HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-04; City Council; ; Proposed 192-Unit Multifamily Residential Development Project Located on West Oaks Way, Just Southwest of the Intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way Meeting Date: May 4, 2021
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Cliff Jones, Senior Planner
cliff.jones@carlsbadca.gov, 760-602-4613
Subject: A Proposed 192-Unit Multifamily Residential Development Project
Located on West Oaks Way, Just Southwest of the Intersection of
Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way
District: 2
Recommended Action
1. Hold a public hearing to:
o Introduce an ordinance approving amendments to the citywide zoning and local
coastal program zoning maps to modify the citywide and local coastal program
zoning designations from planning industrial zoning to residential density multiple
zoning; and to reconfigure the open space zoning boundaries on the property to
accommodate required emergency access and preserve on-site habitat and habitat
buffer areas located southwest of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and
Palomar Oaks Way within the Mello II segment of the local coastal program and local
facilities management zone 5 (Exhibit 1).
1. Adopt a resolution approving:
o A mitigated negative declaration, mitigation monitoring and reporting program and
addendum and a General Plan amendment and Local Coastal Program amendment
to modify the land use designation on a 12.53-acre site from planned industrial to
residential and reconfigure the open space land use designation boundaries on the
property to accommodate required emergency access and preserve on-site habitat
and habitat buffer areas.
o A site development plan, coastal development permit, habitat management plan
permit and minor subdivision for the construction of 192 multifamily residential
apartment rental units located southwest of the intersection of Palomar Airport
Road and Palomar Oaks Way within the Mello II segment of the local coastal
program and local facilities management zone 5 (GPA 16-04/ZC 16-03/LCPA 16-
04/SDP 16-20/CDP 16-31/HMP 16-04/MS 2018-005) (Exhibit 2).
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 1 of 46
Executive Summary
The Carlsbad West Oaks Project Owner, LLC is requesting approval to construct 192 multifamily
residential apartment rental units, including 42 affordable units, on a 12.53-acre site.
A general plan amendment, zoning change, and local coastal program amendment are required
to change the current industrial land use and zoning designations of the site to open space and
multifamily residential, which will allow for the preservation of the existing habitat and
associated buffer areas as well as the development of a 150-unit market-rate apartment project
and a 42-unit apartment project that will be income and rent restricted as affordable to lower
income families.
The applicant is also requesting a modification to a parking development standard. The
modification would allow a portion of the required and visitor parking for the affordable units
to be located at a greater distance from the units they are intended to serve than the maximum
walking distance allowed. The parking standard modification request is necessary to ensure no
new development occurs within habitat buffer areas.
The project is before the City Council because the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires City
Council approval of General Plan amendments, zoning changes and local coastal program
amendments (CMC Section 21.52.050.A). Additionally, when a development permit requires a
decision by the council, then all concurrently processed development permits must also be
considered and approved by the council. (CMC Section 21.54.040.C(3)). The proposed local
coastal program amendment also requires subsequent approval from the California Coastal
Commission (CMC Section 21.52.050.B).
Discussion
Site description
The 12.53-acre site, southwest of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks
Way, is currently vacant (see Location map, Exhibit 3). Vehicular access is currently restricted by
a locked gate. A portion of the site is undeveloped and contains native habitat. The nine
existing lots on the site have been graded for development since the mid-1980s, with
underground utilities – such as sewer, water, electricity and natural gas – readily available, and
an improved public road. West Oaks Way, the existing paved roadway, bisects the site in a
northwest-southeast direction. A power line easement traverses the southeastern portion of
the site in a northwest-southeast direction. Encinas Creek, which was channeled and rerouted
in 1985, runs throughout the project site and is located along the northern boundary of the site.
As a result of the prior grading, the site is relatively flat, with less than 20% slopes, and gently
slopes to the west (Exhibit 10).
Project description
As noted above, the developer is seeking approval to build 192 multifamily residential
apartment rental units, including 42 affordable apartment rental units, on the site.
A general plan amendment, zoning change and local coastal program amendment are required
for this approval. These actions would modify the land use and zoning designations of the
property from Planned Industrial (PI) and Planned Industrial (P-M) to a Residential (R-30) land
use designