>caOon,t.. o. CUtlrlg of Mumiry 1. UMIN8Clr'll"f'*""rc:--bndtCVU.l#llfit1I09dlled~8tiaa1INlaliRn \Q~ •hilll-.:ilbitueed. SIOnelobaWl.,..,cNMlelldhlnnier. E~ °'11lllwig o1 Maonry 1, GtoutccH-hsoldushcMnonh~ 2. Pfo,dr,.,,...,._.,,c,12•1/l"~ltpec.~,,oo.MlbtlcA ..... t, Pwo.fdoill'IIIMhlr'l'J314" tl~•LNlnW!:Md,g•nidlblfr::l. ,. __ ,_ Walerproofd~wehbewgr.a<te~et.PN•em.i~.orotlwlfnapedl)ldby --· I. CJta,ln",l and $8~ 1. C£ta, _. mtrSorwyworif.R..-noo,,1 llrrffllft-.. lna, ~ l/:ltlllw.lh IIOIIIIIMolfflUIWc edlf.,d........,.Appfydew....,t::texposed~••lhownonlhedr~ 2. Ul)O(IOiWr'WrletlOnotwortc.~eM,r.111'1af~IJl,,dl!Of11, rNll!fta.-1 kldsfmmslle. VII. CAA:P£MTRY $copeof~-Pro-,4dedlabor,1N1Latlla,locll,eqll,p,nlffl,~,lndneonaary ~Mmlor~~ot•l~nat'lcMnonlbtd<""'4n!p. A. JAolottlh • t. Wood•rllU$lhlllWll,nN'M1.auftcad4slde...tu.tllownonOw~•.P",tghl. IOUr>d.he•Q'rl~s,plrltlfidb\clf.uippocbls,s....,..,-..i~S..c:ti:,.O.or b.-rltffllfelhoWrlorilhe~ 2. Douglt:sFlr,Redwood,WetfilfflRedc.cJifOfR61IOll.tlonlle .. ~1,. 3.. Pottt,Pltlnerldottwrel~radeCOMitC'IMsbbelR~.11/itdefftRed~or i,cu...,. u.albd Dcuglu f\' ..-t lhO!flll'I Or'l 11• din• 4. ~•00UTW\.bllSK•'Shfl500$lrongTl,lo,oquaL Po$1c,1po;tn,:1~:i-aplla1- '$mpton~11l"o,equel.JolilhlrlQll$enclhNY'fW15118$•'SlfflCIIQll$trqlle"or f!Ct,,lal, Scr....._hrlgN,,Nlt.bch.Mdw~.Aahl!lfdw:ar•f'MLMllt>be~ 5. SW-,•rldpeN-M.._d-M6~ond~ !. Conc:r41e•OIIUA~-i.oooPSlat29dly,. 8, ROl.9'C&rpenty 1, sat al \)Olltl, bliarns,.fab~ ff.1Hri!'1f)lunti Ind INI lollnanlhtMnontie~ 2. Ccnnocl0ns•m--•l~Mt,howrrQl'llhedl'lllltlg$~~~1s-bonfr- Lll#zallrwien~bollMie1lo,llllhlfCl'Wlf._ 3. &Mllllopedge1deRpc,MdllMl"rt>«fott.l\ch1t)pl.bwwlllt,,,e1t:.,W'INJ(a1UNOfleontadlll ......... 4. Pott~•~po$'\Q01~1U1bAoftahv""""oncJr.-"'ff,l,.provldlngnttnlm,1"dler~hlda lrom .. lledfM,att1M•11>1cpo,pa"""". 5. COW\lt-lslnk n.111 Wld bolts Ir, all loarllons """-• wrlncl con!lldbr ~, Le,. bcmd\101) ... Vlt, M!TALWORI< SCOpe c,IWCR •Pro\ide llllitlcf,l'fllliNllll, lbolt,~ n~•ndMCHN,Y tlddel'tlk»r~noldMKIIWOt111'.~1e~ot1thiaelfa'Jlllfl9',.~butnol ~lalhelola¥,4ng: I>.. Mai.rillb I. Sleel~~"•alt-,,onfl4'd~ASTMdlslgt,~500ani$lOrhlnd~cdd rolld wioughL Rn In Ike• stthoWnon tie cnv.hgt, 2. ~.t.g.._lllt.M6,.bolUl,-.aifl«t.fflewt.tlC.,lobe~dufy, 3.. ~-ClauAconcrai.llW'hum3,2eiOPSlet2lld#yt•Bdlor"Pl:ll'-IRCld( .. ~on lhodra,,,lf19L '-P ... • Zinc: ChAmialo pimw. 'AIJ5IDIIUTI' ~ tur!ac:o coils or equal. 'Molallzhg' Cl" S1ffi.Qnh:lni,c:tpo,r,d41rCOAdngl~onhchl'MIJ$, 8, Flltrie.lllonaridlnl\lllUOl'I 1. connc:1o, a11111 make d mNwretnNII for~ 11'1 leldprb' 1o ~ WOik. 2. Hortronllll~rotapcrr'Mlhi~Ol•Pwlhgradeplhowtianllw~. Vcrtlcll b¥$110bei,lur!ib. c,w- 1, Wlf~ to ~...ttt hi tequir.m..c;ls ~ .Undald coder« ARC lndpa wekth9. 2.. WtldklorftdHl'I, ruslofrN adaoe. .l., Mwek1,lot.Q011dnuo!JsandtMClf~•.u•1.,.,~pgl!IMl~.T~W11k11nol -<I. Or1ndMICM>ltlllllflirl)OMl!'Wflldt,,meld\adjo~1urs.o.a. 5. PluQ.C111nervftandlop,t. ltldweld. o. p..-..;i 1, Prt!!t .. rn«lllwortlOff\ON~llklcCl'lrornel!tP'tnel', 2. PIWelfflltlllwot~'llolh2coalt'IR~M'll'IMri-gbsaOf11111Milhor<mMONldth1tlge. PaW lo be 4 mis nirbum diy fllcltle11 Heh. 3.. PrtmeandpHllperebaYlt,alllald•-.fds.. IE. ProlldiorlandC'-11,p 1. Pt0111tdfll~wor1tr,ompe1n1o--eraptlly. 2. 0tUn~pwTl'ltwofl.,..N1QUh,dforo.,,si11twekfl"lljl. 3.. UponcompieblofWO(k,tfllOYI .. ICfaPlron.daCflt..N1elbhendloolshfflslte.. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 85 of 143 C .. TOU. FREE 1-aoo 422·•41» t'l!O-IIIIIY•-YOUIID 83 NORTM O 0 0 .---- -·-·····-·· ••M__,oo••--• 1 YORBA LJNDA CA., 92887 7J4.ffl 9120 f'\Alffllf,OJ.ll"EA.l~WACli -TOl£Wo!NJ""'-'Oft~ r:r:i1 CITY~!!!\-SBAD 111.tl ;E~;ITTE';PARTMENTS ROt.CERfA ANO GIBRAt. TAR, CARUIW> lllAl.~TEN,U,ICE RESPOtlSIBIJTY PLAN -I June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 86 of 143 Urtd•fOIOWKI 8•1·i,1ct, ,.,_,I Cd TOU FRE!a 1·100 u2◄1n ES NORTH Cl \ ~,~ m.lR DEVELOPMEtfT '3800 \ltA hEL RIO YQR8A ~N)" CA. 92§87 ]14.§929120 \ I i i ... ~~IIC~~l1f(l!l~--'DII ~COtltlrMDtltlEWVOl~~IWli'I""° =~~~~~== 11J61/,QA,U:TQ~WTIM....i.~MCJtMl,IF!llg ~OOCUlllll!l,IQ,.,..~ffljffllJlf~ ~n11,1.,u04ro...,....1,1t1;11p11~tl'MIUL '-ltl,vHIJIO;JJIV.Jl'O~---JIIQIIOlll~._.,.IQ tw,;,,i,d_,-,-or,,$'1111,a\AUi.>(li.,ti~....., ....... .w,11:,,U~~--... I.. ,_lll'Ullt'l<IIICIOIKfCl"l];Jil(A~~ ~WUIMitl01,1M1110.JffOll'JrN:IIMON.~'--ll!WCIC~TI~ REVISION oe:SC~N N.T, fl~TON~EUS eonl.E.TNZ T.,_.S SHEET Ml.It~ L lll'Utli( ~ _._ . CAIH.t ,-•••'\ 01.tTWIH .. f.!lTJlf.f,_Tff. •SHNOTECNftAlf \..,_...,,I ~n:I.OCft~ SLOPE PLANTING NOTES ~:i::-a1-=:=:~~.::,_.,,.illlllC,.Stit,U. A. =ai::~~~~IMll'~NCI(~~ ::r:=--~~~i::=:.==.,-: 1oMll.o.lD~UfKIUill10.__tll'li~-_,.,.(llltQI,...._ f'ftW~IIIWl'Mo\n""'HUNU.ll'PIICMOtrfl4:('l'l'Wlsi-s '°~-0,(Ali-111'1Ml-~IU#OJQD----llllitlll(ll(o,9ltl;l ___ ,V. ....... «(UIJ1fllllfet~U~---.11111 (IMJll~~-~~Slll'IW""-'SNI.Llll~Hllt,MO,f,IJQt;,"N. -&. &l.wlw)Oll~ OifiUOE>~NMIJffO,MNfA~El'I.AIIIIO-AIIIIIIUODMJI lflOIMIOIIMOICtlWll~~~ICtl'Vfll!IDIIIIQl,0,.\/NAN C. =::~u::::.-~i!OKlMMll.""-.1..0C,,,O.--Olil"""'" UJll, .... (NM'IIOOPf-,uM'lJflO,IA ...... Of"l91.lOiCOIIV,Nll!I ~~&-CflO'(lll'l'l1",l'UICI.J;IOIUC~flQli1"IW..""' -0. UMCWICN•~lfQQII~...,.._ liJIU"°tlll.NID(ll!l'IIMP\IIU.IK(FV,WIUr-.:,,l"\/loM,NO,IG,1,11,.(W CQlf~ ... lAW!M.11#1£0,0lli(trJflllN)IIIJOmiJl(ll».Wlfm. &Ol'll•tlOl'lrtV'UIIIO , J(IIIIU:Dll'~IQ;Nr~MIIE~IIO"-U"'JU.1<'1~ !tl«-l<J~ffl!ICWOII, 11. J'~r'll~-~IIA'Ofllltllfl...-...LOIIIU.IIV!NI """l lll!!IIUIMIO .. UN0"4W41'1~ lli'""OC!. C. 1110:CU,Sotl'MlUtt.,'I.ICl>ll~Sl--ll(l'.IIXICIII~ lloltTW)StllltJ..tfflfiU.I.Ol'IW.,O,cc,,'OICll»I,<; ~MO.._ ~§l~~~~= ~ 51r::r"~~~~~IW4"'11t ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ROMERtAN'f> GrBRAI.TAA. ~ TREE: PLANTING LAYOIJT PLAN lu June 11, 2019Item #12 Page 87 of 143j BUILDING 'A' SM-P I \ II 11 11 11 11 11 I I 11 11 ·~~~~ L-'U.._.._-~--..a-.-.~ ===~-----L~--~-=------.-----~ ---TlilSSHEET ---( )~!'?'~-----SLOPE Pl.AHTlNG HOTES a.c,au-m.a~---i:aaa. ........ ~-·~----·~--.....o;a..,,.. .... -=---<'l-m8Cll:ll'i-=sl~ <DoUl~...a••---___..--,,.;_ :::~-====--==-. ~~~~t? --....-c-•---------=:.~=-:.::":ti~~-= c. ~a~ t::i-~__, ... ,_.,..-.,......00.~ -..awoau.--•-~i::lll~IICl.-tu-&. ~ ... ~----------~-----~l,-Mllt,IN. _____ l'IE' ll.Cll'U..&:1'3~--.._ =,•.:::=-~-:.-.OIIQIIIIIO,-~~ ... :.::::-;;:-~-=.~~ c.. •1xn1,o,,lf',l!JnCX_-~-~ ...... ----ar:IIIDIJa•~~ .. --~~W,~-= :: ==--~-=~~-... t===t==t================:::;:::==:::=::1~=::1~=::: ml c,TY ~~SBAO u1r1 t----;---+------------+--+----+--+------I ~~fUIIIIIRR June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 88 of 143 ---""'MffY """' . -- ~•/4,=.,"" .. :,;;::--,;;'"';;;;. fim.m---:. / ,/ --. C••Tou "'°' 1-800 4:la-4ff.3 BIOFILTRATION PLANTER: PLANT LEGEND l"l'lNllwJlllW.I.IIIUIAIIMl«ut:IUl11"DU~t-........ ,AC1SIUJ•j THIS SHEET mmm ~~~flGR ~~~~~ ~ :..°&~~ ... mm=-=~~,,;~ ~==r:::::.-8.DtlAIITNJ• ~ &,=m~~rtOU(R(' ~ =~t.~All.'tU,A' ~ t~~~~,.=RUSN ,O•L p·o.c.. ~'o.e. I, ~7>.c. ~ ~'o.c. ~~-...... ·•·o.e. ,~, ES :i..i.~Olo\EMOtlftl'R.fOAO'l.1:.~. L Q'J ~~~~~--~O.C. L ~ IDIICA ,\ltllbltll006 Q:,Q.Jfl!Al~lh'CAS;SIA ~ UCOw,t,&lNIS'OOUIH.ut' """"'""""""" SLOPE PLANTING NOTES ...... crz•·o.c. ~.c. ...... .... , .. ~.c I, w ::!~..J..~o-~=~~~iv..l'IIN A. StlilGOOn-COwtlle.of'~--~tfllC OIM,ll(N,~IEAWO..:~Ylildl#'tlfUID~1Hll#MJ ,...,,UMfl>IO~Q:,,.._NOOIIJft~ ...... n.lt!IN'<.ft»CII 111CfOIIC,f1'AlffrtH//f..l"IIIIOIIIO~rfl'.N.Htt,,O:rM,,,t,ll,l.lilt#"flUAt ,\IIA:t ... ~IIUfflta.lilfO~jigl;to,UN;l_,,..,._...p:.Oo>1,. :i,:=::::::m~~~or~= :r~-==,=·==rn,(~~~ I. twtJlilllO~-~ CNIIIIIWO(~flUICtlll'MM-"lf:.l--..~MU~ ~l()~t:¢tl.WfflOI.IIHltldl>ltll..Clua-'ll:S,wffibflOIIA~ C. :f"~T.:.:.IHl•.oW>TO,-U:fll.ll,a,,allJlr.Mi~ l(IW~---""""19JllOWA_,.Of1GN.lOlilCCJll1'~ '""'CMJIA-Of-K\Oll'tpt'\1""'""110f1"'.aO'IIICll1.llillll-ii 0. ~M.Tll((S~lNIIOf.SMILN TlllUi4'C>Cill.-RflloW-.l.."""'VFIIW,\WMI.UOFt~ a;Jll!'""Jl'IVT,\-11,Ut00<'41!11'1{11TIIQ~l;ii:q,toJ,\l!(NII. :llflloU-t:ICIII~ A S-OlllWJll\riltllCC.tUIWl#f/JHlt~lOl\aJCWIUd-Gllrtu'l'I .«JlliAl ....... 1!.oMWIOlll I. J'101't,\elllat18»1fllKll.9'U~l'l~cc,,,m.-,11t,O .wt•IICllltllDIIIIEIOl-,\co,aC-,1;1-CL C. tlOQACl",N~lfEJGIIJIIE<Ult:WfOl'ltCtlJ:IIOtlO!IGOlflllCI. \lll,rnlUIK"U.lllllPAWl"U!ll'llll'~~l't4NiOAI. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 89 of 143 c.• 1ou. FR££ 1•800 422•4133 -· .. --· .. ··----->IIIIIIIIOl10aJUl-,ll,III$- --,~-jlMIJOO-i.+<41 bltLSIIIIDMUNk.lPAI.WIO,l'UIIJIJlllll(;"T l;ltvtl.(ai'l!JI..S~ SMROEVB.OPM{NT '23800\M0El,RIO Yal8A. UNQA, CA. 92!f7 114§9?2120 B1O-INFIL TRA TION PLANTER LEGEND l·"-"',""TtlllllUll'IIO--.ao.1:-KU.CUD"'°"lr#OOll? ... ~l-,;fffll' I Ill Ii Ill Ill Ill Iii 11 I~ I I I' l.~~111E~ll'Ofl:l.lH)l9W(-C,~ ~~~==~= ==:==~~=-= aQ2!1lGU.110Nl,10P!ll;M)l.qtiCQII._G_lll t "llf\lo."'lliC.-..'01<,(1,'(.._...,r;Gll"iXll'OIITM:_,..IO" ~:=~~A'Cl.l-011)11""1Nl)N,N !, Ni"IUlllSIW:,0.IQIIC.Llr&.VICIIClftcoenM:IIOlt W'lllm....:LN:.Jllll:ll#!SIJOlll'.f#NIIUIIUII.IMJIEH M,l,l)(JIPIIONN[_ICJIED,IIO. Rf:VISION Dl!SffllPTIOH t'l'M IOTAAIC~lrU.t,tf: mmml ~~~llOfl ~~~~~~ ~ ~A=-' 111:D='=~~~ ~ w~~i:rnutwrTHM 5lml ~'ll:'t:f~!J!J.,OV!IO'r ~=~1.1'..ui.'PU, ... ' ~~w~==flUSM TI-US SHEET ..... .-,.-o.c. :.:-~. L :.C:-7,.c:. ;.i;:.~ ..... O'l'O.C. ..-~o.c. ..... .,.-o.c. ~.C- ~ ~~<;LAIMUl~'fl,.TOll.l7~. 1,. ~ =~:=~~~UM ~.C. L ~~~t-AKIAU. ~,tr~~~IOl)EI m.§D~~~S"OOUl:,'JoUI' !IIS:~Wca'YI SLOPE PLANTING NOTES II.Cll!U"IOllilf.OUl!(OMMICfl!OIIO',ICOlilW:..~...S.WEClfBltlUlll!ttllKJ. lll11U,ltO"""'ll'llQll-0011111[,W~~~ ",t.11MWOn-c,o,,;t11C11:U11tllltHOIOtO~ cwtJIDIC.~•Alfl.0-~YWll(tlf'OIO..O.CU-!J«;/H) PAIIOM-..CtW:.Rt.OIC,,O,,.UiOOl~-...r1tC~lllto 1111,~cm-...-11)<W!.btDL-.:«wtoo.w.l1t.,,,;,,.a;oAr AIWl-liWN'.ll'III/J,:C,,tTl)'°"°'13l11:l'~_,..!l«IYOllllllfl. :.!:~~~~..::.=:-== :=i~-==-:1:::,-:::::-~-=-,~-:. .. ~~-~ M~Cl»tol'lAClNllll''!lllWA~IL"-"IMl,""'4ACJIClHJCIMlt ~!Oll'lilllitJal.Wlil'ICll.lfQIO~'IClf\A,ljtUlfllJ)llAr,fflU,I IQlO,PV,J:nOW.W!llil.NIJF,IQOfO~N.I.QMJl.'<Gl:'""''O>T!'Llltl, c,51.i,liOl,IIO-,.tow~ lfM .......... ~..Wl'V-'""1,.,.._,,_C,lc;,,,u.o,,ICDIW,li!llj ~-A-DJIIIY',ll1Yf191ij-llllQ1'!011"Ra,r1QIU-a,., 0. sr~••'llllD~I.A'Qitfl!.llli TIIUl..._,..~--.,.-f"A',11:D""1l,1Al._01'1-.i;II ~.u1,-...W.Ol~llt~T-o~~IO!Wlt,U,;. ac:«1-U(atl'BHIII/IQ A. ~~=-.=-:i#ll(..o><:r.llflO""-Jl::'IM.0$0IISllU~ I, 710.Wl,ll;Jlll(;W,l"l'lll'IIA:IMIIUW.~"~coeolllo\lll'i; IIWltla..TIIIUll"I.WQlrAQMIII000'1'1NCl"4 c.. ttl.JICUS.otr•~ll(ll;lff~~•1~CDNJIQ. 111.n'tiOtMU.UNWUlCttl/lJJOl'OO'ftAot:ftltA....c:>OI, »-M~'l~n-!Holit.1~ll....a..lil(lflf)O,'ff!OlOll'!..-.Cto,,(llNJ't ~trlll'll«lfnlt'f'""\f.(l,l[at.W.tllMl'ClltllllJ,d~ 1,. IHfETCll.oDEOP.-0,NOTICHOU.Ul~~t....-tlOIIHIOI' ~~bt:IM----•IOfblno.LfillOIOl .... 81AiOl"n;w,,cll'nlftzr'f. =:::'.:==-~-~ml~WOIC. ra:JI CITY ~~SBAD n·m I.MOSCAPC.~fl\N,ISl'Qlt. ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ROMERIA,IINO GIBRALTAR. CARLSMD SHRUB PLANTING U.YOUT PLAN June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 90 of 143 SIDEWAU< coo, t, CQfCR6TEPA~O-R£FERTO Pl-'"S 2. ONE 1111::Cf:. MOlDED A~ RIOOED ROOT BARRIER. Rtes TO 8E A MINIMUM~ 1/;ff ....,OE;• 1/'l' OEEP, ANO F....aiG THE lREE, ROOT BAARlcRTO BE MACE OP POI..YElM'l'l.ENE PlASTICWMlRAVIOlE'T lht¼IBIT~S •• 08:5' THICIC Mitt. 2C' DfEP It io• LONG (5' eACH SEE OF TRUNl<t lt4STAlL 1/wffl-1 TREES S' FflOM A.HY HAfU>SCA.PE.AEJ'lA TO Pl.AN .uovi5. 3. AOOTllAU. 4. ol.MEt-a'.>E.O BACKFU MIX 6. ~ATIVE SUBGRAOE ~= ~~TI:,:,=·;;?/',:;,~-::;TT}l"---{5 · ~~ ... ~~~:K~~i~:.:%"='0 STAAIMOOETA,l. PRE;VAIJNQ WINO ) LEGEND 1. "CINCtf.TIE" 8Y VJ.T. CO. (4110) lf1l-17ro 2. LOOGEPOI.E PIIE STAKE COPPEA ~Te: ... PR£Gt4AT£0. 2-trr DIA, x 12'LONGFOR24' aox ANO&Y.ALLER. 3. 12' DIA, Ml,tMUl,t.2"1HICkMlA..diRWGAAOllID BASE AT TURF AREAS 4. TOP OF ROOT QAU TO SE t' 4BOVE FINISH GkAOE 6. 3• HIGHW~TER 8A$lt-'. SU SPECS &.. FN1$H GRACE 7. Pl»mlfGTABLET-SEE:SCHEOULEFOROTY, &-. 8AO<R.L MIX-SEE SOILS REPORT 0. ROOTBALL 10,NATIVESUGGIW)E NOTE: ~TIE.S(TOP&80ff0M) REOUI~ 1JSI! TiilRD TIE; 'MEN NEOESSAAYTO HOlD TRE.E N UPRIGHT POSITION, TIES TO BE SECURcO TO AVOID SLIPPAGE ('M\APSTA7<ETOFOO'-' fk)UAEEIOHT, NAILWlCt) ~V.NAII.TkROUGHE,\CH TIE.INTOPOlE. f:OR 24' eox TREES OR S.-1.At.LER F ROOT CONTROL BARRIER D DOUBLE STAKED TREE PLANTING ~~V:-.ci- G TREE GUYING PLANTING TABLET SCHEDULE GROf>OINERl't.Nllff3T"81.ET5F~oc»n'~,V,..'fT. '""""" o:ttJAHEltlta::,:,wl;$ ... TA9UITS ·-ec.tfANERlt.E:CU'a'~$ ... '""'"' ·-"" COMJAMUlflCCOVH ... "'"'"" 0trAM'.RRa::Dt.'ES .•1a ,_,,, """""" CCHl~IIIECO.'ES ,10,tt TAe~S """"" CQUAINERltE;C(WU .,2.-1.s ,.....,,. 20'.u"90!( RECEM.$ , • , • , ... , , •. 1••1• '""""' "'""' ""'"" .. ,,.,. ,....,. ,roo, 11:tCl!IVU . , .•• 18-2) u.auns O"IIQl: UC~$ TMIETS ◄t'tc'# JU:CCM:$ tA9LETS ... ,.,. RIECEM:!1 .. ,»-• , ...... L.NI.QOt6"tS: FOA:tACHm"'CM.P(fl:U!Se .. fA$1,£fS H PLANT TABLET SCHEDULE & NOTES n--, PlAHVIE'W ireA(i,J;N,i.S. LEGEND t, (3)3WBLACKRUll8Efl HOSE 2. 112d LONG GAI.VMIZl;OSTEEl. TURNBVCKU!. 3. 3132'" BRAIDED CABLE W/ tfl'x3' LOMG PI/CTI.J~O 4. (3)"0UCKGI.L'!AATH AHCHOR$,Mf'O, 8YV,l,T,PA00UCTSt1U73-1760 S, ROOTBAI..L -FOO Pi,AM'TINO,. A!FtA: TI)TRU P~TI~ DET~ FOR STAl<IN(;. IRE.f"eR TO TREI; STAKING OETAI.. FOR 3b-eox TREES ANO I.Af{GER LEGEND 1, f11S"'AR.80RGUARD'FOREACH TR.EE IN TURF SY' OEEP ROOT CORP. (7141eo&-05C!l3. 2. TOP Of ROOT BALL TO BE 1" MJCNE F~ISHGRI\DE. l. 3• HIGI~ WATER 8"54N • SEE SPECIFICATIONS 4. FINlStlQRAOE 15., BAO<Fl.L MIX-SU SOLS REPORT, S. l'\ltNTING TA8~ET • SU SCI-EO\U FOROTV. 7. ROOTl!ALL 19. HATIWSUBGRAOE rt •• OIA. A.E.Xle.l.£ Pffl~TEI> DRAIN PIPE EHCIRCllMG BASE CF PlANl1HG PrT. CONNECT TO VERTICAt. PIPE. SUR:AOUNO PA: WflH FILTER FABRIC. 10. •· DIA. VERTlCAL PERfOPATEo DRAINPIPE. CXWNECTTOPIPEAT BASE OF PIT ANO CAPATSL#tFACe. &UAAQUNI) PIP!$. Wl'l'H FIi.YEA ....... 11. 2."LAYEROFMI.A.~ E TREE PLANTING SOOLAWN SOOl,.Ai,\M~L&C-~1H'f\MIOl!l81M~ AVM.Nliil FA0"1A,G&OOfA.'MS"881toN(ll. SOILS REPORT AT THC «M«:l.UIION Of ~IJGH ~AH MJACNOMIC $OILS.ltQl(lftT$1W..l-~8Y'MEOWWf.fl:A.'IO FUAff'stf(O 10 ntE eotlfAACTOft, Alto M.1. ~TIOM5 FROMISVCf-lMl"Ol'ITSJ,1.-U.8E~TEOIVM: OOHlAAoCTOR INTOMTAU.A110HOF M.L~HOMEAS. SOIL MIXTURE S,01,.YX1\lllle:N«>NttA.V.&1()'4&1TA001NUIHOIJJ) IIE.~FO!l;!la)PUI.PO!ES<H.Y. SOILS ANALYSIS 80Cl.A.'W.YSISSUIWITEOTOTHE:(ITYSIIQl.l'..O IMCI.IUfHE~ --PMCEMTNlEOF QflGN«:.W.TtUI: 1$(&~,-.TAATIClNltATl~~Dc«.DEAIVED F'ft(IM SOl. fo:Tt.N!IINFI.TRA;llON IIATE TM!~ l'HA~TOTN,$0..UIIJl$A\.1S -------....----0.1111:IUH~~ "" ORGANIC TOP DRESSING .W. Pl>HTlNC: tll:OS YO •1:CCM;:A.lA'ID: 01 ORa.-HC TOP DREUINOT()RESTFI.OCR', a-Tarr. • 9"'U9NIEA.S TO RECEM::: ~'lA'd:RMINM!M • GIIOUND«NERAR!A.S TORE:CENt; l W'LAVVIMNMLM AVol&.AIILIFR<lM: ACUIHACAflJfll..l2!0 .... , ........ b:ROO'teAU.OIA.. SECllOtl\llEW NOTTO SCALE A SHRUB PLANTING LEGEND 1. 1,5,0A 150AU,Oh'SHU.18 2. 2" LAYER 0, MUI.CH l. 3"WATE.RWIN '1. FINISH GRADE $.. AMEN OED SOIL FOR PlANT'llO • SEE SOILS REPORT &. PlA"1' Pff El<CAVATION 7. Pl.ANT~G T ABlETS • SEE SCHEDULE FOA QTY. 6. ROOTOAlL 9. NATTVe 5U80RADE ............... .................. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ,de:1u,dlc.lc.le:lc1e:lu,c•,c.1d1c'ct:..I ! LEGEND 1. SliRUB Pl.ANTING FROM COMTAI~ 2. rOEE.PMll.l.Cti 3. F'INISH GAAOE 4. PR:E.PAREOMCKJI.L!SEESPECIFICATK)NS FOR TVPE~OEPTHJ ~t= EOGI:' OF PA\l'IMG, S1DEWAUC, WAIJ._, OR CURB . . " . . . 0/ \0 • '--➔ D • • NOTE$: • • • • • • • LOCATE P\ANTS SPACED EQUAL DISTANCE {0) l'ROME.ACH 0TH£A AS SHCM'N' ·O·ASNOTEDONA.Nf. B GROUNDCOVER PLANTING AG 9-4 ARBORGARD+ TREE TRUNK PROTECTOR SPECIFIED ARBORGAAD ISA TREE TRUtfK PROTECTOR TO PREVEHT DNMOE 8V STRIOO TRIMMERS. LAWNMC!W£ASANC ROD!NTS. :SWGU: PROT£CTORHTSTRt.-.iKS I.Pl04'1N oo.METE.R, JOINTYIO TOGETHER F'OR t.AAGERTREl;S.. A.MATEm..t.S THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FUIRNISH ANO INSTA.U. TRUNK PROTE.CTOAS AS SPECIFlEC, THE I TRt.-.il< PROTECTOR SI-IAl.L BE EITHER P,ROOUCT t AC 9--4 AS IMN\..f'~EO BY OEEP ROOT PAATMERS. LP~ 811.ANGTON STReET. SUITE 4. SANFRANOSCO, CAlol103(tKI0,45&-76M),OR APPROVEO eOUAl,. THE PIROTECT~ SHAU 8E R!C'ta.Ael.l! POLYETIM..ENE W(l'H A o.oeo- (t.52.MIA) WAI.L THlCl<N£SS..V.S.DESIGNPATE;NT#3~ 8.. INSTALLATIJN t. SAPLING TREES: 1.-.iCOIL A &INGl.E AR!ORGARO• ANO PLACE. AROUND~ OF TREE. FOR COMPllITE PROTECTION 11!E SIJflE Fl.ARE:D ENO IS TOUa-llNG THE~OIJND. 2 MA.T~ TREE.S:1'0 COUPLE nvo OR MORE ARBORGAAO• TOOETHER flUSH THE T"8S THROUGH THE. SECONOARftOIRGARD• FROM l'HE INSIDE SO THI!: TABS SHOW ON THI!: Ol/T$10E A$ IU.U$TAAT£0. C ARBOR GUARD w'.'.JI CITY~~SBAD ll'ill REVISION DESCRIP'I'~ June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 91 of 143 I. GENERAL SITE PLANNING TNO....llhlltitv.eiSOllaNltf,lsrn•de llll•~nolll,.rough.~ng. ni.~~!llall heorpofa1e lld"1Wtldrnll'llt an01Qrai.-$p,MC!lbtd hlrPI. nwd~~~ shdbo•~accorc1illgl01ht9(18Jytb..ds"~~llnclscapeard'k:t. A. WNCI contd b l..1'Wr'I. Sti11.1b & Ground ec,,,111' NHS {El(cepll ~ I. R«n0'1'1all~'lll'Mebhlm~ Rlll'TIOWllll'OOltof~Grass,olc.. encf~ofolsle. 2,lr6tllltJtollOn. 3. F..!Clualam.tligrollldCOWll'llle& ,.~,o~dt&-2().(lom,lf.ltfflallerOluwp«t,COO tiQ,ft.Oftidlrlt»dbv8tllltreptJrt. •• Waltrllllhn.tlivoundc0if6•1'MSfOflhUl3)"""9kll09~WNd ....... ~wat.-•t brl't~I IO avoid eros/ori. 5. Uoel'lllldappllCM31"$r.l~~WINQ ... Lo .. pl~-9fN:SPff ITllll'Klf6ctl..Nr"d5pedl~UClf'IA, a. SOIPr~&flnbtlG!'tldlnO I. ~Vtadl: Sla1ooorecah'Odbylard$Cfl1J11Conilllt:SorkJv.tt6:IIJIOltlOti::6AormlrM IP,-O'MW'blffdvponCM~n9tdng~. i. A-llsli~: ~,g,dlglocorwlllofgracAng,,~ltldhancJWOlknece11aty10 llctt.wd911t'IICICOIIIOl#andlowl'ltpalllffl&. bo:ieduponCMEr,ghlcnpllrr,$.rttsutlt',g ln-l)otlnl5hc,dswt'olQl■ hooldaQrb.-idltlfl", 3. s:pr.lldo--4kwn.51wtiW!llground~.....,rMndmlnlJMOl ...... pmall»cl~ 6ollrapon. Thotc..,gt-t,mklnlo.alltt»dept,1<1cl~orm«aal'ldh0Jlldl!. st-ape ~asshOwnonpbl'ls. ~ lo111'1(:Wtdn.:0$A!Ylo 11(1-,dNlgngral•.ld ti.ms, al Import $OIi _,.. be tN olWNCl5, debrb. W'III NV9 ~"" ~and Min 9Qlldlngv.lllO!AC~orhlg,lspotS.loPfO',lkfltrl'IOOlhand~UfllCMkW~ d'IN{lll. RnllgraM&M1~1•bllOw'~olwta. AIITlcwtomChelleol~ 1Wtt"2"1nllilll. Planltrfft,ambt!Wldt,ourordcoYcJrasc.alodfor~~onfll,a,qPIMa,d1111d9QllkN;lon PWllfngiefUlilflML &Jblllb.ltloNt~,ilanla,,.flllMtb&IICtltp!edlril!D~tr,La:,dtc;ai»AKN:IJCL I. GlouftdQ:l....,,RJftllflQ!ott.lllk9 Alpla,,.1NlWllfiJ)tdled•rOCMdcu11Jnge01llllllockon~PllnlNlte'l'lllln~lhe 0.t, \oWIUI llffw ~ 11ollWPllnUng, Thi lllt IOI ttllll Cffltall'l tumclln ~ IOl'llt IOI cfoN l'IOl Jlll1peAv.tlll"l910plw,1tctnlM. Grot.tldttltfllpllr"IJU.:lnocalowodtottycubeklr9or .... ~i,!Wlled, Aoo111'la!l~t14'~toll• .. r~wtilefltl~belngpw!led. \\lledplantl¥rlllnolbft~. AIU.llnMofplnlng.thotoH~eaohp1¥11h1bo ~ -.ifflciof',t, lo Cote. CM.,, poc~--~ ktbe ~~ tl1r.QWr..»et,o•,p«lllcl 0.C.l(lrlc.NM). Mlcutllng1v.llllbllmlnlmumof$"lon;jl. !Nlmlp!lrilst'IC"XC'~~. Wallfl~llltib'-11lllr-..chplrar6'1g unllooci n:t,ol-.,,....-panttlllkinls~ Cir.~ bo-dsod ot allirn..,ktP«Qtt ~pi,,nllan. ~.Atv(IWTIIQllto..,Wby~or Oihtf~f,t!Ofl, QI l,.CO/lf6ad lflOIIJe~tdfflNdill.,. 2,stYIA).&T,-. Planl lll,coru,ahet-gtO\Wl,~l'I-.UfC pltl,, L11G(2)tMN-'der'Mdtwc (2) &-TIIMdHp«Wian lbe«:ir1lohclr, u dQolod on Pill~ D_. ••· ~nit tJ3~bld«I (M!rolted w.wodSh;wlnsi,Of~MdtPll.,.,~ll'Q~~O.loltenal';a.llWlllelOI,. pib1of»c.dlll",r.,ofl)Wllll'\)plis. lmllll'lltltTabtllt.pwlN~Nlrullilonsand&11 d.,._onf'Jlnlln,g o.1a1 ShNl. Conll-.dOf ~ccn~ba,hwcuidal._r'll)lnkr-"1\ es-.a•:buliV-INlt1ot~tM::IIOPol10011bella0¥ft. 3.looDroufng Topck0'$5oll1J'O'lndooY91'nflhrutlarea1v.llh2't1'cl!...,,_ofOGC(OrgvloGtOIJfldCOWf).to b•1P1cff1edon 111 ~ ~ 4.S~ Sll'kitll ~ H deltillld on~ Dllllll SIIMII.. D. Spe,clal e~ Miri,M, I. ~-\JA 8°"001nM1PoalMoM,and'~dMfiqttoll 2, Comc&as & Nllm • Uu 50,l, P911t Pl.of',,~ P"Ofd tt.ffiA lrldl 25" Sb Sol :9. POb and Pf.:inla1$ • t..K.iow. IIQlOr PlaJW 14e. E, SOd•SNPl~Qo.taleSbMtfOl&adtn». I. NN, 5h,alN~a$1TlOC11t, DlllloorO!iMIIV-.~~Ofbtcl~ols.SIR'M: w,IQ.wrti., c.ektlbuh. Aolt.MlMi'Y, rall•-,idf.-,e(unacena,ytootW.alnM,r;e.,IOI -2. Appfy Nl!WJ:~• u •~on Pllonllng OIMII Shfftnl nilf~ t,ucl. 3. SOdlflall l»IMl.rad lhe ,.,...ci,vlkdaltr-ered. Sods/lellnotbolaftonpolaibnlhehof ... I\. COf'MIIC:10, ilhfll bt ~iltttlt1 klr &rf(and all dam9Qa lo ~notln,ialod on dli~ o1 "'-· 4, IJryo, sod cwt,lyand pllc• In ltlor,lfed .,_.tmoft~ Sod t11a1 blhtlled lrQalnll ~~~to~joltttancledgN. 5, frimlodtooonlorm'°Jitwn5'\epetdettgl'llltdhlhlflln6,,gf'lln. IL AlleteodltllkJ,latll.lb•lnlgaledl!Of0t.rQJr/ylO~mol,slf.N PIIWll'lll::tnloalltastfi'lntopiepatedd. 1. Alt.odinsoddodlll'oa.,shfllbet1cirdodoricfW::llnahlghSl#'ldl¥dwo,tmon,hl;,~. Alondls.foln:s.•ndc;ulS"'1 .. ff1~10N1thar•••~~andt19h1~ honeofaCCM'lltluou811wi\.SflClotlrsoleactructlhirn1tl'for'00rr1''1nl1tlMWl!lni,cbeinfld. S. No $Od atH 'Ml beKCepl.ld 111111 89PIOWCl"bt flt ~Mtf#A. F.l+fdl"Oll..oTurl t+Jtkolo«I oll •MS6i!c.slgneli0d•s~~d9d1Tud'. SfloPillrqOo<.ll.lSl'-....llnrt,-po:)r'r;l~1ty ol .aocl ll'.6!, !«11\z.or and ldlllknil AmS11hents. I, ,t.ppllcdcn o. E~lpmll!'II: Hya'Mlllt~prnanlus.odlorlhaapplClllonofllwMtlb:•.Q-ad,.v.::la>erputp. slNI bo orlho'S4.ipo, tt,dro-S:4ixior' t-,,..as oppow.d bot 1h11 ~J.rcfll-=t. 1llb .,;i~l nlNIYl'abult,hegllaj,ol-1'(ltilm811dOP91"dig~,rtUlldeotto .. a. wspe~. end ho"'°Ofl,woultf ffibc a IIUJ1Yconllinlronot teM ltlln., bl. ol lber mActl j:IUla comblnallonal7 lb&.l!Wa.t-, IOlldalor~ IOOljllllol'6olWIII.«. Thlslunyds..it,Aonl-.stb,I btlmgt~IOprfYenillloppeoo.-.d1t11allb111qtJlppoa'WlthaSdoflltj'drllUlc$9tW!no.zzlos "'iich 11lf1 pliK;.-ll•wrf}' llri! and IP'"~ nou.lt~~~lobe&NOIIO. b. Pr•pn,llofw: Tt1•~P1etl8fi.ltonlh ..... pllcoll1Nslleoll"0!1l:andatwlbitgltll,f lddl,o'#tilor lo lhl lri'fltlll"I IN ll"lgkw leattllll lrvow.. wtw11Now.iler....,lllh8s1Nd!&dlllt ~oltlw■gl.atmshall.goodcni.Wanshallba~doltlu ...... lhos-'lhli,lbe adelodl. Fotlhor ltlol lhclnbta6dod, lolowodbylbornu:h. Ttlrtltlotmr.lchlMlbtllddfdto ti•mb.t1,1re-'1vrtnt1Ndand~11ie~lf.•11M1t~6o~walllll', JAbfnw.11:h INllb•IKfcledboflMolil'MIMtanlclth¥0-ello'd,.IO~tul.SS)ta,/,'IOSNl<lOIIYMr'ICI kmlecllttr,'yWMfll#t:IJhA o. A~llon: ~~hdl•lofmof•$1,,Ty~olv.ood~•llbtr . ...cl, chtrriollt1ddll._..•, conm.rdal r.nlll.« andl-1■r. 'ntltn~•~Ofl lhld Nfii01,h~om~aflalldfmablOlll.w-lk•g,oundC0¥1r~l'lgtWldl#'l'Offl'tfYNIMtd Ind Mlther andl lhd allow 1M oblofplon ol ITdslr.ft llndnil11 ~ "1d ~ I0111t ~l)t'IO d.. Rwnow ~ leaw U0 broom-cleGi\. II. GENERAL SLOPE PLANTING 1htl aw,-..,. tlidhlw1t•dllrlalysf&mad9...Ue,(;Om~ olrough.gr.cllng. ThitConncto• "1al lncaporDte ~I soil omordnantsan.t rortlllol$ prucitJodhem\. Thetd pr<1i-adon lpcdlod bClkiw ~Ill ba lldjustod 100<1r<lhgtf llollOW1.lsaflorappitJWW1rtmlho~~ A.Pwil,gPl'~tlon 1,-Slop,1T~ L Ou(Sloi-,: Thc.w,,urgoos lhalbloroughowltd ~ -~~lonfoltw,hglhto;x_,,.of ei• ~. ~roughlr!to l~sllfrl bl 11'11109 otherld111dngorllml:.r~tnNllf. b. AH Slopes: ThlM 1~1 ltlitl bl C01111acc.dend..-i.Oendtilo~ln•tll'.Ntr:«u clleolonlol~ lhl ~u, olthe~e. Thi ro~ 18111Ufelhllben'lldebt/blncSl&i.t,g, Ol'aii'11111MIICNl'lletllm..,.,_ to Wood&~lonPfOOMAIN •· ~reffl0Yelll~~ancldllpot10,•on-111t. b. For1lhoallph1n!lngllireu'Mlhiffllk•buodonSollUibi1~($ft~ o.tal&'iet(). Md anyandlll<ll.,,_,clm«!lt .. ,~ld,l)ltflelolllMlysle. Btgll'lwalMIQ PfOCIQlollCUrel•~fltldw:ldlf,ectwnlcllL e. Wulll ~-ANII ~gtily•ndwn~tof"• psk:,d of1wo C'll a:r~,,,...__ Thl~J.icH!ocl"'411~ov,e~W'lttmgcl.nUo"llitldlft'eQUMCYprogt1mcfMiQr,td I09'ffll~llr&Sldwlweodlsced5. d. Oitcof,l"'-'-w1l«lng PN>CNI bt two (2) del'W, """IIPl)ly~ t,f llcenNd •pplcolllor, I pertlMlli l'nledl lppe,llt Ot1 IN &lopH, lfll'YIAI WNd1&ppu,UM .rt•Jghl COl!lad ho,t,lclde •• por tho P'$I c;:r;:,ntrd '6,lwr'I, r~ll(q, NoWIACK th,I ti. applW IOI 1 r.-.ill'l'llmofilk.f(4)deylt~~lltlolcot11M:1.......ctldw. •· Alow~lperiodolUme1oNUl•U'.a1•1WO!ldlvodead. I, WIMlllpllnllng nu lho(Ol.lg~ ll"ldl conlkli..iou:$!y JoJ•,>ellodol IIYN l3)WoNi:I, A shot\« -111tng pmiod rtl!t(be patniulta •t Ill• c:lltcntlon of IM~ N'Chlltd. and/of It.pest CIOf'llrOlach4$or.Drlla:wid~fi•wa:ot'lQprOON,1,liorono(1)dfypli)r10~lf,ICU1dflll¢k:dgnol lhll~•st:i""Yklg, Al-wtlhl,Cl)f,11\4ng~~•~ht01;1flt:,c:twtfdkflar,uper lhll)Nll«nrolo!Mnracommlfldoa!klnt. AAow•fflrlnunoflc,.,(4)dlrttvAIIW\ll~IIJoff,. fOf tfltdm 1n111 wHd hlL I), Clea, Ill ~lkcalfd wttdl from lhl~totwlrM!ld~D. IL W•toralpM!ntlilgar-.sonlhereg,ijwlrrl;otkln00tViolors;cf)CJdliiol0fltlleo C3)t0n$ita.d.-. IM\'lfllb"lott.~o~tltOfl. l llWlllllowplartftlgwffsolls,.,rf'ac,ttodrfa.Aklront(l)Ol'/111'1¥,Jn;>floltl•~N~ IPdktlkin. Cerll~bCllal(ef\nofloal'iow11WlOll~bbClwptt·uuwd'Nltlw,c,wpitor ION~~~Al.ll•&:a'MOOW,lhldwre-lhotAdnotbiidy.TMl'•ll'lol.J:1 M.amitrflid.ffllmol"'--'•...tlhln'IMh.t1'4!oldsutlce. ,....,.., Pllnlna•nc111W\C1111e&11c10lt""Nrelndcittd011~F'Mltld•1cfet,1181Jon~ 0.-Sltff(. SubsUl!Aome1fpl;wts'Mln0l bo IO:lCl_?IOdi.dt$$ appw,odkl~ trf~ N~L ti,i.i~ltbitls•,~IQl"lr,ltglrl(l.f'lenlell~IJOW!lpl#'llllnpAere,g :Pl1s1W0~9'rrl,n'#IOt,rW\Cltwo{2)11mesON9f(lt'Mtle«ltllifrw.~mbcfll~ mM81ilhlot.1\0lnlhelOIW1alylb;MdlMl•~t,"9PllfllnaOOldSNet,v,fthh$il• a<lll,pfb'IO~Ofplrdtlgpftl. I. Plona,gTIIDle~(S.•Pland11Qo.r.l!Shool) l. tt,,:lrOli.o.cilng Spoc:UlelltloM Fo,$iop.~ H\OOff«lril~muldt.,,..be•fftl!Qdlowll1pecilc&P .. «indllont..V..,.~~ ~h II• Uf'lda.Capo Ardill.-d Dnd Salls Aopoc1. upon r.cdsollho IOI anatr.b, Thi ri( did bo 114)pGtd to all !llopo arMS dlfoelly 11tor 'h ku;laltallc., ol 1111 plwit rn-1orlllb ,as ftnalct11sslng.Soc, Plan~IIQ0.lall&t1"1k/rlypit~qunl)'olN8Cfmllr."'1tt•.ltwillOC/lbltl~ .. _ Rtl«IOH~OMtdl.6Yol'INcltaPor~~ Ill. GENERAL NOTES A, CINn-Up 1, MfllalNCllllllloti~allonllt\avebe«lco,nplliiktdl,.rfflCWlll l\lbtllah.~aol.eff'l)ly planlCOl'UNJMdllra.etfr<lfflU.lhddy. Altew'l,IVllioroflerma,lt.ltllhl IIIUCS!Md byllilW!;Wllc~bo fop.vodandltrogroundW.,.noni,.~con;M::,,. UIWeltah ~noonc:lbt•tieMiofN(flwodot'9dl~-Hot41C,O,.W.II ~-N<S.~ng Wt1~-,a(lpf,liol,~C>Onl)ll1on(:1'.¥,QII:, .. ,....,,,...., 1, TheConlrldof"shelm1...,,.dumglns1all1don•IUNclMln..imbefof men1111dld~ .q~ttopwto,n, lheworlchlf..,. ~ Plwtt~>IIOlto:.,,...COIWtlof ~Wllls",wtlldhD,~ orp1.-...lnl:bfnQgroundeonr1,atnibl,,"'-lndn.1, ~;lng•r,d fl'lCl""lnglOtWN,~.C01'1lf01olPM15andcllM,,n.o$.enclmelralnlng waJ:j tw~dll;$"11d<fit. UpOf,~of•lldtMN~ ~UM~, ~~ectlndl 0Y.fi« ffid COfldlvcl.,.llllpeclondccml)IIMdlatN..:ong-...fl1' 1-0MW'I mllf'llMllnot~,t, Al 1111,-. • Ill o1 eotreel!Ona. r tff'l, lhd be l'Nd9whlr:h_.lh♦rr.iponctiayof!Nec.itr~. l. An., llworll hll t,Hnooml)IIIMO.~P«ltd .,,O~ecl,tlnts 'lllfJbClmalnlllnld:Jor• periodolnlM>tyf90tCIMl!'dlrc:l11'f10fSJlotlQIUllnecH11tYIO~VlfMrlolrMS. ~.uf.and9"~0CIIYil' ~--IOCl9, 3.. l(np .. airwu--.ll'N, adlqlM11lyw11lwtd, Incl rwaft~ lbrll\llit-lllly{901"'1 i:,elbS. ~ alt c»bm •om IIMl al'ld ne,, h d•tll• ~. WC,,..11.tf ltflU: 'Wottkfy. Hrd!'OMOded turl lllre.S lflall be ~,ta, lhe wny rtdd, hes bNn •Pl!lod andelcnYtdlOMltorone(1)dllY, Thesol~n'IUllb4ibptmoblll .. .,,.it.mo ... ~l)MOC!lo.-"01d<lul:cdonol~ .. 4, fllHNd811~~ill~11aNIMIIIW0{2lWMl!l'tletvllttfld inelrrtlininllM~li.-.d ofltilf.Ydihol.t ~ ,;,o,,, I, ~od. ~--llopo~ell.S lhoilWllogolTIWl1110-~. A.pall-.t11~11.-!"°"'"'flO(lOl!toll-..Owmw. S.. <>-Tl.g•lollnfpkl~WOII tlul-ropplrl!6~~-0iiprCIJ4lont UIMd by vet.Ide. OJ bol lrlfflc INI b4-Cled~ lol)IOL kWto'.ecl lnCI r-.,lanled. &t«mlt!U gOl)tlltl. rnofft ancl,..,.,cfQffl'9', IL Thoproj,lcttha1bosoc;wodl:irlll.a1•~cl_,oollCWon .... ba pr-'Odll..ahotlo lti.1.asftdPnotfi•(>M,.,and~ ~ ltlt~ConltilCIOl".,.ti. lllj»Cl.:ibofl'llk•• mlinll'Nln'lofON.........., ..... fotmanientinet-Pl,IIPOMt. 7. Al Iha Ond ol ltl• mllfnkllWICO l)oflod, • •ou hllhlw boon pltnod lhllba IIDrtllzod ...... r::orm,~llllrortllur,a~lslll)Ort11,c1ol ~dlt,lboP11"lhlsoh1opoit. a. Tht,Con1r~ahall~11hl•~•HY♦nl1)-,..p:lo,10th. tfldd,_ ~sncei:,eitois.TNlritQi.»ta8'iallb9wnt!MlftchcledllON~ilndtll ~Alctlllcl. Upon M'hiM -.:ce~ ol N pi:ojld. IN conuettcrlhlrllbe tdwad <1F ~ Mlht,, ~ilnlnel, C, ~H M11111.~18f.olndli.,,dro1NC11dgrot,njcouw,ardlhlwllha1be ~edto.hnl gto.....to•l)a1odO,nl119ty(OO)dlytd« ll'rs1lllallCll'lakl~bylhliOM'ler. TrHIIINlllbtl ;u.1111"11eodlor lll'IOye,N. ArrtfNlelf.aU.llallslogrowlhloughh ,podltdmalt'.ll«l#ICO 1M ~"plfb;llstqlb.1•~1:rtl'l.•Oorilr~-r,oQOllto -°""""'· 0.- 1. ObHr•••lkN'l~lf.'lcltltdh•llndlall O.f'I\Odlbylhet..ldsap, ArcHloctorl'U ,._~ 'fhi1¢orrll'1ctorll\,lr"""""~"'tNIITWO(::lJ~61Ytln IIQVllrlCeofll,t~e,l'ISl!f'II obN~llr,a,q~ 2, OtlHl'YAlklni.ftlt$11'•~bhr iOD:Mlngsi-11orU.wort:: 11. Upon~1onotg11r;H1119 lndtollc-oncll~ ?lot"IO ~ b. WhMlf-•r• 5pol:Sl<Slol' "'9,ndng.1Mbllor1pllflllngholec11•~. c. \Vrfltenacc~oflnl p,ojedlonleaafll"Conlr.cl.Orffl!IIU!her~lhell C,OCl,ll' icttr Ftr.lQbis....all(lnv.tlh 11,~0rN•~oti1lflClondoflhl --E. Vlll't4illotlot~ I. Altc.r.d ~.,..,MW1~0ll)N;11.8'10r1 ~•-nv""OM.tieCOfllfldof ahlle.,eluly ct'IKl(end...,ffll~lfldQUrillN.Mdlt..amMCIIIWtnclltw' hLlnclsclp,1.NdllS.c:t«ffl(dlscr~rt,etwMtr,!Nc!n,Mg5~~~ K\Ulloondlll°"'. NoWOll:IMII t.«lneln ..,, .. n~'tlor•k1uch•dllcro~urrll a;,pt9,llllfQINIFH' tliilbell"IQMII~ ,,_~~ '·"""" ,. Ti.Co•IQOl'1fllltarn~IOfvtfllylt)glfl•~olll ~.,...,_ l)'b'to•111tcot1llrUClkM\foOlnt\~ pi«::eulloNrt11yO. i.tc.ltl llOllOdM'legtsuel\l'IIK Wldlpleni.loc:al!Ofu. p,o~r,oA!lylfl•U~Atctbctwtro""ltlllf'Cllorl1loclton ofoneorlllltothtr. F~~•tolollow~~i.n~supoi,h Contr.acrlho 1~k,r,&1hls<W>n•lll)lf'l'9,~tlffnllll ,......klrd&mage1r-.&tlgitrcffl ....... 0,Ei1116lQT,.._ 1, CorhclMIIIO q\11'1 tt• prlHIYlll:,nof ,lt1f .-tst-ig .... on lie M'.e. ~ <lfloaol IIN• .. ••..ti 111N.1ltlnfcilacerrent of«llolllltil:•~lll•lerlolce.i»Corvactor. K SHPlal"ljf\gDttflllShMlklreddllMlll"IOlfll, 1..ANDiSCAn~r,v.NSf'Clt ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ~Ol'l!llr:ll~ ROMER!AA/IOG/fJRALTM,~ ---""""'""'"""'-'"'""""'"= .. ~==1==1==========1~=+=+==1~=a====~•LAH~T~IN:g_•~•o~•~••:e====~I AOOlil:t.$$: ----c,YOR= •• ~~~mA"""YJ""~~DE-,;,_."flf~, ,__,_,.... ______________________ ,_ 714§9'2!1120 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 92 of 143 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM (PRIVATE) ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS .....,,.,..,,_,.,. or IV/6 MC 1K ANf) CllftlW4lfC[I Cl(r;I "'4£'. f;RN,IW; 'WOIIIC' $Uo1U. 11C ~ IN ..«QllfJA"l(t' lllllf Hl«L~ OQ:Lll(JIU~ C\IWIICNT AT 1'C Ill[ CIT C'OHSll'l\lt';IIOI(, Al IMUlll> WI' M' Ort GENERAL NOTES RECYCLED WATER NOTES t. AU. llOflllt' PIM!. ff tx:M: tH A~ IIUW ""IE CA~ ~M. WA'IQ DI'S~ ltW.D~R!'CM.AnoH5,. Z. OftlNKWa ll!Arot r«JHTAHS ANO OE:SlQIUrtl) 0V1DOM U,1W(;: 4Rt'A$ $H.liU. IJIC PRO~,W A'1AWST c:o,trACr IIUM «(c-m.a, WA~ Wl!tAY. »sr (Ill Ml$·nm:. 5. H05UltSR1UIIO,l()F l'fPf,UAl'Ol'fAl.S "'1.J. Ill(!: AlLOllr:OllflHOtn'PJIIOll'N'Pl'IOVAt. er Hart CF CAllt..S8M:I Mt.NCIPAL lfARJI' CISTl9JCf. 1, All "'~ PFl'S SHAlL HA~ IIWiHIHC TM'(" ,er CA.Rt5B.4D l«.NQlll>At, w,um !Ul'R)Ct"'.5 lltU'3' ANO llt'"-4 llillf,I~ S. HOL11U ltllf IWJIIICAffCW llrlH IWC'l'Q.(O W',UOI' ARE l"ROM lll'OO P,M. 10 a:oo A.M. IN( HOlNl'S RR Wll'CAn(W 91TH Dt15N"CCP8) ptltn,ufY ~fJJ ir,up MA'!' flC Moo,nn) f1Y 11€ u,o,IL AU'IH(lffl'rt. l'tii!IIC4ffl:W !Mf!WO AiMJC USE' l'VIIOOS IIIIK J'.XSHTC'l!!) IUt'IIAlt'I' ol!fC'rtlLl> ir~mt SHAU. st~ M" stftJt'KSJCN OT 1t¢ OCirO'fAIW USDf R.lf(Jt\olSQ!t, #Uiff;:AIIIOff •JN IVAl"fJII CF A U:UP OIJAUr'f lHAN or,w,rcro, nJll'IIARY R[C'l1:\Q IWA1Vt $HAU. I( tJO'llfIN' 1H[ HOCIIU Cir 10;00 fJt n) f:-00 AM, lt(lt£$ N,O MEQU.DCN'S. 10.. /rtOH~IU> UstMe\S ~u. li("l'ltOrtem:iFR:011ccm~r111u,,11tc:1'a.Q1 WAmt llfE1MJI' SY 111'«1 etQtlfi ~r "' BY mv:cr M'f'UC',HICW MKlt,l(:W ~»GW CW Off;Jr USE LACK 06' MO~IIOC, M,l(JHOI' ltl' DDIQI', COl'f$JMIClfOH PltM:net °" sw,m, OPiR,l,l'POH rs snocn.Y ~rm. II. #Cllli:An0W ~ SHALL IJC IIQ.o.:ArtP a:r M1,,L'Sm:) TO~ OR WMINA.l't ~M SPll'A'M'C ON sotWAUCS. S~ AHO ~m, WC A/IEIIS. II. ~w ~~~mt~~IC;Sl'S~~Ql"C:~"=M.'°=A~ OIS12C1's RlU'S AHO ~110ffS. IJ,. Ofi R(CffllD 'lf'ATllt SJ'S1D/..5,. AU. A'f'VitrOIAJIC£$ (~ 'VOS. VAU't eWD. tlC) SHAU. Br CttOR-COOrO ~ P(1t AlrwA. ~ ~ $£CJJOH tfNlf.5 QI{ M'. CAUfOlll'NIA ,.-...C.l'M ANO :t,u,tr, COO£ AU. lfimCAnOH ff£ .$1-&AtL BC $f'Drl'QU1:I llt!H lt'AAMHC. 'lleW-l'OTA/JU M MCn:tLD lt'A!Vf". COUlfl'-cQ:IQ) (~ ANO lJriO l!IJk WARN'HO fN'E ANO S1fMU,IC MEH!n> n>wAlrD l>fC ,cp or JH£ 1IUNOI Pf.R l'Nf ~o AlOMICa'A(. 'll'A~ OIS'rwt"N IWLCS AHO ftE'tjt,UaJONS. ,,. ::e~::;:·~ns= ~~~r:"~~r..:r::r~ ~~5sx~/:'~,:;:::c;,;:~NO~~~~~ Ill CO#STA'JT P!ll£$SUII" R£Cn:ul) WAJPt UC-SHAU. OltOSS At wsr t,'8.'M'; Ml6 IIE1.0W l"OrMII.£ IU.IDI t,NG ANO tlNHr~ ,,ir W$T l'\flel,"' 1HQff$ ~ ,S[J"ARAnoH ft'niitD,I OJWOI' Ul'K.IIICS. 17. fF A ccwsrAHr ~ R!CttUO WAlE1l Ur£ MUST st INSr,1,£.UJ> Ai'0'4" A POTA.aE 1M TPJII lK Olt USS lffAH ~~ HOC$ &a.OW A PQr.tllt£ ltA1')t ON(. ~ IH[" ~ lf'A'lJJ ~~Bf WSfAU.W lltrMti Nf """°I@ PiltOlt'Cll\t.'. sun£ AS l"fJlt -,,.,C tAll.SBM> MJMOll'AL WAmt (UMte'l"'S fb,U5 AlilO IK'(;t.UDOHS. JH( ~ ~CJQON 5Nfll0.lll'i mr SIMI.L -OON'E 81" l'N£ CAll'I.SI.AO ~M.. lfAl!'A' Q"SIJOC"T AAD ft(£ 'SAN DIE'OO ClOLWTl' otPNIM/'T OF fHwromtOITM. NrM..TH. Ii', K ll'f<IIA'!U1 atOU-coo.rt:C!IOH W5P'CC'nofrl -SH<!tl K OCNC l'r D'IMS't hit CAAUSAD MIMIOPAL IMJU M'/lQICr ANO/M rH!: SAN Oit'10 aJIMl'Y DO'NtlMDiT OF' 9'~1Al '11(,\L TH:, OOP£S ()If jlfSp['CJl<W RO'O'fl3 MIU. It RlRll'Mllf]J TO Doi'. NCW•INPrC'f!NC PARrY, to, 'II-EOE$Q'f'ftNO tOC'An(lfe: ~TO(f,llfC:11:U»ltAV'tlOHOTIM'H(-"llGN ~ SC CAUlD Q4Jr OH 1t< Pt.Nd. %1, --,_ ~ W4"°' ~ AVAll..411[£, Nf ON-Sil'£ 4ISlR SUPl;Rll50!f SHAU. ti£ DCSCll'Af!'D 1H MIIWI:. NS INtnlOUAL $HJIU. 6C TAIIIUM "'IH PlUMilfflC S"'1fM MlHW JH( ""°"'°'n', Jlll'H ft1f «,tSIC QON(;Ol'1'$ 0, b'ACl<ltO..-~EtDQ'f PIIOtrCJ!Qlt, JHC R«:'J'tUO ~ INIID AND fll[WU!klNS JtHO 1H£ ~ ~,S #Alft'CrCUP Mr,4~ Sl'SP'nt ~OF'l>IC~OON.■lff CffiTACr ~ HCJMl!OS Jt(AtL 8C ~ 1'0 H C'Mlt.StMO la.NCPAI. r,UE'f Dl'S~T. IHCASC"OF~/XlNTACT X)(X Of!' Al'rDtHOUll's CONrACt }CO( U. AtL P4MtJC ANO ,,,.V,Ut f'OrMI.E WAn::Jl' MAIXS" M:t.J.IOlil"C f1ff( MAiN5 ANO AH'f ll'Al(R lllllS NID 11:Alfll COtMSt$ 'IITHIN 1Ht RtC-\'l2Q WA ltR F'll'O£CT SJfM.l « .sN(711N0NIHf'l'I.AM$, ZJ. CN,LQJT CN1)if"F\,AHS F ~J.,11£'<Jaitlf£HOTDlltfMltlYCA:)(AYrA.'ftSJiHO,lf» ~AIW 0UlDOQff CAJWC AR£A$ OH INl SfTE. l4. A Pff\"5llCM. 5EPAffAOON9WA.SE'~~ ADMC'EJfTAllOS~m> MTH Rttl'l:1£0 W,Ut,I AHO l"OtAlll,£ lt'.UDr, $0"Nt,Ul(W SHAU.«~ ff'( 1)'$T~ otWQlr(Jt 11CM' Pll!I"$ (JIit OPO' ~I@ ~00$. 1'. AlL llll'IIICA11CWIIAO'ol.O.-M!~~Sl<All B£ l'ES,tJISYA CZR'1fl£0 TESrlR AMO RESlJI.TS" Ml/Sf I( GAD! JO IH£ Ol'Y AHi) INE" CA.IILS8AO llt.N!OPAl WA191 OISD!rt'r; llffl'£ SET1IO),' K ~ IJfO MCIC1l.OW Pllt\Otl'OI' $ftML BE. •som,u ,c N.um COl"'Pl:lt", ~ C'CW)ll'ACr e.tom..ow EDl'lRS CNf IJE" m.wo Q't TH[ al'Y IIE8 sn,: AT M~/J',,11',,CO!bbodu.p,;,r/~n/~b/Hlr~b/ ~M')d•d'qtno~IHl«ilit~ .. , ,,,,. nte:)dN O" ~Ui,i//nr,,c~fl..ftw/--.fut/ c..,ou. .... HOO 422◄1:.3 -·~= ... ¼,,. SICNAGR NOTES CARLSBAD, CA """""' I. CNilSiMD MtNCIPAL a)OC ~ ?Ht nu.Dtll.'IIG' GUOfJ..fiD: RR r>C t& OF ME'C'tQ.W IM1E'f M£ ro 8£ ~ll.'f ~,;?t1~31=-~. (AOlc:()IYlllf(IUOM4tlff"D<YM€WJlY"l!:518tL ,u,c:(" L GW!Cit"l'J Oil ftf'Cl'PCP t'AQ Vi'jr A. IIIR,l(.,l,t 8Cl'llaN DE HOtAU OF IQ;OO f>.JI, NIO f:00-All Oll,IC.Y. ~Q'.JIIWC OVr.;ltlC 1'«S r.uc fR.4llt wsr IIC OONt MA.HUML'I' •™ oc,AUnD) ~ l'OtSOf,Wfl. GW-.SUE NO Sl'SltM SHAtL Ar Mr TIME' « tUT t.lMAnoa:DO!MIWC~Ql/1!1Q(~NOltll,I.Al,SOftlM.£, 1111.L Wl'iw:E'IIWI-OfT,POOI.MC,AND~ #Or~ '!Ht ""-""'IKW RA,C OF l)C' StJL., SC AS 10 lllf COM"All!U' lWIIH ff lOIIC'f J:Ql J'Nt$ ~ llA'f Sf: F'ActJTAl'W IJY nC' URCJENf S0EMMC CF' R< AUIDIA11C a:IHZINll Q.C:OC,. ('U:, EIIPt.Ol'WC l?-ll" "'1£Ar I\A'Clltw ro BffrAII' UP !'Hf nm.t ~mw 1,M: 1Nro ctaD IN',fll!ILP"lffll,tOlt.KAlGJMWSQI.ASSO!tl"~). C. M)JUS7 ,.-.WAY Hf.AD$ 10 flMNAlr CMJi'WAT (Wll) Nt&U HfJf (A'.'l)(Jlf M cc:wnttx. or IHE: CU#rtlME'!t. TOR lXAW'I.L l"OOl. «art. Plll'V,•rrr ,,-ATJO;f NfO (.015, NfO SDlttTS ND S!OfW'AU(S. P, lfOfl1'FtW Nf() IIAWTMf no£ Sl'J'rnf rtl MMM~ £.OIJll'IKlfT NtO MAJEJMI. F'M.URC. ~ sPflll'OCU1r H£A05. tLNCs. LNIW...c.£ VAl\6. ae., 51-JCMD 1K rtel'NRQJ .U SOCH AS KY l£tQtE' APPAREJfr. t. JWt ~ ,xt,lfMCl'.:w ,S liltSF'Of,IS'!I\£ I'm t'OIIC.UlHG' (..cN ON'l.m'tt AND Alt llNNPOIANCE l'Ot$'Oo'INQ. OH A OONJW'IVOCJS IIAS$. lftCNIDHC lMt ~ o,: lll'c-m.a> IMmt, W.W1DW«'€' POrS(INt,ll W$T II[ ~ iHAT 'it','ITDI' ISf'Olt ~llONPUIIP'O:SDOHL'f'AIC)l'SHOfN'Al(M])F'CIII' ~Ql!lo.HNKJNlOtoal.W'A5MN'C.Gc. F, OfltNH HIOl' AH!fCWAl 0, AU. /l<tll.OPO$t1J OWtCD AN'O ~ll'OII'$ tO NfY PRII/.Ut OH~sr,r-FAOUnts. Stl(Jf otAh'CG 111:1$1 SC SVSMrrto m AND -~~ ar. M OtSDfl'CT ~ omcr /IMO ~ IN ~ -~ Dl$IAIC1 STANDAIIOS. 1. AU Rt'Cl'C\Jll' WAm. ~ eotfflKlt. I/"'-~ $HAU. IE' TA~ llfiNIOfJtnnc:,IW,f~ " = ~Ml.Js~mmw-#~im·· ;"'4,r ~ NFW.Wm> ON or«' SIPE M'1 "A'l!JQ -A£JA IW'Wi'A-l'ffJ JtlllM" IIIPlllWm> OH J>lf 01HD' .sioc. ~JWC: s,tMJ. • ~r AND aJ,Qt tH ~ V$E TAC$ AS ~ACI\MIEO .f'f' t. ~O" 6'rD!PIIIIS£SMN"Pfit0'6>t'oWIL A <JHr TJ,/;9'tMJ. SEAro,c,a ,0 ~ ll'Al\lf'4S~ I, ATTACH JV YALIC Sl'D,I Olllren:r OIi MIH ,t,uf')C N:-MU' Olt t. JS.M:11 fP SGU'.HOiO lll'1t' Olflttn.r Off lll'IH f\ASK' ~-IIW" .l. ATTACH IV V,4iU£ COKJI' lill!H DJSIINC VAL\!: CO\d' SDt.r.: 1-AU. SPR'NK\Dr H1j10$ .s,,t,l(L K IDtNJIFU AS R[C'l'tUP W'Al'f.11 -""""""' DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CIIARGH, I IDm'I' «aM{ JNA.r I Ml OCE>tSm ot..slCitJOII' OF IIOrff(" R:Jtil MS ~r. DIA r' H,I,\£ ~ ~ QWrCE" O\OI' ff£~ OF DIS ""°'-L't't AS DOINED IN $£C'm,,,i ,s,ru Qf 1Hf:8U$1N£'$$ AMttl"lf~ CXlPf' llHO l'HAT ff OCilCH IS C(WSl'SltHT llfl!H ct.¥11!(Hr srAHOAROS. , LIMiDl'StNilO 1HA11H!" OED( OF PRO.ECT MAIIIHC5 AA"O 9'£'0nCAOOHS BY 1H( CtTY OF CN!UliAO MIO $AN C:W:00 OOI.Hn" tlO'ARTMDt'T OF {)f~TAL N!'Al~ W C'CM1'fBl n> .. ~ ONl'f N-10 ooa mr RCtK\C' K AS~ OESll)'G (JI:~. OF M'f'~IIDRlff~DCifCN. l'lt7 PACIAC CO#iST H~W.STE. 2CO DN.1A POIITT. CA m:29 ~ #0: ~ --N<>_,_ .. _, __ OftllADGW OA'C 07::31::20'20 Legal Description: LOf 393lOT 39:J OflACOSTASOUTH UNITN0.5 TRACT. ltfTHE aTY 0,, CARLSOJ,D, COUNTY Of SAN Oft.GO, STATE OF CALIFORhlA., A$ SitOWNONA M-.P t«J. eeoo FllfO ltfTHE OFntf Of TI-IE REOOROfA OF SAID COUtlTY. Project Address: RO.\.\E.RIA. ANO Gl8HM. TIER Ol,RL.$$A..O,CA9:c008 Owner/Developer: 8NA: 1tM$lMENT 4 OE'VEl.OPMENl', U.C UOOOVlEDa.RIO YOR8AUNDA.CA92187 (T«)eoMno lt'ATHR EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE DECLARATION: , AM FAWUAR lll!H !JIC ~ fffl LAICISCA.PC AM ~o\JICW l't.NfS C(WfAINfD IN ~ C'ITT' Cl' CNIUIWfS UM:ISCA"E IIMVAI. ol: W"A~ mro£Nr tMDSCAPE" ~l)ONS. J H.,l',£ PREPMEI> IHS Pl.AN Ill OONPl.W«t -~ n-tOSE RtlUAJII.WS MiD 11fC EAHU5CN'£ WAMTM.. , CEl'!JJFl' IHAT 1t,I£ l'iM IMPl r, ?HOSE ~JICWS ,o ~ ~r tlS£ Of" WArDt, INSPECTION PROCEDURES J, OtSfltlCr ""511t\/enQlf INsPtt'l'IOH SHAU ffCttlO[l A R£OtllllQ) MPMAffCW t£rffi:DI POIAI/IIL AHi) f,ij'.,Cta£0 WA/rt( IJtJt$' (HOfltl'CWUU.T AH) '°')ICN.ll'J, 8. f'lil'CCIDll'R:AIION. C. ~AT~ 0. Af'Pftll'llMl'E MA.rDl'l'Al.S AN!) MMIIGIIICS,. INCU,GWC PllOFVl CUCJI' """"""" .IW ~N,. lEnt2t llt<.o\lU:IWa K ~new 0, IHE l'ltO.la:1 SHALL BC 081AWW FltOII' 1>E QTY ANO JH£ oismicr. Ni{) 8£" /:ORWAROO) ro IJC CtU,ltr HE;4lJN DlJ>Ml'PMJff MIQil' ro rlt/AL IN'SPCCffQ'II Ail'MOVAL 2, O,Sffl'CT FlHAL N!'f£PiW SHAU !!9,YPC A. $1Q,'AC5'.IN,StAIJ.(D""'iJll.,AN, 8. OClfHROtLDf .SAClaltS. C. J:ACQNCOFVAl~ 0. ~ Tt5'T AF'rllr aMIU'OOH OF fH( ~ SY.Sm,1 10 0/9.lfte Pl?OrtclltW OF AREA HOr N'fflOloEO F'M Rttl'Q.£1) WAD ""' C Ail ASP£C1$ OF 1Ht ~OOH COPOJ\ON'J INCWDfr!G' lllf()ROIIH SFWAY. IIUNO'T. AHV ~ F. ~ H01f.'CrKW OF AU. ~JW. Nit.\$. ~ ~ M)'l[cno,t " ffll.S. ~ ~ £~ "" ~IXIN' ll!Sr" lf£Ot.Ji/ltDJ. l CQ.Cl"t ~ UMWAl'lD OfAIUS mSDt £.AO, CQ'fl1KUDl ..1. MNUALINSPJY110H?'&:!h'9PPP A OOIIPtEll"~ll(W l'HAT-.t.CO;etA-fOFtHCClSIRfCT,,_,At. ""'""" Rl~ ~TN'~ ar~ ~rH ~TDf. On' EN~ AHO ll.lS!Rler OIU'«EJt f"ffflYr ro WPU:MOtTAlfOH IN' RllA .z. orr or CWJlMO ~ s1AH?MDS .J. IMJSET<E'l't.N4 ,t, .u::JOJIIICWH'\\_ IMllP __ _ J, IN{flM!tWIO~IIOlfS'Oltill\.llUCll::fo(S«fl'SllttlCQ:W((t1£91 _,. . ,_ ... _ ..... _,~~ __ ... _'"'~------- 1. IW5.wQf,W1'[Q()HM.JfAl!ttNIDOIAlll!C$N#OAS144r«~tr H'OTl'CF~SrAIIWIOS. ll ~• (OUtAI,. ~ (l()tlOIIMtHf l"Ollt'r CIN')lntJt.f .... ______ _ f. Ol~l~AL~l'S'CMn'P ____ _ 10. S'fl)ltll lt'AJ[lt,CW.,ll(Wjljl(\(10Kl4t"-M"'°".Amt "------"""---....... _____ _ IL $1QIW •itt~TY~rlUXf!ID"NE1 "------. .,.,, __ _ t;t CAllUWA $1'CWII WAl(ll' «MUT'f ..USOOA~ t/11!' o:lN511lUClllll' HAtrtrllO:JI' 4"1{) ~.lft'AIU Cl1t$11'11JC~ Sitt: l!IW M4HIML SHEU 111l£ SHEU NUMBER R£C'ttl.£D WATER ffn.E SH"' 13 IIIRNlAIION /'WI H't'DROZONC MAI' 14 IRRta4 noH I.EGO«> • CAL.CS. IRR1CA ~ DET.WS IR'Rl'GA110N SF'fCl"JCA TIONS I § Cl) :s: 0::: __J INSPECTION PROCEDURES, IN$P{tTIOH "'° 3lt' ""°'"' 9-&AU. «~av ~ ~ ARCNrrcr r,. Mi ilORlr. Ollt ws OCSICNAl'!l) AG:ffi,. Ra'tlt 10 T>ft ~nQ'fS rt:lllt lkf! .so.n:M.£ 0, iltCCWIUI IN':Sl"tCIIONS M'O 1'1£.QtRI) .5UBWTTM..S. ""1.0 INSTA ,, ... -""" "' ,_,...., TYPICAL SIGNS .. J ER IICaiO. """" nlE: Rl:C'l'CUJ) 'U.TDI' !KlolJ. llNL'f BE UstD 91 cottW.OH HOA WAWTAIN!;p All[AS APPROVED FOR lRRIGA TlON ANO PLANllNG ONLY. INCLUDING PRECISE LOCATION O, PLANTING AREA """' WJ($ ---;;:;r-~At. lVUll s,(Q,WS'l "AS BUILi" ---.- APPLICANT# CTxx-xx, RPxx-xx CAJIISBAD IIIOOCIPAL YATER DISTRICT 8NF\OEVEl0PfJV(f 2'3801)\JIA.DfLRIO YORBA LINDA, CA 92637 714.6'92.9120 ITDI CITY~~SBAD 11141 ~11,(1"1tOWMDfJPV,N$rOII: ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS kOMErwt ANO G..ISAA!. TAA. ~ IRRIGATIOHTTTI.E SHEET al,I....U0.-1.,~ll'"IIU,, .. a<IW"'°'ICOQ,l,SlffW'r.~lt- -~c;.,,ue:29 '""••-~ ::n.l'\JrHPR&WIED: RC\'IStOHDC!SCRIPTIOt,I June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 93 of 143 .:Ii', /). • LBGBND • 1 1 I ),1 9 ~'l:li::r.:z~, '-I \ , ® l'IIQl"OWl!ffl'IXm*Dllrn!I \ r. .. l>nOIP191l'OillO'I' O ~ .. ,, / .,,_ ~~~~P:o )' '\~ J ~~~t: 'l:r~ ~, < --r -- SM-P ' \ \ \I \l -t t \l ·1·· II . II .. II . II . II :0 0 "' ,. m :0 q1 ,.~ ~ %".,=-'"' CC, I r~= I 8t4AOMlOPMENT 23800 VIA CEl. RIQ YORBA UNOA. CA. 9291 ]l4@M1N II II II II II II 11 II '\ ..---: 1---0-TY~Mi.TCOTOT.Al WATER USE El'V\~ __ ,, • .,.,<lA,11"4, 1"i • ....2,.,.l~~ ... l 1_..,:._,t .. ...: ... J i HYO ., OU ,., l!1lml F..l.':'N't,. ....... I ~ ~- ~lilimr' ~-...,.. ~ ~ W,'i:OSC,\PEOUU'Ci\TIO~WA"rtR Pl!;D.11:M", ....... ~,A,.,..a,iM, !Jrln •A' M~()l....,tl.DY,n~,MI.Oll,'4"ffa l~Cll!fflOl\'f.\,lQ ""~•'A-,n•,-.'-=1-" .,tA•u,....,, •• I U, • W,)ij \ •-.i • IU.HI ,......_.\., lli-Utlt.ufl ..... 1,TQl"n,,, Q.ll.lQ<tln,\~ ~~ "" ... ...,. ~~ri":-.. :i"':"'St', u:. ~ ., Ill;\,_ el.. in,, ~'\Ufl-,,1 ,ll'f'l.a> YAUa IM.IU G•IJYf "iil1"' ~o,,·011J111-•a-.llb...:Y-..atv,"'3.'11NJ ou;:::MOICll~""\o,!Vl~Nl~fll(f : ~r~¥:u7.:::7~ ~ ILl, ......... N)._...,.IDI, I. =~:i..~~IWllltUCIIISllltl!lO-W&lc«.-..SIOIIID.Ct '""'ll,l,IJl,l:"1!1,M:/lkMIOMt.ll'<lfl~AAOMi»lD'ol""""' :::.~:,~~~~~~=· WMtl,..._ll!RNi.,...,.,.TMl~----•,_..,MOolflll"-"" ~MIU~ftlQIIJlll.~n;JtllfOPIIO'i'tCfJ1qWl'W ~i.....,..,r _ _...~.,"""-•-1,,..,._.., ... ,..,..._ ,. __ ................ -41 _.. .. _ ... ___ .,....,,.......~.i....,......-- REVl4KlH OESCRFTION m'.]I CITY ~~SBAD 1114 I ~&CN"E~,u,ial'Cft ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS ~ AN/J G1$1W. TAA. CAALSaAO HYDROZ.ONE Pl.AH June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 94 of 143 UnderorourwS Service AJ~t C.OTUUFREI! rn 1-100 D 422~413:J NORTH SM-P --·•~IIIC. .>4~'JFNOl'ICCOl.ll~,Rm-CM"4~CAnAt ..... <IU-,..... OTYOf CAJIUIW> ESTIMAT£DlOTAL WAT(R USC . '" I "" ... !llat. lf.r171 1 tll) N'ELEGEND lf'R'W?&Jrq,g,""1ml c::J ~-l!IIIUJl;S CJ p-'.JIY.W-' ml~' F"""' ~ ....,.. fW':iPtNUWTtDt'f' ..,. .... ~ INill:IN)J;llJO::@:'., ~r;:;• • .... • .mo.~•·· ..-~ .. U ._ 0 _.,.,_ w..-., •• 11_ .. ,,... ~ .. ~.,. !!i\.. tl,l,..I.JHll.t,I ol.l'f'UDt WATill H'-111 Go.l/l'o "iW' 'T ~ 'r~~~~""::.~1,MZr,Wt. a. cw~10t~r~ro• "-==.i.:..liN'l1ll.¥J11.~fOllMIM~t,c,ie,:~ ., rW."111111.AO!l'Qttol.~-....roil """""'"" I, 111,1,~•0IHO~llll~ll~'llffl+IIOIJ«.I.~ DUIQfffll,.!)llllCTCUOIIIJ,iCJIIO,#l,Ofl~0nltl(IU'ILIQ: ~-l, JlllUM.O,l\iltlot.Ulleti-l'IIO.llC:IIWIM'OI-NO■l,IIGI : ~~a&O#GUUf#U(# I. ~~C(llr,l1QWl•l'!IJIBl~«-Olf..\MIIIION&V::f: INlfMIIIIII-TllC~Ul!'l'tlfl~~lOll'I.A'IS to!ll"""'CIDINnle:af'l'Ol'~..rf.JIOn01111f~~-..:-1 ::""n:~~=:.:-===:.i~ ~IW\b!Olf'MMIUlillOW-11:NfOiJ!ltMIIE~fUll ....... ~"....,_ ... .._ __ ~_..,,,......,.,,,.... .... --, ...... ,,.w,,...... ______ .. ..,..,....~_,_,__ Exhibit 5 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 95 of 143 PLANNINr '":OMMISSION :y Council Chamber M . 1nutes 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 . Wednesday, March 20, 2019 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Luna called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:00 ROLL CALL: Chair Luna, Commissioners Anderson, Geidner, Lafferty, Meenes, Merz, and Stine STAFF PRESENT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Assistant City Attorney Kemp, City Planner Neu, Assistant Planner Sexton, Associate Planner Garcia, Principal Planner de Cordova, Senior Program Manager Grim, Economic Development Manager Marcella, Engineering Manager Geldert, Associate Engineer Horodyski, and Administrative Secretary Flores. Commissioner Lafferty led the Pledge of Allegiance Minutes of the Regular Meeting held January 16, 2019, were approved, 5-0-2 (Commissioners Lafferty and Stine Abstained). Chair Luna 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 . . PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: Lonnie Smith, Carlsbad CA 92010 stated the village H trail should be kept out of the trails master plan and allowed to be kept as an off-leash area for dogs. CONSENT CALENDAR: City Planner Neu stated Agenda Item 1 would normally be heard in a public hearing context; however, the project appears to be minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and staff is recommending approval. He recommended the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Planning Commission proceed with a vote as a consent item. If the Planning Commission or any members of the public wish to pull the item, staff would be available to respond to any questions. Chair Luna asked if any members of the Planning Commission wished to pull the item listed. Commissioner Anderson asked if_ a discussion about the letter from the public regarding the roof deck would be appropriate. City Planner Neu stated the letter would be noted for the record however the letter did not include anything within our purview to change the project design in any way. Chair Luna opened and closed public testimony on item 1. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 96 of 143 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 single-family 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: 7-0 AYES: Chair Luna, Commissioners Anderson, Geidner, Lafferty, Meenes, Merz, and Stine NOES: None Chair Luna closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Chair Luna opened the public hearing on Agenda l~em 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 97 of 143 Planning Commission Minuk_ 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 ~sked 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 98 of 143 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 99 of 143 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 1311 requirements. Commissioner Geidner asked for further informatic:>n 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 Romeria Pointe Apartments, made the presentation and stated he would be available to answer questions. He stated he wante·d to clarify one question from Commissioner Meenes that they did apply for the density bonus on their own. He stated the owner has owned th~ 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 t o many. He stated they set up a couple of meetings with some neighbors. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 100 of 143 Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 2019 Page6 Commissioner Lafferty asked Mr. Allen what stood out to him in the letters. Mr. Allen stated the mQst 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 s~retched 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 t hey 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 of t he concerns from the neighbors was light pollution. He stated there will be a lot of downlights 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 t hey 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 101 of 143 Planning Commission MinU\~ _ March 20, 2019 Page 7 Commissioner Anderson asked if the garage would be gated and what the developers understanding of short term rentals are in the area. Mr. Allen stated the garage is gated and that short-term rentals are not allowed. Commissioner Geidner asked if they planned on condo conversions. Mr. Allen stated there are different rules for condos than there are for rentals. He stated at this time the owner would like to keep the property as rentals. qty Planner Neu stated Mr. Allen is correct, there are different regulations for condos and what they have found is that is difficult to convert rentals to condos after the fact unless the project is built to condo standards to begin with. PUBLIC COMMENT: Susan Ortman, Carlsbad CA, stated she requested to have a meeting with the developer and it did not happen. She stated she lives in a property nearby and the new buildings will take away natural light to her property. She stated she is concerned the shifting of the soil from construction will damage her building. She stated her HOA spent a lot of money getting a building lift and is worried the weight of the new neighboring building will cause the soil to shift. Lucille Lindsey, Del Mar CA, stated the proposed development is way too high. She stated initially the developer said the project would be 15-16 units and now.it is nothing like what was initially presented to her. She stated she would like to see the development smaller and lower. She stated she objects to the fact that the inclusive units are one bedrooms. She would like to see the affordable units be at least 2 bedrooms. She is concerned about the drainage from the hill above the property. City Planner Neu stated that Heather Lindsey indicated on the speaker card she is opposed to the project but does not wish to speak. Chair Luna asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak on the project, seeing none she closed public testimony on item 2. Chair Luna asked if the applicant would like to respond. Mr. Allen stated there is 20 feet between the proposed building and the property to the south. He stated there will be temporary shoring constructed to ensure that no earth slippage will occur and after construction there will be retaining walls. Mr. Miller stated the building to the south will not be shaded from the sun by the proposed project. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Engineering Manager Geldert explained that piles are drilled piles with concrete that will go into several feet of underlying bedrock. He stated the piles will not make the site less stable. He stated some slopes will be reduced in height and during final engineering the project will require a soils report. He stated the report will be reviewed in house, as well as with consultant experts, to assure the neighboring sites are not affected. He stated a construction means and methods document will be provided for the Land Development Engineering department to review. He stated the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 102 of 143 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 occur 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 103 of 143 Planning Commission MinuL~~ March 20, 2019 Page 9 Commissioner Meenes asked if there were going to be additional geotechnical surveys, testing, or things of that nature reviewed during construction. Engineering Manager Geldert stated the geotechnical consultant will observe any cuts and ensure what they are exposing is what they predicted in their soils reports according to the exploratory boring that was conducted. Commissioner Meenes asked if the conditions change will the city have the ability to ask for further requirements. Engineering Manager Geldert stated yes. Chair Luna asked if the addition of the light pole was already in the conditions. Engineering Manager Geldert stated yes, the addition of the light pole is already in the conditions. Chair Luna asked if there were additional questions from the commission. Seeing none, she closed commission discussion. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Merz and duly seconded by Commissioner Geidner to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7324 APPROVING Site Development Plan SOP 2018- 0004, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein: VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chair Luna, Commissioners Anderson, Geidner, Lafferty, Meenes, Merz, and Stine NOES: None Chair Luna closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2. Chair Luna opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. 3. MCA 17-0002 (PUB17Y-0013) -CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ORDINANCES -An informational presentation of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan (CAP) implementing ordinances recently-adopted by the City Council relating to energy efficiency, renewable energy, water heating, electric vehicle charging, and transportation demand management. City Planner Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Senior Program Manager Grim and Principal Planner de Cordova would make a staff presentation (on file in the Planning Division). PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Anderson asked if there was any enforcement for non-electric vehicles being parked in EV charging station spaces. Principal Planner de Cordova stated there are vehicle code provisions that allow for the enforcement of making sure the charging station space is being used as such and that the Police Department and City Attorney's office are working on such an ordinance. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 104 of 143 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 stat.ed 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 105 of 143 Planning Commission MinL .; March 20, 2019 Page 11 City Planner Neu stated a noticed agenda item can be added for the next planning commission meeting to discuss what they learned or heard at the conference. Chair Luna asked if Fire Prevention could attend a future meeting to explain what they look at when reviewing a project. City Planner Neu stated Fire Prevention could attend a future meeting. Commissioner Meenes stated the issue of housing was prominent at the planning commission conference. CITY PLANNER REPORTS: City Planner Neu stated the annual housing production report will be presented to the commission in the near future. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS: Assistant City Attorney Kemp stated there is a real bonified concern about housing on behalf of the state. ADJOURNMENT: The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of March 20, 2019, was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Don Neu -City Planner Melissa Flores -Minutes Clerk June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 106 of 143 I .f(/cJY1Ji1 . ·too.ntrwi I [), (]~ ol. ~(?<./). Exnibit 6 APPEAL FORM Development Services { Cicyof Carlsbad Subject of the Appeal: P_27 Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue {760) 602-4610 r------MlQQ(ll~IW.ll~adca.gov MAR 2 8 2019 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 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 Permit, 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. Reason{s) for the Appeal: PLEASE NOTE: The appeal shall specifically state the reason{s) for the appeal. Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of· the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal. 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. NAME (Print): Susan Ortman -----------------------------MA I LING ADDRESS: 7551 Romeria Street -----------------------------CITY, STATE, ZIP: Carlsbad, CA 92009 -----------------------------TELEPHONE: 760-450-6405 -----------------------------EM A IL ADDRESS: etonlodge@aol.com SIGNATURE: --,M,...._....;;;._ou._9ifu&2Z_' ----;,---------------- DA TE: 3/27 /19 P-27 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 05/12 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 107 of 143 Subject of the Appeal: BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Planner's Decisio~ please say so. If a project has multiple applications, (such as a Coastal Development Permit, 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 appeal shall s.pecificallY-state the reason(£) for the ap_peal. Failure to s.pecifY-a reason maY-result in denial of the ap_p.m, and f-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 exist". Testimony provided in writing bv June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 108 of 143 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 important 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. CBQA review, an BIR, an engineering report, soil sampling and a traffic study are warranted. Two Commissioners questioned the lack of a CBQA 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 B, 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 financial liability. CBQA, an BIR, an engineering study, traffic study and soil samoline: are warranted and the oroiect should not oroceed June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 109 of 143 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 16-37 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 110 of 143 Densi(v 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 111 of 143 Law section Page 1 of 10 Home Exhibit Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Code: I Select Code vi Section: ~I ___ ~ j Search YE << Previous ~ cross-reference chaptered bills PDF I Add To My Favorites I I Highlight I GOVERNMENT CODE-GOV TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 -66499.58] ( Heading of Tille 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536.) DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 -66210] ( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536.) CHAPTER 4.3. Density Bonuses and Other Incentives [65915 -65918] ( Chapter4.3 added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 1207.) 65915. (a) (1) When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development within, or for the donation of land for housing within, the jurisdiction of a city, county, or city and county, that local government shall comply with this section. A city, county, or city and county shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be implemented. Failure to adopt an ordinance shall not relieve a city, county, or city and county from complying with this section. (2) A local government shall not condition the submission, review, or approval of an application pursuant to this chapter on the preparation of an additional report or study that is not otherwise required by state law, including this section. This subdivision does not prohibit a local government from requiring an applicant to provide reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for a requested density bonus, incentives or concessions, as described in subdivision (d), waivers or reductions of development standards, as described in subdivision (e), and parking ratios, as described in subdivision (p). (3) In order to provide for the expeditious processing of a density bonus application, the local government shall do all of the following: (A) Adopt procedures and timelines for ·processing a density bonus application. (B) Provide a list of all documents and information required to be submitted with the density bonus application in order for the density bonus application to be deemed complete. This list shall be consistent with this chapter. (C) Notify the applicant for a density bonus whether the application is complete in a manner consistent with the timelines specified in Section 65943. (D) (i) If the local government notifies the applicant that the application is deemed complete pursuant to subparagraph (C), provide the applicant with a determination as to the following matters: (I) The amount of density bonus, calculated pursuant to subdivision (f), for which the applicant is eligible. (II) If the applicant requests a parking ratio pursuant to subdivision (p), the parking ratio for which the applicant is eligible. (III) If the applicant requests Incentives or concessions pursuant to subdivision (d) or waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to subdivision (e), whether the applicant has provided adequate information for the local government to make a determination as to those incentives, concessions, or waivers or reductions of development standards. (ii) Any determination required by this subparagraph shall be based on the development project at the time the application is deemed complete. The local government shall adjust the amount of density bonus and parking ratios awarded pursuant to this section based on any changes to the project during the course of development. (b) (1) A city, county, or city and county shall grant one density bonus, the amount of which shall be as specified in subdivision (f), and, if requested by the applicant and consistent with the applicable requirements of this section, incentives or concessions, as described in subdivision (d), waivers or reductions of development standards, as described in subdivision (e), and parking ratios, as described in subdivision (p), when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this section, that will contain at least any one of the following: (A) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. CD http ://leginfo .legislature .ca. gov /faces/codes_ displaySection.xhtml ?lawCode=GOV §io... 5/28/2019 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 112 of 143 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 t he 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 income 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 development 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 pr,ogram, 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 113 of 143 Law section Page 3 ofl0 (A) Upon resale, the seller of the unit shall retain the value of any improvements, the downpayment, 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 Comp.rehensive 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 power and that is or was occupied by persons 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 114 of 143 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 impact, 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 defin7d 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 115 of 143 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 Bon us 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 116 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 117 of 143 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 residential 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.xhtrnl ?lawCode=GOV §io... 5/28/2019 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 118 of 143 Law section Page 8 of IO (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 are 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 incentives 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 dty 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://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes _ displaySection.xhtml ?lawCode=GOV §io... 5/28/2019 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 119 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 120 of 143 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, walkabllity 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=GO V §io... 5/28/2019 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 121 of 143 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 SOP 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. Golfcrest, 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 Golfcrest'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 arid 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 122 of 143 From: Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 3:34 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. 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 of us 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 i.s a soil issue in this area. This is evident based on Villa Romeria's foundation issues mentioned above as well as the sliding that occwTed at ~arbella condo's on 4 Costa Ave. several years ago. There is great concern that the extreme site work taking place suc·h as mass excavation and piles drilled down into bedrock will disrupt "mother eaith" leading to public safety issues such as sliding properties. Several times in the developers geotecbnical 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 bas 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 123 of 143 City Planning has made it very difficult for me to obtain copies of the geotechnical report done for the developer by GeoSoil, 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. Ifl 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 docwnents. 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. repo1t 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 ([FAD&C], 2017), GSI understands that the residential buildings will be up to 3 stories in height." rm 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: l . 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 124 of 143 From: John Sturgeon < Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 10:03 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 125 of 143 From: Meghan Carey Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 11:54 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.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 mot~er. · 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 126 of 143 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 should 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 Golfcrest 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 127 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 128 of 143 -----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 T9: 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 consu ltant 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? June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 129 of 143 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) June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 130 of 143 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 Avenue 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. June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 131 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 132 of 143 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 Garcia Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 133 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 134 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 135 of 143 Tammy McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Council Internet Email Monday, June 3, 2019 8:36 AM Chris Garcia; City Clerk 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:I 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 136 of 143 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 <CityCouncil@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 Gibraltor 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 concer_ns 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 137 of 143 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) Gibraltor Cul-de-sac by Canyon -7495 to 7501 required major excavation b) Bella Vista 7506 Gibraltor redid the landscaping in !he 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 Gibraltor and Jerez. The slippage of that hillside is very apparent. e) Recent large sink hole under home at 7543 Jerez Ct. f) 7570-7572 Gibraltor. 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 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 138 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 139 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 140 of 143 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 141 of 143 {1:ity of Carlsbad 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 142 of 143 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 propertymanagement company. Villa Romeria being the condo complex that sits adjacent to the proposedRomeria Pointe. A copy of the City Permit from the work we had done by Eagle Lift in 2014 wasrequested. 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 whatwork 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 June 11, 2019 Item #12 Page 143 of 143 To the members of the: '1kl 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 Ccityof <::arlsbad CITY OF CARLSBAD TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES . April 2018 CCityof __ TR_A_N_S_PO_R_T_A_T_IO_N_IM_PA_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_ES ______________ Cai'lsbad Califo,nia TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUN0 ............................................................................................................................ ; .................. 3 2. PURPOSE & OBJECTIVES OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSES .............................................................. S 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 ofTransportation 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 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES CCityor 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 c;reates 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-743/J 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 Dor better for all modes that are subject to this multi-modal level of service (MM LOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council. These concepts are codified in Section 21.90.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management) that states: Apri/2018 3 I Page fj: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_LI_N_ES ______________ Carlsbad Callfoinia 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., CEOA, GMP and the 2015 General Plan Mobility Element). April 2018 41 Page Ccityof TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad ___ _;;_ _______________________________ c 12 I if o,., i a 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 multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) 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 MMLOS methodology and maintain LOS D or better for each mode of travel for which the MMLOS standard is appllcable ... (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 as 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 2018 5 I Page ~ityof TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad ---------------------------------------------Ca Ii for n i a 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 lnterstate- 5 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 {9ityof TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad --------------------------------------, a Ii f o-r n i .d 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 100vehicles 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 April :zo1s 7 I Page TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES CCityof Carlsbad -----------------------------------Cali fa, 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 GM P. 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" Apri/2018 8 I Page {9ityof _...:...T::.:.:RA...:.:.N.:.:S...:...P.::..OR...:...T...:...A...:...T:....::10...:...N:....:.IM:.:.;;.;..;PA:....:.CT;;...__A...:...N...:...A.::..LY:....::S.:.:IS.....:G:....::U...:...ID.....:E=Ll-'--'N----ES::..__ _____________ Cai'lsbad Caiifo1nfa 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 during 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. April 2018 9 I Page ~ityof TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad --------------------------------------, b t do r n i a PEDESTRIAN: • All pedestrian facilities that are directly connected to project access points will be included in the study area • All pedestrian facilities adjacent to the project development site that provide direct pedestrian access to the project site will be included in the study area. • The analysis of each pedestrian facility will extend in each direction to the nearest Intersection or connection point to a multiuse trail or path. The study area will extend from the project site (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 MMLOS 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. April 201s 10 I Page CCityof __ T---'RA--'-N---'S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_AL_Y_SI_S_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_ES ______________ Cai"}sbad Califotnia Figure 1: MM LOS Required Analysis by Mobility Element Roadway April 2018 11 I Page {"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 C i!I I i r or n i a 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 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Table 1: Types of Transportation Impact Analysis Report Required & Elements to be Included i----Forec_c3st Pro1ect Generat~,c! Auto l!_ips --~----<500 ADT I 500 to 1,000 ADT 1,000 to 2,400 ADT >2,400 ADT I or or or 01 land Use I <50 peak hour trips I 50 to 100 pe,:ik hour trips 100 to 200 peak hour trips >200 peak hour trrps 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 Scenarms to be Evaluated Trip ReHIOn,1l MM LOS Trip Distribution & S1gnalrzed Uns1gnahzed Existing Cumuldt1ve Horizon Ti ave I -- {?:ityof Carlsbad C1llforni,1 (ped, bike, Study Area Generation Assignment Intersection Intersection Cond1t1ons Cond1t1ons Yc.ir Demand LFMP transit) Map Table figure Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Model Run Spec11!c TIA Level I • • • Level II • • • • • • • • Level 111 • • • • • • • Level IV • • • • • • • • • LevelV • • • • • • • • Level VI • • • • • • • • • • Level Vil • • • • • • • • • • Level VIII • • • • • • • • • • • Note: All TIA's will require MMLOS 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 CCityof TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad ----------------------------------Ca I if or rd a 3.6 VMT Analysis In September 2014, the California Governor signed Senate Bill 743 (S8743), 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 S8743 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, SANDAG 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 CCityof __ 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 Cd 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 {:Cityof __ T_RA_NS_P_O_R_T_A_TI_O_N_I_M_P_A_CT_A_N_A_L_Y_SI_S_G_U_ID_E_L_IN_E_S ______________ Orrlsbad C. a I if or n i .a 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. Aprll 2018 16 I Page Cotyof __ T_RA_N_S_P_O_R_TA_T_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_AL_Y_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_E_S ______________ Carlsbad C.alifo,nia 5. TRAFFIC GENERATION Use of the SAN DAG "Traffic Generators" manual and "(Not So) Brief Guide ... " trip generation rates should 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: SAN DAG 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 Ccityof __ T_RA_N_S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_I_M_P_A_CT_A_NA_L_Y_SI_S_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_ES ______________ Carlsbad California 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 additional information as appropriate prior to accepting the special generator or non- standard land use trip generation rates. April 2018 18 I Page TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Ccityof Carlsbad ----------------------------------Cal if1J ( nia 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 1018 19 I Page (City of __ TR_A_N_S_PO_RT_A_T_IO_N_I_M_P_ACT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_I_DE_L_IN_E_S _____________ Cai"lsbad C•l ifornlA 7. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The TIA shall determine the effect that a project will have for each of the previously outlined study scenarios. Analyses for freeways, roadway segments, intersections, and freeway ramps must be conducted to determine the transportation impacts associated with planned development or projects and are pertinent to the credibility and confidence the decision-makers have in the resulting findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Table 2 outlines the City approved methodologies for TIA analysis to be used along with 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 SignalJzed Intersections Queue & Storage Analysis Refer to Section 7.1 Unsignalized 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 hour V /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 Co/trans officially advocate the use of any social software packa(1es, espedolly since new ones are being developed all the time. However, consistency with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is required based on the City's General Pion Mobility Element. The above-mentioned software packages have been u tlllzed locally and found to be consistent with the latest version of the HCM. Because it is so important to have· consistent end results, always consult with aJI affected jurisdictions, including Co/trans, regarding the analytical techniques and software belna considered (especialfy if they differ from above) for the TIA. Apri/2018 20 I Page {: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_L_IN_E_S ______________ Carlsbad Cal1fo1ni111 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 of the 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 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 Ca I i f c, r n i " 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 >50 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 F is 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 C~_cJ!y_!ables_~~r]ved from the Highway CaJ)aci!Y_.Manual were develol!filL __ 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 Janes, 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. April 2018 22 I Page CCityor __ 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 If or n la The City of Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables provide the directional capacity for each roadway segment subject to MM LOS 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 G;ityof __ TR_A_N_S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_I_M_P_A_CT_A_NA_L_Y_SI_S_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 Corlsbod, 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 MM LOS 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 MM LOS 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 (City of __ T_RA_N_S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_I_M_P_A_CT_A_N_A_L_YS_IS_G_U_I_DE_L_IN_E_S _____________ Carlsbad C iilif~111 l • STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED SUBJECT STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES MODES TO MMLOS STANDARD (YIN) Freeways y y Arterial Streets y N N y Identity Strem N V 1---------+------.. ---· V N Apri/2018 • High-speed facilities designed to accommodate vehicles and bl.NI moving through the city and region • Blcydes and pedmrillns ara prohibited • These are the primary vehicle rou1es through th• dty for both local and regional whide trips. • Designed to saf1ly move 111 modes of trawl whi11 1tftdently moving vehld•11nd busn throughout th• ctty. • Traffic signals shall. be toordinated to optimize vetircle movements • BiC)'Cle lanes shall be provided and can be further enhanced or complemented by other fadlities or off-street pathways • Pedertrian facilities to be provided consistent with ADA requirements • Mid-black crossings should not be provided • On-street parldng should be prohibited along thew corridors • Vertlcal traffic calming techniques (such u speed tables, humps. etc.) lhould not be considered • Special c.onsiderations can be considered on arterials wrthin proximity to schools to enhance Safe Routes to Schools for pedestrians and bkydlm. • These streeu pravid• th• primary act1ss to and from th• hMrt of the dty • the Villag1 • Designed to safely move all modes of trawl whlle enhancing mobility for pedeslJ"'lans and bkycllsts • Vehlde speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrfan and blcyde mCJVement • No pedestrian shall cros1 more than five vehicular trawl and/or turn lanes • In edd"rtion to ADA compliant r■mps and sidew11lkl, sidewalks should support th• adja• cent land uses as follows: -Adjacent to retail uses, modified/new sidewalks should generally be a minimum of 10 feet (12 feet preferred) In width where feasible and teldng into consideration the traffic volumes of the adjacent roadway. and allow for thtt land U5e to utilize the sidewillk wlth outdoor SHting and other activities -Adjacent to residential uses, rnodifledhlew sidewalks should be a rninlmum of 5i• feet in width Elsewhere. modified/new sidewalks should be a minimum of eight feet In width • Where feasible, bicyde lanes should be provided • V1hid1 speeds should complement the ldjamnt 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 • Tr1fflc calming devices, such II curb extensions (bulbouts) or enhanced pedestrlan crossing$ should be considered and evaluated for implementation • Strfft fumitur. 5'MII b• ori1nwd toward th• buslnHMS • Mld-black pedestrian aossr ngs could be provided at approprlate locations (e.g. where 1fght distan~ 11 adequate and $pHd5.,.. appropriate) • On-street vehicle parking should be provided. In areas with high parking demand, in- novative parking management techniques should be implemented/ comidt!red • Pedestrians should typically be •buffered• from vehicle traffic using landsc:aplng or parked vehldes 25 I Page (City of __ TR_A_N_S_PO_R_T_A_TI_O_N_IM_PA_CT_A_N_AL_Y_SI_S_G_U_ID_E_LI_NE_S _____________ CarIBbad C•lifornl, STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED I SUBJECT I SlREET lYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES MODES TOMMLOS · I STANDARD (YIN) VIiiage Streets -· I N I • Primary purpase fs to move r:,eople throughout the Village; pl"OYidlng aa:en to bus!- nuses, residences. transit and recreation within the VIiiage area. • Desl'gned to safely move ell modes of tnivel white enhancing mobiltty for p1dutrians y and blcydlsts. ~ • Vehlde lpwd5 1hould be managed to promote sef1 p.cfestrf1n and bicycle mr;,vement • Promote pedestrian and bkyde connectJvity through short block lengths A y • Bkyde lanes should be provided .. • Bkyde boulevards tan be considered • Pedestrians should be accommodated on sldewalb adjacent to the travel way (mini- I mum s• wide sldewailk) ...;I N • Mid-block pedestrian aoulngs and traffic: calmlng devlfel should be considered. but l only at locations wfth high pedestrian activity levels. o, major destinations/attractions • OrHtre.t parking may be provided 1 Arterial Connect.or Stnlets I y • Primary purpose rs to connect people to different arHS and land uses of the dty by con-• n1etlng to/from arterlll strHtl • Designed to safely mov• all modes of trenl while enhancing mobility for padestrians t, y and bic:ydists .and effld1ntly moving whlcles betwNn arterial streets. • Bicycle lanes should be pn;rvided ,-.----· • Pedestrians should be aca>mmodated on. sidewalks adjacent to the travel way (mini-, .. y mum s• wide sidewalk) ---· ----, _____ .. Mld-blodc pedestrian aouings and traffic calmfng devices should be considered. but :;._.,;.,., N only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major dutindonslattractlons • On•~ parking may bt provided ----···-··· Neighborhood Connector Street N • Primary purpose is to connect people t.o different neighborhoods and land usu of the dty • Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhanclng mobility for pedl!S'trians ·---· -------y and blcydlsts. • Vehicle speeds should be manag@d to promote safe pedestrian and bicyde movement • Bicycle lanes should be provided ·--~-----♦ -------- 1 y • Bkyde boulevards tan be considered • Pedestrians 5hculd be accommodated on sidewalks adjacent to the, travel way (mini- mum 5" wide sldewallrJ I N • Mid-block pedestrian aosslngs and traffic calming devices should be considered, but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major destJnatf onslattr:actlo,:ti ! • On-street parking may be provided I Apri/2018 26 I Page (Cityof __ TRA_N_SP_O_R_T_ATI_O_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_ES _____________ Carlsbad C1lirornl1 STRUT TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCO MODATED SUBJECT STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ITRIBUTES MODES TO MMLOS STANDARD (YIN) Employment/Transit Connector Streets , --------_f-.. ;....;;., Coastal Streetf April 2018 N • Primary purpose Is to connect people to and from the employment ■reas of the city, as y y y N y y N well as important destinations and major transit facilities. • Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enh1ndng mobility for pedasttians and blcydistl and effidently moving buses to employment, transit stations and major destinations. • Vehicle speeds shoula b1 managed to promot1 safe pedestrlen and blcycl• mowment • Direct connections to bus stops shout~ be provided • Enhanced bus nx,p1 should be considered that include shelters, benches, and lighting • Bicycle lanes and 51dew.lks should be provided • ~•strfan crossing dlstancu should be minimized • On-street parking may be provided • Prim1ry purpose 11 to move people along the dty's ocean waterfront and connect people to the beach. recreation. buslriuaes and residenms In dose proximity to the waterfront. The melt serves as a destination for people ,who seek to drlve, wale. and bicycle along the ocean waterfront. • Designed to lilfety move all modes of tmtel whrle enhandng mobility for pedestrians and bkydls1s. • Vehicle speeds shall be managed to support uses along the coast • Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian UDnlngs should be provided, including: -High visibility crosswalks -Enh~d pedewian notifications (e.g. responsive push-button devlca) -Enhanced bicycle detection -Blcyde l•nes shall be provided and can be further enhanced or complemantwd by other facilities (11.1ch as bicycle lane buffers or off-street pathways) • Pedestrran facllltlel should be a minimum of five feet and shall mlvll for sbt to eight feet in width and shall conform to ADA requirements • P9destri■n croulng d.lstancas should be minimized • Trail -facilities should be encouraged • Opportunities for mld~block pedestrian acmjngs should be investigated • On-street par1ting should be provided • Transit fadlity and operation Improvements should be enmuraged 27 I Page (Cityof __ TR_A_N_S_PO_RT_A_T_IO_N_I_M_P_ACT_A_N_A_L_YS_IS_G_U_I_DE_L_IN_E_S _____________ Cai"lsbad C1 I H o tnl 1 STREET TYPOLOGY ANO ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED MODES SUBJECT STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES TOMMLOS STANOARQ (YIN) School Streets N l.t y y · N Industrial Streets y • Primary purpose ls to connect paopl• to schools from nNrby r1sidential neighbor• hoods. • Designed to safely move all modes of tnwel with an emphasis on providing safe ped&- trfan and blcyde access for m.idents travellng ta and from nearby Khools. • Vehlde speeds shill be managed to support school uses (typically :ZS MPH) • Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian crossings should be provided. including: -Hi~ visibility crosswalks -Enhanced pedestrian notiflcatrons (e.g. responsive push-button devices) -Enhanced bicyde detection -Blcyde llnes shell be provided and cen b~ further enhanced or complemented by other fadlitJes or off-street pathways • Pedistrian fadlltfes should be a minimum of~ feet and shall n,:lve for eight feet ln width and shall conform to ADA requirements • Pedestrian crossing distanc;e1 should be minimized • Opportunities for mid-block pedestrian crossings should be Investigated • Traffic calmlng devices that improve tervice lft'el5 and Afety for pedestrians and bicy- cllsts should be comid.,.d • Prima,y purpose ii to connect people to businuset within the city's industrial parkL • Designed to safely move 111 modes of tnwel while effidently moving vehldes and buses 1-----------1---N---from arterial streets end employment/tnlnsit conn~r streets to businesses. ~ • Traffic calming devices are generally dlscouraged given th• propenatty for larger trucu and heavy vehldes in this are. "-, N • On--1trm p1riclng may be provided es long as It does not interfere with the tu ming (:_fo•, radii of heavy vehldes. ;;;;;;a y Local/Neighborhood Street N y y • Prima,y purpose is to connect people to and through resldenti1I nelghborhoods end local area of the city. • Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility ior pedestrians and blcydilts. • Vehlde speeds. 5hould be menaged to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement • Pedestrians should be aa:ommodated on a sidewalk or soft surface trall (such as de- composed granite) unless those fadlltles are Inconsistent with the exlstl_ng dulrable neighborhood character • 8icycles can be accommodated with a bicyde Jane or route If vehicle volumes and/or 'JJ>eeds necessit:Alt.; otherwise blr;ydes 01n 5her• the Jtre-et 1----------if---------1 • Bicycle boulevards can be considered N Apri/2018 • Traffic calming mNQes should be considered when supportad by th• n1lghborhood or when warr■rrt.d for nt.ty reuon1 • On•street parking should be considered 28 I Page TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES (atyof Carlsbad -------------------------------------c •I, f o, rol • 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 pe1formance standard for the circulation system is as follows: Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system -vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS Dor better for all modes that are subject to this multi- modol leve/ of service {MM LOS) standard, as identified in Tobie 3-1 af 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 that: If a-t any time after preparation af the local facilities management plan the performance standards established by a pion 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. 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: Apr/12018 Develop and maintain a list of street facilities where specific modes of travel ore 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 Pion. In the case of street facilities where the -vehicle made of travel is exempt from the LOS standard, other non-vehicle capacity-building improvements will be required to improve mobility through implementation of transportation demand and transportation system management measures 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 af ~he Growth Management monitoring program, to determine if such exemptions are 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 (Cityof __ TRA_N_S_PO_R_T_AT_IO_N_IM_P_A_CT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_ID_E_LI_N_ES _____________ Carlsbad C&lffornl• 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 criteri~ 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 thresholds 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 (LOSE 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 Roadway Segment Freeway Segment Ramp Meter Any trip added to a segment forecast to operate at deficient LOS requires project mitigation; Project mitigation will be determined based on project contribution to the identified impact. 1% increase in V /C or 1 mph decrease in speed 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. Aprif2018 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 {City of __ TR_A_N_S_P_O_RT_A_T_IO_N_I_M_P_ACT_A_N_A_LYS_IS_G_U_I_DE_L_IN_E_S _____________ Carlsbad Callfornf• 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 & TOM mitigation 8.2 Mitigation The TIA report sh~II 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 Qwned 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 (City of __ TAA_N_S_PO_R_T_A_TI_O_N_IM_PA_CT_A_N_AL_Y_SI_S_G_U_ID_EL_IN_E_S _____________ Cai"IBbad C•lifo,nl a Other mitigation measures may include financial participation in Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. Examp les 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.S 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 a·nd 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. Unsignalized 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/11018 32 I Page (City of __ T_RA_N_S_P_O_RT_A_T_JO_N_J_M_P_ACT_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_G_U_I_DE_L_IN_E_S _____________ Carlsbad Ca Ii Io In I .-i 9. SIGNIFICANCE OF PEOESTRIA~, 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 improve.ment 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 ifan 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 related to pedestrian, bicycle or transit service to the project site. April 1018 33 I Page (Cityof TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad --------------------Califo,n l • Aprl/20l8 APPENDIX A SCOPING AGREEMENT 34 I Page (city of __ TR_A_N_S_PO_RT_A_T_IO_N_I_M_P_ACT_A_N_A_L_YS_IS_G_U_I_D_EL_IN_E_S _____________ Carlsbad Apri/2018 ATTACHMENT A SCOPING AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY This letter acknowledges the City of c.arJsbad 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 Descrlptlon: ____________________________ _ 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 Included ln the trip generation table.} B. Trip Distribution: D Select Zone (Model Series __ ) (Provide exhibit for detailed tr1p distribution and assignment.) C. Background Traffic Phased Project D No D Yes Phases: ----------------- Please contact the Engineering Devision or use the most recently provided data Model/Forcast Methodology: __________________________ _ Caliro,n i .o 35 I Page {?;;ityof TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES Carlsbad ----------------------------------------,AI I fo ( n i ! Apri/2018 D. Study Intersections: (NOTE: Subject to revision after other projects, trip generation and distribution are determined, or comments} 1. 2. 3. 4. --------------- ------------------------------ s. ---------------- 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-mlle radius of boundaries? D Yes D No If so, name of Jurisdiction: __________________________ _ G. Site Plan (Attach a legible 11 'Xl 7' copy) H. Specific Issues to be adressed in the Study (in addition to the standard analysls described In the Guidelines) (To be fllled out by Englneerlnll 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 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 ff Jil For thl:.' Information of the: .:.~ -~----Date-~/~~~!\;€-V!~--.. -···· .. CM JL COOL DCfv!(3) y 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 talcing 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 neighb.orhood assumed this would be the case on the evenipg of the March 20th. There is great concern that the extreme site work taking place like mass excavation and piles drilled dov.in into bedrock will disrupt near by land leading to public safety issues such as slippage. The Geo Soils Inc. report dated November 21, 2017 states the following which addresses our concern of soil and slope stability: "On a preli.mmary 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, itwould 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.fsite · 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.11 Please keep,us safe. Please support our appeal. Also, ram 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 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 consideration. ·<'-~ • "! ; •.· f Sincerely, Mary Anne Orcutt Carlsbad, CA 92008. 2 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 cl 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 O Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments From: John Cornacchione Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 9:32 AM To: Council Internet Email <Ci yCouncil@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 taldng 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 lov.r, 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. John Comacchione Carlsbad, CA 92009 1 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 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 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." 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 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 stat"es 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 Morgen_ Fry From: Sent: To: Subject: Eileen Donovan Thursday, June 6, 2019 8:18 PM Council Internet Email Romeria Pointe Apartments -Soil Erosion and Risk Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall, Please include this email into the Public Records and Staff Reports All Receive -Agenda Item # l?- For the l,:iformation of the: f:JTY COU~L ~✓ nase w ~ frfl 9 cc \; -i_coo_ocM(3)]l My name is Eileen Donova n and I live at 7555 Romeria Street, Carlsbad. My property (Villa Romeria) is adjacent to the pending Romeria Pointe Development of the Four Story/ 23 Apartment proposed structure. Due to extensive erosion of the soil in an around our property_ and the many thousands of dollars we ·as owners have invested to get it to be stable, I fear a 3 or 4 story apartment complex right next door will cause . series damage to o'ur property.-As you know, nothing is 100% when it comes to soil erosion, so even thoug~ it's stable now, (we have had some movement, but in the normal range) the weight of a 4 story complex right next to us could very well destabilize everything for our property and that.would be devastating. I am sure many of you may recall the 2005 Marbella Condominiums that cost the City of Carlsbad over $1.2 million and destroyed 8 homes on La Costa Ave due to the underlying clay soil. The site of that complex is located less than a 1/2 mile from ours. So as you can imagine we are very concerned we could have a similar issue, especia!ly given our history. Our units were built in 1986 and due to slippage we had to under go an extensive lift in 1997 of entire building because the entire property was dropping in the back where there is also a steep drop off into a ravine. Then in 2014, we experienced additional slippage on the north side and had to undergo an additional lift on the north side of our building which also happens to be right up against the property line of the new proppsed development. This was due to soil erosion and movement in the area. Currently our entire property sits on · jacks." So over the last 20 years we have had to do two property lifts and as a result, the· risks of damage to our property with a 4 story complex going in next door is substantial. I would like to note that none of these lifts were covered by our insurance. All cost were incurred by the owners of Villa Romeria HOA for the lift and repair to the tune of about $32k on the last partial lift on the north side which is also the side right next to the new development. Our geologist stated that this particular area is unstable which has been verified by the Geologist that was hired by the Romeria Point Development. I would also like to point out that that report was done on the assumption of THREE Storles and NOT FOUR. And the risk to our property is extremely high with a 4 story apartment complex. If this project is allowed to continue under its proposed plan then I fear there could very well be SEVERE DAMAGE to our property. I believe there needs to be more due diligence and investigation by the Council. highly recommend the Council consider getting a geology report and perhaps limiting the building height to a maximum of two stories. All condo units i11 the area are either one story or two and none are three or four stories, so aesthetically it will stick out like a sore thumb, not to mention the lack of street parking that already exists on Romeria. But more importantly, it is the high risk and the potential devastation to our property that is most concerning. It is simply not w~rth the risk simply because an apartment owner wants four stories instead of two so they can get more rent. 1 I have lived in my condo in Carlsbad for 20 years and I have always known the City to be very conservative when it comes to building new structures as well as zoning and I very much hope you will be just as conservative now given the history of the location and the great risk it creates. I think it would be negligent for the Council not to pause and investigate the issue more thoroughly especially with what the City went through with the destruction of the Marbella Condominiums in 2005. With the Marbella history and our own history, I highly recommend the Counci l proceed with caution and at a minimum to consider reducing the height of the building to no more than t wo stories. The risk simply isn't worth it to us or to the City. If you have questions or need verification of the lifts or geologist reports, feel free to contact our property manager, Diane Teeter 760-635-1405 since she has all that documentation on file. · Sincerely, Eileen Donovan Carlsbad. CA 92009 2 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Subject: Bill Lackner Friday, June 7, 2019 10:29 AM Council Internet Email Please vote NO on Romeria Pointe Apartments To: Council@Carlsbadca.gov Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments De~ 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 niy 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 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 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, Deborah Rose Carlsbad, CA 92009 1 Morgen Fry From: jeannie betita < Sent: To: Thursday, June 6, 2019 7:19 PM Council Internet Email 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 council. My address is · -· Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: Project# SDP2018-0004 First, I am opposed to this proposed project. Second, I am concerned about public safety concerns with regard to this project. I strongly believe this project would be a detriment to public health/safety for the following reasons: 1. This proposed area has poor soil and storm water issues. The scope of the work for the Romeria project is extreme and does not take into account potential hazards to land slippage, sink holes, or the fact that this property is next to protected land that animal species inhabit. Soil problems exist and must not be overlooked. 2. The 23 unit resid~ntial "high density" project does not include provisions for guest parking. The residential streets are currently not adequately equipped to effectively absorb the significant increase in vehicle parking that would obviously come with this project. NO VISITOR-PARKING has been documented in project plans. 3. More traffic, more traffic accidents, and easy escape for vandals to the neighboring golf. course. Leading to tresp·assing and lack of Carlsbad PD control or resolution to incidents. 4. I am personally financially and personally invested in our community, caring about safety and quality of life in our environment. Keeping that "small town feel" and sense of community is at risk, as well as Carlsbad's future as the city _ grows. Overcrowding, under-resourcing·.infrastructure, and Carlsbad core values are at risk. 5. Propose this land be delegated as "low density" and that future construction align with the current expansion just across the street of La Costa Avenue where beautiful homes are being constructed. The environmental impact is not properly being considered, taking into account the increase in garbage, animal waste, traffic, vehicle parking, soil conditions, over-occupancy of rentals, lack of community culture, and maintenance of beach community feel. KEEP CARLSBAD CLEAN AND ATTRACTIVE. Prioritize protection of open space and natural environmentfor our community. Thank you for your consideration. We trust you yvill make the right decision for Carlsbad's future. J.eannie Villalobos 1 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 # l-:Z- for the Information of the: ~!~COUNCIL PaJ:e "') !I f & ✓ CG v' CMLCOO ✓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 weatly congested to the point that some parkers have actually blocked our access to our driveway. In addition, the noise, traffic and overcrowding that will 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 Andrea D kes, 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 unit, 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. l 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. MarySurdy President/Roundtree Homeowners Association 2 Andrea From: Sent: To: Subject: es 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. l 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, Liz Ingle Carlsbad Ca 92009 Sincerely, Liz Ingle 3 Andrea From: Sent: To: Subject: es 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 you very much for your time. Sincerely, Swanson's 4 Andrea kes --------------------------------From: Margaret Dupree Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2019 5:48 PM To: Council Internet Email 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 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 Andrea From: Sent: To: Cc:. Subject: kes 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~ly 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 place 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 Andrea From: Sent: To: Subject: es 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 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 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 allowthis project to be built. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Trey Spurlock . , Carlsbad Ca 92009 7 Andrea kes 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 Andrea From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: es 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 recen~ly 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 Andrea From: Sent: To: Subject: kes 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 Andrea From: Sent: To: Subject: kes 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 Andrea From: Sent: To: Subject: kes 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 yo1,1r time. Sincerely, Marshall Spevak Andrea es From: Sent: To: Subject: Council Planning De_partment: 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 . Andrea From: Sent: To: Subject: es 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 EX CAVA TIO N 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 this project to be built. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Chad Peck Carlsbad, CA 92009 14 Andrea From: Sent: To: Subject: es Penny Carrasco Friday, June 7, 2019 2:17 PM Coundl 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< i yCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Thank you for your email. We value your opinion and we appreciate the time 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 Andrea D kes From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Carol {Penny) Carrasco, 2nd Letter Penny Carrasco Friday, June 7, 2019 2:13 PM Council Internet Email Romeria Pointe Apartment -Corner of Gibraltar and Romeria Carlsbad, CA92009 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 MATTERS" by Christina Ray. This is a though-provoking acticle. 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 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 Andrea From: Sent: To: Subject: es 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 Andrea From: Sent: To: Subject: kes 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 Romelia 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 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Morgen, Please distribute. Andi From: Chris Salazar Council Internet Email Monday, June 10, 2019 10:58 AM Morgen Fry Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 10:29 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments All Receive -Agenda Item ti l "d' For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL ✓ Date tluili_q:A -"'. CC_ CM .JL coo -.;L_ DCM (3) .Ji.. 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 CormJerSalazar and Richard Salazar Carlsbad, CA 92009 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 To: 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> 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 7 55 7 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 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 built. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Carrie Vanderwoude Carlsbad, CA 92009 1 that do not allow thi.s project to be Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: · From: Elena Karavodin Council Internet Email Monday, June 10, 2019 11 :57 AM Morgen Fry Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments 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 I!~::,.~~~ Project: 23762-01 Roll: 1 I Serial: 43 Frame: 43 Photographer: K. Rogers P,ate Tj!)<em 201'3-01-68 ~ome.ru( f>o\V\te. ·kt;>pe-CLL ?ulo~1-\\-ed ~ · 'f3.t...-\v\ Cx\v-Ai'\D f • . ' 7 /8'/1.0'B I :2 I PM Address: 7551 Romerla Street Address: 7551 Rolneria· Street I' : Project: 23762-01 Roll; 1 Serial: 7 Fram.e: 7 Photographer: K. Rogers Date·Taket'I; 2013-07-08 Project: 23762-01 Roll: 1 Serial: 8 Frame; 8 Photographer: K. Rogers .. D1;1te Ta~en: 2013-07-08 7/8/2013 1:21 PM L ~= 7551 Rqmerla Si:reet ::..::SS 7551 Romerla Street I Ptojed: .2-376~..0·1 R.oll{.1 ~~r!c:il: :23 ft.a:tn~: 2) Photographer: K Ro'!;J~r,s P.a.te-T9k-e111: 2013~-01:co~' Pn?Jj¢ct: 23762-01.· Roll} i ~eria"1: ·_~4 Fraine: 24 l P-hot.ognipher: ,IC,_ RQg i?ts D<!te Taken~ 2013-07-08: 7/8/2013 1;21 PM .,,.... Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: From: John Bianchi, Council Internet Email Monday, June 10, 2019 3:39 PM Morgen Fry Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 3:22 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments Good afternoon, All Receive -Agenda Item# W For th~ Information of the: CJTY COUNCIL Date lP/4 /i;j CA ✓ cc 2 CM ·V coo J DCM-(3) I'm writing today as a long-time owner of a condo in the Roundtree complex. I have great concern with the impact of . adding additional apartments on Romeria Street. At present the parking is inadequate for the current number of housing units. This is a safety and quality of life issue. Both residents and visitors often have difficulty finding a parking spot on Romeria and Gibraltar Streets. We hope you would reconsider the number of residential units proposed for this development in light of the fact that parking is already insufficient for current residents and guests. Additionally, I have a concern about the grading and foundation that are proposed. Our complex, and numerous others in the neighborhood, have experienced foundation issues resulting from substandard soil conditions and underground water. The immense amount of grading and foundation work proposed for this development could impact the structural integrity of surrounding properties. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Sincerely, John Bianchi .1 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Council Internet Email Monday, June 10, 2019 3:38 PM Morgen Fry Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia All Rec~ive -Agenda Item ti jq Fi:>rthe Information of the: /TYJOUNCIL • Date'f jl 5A V CC ✓ CM J COO_DCM (3) V Subject: Attachments: FW: Proposed Romeria Pointe Apts {DEV2017-0151) 20190605_19443?Jpg;20190605_194428Jpg;20190605_194346Jpg Please distribute. From: Jay J. Brown· _ Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 2:44 PM . To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: RE: Proposed Romeria Pointe Apts (DEV2017-0151) Council Members: My name is Jay Brown, an attorney with law firm of Feist, Vetter, Knauf and Loy located at 5122 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA. I am also a 26 yea~ resident of Carlsbad. I represent Roundtree Ltd Condominium Owners Association, which is a 16 unit condominium project located directly across Gibraltar Street from the proposed Romeria Pointe Apartments. Jhe council has been sent numerous emails outlining concerns that Roundtree has with the proposed project. Below is a summary of t hose concerns First, I would like to address the parking issue. The proposed project calls for 23 units, of which 7 will be one bedroom and 16 will be 3 bedroom. There will be 41 parking spaces for the residents, but no guest parking spaces are to be provided. The closest public transportation is at El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue, at least a mi.le away from the project. So I think it is safe to assume that each occupied unit will have come with vehicles. Attached hereto are pictures of the parking situation along Gibraltar and Romeria Streets. As you can see, it is already congested. Rents in coastal Carlsbad are very high. How will people be able to afford a 3 bedroom apartment in La Costa? By having roommates help share the rent. Those roommates will have vehicles. Where are the roommates going to park? On the public streets. Parking on Gibraltar Street and Romeria is already impact_ed. I know from representing other condominium developments along Gibraltar and Jerez, that parking is a constant issue. Many of the condominium projects have two spaces assigned to each unit, yet that is not enough. Garages tend to be used for storage. It is foolish to think that the proposed project will not result in more cars being parked·on the already congested public streets. Will there be a requirement in the Leases for these units that residents not use garages or carports for storage and that the garages and carports must be able to accommodate the number of vehicles for which it was designed.? · Since Gibraltar and Romeria Streets are already at or near capacity, residents and guests will be forced to park along La Costa Avenue and hike down a s.teep hill to their units. La Costa Avenue can be a high speed thoroughfare and parking is already limited there too: More cars on La Costa Avenue will further limit visibility to persons pulling out of their driveways or pulling away from the curb and essentially increase the safety concerns along that stretch of a main east/west artery. Another issue that concerns Roundtree is the height and profile of the proposed project. Roundtree is at street level with Gibraltar Street. The proposed project will tower over Gibraltar and block the sun during several months of the year. Roundtree residents and other residents along Gibraltar pay a premium for Southern California sunshine. Having such a tall structure across the street coLJld dramatically impact property values. 1 Finally, Roundtree is concerned about soil and water issues. We all know that" there is slippage along La Costa Avenue and adjacent streets. Some of this water is just natural seepage. The Roundtree development experienced water and soil subsidence issues when it was being constructed. We do not know what will happen when supports are drilled into the bedrock. Will this unlock additional groundwater and create issues for adjacent developments? This is a legitimate concern for any homeowner in La Costa. To summarize, the size ofthis project and the lack of adequate on-site parking could pose a public safety issue when residents of the project, and other residents in the neighborhood are forced to park further from their units and upon La Costa Ave, a busy main thoroughfare. There needs to be more onsite parking . The height of the buildings will block sunlight to neighboring properties and thereby reduce the desireablity and value of those properties. Finally, soils issues should cause concern for the council, because we simply do not know what forces may be unleashed when holes are drilled in the bedrock . Roundtree is asking the council to reject the project in its current configuration until these issues can be more fully addressed. I urge all council members to drive on La Costa Avenue during commute hours and to try and park on Gibraltar Street in the evening before reaching a decision on the proposed Romeria Pointe- Apartments. Jay J. Brown Feist, Vetter, Knauf and Loy Carlsbad, CA 92018-1307 2 Morgen Fry From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Cc: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:38 AM Morgen Fry Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia . 1\11 Receive -Agenda Item#~ . For the I nformatlon of the: . . ~ITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments Dat~IP/o l'!fCAV CCV CM GOO .JL DCM-(3) i/ ····-· ··--_,,, __ -· -----·----· .... ·-·-·-··· ·•----. -····· -.... ---·-_.,.,.,,.,_,,,., ---- From: Suzanne Wilson < Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 8:09 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> .Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments To: Council@Carlsbadca.gov <Council@Carlsbadca:gov> Sent: Sun.day, June. 9, 2019-05:48:19 PM PDT S1,1bject: 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 c.itizen of Carlsbad: It has come to my attention that City Planning recently approv~d the building .of two 4-story buildings known as Romeria Pointe. I believe this project i~ putting Carlsbad citizens' safety at risk. · I call to your attention to the lawsuit brought by Patrick Catalano regarding ·a March, . 2005, landslide in La Costa.de Marbella, a condominium complex where 8 units were destroyed and many others 9amaged. This was not only a danger to residents· but expensive to the City of Carlsbad and. settled at a cost.of $12.5 million. I also call your attention to Orem Properties vs, Corona La Costa Homeowners Assoc.- et.al, 2009-12, demanding in ex.cess of $1 .million from sev~n homeowners on Solano Street for no reason other than their residences were built on unstable land. Defendants included a woman residing· in a nursing home, a· single mom witli a special-needs child, a struggHng multi-generational.family, and a widow recently laid off from work due to · budget cuts, among others. These people had to pay' respectively $100,000.00, 40,000.00, 30,000.00 and other settlement fees plus personal defense attorney costs. This was the second litigation over a .failed retaining wall built in a geologically unsound area. Romeria Pointe is in very close proximity to this tenuous area. You may imagine you .~re putting a roof over people's heads but you are certainly not putting a sound 1 foundation under their feet. Romeria Pointe is nothing more than an invitation to danger, hardship and litigation . .Please-reconsider. yot.1r decision on Romeria Pointe. I ask tha~ you do NOT allow this project to be built. . Thank you very much for time and consideration. Sincerely, Suzanne L. Wilson Carlsbad, CA 92009 Morgen Fry From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:38 AM Morgen Fry Cc: Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia Subject: FW: Objection to Romeria Pointe Apartments Please distribute to council. From: Xiwen <: .... -···-··-··o~ o· .. -···--··· Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 8:02 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCoundl@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Re: Objection to Romeria Pointe Apartments Xiwen Cheng Ph.D. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Romeria Pointe Apartments (SDP 2018-004) Dear Carlsbad City Council and Mayor Hall, I would like to express my objection to the Romeria Pointe Apartments planning after careful examining the plan. Please include this writing email message in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. As a concerned citizen of Carlsbad, I believe this planned project brings detrimental impact to the property values in the neighborhood. The reasons are on these grounds: (1) 23 units will significantly adds to the noise level of this short-stretch of romeria street, which already receives remarkable noise from the La Costa Ave. (2) 23 units will significantly reduce the limited street parkings, which worsens the livability on this street. This neighborhood is highly car-dependent and the walk score is extremely low already. (3) The 4-story planning is too audacious to be part of the community. It would be the highest structure in the vicinity if allowed. That definitely generates a number of environmental and psychological issues to the residents nearby. (4) This section of neighborhood needs more parks and greens to appreciate its values instead of crowded housing. Depreciation of the property values in the whole neighborhood damages tax revenues, damages our schools and jobs and ultimately damages our city as a whole. Please reconsider your decision with deliberate measure o·n the issue. I request that you do NOT approve this project. Thank you very much. Best regards, Xiwen Cheng 1 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: From: Lin Ni < Council Internet Email Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:39 AM Morgen Fry Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia FW: concern.on Romeria Pointe Apartments planning Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 8:4⇒ PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Re: concern on Romeria Pointe Apartments planning Dear Carlsbad City Council, As a concerned citizen of Carlsbad, I would like to express my objection to the Romeria Pointe Apartments planning. Please include this writing in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. I believe this planned project overlooked the safety c;oncern and brings potentia·I hazard risk to our neighborhood. This planning is bold. 23-unit adds to risk of slippage to the slope of romeria street. It can ultimately cause death and casualty to Carlsbad citizens. Not to mention this planning will definitely increase the noise of this neighborhood, which-is already noisy from the La Costa Ave. The street parking is already quite limited. This ·planning will further put the limited street parkings into shortage. Remember t his neighborhood is highly car-dependent. Difficult parking depreciates the property values! . If allowed, the 4-story planning would be the highest structure in the vicinity if allowed. A number of environmental and psychological issues to th·e residents nearby will be foreseeable. I urge you, as citizen representative,. prioritize the sa~ety of the citizens and prot~ct our community property values to your best. Please reconsider your decision and NOT approve this project. Thank you very much and appreciate your service. Sincerely, Lin Ni Carlsbad CA 92009 1 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: ----Original Message----- From: brian grieser < • Council Internet Email Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:39 AM Morgen Fry Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia FW: Romeria Pointe Apartment Project Sent: Monday, June J,O, 2019 11:32 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartment Proj~ct THE WRONG DEVELOPMENT! . -I live at 7 across from subject development . -We currently cannot.find parking for our visitors. -There are no public transportation for low income residents .. -The large size of apartments( 3 Bdrm ) means l"flOre cars than planned in development and increased children in area. -Children currently risk their lives cross_ing La Costa Avenue at Romeria where East and West traffic are descending at a high rate of speed. -Visit at any time of day. There is no room for-such a development. -There has got to be a better choice for the city. 1 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: From: Jun Schafer< Council Internet Email Tuesday, June 11, 20~9 10:39 AM Morgen Fry Jason Geldert; !'.:hris Garcia FW: Rome~ia Pointe Apartments Appeal Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 7:28 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments Appeal Dear City Council Members and Mayor Hall: I amwriting 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 GeoS<?ils, Inc. raised concerns about soil and slope sta•bility. 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 o~ 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 overcrowdirig that will be caused by this proposed project will significantly diminish the quality of the existing n~ighborhood. 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 su.bmitted to the Carlsbad City Council. Sincerely, Jun Nakajima Schafer Carlsbad 92009 1 Morgen Fry Subject: FW: Romeria Pointe Apa_rtments From: George Eckel <. Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 8:05 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 two 4- story buildings kndwn 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 isstJes. 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. The proposed apartment complexes will also reduce the desirability of the surrounding houses and thereby reduce sales prices and thus property taxes. Everyone whose view-shed is impacted will have to re-assess the value of their home and apply for reduced property taxes. This area is already densely populated, more densely populated than any . area within a 5 mile radius. This runaway over population of the area · descreases property values, over-crowds the roads, increases crime, and burdens the utility-infrastructure. Ple~se reconsider your de~ision on Romeria Pointe. I ask that you do NOT allow thi~ proj_ect to. be built. · Thank you very much for time and consideration. · Sincerely, George Eckel Carlsbad, CA 92009 . 1 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Cc: MEscobarEck Tuesday, June 11, 2019 5:41 PM citycouncil@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 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 4 STORY BUILDING PUBUC SAFETY s, l ••"'t yout 'llldt ro po·, ov11,,c1~1 Nol ~-:IPt""'t ,tny1'1'\0t~• Then!~ a City Council Mfflf on Juoe 11th. 2019 to STOP th s PfOJ("ct from movinc forw;,rd. NO MORE PARKING 0o yo,., or 't()llr g.,;nzhM 1t1~t OJtlc,i,cl S.to, l!•Xldl>ye-1 e REAOY FOR QlSE? T~s of 2J ,._ u,,lh ...0 help Yo.I iUy t.-.,lcf 1'1'1 fV[RY VOICE TOT TO STOP CONSTRUCTION MATTERS egregious traffic issues on· this portion of La Costa Avenue. development when I received this inflammatory and egregious scare tactic flyer on my front door on Sunday night. 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 careful 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 properl,y 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 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 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: -----Original Message----- From: Catherine Council Internet Email Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:07 AM City Clerk Jason Geldert; Chris Garcia FW: Romeria Pt 4 story Development 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 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 4 STORY BUILDING PUBLIC SAfElY 5-t,1 •••1t yo111 lid• 10 P'J., OuU,,ck, ~ ~ N,::lpitMlf_ ..nv""4rr• Thlfe is a City Counol Meeting o J ne 11th. 2019 to STOP this P'0~Ct from mcw,ng fOfWard. NO MORE PARKING Oo "°" or '(()Ur cuont, ~ \lf'N'~ p,,tltlftl > s.w f,l)Oljltyc I e RtAOV FOR NO~sn lf'NMJ ~ lJ r-U"'0 Ml l'lttlp ',OJ Uly ,..,..1r, '!.V1 EV(RY VOICE TUT TO >TOP CON!iTAUCT,ON 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 careful 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 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. 2 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 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 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 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: t ~Mf t1•~~---For tht1 Lif u,: n.;, ,,in of the: Date ~/.I~ /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: O.ur 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. Th is 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 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 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 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 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, City Clerk Thursday, June 13, 2019 10:34 AM Tammy Cloud-McMinn FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments Please see the below correspondence to the City Council. Thank you, \CT: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. 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 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO: CITY CLERK DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: 0Li f'\-,D I/, 9-UI? /'\ . '" . 1 SUBJECT: '"") c,m J)\ A 9., f ~1✓cu:1:b. . (~0t·) . ,- LOCATION: / ,~(1~( (V0D/l}?,{) I/, / / (~ 1\JA . DATE NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS: 5) 31 /JC) NUMBER MAILED: -~/~•7~1~-- 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 ' r, ' _;c_ J}tcv'U-,~-: ·rY)L ,~y(.__/ (Signature) (Date) SENT TO FOR PUBLICATION VIA E-MAIL TO: 0 Union Tribune ~Coast News PUBLICATION DATE: Union Tribune -------------- Coast News ,5 / )/// '! 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. Attachments: 1) Mailing Labels 2) Notice w/ attachments 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 comer 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: SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS FRIDAY, MAY 31, 2019 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NOT TO SCAI.E Romeria Pointe Apartments SOP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) 3 col x 8" 24"x $14 $336 ,---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 HATLE 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~V' I 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 \,111 lL111nl ill 1JlGU 1 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 DORNOCH 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 .-----7 I AVERY 6240 : DARWIN & PATRICIA SCHUSSLER 7528 JEREZ CT #5 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SYDNEY SER WIN 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 PANTHERLN #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 Aclclir_:,ss Lc1bels : Li,_11,l .ilon(J l111t' tr> ('?IJ(1,1 Pup up r:d~ll I JAMES C LEE 7 52 8 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 MAN OJ 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 c1vc1y.co111/lL'rnplzites: Uc,1 /, • 1 I, T, !I \!)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 GIBRALTARST #19 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANDREW J & EV AN 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 ave:y.ca/_gabarits : ,-----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 NOVAK HOWARD & 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 DNMPARKERLL 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 L L 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 A B 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 T A ASSOCIATES 7529 GIBRALTAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SIMMONDS LIVING TRUST 170 DEL ORO LAGOON NOVATO 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 COAST AL LIVING L L C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 Allez a avery.ca/gabarits : 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 LL 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 J D L L A L RENTALS L L 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 • ) ) ',( >-U11 up 1::cJ,._J, t LA COST A 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 COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 J D L L A L RENTALS L L C PO BOX 2767 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 AVE 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 VENADO 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 DA YID 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: 7 ' ' .-------i I AVERY 6240 : WALOCH ARTHUR A LIVING TRUST 2918 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUNV ALE INVESTMENT LLC 5345 TOSCANA WAY #549 SAN DIEGO CA 92122 EILEEN V DONOVAN 7555 ROMERIA 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 1500W llTHAVE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 HALABUK DANIEL J & JEANETTE C G FAMILY TR 7607 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHRIGLEY FAMILY TRUST 7604 ROMERIA 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,,, 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 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHAD J & V ANDER WO UDE CARRIE PECK 7557 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LA COST A BLUFFS L L 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 11TH AVE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 92029 JOHANSEN TRUST 3000 AZAHAR ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MATTHEW & SONIA STAAB 7602 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 RY AN FAMILY TRUST 3005 LA COSTA AVE 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 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LA COST A BLUFFS L L C 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR #150 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 L C INVESTMENT 20 IO LL C 4001 MAPLE A VE #600 DALLAS TX 75219 KEVIN STEPHENS 1500 W 11TH A VE #24 ESCONDIDO CA 920-29 CHRIS VIERHEILIG 7606 ROMERIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 MARSHALL & ELIZABETH K SPEVAK 3001 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 HODIL CHARLES REVOCABLE TRUST 3007 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CABANTING FAMILY 2005 TRUST 5020 BALFOUR LN WOODLAND HLS CA 91364 Allez a avery.ca/gabarits : ,-----i I AVE'.RY 6240 : 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 PRINCEHOUSE LN 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 : ~ ' SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Romeria Pointe Apartments – Appeal 1 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 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 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 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 Location Map 6 7 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 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 Site Plan 10 BUILDING A BUILDING 6 11 ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EAST 12 ELEV.ATIION SOUTH 1~ro~ ~,., ;~, ~ = tr!~ ~ .. nc-•~hl~li'"'J .ot ox 1n orchitectvror de~ign & consulting 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Thank You 28 Backup Slides 29 30 31 \_ large ex1stmg tree on neighbors lot planting per l<Jndscaping plan 32 33 34 35 -~~--------L~j.7f t'i -~~ ~---a,c,~ 36 37 /4--.-- ill.aNiii•~ lillli.iili, ---...,_ Nil•.,. .. ru:;-.. ~ .. ·""' .rf•t;: ..... · •1 I I . / □ □ 38 A•LE','ElJ.II] A•LE','B.,[fil A· l..E',£J. l [§] A·LE','El.1~ 39 ,,.._ , ',,, ... ,,,,,, ',,,,',,,111.. .... ;;;;a1b;;;;=:::;1;;=....,!!:-=;;;;dlm==i=np====,i"""'~i'i'i'i'r==Fr' r,~.t,:'-.i,:) '" ,,,,,.---.---< ',,,,, 40 ---~ ---~ ---~ ---~ Romeria Pointe Apartments 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 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 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 )> w ~ I i e ~ 'i I i i i ; •,~ ; •,1 I I l I ff ii ",a •,~ ! lffi j MIIIHR-~-HIIIHII ~ "i1 r I I I I I I I 1 ~ ] . r.l . I ~ !E 19 ~ ~ i ~ fil 19 .. . ~ I' e111 ~ I I ~ ·~ ~ ~ ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS RCMERIA AND GIBRALTAR, CARLSEW> CA, 92009 Clent BNR DEVELOPMENT DISCRETIONARY REVIEW ~-J•, ,NOT FOR CONSTRUCT/ON L~_li_lj ~ 'j • .• Cl ,, f oxlin :1! ~ i ; ~ :1! ~ ; •,i ~~-i d ' ·,~ 1 11 ,. ~/~ J ... , : I ij'~ i I ~'~ 1 tilt!2'!1:IIIICIIIDI• lntClb,lrl.ecffl .... flll!I ~DRAIW-JGS. DIMENSfONS GOVERN. 2. ~~1-:i::: ;g;;~~ OF STRUCTURE (F.O.S.), J. ;~::':~H~=~ERfRED ON SITT: BEFORE ! ~~~liii~~t~7~.:;~i~ ,. g~NTW::C~~~~':J~k~~f~Mrn1oos 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 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 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 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 UNIT N~5 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 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 ·, """'-'••'t•, ! \\• 2· , l!AWIIAPB'l;SSINGS. l'AN&DFl'lf?'fDG.&IFIIEN/ftfliJ I..A~OStslUt tt\7,.<\l:tl),,'i IN 'l'U.I!, SUIU:Ulilt* l'A~J' (II' '11Kft.SA.\I DJ£!'.GOM£TRO:?OUTAN Mtt"A I SA.'° OlEG'O COliNT'Y, (,Al.lf(lRNl\ E~iCNrTAS Qv,i,p:;,.,.,.0-£ (Pi.ArE~J ft-".~O ~;p , FE'.QU.-.O=t•1W!LE lflATE B 1/X}O GRARH!C SCALE 0 5/}(/ ·100Q lit£LATl\'tl.M1)SUUI'. Sl'il('tW'l'l"ll,l'l'V ANII 1~1).il1.mi,; ,mmu ,tl,no}! rJAr' sn.w.,n.s <-F i--.-... .._ ·f .._ .i. _,.i...7· U'IM"IIZEOMEA!iCU,OA!.i '!G.,\"f \'0 .• .'AOBL!OE !U30EPTl:1!.J'I'\" iflCAC >' I •• ~ 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 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 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. ATTACHMENT 3 Minutes 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) 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. 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) 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. 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. 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 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). 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 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 • · • ► 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 ATTACHMENT 4 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 ( ( 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 ( ( 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 the( ( ( 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 ( ( ( ( ( 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, -------····•·--··--•··-··--··· .... . .. .. -.. ---... _ ............. .. .. -....... ,. ............. ,. -··------- . ... .. ··--------·--··-·-·------.. ------····-·--· --·-•-" .. -··-.......... ___ _ ( 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 ( • ( 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 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 ( 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 ATTACHMENT 5 ( ( 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 \ ( GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE TO CONCERNS RAISED AT THE JUNE 11, 2019 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEETING PERTAINING TO THE GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS AT THE ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS PROJECT SITE AND NEAR VICINITY, 7527 ROMERIA STREET CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 92009 ASSESS9.!3.:S-P1tRGE UMB.Pffs-(APNS� 21,.S--�ts-,& -13 Cl OF C SBA P 6JECT 0.: S · P2018-000� • W.O. 7297-A3-SC NOVEMBER 20, 2019 ATTACHMENT 6 ... ( ( Geotechnical •Geologic• Coastal• Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com November 20, 2019 BNR Investment and Development, LLC 28000 Via Del Rio Yorba Linda, California 92887 Attention: Mr. Ram Setya W.O. 7297-A3-SC Subject: Geotechnical Response to Issues Raised at the June 11, 2019 City of Carlsbad City Council Meeting Pertaining to the Geotechnical Conditions at the Romeria Pointe Apartments Project Site and Near Vicinity, 7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92009, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12 & -13, City of Carlsbad Project No.: SDP2018-0004 Dear Mr. Setya: In accordance with your recent request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI), is providing this geotechnical response to issues raised by project appellants, public commentators, and City of Carlsbad City Council Members during the June 11, 2019 City Council hearing. A list of the concerns brought up at said hearing were provided to GSI by Mr. John Allen of Streamline Development Group (Project Construction Manager). Pertinent project references are provided in Appendix A. For ease of reference, the minutes from the City Council hearing and Mr. Allen's notes summarizing the concerns voiced by project appellants, public commentators, and City Council Members are provided in Appendix B. In order for the reviewers of this document to develop an understanding of the geotechnical conditions within the Romeria Pointe property and the southerly adjacent Villa Romeria property, we have summarized the geotechnical background information thereon in Appendices C and D, respectively. GSl's responses to the issues raised at the June 11, 2019 City Council hearing are provided in the Executive Summary below: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Issue No. 1 -"Land Instability" (Appellant Terminology) Some of the project appellants voiced concern about the existing land stability problems in the area. ( GSIResponse ( Land instability can manifest in several different forms including landslides (surficial and deep-seated), settlement, and seismic-induced ground deformations (liquefaction, lateral spreading, etc.). GSI has evaluated the potential for land instability within the Romeria Pointe property and near vicinity through the following investigative techniques: •Reviews of regional geologic maps (Kennedy and Tan, 2007; Eisenberg, 1983; and Tan and Giffen, 1995); •Reviews of geotechnical hazard maps prepared for the City of Carlsbad (Leightonand Associates, Inc. [L&A], 1992); •Reviews of readily available geotechnical reports for the Romeria Pointe property, prepared prior to our site-specific work (Benton Engineering, Inc. [BEi], 1969 and 1970; East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc. [ECSC&E], 2001 ; SoilPacific, Inc. [SPI], 2003); •Reviews of readily available geotechnical and engineering reports, and engineeringmitigation plans for the adjacent southerly property called "Villa Romeria" (Catlin and Company, Inc. [C&C], 1984a, 1984b, 1984c, 1984d, and 1984e; CatlinEngineering Associates, Inc. [CEA], 1996, 1998a, 1998b, and 1998c; Helfrich-Associates, 2014a, 2014b, and 2014c); •Reviews of readily available geotechnical reports for the multi-family residentialdevelopment located at 7546 Romeria Street (Vinje and Middleton Engineering, Inc. [V&ME], 1998 and 2000); •Reviews of historical stereoscopic aerial photographs (Park Aerial Surveys, Inc. 1953); and •Site-specific subsurface exploration and analyses. Based on our document and aerial photograph reviews, and our observations during field work, there is no data within the available body of information suggesting the presence of landslide deposits within the Romeria Pointe property. In addition, the Romeria Pointe property does not contain high groundwater conditions nor young, unconsolidated deposits that could contribute to earthquake-induced liquefaction and associated secondary hazards (i.e., dynamic settlement, lateral spreading, etc.). Based on our site specific work, it remains our opinion that the most significant geotechnical factors within the Romeria Pointe property that could contribute to land instability include settlement of the existing fill, placed during original grading of the encompassing La Costa South, Unit No. 5 subdivision in 1970, and the potential surficial instability of the existing 1 ½: 1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) fill slopes within the Romeria Pointe property. However, the recommendations for foundation support using cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles and the BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 3 ( slope regrading, outlined in GSI (2017), will provide appropriate mitigation. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the proposed Romeria Pointe development will not create an impact of land instability. The standard of care is to develop engineering mitigation to reasonably support adjacent properties during construction. Provided that our recommendations for shoring, CIDH pile foundations, and existing slope regrading are properly incorporated into the project plans and implemented during construction, it is our opinion that the Romeria Pointe project will not induce land instability on adjacent properties. Issue No. 2 -"Slippage" (Appellant Terminology) The potential for the Romeria Pointe project to induce further "slippage" on the adjacent Villa Romeria Property was an issue raised by project appellants, public commentators, and City Council Members at the City Council hearing. GSI Response Based on oral statements provided by Villa Romeria property owners at the hearing and our review of readily available existing geotechnical reports (CEA; 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c), and engineering documents (Helfrich-Associates; 2014a, 2014b, 2014c), GSI understands that in 1998 and 2014, the existing condominium structure at the Villa Romeria property received foundation underpinning and re-leveling through the installation of hydraulically driven pipe piles to address adverse soil movement and associated structural distress. If properly implemented, this type of repair can mitigate structural distress if the cause is singularly related to settlement. However, it may not be an appropriate remedial measure for lateral movement or shrink/swell of expansive soils. Investigative techniques such as subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and monitoring were not conducted by CEA during their 1996 evaluation of the structural distress (CEA, 1996). However, based on site observations and a floor-level survey they concluded that the possible contributors of the observed distress features might include expansive soils, slope creep or some drift of the "curb" [crib(sic)] wall behind 7553 Romeria Street, lateral fill extension, and/or fill settlement due to differential compressibility in a cut/fill transition lot. CEA also mentioned that structural distress could be attributed to slope instability but indicated that additional exploratory work would be required to state with any certainty that this phenomena was present. GSI did not review any follow-up subsurface work by CEA to evaluate slope instability. The 2014 engineering evaluation performed by Helfrich-Associates (Helfrich-Associates, 2014c) was less comprehensive than the 1996 study performed by CEA. In addition, Helfrich-Associates offered no substantive conclusions as to the causes of the structural distress. It appears they repeated similar mitigation implemented by CEA in 1998. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 4 ( GSI is unaware of any post-repair monitoring studies performed within the Villa Romeria property following both of the foundation retrofit projects. Given this and the level of geotechnical subsurface evaluation prior to the twice-performed mitigation projects, the effectiveness of the repairs is currently unknown. Based on our review of the readily available background geotechnical information for the Villa Romeria property (see Appendix D), there appears to be a recurring pattern of implementing mitigation without performing subsurface studies needed to develop any understanding of the causes of distress and the adequacy of the repair. ( In summary, it is our opinion that the Romeria Pointe project will not induce "slippage" on the Villa Romeria property for the following reasons: •The Romeria Pointe property will be located down-gradient from the Villa Romeriaproperty. Therefore, it will not surcharge the Villa Romeria property nor direct surface drainage toward the Villa Romeria property that could adversely affect the performance of the existing fill soils nor induce activity on expansive soils thereon. •Although the Romeria Pointe project requires planned excavations of approximately1 O½ feet near the northerly property line of Villa Romeria, temporary shoring and permanent retaining walls will be designed to support the adjacent fill along the Villa Romeria property boundary. The pre-construction surveys and the monitoring ofexcavations, and shoring, recommended in GSI (2017), would further reduce potential impacts to the Villa Romeria property. •The Romeria Pointe project involves the construction of impervious areas (i.e.,buildings, pavements, hardscape, etc.) with permanent stormwater treatment and disposal occurring in a contained system that includes impermeable membranes and piping intended to reduce the introduction of moisture into the existing,expansive fills and the descending slopes. •The Romeria Pointe project includes CIDH piles for support of the proposed buildings and site retaining walls. The piles will transfer loads through the existingfill and into the underlying sedimentary bedrock. This will reduce loading of theexisting fills and the slopes that descend from the Romeria Pointe property, as wellas the existing crib wall adjacent to the Villa Romeria condominium building, and the existing retaining wall on the westerly adjacent property. •The existing 1 ½:1 (h:v) fill slopes at the westerly, northerly, and northeasterly margins of the Romeria Pointe property will be reconstructed at 2: 1 (h:v) gradientsand reinforced with geogrids to improve surficial stability. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 5 Issue No. 3 -Location of the Romeria Pointe Property within an Area Prone to Land Movement (Appellant Statement) Several project appellants and public commentators, and the City Council expressed concern about past land movement in the area surrounding the Romeria Pointe property, specifically pointing out the slope failure that occurred above the Marbella property in 2005. GSI Response A direct comparison between the overall stability of the Marbella and Romeria Pointe properties cannot be made. The Marbella property is located several thousands of feet to the west of the Romeria Pointe property and is underlain by a different, and relatively weaker sedimentary unit (Kennedy and Tan, 2007). In addition, Tan and Giffen (1995) indicate that the Marbella property has higher susceptibility to landslides than the Romeria Pointe property. Moreover, L&A (1992) assign a more onerous Land-Use Capability rating to the Marbella property, as compared to the Romeria Pointe property. Lastly, GSI found no evidence of deep-seated slope instability within the Romeria Pointe property during our literature and map reviews nor during our site-specific field work. Please refer to our response to Issue No. 1 regarding other types of land movement. Issue No. 4 -Reduced Service Life of Sidewalks (Appellant Statement) There were concerns voiced by project appellants, public commentators, and some City Council Members regarding the discussion of a reduced service life of walkways and sidewalks in GSI (2017 and 201 Bb). GSI Response Sidewalks are considered ancillary site improvements, which on residential projects, are not held to the same performance standards as buildings, because distress to such from soil deformations do not constitute a site stability issue. When considering the performance of sidewalks throughout Carlsbad, an inventory of hundreds of examples of distressed sidewalks, caused by settlement, creep, expansive soils, and root intrusion, could be produced. Remedial measures could be implemented as part of any proposed sidewalk/walkway construction, associated with the Romeria Pointe project, to reasonably extend their service life, depending on the owners/developers' tolerances for distress. Curbs and sidewalks would also be built to "Greenbook"/City of Carlsbad standards within the public right-of-way. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 6 { • ( ( ( ( Issue No. 5 -Increased Building Height From 3 to 4 Stories Several project appellants and some City Council members expressed concern regarding a difference between the number of building stories shown on the development plans and those described in the 2017 geotechnical update report (GSI, 2017). GSI Response When GSI prepared our 2017 geotechnical update report, the Romeria Pointe apartment buildings were proposed as two-(2-) to three-(3-) story structures. Following the issuance of this report, the proposed building heights were raised up to four (4) stories. This change in building height does not fundamentally alter our conclusions and recommendations for the Romeria Pointe project, since CIDH piles have been used to support much taller buildings, including mid-rise structures as well as larger heavier structures, such as bridges and public facilities. As with all projects that incorporate CIDH piles, the structural capacity of the piles will be further evaluated during the preparation of project construction documents to ensure that the pile design is adequate to support the vertical and lateral loading conditions. Issue No. 6 -Quality of Soil Within the Romeria Pointe Property Requiring Unusual Pile Supports (Appellant Statement) Several public commentators and some City Council Members expressed their opinion that using CIDH piles for support of the proposed Romeria Pointe apartment buildings and site retaining walls was an unusual form of engineering mitigation. GSI Response Remedial earthwork, involving the removal and recompaction of low-density soils to control settlement, is commonly used for hillside development within the City of Carlsbad when there is a relatively thin cover of potentially compressible soils overlying bedrock materials, and when there is sufficient space within a property to conduct excavation and to stockpile the excavated earth materials. However, potentially compressible earth materials within the Romeria Pointe property extend to depths as great as 35 feet below the existing grade. Because of this condition and the limited space available within the Romeria Pointe property for deep remedial excavations, full-depth remedial grading would require extensive shoring with lateral restraining elements (tiebacks) that would extend onto neighboring property at some locations, and would likely not be approved by the City of Carlsbad. In addition, if there is insufficient space to temporarily stockpile the excavated materials while the remedial excavation(s) progress, the soil would need to be hauled away from the site and brought to a temporary storage yard, and then delivered back to the site when the remedial excavation is ready to receive backfill. Alternatively, the excavated materials would be exported to another construction site, requiring that the backfill soils be imported from other construction sites or quarries. Thus, full-depth remedial grading may not be practical from both logistical and financial perspectives. It also may not meet BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 7 .. "Green" building standards. As such, it would be "unusual" for the owner/developer to implement this type of mitigation at the Romeria Pointe site. In-situ ground improvement techniques, such as compaction grouting and dynamic deep compaction are other forms of treatment for thick unsuitable soil conditions, but are not considered appropriate for the Romeria Pointe site. Compaction grouting of clayey or fine-graited fill soils may not be practical and may increase lateral pressures on adjacent slopes. This could damage adjacent, offsite improvements or reduce the effectiveness of the mitigation. The vibrations created by dynamic deep compaction could damage the nearby properties. CIDH 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. This type of remedial measure is less invasive than full-depth remedial grading and will provide adequate support of the proposed buildings and the site retaining walls. In summary, it is common building industry practice to use CIDH piles for building support. As such, this mitigation measure should not be viewed as unusual. In fact, the currently proposed pile foundations and pile-supported shoring are often implemented for in-fill type projects and considered appropriate for the Romeria Pointe project. LIMITATIONS Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this project. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 8 ( a • ( ( ( ( The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. GeoSoils, Inc. !�hmerProject Geologist RBB/JPF/ATG/jh Attachments: Distribution: Appendix A -References Appendix B -June 11, 2019 City of Carlsbad Council Hearing Minutes and Mr. John Allen's Notes Appendix C -Geotechnical Background Summary for Romeria Pointe Appendix D -Geotechnical Background Summary for Villa Romeria (2)Addressee (wet signed)(1)Streamline Development, Attention: Mr. John Allen (via email) BNR Investment and Development, LLC. Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 7297-A3-SC November 20, 2019 Page 9 Respectfully submi bJ;,tlJ. Engineering Geologi - /, { l ;J ed ~\ ~ew~~elli Geotechnical Engineer, ( ( APPENDIX A REFERENCES GeoSoils, Inc. ) ( APPENDIX A REFERENCES Benton Engineering, Inc., 1970, Project no. 70-1-50, County permit no. L5548, final report on compacted ground, Lots 330 to 382, inclusive, Lots 389 to 394, inclusive, Lots 400 to 410, inclusive, certain street areas of La Costa South Unit No. 5, also certain offsite areas adjacent to Lots 368 to 370, inclusive and Lots 377 to 379, inclusive, San Diego County, California, dated October 19. __ , 1969, Project no. 69-9-8C, preliminary soils investigation, La Costa South Unit Nos. 5, 6 and 7, east of the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real, San Diego County, California, dated November 7. California Building Standards Commission, 2016, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, based on the 2015 International Building Code, 2016 California Historical Building code, Title 24, Part 8, 2016 California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10, and the 2015 International Existing Building Code. Catlin and Company, Inc., 1984a, Project no. 20C6O(6), Addendum to report of compacted filled ground, proposed 5 unit condominium project, east [sic] side of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, dated November 30. __ , 1984b, Project no. 20C6D(5), report of compacted filled ground, proposed 5 unit condominium project, east [sic] side of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, dated August 20. __ , 1984c, Project no. 20C6O(2), second addendum to report of soils investigation, proposed 5 unit condominium, east [sic] side of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, City of Carlsbad project no. PE2.8421, drawing no. 240-2, dated June 26. __ , 1984d, Project no. 20C6D(1), addendum to report of soils investigation, proposed 5 unit condominium, east [sic] side of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, dated February 2. __ , Project no. 20C6D, report of soils investigation, proposed 5 unit condominium, west side of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, dated December 21 Catlin Engineering Associates, Inc., 1998a, Project no. 1147H1C, relocation of small diameter piles, 7551-7559 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, California, dated July 23. GeoSoils, Inc. ( ( ( __ , 1984b, Project no. 1147H1C, Rehabilitation of residence, 7551-7559Romeria Street, Carlsbad, California, dated July 20. __ , 1998c, Project no. 114 7H 1 C, Rehabilitation of residence, 7551-7559 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, California, dated February 9. __ , 1996, Project no. 1147H1 C, limited site and structural investigation and manometer survey, existing residential unit site, 7551-7559 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, California, dated October 7. East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., 2001, Limited site investigation, Proposed 4-unit townhouse, Southwest corner of Gibraltar Street and Romeria Street, City of Carlsbad, California, Project no. 01-1147H1, dated May 10. Eisenberg, LI., 1983, Pleistocene marine terrace and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe quadrangles, plate 3 of 3, scale: 1 inch = 2,200 feet; On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, Abbot, P .L. ed., dated April 13, 1985, by San Diego Association of Geologists. GeoSoils, Inc., 2018a, Geotechnical response to City of Carlsbad review comments dated October 19, 2018, Romeria Pointe Apartments, 7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92009, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12 & -13, City of Carlsbad Project No.: SDP2018-0004, W.O. 7297-A2-SC, dated December 6. __ , 2018b, Geotechnical review of title sheet and preliminary grading plans for: Romeria Pointe, 7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92009, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12 & -13, W.O. 7297-A1-SC, dated September 12. __ , 2017, Geotechnical update evaluation, Romeria Pointe, multi-family residential development, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12 & -13, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 7297-A-SC, dated November 21. __ , 2007a, Final geotechnical reviewof foundation (drilled pier and post-tensioned slab) plans, notes, and details, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A6-SC, dated November 14. __ , 2007b, Geotechnical review of structural plans, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A4-SC, dated February 22. __ , 2006a, Memorandum: General discussion of recent cone penetration tests, Building A, Romeria Point, Carlsbad, California, W.O. 4460-A3-SC, dated October 13. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix A Page 2 ( __ , 2006b, Revised geotechnical review of grading, post-tension foundation, and structural plans, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A3-SC, dated July 26. __ , 2006c, Geotechnical review of grading, post-tension foundation, and structural plans, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A3-SC, dated July 21. __ , 2005, Geotechnical review of post-tension foundation and structural plans, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A 1-SC, dated March 8. __ , 2004, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Romeria Pointe, APNs 216-300-12 and -13, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A-SC, dated September 27. Helfrich-Associates, 2014a, Completion report, foundation stabilization, project no. 140419, Sue Ortman property, 7551 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, CA 92009, dated June 17. __ , 2014b, Foundation repair plan, 7551 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, CA 92009, 6sheets, no scale, dated May 1. , 2014c, Foundation stabilization recommendations, Sue Ortman property, 7551 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, CA 92009, project no. 140419, dated May 1. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, SS., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' by 60' quadrangle, California, regional map series, scale 1: 100,000, California Geologic Survey and United States Geological Survey, www.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs/rghm/rgm/preliminary _geologic_ maps.html Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1992, City of Carlsbad geotechnical hazards analysis and mapping study, Carlsbad, California, 115 sheets, scale: 1 inch = 400 feet, dated November. Neuendorf, K.K.E., Mehl, J.P. Jr, and Jackson, J.A., eds, 2005, Glossary of geology, fifth edition, American Geological Institute, Alexandria, Virginia. MLB Engineering, 2019, Preliminary grading plan for: Romeria Pointe, 7527 Romeria Street, APN 216-300-12 & -13, 3 sheets, various scales dated January 9. Park Aerial Surveys, Inc., 1953, Stereoscopic aerial photographs, flight: AXN-8M, frame nos.: 17 and 18, dated April 11. Rick Engineering Company, 1970, Grading plans for: La Costa South, Unit No. 5, sheet 3 of 5, 40-scale, County of San Diego Grading Permit No.: L 5548, revision dated March 27. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoals, Inc. Appendix A Page 3 ) ( Soil Pacific Inc., 2003, Addendum report and clarification letter, proposed nine unit condominium, Lots 392 and 393 of [La] Costa South, Unit no. 5, City of Carlsbad, California, Project no. A-2452-03, dated August 25. Tan, S.S. and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the San Diego metropolitan area, San Diego County, California, DMG open file report 95-04, landslide hazard identification map no. 35, relative landslide susceptibility and landslide distribution map, plate 35E, 1 :24,000 scale. Vinje and Middleton Engineering, Inc., 2000, As-graded compaction report and foundation recommendations for proposed 11 unit condominium project, City of Carlsbad drawing #377-4A, project #CT 98-08, located off Romeria Street, job no.: 99-317-F, dated December 6. __ , 1998, Preliminary geotechnical investigation, proposed 11-unit condominium project, Lots 387 & 388 of La Costa South Unit No. 5, City of Carlsbad, California, job no.: 98-255-P, dated July 17. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoS01ls, Inc.Appendix A Page 4 ) ) ( ( APPENDIX B JUNE 11, 2019 CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL HEARING MINUTES AND MR. JOHN ALLEN'S NOTES GeoSoils, Inc. ) ( ( ( 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 CarriJJo 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. Minutes ( ( 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) ( ( ( ( June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 3 9.AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH DELTAWRX, 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 computeraided 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 AGREEMENT 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 andinspection services for the Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station, Vista/Carlsbad interceptor sewer reaches VC118-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 theagreement 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 VC118-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 theResolution. 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. June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page4 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) ( ( 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 �he 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 Tem Bhat-Patel, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to adopt Resolution No. 2019-084. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. • ( l ( ( 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 thepurpose 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.) ,,, ( June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 7 17.PRESENTATION ON TRAFFIC CONTROL TRAFFIC CALMING AND TRAFFIC SAFElY-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 havethem 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 Tem 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 Trailhead to the roundabout at State Street. Motion carried unanimously, 5/0. 18.DISCUSSION OF THE COUNlY OF SAN DIEGO'S MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF A CllY 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 ( ( ( June 11, 2019 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page8 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). ( ( .. ( 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 ( ( 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 ( MR. JOHN ALLEN'S NOTES FROM THE JUNE 11, 2019 CITY COUNCIL HEARING GeoSoils, Inc. ( ( Geotechnical Concerns Appellant •Proven instability of the land of this area •Slippage and land movement to the south •This is prone to land movement •Sidewalks and driveways will have to be replaced within 3 years of development •3 stories, not 4, is stated in the report •Concerned for the building to the south will be compromised •Quality of the soil is not adequate to hold the buildings, and it is unusual to have piles supporting the buildings according to the engineer Public •Jason Stevenson, Geologist o Geologist speaker said 3 stories, not 4 stories o Adjacent to the South tenant, discussed the slippage that occurred in 2015 o Discussed Marbella disaster •Beth Citrano o 3 stories in report, not 4 stories o Periodic replacement of sidewalks and driveways, that may cause trip hazards within 1 year following installation. This is a public safety risk •Lucille Lindsay o Slippage issue •Eileen Donovan o Next door with the slippage issues o Marbella was brought up Cori Schumacher •The extent of grading and geotechnical work means it is not environmentally benign •Reports don't seem to be taking into consideration the cumulative impacts •Categorical exemption shall not be used where there is a possibility that there will be a significant effect on the environment due to "unusual circumstances" Barbara Hamilton •Discussion regarding unusual circumstances, concerned about detrimental circumstances on surrounding properties •Issues with hardscaping around the property, that should be considered an unusual circumstance Keith Blackburn •Sidewalks and driveways with a short life span is an issue? .. .. • ( ( Priya Bhat-Patel •Movement of neighboring land was brought up •Asked about Marbella project •Geologist report was based on 3 stories, and not 4 stories Matt Hall •None \ ( ( ( APPENDIXC GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND SUMMARY FOR ROMERIA POINTE GeoSoils, Inc. ( ( APPENDIXC GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND SUMMARY FOR ROMERIA POINTE The Romeria Pointe property consists of Lots 392 and 393 of the La Costa South, Unit No. 5 subdivision. According to the original grading plans, prepared by Rick Engineering Company ([REC], 1970 [see Appendix A]), prior to grading, the Romeria Pointe property was situated upon a north-facing slope that descended from highlands to the south to the San Marcos Creek floodplain to the north. A relatively deeply incised, generally northwesterly trending natural, albeit slightly anthropogenically modified drainage course, transected the southwesterly corner of Lot 392 and continued through the adjacent westerly property. The up-gradient portion of this drainage course nearly bisected the adjacent southerly Lots 390 and 391 (the Villa Romeria property reported by some appellants and public commentators to have undergone "slippage" as recent as 2014). REC (1970) shows that cut and fill grading was required to bring the Romeria Pointe property to its current grades. Maximum planned cuts and fills were on the order of 5 feet and 22 feet, respectively. Grading also included the construction of manufactured slopes with heights up to approximately 20 feet and gradients of 1 ½:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]). Prior to original grading, which occurred in 1970, the geotechnical conditions within the La Costa South, Unit No. 5 subdivision were investigated by Benton Engineering, Inc. ([BEi], 1969). Based on the subsurface and laboratory data BEi compiled, it was concluded that the most significant geotechnical factors controlling site development included the occurrence of potentially compressible, loose surficial soils and porous alluvial deposits, and the presence of expansive soils. BEi made no statement regarding deep-seated instability or landslide issues associated with the subdivision. During original grading, BEi performed geotechnical observations and field density testing as the original ground was prepared and compacted fills were placed. As indicated in their "Final Report on Compacted Filled Ground" (BEi, 1970), BEi performed 1 O compaction tests on Lot 392 and 5 compaction tests on Lot 393. BEi (1970) stated that the depth of fill on Lots 392 and 393 was 33 feet and 20 feet, respectively. The differences between the planned fill thickness on the original grading plan and the as-built fill thicknesses reported in BEi (1970) suggest that up to 11 feet of the former surficial soils were removed and recompacted. GSI began investigating the Romeria Pointe project site in August 2004 for a previously proposed multi-family development project. Our initial study (GSI, 2004) included a review of a subsurface and laboratory data that was previously collected by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc. ([ECSC&E], 2001) and by Soil Pacific, Inc. ([SPI], 2003). Due to very limited exploratory subsurface work conducted by ECSC&E and SPI, GSI performed supplemental subsurface investigation by advancing and down-hole logging two (2) large-diameter borings. The primary intent of our field work was to evaluate the approximately 34-year old fill materials, and to check for indications of ( instability. GeoSoils, Inc. ( Down-hole logging, is a subsurface investigative technique commonly performed when slope instability is a concern. It involves lowering a geologist or engineer down a large-diameter boring so that a continuous log of the geologic conditions and structures therein can be prepared. Based on our review of earlier site-specific geotechnical studies, and the subsurface and laboratory data acquired during our initial site work, it was concluded that the existing fill materials were not suitable for support of the proposed improvements; the onsite soils exhibited moderate expansion potential; and the existing 1 ½:1 (h:v) fill slopes retained a potential for surficial instability in their current condition. Remedial earthwork or supporting the proposed buildings on cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles was recommended to address concerns regarding the ·settlement potential of the existing fill materials. In addition, post-tension and mat slabs were recommended for the mitigation of the expansive soil conditions. Lastly, removing and replacing the outer 1 0 feet of the existing fill slopes with geogrid-reinforced fills were recommended to enhance surficial stability. In 2006, GSI advanced 5 cone penetration test (CPT) soundings to supplement the previous geotechnical work on the Romeria Pointe site. The purpose of this study was to further evaluate the thickness of the existing fill materials within the property to assist with construction cost estimating. GSI performed a geotechnical update evaluation of the Romeria Pointe property in 2017 relative to a formerly proposed development plan, which included the construction of two (2), three-story apartment buildings. This study included reviews of the existing, site-specific geotechnical data, updated site seismicity, and the preparation of a summary report (GSI, 2017). In GSI (2017), three (3) different alternative earthwork and foundation support scenarios were recommended, and the advantages and disadvantages of each measure were discussed. These alternatives included: 1) the complete removal and recompaction of the earth materials considered unsuitable for supporting the proposed improvements; 2) the limited removal and recompaction of the unsuitable earth materials and the utilization of CIDH piles for support of the proposed buildings and site retaining walls; and 3) the limited removal and recompaction of the unsuitable earth materials, the utilization of CIDH piles for support of portions of the proposed buildings and the site retaining walls located near the descending slopes, and the use of vibro piers for supporting the proposed improvements not subjected to lateral loads. The recommendations for enhancing the surficial stability of the descending slopes and for the mitigation of expansive soils were generally similar to those previously included in GSI (2004). Currently, GSI understands that the project team is pursuing the limited earthwork and CIDH pile foundation support alternative. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. _ File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoals, Inc. Appendix C Page 2 ( ( ( ( APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND SUMMARY FOR VILLA ROMERIA GeoSoils, Inc. ( APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND SUMMARY FOR VILLA ROMERIA Based on our review, the Villa Romeria property consists of Lots 391 and 392 of the La Costa South, Unit No. 5 subdivision (REC, 1970). According to REC (1970), cut and fill grading was necessary to achieve the former design grades with maximum planned cuts and fills on the order of 1 foot and 31 feet, respectively. Original rough grading of the Villa Romeria property was completed nearly simultaneous with the Romeria Pointe property (BEi, 1970). According to BEi (1970), approximately 40 to 41 feet of compacted fill was placed within the Villa Romeria Property during the original phase of site grading, with the deepest fills likely occurring within the former northerly trending, anthropogenically modified natural drainage course that transected the westerly margin of the property. A comparison of the original as-graded conditions reported in BEi (1970) versus the original planned grading shown on REC (1970) suggests that up to 10 feet of remedial excavation was performed during this phase of rough grading. Beginning in 1983, C&C investigated the Villa Romeria property for a proposed 5-unit condominium project (C&C, 1983). For this study, C&C reviewed BEi (1970), performed surficial mapping, and subsurface exploration consisting of the continuous logging of three (3) test pits excavated to depths of 9 to 12 feet below the (pre-)existing ground surface with a backhoe. C&C also performed laboratory testing of soil samples collected during their field work. Through their work, C&C found that the Villa Romeria property contained a significant amount of silty clay fill with some cobble at depth, that they concluded was properly placed and compacted, based on their laboratory tests and review of BEi (1970), with the exception of undocumented fills that extended to depths ranging between 6½ and 9 feet below the (pre-)existing ground surface. C&C also discovered erosion on some of the slopes descending from the property and a large surficial slump on the westerly facing slope, in the vicinity of the two southwesterly condominium units. In addition, expansion testing performed on collected soil samples indicated the presence of "critically expansive" soils. C&C did not encounter the presence of groundwater during their investigation. It is not clear from the C&C (1983) report if they encountered the formational earth materials underlying the existing fill soils. Based on our review of the locations and depths of C&C's test pits relative to the planned grading shown on REC (1970), it is unlikely they did. Therefore, it is unknown if the original remedial excavations, conducted under the supervision of BEi (1970), included the removal and recompaction of the pre-existing low-density soils as well as keying and benching during slope construction. Based on the their findings, C&C recommended the following: •Removal and recompaction of any undocumented fills if located below the design grades for traffic areas or buildings supported by shallow foundations; GeoSoils, Inc. ) , ( •Scarifying (ripping) and recompacting the natural ground within 5 horizontal feet of the building foundation lines to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottom of the foundations or concrete slab, where constructed partly in cut and partly in fill; •Using non-expansive soils in the upper 3 to 4 feet below proposed finish grade elevations or implementing a program that combines subgrade pre-moistening with more onerous structural design of foundations and slabs-on-grade; •Designing foundations supported by properly compacted fill or dense naturalground for settlements estimated to be on the order of ½-inch; •Constructing cut and fill slopes up to 1 O feet high at 2: 1 (h:v) gradients with additional evaluation warranted for higher or steeper slopes or systems intendedto support slopes; •Foundation setbacks from slopes equivalent to H/3 plus 5 feet (maximum 40-foot setback), where "H" equals the slope height and the use deepened footings that maintain minimum depths of 1.50 and 20 for foundations adjacent to slopes with 1.5: 1 (h:v) and 2:1 (h:v) gradients, respectively, where "D" equals the horizontal encroachment distance; •Designing deepened footings for additional lateral pressures where constructed on or near slopes; •Embedding footings constructed at the toe of slopes at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent level grade; and •Keying and benching when placing compacting fills on slopes steeper than a 1 O percent grade. In early 1984, C&C performed slope stability analysis to evaluate the factor-of-safety (FOS) against global rotational slope failure for a 20-foot high crib retaining wall (crib wall), proposed to be constructed at the westerly end of the Villa Romeria property (C&C, 1984d). Based on their analysis, C&C calculated an FOS of 2.8 against global rotational slope failure. In addition to summarizing their analysis, C&C noted that some of the proposed structures were too close to the top of the slope or property line to provide for their recommended 5-foot clearance from the foundation line to the invert of the drainage swale. To that end C&C recommended that the gradient of the swale be modified to a fall of three (3) percent with a two (2) percent gradient for all other unlined drainage swales. C&C also indicated that it may be necessary to add inlets and underground drain pipes if their recommended steeper gradient for the drainage swale made it impractical to convey runoff at the surface. In addition, C&C recommended that the toe of the crib wall be embedded at least 1 foot below the level of the existing terrace or at elevation 72.0 feet (unknown datum). BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoals, Inc. Appendix D Page 2 ( ( ( In June 1984, C&C provided alternative recommendations for surface drainage at the north side of the Villa Romeria project where their previously recommended three (3) percent slope for a surface drainage swale would make construction and maintenance difficult (C&C, 1984c). These recommendations included constructing the swale at a gradient of at least one (1) percent. However, C&C warned that "normal groundskeeping practices" would probably result in ponding. To that end, C&C recommended the construction of a trench drain in the areas where a three (3) percent slope could not be maintained in the surface drainage swale. In order to reduce the potential for the migration of fines into the filter medium of the trench drain, C&C recommended the use of clean sand for filter material. In August 1984, C&C prepared a compaction report summarizing their observation and testing services during grading of the Villa Romeria property, which occurred between July 16 and August 17, 1984 (C&C, 1984b). As reported in C&C (1984b), the observations and results of compaction testing indicated that the fill soils placed within the Villa Romeria property were compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. C&C concluded that the compacted fill soil would support the proposed condominium structure without detrimental settlement provided that the foundations and concrete slabs were setback at least 5 feet from the top of slopes or deepened such that the minimum horizontal distance between the bottom, outboard edges of the footings and concrete slabs, and the face of the descending slope was 5 feet. Because some of the fill soils placed during grading were considered "critically expansive," C&C recommended that the developer pre-moisten the upper 3 feet of subgrade soils to 1 to 4 percent above their optimum moisture content and utilize more onerous structural design for foundations and slabs-on-grade. C&C also recommended that surface drainage be controlled and maintained such that it would be directed away from foundations and tops of slopes, toward the street or drainage facilities without intermediate ponding. Lastly, in capital letters at the end of C&C (1984b), there is an admonishment regarding the lack of records pertaining to the repair of a damaged structural member within the crib wall along the westerly side of the Villa Romeria property that C&C reported and depicted in an August 3, 1984 letter (letter not available for GSI review). Accordingly, C&C expressed that they were greatly concerned about the long-term stability of this wall. C&C prepared a compaction report for a second phase of grading that occurred in late 1984 (C&C, 1984a) that chiefly involved the backfill of a site retaining wall, located west of Romeria Street and north of La Costa Avenue. As stated therein, the results of their compaction tests and observations indicated that the fill placed behind the retaining wall was compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. C&C recommended that surface drainage be controlled and maintained such that it was directed away from foundations and tops of slopes, toward the street or drainage facilities without intermediate ponding. There was no mention of any repairs of the damaged crib wall in C&C (1984a). In addition, GSI was not provided with any subsequent observation and testing documents by C&C regarding the repair of the damaged crib wall nor the implementation of their recommendations regarding foundation setbacks and the mitigation of expansive soils. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoS01ls, Inc.Appendix D Page 3 ( { In September 1996, Catlin Engineering Associates, Inc. (CEA) conducted a limited site and structural investigation of the Villa Romeria property, including a floor-level survey with a manometer (CEA, 1996). The intent of CEA's investigation was to evaluate the structural integrity of the condominium structure, its appurtenances, and the overall site from readily observable evidence, verbal and written information they were given, and their "engineering judgement." Subsurface and geologic investigations of the property were not undertaken. Rather, CEA documented the surficial site conditions and distress features (i.e., cracks) observed in the interior walls, ceilings, and slab-on-grade floors at 7553 and 7555 Romeria Street. CEA also checked doors for operability. Their partial floor-level survey within the aforementioned addresses revealed as much as a 4-inch elevation differential across 7553 Romeria Street and an approximate 3-inch elevation differential across 7555 Romeria Street. At the exterior of 7555 Romeria Street, CEA found that the slab at the rear of the unit apparently had settled as much as 1 inch in relation to the adjacent storage sheds. Cracks were apparent at the exterior of the storage shed associated with 7555 Romeria Street. Other observations by CEA included the presence of eave gutters to drain roofs with downspouts that generally directed drainage water into the streets. Surface drainage in the yard areas appeared to be well maintained. Based on their limited review, CEA concluded that the possible contributors to the observed distress could include expansive soils, slope creep or some drift of the curb [crib] wall behind 7553 Romeria Street, lateral fill extension, and/or fill settlement due to differential compressibility in a cut/fill transition lot. Although slope instability was mentioned in their conclusions, CEA indicated that additional exploratory work would be required to state with any certainty that this phenomena was responsible for the observed distress. However, CEA indicated that the closest landslide to the Villa Romeria property was approximately ¼-mile to the west, on La Costa Avenue. CEA identified typical mitigation measures including small-diameter pipe piles or pin piles, CIDH piles, driven conventional piles, compaction grouting, and sister footings, and described the advantages and disadvantages of some of the aforementioned techniques. CEA also offered recommendations for repairing cracks in slab-on-grade floors and dry walls, and landscaping and drainage procedures. Based on our review of structural calculations and associated drawings prepared by CEA (CEA, 1998c), GSI understands that the perimeter footing along the northwesterly side of the Villa Romeria condominium building was underpinned and re-leveled using hydraulically driven small-diameter pipe piles. In their February 9, 1998 report (CEA, 1998c), CEA stated that they inspected the Villa Romeria condominium and grounds, and based on their rev�ew of available topographic and soils data, their thorough inspection, as well as reviews of their floor-level survey data and their contract proposal, it was their "judgement" that the soils beneath the Villa Romeria condominium building would not experience detrimental lateral movement. In CEA (1998c), CEA also stated that BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSolls, Inc. Appendix D Page 4 ( ( ( they would submit another letter certifying that the piles were driven to the specified capacity, upon completion of the pile driving. On July 20, 1998, CEA prepared a letter stating that the small-diameter piles were driven to the specified capacity or greater, and that all work requiring special inspection had been completed in accordance with the permit requirements (CEA, 1998b). Shortly thereafter, CEA prepared another letter (CEA, 1998a) stating that following issuance of the permit for the foundation repair by the City of Carlsbad, they received construction drawings for the Villa Romeria property showing thatthe continuous foundations were well reinforced. To that end CEA stated that they repositioned the pile caps during repair construction to take advantage of the stronger foundation, and recommended that the City of Carlsbad accept the modified design. Based on statements provided by appellants during the June 11 , 2019 City of Carlsbad City Council hearing and in various emails entered into the public record, GSI understands that the Villa Romeria unit located at 7551 Romeria Street required foundation repair in 2014. There was mention in some of the project appellant emails entered into the public record for the Romeria Pointe project that American Geotechnical, Inc. (AGI) performed an evaluation of the Villa Romeria property prior to the repair work. GSI requested the summary report of AG l's study from the City of Carlsbad. However, it was not included in their files. According to Mr. Allen, based on his personal communication with Mr. Steve Helfrich of Helfrich-Associates, which was the consultant-of-record for the 2014 foundation retrofit, AGI conducted a very limited investigation of the Villa Romeria property. We understand from Mr. Allen that AGI researched site geology, described the distress features, performed a floor-level survey, and oversaw a leak test. Mr. Allen stated that according to Mr. Helfrich, the existing geotechnical reports by C&C and CEA were the geotechnical basis of design for the 2014 foundation retrofit. It should be acknowledged that GSI reserves the right to review any AGI document for the Villa Romeria property to evaluate the appellants' claims regarding "slippage" and/or slope instability. Plans showing the 2014 foundation repair at the Villa Romeria property were prepared by Helfrich-Associates (Helfrich-Associates, 2014b) . The plans included a floor-level survey performed at the 7551 Romeria Street address showing an elevation differential of 1. 7 feet over a horizontal distance of approximately 33 feet with an overall decrease in floor elevations toward the northeasterly corner of this unit. For the repair, Helfrich-Associates (2014b) showed the installation of seven (7) hydraulically driven, small-diameter piles along the northerly side of 7551 Romeria Street and two (2) similar piles along the northwesterly side of this residence. The intent of the piles was to transfer building loads through the existing fill soils into the underlying formational materials, while re-leveling the residential unit. Helfrich-Associates (2014b) also depicted the injection of a polyurethane foam introduced through ports drilled into the concrete floor slab to fill the voids created during the re-leveling process. Helfrich-Associates prepared a report providing recommendations and engineering calculations for the foundation retrofit (Helfrich-Associates, 2014c), and prepared a letter certifying the pile installation (Helfrich-Associates, 2014a). According to Helfrich-Associates (2014a), nine (9) resistance piles were advanced to encounter earth materials providing a minimum resistance of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) with final depths ranging between 7 and 37 feet. Helfrich-Associates (2014a) also indicated that the BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoSoals, Inc. Appendix D Page 5 ( ( ( affected parts of the foundations were lifted a maximum of 1 ½ inches. GSI has not been provided with any geotechnical reports that include monitoring of the installed foundation retrofit at the Villa Romeria property nor conclusions regarding its effectiveness. BNR Investment and Development, LLC. • File:e:\wp12\7200\7297a3.grt GeoS01ls, Inc. Appendix D Page 6 ( TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ROMERIA POINTE Carlsbad, California March 9, 2020 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Prepared by: Under the Supervision of: Roman Lopez Christopher Mendiara Transportation Planner II Associate Principal ATTACHMENT 7 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 T 858.300.8810 F www.llgengineers.com LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Romeria Pointe project (“Project”) proposes the construction of 23 multi-family dwelling units in two buildings. The Project site located on the west side of Romeria Street, north of La Costa Avenue, in the city of Carlsbad. The Project will be served by two (2) full-access unsignalized driveways to Romeria Street. The Project study area includes four (4) intersections, including the two (2) future project driveways and three (3) street segments. The transportation analyses for the Project were conducted in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The following scenarios are evaluated in this report: • Existing • Existing + Project • Existing + Cumulative • Existing + Cumulative + Project The gross Project trip generation was calculated using SANDAG’s Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). The Project is calculated to generate 138 ADT with 11 total AM peak hour trips (2 inbound/ 9 outbound) and 12 total PM peak hour trips (8 inbound/ 4 outbound). This report evaluated the effect of the Project on the Existing and Existing + Cumulative baselines using the two distinct analyses needed to meet requirements for both the City of Carlsbad Growth Management and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) was also conducted for Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street based on City guidelines. No significant Project impacts to vehicular queueing at signalized intersections were identified per City TIA guidelines (Growth Management) analysis, though the Project will make improvements to address deficiencies identified in multi-modal (MMLOS) analysis. No significant Project impacts were determined via regional SANTEC/ITE significance criteria LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Impact Analyses ..................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Analysis Approach & Methodology ......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Auto Analysis per City TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) ................................ 5 2.1.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology ..................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Roadway Segment Level of Service Methodology ................................................ 6 2.2 Auto Analysis per SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA) ....................................................... 7 2.2.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology ..................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Unsignalized Intersection Methodology ................................................................. 7 2.2.4 Roadway Segment Methodology ............................................................................ 8 2.3 Multimodal Level of Service Analysis ............................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Multi-Modal Facilities to be Included in Study Area ............................................. 9 2.3.2 Project Multi-Modal Study Area .......................................................................... 10 2.4 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................... 11 2.4.1 TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) ........................................................ 11 2.4.2 SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA Method) ......................................................... 12 3.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 15 3.1 Existing Street Network .................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Existing Transit Conditions .............................................................................................. 15 4.0 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................... 18 4.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 18 4.2 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Trip Assignment................................................................................................................ 18 5.0 Cumulative Conditions ............................................................................................................ 23 5.1 Cumulative Projects .......................................................................................................... 23 5.2 Network Conditions .......................................................................................................... 23 6.0 Analysis Per City TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) ......................................... 28 6.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 28 6.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 28 6.3 Analysis of Existing + Project Conditions ........................................................................ 28 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx iii 6.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions ................................................................ 29 6.5 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative + Project Conditions ................................................. 29 6.6 MMLOS Analysis ............................................................................................................. 30 6.7 TIA Guidelines – Findings and Conclusions .................................................................... 31 7.0 Analysis Per SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA) .................................................................. 32 7.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 32 7.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 32 7.2.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 32 7.2.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 32 7.3 Analysis of Existing + Project Conditions ........................................................................ 32 7.3.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 32 7.3.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 32 7.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions ................................................................ 35 7.4.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 35 7.4.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 35 7.5 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative + Project Conditions ................................................. 35 7.5.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 35 7.5.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 35 7.6 CEQA Method – Findings and Conclusions ..................................................................... 38 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx iv APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Intersection Analysis Methodology B. Existing Traffic Count Sheets C. MMLOS Results D. HCM Analysis Worksheets – Existing E. HCM Analysis Worksheets – Existing + Project F. HCM Analysis Worksheets – Existing + Cumulative G. HCM Analysis Worksheets – Existing + Cumulative + Project LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx v LIST OF FIGURES SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE Figure 1–1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1–2 Project Area Map ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 1–3 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2–1 MMLOS Study Area ..................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3–1 Existing Conditions Diagram ........................................................................................ 16 Figure 3–2 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 17 Figure 4–1 Project Traffic Distribution ........................................................................................... 20 Figure 4–2 Project Traffic Assignment ........................................................................................... 21 Figure 4–3 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. 22 Figure 5–1 Cumulative Projects Location Map .............................................................................. 24 Figure 5–2 Cumulative Projects Assignment .................................................................................. 25 Figure 5–3 Existing + Cumulative Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 26 Figure 5–4 Existing + Cumulative + Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 27 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx vi LIST OF TABLES SECTION—TABLE # PAGE Table 2–1 Multimodal Level of Service Criteria .................................................................................. 8 Table 2–2 MMLOS Point System & LOS Rating ................................................................................ 9 Table 2–3 Measure of Significant Project Traffic Impacts – Roadways Subject to the Vehicle MMLOS Standard...................................................................................................................... 12 Table 2–4 Traffic Impact Significant Thresholds ............................................................................... 13 Table 4–1 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................. 19 Table 5–1 Cumulative Projects List .................................................................................................... 23 Table 6–1 Existing Signalized Intersection Analysis ......................................................................... 28 Table 6–2 Signalized Intersection Analysis – Cumulative Conditions .............................................. 29 Table 6–3 MMLOS Analysis .............................................................................................................. 30 Table 7–1 Intersection Analysis – Existing Conditions ...................................................................... 33 Table 7–2 Existing + Project Segment Analysis ................................................................................ 34 Table 7–3 Intersection Analysis – Cumulative Conditions ................................................................ 36 Table 7–4 Cumulative Conditions Segment Analysis ........................................................................ 37 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 1 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ROMERIA POINTE Carlsbad, California March 9, 2020 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The Project proposes to construct 23-unit multi-family residential dwelling units. The Project site is located on the west side of Romeria Street between Gibraltar Street and La Costa Avenue in the City of Carlsbad. La Costa Avenue is the major east-west arterial serving the Project vicinity. Figure 1–1 shows the vicinity map. Figure 1–2 shows a more detailed Project area map. Figure 1–3 shows the Project site plan. 1.2 Project Impact Analyses Two distinct analyses are needed to meet requirements for City of Carlsbad Growth Management and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Both analyses are included in this traffic impact analysis. The Growth Management Plan analysis is based on the City of Carlsbad Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, which outlines evaluation of facilities based on their typologies, and it defines analysis methodologies, thresholds of significance, and other necessary considerations. Roadway segment analysis, signalized intersection analysis (queuing at turn lanes), and multimodal level of service (LOS) are included in this portion of the report. The CEQA Analysis is based on the Carlsbad historic use of thresholds of significance in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, March 2000. Facilities are evaluated based on Table 1 of the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines. For roadway segments analysis capacity is evaluated using the City of Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables. Intersection LOS is evaluated based on the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. No multi-modal analysis is required for this portion of the report. S.D.COUNTY CARLSBAD CORONADO ENCINITAS SOLANABEACH CHULA VISTA OCEANSIDE VISTA SAN MARCOS POWAY SANTEE EL CAJON LA MESA LEMONGROVE NATIONALCITY SAN DIEGO S.D. COUNTYS.D. COUNTY ESCONDIDO Time: 9:38 AMDate: 10/30/2019N:\3155\Figures Vicinity Map Figure 1-1 [ Romeria Pointe §¨8 §¨5 §¨805 §¨5 §¨15 §¨5 §¨8 "Ã54 "Ã125 "Ã94 "Ã52 "Ã163 "Ã56 "Ã78 "Ã67 §¨15 Project Site ■ . ii:HHIIIP Project Area MapFigure 1-2Romeria PointeN:\3155\FiguresDate: 10/28/19ProjectSite.. ~ G. cf .,oday◄•• McClellan-Palomar Airpon q The Flower Fields ' Palomar Altpo!\ R6 BRESSI RANCH Poinsettia Park Alga None Community Park 9 South Carlsbad State Beach Campground South Ponto Beach ~ ■ IIHl:iiiii Bat1qul10s Lagoon State Marine ►voara Pkwy Encinitas Ranch f Golf Course .tJ•Btvd I{' ✓ \ * 1' : 0t1v1nh.,n Rd 0 ~ lJonsl,e~d Av<! Lake San Marcos Son n OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO A-8031 A-80242 A-3214 A-321REAR SETBACKINTERIOR LOT SIDE SETBACKFR O NT S E TBA C KPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPR O P ER TY LIN E PROPERTY LINEDRIVEWAY ENTRYDRIVEWAY ENTRYAPPROX LOCATION OF WATER METERROMERIA STREETGIBRAL TAR STREETSIDE YARD SETBACK10' - 0"BUILDING ABUILDING B3 A-012238' - 8"67' TO NEXT CURB CUT3 A-3012 A-3011 A-3011 A-3012 A-311 A-80222 A-3121 A-3121 A-311 A-8042 A-8043 A-80114 A-01281' - 6"EXISTING PADS GRADED TO NEW LEVELS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT PER CMC 21.95.14020 PARKING SPACES WITHIN PODIUM PARKING. 3 STORIES OF TYPE-V CONSTRUCTION OVER TYPE-I PARKING LEVEL. (8)THREE BEDROOM UNITS AND (4)ONE BEDROOM UNITS, FOR A TOTAL OF 12 UNITS. (3) ONE BEDROOM UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE. 18,125 SF HABITABLE SPACE, OVER 9,360 SF OF PARKING GARAGE.21 PARKING SPACES WITHIN PODIUM PARKING. THREE STORIES OF TYPE-V CONSTRUCTION OVER TYPE-I PARKING LEVEL. (8)THREE BEDROOM UNITS AND (3)ONE BEDROOM UNITS, FOR A TOTAL OF 11 UNITS. 19,141 SF HABITABLE SPACE, OVER 9,375 SF OF PARKING GARAGE. NRAINWATER DETENTION AREAR AIN W A TE R D E TEN T ION AR EAPARKING LEVEL BELOW GRADEPARKING LEVEL EXPOSED STRUCTURE BEGINSBUILDING OVERHANGEXPOSED PARKING GARAGE BELOWPARKING GARAGE ABOVE GROUND ON NORTH SIDEPARKING GARAGE BELOW GRADE @ COURTYARD126.5' TO NEXT CURB CUT A-8041 A-8044 A-80321 A-3213 A-321MAILBOX LOCATIONMONUMENT. SEE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S PLANS FOR DETAILS. TO BE APPROVED BY A SEPARATE SIGN PERMIT3F-6012F-601LANDSCAPING PLANS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE. PLEASE REFER TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DRAWINGS FOR DETAILS.126.5' TO NEXT CURB CUTMETAL FENCE TYPICAL. 6' HIGHSEE CIVIL ENG. DRAWINGS FOR SREET AND SIDEWALK TYPICAL DETAILS.5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"182' - 7"SEE GRADING PLANS FOR ADJACENT TOPOGRAPHYSEE CIVIL ENG. DRAWINGS FOR SREET AND SIDEWALK TYPICAL DETAILS.6'4' - 0"6' - 0"20' - 0"30' - 0"20' - 0" 5' - 6"4 ' - 6 " 3 0 ' - 0 "ST RE ET PA RK INGSTREET PARKINGSTREET PARKINGSTREET PARKINGOVERHANGBUILDING OVERHANG1. ALL NOTES LABELED NOT IN PERMIPART OF THIS APPLICATION. 2. SOILS EXCAVATION, RECOMPACTIOGRADING TO FOLLOW PARAMETERSGEOLOGICAL REPORT/UPDATE PREGEOSOILS, INC. DATED APRIL 16, 203. ALL NEW GRADED SLOPES SHALL BTHAN 2H:1V 4. ALL SURFACE WATER MUST DRAIN BUILDING, A MINIMUM OF 5% WITHINHORIZONTAL (2% FOR IMPERVIOUS 5. ALL LOOSE FOUNDATION EXCAVATISHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO COMOF FRAMING. SLOPES DISTURBED BCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL 6. ALL RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE PRSUBDRAIN SYSTEM TO PREVENT POHYDROSTATIC PRESSURE BEHIND T7. ALL ROOF AND PAD DRAINAGE SHACONDUCTED TO THE STREET IN ANMANNER. IF WATER SHALL BE DISPEDESCENDING SLOPES, ACQUIRE SPAPPROVAL FROM THE GRADING SECONSULTING GEOLOGIST AND/OR S8. ALL DECK DRAINAGE SHALL BE COLCONDUCTED TO AN APPROVED LOCNON-EROSIVE DEVICE. 9. CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW BOTH PRDRAINAGE CONDITIONS AND NOTIFYANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONDITIONOT ALLOW FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGBUILDING AND OTHER STRUCTURESCOMMENCE SITE DRAINAGE WORK DISCREPANCIES AND CONDITIONS HREVIEWED BY ARCHITECT.10. ALL PIPING SHALL BE 4-INCH DIAMENOTIFY ARCHITECT OF DISCREPANCUNDERSIZED PIPING SYSTEMS.11. ALL SOLID DRAINAGE PIPING SHALLMINIMUM SLOPE OF 2% UNLESS OTNOTED.12. 5% DRAINAGE AROUND/AWAY FROMA MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 10'. ALTERSWALES WITH SLOPE OF 2% SHALLWITHIN 10' OF BUILDING FOUNDATIO13. ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, UOTHERWISE NOTED. PROTECT EXISDURING ALL CONSTRUCTION OPERANEEDED.14. ARCHITECT TO VERIFY ALL DRAIN LPRIOR TO THEIR INSTALLATION.15. A COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCOMPARABLE DOCUMENT INDICATIINFORMATION FROM E16. THE PANEL OR SUBPANEL SHALL PRCAPACITY TO INSTALL A 40-AMPEREDEDICATED BRANCH CIRCUIT AND SRESERVED TO PERMIT INSTALLATIOCIRCUIT OVERCURRENT PROTECTIV17. THE SERVICE PANEL OR SUBPANELDIRECTORY SHALL IDENTIFY THE OVPROTECTIVE DEVICE SPACE(S) RESFUTURE EV CHARGING AS EV CAPARACEWAY TERMINATION LOCATIONPERMANENT AND VISIBLY MARKED PROPERTY SETBACKBUILDING FFENCEEXISTING THOSE BIBSITE LEGENDMETAL FENSTYLE TBDFIRE ACCESEGRESS ACLOCATION OSTUB-OUTSOUTSEXISTING UPROPOSEDOOOSheet TitleShCLIENTDateSizeRevision #24" x 36"392 camino de estrellasan clemente, california 92672949 325 3001 phone949 203 3339 faxfoxlin.com webinfo@foxlin.com emailJob #PROJECT ADDRESSarchitecturedesignconsultingDRAWING SETSDP 2R:\1709&10-Romeria and Resort View\ROMERIA\3D\Revit\DETACHED (current)\1709-Romeria-[19]-190109.rvt1/14/2019 1:13:04PMCDISCRETIONARYREVIEW 031/14/2019 1:13:04 PMBNR DEVELOPMENTSITE PLANROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTSDISCRETIONARYREVIEWROMERIA AND GIBRALTAR,CARLSBAD CA, 920091703 A-011 // SITE PLAN // ISSUED: 05/08/181" = 10'-0"1SITE PLANSite PlanFigure 1-3Romeria PointeN:\3155\FiguresDate: 10/28/19-.------------, \ 11 \I -i--------tt--t! I. , I ~ A .~ o , ,.,,., """"''v.--i I i I ~ ■!~ ~ ~!. ( ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ -~ ;;;;✓-0 '\ ■ IIHl:iiiii LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 5 2.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH & METHODOLOGY As discussed in Section 1.2 above, two distinct analyses are provided to address both the City’s Growth Management Plan and State of California CEQA requirements. Each of these approaches evaluates components of the street system, but using different methodologies. The following is a discussion of these methodologies. 2.1 Auto Analysis per City TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) The following summarizes the evaluation methodologies to be used per the City of Carlsbad Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, consistent with the City’s adopted Growth Management Plan. 2.1.1 Study Area Per the City of Carlsbad TIA Guidelines, the study area shall include the following: Intersections All signalized intersections within 0.25 miles of a project access point 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 the discretion of the City Engineer / City Traffic Engineer. Unsignalized intersections located along corridors subject to Auto MMLOS within the project study area may require a traffic signal warrant analysis. A warrant analysis is required if: o The unsignalized intersection provides direct access to the project site, or o The unsignalized intersection provides direct access to a cumulative project considered in the Transportation Impact Analysis o 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 a raised center median. Street 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 Freeway mainline segments where the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction of travel. Freeway Ramps 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. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 6 Based on these guidelines, the following auto facilities are included in the study area for Growth Management Plan analysis: Intersections Gibraltar Street / Romeria Street (unsignalized) Romeria Street / Project Driveway North (unsignalized) Romeria Street / Project Driveway South (unsignalized) La Costa Avenue / Romeria Street (signalized) 2.1.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology The City of Carlsbad’s published TIA Guidelines state that 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 of the 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. Analyses 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. 2.1.3 Roadway Segment Level of Service Methodology The City of Carlsbad’s published TIA Guidelines state that roadways within the Project study area subject to Auto MMLOS 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 Capacity Manual were developed specifically for each roadway subject to MMLOS 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. The City of Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables Report provides 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 are compared to the Roadway LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 7 Capacity Tables to determine the segment operating conditions. The LOS for each segment is reported for all study scenarios in the TIA. 2.2 Auto Analysis per SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA) 2.2.1 Study Area Per the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, the study area must include: All local roadway segments (including all State surface routes), intersections, and mainline freeway locations where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction to the existing roadway traffic. All freeway entrance and exit ramps where the proposed project will add 20 or more peak hour trips. Based on the Project’s trip generation and distribution (Section 4.0), the following locations are included in the Project study area for CEQA Analysis: Intersections Gibraltar Street / Romeria Street (unsignalized) Romeria Street / Project Driveway North (unsignalized) Romeria Street / Project Driveway South (unsignalized) La Costa Avenue / Romeria Street (signalized) Street Segments Romeria Street Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue La Costa Avenue Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street Romeria Street to Cadencia Street 2.2.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology Signalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 19 of the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), with the assistance of the Synchro 10 computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) are presented for the pre-and-post Project conditions. A more detailed explanation of the methodology is attached in Appendix A. 2.2.3 Unsignalized Intersection Methodology Unsignalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined based upon the procedures found in Chapter 20 and Chapter 21 of the HCM 6 with the assistance of the Synchro 10 computer software. A more detailed explanation of the methodology is also attached in Appendix A. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 8 2.2.4 Roadway Segment Methodology The City of Carlsbad has historically evaluated street segment LOS by evaluating the volume-to- capacity ratio for peak hour traffic. The City has updated the capacity table utilized for the “Volume/Capacity”, or “V/C” method with development of the recent City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Threshold table also utilized in the Growth Management Plan roadway LOS methodology described above in Section 2.1.3. 2.3 Multimodal Level of Service Analysis The City of Carlsbad requires multimodal level of service (MMLOS) evaluation for pedestrian, bicycle and transit/rideshare users of the public roadway system. The City organizes the street network by a system of “typologies”, as defined by the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. Depending on the typology, different streets may require different MMLOS evaluations. For each roadway user set (pedestrian, bicycle, transit), general criteria groups have been identified. Table 2–1 shows a summary of the criteria for each roadway user set. TABLE 2–1 MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Roadway Users Pedestrian Bicycle Transit/Ridesharing Accessibility & Functionality Street Characteristics Access Street Characteristics Facility (each side of street) Connectivity Crossing Characteristics Bikeway Design Transit Priority Other Elements Connectivity/Contiguity Service – Adjacent Vehicle Parking Amenities – Other Elements. Bicycle Accommodations – – Available Mobility Services Source: City of Carlsbad. Each roadway's typography is evaluated for the particular set of roadway users based on sub-criteria, which is assigned “typology points”. The following represents examples of sub-criteria within the “Transit and Ridesharing” general criteria group with corresponding points assigned: • Access – “ADA compliant sidewalk or path to transit stops in both directions” (15 points assigned) • Connectivity – “Multiple transit routes on segment” (10 points assigned) • Transit Priority – “Dedicated right of way” (5 points assigned) • Service – “Commute shuttle service provided during the morning and afternoon commute periods” (10 points assigned) • Amenities – “Covered bus stops” (5 points assigned) • Bicycle Accommodations – “Bike parking available at the bus stop” (5 points assigned) • Available Mobility Services – “On demand rideshare services available” (10 points assigned) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 9 The MMLOS analysis evaluates each of the sub-criteria, totals the points for the subject street typology, and compares the points to the City’s MMLOS Point System and LOS Rating, shown in Table 2–2. This table assigns a qualitative LOS to several ranges of points, similar to the application of LOS to ranges in delay for CEQA-analysis intersection operations. TABLE 2–2 MMLOS POINT SYSTEM & LOS RATING Point Score LOS 90-100 A 80-90 B 70-80 C 60-70 D 50-60 E 0-50 F Source: City of Carlsbad The City’s Mobility Element calls for each street typology to achieve LOS D or better operations for each mode subject to LOS standards. It should be noted that scores in excess of 100 points can be achieved. 2.3.1 Multi-Modal Facilities to be Included in Study Area In general, multi-modal facilities must be included in the study area based on the following criteria: Pedestrian: All pedestrian facilities that are directly connected to project access points will be included in the study area. All pedestrian facilities adjacent to the project development site that provide direct pedestrian access to the project site will be included in the study area. The analysis of each pedestrian facility will extend in each direction to the nearest intersection or connection point to a multiuse trail or path. The study area will extend from the project site until a Mobility Element Road or Class I trail is reached in each direction. Pedestrian facilities shall include all existing and proposed sidewalks, crosswalks, signalized pedestrian phases, and ADA-compliant facilities. Pedestrian analysis need only be conducted for the side of the street where the project is located, unless the project is located on both sides of the street, in which case both sides of the street should be studied. Pedestrian analysis shall be conducted for all roadway segments included in the study area that are subject to the Pedestrian MMLOS standards. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 10 Bicycle: All facilities that bicyclists can legally use shall be included in the study area from each project access point extending in each direction of travel to the nearest intersection, dedicated bicycle facility, or connection point to a multiuse trail or path. Inventory and evaluation shall include all off-street and on-street bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. Bicycle analysis shall be conducted for both directions of travel (e.g. both sides of the street) of each facility included in the study area. Bicycle analysis shall be conducted for roadway segments subject to the Bicycle MMLOS standards. Transit: All existing transit lines and transit stops within ½ mile walking distance of the project site shall be included in the study area. If the roadways within the study area are not subject to Transit MMLOS standards no further transit analysis is required. All transit lines located within ½ mile walking distance of the project site will be analyzed according to Transit MMLOS. All pedestrian routes linking the project site to a transit line within the ¼ mile walking distance boundary. If no transit lines are provided, but the roadways within the study area are identified as subject to Transit MMLOS, the project shall complete the worksheet for “No Transit Located within ½ Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment”. Transportation Demand Management Measures shall be identified for the project, which may include on-demand transit, flex, or other measures. 2.3.2 Project Multi-Modal Study Area Based on the study area criteria shown in Section 2.3.1, the MMLOS study area includes the following: Pedestrian The Project site will provide pedestrian access to both Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. Therefore, the segments below are evaluated for Pedestrian MMLOS. Romeria Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue (southbound only) Gibraltar Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) Romeria Street to La Costa Avenue (eastbound only) Bicycle The Project site will provide pedestrian access to both Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. Therefore, the segments below are evaluated for Bicycle MMLOS. Romeria Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue (both directions) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 11 Gibraltar Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) Romeria Street to La Costa Avenue (both directions) Transit None There are no transit lines or stops within ½ mile walking distance of the Project site, nor are the roadways within the study area subject to Transit MMLOS. Figure 2–1 shows the MMLOS study area. 2.4 Thresholds of Significance 2.4.1 TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) 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 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 (MMLOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council. Thus, the Growth Management Plan’s standard for all non-exempt street system facilities is LOS D. To comply with the Growth Management Program, all roadway facilities identified as not meeting the performance standard (LOS D) in the existing conditions scenario 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. 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 and the project’s traffic meets or exceeds the thresholds of significance listed in Table 2–3; or • A ramp meter delay exceeds 15 minutes and the project’s traffic meets or exceeds the thresholds of significance listed in Table 2–3; or • The addition of project results in a change in LOS from acceptable (LOS D or 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 2–3) for locations operating at a deficient LOS without the project (baseline conditions). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 12 TABLE 2–3 MEASURE OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS – ROADWAYS SUBJECT TO THE VEHICLE MMLOS STANDARD Auto Facility Subject to MMLOS Thresholds Threshold of Significance Roadway Segment Any trip added to a segment forecast to operate at deficient LOS requires project 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 Source: Table 6 – Carlsbad TIA Guidelines (FINAL), April 2018. 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. 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. 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 Because of the qualitative nature of the MMLOS 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 related to pedestrian, bicycle or transit service to the project site. 2.4.2 SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA Method) A project is considered to have a significant impact if the new project traffic has decreased the operations of surrounding roadways by a defined threshold. The defined thresholds shown in Table 2–4 below for freeway segments, roadway segments, intersections, and ramp meter facilities are based on published San Diego Traffic Engineers’ Council (SANTEC) guidelines. If the project LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 13 exceeds the thresholds in Table 2–4, then the project may be considered to have a significant project impact. A feasible mitigation measure will need to be identified to return the impact within the thresholds (pre-project + allowable increase) or the impact will be considered significant and unmitigated. TABLE 2–4 TRAFFIC IMPACT SIGNIFICANT THRESHOLDS Level of Service with Projecta Allowable Increase Due to Project Impactsb Freeways Roadway Segments Intersections Ramp Metering V/C Speed (mph) V/C Speed (mph) Delay (sec.) Delay (min.) D, E & F (or ramp meter delays above 15 minutes) 0.01 1 0.02 1 2 2c Footnotes: a. All level of service measurements are based upon HCM procedures for peak-hour conditions. However, V/C ratios for Roadway Segments may be estimated on an ADT/24-hour traffic volume basis (using Table 2 or a similar LOS chart for each jurisdiction). The acceptable LOS for freeways, roadways, and intersections is generally “D” (“C” for undeveloped or not densely developed locations per jurisdiction definitions). For metered freeway ramps, LOS does not apply. However, ramp meter delays above 15 minutes are considered excessive. b. If a proposed project’s traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the impacts are deemed to be significant. These impact changes may be measured from appropriate computer programs or expanded manual spreadsheets. The project applicant shall then identify feasible mitigations (within the Traffic Impact Study [TIS] report) that will maintain the traffic facility at an acceptable LOS. If the LOS with the proposed project becomes unacceptable (see note a above), or if the project adds a significant amount of peak hour trips to cause any traffic queues to exceed on- or off-ramp storage capacities, the project applicant shall be responsible for mitigating significant impact changes. c. The impact is only considered significant if the total delay exceeds 15 minutes. General Notes: 1. V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio 2. Speed = Arterial speed measured in miles per hour 3. Delay = Average stopped delay per vehicle measured in seconds for intersections, or minutes for ramp meters. 4. LOS = Level of Service MMLOS Study AreaFigure 2-1Romeria PointeN:\3155\FiguresDate: 03/09/20Gibraltar StRomeria StLa Costa AveRomeria St - Local / Neighborhood Street- PED MMLOS- Bike MMLOSGibraltar St - Local / Neighborhood Street- PED MMLOS- Bike MMLOSn ■ . IHll:iiiii LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 15 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section presents existing transportation conditions for street system components identified for either Growth Management, CEQA, or Multi-Modal analysis. 3.1 Existing Street Network The following is a description of the major roadways within the study area. Figure 3–1 illustrates existing conditions in the study area in terms of traffic lanes and intersection controls. Romeria Street is classified as a Local/Neighborhood Street on the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. Romeria Street is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway from La Costa Avenue to Levante Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Bike lanes are not provided on either side of the road. On-street parking and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. Gibraltar Street is classified as a Local Neighborhood Street on the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. Gibraltar Street is built as a two-lane undivided roadway from La Costa Avenue to its terminus northeast of Romeria Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. On- street parking and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided. La Costa Avenue in the Project vicinity is classified as a Neighborhood Connector Street in the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. It is currently built with one vehicular travel lane in each direction and a two-way left-turn lane median in the Project vicinity Class II buffered Bike Lanes and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the road. On-street parking is permitted along some portions of the street. The posted speed limit is 40 mph within the study area. 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes AM/PM peak hour (7:00 am-9:00 am/ 4:00 pm-6:00 pm) intersection counts at all study area intersections were conducted on Thursday, October 17, 2019 while schools in the area were in session. Directional peak hour street segment volumes were derived from the peak hour turning movement counts. Figure 3–2 shows the Existing Traffic Volumes. Appendix B contains the intersection count sheets. 3.3 Existing Transit Conditions There are no transit services within ½ mile walking distance of the Project site. C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D RomeriaStG ib ra lta rS tL a C o s ta A ve 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:12 PMDate: 10/28/2019N:\3155\Figures Existing Conditions Diagram Figure 3-1 [ Romeria Pointe Future Proj Dwy (N.) FutureProj Dwy (S.) !"$ ÊeeeLa Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.)Romeria StRomeria StRomeria StProj Dwy (N.)Romeria StGibraltar StFH KF HKF HKDJLGDKG 1 2 3 4 2UStudy Intersection Traffic Signal Stop Sign Turning Movements Project Site Number of Travel Lanes Divided/Undivided Roadway Posted Speed Limit * Two-Way Left Turn Median # 2/4/6 U / D 35mph DJL STOP 2U2U 2U2U*2U* 40mph 40mph 2 U 25mph 25mphFuture Future 0 0 0 0 ...... ---0 0 0 0 = • c:.::J ■ . . ii:HHIIIP C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D RomeriaStG ib ra lta rS tL a C o s ta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:12 PMDate: 10/28/2019N:\3155\Figures Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 3-2 [ Romeria Pointe Future Proj Dwy (N.) FutureProj Dwy (S.) L LJDJD JJ JJ LJDDLJDLJD LJLa Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.)Romeria StRomeria StRomeria StProj Dwy (N.)Romeria StGibraltar St 9 / 926 / 21 13 / 415 / 8 3 / 8 11 / 1549 / 2817 / 4249 / 2817 / 4213 / 106 / 130 / 171 / 8 10 / 28 668 / 41619 / 4 29 / 106 / 697 / 4644 / 48314 / 625 1 2 3 4 J J17 / 4249 / 28JJ697 / 448 373 / 652 JJ 778 / 472 359 / 681 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJFuture Future 0 0 0 0 ...... ---0 0 0 0 ■ . . ii:HHIIIP LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 18 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 Trip Generation The Project site consists of 23 multi-family dwelling units in two buildings on a 0.71-acre site. Trip generation estimates for the Project were based on the SANDAG’s Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). Table 4–1 tabulates the Project traffic generation.The project is calculated to generate 138 ADT with 11 total AM peak hour trips (2 inbound/ 9 outbound) and 12 total PM peak hour trips (8 inbound/ 4 outbound). 4.2 Trip Distribution The Project’s trip distribution was developed based on a review of existing traffic volumes at adjacent intersections. 4.3 Trip Assignment The Project traffic generation in Table 4–1 was assigned to the street system based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 4–1. The resulting assignment of net AM/PM peak hour volumes is shown on Figure 4–2. These AM/PM traffic volumes are added to the existing 2019 traffic volumes to produce the Existing + Project volumes evaluated in the analyses. Figure 4–3 shows the Existing + Project AM/PM peak hour volumes. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 19 TABLE 4–1 TRIP GENERATION Land Use Quantity Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate a ADT % of ADT In:Out Split Volume % of ADT In:Out Split Volume In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Apartment (Multi-family > 20 DU/acre) 23 DU 6/DU 138 8% 20:80 2 9 11 9% 70:30 8 4 12 Footnotes: a. Trip generation based on SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 (“SANDAG Brief Guide”). C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A DRomeriaStGibraltar S tL a C o s ta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 11:42 AMDate: 10/30/2019N:\3155\Figures Project Trip Distribution Figure 4-1 [ Romeria Pointe Proj Dwy ( N.) Proj Dwy (S.) 20% 70% 10% Study Intersection Regional Trip Distribution # XX % 0 -o 0 ■ . . ii:HHIIIP C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D RomeriaStG ib ra lta rS tL a C o s ta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:16 PMDate: 10/28/2019N:\3155\Figures Project Traffic Volumes Figure 4-2 [ Romeria Pointe Proj Dwy (N.) Proj Dwy (S.)LD LLDD JJDL LDDLLa Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.)Romeria StRomeria StRomeria StProj Dwy (N.)Romeria StGibraltar St 0 / 1 1 / 00 / 14 / 2 1 / 31 / 0 4 / 21 / 31 / 44 / 2 6 / 32 / 12 / 5 0 / 2 1 2 3 4 J J2 / 78 / 4JJ0 / 2 2 / 1 JJ 6 / 3 2 / 5 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJ0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ . . ii:HHIIIP C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D RomeriaStG ib ra lta rS tL a C o s ta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:15 PMDate: 10/28/2019N:\3155\Figures Existing + Project Traffic Volumes Figure 4-3 [ Romeria Pointe Proj Dwy (N.) Proj Dwy (S.) L LJDJD JLDD JL JJDL LJDDLJDLJD LJLa Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.)Romeria StRomeria StRomeria StProj Dwy (N.)Romeria StGibraltar St 9 / 926 / 22 13 / 415 / 8 3 / 8 12 / 1549 / 284 / 2 1 / 31 / 0 17 / 420 / 153 / 3018 / 451 / 44 / 2 19 / 136 / 132 / 183 / 13 10 / 30668 / 41619 / 4 29 / 106 / 697 / 4644 / 48314 / 625 1 2 3 4 J J19 / 4957 / 32JJ697 / 450 375 / 653 JJ 784 / 475 361 / 686 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJ0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ . . ii:HHIIIP LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 23 5.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS The following describes the potential cumulative development and street network conditions in the near-term scenarios. 5.1 Cumulative Projects To determine Near-Term (Existing + Cumulative) conditions, LLG reviewed approved and pending projects within the City of Carlsbad to identify projects that will add traffic to the Project study area in the near-term condition. In coordination with the City, the following four (4) cumulative projects were identified for inclusion in Near-Term conditions. Table 5–1 lists and describes each cumulative project and Figure 5–1 depicts the cumulative project locations. Figure 5–2 shows the total cumulative projects AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes. Figure 5–3 shows the AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes for the “Existing + Cumulative” scenario. Figure 5–4 shows the peak hour traffic volumes for the “Existing + Cumulative + Project” scenario. 5.2 Network Conditions There are no known pending improvements to the study area street network or to nearby facilities that would notably affect conditions in the study area. No improvements or changes to the study area street facilities are assumed for Near-Term (Existing + Cumulative) conditions. TABLE 5–1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST # Permit Number Project Name Description 1 CT2019-0001 La Costa Villas North 9 condominiums to be located at 400 Gibraltar Street. 2 SDP2018-0022 Resort View Apartments 26 apartment units to be located on the west side of Viejo Castilla Way, between Navarra Drive and Pirineos Way. 3 — Romeria Street single family homes 3 single family homes located on Romeria Street south of La Costa Avenue. 4 CT2017-0003 La Costa Town Square Parcel 3 95 condominiums located at La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Source: City of Carlsbad CumulaƟve Projects LocaƟon MapFigure 5-1Romeria PointeN:\3155\FiguresDate: 10/28/19See Section 5.0 for a detailed description of each project1243.. ~ G. cf .,oday◄•• McClellan-Palomar Airpon lJonsl,e~d Av<! q The Flower Fields ' Palomar Altpo!\ 116 BRESSI RANCH Poinsettia Park Alga None Community Park 9 South Carlsbad State Beach Campground South Ponto Beach ~ ■ IIHl:iiiii Bat1qul10s Lagoon State Marine Encinitas Ranch f Golf Course .tJ•Btvd I{' ✓ \ ~ l Ot,v1nh.,n Rd "' 0 ~ Lake San Marcos Son n C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D RomeriaStG ib ra lta rS tL a C o s ta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 8:13 AMDate: 10/29/2019N:\3155\Figures Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes Figure 5-2 [ Romeria PointeLDJJJJDJLJDLDLLa Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.)Romeria StRomeria StRomeria StProj Dwy (N.)Romeria StGibraltar St 1 / 1 1 / 11 / 11 / 11 / 11 / 11 / 13 / 6 1 / 15 / 41 / 0 0 / 11 / 11 / 2 1 2 3 4 J J1 / 11 / 1JJ7 / 5 4 / 8JJ 6 / 5 4 / 8 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJFuture Proj Dwy (N.) FutureProj Dwy (S.) Future Future 0 0 0 0 ...... ---0 0 0 0 ■ . . ii:HHIIIP C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D RomeriaStG ib ra lta rS tL a C o s ta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:23 PMDate: 10/28/2019N:\3155\Figures Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes Figure 5-3 [ Romeria Pointe L LJDJD JJ JJ LJDDLJDLJD LJLa Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.)Romeria StRomeria StRomeria StProj Dwy (N.)Romeria StGibraltar St 9 / 927 / 22 13 / 415 / 8 3 / 8 12 / 1650 / 2918 / 4350 / 2918 / 4313 / 106 / 131 / 181 / 8 11 / 29673 / 42020 / 4 29 / 116 / 698 / 4745 / 50317 / 631 1 2 3 4 J J18 / 4350 / 29JJ704 / 453 377 / 660 JJ 784 / 477 363 / 689 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJFuture Future Future Proj Dwy (N.) FutureProj Dwy (S.) 0 0 0 0 ...... ---0 0 0 0 ■ . . ii:HHIIIP C A R L S B A DC A R L S B A D RomeriaStG ib ra lta rS tL a C o s ta A v e 1 2 3 4 Time: 3:26 PMDate: 10/28/2019N:\3155\Figures Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Traffic Volumes Figure 5-4 [ Romeria Pointe Proj Dwy (N.) Proj Dwy (S.) L LJDJD JLDD JL JJDL LJDDLJDLJD LJLa Costa Ave Proj Dwy (S.)Romeria StRomeria StRomeria StProj Dwy (N.)Romeria StGibraltar St 9 / 927 / 23 13 / 415 / 8 3 / 8 13 / 1650 / 294 / 2 1 / 31 / 0 18 / 430 / 154 / 3119 / 461 / 44 / 2 19 / 136 / 133 / 193 / 13 11 / 31673 / 42020 / 4 29 / 116 / 698 / 4745 / 50317 / 631 1 2 3 4 J J20 / 5058 / 33JJ704 / 455 379 / 661 JJ 790 / 480 365 / 694 Study Intersections Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Peak Hour Midblock Volumes # DJL XX / XXJ0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ . . ii:HHIIIP LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 28 6.0 ANALYSIS PER CITY TIA GUIDELINES (GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN) 6.1 Background Based on the approach and methodologies described in Section 2.1 for the Growth Management Plan analysis, the following is an evaluation of the one (1) signalized intersections within the study area. As the Project generates a maximum of 12 peak hour trips (see Section 4.1), there are no street segments which meet the 50 peak hour trip threshold for inclusion in the analysis. Significance of impacts is based on the City’s TIA Guidelines, as discussed in Section 2.4.1. 6.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions Table 6–1 shows the queue lengths under Existing conditions at the study area signalized intersection, for the applicable left-and-right turning movements to which the Project would contribute traffic. As shown in Table 6–1, existing queues are accommodated in the existing turn pockets, where applicable. 6.3 Analysis of Existing + Project Conditions Table 6–1 shows the queue lengths under Existing + Project conditions at the study area signalized intersection, for the applicable left-and-right turning movements with the Project’s traffic contribution. As shown in Table 6–1, existing + project queues are accommodated in the existing turn pockets where applicable. The right turn volumes are less than the 150 peak hour trip threshold at which a dedicated right turn lane should be considered, per City guidelines. TABLE 6–1 EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Signalized Intersection Movement Turn Lanes Pocket Length (feet) Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Turn Volume Queue Length (feet) Turn Volume Queue Length (feet) 4. La Costa Avenue / Romeria Street WBR — N/A a AM 10 — 10 — PM 28 — 30 — SBR — N/A a AM 13 — 19 — PM 10 — 13 — EBL 1 160 AM 1 1 3 3 PM 8 8 13 13 Footnotes: a. Shared lane. Queue length not shown as traffic stream includes through trips. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 29 6.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions Table 6–2 shows the queue lengths under Existing + Cumulative conditions at the study area signalized intersection, for the applicable left-and-right turning movements to which the Project would contribute traffic. As shown in Table 6–2, Existing + Cumulative queues are accommodated in the existing turn pockets where applicable. 6.5 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative + Project Conditions Table 6–2 shows the queue lengths under Existing + Cumulative + Project conditions at study area signalized intersection for the applicable left-and-right turning movements with the addition of Project traffic. As shown in Table 6–2, Existing + Cumulative + Project queues are accommodated in the existing turn pockets, where applicable. The right turn volumes are less than the 150 peak hour trip threshold at which a dedicated right turn lane should be considered, per City guidelines. TABLE 6–2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Signalized Intersection Movement Turn Lanes Pocket Length (feet) Peak Hour Existing + Cumulative Existing + Cumulative + Project Turn Volume Queue Length (feet) Turn Volume Queue Length (feet) 4. La Costa Avenue / Romeria Street WBR — N/A a AM 11 — 11 — PM 29 — 31 — SBR — N/A a AM 13 — 19 — PM 10 — 13 — EBL 1 160 AM 1 1 3 3 PM 8 8 13 13 Footnotes: a. Shared lane. Queue length not shown as traffic stream includes through trips. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 30 6.6 MMLOS Analysis The existing multi-modal facilities in the vicinity of the Project site were evaluated using the City of Carlsbad’s MMLOS Tool (September 2018). The MMLOS study area was selected based on the City’s scoping requirements and the street typology of the roadway, which indicates which modes are subject to LOS standards on that facility type. Table 6–3 summarizes the MMLOS analysis results for the pedestrian and bicycle facilities on Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. As shown in Table 6–3 bicycle conditions on these streets are calculated at LOS B. The pedestrian facilities are tentatively calculated at LOS C under existing conditions, but with certain essential features lacking. The Project will replace the ramp along its frontage at the southwest corner of the Romeria Street / Gibraltar intersection, improving it to meet ADA requirements. The Project will also add a streetlight at this same street corner. With these improvements, pedestrian conditions are expected to achieve LOS A. Appendix C contains the detailed MMLOS worksheets. TABLE 6–3 MMLOS ANALYSIS Location Direction Without Project With Project Pedestrian LOS Bicycle LOS Pedestrian LOS Bicycle LOS Total Score LOS Total Score LOS Total Score LOS Total Score LOS Romeria Street Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue NB — — 85 B — — 85 B SB 70 C* 85 B 90 A 85 B Gibraltar Street Romeria Street to La Costa Avenue EB 75 C* 85 B 95 A 85 B WB — — 85 B — — 85 B General Notes: 1. Pedestrian LOS is only evaluated for the side of the street where the project is located per City TIA Guidelines. 2. * indicates the lack of an essential feature. MMLOS Point Point Score LOS 90-100 A 80-89 B 70-79 C 60-69 D 50-59 E 0-49 F LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 31 6.7 TIA Guidelines – Findings and Conclusions Based on the City’s TIA Guidelines and thresholds of significance, presented in Section 2.4.1, no significant queuing impacts are calculated based on the addition of Project traffic to the signalized intersection within the study area. The Project will provide improvements along its frontage, including street lighting and an ADA-compliant curb ramp and landing at the intersection of Romeria Street / Gibraltar Street, to meet MMLOS requirements. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 32 7.0 ANALYSIS PER SANTEC/ITE GUIDELINES (CEQA) 7.1 Background Based on the approach and methodologies described in Section 2.2 for the CEQA analysis, the following is an evaluation of the one (1) signalized intersection, three (3) unsignalized intersections, and three (3) street segments. Significance of impacts is based on the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines, as discussed in Section 2.4.2. 7.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions 7.2.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7–1 shows the AM/PM peak hour operations of study area intersections under existing conditions. This table shows all of the existing intersections operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix D contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing scenario. 7.2.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Analysis of the study area street segments was performed using the methodology outlined in Section 2.2.4 of this report. Table 7–2 shows that all of the study area street segments are calculated to currently operate at acceptable LOS D or better, except for: La Costa Avenue, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street – Westbound AM (LOS E) 7.3 Analysis of Existing + Project Conditions 7.3.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7–1 shows the results of the intersection capacity analyses conducted for the study intersections under Existing + Project conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. This table shows that all of the existing and proposed intersections operate at LOS B or better with the addition of Project traffic volumes. Appendix E contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing + Project scenario. 7.3.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Project street segment analyses were conducted for the study roadways. Table 7–2 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Project conditions. As shown in Table 7–2, with the addition of Project traffic, study area segments are calculated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better, except for the following: La Costa Avenue, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street – Westbound AM (LOS F) No significant impact is calculated on the segment listed above as the Project-related increase in V/C ratio is less than the significance threshold of 0.02 during both the AM and PM peak hours. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 33 TABLE 7–1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS – EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Significant Impact Delaya LOSb Delay LOS Δc 1. Romeria St / Gibraltar St MSSC d AM 8.9 A 8.9 A 0.0 No PM 8.9 A 8.9 A 0.0 No 2. Romeria St / Project Drwy (N) MSSC AM — — 8.7 A — No PM — — 8.5 A — No 3. Romeria St / Project Drwy (S) MSSC AM — — 8.6 A — No PM — — 8.5 A — No 4. Romeria St / La Costa Ave Signal AM 13.7 B 13.9 B 0.2 No PM 7.8 A 8.0 A 0.2 No Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service c. Δ denotes Project induced delay increase. d. Minor Street Stop Control. Minor street delay is reported. SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED Delay LOS Delay LOS 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E ≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 34 TABLE 7–2 EXISTING + PROJECT SEGMENT ANALYSIS Segment Capacity a (LOS E) Dir. Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Sig. Impact Volume LOSb V/Cc Volume LOS V/C Δd Romeria Street 1. Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue 560 NB AM 17 A 0.030 19 A 0.034 0.004 No PM 42 A 0.075 49 A 0.088 0.013 No 560 SB AM 49 A 0.088 57 A 0.102 0.014 No PM 28 A 0.050 32 A 0.057 0.007 No La Costa Avenue 2. Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street 780 EB AM 359 A 0.460 361 A 0.463 0.003 No PM 681 D 0.873 686 D 0.879 0.006 No 780 WB AM 778 E 0.997 784 F 1.005 0.008 No PM 472 B 0.605 475 B 0.609 0.004 No 3. Romeria Street to Cadencia Street 780 EB AM 373 A 0.478 375 A 0.481 0.003 No PM 652 D 0.836 653 D 0.837 0.001 No 780 WB AM 697 D 0.894 697 D 0.894 — No PM 448 A 0.574 450 A 0.577 0.003 No Footnotes: a. Hourly peak hour directional capacities based on City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Thresholds. b. Level of Service c. Volume to Capacity. d. Δ denotes project induced V/C increase. LOS V/C A <0.6 B <0.7 C <0.8 D <0.9 E <1.0 F >1.0 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 35 7.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions 7.4.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7–3 reports the Existing + Cumulative intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours. This tables shows that all of the existing intersections operate at LOS B or better with the addition of cumulative project traffic volumes. Appendix F contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing + Cumulative scenario. 7.4.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 7–4 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Cumulative Projects conditions. As shown in Table 7–4, the study area segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of cumulative project traffic, except for: La Costa Avenue, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street – Westbound AM (LOS F) La Costa Avenue, Romeria Street to Cadencia Street – Westbound AM (LOS E) 7.5 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative + Project Conditions 7.5.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7–3 reports the Existing + Cumulative + Project intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours. This table shows that all of the existing and proposed intersections operate at LOS B or better with the addition of cumulative and Project traffic volumes. Appendix G contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing + Cumulative + Project scenario. 7.5.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 7–4 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Cumulative + Project conditions. As shown in Table 7–4, with the addition of Cumulative Projects and Project traffic, the study area segments are calculated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better, except for: La Costa Avenue, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street – Westbound AM (LOS F) La Costa Avenue, Romeria Street to Cadencia Street – Westbound AM (LOS E) No significant impact is calculated on either of the above-listed segments as the Project-related increase in V/C ratio is less than the significance threshold of 0.02 during both the AM and PM peak hours. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 36 TABLE 7–3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing + Cumulative Existing + Cumulative + Project Significant Impact Delaya LOSb Delay LOS Δc 1. Romeria St / Gibraltar St MSSC d AM 8.9 A 8.9 A 0.0 No PM 8.9 A 8.9 A 0.0 No 2. Romeria St / Project Drwy (N) MSSC AM — — 8.7 A — No PM — — 8.5 A — No 3. Romeria St / Project Drwy (S) MSSC AM — — 8.6 A — No PM — — 8.5 A — No 4. Romeria St / La Costa Ave Signal AM 14.0 B 14.2 B 0.2 No PM 7.9 A 8.1 A 0.2 No Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service c. Δ denotes Project induced delay increase. d. Minor Street Stop Control. Minor street delay is reported. SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED Delay LOS Delay LOS 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E ≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 37 TABLE 7–4 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS SEGMENT ANALYSIS Segment Capacity a (LOS E) Dir. Peak Hour Existing + Cumulative Existing + Cumulative + Project Sig. Impact Volume LOSb V/Cc Volume LOS V/C Δd Romeria Street 1. Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue 560 NB AM 18 A 0.032 20 A 0.036 0.004 No PM 43 A 0.077 50 A 0.089 0.012 No 560 SB AM 50 A 0.089 58 A 0.104 0.015 No PM 29 A 0.052 33 A 0.059 0.007 No La Costa Avenue 2. Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street 780 EB AM 363 A 0.465 365 A 0.468 0.003 No PM 689 D 0.883 694 D 0.890 0.007 No 780 WB AM 784 F 1.005 790 F 1.013 0.008 No PM 477 B 0.612 480 B 0.615 0.003 No 3. Romeria Street to Cadencia Street 780 EB AM 377 A 0.483 379 A 0.486 0.003 No PM 660 D 0.846 661 D 0.847 0.001 No 780 WB AM 704 E 0.903 704 E 0.903 — No PM 453 A 0.581 455 A 0.583 0.002 No Footnotes: a. Hourly peak hour directional capacities based on City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Thresholds. b. Level of Service c. Volume to Capacity. d. Δ denotes project induced V/C increase. LOS V/C A <0.6 B <0.7 C <0.8 D <0.9 E <1.0 F >1.0 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Report\3155 Report.docx 38 7.6 CEQA Method – Findings and Conclusions No significant impacts are identified based on the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines thresholds of significance presented in Section 2.4.2. End of Report TECHNICAL APPENDICES ROMERIA POINTE Carlsbad, CaliforniaMarch 9, 2020 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 LI NS COTT LAW & GREENS PAN engineers Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 T 858.300.8810 F www.llgengineers.com LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe APPENDIX A INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers S:\Technical Manuals\HCM\HCM 6\HCM Writeup_SigHCM6.doc HIGHWAY CAPACITY 6th EDITION MANUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS In the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, Level of Service criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for a 15-minute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group or approach in question. LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROLLED DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A < 10.0 B 10.1 to 20.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 F > 80.0 Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e. less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 20.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in the level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersections without stopping. Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At Level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation (i.e. when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers S:\Technical Manuals\HCM\HCM 6\HCM Writeup_UnsigHCM6.doc HIGHWAY CAPACITY 6th EDITION MANUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS In the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), Level of Service for unsignalized intersections is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Level of Service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The criteria are given in the following the table, and are based on the average control delay for any particular minor movement. LEVEL OF SERVICE AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY SEC/VEH EXPECTED DELAY TO MINOR STREET TRAFFIC A 0.0 < 10.0 Little or no delay B 10.1 to 15.0 Short traffic delays C 15.1 to 25.0 Average traffic delays D 25.1 to 35.0 Long traffic delays E 35.1 to 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion Level of Service F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to safely cross through a major street traffic stream. This Level of Service is generally evident from extremely long control delays experienced by side-street traffic and by queuing on the minor-street approaches. The method, however, is based on a constant critical gap size; that is, the critical gap remains constant no matter how long the side-street motorist waits. LOS F may also appear in the form on side-street vehicles selecting smaller-than-usual gaps. In such cases, safety may be a problem, and some disruption to the major traffic stream may result. It is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but may result in adjustments to normal gap acceptance behavior, which are more difficult to observe in the field than queuing. In most cases at Two-Way Stop Controlled (TWSC) intersections, the critical movement is the minor-street left-turn movement. As such, the minor-street left-turn movement can generally be considered the primary factor affecting overall intersection performance. The lower threshold for LOS F is set at 50 seconds of delay per vehicle. There are many instances, particularly in urban areas, in which the delay equations will predict delays of 50 seconds (LOS F) or more for minor-street movements under very low volume conditions on the minor street (less than 25 vehicle/hour). Since the first term of the equation is a function only of the capacity, the LOS F threshold of 50 sec/vehicle is reached with a movement capacity of approximately 85 vehicle/hour or less. This procedure assumes random arrivals on the major street. For a typical four-lane arterial with average daily traffic volumes in the range of 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day (peak hour, 1,500 to 2,000 vehicle/hour), the delay equation used in the TWSC capacity analysis procedure will predict 50 seconds of delay or more (LOS F) for many urban TWSC intersections that allow minor-street left-turn movements. The LOS F threshold will be reached regardless of the volume of minor-street left-turn traffic. Not-withstanding this fact, most low-volume minor-street approaches would not meet any of the volume or delay warrants for signalization of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) since the warrants define an asymptote at 100 vehicle/hour on the minor approach. As a result, many public agencies that use the HCM 6 Level of Service thresholds to determine the design adequacy of TWSC intersections may be forced to eliminate the minor-street left-turn movement, even when the movement may not present any operational problem, such as the formation of long queues on the minor street or driveway approach. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe APPENDIX B EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS SHEETS National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Romeria St & Gibraltar StCity:CarlsbadProject ID:19-04397-002Control:1-Way Stop(NB)Date:NS/EW Streets:0100000001000100NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTAL7:00 AM2000000003803400207:15 AM1021000000516000167:30 AM2020000000701300157:45 AM5050000000605600278:00 AM00100000031101200188:15 AM300000000040020098:30 AM0010000001702200138:45 AM50000000002020009NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :180111000007501201900127APPROACH %'s :60.00% 0.00% 36.67% 3.33%0.00% 12.07% 86.21% 1.72% 51.28% 48.72% 0.00% 0.00%PEAK HR :07:00 AM37 37 4407:45 AMTOTALPEAK HR VOL :1009100000326115130078PEAK HR FACTOR :0.500 0.000 0.450 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.813 0.250 0.625 0.542 0.000 0.000HeadersNBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU0100000001000100NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM5010000002201300144:15 PM2020000002601000134:30 PM4020000003901200214:45 PM6000000001302200145:00 PM3050000002304000175:15 PM5020000002101100125:30 PM7050000002401100205:45 PM303000000320010012NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :3502000000017300111000123APPROACH %'s :63.64% 0.00% 36.36% 0.00%0.00% 36.17% 63.83% 0.00% 52.38% 47.62% 0.00% 0.00%PEAK HR :04:15 PM290 289 29604:30 PMTOTALPEAK HR VOL :15090000008210840065PEAK HR FACTOR :0.625 0.000 0.450 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.667 0.583 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.000 0.000 EASTBOUND10/17/2019Gibraltar St NORTHBOUNDGibraltar St0.636 WESTBOUNDRomeria St Romeria St0.682 EASTBOUNDPMAM07:00 AM - 08:00 AM NORTHBOUND0.5000.722Total0.7740.604 WESTBOUND0.750 SOUTHBOUND0.75004:15 PM - 05:15 PM SOUTHBOUND National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Romeria St & Gibraltar StCity:CarlsbadProject ID:19-04397-002Control:1-Way Stop(NB)Date:NS/EW Streets:0100000001000100NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTAL7:00 AM000000000110020047:15 AM000000000000000007:30 AM000000000000000007:45 AM000000000000000008:00 AM000000000000010018:15 AM100000000000000018:30 AM000000000000000008:45 AM00000000000000000NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :10000000011003006APPROACH %'s :100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%PEAK HR :07:00 AM37 37 44TOTALPEAK HR VOL :00000000011002004PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000HeadersNBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU0100000001000100NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM000000000000000004:15 PM000000000001000014:30 PM000000000000000004:45 PM000000000000000005:00 PM000000000000010015:15 PM000000000000100015:30 PM000000000000000005:45 PM00000000000000000NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :00000000000111003APPROACH %'s :0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00%PEAK HR :04:15 PM290 289 296TOTALPEAK HR VOL :00000000000101002PEAK HR FACTOR :0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.00010/17/201904:15 PM - 05:15 PM0.5000.250 0.25007:00 AM - 08:00 AM0.250PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND0.2500.250AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUNDBikesRomeria StRomeria StGibraltar StGibraltar St National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Romeria St & Gibraltar St Project ID:19-04397-002 City:Carlsbad Date:10/17/2019 NS/EW Streets: EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 7:00 AM 0000000007:15 AM 001100002 7:30 AM 001000001 7:45 AM 000000000 8:00 AM 002100003 8:15 AM 000100001 8:30 AM 000100001 8:45 AM 000100001 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :004500009 APPROACH %'s :44.44% 55.56% PEAK HR :07:00 AM 36 36 43 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :002100003 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.500 0.250 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL4:00 PM 000100102 4:15 PM 002111117 4:30 PM 001000001 4:45 PM 000000000 5:00 PM 000401005 5:15 PM 001000001 5:30 PM 0000010015:45 PM 001000001 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0056132118 APPROACH %'s :45.45% 54.55% 25.00% 75.00% 66.67% 33.33% PEAK HR :04:15 PM 287 286 293 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0035121113 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.375 0.313 0.250 0.500 0.250 0.250 AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG Romeria St Romeria St Gibraltar St 0.3750.375 PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG 0.4640.500 0.375 0.250 Pedestrians (Crosswalks) WEST LEG 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM Gibraltar St 04:15 PM - 05:15 PM Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services ID:19-04397-002 Day: City:Carlsbad Date: AM 0000 AM NOON 0000 NOON PM 0000 PM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0000 0 000 1 4013 100 008015 000 0 TEV 78065 0 000 308 1 PHF 0.72 0.77 26021 0 0010 AM NOON PM PM NOON AM PM 0150 9PM NOON 0000NOON AM 1100 9AM Gibraltar St07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NONE 24019 Romeria St 42 0 Romeria St SOUTHBOUND 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM NORTHBOUND 17 0PEAK HOURSTotal Vehicles (AM) NONE 04:15 PM - 05:15 PM 0 0 0 1-Way Stop(NB)Gibraltar StEASTBOUNDPeak Hour Turning Movement Count 29 Total Vehicles (PM)Bikes (PM) Romeria St & Gibraltar St Thursday 10/17/2019 CONTROL WESTBOUND07:00 AM - 08:00 AM Total Vehicles (Noon) Pedestrians (Crosswalks) Bikes (NOON) 12 COUNT PERIODSBikes (AM) NOONAM PM 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 PM AM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM AM NOON PM NOON 0 2 0 1 1 0 000000N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A15 13 0 26 3 0 0001009N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A8 4 0 21 8 0 00015090 1 0 0 0 0 000000NOONPMAMNOONAMPMNOONAMPMNOONPMAMt. -t---t--- ~ -t---t---:, ' ----t---t---., c;- --- -+ ~ c::;> National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Romeria St & La Costa AveCity:CarlsbadProject ID:19-04397-001Control:SignalizedDate:NS/EW Streets:0100010011101200NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTAL7:00 AM50004160278500108102107:15 AM401090400901203158202837:30 AM2112052400641301190103047:45 AM281100743017713014174703398:00 AM4441609020083601146003118:15 AM100002040175001163102578:30 AM110107140377701142202568:45 AM6110303025350013010205NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :129 7 31 0 46 8 30 0 9 597 61 0 21 1211 15 0 2165APPROACH %'s :77.25% 4.19% 18.56% 0.00% 54.76% 9.52% 35.71% 0.00% 1.35% 89.51% 9.15% 0.00% 1.68% 97.11% 1.20% 0.00%PEAK HR :07:15 AM38 37 4407:45 AMTOTALPEAK HR VOL :97 6 29 0 30 6 13 0 1 314 44 0 19 668 10 0 1237PEAK HR FACTOR :0.551 0.375 0.453 0.000 0.833 0.375 0.813 0.000 0.250 0.872 0.846 0.000 0.339 0.879 0.357 0.000HeadersNBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU0100010011101200NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM405041101161800105602964:15 PM101202030216090197702944:30 PM9010101102143300121402954:45 PM9020406011611200100803035:00 PM1426041102125150298502755:15 PM1231030200186100199303205:30 PM111106010515311011191203215:45 PM7040300001693019950291NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :76 7 22 0 36 3 15 0 13 1258 71 0 6 838 50 0 2395APPROACH %'s :72.38% 6.67% 20.95% 0.00% 66.67% 5.56% 27.78% 0.00% 0.97% 93.74% 5.29% 0.00% 0.67% 93.74% 5.59% 0.00%PEAK HR :04:45 PM292 289 29605:30 PMTOTALPEAK HR VOL :46 6 10 0 17 1 10 0 8 625 48 0 4 416 28 0 1219PEAK HR FACTOR :0.821 0.500 0.417 0.000 0.708 0.250 0.417 0.000 0.400 0.840 0.800 0.000 0.500 0.874 0.583 0.0000.912Total0.9490.869 WESTBOUND0.848 SOUTHBOUND0.705 0.70004:45 PM - 05:45 PM SOUTHBOUNDPMAM07:15 AM - 08:15 AM NORTHBOUND0.516 EASTBOUND10/17/2019La Costa Ave NORTHBOUNDLa Costa Ave0.894 WESTBOUNDRomeria StRomeria St0.8750.880 EASTBOUND National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Romeria St & La Costa AveCity:CarlsbadProject ID:19-04397-001Control:SignalizedDate:NS/EW Streets:0100010011101200NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTAL7:00 AM000000000000000007:15 AM000001000000000017:30 AM000000000000000007:45 AM000001000100000028:00 AM000000000000000008:15 AM000000000000000008:30 AM000000000000001128:45 AM00000000000001001NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :00000200010001116APPROACH %'s :0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%PEAK HR :07:15 AM38 37 44TOTALPEAK HR VOL :00000200010000003PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000HeadersNBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU0100010011101200NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTAL4:00 PM000000000000000004:15 PM000000001000000014:30 PM000000000000000004:45 PM000000000000000005:00 PM001000000000000015:15 PM000010000000000015:30 PM000000000000000005:45 PM00000000000000000NLNT NRNU SL ST SR SU ELET EREU WL WT WR WU TOTALTOTAL VOLUMES :00101000100000003APPROACH %'s :0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%PEAK HR :04:45 PM292 289 296TOTALPEAK HR VOL :00101000000000002PEAK HR FACTOR :0.00 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000BikesRomeria StRomeria StLa Costa AveLa Costa Ave0.5000.250AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUNDPM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND10/17/201904:45 PM - 05:45 PM0.5000.250 0.25007:15 AM - 08:15 AM0.375 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Romeria St & La Costa Ave Project ID:19-04397-001 City:Carlsbad Date:10/17/2019 NS/EW Streets: EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 7:00 AM 1100000027:15 AM 010000001 7:30 AM 000003003 7:45 AM 00001100011 8:00 AM 100020104 8:15 AM 000000000 8:30 AM 110002004 8:45 AM 000010001 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :33004151026 APPROACH %'s :50.00% 50.00%21.05% 78.95% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:15 AM 37 36 43 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :11003131019 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.250 0.250 0.375 0.325 0.250 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL4:00 PM 000000011 4:15 PM 000000000 4:30 PM 000000000 4:45 PM 000000000 5:00 PM 100000001 5:15 PM 000000000 5:30 PM 3000110055:45 PM 020000002 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :420011019 APPROACH %'s :66.67% 33.33%50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% PEAK HR :04:45 PM 289 286 293 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :400011006 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.333 0.250 0.250 Pedestrians (Crosswalks) WEST LEG 07:15 AM - 08:15 AM La Costa Ave 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM 0.3000.333 0.250 PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG 0.4320.500 0.364 0.250 AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG Romeria St Romeria St La Costa Ave Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services ID:19-04397-001 Day: City:Carlsbad Date: AM 136300 AM NOON 0000 NOON PM 101170 PM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0100 0 28010 2 416 0 668 000 014019 108 1 TEV 1237 0 1219 0 000 314 0 625 1 PHF 0.91 0.95 44048 1 0010 AM NOON PM PM NOON AM PM 046610PM NOON 0000NOON AM 097629AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Count 53 Total Vehicles (PM)Bikes (PM) Romeria St & La Costa Ave Thursday 10/17/2019 CONTROL WESTBOUND07:15 AM - 08:15 AM Total Vehicles (Noon) Pedestrians (Crosswalks) Bikes (NOON) 373 COUNT PERIODSBikes (AM)PEAK HOURSTotal Vehicles (AM) NONE 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM 17 42 0 Signalized La Costa AveEASTBOUNDRomeria St 69 0 Romeria St SOUTHBOUND 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM NORTHBOUND 652 0 La Costa Ave07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NONE 778 0 472 NOONAM PM 0 3 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 PM AM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM AM NOON PM NOON 0 0 0 0 1 0 020000N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A19 668 10 44 314 1 1363097629N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A4 416 28 48 625 8 10117466100 0 0 0 0 0 001001NOONPMAMNOONAMPMNOONAMPMNOONPMAMt. -t---t--- ~ -t---t---:, ' ----t---t---., c;- --- -+ ~ c::;> LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe APPENDIX C MMLOS RESULTS ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) PEDESTRIAN Roadway Direction NB SB * Are crosswalks marked per CA MUTCD standards?Yes Yes * Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):5 5 * Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g., cross-slope and trip hazards)?No No * Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA requirements?No No * Do the street light locations appear adequate?No No Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Number of Through Lanes:1 1 Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2' Does on-street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes Yes Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings?No No Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island)?No No Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?Yes Yes Are there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)? No No Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings?No No Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80% of street curb line?No No Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attractions?No No Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No Romeria St Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Local/Neighborhood 710 *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 70 | C NB SCORE | LOS 70 | C SB SCORE | LOS May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! X Project: Segment: Scenario: By: NB SB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 15 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross-slope and trip hazards) 10 0 0 Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10 On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 5 5 Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 0 0 Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0 Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 5 5 Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5 No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 5 5 5 Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 10 Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CA MUTCD)5 5 0 Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island) 10 0 0 Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.) 10 0 0 RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations appear adequate 10 0 0 Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) 5 0 0 Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 5 0 0 Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0 Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0 70 65 C D No No Other Elements Accessibility and functionality Total Score: All Essential Feature Criteria Met? Pedestrian LOS: Street characteristics Romeria Pointe Romeria St From Gibraltar St To La Costa Ave Existing LLG Crossing characteristics Criteria Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) PEDESTRIAN Roadway Direction EB WB * Are crosswalks marked per CA MUTCD standards?Yes Yes * Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):5 5 * Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g., cross-slope and trip hazards)?Yes Yes * Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA requirements?No No * Do the street light locations appear adequate?No No Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Number of Through Lanes:1 1 Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2' Does on-street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes Yes Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings?No No Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island)?No No Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?No No Are there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)? No No Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings?No No Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80% of street curb line?No No Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attractions?No No Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Romeria St Local/Neighborhood 630 *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 75 | C EB SCORE | LOS 75 | C WB SCORE | LOS May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! X Project: Segment: Scenario: By: EB WB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 15 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross-slope and trip hazards) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10 On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 5 5 Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 0 0 Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0 Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 5 5 Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5 No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 5 5 5 Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 10 Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CA MUTCD)5 0 0 Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island) 10 0 0 Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.) 10 0 0 RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations appear adequate 10 0 0 Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) 5 0 0 Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 5 0 0 Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0 Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0 75 75 C C No No Romeria Pointe Gibraltar St From La Costa Ave To Romeria St Existing LLG Crossing characteristics Criteria Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria Other Elements Accessibility and functionality Total Score: All Essential Feature Criteria Met? Pedestrian LOS: Street characteristics ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) BICYCLE Roadway Direction NB SB * Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good (e.g., no pot holes)?Yes Yes * Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)? Yes Yes * Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing and striping design guidelines?No No Is on-street parking provided?Parallel parking Parallel parking Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Does the bikeway on the study segment and side streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan?Both Both Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection provided at intersections?No No Any bicycle racks are provided along segment?No No Bicycle Facility Provided: Romeria St Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Local/Neighborhood 710 85 | BNB SCORE | LOS 85 | BSB SCORE | LOS X *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! Project: Segment: Scenario: By: NB SB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 25 25 Speed limit is 30 mph 15 0 0 Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0 Residential street with ADT < 3,000 15 15 15 Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0 Class I facility (off-street path), Class IV (cycle track), or multiuse path 25 0 0 Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on-street bicycle lanes)15 0 0 Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0 Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only)5 0 0 Additional traffic calming/speed management features have been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0 Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 25 25 Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0 Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design guidelines D 10 0 0 Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes)10 10 10 Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates)5 5 5 Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Plan along segment 5 5 5 Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes or driveways 5 0 0 No on-street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 0 0 Back-in angled parking 5 0 0 Parallel parking with door-side buffered bike lane 5 0 0 Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at intersections 5 0 0 Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0 85 85 B B Total Score: Bike LOS: Connectivity/ Contiguity Adjacent Vehicle Parking Other Elements Romeria Pointe Romeria St From Gibraltar St To La Costa Ave All Scenarios LLG Facility Bicycle MMLOS Criteria Criteria Street Characteristics Bikeway Design ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) BICYCLE Roadway Direction EB WB * Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good (e.g., no pot holes)?Yes Yes * Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)? Yes Yes * Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing and striping design guidelines?No No Is on-street parking provided?Parallel parking Parallel parking Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Does the bikeway on the study segment and side streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan?Both Both Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection provided at intersections?No No Any bicycle racks are provided along segment?No No Bicycle Facility Provided: Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Romeria St Local/Neighborhood 630 85 | BEB SCORE | LOS 85 | BWB SCORE | LOS X *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! Project: Segment: Scenario: By: EB WB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 25 25 Speed limit is 30 mph 15 0 0 Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0 Residential street with ADT < 3,000 15 15 15 Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0 Class I facility (off-street path), Class IV (cycle track), or multiuse path 25 0 0 Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on-street bicycle lanes)15 0 0 Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0 Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only)5 0 0 Additional traffic calming/speed management features have been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0 Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 25 25 Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0 Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design guidelines D 10 0 0 Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes)10 10 10 Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates)5 5 5 Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Plan along segment 5 5 5 Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes or driveways 5 0 0 No on-street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 0 0 Back-in angled parking 5 0 0 Parallel parking with door-side buffered bike lane 5 0 0 Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at intersections 5 0 0 Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0 85 85 B B Total Score: Bike LOS: Connectivity/ Contiguity Adjacent Vehicle Parking Other Elements Romeria Pointe Gibraltar St From La Costa Ave To Romeria St All Scenarios LLG Facility Bicycle MMLOS Criteria Criteria Street Characteristics Bikeway Design ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) PEDESTRIAN Roadway Direction NB SB * Are crosswalks marked per CA MUTCD standards?Yes Yes * Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):5 5 * Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g., cross-slope and trip hazards)?No No * Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA requirements?No Yes * Do the street light locations appear adequate?No Yes Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Number of Through Lanes:1 1 Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2' Does on-street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes Yes Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings?No No Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island)?No No Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?Yes Yes Are there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)? No No Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings?No No Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80% of street curb line?No No Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attractions?No No Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No Romeria St Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Local/Neighborhood 710 *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 70 | C NB SCORE | LOS 90 | A SB SCORE | LOS May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! X Project: Segment: Scenario: By: NB SB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 15 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 0 10 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross-slope and trip hazards) 10 0 0 Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10 On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 5 5 Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 0 0 Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0 Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 5 5 Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5 No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 5 5 5 Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 10 Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CA MUTCD)5 5 0 Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island) 10 0 0 Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.) 10 0 0 RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations appear adequate 10 0 10 Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) 5 0 0 Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 5 0 0 Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0 Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0 70 85 C B No No Romeria Pointe Romeria St From Gibraltar St To La Costa Ave With Project LLG Crossing characteristics Criteria Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria Other Elements Accessibility and functionality Total Score: All Essential Feature Criteria Met? Pedestrian LOS: Street characteristics ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) PEDESTRIAN Roadway Direction EB WB * Are crosswalks marked per CA MUTCD standards?Yes Yes * Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):5 5 * Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g., cross-slope and trip hazards)?Yes Yes * Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA requirements?Yes No * Do the street light locations appear adequate?Yes No Speed limit (miles per hour - mph):25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower Number of Through Lanes:1 1 Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Yes Yes Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way:0' to 2'0' to 2' Does on-street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Yes Yes Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings?No No Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No No Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island)?No No Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility?No No Are there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)? No No Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings?No No Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No No Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80% of street curb line?No No Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attractions?No No Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length?No No Gibraltar St La Costa Ave Romeria St Local/Neighborhood 630 *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 95 | A EB SCORE | LOS 75 | C WB SCORE | LOS May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! X Project: Segment: Scenario: By: EB WB Points Points Assigned Points Assigned * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 15 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 10 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross-slope and trip hazards) 10 10 10 Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10 On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 5 5 Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 0 0 Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0 Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 5 5 Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5 No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 5 5 5 Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 10 10 Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CA MUTCD)5 0 0 Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island) 10 0 0 Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.) 10 0 0 RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations appear adequate 10 10 0 Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) 5 0 0 Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 5 0 0 Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0 Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0 95 75 A C Yes No Romeria Pointe Gibraltar St From La Costa Ave To Romeria St With Project LLG Crossing characteristics Criteria Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria Other Elements Accessibility and functionality Total Score: All Essential Feature Criteria Met? Pedestrian LOS: Street characteristics LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe APPENDIX D HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – EXISTING Existing AM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\1 Ex AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 11 9Future Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 11 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 33000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 4 36 21 18 15 13 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 43 0 85 25 Stage 1 - - - - 25 - Stage 2 - - - - 60 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 916 1051 Stage 1 - - - - 998 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1562 - 900 1048Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 900 - Stage 1 - - - - 981 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)961 - - 1562 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - 0.013 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Existing AM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\1 Ex AM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 314 44 19 668 10 97 6 29 30 6 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 314 44 19 668 10 97 6 29 30 6 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 345 48 21 734 11 107 7 32 33 7 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 5 821 696 47 852 13 338 38 60 296 73 77 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.46 0.46 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1838 28 954 202 324 789 394 414 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 345 48 21 0 745 146 0 0 54 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1865 1480 0 0 1597 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 4.9 0.7 0.4 0.0 13.8 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 4.9 0.7 0.4 0.0 13.8 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.73 0.22 0.61 0.26Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 5 821 696 47 0 865 436 0 0 446 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.42 0.07 0.45 0.00 0.86 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 230 992 840 230 0 989 1133 0 0 1148 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.3 7.5 6.3 18.6 0.0 9.3 14.1 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.0 0.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 7.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 5.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.3 7.8 6.3 25.3 0.0 16.4 14.5 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS D A A C ABBAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 394 766 146 54Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 16.6 14.5 13.3Approach LOS ABBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.5 21.5 11.7 4.6 22.4 11.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 26.0 5.0 20.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 6.9 3.0 2.0 15.8 5.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 2.1 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.7HCM 6th LOS B Existing PM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\2 Ex PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 8 21 8 4 15 9Future Vol, veh/h 8 21 8 4 15 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 88023Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 10 27 10 5 19 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 45 0 59 35 Stage 1 - - - - 32 - Stage 2 - - - - 27 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1563 - 948 1038 Stage 1 - - - - 991 - Stage 2 - - - - 996 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1551 - 933 1027Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 933 - Stage 1 - - - - 977 - Stage 2 - - - - 994 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)966 - - 1551 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - 0.007 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Existing PM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\2 Ex PM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 625 48 4 416 28 46 6 10 17 1 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 625 48 4 416 28 46 6 10 17 1 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 658 51 4 438 29 48 6 11 18 1 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 19 907 769 10 832 55 298 13 24 256 16 55 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1734 115 1119 140 256 834 172 582 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 658 51 4 0 467 65 0 0 30 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1849 1515 0 0 1588 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 9.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 9.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.74 0.17 0.60 0.37Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 19 907 769 10 0 887 336 0 0 328 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.73 0.07 0.41 0.00 0.53 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 273 1751 1484 273 0 1731 1361 0 0 1350 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 6.7 4.5 16.1 0.0 5.9 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.9 1.1 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 7.8 4.5 41.7 0.0 6.4 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A D AABAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 717 471 65 30Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 6.7 14.2 13.7Approach LOS AABB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.3 7.6 4.8 20.1 7.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 26.0 5.0 30.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 11.1 2.5 2.1 7.7 3.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.0 3.0 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.8HCM 6th LOS A LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe APPENDIX E HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – EXISTING + PROJECT Existing + Project AM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 12 9Future Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 12 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 33000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 4 36 21 18 17 13 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 43 0 85 25 Stage 1 - - - - 25 - Stage 2 - - - - 60 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 916 1051 Stage 1 - - - - 998 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1562 - 900 1048Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 900 - Stage 1 - - - - 981 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)958 - - 1562 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - - 0.013 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Existing + Project AM Romeria Pointe 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 17 49 0Future Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 17 49 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 1 5 1 20 58 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 80 58 58 0 - 0 Stage 1 58 ----- Stage 2 22 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 922 1008 1546 - - - Stage 1 965 ----- Stage 2 1001 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 921 1008 1546 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 921 ----- Stage 1 964 ----- Stage 2 1001 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0.4 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1546 - 989 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.006 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.7 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Existing + Project AM Romeria Pointe 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 18 53 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 18 53 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 5 1 21 62 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 85 62 62 0 - 0 Stage 1 62 ----- Stage 2 23 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 916 1003 1541 - - - Stage 1 961 ----- Stage 2 1000 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 915 1003 1541 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 915 ----- Stage 1 960 ----- Stage 2 1000 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 0.4 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1541 - 1003 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.005 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.6 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Existing + Project AM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 314 44 19 668 10 97 6 29 32 6 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 314 44 19 668 10 97 6 29 32 6 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 345 48 21 734 11 107 7 32 35 7 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 7 824 699 46 851 13 338 37 61 271 71 99 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.46 0.46 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1838 28 957 201 325 683 383 533 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 3 345 48 21 0 745 146 0 0 63 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1865 1484 0 0 1598 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 4.9 0.7 0.5 0.0 13.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 4.9 0.7 0.5 0.0 13.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.73 0.22 0.56 0.33Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 7 824 699 46 0 863 436 0 0 441 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.42 0.07 0.45 0.00 0.86 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 229 986 835 229 0 983 1124 0 0 1141 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.3 7.5 6.3 18.7 0.0 9.3 14.1 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 33.0 0.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 7.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 5.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.3 7.8 6.3 25.4 0.0 16.6 14.6 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS D A A C ABBAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 396 766 146 63Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 16.9 14.6 13.5Approach LOS ABBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.5 21.6 11.7 4.7 22.5 11.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 26.0 5.0 20.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 6.9 3.2 2.1 15.9 5.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.3 0.0 2.1 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.9HCM 6th LOS B Existing + Project PM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 15 9Future Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 15 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 88023Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 10 29 10 5 19 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 47 0 60 36 Stage 1 - - - - 33 - Stage 2 - - - - 27 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1560 - 947 1037 Stage 1 - - - - 989 - Stage 2 - - - - 996 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1548 - 932 1026Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 932 - Stage 1 - - - - 975 - Stage 2 - - - - 994 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)965 - - 1548 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - 0.007 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Existing + Project PM Romeria Pointe 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 42 28 1Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 42 28 1Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 2 4 49 33 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 91 34 34 0 - 0 Stage 1 34 ----- Stage 2 57 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 909 1039 1578 - - - Stage 1 988 ----- Stage 2 966 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 906 1039 1578 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 906 ----- Stage 1 985 ----- Stage 2 966 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 0.5 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1578 - 1039 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.002 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.5 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Existing + Project PM Romeria Pointe 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 45 30 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 45 30 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 2 5 53 35 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 98 35 35 0 - 0 Stage 1 35 ----- Stage 2 63 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 901 1038 1576 - - - Stage 1 987 ----- Stage 2 960 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 898 1038 1576 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 898 ----- Stage 1 984 ----- Stage 2 960 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 0.6 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1576 - 1038 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.002 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.5 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Existing + Project PM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 625 48 4 416 30 46 6 10 18 1 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 625 48 4 416 30 46 6 10 18 1 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 658 51 4 438 32 48 6 11 19 1 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 33 906 768 10 812 59 300 14 25 246 16 63 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.48 0.48 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1721 126 1122 140 257 768 165 653 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 658 51 4 0 470 65 0 0 34 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1847 1519 0 0 1585 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 9.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 9.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.74 0.17 0.56 0.41Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 33 906 768 10 0 871 339 0 0 326 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.73 0.07 0.41 0.00 0.54 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 272 1745 1478 272 0 1723 1354 0 0 1345 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.9 6.7 4.5 16.2 0.0 6.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 1.1 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.6 7.8 4.5 41.7 0.0 6.6 14.1 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A D AABAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 723 474 65 34Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 6.9 14.1 13.7Approach LOS AABB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.3 7.7 5.1 19.9 7.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 26.0 5.0 30.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 11.1 2.6 2.3 7.9 3.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.0 3.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.0HCM 6th LOS A LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe APPENDIX F HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – EXISTING + CUMULATIVE Near-Term AM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\5 NT AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 12 9Future Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 12 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 33000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 4 38 21 18 17 13 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 45 0 86 26 Stage 1 - - - - 26 - Stage 2 - - - - 60 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1563 - 915 1050 Stage 1 - - - - 997 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1559 - 899 1047Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 899 - Stage 1 - - - - 980 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)957 - - 1559 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - - 0.013 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Near-Term AM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\5 NT AM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 317 45 20 673 11 98 6 29 31 6 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 317 45 20 673 11 98 6 29 31 6 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 348 49 22 740 12 108 7 32 34 7 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 5 823 697 48 854 14 339 37 60 299 72 76 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.47 0.47 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1835 30 959 200 322 804 386 406 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 348 49 22 0 752 147 0 0 55 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1865 1481 0 0 1597 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 5.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 14.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 14.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.73 0.22 0.62 0.25Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 5 823 697 48 0 868 436 0 0 447 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.42 0.07 0.45 0.00 0.87 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 229 985 835 229 0 982 1126 0 0 1140 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.4 7.5 6.3 18.6 0.0 9.3 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.3 0.3 0.0 6.5 0.0 7.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 5.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.7 7.9 6.3 25.2 0.0 16.9 14.6 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS D A A C ABBAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 398 774 147 55Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 17.1 14.6 13.4Approach LOS ABBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.6 21.6 11.7 4.6 22.6 11.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 26.0 5.0 20.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 7.0 3.0 2.0 16.1 5.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.0 2.1 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.0HCM 6th LOS B Near-Term PM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\6 NT PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 16 9Future Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 16 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 88023Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 10 29 10 5 21 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 47 0 60 36 Stage 1 - - - - 33 - Stage 2 - - - - 27 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1560 - 947 1037 Stage 1 - - - - 989 - Stage 2 - - - - 996 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1548 - 932 1026Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 932 - Stage 1 - - - - 975 - Stage 2 - - - - 994 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)964 - - 1548 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - - 0.007 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Near-Term PM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\6 NT PM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 631 50 4 420 29 47 6 11 18 1 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 631 50 4 420 29 47 6 11 18 1 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 664 53 4 442 31 49 6 12 19 1 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 19 911 772 10 832 58 297 13 26 258 17 54 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1727 121 1109 136 272 845 180 564 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 664 53 4 0 473 67 0 0 31 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1848 1516 0 0 1588 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 9.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 9.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 5.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.73 0.18 0.61 0.35Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 19 911 772 10 0 891 336 0 0 330 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.73 0.07 0.41 0.00 0.53 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 271 1736 1471 271 0 1715 1349 0 0 1338 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.2 6.7 4.5 16.3 0.0 5.9 14.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.0 1.1 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.1 7.8 4.5 41.8 0.0 6.4 14.3 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A D AABAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 725 477 67 31Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 6.7 14.3 13.8Approach LOS AABB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.5 7.7 4.9 20.3 7.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 26.0 5.0 30.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 11.3 2.5 2.1 7.9 3.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.0 3.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.9HCM 6th LOS A LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe APPENDIX G HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT Near-Term + Project AM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 13 9Future Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 13 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 33000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 4 38 21 18 18 13 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 45 0 86 26 Stage 1 - - - - 26 - Stage 2 - - - - 60 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1563 - 915 1050 Stage 1 - - - - 997 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1559 - 899 1047Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 899 - Stage 1 - - - - 980 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)954 - - 1559 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - 0.013 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Near-Term + Project AM Romeria Pointe 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 18 50 0Future Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 18 50 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 1 5 1 21 59 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 82 59 59 0 - 0 Stage 1 59 ----- Stage 2 23 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 920 1007 1545 - - - Stage 1 964 ----- Stage 2 1000 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 919 1007 1545 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 919 ----- Stage 1 963 ----- Stage 2 1000 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0.4 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1545 - 988 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.006 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.7 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Near-Term + Project AM Romeria Pointe 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 19 54 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 19 54 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 5 1 22 64 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 88 64 64 0 - 0 Stage 1 64 ----- Stage 2 24 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 913 1000 1538 - - - Stage 1 959 ----- Stage 2 999 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 912 1000 1538 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 912 ----- Stage 1 958 ----- Stage 2 999 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 0.4 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1538 - 1000 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.005 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.6 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Near-Term + Project AM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 317 45 20 673 11 98 6 29 33 6 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 317 45 20 673 11 98 6 29 33 6 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 348 49 22 740 12 108 7 32 36 7 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 7 826 700 48 853 14 339 37 60 274 70 98 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.46 0.46 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1835 30 962 199 323 698 376 524 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 3 348 49 22 0 752 147 0 0 64 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1865 1485 0 0 1597 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 5.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 14.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 5.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 14.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.73 0.22 0.56 0.33Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 7 826 700 48 0 866 437 0 0 442 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.42 0.07 0.45 0.00 0.87 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 227 979 830 227 0 976 1117 0 0 1133 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.5 7.5 6.3 18.8 0.0 9.4 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 33.0 0.3 0.0 6.5 0.0 7.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 5.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.5 7.8 6.3 25.3 0.0 17.1 14.7 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS D A A C ABBAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 400 774 147 64Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 17.4 14.7 13.6Approach LOS ABBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.6 21.8 11.8 4.7 22.7 11.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 26.0 5.0 20.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 7.0 3.2 2.1 16.2 5.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.2HCM 6th LOS B Near-Term + Project PM Romeria Pointe 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St 03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 8 23 8 4 16 9Future Vol, veh/h 8 23 8 4 16 9Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 88023Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - - - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 77 77 77Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 10 30 10 5 21 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 48 0 60 36 Stage 1 - - - - 33 - Stage 2 - - - - 27 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1559 - 947 1037 Stage 1 - - - - 989 - Stage 2 - - - - 996 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1547 - 932 1026Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 932 - Stage 1 - - - - 975 - Stage 2 - - - - 994 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.9 8.9HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)964 - - 1547 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - - 0.007 -HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.3 0HCM Lane LOS A - - A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - Near-Term + Project PM Romeria Pointe 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 43 29 1Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 43 29 1Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 2 4 51 34 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 94 35 35 0 - 0 Stage 1 35 ----- Stage 2 59 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 906 1038 1576 - - - Stage 1 987 ----- Stage 2 964 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 903 1038 1576 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 903 ----- Stage 1 984 ----- Stage 2 964 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 0.5 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1576 - 1038 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.002 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.5 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Near-Term + Project PM Romeria Pointe 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S)03/09/2020 HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT+P PM.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 46 31 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 46 31 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 -----Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 0 2 5 54 36 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 100 36 36 0 - 0 Stage 1 36 ----- Stage 2 64 -----Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 899 1037 1575 - - - Stage 1 986 ----- Stage 2 959 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 896 1037 1575 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 896 ----- Stage 1 983 ----- Stage 2 959 ----- Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 0.6 0HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1575 - 1037 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.002 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.5 - -HCM Lane LOS A A A - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Near-Term + Project PM Romeria Pointe 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave 03/09/2020 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 10 ReportN:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT+P PM.syn Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 631 50 4 420 31 47 6 11 19 1 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 631 50 4 420 31 47 6 11 19 1 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 664 53 4 442 33 49 6 12 20 1 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 33 910 772 10 814 61 299 13 27 248 17 62 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.49 0.49 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1718 128 1112 136 272 779 172 634 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 664 53 4 0 475 67 0 0 35 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1847 1520 0 0 1586 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 9.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 6.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 9.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 6.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.73 0.18 0.57 0.40Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 33 910 772 10 0 875 339 0 0 328 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.73 0.07 0.41 0.00 0.54 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 270 1729 1466 270 0 1707 1342 0 0 1332 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 6.7 4.5 16.4 0.0 6.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 1.1 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.8 7.9 4.5 41.9 0.0 6.7 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A D AABAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 731 479 67 35Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 7.0 14.2 13.8Approach LOS AABB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.6 7.7 5.1 20.1 7.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 26.0 5.0 30.5 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 11.3 2.6 2.3 8.0 3.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.0 3.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.1HCM 6th LOS A STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453www.hcd.ca.gov September 18, 2019 Scott Chadwick, City Manager 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: City of Carlsbad, Romeria Pointe Project Dear Scott Chadwick: The purpose of this letter is to assist the city in complying with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5). The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recognizes the challenge of interpreting ever-changing housing and land-use laws, and appreciates the city’s efforts to maintain compliance with all applicable laws. In enacting the Housing Accountability Act, the Legislature declared, “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions” (Gov. Code Sec 65589.5(a)(2)(A)). This housing crisis, the Legislature found, has adverse impacts on Californians and California, impacting citizens’ health, safety, economic standing and the state’s environment and competitiveness (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(a)(2)). Through the Housing Accountability Act, the Legislature intended “to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing developments” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(a)(2)(K)). Furthermore, the Legislature declared, “It is the policy of the state that this section should be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(a)(2)(L)). Through communications with the developer and Carlsbad city staff, we have been made aware of delays with the Romeria Pointe project (Project No. SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151)). The Romeria Pointe project consists of 23 units of housing, including 3 units designated as very-low income. By virtue of its very low-income units, the project was granted a 35% density bonus as well as height and unit concessions provided by State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Sec. 65915) and applicable Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC Section 21.86.050). The project is proposed for two lots (APNs: 2163001200, 2163001300) designated in the Housing Element for moderate-income units (City of Carlsbad, 2013-2021 Housing Element, pg. B-2). According to the Planning Department staff report provided in advance of the project consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council, the Romeria Pointe application was deemed ATTACHMENT 8 Scott Chadwick, City Manager Page 2 complete on October 12, 2018, compliant with all applicable zoning laws, and exempt from providing environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it was an in-fill development project (City Council Agenda Packet, Item #12, Exhibit 4, “Planning Commission Staff Report”). The project was approved by a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission on March 20, 2019. The approval was appealed, and, on June 11, 2019, the City Council considered the appeal in an open session. The debate at City Council was extensive, but the outcome unclear. From HCD’s examination of the meeting record, it appears that the Council neither accepted nor denied the appeal. Instead, the Council chose to remand the project to the Planning Commission for a “focused EIR” that would consider both geotechnical and traffic impacts of the project. No written findings were made by the Council. By virtue of this decision, the city risks violating the Housing Accountability Act. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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)). These written findings must be “supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(j)(1)). Moreover, the Legislature has declared its intent “that the conditions that would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health and safety . . . arise infrequently” (Gov. Code Sec. 65889(a)(3)). “Specific adverse impact” is narrowly defined as “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” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(j)(1)(A)). Finally, the Legislature has declared that “the receipt of a density bonus . . . shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589(j)(3)). Under Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(5)(B), disapproval means failure “to comply with the time periods” established by Gov. Code Section 65950. The Legislature has determined that “A public agency that is the lead agency for a development project shall approve or disapprove the project within . . . [s]ixty days from the determination by Scott Chadwick, City Manager Page 3 the lead agency that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), if the project is exempt from that act.” (Gov. Code Sec. 65950(a)(5)). The city has, thus far, made no findings that negate the Planning Department’s determination that the project is exempt. The Housing Accountability Act does not free the city from complying with CEQA (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(e)). But, by extending the development process substantially for this project, the City of Carlsbad risks violating the Housing Accountability Act. Please contact Cynthia Marsh (916-263-7421), of our staff, if we can be of any support. Sincerely, Zachary Olmstead Deputy Director cc: Matt Hall, Mayor City of Carlsbad Celia A. Brewer, City Attorney City of Carlsbad Don Neu, City Planner City of Carlsbad From:Council Internet Email Cc:City Clerk Subject:FW: PLEASE delay meeting for Romeria Pointe on May 19th, 2020 Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:19:45 PM From: bbundaf@aol.com <bbundaf@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 10:20 AM To: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: PLEASE delay meeting for Romeria Pointe on May 19th, 2020 Dear Mayor Hall, Mr. Chadwick, and City Council: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. I am requesting the hearing on May 19th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be delayed. This due to the Stay At Home orders that currently are in place. We are in the middle of a World Pandemic. EVERYONE's lives have been turned upside down. We are home schooling. Carlsbad residents are wondering when they will return to work so they can receive a paycheck. Neighbors are stranded in far away places! This neighbor has a very serious situation going on. Certainly their attention is going to saving their lives, not writing an e-mail to City Council! "My wife and I are stuck in Brasil for the foreseeable future ..... We have recently had a couple of deaths around us due to Covid-19 and some others who are now experiencing strange symptoms and the signature symptoms of Covid that we are all becoming aware of more and more. The hospitals are overflowing with IC patients and they are digging mass graves in many places, but at least able to bury people in individual coffins... Somehow the officials were still claiming it was going to not be bad here, but just bullshit.." A lot of time was spent on the evening of June 11th, 2019 on this issue. It's a HOT topic! At this point, the citizens of Carlsbad have very little information regarding thishearing. Under the current Stay At Home orders it is almost impossible to obtain any documents/information. If you recall, I had a hard enough time obtaining documents last Spring when life was "normal". Please see below from my e-mail sent to the City on May 19th, 2019: "City Planning has made it very difficult for me to obtain copies of the geotechnical report done for the developer by GeoSoil, Inc. Chris ATTACHMENT 9 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 if I 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." We have a right to information on this matter. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has our back!!! Public authorities are obliged to publish certain information about their activities and members of the public are entitled to request information from public authorities. Many of us have been e-mailing in to the City inquiring aboutactivity on this issue since June 2019. No CEQA report has been provided. This is what Council decided was necessary for the Romeria Pointe Apartment project on June 11th 2019. I appreciate your time. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Sincerely, Beth Citrano 7422 Carlina St. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Manager Internet Email To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Postponement of hearing for Romeria Pointe for May19th 2020 Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:25:24 PM This may be a duplicate since the council email was cc’d on it. From: hen <etonlodge@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:39 PM To: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov> Cc: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Postponement of hearing for Romeria Pointe for May19th 2020 -----Original Message----- From: hen <etonlodge@aol.com> To: manager@carlsbadca.gov <manager@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: council@carlsbad.gov <council@carlsbad.gov> Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 12:28 pm Subject: Postponement of hearing for Romeria Pointe for May19th 2020 Dear Mayor Hall, Mr.Chadwick and City Council: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. My name is Susan Ortman and I reside at 7551 Romeria Street, Carlsbad CA 92009 I just received notice by way of Chris Garcia that the Developer for Romeria Pointe Apartments has managed to obtain a hearing in front of City Council (by way video teleconference) to reconsider a directive that the City Council made to them on June11th, 2019. The end result of this meeting was that City Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission as long as the developer completed an environmental impact report (CEQA) ) covering geotechnical and traffic issues. To my knowledge this has not been done and it would appear that they do not want to do it hence the hearing. At this time the whole country is experiencing a covid 19 Pandemic. There are huge restrictions placed on us including get togethers and meetings. Our lives are upside down and nothing is normal. To have this hearing where our voices cannot be heard physically in front of City Council and in City Chambers violates us as decent human beings. I feel completely railroaded by this and betrayed. We have faith in you our elected officials so please I am asking you to postpone this hearing until such times that it can come before City Council in the normal manner. Thank you for time in reading this and please, please do the right thing Susan Ortman A recent Covid 19 Survivor CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Council Internet Email Cc:City Clerk Subject:FW: Romeria Point Apartments Appeal Date:Thursday, May 14, 2020 8:45:44 AM From: Chad <yougotchad@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 7:28 AM To: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov> Cc: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Romeria Point Apartments Appeal Dear Mayor Hall, Mr. Chadwick, and City Council:I would like the below email to be included in the public record and in the staff reportssubmitted by the council. I own a condominium unit next door to the planned projectat 7557 Romeria Street. I understand that the Council has scheduled a Public Hearing on May 19th, which Iassume is that the builder is attempting to appeal the prior decision to require aCEQA. Also, the staff report which would include the details of the said appeal willnot be available “on or after May 15” - which could be mean the same day to only fourdays prior to the Hearing. This time frame surely will not allow time for proper reviewand response to the Staff findings. Further, because we are in the middle of apandemic, there will be no public comment allowed but only letters to the Council.This will not allow for public questions and comment following any video staff reportpresentation and Q & A by the Council.I would like to formally request that this hearing be continued until:a) There is adequate time to review the Staff findings and answers as to why the priordecision to require a CEQA report is not being adhered to.b) Until the “Stay at Home Order” has been lifted, and we can attend in person.In every daily update from the City Manager we have been reminded that the Stay AtHome order from Governor Newsom is still in effect. Mr. Chadwick states "Your efforts are making a difference". These "efforts" to abide current restrictions make it impossible to communicate with neighbors and obtain documents/information. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date once the Stay At Home orders are no longer in effect. Best Regards, Chad Peck Resident/Owner CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Council Internet Email Cc:City Clerk Subject:FW: Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Thursday, May 14, 2020 8:45:50 AM Attachments:IMG_1374.jpg IMG_1371.jpg IMG_1372.jpg IMG_1373.jpg From: Andrew Chishchevoy <andriy.chishchevoy@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 12:38 AM To: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Romeria Pointe Apartments Dear Mayor Hall, Mr. Chadwick, and City Council: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. Writing about the hearing on May 19th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments that we would like to be postponed. Due to the Stay At Home orders during this world wide pandemic it's pretty much impossible to convey all information via electronic means of communication. I request a postponement of this meeting until the current Stay At Home orders are lifted. Back in June 2019 we spent multiple days and hours on this issue. The entire Romeria neighborhood got involved and wants to have a chance to have a voice in this matter in person. Concerns we had regarding this project remain the same, and pictures attached to this email reconfirm that a 4 story building on a slope is not a safe project. Pictures are recent from mid April of 2020. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Andrew Chishchevoy CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Melissa Flores To:City Clerk Cc:Chris Garcia; Don Neu Subject:FW: Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:12:44 PM -----Original Message----- From: MaryAnne Orcutt <maorcutt@gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:06 PMTo: Planning <Planning@CarlsbadCA.gov>Subject: Fwd: Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) >> Dear City Council,>> I understand that you have chosen to take up a matter at your next meeting Lots 393 and 394, which affects manyresidents on Gibraltar and Romeria Street when none of us can attend due to the “Stay at Home Order”. I wouldrespectfully request that you postpone this matter for a couple of months until the order is lifted, and residents canattend a meeting in person. Also,> 1) we have not been given sufficient notice, nor the specifics about what the builder is claiming, why he isrequesting that you overturn a previous decision made with input from residents. There is limited time to contactresidents or to properly formulate responses, since we do not yet know the issues.> 2) our voices are not properly heard since we cannot be physically present, versus only being able to send emails.> 3) three or four persons will be making a decision which affects hundreds of owners on the contiguous streets,with limited input from us. This seems to be a strategy to push through a decision without adequate public input.> 4)If the Environmental Impact (CEQA) studies have not been done, why would the Council reverse their decisionabout this important matter when residents cannot have input in an in person basis? I certainly hope that this is not away to avoid having community input and to allow the builder to proceed by getting around what the Council hasalready deemed to be required.>> As a reminder about the concerns of the owners on Gibraltar and Romeria, which have not yet been addressed:> 1) The density in this area is already such that there is no available street parking. Every spot is taken, especiallyin the evening/ overnight and on weekends. How would this be addressed by adding 23 additional families, many ofwhom might have two cars, since there would be families?> 2) We are very concerned about water quality issues, water run off, and sewage, as previously detailed to you. These issues would be addressed by the Environmental (CEQA including soil, water and extensive engineeringstudy) which is why we requested this initially. This is both a quality of life and safety issue for everyone livingnear this building project. If water quality issues are affected, or there is significant flooding or erosion, surely theCarlsbad City Council does not want to be subjected to law suits because they bypassed having the CEQA reportsdone.> 2) Since many units In the new project are 3 bedroom, this would add many children to the area, however thereare no playgrounds or green spaces, except for a stream on the La Costa Golf course (on private property), whichruns below our home. There is also a part of Box Canyon which is owned by the City of Carlsbad: it is an extremelydangerous area where some children choose to fish and swim, and the liability for the city here could be extreme. As others have mentioned, there are many rattlesnakes in the Box Canyon as well. To think about an additional 25-50 children utilizing this area and ruining the serenity of the area is unsettling, to say the least. We chose to buy ourproperty because of the serenity, so this would greatly affect our property value as well as everyone else’s in thearea, which of course affects the tax base, and may not be offset by adding the new units. I would think that theCarlsbad City Council would want to be mindful of the safety of its children (and liability) in considering buildingproject.> 3) There are no other 4 story buildings in the street, nor anywhere in the area. This would block other units’ sight lines, cause more artificial light, Block sunlight, and cause more traffic and noise. Why would the City Council approve a high density 4 story building on top of a lot (which is already two stories higher than the street) in an area that is already quite dense? I have seen no plan to protect children and pedestrians in the a> ----- Message truncated -----CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. RE: SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2007-0051) ROMERIA POINTE APTS. Dear Mayor Hall, Mr. Chadwick, and City Council: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. On June 6, 2019, the Council deferred the Project and directed a complete CEQA be prepared. Yet, the public hearing announcement states that while the staff report is not yet available, the project “will not have any adverse significant impacts on the environment” and, therefore, the full CEQA report is not required. We ask that the Council directive be adhered to, and further, request this hearing by continued as: a) The Public Hearing Notice indicates Staff’s report availability “on or after May 15” -only four days prior to the Hearing - doesn’t allow time to respond. b) Under video format, there can be no public questions and comments following a staff presentation and Q&A by Council. Please wait until the “SIP Order” has been lifted and affected residents can participate, in person, at a Public Hearing. c) We request Public Works/Eng comments to the CEQA and following issues be made public for review and attached to the Staff report; The Project WILL have significant impact on both the abutting properties and nearby residents both during and after construction. Environmental impact: The developers consultants’ report indicated that construction deficiencies are to blame for land slippage/slides on adjacent easterly property and damage to units. They indicated that prior construction information and approvals were unavailable to ascertain the source and determine remedies. (Note, we see no comments regarding the potential soils impact to the developments south of the embankment). It is irresponsible for the developer to indicate that the soil, fill and compaction issues affecting abutting properties were pre-existing and, therefore, do not need to be fully studied and abated in the proposed Project. The land is unstable, and nothing gleaned from Project consultants suggest appropriate precautionary or remediation measures can be taken. We would like Engineering/Building Department review, response and requirements attached to Planning Staff’s recommendation and presence at a continued Public Hearing. Their soils report is inconclusive. The nature of the soil is unstable, making it difficult to determine what the soil decay and slide will be if the new project is constructed. If Council finds that their June 2019 directive for a full CEQA report need NOT be upheld, allowing the Project to move forward, City staff/Council findings attached to any conditional approval must require strong mitigation measures that are definitive and measurable by Inspectors, beyond what the developer/consultants propose. Sun/Shadow & Facade Impact: The Project is now four stories ABOVE streetside berms. It is disproportionate in scale to any development visible surrounding it. As we understand the elevations, the majority of the facade along Gibraltar will not have offsets (stepping back) other than the corner/upper), looming over the street within 15’-20’ of the sidewalk: What mitigation measures will be required to fit this facade into the low-rise buildings surrounding it? Further, we did not find Shadow studies. Given the mass of the Project, we request Council ensure that buildings will not impede sunlight by requiring Shadow studies, across streets, in all four directions. Traffic/ Parking issue: 1) The traffic count study still did not address parking : There is virtually no on-street parking availability, and these additional residents and their visitors will exacerbate the situation (regardless of the C-19 situation). Additional on-site parking is needed. 2) The distance from the corner of Romeria and Gibraltar to the garage ingress/egress may not allow adequate time to react to a vehicle either exiting or entering the garage, given typical vehicle speed and reduced site lines - Were site lines studied (without removing on-street parking between the corner and garage entrance)? We appreciate your consideration of the above. Sincerely, Susan and Warren Simmonds 7521 Gibraltar Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 From:MaryAnne Orcutt To:City Clerk Subject:Please read this into the record of the City Council Meeting of 5/19/20 Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 8:46:41 PM Dear Council, You will be discussing Lots 393 and 394 on 5/19/20, which affects many nearby owners. No residents can attend due to the “Stay at Home Order”. I respectfully request that you postpone this matter until the order is lifted, and owners can attend in person. Also, 1) we have not been given sufficient notice, nor the specifics about why the builder is requesting that you overturn a previous decision which had input from owners. Since we do not know the issues, we cannot formulate a response. 2) we wish to be physically present.3) 3 or 4 persons will be making a decision which affects hundreds of owners with little input. Is this a strategy to push through this decision? 4) Why would the Council reverse their decision about the CEQA testing? Hopefully this is not a means by which the builder can proceed when the Council has alreadydeemed this be required. Items unaddressed by the builder: 1) no available street parking. All spots taken, especially evenings/ overnight/weekends. How is this being addressed for 23-46 more cars? 2) water quality issues, water run off, sewage. CEQA would address this (including soil, water and extensive engineering study). Quality of life and safety issues are at stake here for everyone living near this building project. Surely Carlsbad City Councildoes not want to be subjected to law suits because they bypassed having the CEQA reports done. 2) lack of playgrounds or green spaces, except for a stream owned by Omni La Costa Golf and Box Canyon owned by City of Carlsbad: a dangerous rattlesnakearea where children choose to fish and swim: liability for the city could be extreme. 25-50 more children utilizing this area and ruining the serenity of the area is unsettling. We chose to buy our property because of the serenity, this would greatly affect property values, which affects the tax base, and may not be offset by addingnew units. Carlsbad City Council may wish to be mindful of safety of children (and liability) in considering this building project. 3) no other 4 story buildings on the street, nor anywhere in the area. Project would block sight lines, add artificial light, block sunlight, and cause more traffic and noise.Why would the City Council approve a high density 4 story building on top of a lot ( already two stories higher than the street) in an area that is already dense? What are plans to protect children and pedestrians, traffic mitigation, parking? The builder could consider a 2 story building with 1-2 bedroom units (not ideal, but would partiallyaddress some of concerns). I trust Carlsbad City Council will protect interests of hundreds of property owners, rather than ramrodding through a project of one builder, and bypassing your own past decisions of how this builder must address our (and presumably your) concerns. Sincerely, Mary Anne Orcutt 7501 Gibraltar St Mary Anne OrcuttSent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Ann Scott To:City Clerk Subject:Proposed Romero Pointe Apartment Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:55:23 PM I request this letter be read at the City Council Meeting May 19, 2020. I would like to suggest this meeting be postponed until it can be held in person. I received a notice of this meeting only today in the mail, May 12. It is my firm belief that the construction of this 4 story apartment complex will be detrimental to the safety of Gibraltar and Romero Street homeowners, causing more overcrowding and restricted street parking conditions. The sidewalks are already littered with trash and dog droppings. I cannot imagine the impact of adding yet another huge apartment complex to this already congested area. Thank you Ann & Jack Scott 7509 Gibraltar St., Carlsbad, Ca. Sent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Stuart Knecht To:Cori Schumacher; Keith Blackburn; Priya Bhat-Patel; Matthew Hall; City Clerk Subject:Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 8:36:07 PM I request that my following be read into the record of the City Council Meeting on May 19, 2020: Following are my objections to the proposed apartment project: 1. There already is substantial density on Gibraltar Street and Romeria Street. Adding a 23 unit apartment complex, with most units having three bedrooms, would add an unacceptable level of congestion to this neighborhood. Parking is already a significant problem on both streets, and it has not been unusual for our driveway to be blocked by cars squeezing into already limited parking spaces. Should you have any doubt about this, I invite you to observe our street, particularly in the evening and on weekends. Adding so many apartments, presumably with occupants who would own more than one car, would greatly exacerbate an already difficult situation. 2. Occupants of apartments with three bedrooms would, presumably, include families with children. There is no space on either Gibraltar Street or Romario Street for children to play. With so many cars parked on the street, there certainly will be a safety hazard for children running from between parked cars into the street in front of moving traffic. I was nearly killed as a youngster when I ran in front of a moving car from between two parked cars, so I am keenly aware of this danger. There could be liability issues for the Carlsbad City Council/City of Carlsbad should there be injury or death to children if this project is approved with Council member’s knowledge of such risk. 3. The 11/21/2017 report by GeoSoils, Inc. raised concerns about soil and slope stability. I understand that that all proposed projects prior to the current project had been denied by the city because of soil issues. Surely a four-story building constructed in an area that is elevated 15 to 20 feet above Gibraltar Street, poses a potential risk of water runoff, potential sewage issues, and hillside collapse following heavy rains. As an attorney, I suspect the city could face liability or litigation should this project proceed and adjacent properties are adversely affected or life is lost due to hillside collapse. I strongly recommend that a CEQA environmental impact study be conducted to fully understand the potential risks of this construction. 4. There are no four story buildings on Gibraltar Romeria Streets. To permit such a building to be constructed on elevated land, would, in my opinion, adversely impact sightlines of adjacent properties, degrade neighborhood aesthetics, increase artificial light and block sunlight, not to mention increase traffic and noise due to such a high density building. While some less extensive construction may be appropriate for this property, I believe the proposed project is entirely unsuitable and undesirable for this neighborhood. I urge City Council to deny the appeal of the planning commission‘s decision to approve the site development plan for this property. Sincerely yours, R. Stuart Knecht 7501 Gibraltar Street Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Stuart Knecht To:Cori Schumacher; City Clerk; Keith Blackburn; Matthew Hall; priva.bhat-patel@carlsbadca.gov Subject:Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004(DEV2017-0151) Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 8:16:20 PM I request that my following comment be read into the record of the City Council Meeting on May 19, 2020: Dear City Council Members, I am writing in response to the Notice Of Public Hearing, scheduled May 19, 2020, published May 8, 2020, regarding reconsideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a site development plan allowing construction of a four-story, 23 unit apartment project at the corner of Romario Street and Gibraltar Street. The notice states that officials in the meeting will participate through video or audio teleconference and that interested members of the public cannot attend in person but can only submit emails. I co-own property on Gibraltar Street. If this project is built as planned, it will have a profoundly negative impact on our neighborhood, our quality of life, our safety and the value of our property. I believe that reconsideration of this plan merits more than a teleconference meeting with no in-person participation by the many residents and property owners who will be affected by this project. Furthermore, with such short notice of the meeting, affected individuals will have little notice of the basis for which the builder claims to have justification for overturning the decision to require a CEQA. While the notice provides that interested members of the public have the right to submit email comments, I do not believe that such means of expressing concerns and raising questions adequately provides for a full airing of concerns and addressing questions. I therefore request that the public hearing on this subject be delayed until the current “stay at home order“ is terminated so that the public can be adequately heard in person to address concerns regarding this project that would so adversely affect our lives. Sincerely yours, R. Stuart Knecht 7501 Gibraltar Street Sent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Bob Wilcox To:Planning Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Wednesday, July 01, 2020 2:06:31 PM I urge the City Council to approve the Romeria Pointe project. This is exactly the kind of infill development that our community needs to address our critical housing shortage. Rejecting or delaying these kinds of sensible developments damages our community in severalways: 1) By removing the local supply of rental properties, it drives up the cost of rent city-wide.2) It pushes people out further away from job centers in and around Carlsbad, forcing workers to commute further. This increases traffic for all of us, degrades local air quality, anddramatically increases our local carbon emissions over years or even decades. 3) It robs our city of the increased property tax base it would have provided, leaving the rest ofus to foot the bills. Unnecessary delays, while not as bad as outright rejections, still have many of the same impacts. I hope that in the future, the City Council will take these issues into considerationwhen infill development projects come up for approval. Sincerely, Robert Wilcox6815 Sand Aster Dr, Carlsbad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Chad To:Planning Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments postponement Date:Monday, July 06, 2020 9:19:38 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. This is a request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be postponed. This request is due to the current world wide pandemic. Nearly 3 hours was spent at the City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 on this issue. This clearly shows the amount of attention this matter deserves. Please give the residents of Carlsbad a chance to have a voice in this matter in person once EVERYONE can focus on this important topic. In the update from the City Manager on July 2nd 2020, Mr. Chadwick states "Carlsbad has 22 more cases than my last report on Tuesday for a new total of 182. We estimate 86 are currently active, the highest by far since the start of the pandemic." This pandemic is FAR from over and the numbers in Carlsbad show thisto be true. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. Sincerely, CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Chad To:Planning Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Monday, July 06, 2020 9:23:30 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. This is a request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be postponed. This request is due to the current world wide pandemic. Nearly 3 hours was spent at the City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 on this issue. This clearly shows the amount of attention this matter deserves. Please give the residents of Carlsbad a chance to have a voice in this matter in person onceEVERYONE can focus on this important topic. In the update from the City Manager on July 2nd 2020, Mr. Chadwick states "Carlsbad has 22 more cases than my last report on Tuesday for a new total of 182.We estimate 86 are currently active, the highest by far since the start of the pandemic." This pandemic is FAR from over and the numbers in Carlsbad show this to be true. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. In my opinion we shouldn’t be meeting about anything regarding this project until the CEQA review that was to be done….is done! Sincerely, Chad Peck7557 Romeria Street Carlsbad CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Eileen Donovan To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Cc:Elizabeth Citrano; etonlodge@aol.com; Scott Christensen Subject:Hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:17:29 AM Attachments:image.png Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. This is a request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be postponed until the pandemic subsides and residents can attend in person. In all fairness, we spent 3 hours in a City Council meeting in June of 2019 and it was decided by your body that a partial CEQA would be conducted in the name of safety. Now the builder is attempting to get around that requirement and I feel using thepandemic to take unfair advantage of the residents in the affected area. The builder can hire any expert to tell him what he wants to hear and what the city wants to hear, but a CEQA is a completely independent body and their findings will be much more accurate. I am very disappointed the City is even considering this and not upholdingtheir ruling of requiring CEQA. Had the builder of started the CEQA back in June of 2019, we would probably have a report by now. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. This is much too important given the builder is proposing a 100-ton 4 story building to go up within a few feet of our property when we have already had 2 very expensive lifts on our property due to soil issues that also had a ripple effect by causing two extremelydamaging pipes bursting in the units on both sides of my unit in 2014.These both happened within 2 months of one another and cost well over $10,000 in repairs. As a result, my insurance carrier covered the 1st one and said they would cover the 2nd one, but then my home owners insurance would be cancelled. I called several othercarriers and none would take me on, so I had to go out of pocket on the 2nd flood. It is simple deduction that this could very well go horribly wrong without a properCEQA or at least a partial CEQA. Given this fact, I find it wholly inappropriate that we can only submit written statements as opposed to giving our statements verbally. Is the builder allowed to speak at this teleconference? Or do they too just submit it in writing? If they are allowed to speak and present, and we are not, that isgiving completely unfair advantage to the builder and not the residents who live here. There are literally LIVES and LIVELIHOODS at stake here. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE. This is an extremely important issue that should not be handled lightly as "normal city business" Here is an aerial view our properties and the history. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. Sincerely, Eileen Donovan 7555 Romeria Street As you can see a 100 ton, 4 story building would be within feet of our last soil compromise in 2014. Romeria Pointe building plans show it to be very close to property the line Carlsbad CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Heather Lindsey To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Date:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:57:15 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. Due to the current pandemic, I request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for RomeriaPointe Apartments be postponed. Many of the surrounding owners are elderly and unable to due the diligence and research required in the current environment. Nearly 3 hours was spent at the City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 on this issue. Thisclearly shows the amount of attention this matter deserves. Please postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. Sincerely, Heather Lindsey CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:bbundaf@aol.com To:Manager Internet Email; Planning Subject:PLEASE delay meeting for ROMERIA POINTE on July 15th, 2020 Date:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:11:38 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in staff reports. I am requesting the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be delayed. We are in the middle of a World Pandemic. EVERYONE's lives have been turned upside down! PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Hours were spent on the evening of June 11th, 2019 on this issue. It's a HOT topic! It was voted 4-1 by City Council that a partial CEQA be done because of safety. Residents paid $800 for that appeal. We ask that the decision made that night be upheld. I had a hard enough time obtaining documents last Spring when life was "normal". Please see below my e-mail sent to the City on May 19th, 2019: "City Planning has made it very difficult for me to obtain copies of the geotechnical report done for the developer by GeoSoil, 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 if I 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." Public authorities are obliged to publish certain information about their activities andmembers of the public are entitled to request information from public authorities. We have been e-mailing the City since June 2019 for updates. No CEQA review has been provided. We understand an independent study was done. However, that was generated by the builder/developer. CEQA would be unbiased. We had issues with the in person meeting last June. On the afternoon of June 11th 2019, the day of the meeting, I received a phone call that pictures I requested would not be shown on the presentation screen during the meeting. The pictures were of the property that sit next to the proposed project. It showed the damage the buildingsustained because of land issues. The pictures had been sent electronically. I also drove a hard copy to the City office several days prior as instructed to make sure these pictures would be shown. Again, they were not. No explanation was ever given. Doing this via Zoom/electronically means no guarantee information is passed along before a decision is made. I appreciate your time. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed in person. Sincerely, Beth Citrano 7422 Carlina St. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Mary SurdyTo:Planning; Manager Internet Email; Mary SurdySubject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Meeting being held on July 15th at 3:00 PM Date:Thursday, July 09, 2020 2:36:33 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning Department. This is a request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3 PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments be postponed. This request is due to the current worldwide pandemic. Nearly three hours were spent at the City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 on this issue. This clearly shows the amount of attention this matter deserves. Please give the residents of ourneighborhood in Carlsbad a chance to have a voice in this matter in person so EVERYONE can focus on this important topic. In the update from the City Manager on July 2nd 2020, Mr. Chadwick states "Carlsbad has 22 more Covid 19 cases than my last report on Tuesday for a new total of 182. We estimate 86 arecurrently active, the highest by far since the start of the pandemic." This pandemic is FAR from over and the numbers in Carlsbad show this to be true. NBC news this morning also indicated“La Costa” (our neighborhood) is a new “hot spot” for the virus. Being out and about is a major concern for our residents. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed with an “in person” meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. Sincerely, Mary Surdy7537 Gibraltar StreetCarlsbad, CA 92009Roundtree Condominiums CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:mimijo007@roadrunner.com To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:re-meeting Date:Saturday, July 11, 2020 6:56:48 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick; As a resident at 7515 Gibraltar St., Carlsbad, Ca., I am distressed that a project this large could be allowed to be built on this already over-crowded corner! Please postpone this meeting until more thinking can be heard from the people whose lives will be so negatively affected by this project. Thank you for honoring our requests. Sincerely, Sammy Jo Reeder This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:hen To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Hearing on July 15th for Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Saturday, July 11, 2020 12:00:45 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr.Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. I am requesting that the hearing be put on hold until the Public is able to voice their concerns in person in front of the Commission. I feel that it is biased that the builder/developer/owner or any one representing the Romeria Pointe development is going to be allowed to speak in front of you on the 15th July but that the Public is not being given that same opportunity. All that we are allowed to do is present a comment by way of email for the hearing. On March 20th 2019 there was an application presented to the Planning Commission in Chambers concerning the Romeria Pointe Development. The reason that so few of us from the ensuing neighborhood attended was that we believed that our elected Planning Commission would never allow a towering four story building to be built in our two story neighborhood. Following that result, an Appeal was filed. I do hope you all have had the opportunity to read it as it expands on the problems we have in this neighborhood. On the 11th June the Appeal was heard in front of the Carlsbad City Council. The room was packed and the matter took almost three hours. The end result was that the Council asked the Builder/Developer to do a partial CEQA for soil and traffic. It would appear the Developer now wants that ruling overturned. I feel the developer is using the pandemic to his advantage to take advantage of the residents in the affected neighborhoods. The developer can hire any expert to his advantage but a CEQA is a completely independent body and their findings will be a lot more accurate. Five years ago our five story townhome complex located next door to the planned development had some soil slippage on the Northside which is adjacent to the proposed development. We underwent an extensive lift and reinforcement. The slippage was due to land movement which this area is prone too. In fact the Geologist hired by the Romeria Pointe development concurred with this and stated that sidewalks and driveways will have to be replaced within three years of development due to the instability of the ground and soil. Their Geologist report was also done on three stories not four. Their proposed building procedures include drilling down 32 feet into bedrock and other very unusual and extreme practices in order to construct four stories. The builder/developer mentioned that reports are inconclusive and do not know what the conceptual outcome is going to be until they start excavation. This area has severe street parking problems which is a safety concern. There is not adequate street parking for our residents now never mind adding to it by this development. There is no allowance for visitor parking on the plans so where are all these cars meant to go ? 23 Units equals at least 46 cars possibly more . There is now another problem that has arisen regarding traffic flow since the June 11th 2019 City Council Meeting. FIRES. The proposed Development is only 1/4 miles from the fire zone and a fire hazard map will be provided to you. Earlier this year I was notified by my Insurance Company that they would not be renewing my policy, Reason was that the location is unduly exposed to wind-driven embers, smoke and fire from wildland fuels, exacerbated by property vegetation with no opportunity for effective mitigation, A copy of this notice can be provided. From my window I can see the large greenbelt,very dry canyon. Its very close to the proposed development. Fires move very fast with the right conditions. If we had a fire now in this area it would already be a struggle to evacuate safely due to the fact that La Costa Ave has been reduced to two lanes. If you add 46 plus cars to the existing number of cars that we have in this vicinity there would most possibly, be loss of life. This is what happened in the Paradise Fire from a few years ago too many carstrying to escape from the same location. This is a great concern to myself, all my neighbors and theimmediate area. I would ask the Planning Commission if they would kindly visit our neighborhood before the hearing onthe !5th July 2020. You would be able to see the two vacant lots, parking congestion, proximity tocanyon etc I appreciate you taking the time to read this and I hope you will look at our grave concerns and for theimmediate future honor the City Councils decision in getting the Developer to do the partial CEQA Thank YouSUSAN ORTMAN7551 ROMERIA STREETCARLSBAD CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Chad To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartment Appeal for the July 15th 2020 meeting. Date:Sunday, July 12, 2020 11:45:51 AM Dear Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included into the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning and read at the next “public” hearing. It is very biased that only the building/developer/owner is the only person to be able to voice their interests in this project where the public/residents who are directly affected are otherwise muted. We, the most affected by this towering project, the people who have to live by the poorly planned building complex, which takes into no account for the current limited parking, increased traffic congestion and noise pollution created by this now 23 unit development have no voice in front of those who we ultimately decide our future. The developers of the Romeria Point Apartment complex have previously neglected to complete necessary actions, the partial CEQA, as requested after the last meeting which lasted almost three hours on June 11th 2019. At the previous meeting it was discovered that the Geologist report was for a three story development not the now proposed four stories. During this meeting the Geologist reported that due to the perceived ground instability, the sidewalks and driveways will need reconstruction in the near future. The developer revealed that the increase to 23 units was do to the extremes they must undergo, drilling 23 feet down to stabilize the area, and the added units was to recoup the initial investment this will incur. This increase still has no consideration for where these new residents will park their cars in an already over crowded area with current traffic congestion. The developer then tried to conduct a meeting in the middle of a pandemic which limited peoples ability to leave their place of residence let alone gather together to meet and plan and express themselves. This meeting was effectively postponed until now, a time where the people most affected by this project still cannot feel safe being together and, as reported in the recent news, is an ever growing problem of personal safety. This developer has in my opinion, already shown itself to try and bypass normal requirements by including just enough units that would allow them exemptions. The increase in the number of units to recoup cost, the disregard to plan for adequate parking for their proposed residents and the people that will visit them, seems to show they only have their best interest in mind. Now at this meeting they request that another exemption be made to begin their project, they ask that the CEQA be nullified. While the developer can hire “experts” to bolster their side of the project, the CEQA is conducted by an independent party, impartial to both sides. I would ask that those involved in the future of our neighborhood, visit the community directly impacted. Walk the streets, see the existing parking and crowding already troubling our little community. Actually speak to those of us affected face to face like you will the developer, the only party that is allowed to be in front of you at this time. During this time where many people are home you will truly see just some of the problems we are concerned with. In conclusion, at the least please postpone this meeting and any decisions to be made, require the CEQA be completed before this project be re-addressed. At the most, do the aforementioned and come to our community and walk the streets that this project will affect. Thank you, Chad Peck Resident 7557 Romeria Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Tim Clark To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Hearing July 15th Date:Monday, July 13, 2020 9:28:32 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record/staff reports submitted to City Planning. Nearly 3 hours was spent at a City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 discussing this proposed project. A decision was made by our council to have a partial CEQA review done. I would like to ask you to stand by the decision made by our appointed City Council for a CEQA review for this project. They deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings. This type of construction is not used in this neighborhood. The soil in this area is known to bepoor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This could be VERY dangerous to the residents of Carlsbad!!!!! 2. Summer of 2019 LaCosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 in the areaof the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone to the north. This is a disaster waiting to happen! This is a HUGE traffic issue! Please support the decision made by our City Coucil on June 11th, 2019 to have a CEQA review done. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Sincerely, Tim and Lynn Clark 3148 Arroyo Vista Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:brian grieser To:Planning Subject:Romeria Point Hearing July 15, 2020 Date:Monday, July 13, 2020 1:18:05 PM First comment- Bad Decision! During this serious COVID 19 Epidemic, it is not feasible for someone of my age to be attending any meeting. Subject project is not acceptable to anyone who lives in the area. Currently there are no parking areas on Romeria or the other streets. The area was not planned appropriately for the number of units and their parking requirements. This is very obvious to anyone visiting or living in the area. Adding another development, without a 100% on-site parking requirement, is not in the best interests of the local residents nor acceptable to Carlsbad's future development. Approval of a hybrid development, bypassing basic requirements for the sake of tax revenue is disgusting, considering the negative impact on the many Carlsbad residents that will be affected. Request further study of this plan’s variances and impact on those of us who will suffer. I do not believe Carlsbad city hall can wisely considering this plan. Sincerely, Brian and Joan Grieser 7564 Romeria street Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Heather Lindsey To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Date:Monday, July 13, 2020 2:24:36 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record/staff reports submitted to City Planning. This is regarding Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151). Nearly 3 hours was spent at a City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 discussing this proposed project. A decision was made by our council to have a partial CEQA review done. I would like to ask you to stand by the decision made by our appointed City Council for a CEQA review for this project. They deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This area of the City has unstable soil. Golfcrest, the development directly west of Romeria Pointe, has had the hill behind it slide into its driveway in the past. 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 and on neighboring properties. The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings should be of concern. This type of construction is not used in this neighborhood. Also, in the summer of 201,9 LaCosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone to the north. Additionally, if there is not a crosswalk at Romeria and La Costa Ave, 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. These units will attract families and therefore this needs to be taken into account. Lastly, as I understand the development, the highest point of their new building is 72 feet higher than Golfcrest’s (neighboring complex to the west) highest point—meaning that their highest point is over 5 stories higher than our highest point. The bottom of their garage is 30 feet higher than Golfcrest’s highest point. The development garage is at 86 feet and ours is around ground level— meaning their lowest point will be around 86 feet higher than our lowers point. The garages are the first levels and then the units are on top. This impacts light, will cast a shadow, and there will be a lack of privacy since their western units will look down into bathrooms and bedrooms. Please support the decision made by our City Council on June 11th, 2019 to have a CEQA review done. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Sincerely, Heather Lindsey 7538 Gibraltar Street, Carlsbad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:jdllal@aol.com To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151) Date:Monday, July 13, 2020 2:26:31 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record/staff reports submitted to City Planning. This is regarding Romeria Pointe (Romeria Street SDP 2018-0004 (DEV2017-0151). Nearly 3 hours was spent at a City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 discussing this proposed project. A decision was made by our council to have a partial CEQA review done. I would like to ask you to stand by the decision made by our appointed City Council for a CEQA review for this project. They deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". The soil in this area is known to be poor. Buildings in the area have had structural damage. This area of the City has unstable soil. Golfcrest, the development directly west of Romeria Pointe, has had the hill behind it slide into its driveway in the past. 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 and on neighboring properties. The need for "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support (2) 4 story buildings should be of concern. This type of construction is not used in this neighborhood. Also, in the summer of 201,9 LaCosta Avenue became 2 lanes where it was once 4 in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a large fire hazard zone to the north. Additionally, if there is not a crosswalk at Romeria and La Costa Ave, 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. These units will attract families and therefore this needs to be taken into account. Lastly, as I understand the development, the highest point of their new building is 72 feet higher than Golfcrest’s (neighboring complex to the west) highest point—meaning that their highest point is over 5 stories higher than our highest point. The bottom of their garage is 30 feet higher than Golfcrest’s highest point. The development garage is at 86 feet and ours is around ground level—meaning their lowest point will be around 86 feet higher than our lowers point. The garages are the first levels and then the units are on top. This impacts light, will cast a shadow, and there will be a lack of privacy since their western units will look down into bathrooms and bedrooms. Please support the decision made by our City Council on June 11th, 2019 to have a CEQA review done. Keep the citizens of Carlsbad safe! Sincerely, Lucille Lindsey 7538 Gibraltar Street, Carlsbad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 July 13, 2020 Re: July 15, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Item #1—Public Hearing on Romeria Pointe Apartments Greetings Carlsbad Planning Commission and Planning Department: Disclaimer: I am a member of the Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission (T&MC). We have been tasked with reviewing traffic-related guidelines that are used for development applications, but not with the review of individual applications, so I am commenting as an individual. I am neutral on this project, but I believe that it would have been more appropriate and reasonable to have this applicant conduct a “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) analysis as part of its Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), rather than (or instead of) the complex, but irrelevant, vehicle level of service (LOS) analyses. I also am concerned that Carlsbad’s TIA Guidelines are not being followed consistently, and that formal VMT implementation was improperly delayed. VMT vs. LOS analysis A 2017 settlement agreement between the City of Carlsbad and an environmental group required the city to start reviewing all discretionary development projects for actions that aim to reduce VMT, including two required updates to its TIA Guidelines (see Endnote 1). A VMT analysis of the Romeria Pointe Apartments project would have shown that it has a significant traffic impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (see Endnote 2). In the project area, the mean residential VMT (per capita) is 113% (Fehr & Peers data) to 119% (SANDAG data) of the Carlsbad mean, which would require a 33% to 40% reduction in project VMT to reach the “85% of city mean” target level. This would be achieved by decreased vehicle ownership and/or trips by the future residents of the development, e.g., through implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. Numerous public comments were received on this matter for the March 20, 2019 Planning Commission and June 11, 2019 City Council meetings. Most of the commenters included concerns about the adequacy of vehicle parking, increased traffic, and/or related impacts in the area. Accordingly, at the June 11th meeting, the City Council requested a focused CEQA review of traffic, as well as geology. A VMT-based CEQA traffic analysis would have been the most consistent with that request. Instead, the applicant conducted only a level of service (LOS)-based analysis in its TIA, even though the project area does not even include any streets that are subject to the city’s vehicle LOS performance standard (in its 2015 General Plan update, the city changed the prioritized mode of travel on the adjacent portion of La Costa Avenue from vehicles to pedestrians/bicycles). So, no meaningful results would reasonably have been expected to emerge from an LOS study. In fact, the study indicates that the project will further degrade the vehicle LOS on La Costa Avenue from an already “deficient” grade of “E” to a failing “F” in the westbound direction in the morning peak period (see TIA Table 7-2, included as Attachment 7 beginning on page 390 of the staff report). And, on a cumulative basis (when all of the currently planned developments are completed in the area), La Costa Avenue approaches deficiency in the eastbound direction in the evening peak period, as well (TIA Table 2 7-4). However, due to the re-prioritization of La Costa Avenue and the small volume-to-capacity ratio change, the project is not responsible for any mitigation. Lack of compliance with and failure to update the TIA Guidelines The TIA Guidelines, which were created pursuant to the 2017 settlement agreement, require applicants to file a written Scoping Agreement with the City, which is intended to define the requirements of the TIA as approved by city staff (see Endnote 3). After the City Council requested the focused CEQA traffic analysis, a Scoping Agreement could have designated a VMT analysis for the TIA, which would have been consistent with (1) the City’s March 2017 settlement agreement that all discretionary development projects need to be reviewed for actions to reduce VMT;(2) the availability of all of the necessary final VMT guidance and tools from the San Diego County Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the State of Office of Planning Research (OPR) (see Endnote 4); and (3) the fact that VMT-based mitigation is exactly the approach that could help address the residents’ concerns. However, no Scoping Agreement was filed, and LOS analysis was done instead of VMT. The lack of a written Scoping Agreement is not unique to this project. Multiple public records requests for such agreements have come back with no responsive documents. This is not only inconsistent with the TIA Guidelines, but it is also bad public policy. And it is antithetical to transparency and accountability to have complex TIA requirements exchanged over undocumented telephone calls. I believe a legal opinion should be sought from the City Attorney on this topic to ensure compliance of current and future applications. The City also failed to comply with the March 2017 settlement agreement when they did not further revise the VMT portion of the TIA Guidelines by the December 2019 deadline (12 months after OPR’s final guidance). Instead, the City waited until the State-mandated July 1, 2020 deadline to “officially” begin their VMT program. They also did not incorporate the new VMT analysis into the TIA Guidelines as prescribed in the settlement agreement, but rather developed them as a separate document, even though the LOS and VMT aspects are intertwined. VMT analyses for other Carlsbad projects It is also interesting to note that the city had developers of multiple other projects conducting VMT analyses several months before Carlsbad’s own version of VMT analysis guidelines had been reviewed by the T&MC or adopted by the City Council. This apparent “informal” application of VMT analysis was happening concurrent with the Romeria Pointe Apartments LOS analyses, suggesting an inconsistent application of the TIA rules. In fact, one developer switched from doing LOS to VMT analysis in their TIA during this same time period (see Endnote 5). VMT/climate action vs. housing accountability In recent years, the numerous state laws have emphasized an urgent need to address both climate change and housing accountability. So, it is important to note that the VMT-related traffic impact being described here is one of the exceptions to the Class 32 CEQA exemption being invoked for this project, 3 which is not superseded by housing laws or opinion letters from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Conclusion Ironically, if the city had not re-prioritized La Costa Avenue to pedestrians/bicycles, the applicant likely would have had to further mitigate the project’s effect on vehicle congestion with measures that included improvements to encourage more walking and biking (based on the addition of traffic to an already deficient street). And if the city had started formally using VMT earlier, as required by the settlement agreement, or had used VMT informally (as it did with other developers), then the applicant would have had to take steps to try to reduce vehicle ownership and trips. Instead, neither of these was applied. Perhaps some compromise can be reached to maximize mitigation, though. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING Do the TIA Guidelines require filing of Scoping Agreements with the city? If staff believes Scoping Agreements are optional, then I think a legal opinion from the City Attorney on this matter is in order. Is a telephone call (or a series of telephone calls or other unwritten communications) sufficient to qualify as “filing” a Scoping Agreement per the TIA Guidelines? If staff believes that is sufficient, I think a legal opinion from the City Attorney on this matter is in order. Was a written Scoping Agreement filed with the city for the TIA conducted for the Romeria Pointe Apartments project? If not, how was scoping conducted, and what was the timing? Was a VMT analysis discussed with the Romeria Pointe Apartments developer? Could a VMT analysis have been required? Could a VMT analysis have been requested? Would a significant environmental impact related to traffic based on VMT analysis be a valid exception to the Class 32 categorical exemption being invoked for this project under CEQA? If the VMT analysis had been done, wouldn’t it have shown a significant environmental impact under CEQA? ENDNOTES Endnote 1: Settlement agreement (March 2017) A settlement agreement signed by the City of Carlsbad and North County Advocates on March 14, 2017 required that the City begin reviewing all discretionary development projects for actions that aim to reduce street congestion and VMT by: (1) updating its TIA Guidelines within 12 month of the agreement, (2) approving a TDM plan and ordinance within 24 months of the agreement, and (3) doing a further 4 update to the TIA Guidelines within 12 months of the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issuing its final VMT guidance. The full version of the agreement is available in the City’s public records system under the City Council meeting of the same date, but Paragraph 4.3.6 reads: As part of the development review process, the City shall evaluate all discretionary projects for consistency with applicable General Plan policies and CAP measures and actions that aim to reduce roadway congestion and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques and multi-modal improvements. Within twenty-four (24) months, City staff shall present to City Council for consideration and approval a TDM plan and ordinance that addresses alternative transportation modes for new and existing uses as described in CAP Measures K-1 and K-2. Within twelve (12) months, the City shall update its Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, incorporating multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) analysis to address vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes of travel, and including transportation demand management (TDM) trip reduction methodologies and best practices to reduce automobile trips and improve travel mode shift. The updated TIA Guidelines will also be used to determine requirements for offsetting project impacts and evaluating opportunities for improving project-level connections for all travel modes (vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit). Within twelve (12) months of the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issuing final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the use of VMT as the primary metric to analyze transportation impacts rather than vehicle level of service (LOS), the City, in collaboration with SANDAG and applicable working groups, will revise the updated TIA Guidelines to be consistent with OPR's final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. Endnote 2: VMT analysis of Romeria Pointe Apartments project Using data (based on SANDAG Series 13) from Fehr & Peers, the contractor that developed Carlsbad’s current VMT maps, the project site is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1382, which has a mean VMT per capita of 25.49, while the mean for the entire city is 22.53. Therefore, the project is at about 113% of the city mean. To mitigate below the 85% target level, the project would have to reduce its VMT by 33%: (25.49 – [22.53][0.85])/(22.53)(0.85). Using SANDAG’s own Series 13 data, which was available at the time of the remand, the project site is located in Census Tract 200.15, which has a mean VMT per capita of 22.56, while the mean for the entire city is 18.90. Therefore, the project is at about 119% of the city mean. To mitigate below the 85% target level, the project would have to reduce its VMT by 40%: (22.56 – [18.90][0.85])/(18.90)(0.85). Endnote 3: TIA Guidelines (April 2018) – included in the staff report beginning at page 169 The TIA Guidelines were updated in April 2018—13 months after the settlement agreement was signed (one month late). They indicate, beginning in Section 3, that a written Scoping Agreement must be reviewed and approved by the City and filed prior to initiating the TIA. The TIA Guidelines go on to list the many components to be included in the Scoping Agreement, including the type of TIA and methodologies, a study area map and list of facilities to be studied, a traffic data collection plan, 5 scenarios to be studied, VMT discussion, trip generation and distribution methods, trip reduction plans, etc. There is a sentence in Section 3.1 of the TIA Guidelines that refers to the use of a telephone call or email, and Staff has argued that they can do the TIA scoping over the telephone based on that language. However, that reference to a telephone call or email is clearly only intended as an optional substitute for in-person consultation with staff to help prepare the Scoping Agreement—not as a substitute for the Scoping Agreement itself. Endnote 4: County and State VMT guidance (November 2017 – May 2019) Section 3.6 of the TIA Guidelines has a section describing VMT analysis, and the fact that guidance was forthcoming from SANDAG through SANTEC/ITE, and the State of California through OPR. In fact, OPR had already issued draft VMT guidance five months earlier (November 2017), and they issued their final guidance in December 2018. In addition, SANDAG issued their final guidance and VMT analysis tools in May 2019. Carlsbad could have adopted either set of guidelines to comply with the March 2017 settlement agreement, and there was plenty of lead time with the draft guidance to be ready to do that. Endnote 5: VMT analyses in Carlsbad The LOS-only TIA for Romeria Pointe Apartments was completed in March 2020. For reference, other developments completed VMT-based TIAs in that same timeframe, including one for a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for West Oaks (April 2020) and one for a recirculated draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for Marja Acres (May 2020). And these applications had been under development for similarly lengthy periods of time. In fact, the original Marja Acres DEIR, which included only an LOS-based TIA, was released in April 2019 and underwent public review through May 2019. However, they subsequently decided to recirculate the DEIR with the LOS section replaced by a VMT section—all in the time period when the present applicant was doing LOS instead of VMT. The City claims a switchover to VMT as of July 2020, but the above observations indicate an inconsistent application of the TIA rules. Best regards, Steve Linke Carlsbad, CA From:Andrew Chishchevoy To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Monday, July 13, 2020 6:17:42 PM Dear Mayor Hall, Mr. Chadwick, and City Council: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the Council. Writing about the hearing on May 19th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments that wewould like to be postponed. Due to the Stay At Home orders during this world wide pandemic it's pretty much impossible to convey all information via electronic means of communication.I request a postponement of this meeting until the current Stay At Home orders are lifted. Back in June 2019 we spent multiple days and hours on this issue. The entire Romeria neighborhood got involved and wants to have a chance to have a voice in this matter in person.Concerns we had regarding this project remain the same, and pictures attached to this email reconfirm that a 4 story building on a slope is not a safe project. Pictures are recent from midApril of 2020. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Andrew Chishchevoy -- Andrew Chishchevoy CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. " "'i~ .... ¥(';., .,. '1 \ I I r - From:Diane Nygaard To:Planning Subject:Comments on Item # 1- Romeria Pointe Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 5:42:49 AM Please read these comments into the record Honorable Chair and Commissioners The city recently adopted new guidelines for traffic analysis- using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)to comply with CEQA requirements and updating congestion analysis using Level ofService. This project will generate 184 Average Daily Trips(ADT) . The new CEQA standard requires VMT analysis for a project of 110 ADT or more yet there was no VMT analysis done for thisproject. Projects below 110 ADT are assumed to not have a significant impact- those above could have such an impact which is why a VMT analysis is required. It is the VMT analysisthat would determine if the project has a significant impact or not. In the absence of such an analysis it must be presumed that the project could have an adverse impact and it should notbe considered exempt from CEQA. The traffic study was updated in March of 2020, yet failed to include the VMT analysis although other projects during this same period were required to do both VMT and LOS trafficstudies. Furthermore, during the time this project was under review for appeal the city identified a major error in the Climate Action Plan related to VMT. In January of 2020 it was determinedthat the CAP no longer constituted adequate mitigation for GHG. This project adds GHG , the CAP no longer mitigated those impacts- yet no further analysis or mitigation was provided forGHG. And in spite of that the project was still considered to be exempt from CEQA. The city council specifically directed that this project be evaluated for CEQA compliance and directed further analysis of traffic. The staff report fails to support the conclusion that thereare no adverse impacts from traffic or GHG. VMT and related GHG analysis should be done to determine if the project has any adverse impacts prior to project approval. Diane NygaardOn behalf of Preserve Calavera CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Stuart Knecht To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Hearing- July 15, 2020 Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:52:51 AM Please read this email into the record of the City Planning Commission for the July 15, 2020 City Planning Commission meeting. Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, This project was discussed in detail by the Carlsbad City Council at its meeting on June 11th, 2019. City Council deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". City Council made a decision to require that a partial CEQA review be done for this project. I urge you to stand by that decision. The need for a CEQA review is warranted because the proposed construction utilizes "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support two 4-story buildings. This type of construction is not appropriate in this neighborhood because the soil condition in this area is poor. The 11/21/2017 report by GeoSoils, Inc. raised concerns about soil and slope stability. I understand that all proposed projects prior to the current project had been denied by the city because of soil issues. In fact, our condominium building on Gibraltar had to undergo very extensive and expensive structural reconstruction several years ago because of soil and slope conditions. The proposed construction poses a potential risk of water runoff, sewage issues, and hillside collapse following heavy rains. As an attorney, I suspect the city could face liability or litigation should this project proceed and adjacent properties are adversely affected or life is lost due to hillside collapse. In addition, the proposed project is very close to Box Canyon, a large fire hazard zone to the north. Because LaCosta Avenue traffic lanes were recently reduced from 4 to 2 between Rancho Santa Fe and El Camino Real, evacuation from this area could be impaired and access by fire fighting equipment could be impeded. This situation could be a significant safety risk to residents and property. Also, this project could exacerbate the already significant congestion in the Gibraltar/Romeria neighborhood, worsening the difficult parking situation (our driveway has been blocked by cars parked on Gibraltar) and increasing traffic and noise. Furthermore, there is no space on either Gibraltar Street or Romario Street for children to play. With so many cars parked on the street, there certainly will be a safety hazard for children running from between parked cars into the street in front of moving traffic. I was nearly killed as a youngster when I ran in front of a moving car from between two parked cars, so I am keenly aware of this danger. And certainly Box Canyon is not a safe alternative. For these reasons, I urge you to support the decision made by our City Council on June 11th, 2019 to require a CEQA review for this project. Sincerely, R. Stuart Knecht 7501 Gibraltar Street CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. SDP 2018-2004 (Dev2017-0151) ROMERIA POINTE PLEASE READ COMMENTS INTO THE RECORD AT THE P.C.MEETING 7.15.20 Planning Commission, CEQA exemptions require the “common sense rule be applied to relative risk and impact: Relevant Areas of Potential Impact include Geology and Soils, Visual Quality and Cumulative effects.” We understand the developer has high holding costs and that the City needs low-income units to meet General Plan requirements, however, those considerations appear to be overriding concerns related to geotechnical, traffic circulation/parking, sun/shade and visual quality issues. In January 2007, a 9-unit residential condominium project on the site was approved. ‘“The maximum number of units for a 0.72-acre parcel is 16 dwelling units. To construct 23 units, the applicant is requesting approval of a density bonus” (abbv.Staff report). We do not concur that this site is appropriate for the density bonus, incentives and concessions requested. This site is generally surrounded by low-rise projects, many of which are not rental apartments and are two-story attached units, AT STREET GRADE. Take a site visit, or at a minimum rotate this site in its surroundings on Google Earth. You’ll see that this site is significantly elevated above Gibraltar Street, 20+- feet at the corner of Romeria/Gibraltar. The Gibraltar-facing building proposed, rises an additional 40 feet+. “The RD-M Zone currently restricts building height to 35 feet. The applicant is requesting the allowance for increased building height as a concession”. Great for the residents of the project while dwarfing surrounding homes, affecting existing residents, and not in concert with any infill guidelines for area pattern conformity. The project renderings are “stand-alone”. Please require 3-D modeling or perspectives in-situ (including placement of surrounding properties) to see how out of context this mass will appear. CEQA EIRs are conducted to ascertain whether the project “Reduces mitigation to a level below significance.” Neither the developer, consultants, staff/third-party reviewer appeared to conduct significant additional study but rather reviewed previous core samples and statistics, and summarily dismissed the impacts on the property to the south as “off-site and a different soils type”. The take-away was that it is impossible to do on-site study on adjacent /nearby properties, nor could they determine the exact cause or solution to significantly mitigate their slippage issues (to the south/east). The City can not possibly stipulate measures that will guarantee that mitigation can reduce impact to a level below significance. We trust that the City remains fully aware of these issues, and with full knowledge of possible impacts, and would accept responsibility considering the risks involved. Categorical Exemptions are provided “where there is no ‘reasonable’ possibility for significant impact”. Examples given would be converting an apartment to a condo and not comparable to construction of a project this size, increased density, unusual height, on graded fill with complex construction issues. A Categorical CEQA exemption is not applicable. Thank you for your consideration. Susan Simmonds, owner 7521 Gibraltar SDP 2018-2004 (DEV2017-0151) ROMERIA POINTE READ COMMENTS INTO THE RECORD AT THE MEETING 7.15.2020 Planning Commission, To approve, the Planning Commission would have to find Romeria Pointe “ 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 majority of surrounding units are individually owned, low-rise units. In no way is the density, scale and massing of the building similar. -The developer is seeking BOTH a density bonus and an allowance for increased building height and is providing several “low-income”units. -Please note that the majority of these apartments are 3 bed/2.5 bath (versus 2/2 in the vicinity) which requires far more square footage to build the bigger units. -This imbalance for surrounding residents is extraordinary. Even if these buildings were not set 20’ above grade (versus at street level), the massing will dwarf those opposite it on Gibraltar. -Earlier, we requested that the increase in “looming” building height and mass (re additional square footage and number of units) warrants sunshade studies re its visual impact...If you decide to move forward, please ensure that the upper two floors are stepped back (8-10+’ on all four sides) otherwise the project will appear extraordinarily massive. Further that the colors chosen avoid glare and reflection. The traffic study did not take into account on-street parking issues relative to sight lines and traffic safety. -By example, our daughter was run off the road last week, as a car turned from Gibraltar onto Romeria at speed, causing her injury. We surmise the driver could simply not see her….with every on-street parking space taken, sight lines are reduced, and street width narrowed. -Those exiting the project garage would be at risk as well. (A 3-D computer model with cars, streets, residences, trees, etc. in place would make this apparent). -23 larger-than-average apartments (with more bedrooms than average) generate more cars or at least more trips per unit in an area congested with fully used on-street parking spaces. -Less than 1/10 of a mile from the HIGH FIRE HAZARD zone at the end of Gibraltar - (a LOCAL responsibility area), this will increase the exiting risk for residents along Gibraltar for reasons discussed above. The property to the south/east has had land slippage issues that neither the developer’s consultants nor staff have, or can, adequately address. The “adequate mitigation measures” required to approve can not assure adjacent owners will avoid further disruption. Perhaps 11 units originally proposed could have been accommodated without significant impact placed atop the fill on site, but now 23 units are being proposed, requiring embedded deep pilings, retaining walls on fill high above the street. Section 15300.2 indicates that a categorical exemption not be used where there the activity will have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances’”...clearly this would apply with its massive fill/soil issues and project height. Thank you, Warren Simmonds, owner 7521 Gibraltar From:Kara Brem To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria pointe Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 2:26:52 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, This project was discussed in detail by the Carlsbad City Council at its meeting on June 11th, 2019. City Council deemed that this project had "unusual circumstances". City Council made a decision to require that a partial CEQA review be done for this project. I urge you to stand by that decision. The need for a CEQA review is warranted because the proposed construction utilizes "cast-in-drilled-piles" to support two 4-story buildings. This type of construction is not appropriate in this neighborhood because the soil condition in this area is poor. The 11/21/2017 report by GeoSoils, Inc. raised concerns about soil and slope stability. I understand that all proposed projects prior to the current project had been denied by the city because of soil issues. In fact, our condominium building on Gibraltar had to undergo very extensive and expensive structural reconstruction several years ago because of soil and slope conditions. The proposed construction poses a potential risk of water runoff, sewage issues, and hillside collapse following heavy rains. As an attorney, I suspect the city could face liability or litigation should this project proceed and adjacent properties are adversely affected or life is lost due to hillside collapse. In addition, the proposed project is very close to Box Canyon, a large fire hazard zone to the north. Because LaCosta Avenue traffic lanes were recently reduced from 4 to 2 between Rancho Santa Fe and El Camino Real, evacuation from this area could be impaired and access by fire fighting equipment could be impeded. This situation could be a significant safety risk to residents and property. Also, this project could exacerbate the already significant congestion in the Gibraltar/Romeria neighborhood, worsening the difficult parking situation (our driveway has been blocked by cars parked on Gibraltar) and increasing traffic and noise. Furthermore, there is no space on either Gibraltar Street or Romario Street for children to play. With so many cars parked on the street, there certainly will be a safety hazard for children running from between parked cars into the street in front of moving traffic. I was nearly killed as a youngster when I ran in front of a moving car from between two parked cars, so I am keenly aware of this danger. And certainly Box Canyon is not a safe alternative. For these reasons, I urge you to support the decision made by our City Council on June 11th, 2019 to require a CEQA review for this project. Sincerely, Kara Brem 7538 Gibraltar unit g Carlsbad 92009 Kara BremWindermere Homes & Estates DRE# 01939667Www.karabrem.com 831-818-3050 Short and sweet. Sent from my iphone. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Jerry Surdy To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 2:47:04 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. I am in total agreement with the concerns established for safety, on-street parking availability, sightlines, fire zone, evacuation routing and soil slippage issues that have been expressed by many homeowners in my neighborhood. I live in the complex directly north of this proposed project - Roundtree Condominiums. There also seems to be a lack of additional studies specifically pertaining to this constructionsite. Many developers beforehand who have expressed an interest to build here have walkedaway from the project due to "soil conditions". Why, after all these years, has the soil become"suitable" for building a 23 unit apartment complex on that is four stories tall? Is this all beingdone for the "almighty dollar" vs. the safety of this neighborhood? I am also concerned with the insertion of a "unicorn" project into a neighborhood whosesurrounding properties have little or no resemblance to the proposed construction. Jerry Surdy7537 Gibraltar StreetCarlsbad, CA 92009jerrysurdy@gmail.com CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:bbundaf@aol.com To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe: Hearing July 15th Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:15:15 PM Dear Planning Commission, Please include this in the Staff Report and City Records. On June 11, 2019 approximately 3 hours was spent at a Carlsbad City Council meeting addressing the proposed Romeria Pointe Apartment project. As a community, we gathered together and paid the fee for the appeal to get us to this point. A decision was made (voted 4-1) by the council that evening that a partial CEQA review was to be done. They deemed there were “unusual circumstances”pertaining to the project site. I ask that you support the decision made by our City Council. The Housing Element Committee brochure recently released indicates these 2 restrictions for building projects: 1. Where the topography is not conducive to building 2. They aren’t safe because they are in a flood zone or HIGH FIRE AREA The proposed project falls into these two categories. This makes two “unusual circumstances” for this project! UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 1: The proposed project is going to be built into a slope. This is not normal flat land with a traditional foundation going on top. The slope and soil conditions are requiring this project to use “cast-in-drilled-hole piles” to support this VERY large structure. In 2013, Villa Romeria, which is the property that sits right next to the proposed buildings was showing distress. Floors were buckling, huge cracks were appearingon walls. American Geotechnical, Inc. surveyed the property. This led to hiring Eaglelift, Inc. to stabilize the foundation with push piers. The cost of the lift was close to $25,000. Villa Romeria is only 5 units so this was a HUGE expense for owners! This demonstrates the instability of the land and soil in this area. There areother properties in the area that have sustained damage due to the existing soil conditions just not Villa Romeria. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 2: This proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a LARGE Fire Hazard area designated by CAL Fire. This is an “unusual circumstance”! Per Article 19 “unusual circumstances” are the exceptions requiring a CEQA review. LaCosta Avenue is the major road used for travel for residence from the proposed project. Since the June 2019 City Council meeting LaCosta Ave. was “downsized” from a 4-lane road to a 2-lane road. The major reason for 88 deaths in the Paradise Fire in 2018 was because people could not get out. It was nearly a few years earlier the main road in Paradise, CA went from 4 lanes to 2. Escaping via public transportation is not even an option. There is no access to a train/Coaster. The closest bus stop is .06 from Romeria and Gibraltar. There are all sorts of limitations on when the bus runs such as holidays and weekends. This is not a reliable and consistent option for escape if needed. Question? Why did the City of Carlsbad not revise the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) portion of the TIA Guidelines by the December 2019 deadlineper a March 2017 agreement? It wasn’t until just this month that the City addressed this due to the state-mandated July 1, 2020 deadline. If a VMT analysis had been done instead of a Level Of Service (LOS) analysis, findings would have been different. It would have shown significant environmental impact requiring mitigation. Only a LOS was done. (Significant environmental effect on traffic—Section 15332(c)) Article 12.5 Section 15192. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS FOR EXEMPTIONS FORAGRICULTURAL HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS 8. (h) The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazard, as determined by theDepartment of Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoningordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a wildland fire hazard. In addition to the fire hazard/traffic issue and soil/slippage issues Romeria Pointe is not consistent with Carlsbad’s General Plan. The dwelling unit density is higher than allowed by its R-23 land use designation, requiring a density bonus. The project is also not consistent with Carlsbad’s Zoning Ordinance. The building height is higherthan the maximum allowed by its RD-M development standard. In order to qualify for an exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194 or 15195, a housingproject must meet all of the threshold criteria. (a) The project must be consistent with: 1. (1) Any applicable general plan…..Consistency with the general plan and zoning regulations—Section 15332(a) Are you 100% confidant that this proposed project is SAFE and has NO “UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE”??? Is there reasonable doubt that this project could be dangerous causing damage or death? Once these buildings go up, they won’t becoming down. Please support the decision made by City Council for a CEQA review. There are “unusual circumstances”. Thank you, Beth Citrano CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:bbundaf@aol.com To:Planning; manager@carlsbadca.gove Subject:Romeria Pointe: Hearing July 15th Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:11:46 PM Dear Planning Commission, Please include this in the Staff Report and City Records. On June 11, 2019 approximately 3 hours was spent at a Carlsbad City Council meeting addressing the proposed Romeria Pointe Apartment project. As a community, we gathered together and paid the fee for the appeal to get us to this point. A decision was made (voted 4-1) by the council that evening that a partial CEQA review was to be done. They deemed there were “unusual circumstances”pertaining to the project site. I ask that you support the decision made by our City Council. The Housing Element Committee brochure recently released indicates these 2 restrictions for building projects: <!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Where the topography is not conducive to building <!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->They aren’t safe because they are in a flood zone or HIGH FIRE AREA The proposed project falls into these two categories. This makes two “unusual circumstances” for this project! UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 1: The proposed project is going to be built into a slope. This is not normal flat land witha traditional foundation going on top. The slope and soil conditions are requiring this project to use “cast-in-drilled-hole piles” to support this VERY large structure. In 2013, Villa Romeria, which is the property that sits right next to the proposed buildings was showing distress. Floors were buckling, huge cracks were appearing on walls. American Geotechnical, Inc. surveyed the property. This led to hiring Eaglelift, Inc. to stabilize the foundation with push piers. The cost of the lift wasclose to $25,000. Villa Romeria is only 5 units so this was a HUGE expense for owners! This demonstrates the instability of the land and soil in this area. There are other properties in the area that have sustained damage due to the existing soil conditions just not Villa Romeria. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 2: This proposed project is 1/10 of a mile from a LARGE Fire Hazard area designated byCAL Fire. This is an “unusual circumstance”! Per Article 19 “unusual circumstances” are the exceptions requiring a CEQA review. LaCosta Avenue is the major road used for travel for residence from the proposed project. Since the June 2019 City Council meeting LaCosta Ave. was “downsized” from a 4-lane road to a 2-lane road. The major reason for 88 deaths in the Paradise Fire in 2018 was because people could not get out. It was nearly a few years earlier the main road in Paradise, CA went from 4 lanes to 2. Escaping via public transportation is not even an option. There is no access to a train/Coaster. The closest bus stop is .06 from Romeria and Gibraltar. There are allsorts of limitations on when the bus runs such as holidays and weekends. This is not a reliable and consistent option for escape if needed. Question? Why did the City of Carlsbad not revise the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) portion of the TIA Guidelines by the December 2019 deadline per a March 2017 agreement? It wasn’t until just this month that the City addressed this due to the state-mandated July 1, 2020 deadline. If a VMT analysis had been done instead of a Level Of Service (LOS) analysis, findings would have been different. It would have shown significant environmental impact requiring mitigation. Only a LOS was done. (Significant environmental effect on traffic—Section 15332(c)) Article 12.5 Section 15192. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS FOR EXEMPTIONS FORAGRICULTURAL HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS 8. (h) The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazard, as determined by theDepartment of Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoningordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a wildland fire hazard. In addition to the fire hazard/traffic issue and soil/slippage issues Romeria Pointe is not consistent with Carlsbad’s General Plan. The dwelling unit density is higher than allowed by its R-23 land use designation, requiring a density bonus. The project is also not consistent with Carlsbad’s Zoning Ordinance. The building height is higherthan the maximum allowed by its RD-M development standard. In order to qualify for an exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194 or 15195, a housingproject must meet all of the threshold criteria. (a) The project must be consistent with: 1. (1) Any applicable general plan…..Consistency with the general plan and zoning regulations—Section 15332(a) Are you 100% confidant that this proposed project is SAFE and has NO “UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE”??? Is there reasonable doubt that this project could be dangerous causing damage or death? Once these buildings go up, they won’t be coming down. Please support the decision made by City Council for a CEQAreview. There are “unusual circumstances”. Thank you, Beth Citrano CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Mary Surdy To:Planning; Manager Internet Email; Mary Surdy Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments Meeting on Wednesday July 15th Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:31:45 PM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick: I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. ***************************************************************************** I am a homeowner at the Roundtree Condominiums just across Gibraltar Street - north of the proposed Romeria Apartment Complex. I have expressed my concern before regarding this project and will continue to do so. My first concern is “parking” on the street in our neighborhood. Last year, the City of Carlsbad came through our local streets and "red striped" many needed parking spaces. They took what was already a bad problem for parking and made it worse. I do understand the Fire Department needs the approximately 20 red striped spaces for their trucks and/or the Police Department for emergency reasons. Why can't you understand that there are NO additional parking spaces being created by building this behemoth of a structure. Even though the builder is proposing to include 42 parking spaces inside the building, the tenants will need overflow parking on Romeria and Gibraltar Streets for the amount of people that will eventually move into this complex. It will only make matters much worse for our guest parking in the neighborhood and/or the people who live here with one parking space in their complex but require additional parking. Please do a "parking study" which should have been included in your "Traffic Study". Traffic wasn't a problem; the parking has always been the issue. Yes, traffic will be worse, but the parking issue is the key issue here. This proposed apartment building will NOT fit in with the surrounding neighborhood which is currently two-story-tall buildings. This will be an eyesore in our neighborhood. Please consider building a four-story apartment complex in YOUR neighborhood. Will it fit in? Will it be an eyesore? Will is block your views? Will it “shade” your home? Will it devalue your property? We have also been apprised of the “fire safety” issue called out in your reports. You are proposing to build a 23-unit complex in an already crowded neighborhood which is .1 (one tenth) of a mile from the fire hazard map provided by the State of California Fire Hazard Zone. Our neighborhood is rated “VH” (very high hazard). That will place extraordinary pressure on the fire department should there be a fire in this area. It will also make it very hard for residents to leave this area should there be a massive fire to escape safely. This very overcrowded neighborhood with just “two” exits (Romeria at La Costa Avenue and Gibraltar at La Costa Avenue) will make it nearly impossible to escape safely by adding at least another 45+ cars from this proposed complex to the hundreds of cars already here. All residents that live on these two aforementioned streets, along with all the complexes on Jerez, will need to exit these two streets. Please keep in mind the “Woolsey and the Camp” fires and how many lives were lost. There would be hundreds of cars trying to exit these two streets also while fire officials would be trying to enter our streets. Pure disaster awaits us all if a fire ever starts. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Mary Surdy 7537 Gibraltar Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. YIMBY Law 1260 Mission St San Francisco, CA 94103 hello@yimbylaw.org 7/14/2020 Carlsbad Planning Commission City Council Chamber 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 planning@carlsbadca.gov; clerk@carlsbadca.gov; Via Email Re: Romeria Pointe Apartments SDP 2018-0004 Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission, YIMBY Law submits this letter to inform you that the Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality’s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. The most relevant section is copied below: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) 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 lower 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. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), 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. . . . YIMBY LAW (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The applicant proposes 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. The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant, therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Yimby Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law YIMBY Law, 1260 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103 ' ? From:MaryAnne Orcutt To:Planning Subject:Romero’s Pointe Planning Commission July 15 hearing Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 5:24:49 PM Please read this email into the record on July 15, 2020 for the case listed below. RE: Case SDP 2018-0004 (Dev2017-0151) Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Scott Chadwick: As an owner of property on Gibraltar Street, I am very concerned about the following issues regarding The Romeria Pointe Apartments and would like them resolved prior to approving for this project. 1)Water quality issues, water run-off, sewage: a CEQA review (including soil, water and extensive engineering study) would address these issues. Previously, the Carlsbad City Council required this CEQA review, which was an excellent decision, and presumably partially based on the11/21/2017 Geosoils, Inc report. Why is this project now being reconsidered? Quality of life and safety issues are at stake here for everyone living near this building project, and for any prospective residents in this new complex. Surely Carlsbad City Council does notwant to be subjected to law suits because they bypassed having the CEQA review done. I am not sure how the city planner can find that this property is exempt, finding that there will be no significant impact to the environment, if a CEQA study has not been done, and development onthis lot has been turned down before because of soil stability and water quality, etc especially given the density of the project. 2) There is no available street parking. All spots are currently taken,especially evenings/ overnight/weekends. How is this being addressed for 23-46 more cars? 3) There is a lack of playgrounds or green spaces, except for a streamowned by Omni La Costa Golf and Box Canyon owned by City of Carlsbad. This is a dangerous rattlesnake and fire area and not safe for children who fish and swim. Carlsbad City Council may wish to be mindful of the safety of children (and liability) in considering this building project.Furthermore, significantly increasing the density in this area would likely adversely affect property values, and, as a result, the tax base, which may not be offset by adding new units. 4) There are no other 4-story buildings on the street, nor anywhere in the area. This project would block sight lines, add artificial light, block sunlight, and cause more traffic and noise. The lot is already two stories higher than Gibraltar Street, and the area is already dense, so a 2-story building would make more sense (which would still not be ideal given the density, but would partially address these concerns once the CEQAreview is done). What plans are there to protect children and pedestrians, traffic mitigation, parking? I trust Carlsbad City Council will protect the interests of hundreds ofproperty owners, rather than approving this project when there have been many reasons why projects have not been approved for this site in the past. We hope that you will not reverse your own past decisions of how this builder must address our (and presumably your) concerns. Thank you for your careful consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Mary Anne Orcutt7501 Gibraltar St Mary Anne OrcuttSent from my iPad CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Eileen Donovan To:Planning Subject:Public Comment on the Romeria Pointe Project for 7/15 3pm Meeting Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 6:08:41 PM Attachments:Romeria Point Projectv3.pptx Dear City Planning, I would like the below comments to be read into the public record at the City PlanningCommission meeting on 7/15/2020 at 3pm regarding Romeria Pointe Apartments. In addition,I was told by the clerk that a power point deck could be shared to the commission and thepublic, so I would like the attached slide deck to be shown on the zoom conference while thebelow comments are being read. Please confirm you will be able to display the power point onthe zoom conference during this meeting. Thanks, Eileen Donovan, 7555 Romeria Street,Carlsbad This is under 500 words. ----------------------------- Slide #1: Villa Romeria Resident Response According to the CEQA Guidelines we feel the exemption requirements are NOT met. 1. Significant effects relating to traffic: The project is located within a 10th of a mile from a High Risk Fire Zone. La Costa Ave was reduced from two lanes to one lane, furthering the possibility of traffic congestion with an extra 50-60 vehicles in the event of a possible evacuation dues to fire. The City of Carlsbad deemed our area to be “car dependent with minimal public transit available” 2. Reasonable possibility to have a significant effect on the environment due to unusualcircumstances. Known soil issues with two separate lifts completed on Villa Romeria at a cost of over $100,000 makes this a highly unusual circumstance to the environment which creates a very high risk with a 100 ton building going up within feet of the last lift CIG insurance finds our area to be too close to the high risk fire zone to insure our property, which also is a significant and unusual to the environment. Slide #2: Traffic & Significant Effects In 2011 La Costa Ave was reduced from a two lanes road to a one lane Our area is deemed to be Car Dependent with minimal public transit available by the city of Carlsbad. As a result, the influx of traffic for an additional 50-60 cars will be very high and create more congestion and street parking will be non- existent. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slide #3: Traffic and Reduced Lane = Increased Fire Hazard The most significant traffic & safety issue is that the project is located within one 10th of amile from a very high risk fire zone. Slide #4: Home Owner Insurance Cancelled “ Location is unduly exposed to wind driven embers, smoke and fire from wildland fuels,exacerbated by any property vegetation, with no opportunity for effective mitigation.” Slide #5: Significant Effect on the Environment Due to Unusual Circumstances Villa Romeria was built in 1986 1997 Performed a lift due to crib wall movement. Entire property was lifted and secured with pylon jacks ($60k Cost) 2014 Unit 7551 began having tiles buckle and two pipes burst in 7553 and 7557 flooding 3 units. 2014 7551 was pulling northward towards the same area as the proposed Romeria Pointe project plan ($30k Cost) Slide #6: Damage from the 2014 slippage in 7551 (Photos) Slide #7: Conclusion Based on these facts, the CEQA Guidelines for exemption have NOT been met due to a longhistory of known, costly soil issues, fire hazard area, lane closures on La Costa and insurancecancellations all make for a “reasonable possibility to have a significant effect on theenvironment due to unusual circumstances.” Is the Carlsbad City Planning Commission willing to give a categorical exemption fromCEQA and risk our lives, safety and livelihoods just to get three small affordableapartments? All we are asking is that you allow a CEQA to be conducted which was decided upon by theCity Council on 6/11/2019. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 0 0 0 0 Villa Romeria Resident Response Eileen Donovan 7555 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, CA 92009 According to the CEQA Guidelines we feel the exemption requirements are NOT met. 1.Significant effects relating to traffic: •The project is located within a 10th of a mile from a High Risk Fire Zone. •La Costa Ave was reduced from two lanes to one lane, furthering the possibility of traffic congestion with an extra 50-60 vehicles in the event of a possible evacuation dues to fire. •The City of Carlsbad deemed our area to be “car dependent with minimal public transit available” 2.Reasonable possibility to have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. •Known soil issues with two lifts completed on Villa Romeria at a cost of over $100,000 makes this a highly unusual circumstance to the environment which creates a very high risk with a 100 ton building going up within feet of the last lift. •CIG insurance finds our area to be too close to the high risk fire zone to insure our property, which also is a significant and unusual to the environment. Traffic And Significant Effects •In 2011 La Costa Ave was reduced from a two lanes road to a one lane •Our area is deemed to be Car Dependent with minimal public transit available by the city of Carlsbad. As a result the influx of traffic for an additional 50-60 cars will be very high and create more congestion and street parking will be non existent. ibc San Diego Union-mbunc CARLSBAD: Westbound La Costa Avenue to lose a lane By BARBARA HENRY BHENRYa NCTIMES.COM JUNE 28, 20U I 10:30 PM Section of La Costa Avenue targeted for changes La Costa Country Club \.EVANTE ST. DETAIL □ AREA NCT/CAL 1/4 MILE Transportation in 9200·9 25noo Car•Dependent 9 100 Somewhat Bikeable -.... s - 201100 Minimal Transit Tr rn This area is car dependent -most prrands require a car. Transit is barely an option, and almost all errands require a car. There is a minimal amount of infrastructure for biking. Traffic and Reduced Lane = Increased Fire Hazard •The most significant traffic & safety issue is that the project is located within one 10th of a mile from a very high risk fire zone. \ Carfabad Fire Station • Legend Firestorms (2003, 2007, 2014) D Fire Hazard Severity Zones' Very High High Moderate No Designation Fire Perimeters (1980-2014) D Villa Romer Encinitas fire Stat 4 Cal FIRE FRAP, WUI, and Wildfire Hazard Potential + 0 V, 0 QI :J 0 V, Project is on 10th of a mile from hiS,, risk fire zone s. ~ 01 \fl ,,.. Sources Esri USGS NOAA FRAF Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS.L FEMAJJsri Commun it... Powered Q.Y-Esri “ Location is unduly exposed to wind driven embers, smoke and fire from wildland fuels, exacerbated by any property vegetation, with no opportunity for effective mitigation.” –Capitol Insurance Group, 9/23/2019 Home Owner Insurance CancelledIICIG To Ha~. V Ilana & PlltOy lnsuranct \wtcten; Inc 60120 RF ~ffit~ Suw,, Poley~, .... OC. I 190481'1 LocaUon It unduly upo9ecl 10 wind~ emowa, ~ end fn from wlldi.nd fuela, n~ed by MY P,09«1)' v~. wtttl no ot)pOIWnlty f« tff.ctfv• nwt,pUon u .. •!'IW Commi!~ l,01'111, CiHM conllK1 'fO" t.lllOrtionl 110 \1 OH'JCE PO &o,>11• • \tMl<H),C'. "90,t\O,t?.)II0 •1O1,~n.icoo 'l'A\•f"\IIJ\J Sir?\ C.~ac.,c,w1,-.,.,,oe~c,.,,,,•1.~ 1, .. , l'w-Jnc. ~,• ~ .....,""•ec,,._.,.• ,.._,-»C,,c:ltal ..,.,,.,,oe eo,.cw,,, Significant Effect on the Environment Due to Unusual Circumstances •Villa Romeria was built in 1986 •1997 Performed a lift due to crib wall movement. Entire property was lifted and secured with pylon jacks ($60k Cost) •2014 Unit 7551 began having tiles buckle and two pipes burst in 7553 and 7557 flooding 3 units. •2014 Unit 7551 was pulling northward towards the same area as the proposed Romeria Pointe project plan ($30k Cost) As you can see a 100 ton, 4 story bulldlng would be within feet of our last soil compromise in 2014. Romeria Pointe building plans show it to be very close to property the Damage from the 2014 slippage in 7551 Ceiling drywall separating Tiles buckling Drywall cracking and pulling away from windows Back Patio Damage Stucco separating around windows In Conclusion Based on these facts, the CEQA Guidelines for exemption have NOT been met due to a long history of known, costly soil issues, fire hazard area, lane closures on La Costa and insurance cancellations all make for a “reasonable possibility to have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” Is the Carlsbad City Planning Commission willing to give a categorical exemption from CEQA and risk our lives, safety and livelihoods just to get three small affordable apartments? All we are asking is that you allow a CEQA to be conducted which was decided upon by the City Council on 6/11/2019. From:bbundaf@aol.com To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe/July 15th/Read Comments Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 9:46:39 PM Dear Planning Commission, Please read July 15th/ Romeria Pointe (RP) June 11, 2019 Council voted 4-1 a partial CEQA be done. Council deemed there were “unusual circumstances” regarding RP. Please support this decision. Housing Element Committee brochure indicates 2 restrictions: <!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Where topography is not conducive <!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->Not safe: flood zone or HIGH FIRE AREA Article 19 “unusual circumstances” are the exceptions requiring a CEQA review. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 1: RP site is a slope. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Not normal flat land with a traditional foundation going on top. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Will use “cast-in-drilled-hole piles” to support this VERY large structure. 2013, Villa Romeria sustained major damage because of soil/foundation issues. The foundation was stabilized with push piers. The lift was $25,000. This demonstratesthe instability of the land/soil in this area. Neighboring properties have sustained damage as well. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE 2: RP is 1/10 of a mile from a LARGE Fire Hazard area designated by CAL Fire. Article 12.5 Section 15192. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS FOR EXEMPTIONS FORAGRICULTURAL HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS 8. (h) The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazard, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk ofa wildland fire hazard. LaCosta Ave. is the main road to/from RP. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->July 2019 LaCosta Ave. was “downsized” 4-lanes to 2-lanes <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->2018, major reason for 88 deaths in Paradise Fire because people could not get out <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Several years before fire in Paradise, CA main road went from 4 lanes to 2. Escaping via public transportation not possible. Closest train station is 6.4 miles. The closest bus stop is .06 from RP. Bus schedule is unreliable. Why did the City of Carlsbad not revise the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) portion of the TIA Guidelines by the December 2019 deadline per a March 2017 agreement? Now state-mandated as July 1, 2020. If a VMT analysis had been done instead of a level of service (LOS) analysis it may have shown significant environmental impact. Only a LOS was done. (Significant environmental effect on traffic—Section 15332(c)) In order to qualify for an exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194 or 15195, a housing project must meet all of the threshold criteria. (a) The project must be consistent with: 1. (1) Any applicable general plan….. Consistency with the general plan and zoning regulations—Section 15332(a) RP is not consistent with Carlsbad’s General Plan. The dwelling unit density is higherthan allowed by its R-23 land use designation requiring a density bonus. RP is not consistent with Carlsbad’s Zoning Ordinance. The building height is higher than the maximum allowed by its RD-M development standard. Are you 100% confidant that this proposed project is safe and has NO “UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE” leading to damage or death? Please support the decision made by Council for a CEQA review. Please keep the residence of Carlsbad safe. Thank you, Beth Citrano 7422 Carlina St. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Tetyana Pelypenko To:Planning; Manager Internet Email Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments to be postponed Date:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 7:36:51 AM Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission and Mr. Chadwick, I would like this email to be included in the public record and in staff reports submitted to the City Planning. This is a request that the hearing on July 15th, 2020 at 3PM for Romeria Pointe Apartments bepostponed. This request is due to the current world wide pandemic. Nearly 3 hours was spent at the City Council meeting on June 11th, 2019 on this issue. This clearly shows the amount of attention this matter deserves. Please give the residents ofCarlsbad a chance to have a voice in this matter in person once EVERYONE can focus on this important topic. In the update from the City Manager on July 14th 2020, Mr. Chadwick states "Carlsbad has 31more cases than my last report on Tuesday for a new total of 221. We estimate 116 are currently active, the highest by far since the start of the pandemic." This pandemic is FARfrom over and the numbers in Carlsbad show this to be true. PLEASE postpone this meeting so that this issue can be properly addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you with a new date when this matter can be addressed in person. Sincerely,Tetyana Pelypenko CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The 2018 Camp Fire killed 85 people -the deadliest blaze in California history. II Flames consume a home as the Camp Fire tears through Paradise, California on November 8 2018. < l J HRUCTIOl4 NOTl(l I A\~•u• ~Ill t\u.r' ... HtJ 1•111.tA.l ~ --~ ,.ucr,ON UOTIC~ , .. ~· , .......... ,.~ ... ,1. .. .,,"'11,.,1 C ,ul-li:ul ,4' ::~ ~-,.. ... 'ftlNl1 can cause s level hclt ul to " In 2014, t he Po i nsettia fire came within 1.9 miles of here. It burned 890 acres aradi, 1arrowed i 1 ain road b two lane d spiti varnin · of ridl ock during a 1naj r wildfi~ The Lo. Angel . Time. and oth r newspapers \\·ould later dig up many city planmng mistakes and con1mw1ication failures h .. t app are<l to ompound the devastation on the morning of Nov. . The core of the problem was that there just wasn't. ny tim . T h fir wa moving . o astonishingly fast that, only a few minutes after Pararuse started evac.:uating i · first zone ", it wa · obviou · the entire con1munity would have to be cleared. From:Steve Linke To:Planning Subject:Romeria Pointe Apartments verbal comment for 7/15/2020 Planning Commission meeting Date:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 11:51:22 AM Good afternoon. My name is Steve Linke. I am on the Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission, but I am commenting as an individual. I submitted a letter a few days ago that I would like entered into the public record. Also, in the interest of better transparency, and because the Boards and Commissions are supposed to be following City Council practices more closely, I suggest that staff be asked to begin posting correspondence to the commission’s webpage prior to meetings, so everybody has access to it. The city changed the prioritization of La Costa Avenue from vehicles to pedestrians and bicycles back in 2015. So, even though the applicant’s traffic analysis shows that the project will degrade vehicle level of service from grade “E” to grade “F,” that is a meaningless result, because mitigation can no longer be required. So, after the City Council requested a CEQA traffic analysis, I believe it would have been more appropriate to have the applicant conduct a “vehicle miles traveled” (or VMT) analysis instead of level of service. The categorical CEQA exemption mechanism does not avoid the need for traffic analysis. As detailed in my letter, VMT analysis shows a significant traffic-based environmental impact of the project, which would require mitigation through measures that seek to reduce vehicle ownership and trips by future residents. I also am concerned that Carlsbad’s “Transportation Impact Analysis” (or TIA) Guidelines are not being followed consistently, and that VMT implementation was improperly delayed. The City signed a settlement agreement with an environmental group in 2017 that required them to produce the TIA Guidelines. Those guidelines require the filing of a written traffic analysis Scoping Agreement prior to initiation of the analysis, but that was not done for this project—nor is it seemingly done for most development projects. That is a practice that should change. The 2017 settlement agreement also requires review of all discretionary development projects for actions to reduce VMT. However, this development did not conduct a VMT analysis, even though other developments were doing that in the same time period. VMT analysis was not formally implemented in Carlsbad until long after it was required by the settlement agreement, despite many years of warning and ample guidance and tools available from the State and County at least as far back as May 2019. I am neutral on this project, but I hope that the appropriate mitigation of the VMT-based traffic impacts of the project can be negotiated, and that the TIA Guidelines are adhered to going forward. I also would like the questions in my letter to be answered. Thank you. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Romeria Pointe Apartments 6/11/19 City Council Hearing –Appeal of Unanimous Planning Commission Approval of Romeria Pointe Apartments City Council Motion Remand the project to the Planning Commission and request a CEQA analysis and an Environmental Impact Report focused on traffic and geotechnical to be performed on the project. •Motion carried, 4-1 •No findings were made or provided to reject or delay approval of the project Applicant Checklist Hire Traffic Engineer to Conduct a Traffic Study Geotechnical Report Re-Review Locate and Review Additional Geotechnical Data Submit Traffic and Updated Geotechnical Reports to City for Review Traffic Study •Study conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). •LLG studied the project’s traffic impact on the adjacent roadways and intersection of Romeria St and La Costa Ave based on the MMLOS and SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA). •Conclusion: Based on the City’s TIA Guidelines and thresholds of significance, and SANTEC/ITE (CEQA) Guidelines and thresholds of significance, there are no significant queueing impacts from this project. *See pages 31 & 38 of LLG Traffic Study, dated 3/9/20 . ■ N:13155\Figures Date: 03/09/20 &11:iiiii Figure 2-1 MM LOS Study Area ROMERIA POINTE Applicant Checklist Hire Traffic Engineer to Conduct a Traffic Study Geotechnical Report Re-Review Locate and Review Additional Geotechnical Data Submit Traffic and Updated Geotechnical Reports to City for Review Geotechnical Engineering Study Geotechnical engineering review and report conducted by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) •Thorough review of site-specific report of geotechnical recommendations for the Romeria Pointe Apartments. •Area search and review of geotechnical reports and data from surrounding properties and original subdivision grading available in public records and private databases. Geotechnical Study •Regional geologic maps and landslide susceptibility and hazard maps from 1983, 1995, and 2007. •Geotechnical hazard maps prepared for Carlsbad in 1992. •Historic stereoscopic aerial photographs from a survey done in 1953. *See page 3 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Study 1. Subject Property •Benton Engineering, Inc, 1969 and 1970. •East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc, 2001. •Soil Pacific, Inc, 2003. •GeoSoils, Inc, 2004, 2016- 2019. *See page 3 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Study 2. Villa Romeria Property •Catlin and Company, Inc, 1984. •Catlin Engineering Associates, Inc, 1996 and 1998. •Helfrich Associates, 2014. 3. 7546 Romeria Street •Vinje and Middleton Engineering, Inc, 1998 and 2000. *See page 3 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #1 –Land Instability •Appellant, public speakers, and council members Bhat-Patel and Schumacher raised concerns. •Land instability can manifest from landslides, settlement, and seismic events such as liquefaction. Geotechnical Issue #1 –Land Instability •No evidence of any landslide deposits within the subject property. •Subject property does not contain high groundwater or young fill dirt that is susceptible to an earthquake. •Settlement of existing fill soil must be mitigated. •Mitigation: CIDH piles allow the building to load the stable bedrock and avoid relying on existing fill. *See pages 3 & 4 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 PHASE 1 PHASE l PHASE 3 DRILWIG 'n'ITHDRAWAl ANO STEEL CAGE CONCIIETING INSTALLATION ... .. ... .. .. Geotechnical Issue #1 –Land Instability Conclusion: There is no evidence to suggest the proposed project will experience or cause land instability on adjacent properties. *See pages 3 & 4 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #2 –Slippage •Appellant, public speakers and council members Schumacher and Hamilton raised concerns. •Neighboring property owners to the South at Villa Romeria (up-slope) are concerned due to previous and existing foundation issues. Geotechnical Issue #2 –Slippage •Geotechnical engineers for Villa Romeria did not conduct subsurface explorations to identify the root cause of distress. •The suggested and implemented repair on the adjacent property may not be appropriate. •Distress due to an improperly constructed foundation or incorrect mitigation measures. *See pages 4 & 5 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 TT [] ; D .-.,, .·_ . . --c!-------~ Geotechnical Issue #2 –Slippage Romeria Pointe project will not induce slippage for the following reasons: •The subject property is down-slope and will not surcharge the Villa Romeria property. •Construction of permanent retaining walls along the property line will support the Villa Romeria property. •Stormwater treatment facilities will severely reduce the water entering the existing fill soils. •CIDH pile foundation stabilizes the soil and reduces the load on existing fill soils. •Existing fill slopes will be rebuilt with geogrid reinforcement to improve surficial stability. Conclusion: The proposed project will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties, and it will actually stabilize and improve support for the Villa Romeria property. *See pages 4 & 5 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #3 –Land Movement •Appellant, public speakers and council member Bhat-Patel raised concerns and brought up the Marbella project Geotechnical Issue #3 –Land Movement •The Marbella property is underlain by much weaker soil. •Marbella (as shown here) is in the area most susceptible to landslides. •Engineers have assigned Marbella with a more onerous land-use capability rating than the subject property. •There is no evidence of deep-seated slope instability on the subject property. *See page 6 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 i . ::l~f~sJi~}Y:~i >_~ ', - ~ '. '. \~~09~~;-· --, .. ~:~. ~·--·~ ,' -··~\ t)) \J(~ ~~)11>\'-e_ rv ;.. ·r"-) l' ,i,t ; ) __ )'. ! ... . ,_:'Cc~L . I . \ "-:.; \ \ '\ \\ \ '\'\ I '\. I • ,. ' .. ,~~C-::/~~~'-··· I! //i ·:r ~< r ·.1' \ 1 · 7 , i . '. f I ~----~·:\.-;.:·~:., , :·; !I i i .:_.' ! : t,,---.. _ '·ERIA° POINTE" .. ~--'. ! f ( ~-\ .. \ · ... \ 4 I ,· ' PERTY -~ , -. ._ ' \. "· ··. , ( < .. ••<:;:-:: /-;LI} 3 -~'\__ ... ; \1 r r --~-' ··•··-..., .. ,.--;7 ' 1/. •f " r":::,"' ? i !' '.~ \ \ 'v •···';,: o-0 ;--~ ~ ,~, \ t.,.' /l ~\ ., __ ,'?/, ~I '----/ ----'(, ( <:': ~~t ~>~~\ ,\: ;\ , { (, ('"' \-, .,-~· 8! ! r '>:-I\ .. ··r>-:, / \JJ! '\, ·1 ... k~-7 _· / .• :-,,;:. 'i \ ( / ,' _;·:<I~-~(2_=):: __ J{;JJ;~-, -·:;/ 1 •~-- _____ .... _;.;.;...;. __ L..:l, _ _,__,._ _ __,___,__~~.......1...--...,;,o;------------ BASE MAP BY; S/ANG S. TAN & DESMOND G. GIFFEN (1995) oRAFT LANDSLIDE HAZARDS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN AREA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ENCINITAS QUADRANGLE (PLATED) RANCHO SANTA FE QUADRANGLE (PLATE E) GRAPHIC SCALE 1000 0 ~ -1"=1000' 2000 ! REIATIVE IANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY AND IANDSLIDE DISTRIBUTION MAP SYMBOLS ~.,-,-.-;-.... t ..L ..L .L ..L-) URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY RELATIVE LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY AREAS leall Suaceptlble 3.1 3-2 Generally Susceptible Most Susceptible ------Increasing Landslide Susceptlblllty-----? Geotechnical Issue #3 –Land Movement Conclusion: A comparison between the Romeria Pointe property and the Marbella property cannot be made. There is no evidence to suggest the proposed project on Romeria will experience any of the landslide issues experienced at Marbella. *See page 6 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #4 –Reduced Service Life of Sidewalks •Appellant, public speakers and council members Schumacher, Hamilton and Blackburn raised concerns about the sidewalks and walkways potentially being an issue. Geotechnical Issue #4 –Reduced Service Life of Sidewalks •Sidewalks are considered ancillary site improvements, and are not held to the same performance standards as buildings. •Throughout Carlsbad, there are hundreds of examples of distressed sidewalks caused by a variety of issues. •Curbs and sidewalks will be built to “Greenbook”/City of Carlsbad standards. Conclusion: Standard practice is for the owner to maintain and repair any sidewalk and walkway issues on site. The possibility of distressed walkways does not constitute a site stability issue. *See page 6 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #5 –Increased Building Height from 3 to 4 Stories •Appellant, public speakers and council member Bhat-Patel raised concerns about the soil report assuming a 3 story building. Geotechnical Issue #5 –Increased Building Height from 3 to 4 Stories •A change in building height does not fundamentally alter the geotechnical recommendations. •CIDH piles can be used to support much larger buildings and infrastructure projects. •During the construction drawing phase, the structural engineer will size the piles accordingly to adequately support the weight of the buildings. Conclusion: The conclusions and recommendations contained within the report provided by GeoSoils, Inc are geotechnically feasible and appropriate for the 4 story project. *See page 7 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Geotechnical Issue #6 –Using CIDH Pile Foundations Constitutes an “Unusual Condition” •Public speakers and council member Schumacher raised questions about whether CIDH Piles should be considered an unusual condition Geotechnical Issue #6 –Using CIDH Pile Foundations Constitutes an “Unusual Condition” •Remedial grading and CIDH piles are both commonly-used methods to support foundation systems for buildings; both options have been recommended as feasible. •Based on our feasibility studies, CIDH piles seem to be the most practical method for this project. Conclusion: Given existing site conditions, the CIDH pile foundation system should not be viewed as unusual. To the contrary, the currently proposed pile foundations are often implemented for in-fill type projects and are considered appropriate for this project. *See pages 7 & 8 of GSI Report, dated 11/20/19 Applicant Checklist Hire Traffic Engineer to Conduct a Traffic Study Geotechnical Report Re-Review Locate and Review Additional Geotechnical Data Submit Traffic and Updated Geotechnical Reports to City for Review City Staff Review •Geotechnical report and traffic study were submitted on Tuesday, January 28th. •Staff conducted in-house reviews for traffic and geotechnical and hired a third-party engineering firm to review the geotechnical report. Conclusion: Staff supports the project as proposed. Furthermore, staff has indicated the project should be considered CEQA exempt and there has been no evidence to suggest any potential impact to warrant any CEQA studies. Applicant Checklist Hire Traffic Engineer to Conduct a Traffic Study Geotechnical Report Re-Review Locate and Review Additional Geotechnical Data Submit Traffic and Updated Geotechnical Reports to City for Review Applicability of CEQA •Applicant and its legal counsel agree with the City Attorney’s Office and prior Planning Commission determination that CEQA exemption is applicable. •Additional studies undertaken at City Council’s request confirm there’s no “reasonable possibility” the project will have significant impacts due to “unusual circumstances”. •No credible evidence has been provided to refute the numerous studies submitted and reviewed by staff. •CEQA should not be used to frustrate or slow the approval of projects necessary to combat the housing crisis. Conclusion: Legal council supports the staff recommendation and previous Planning Commission determination of unanimous approval of the project, and agrees that the CEQA infill exemption is appropriate. Thank you!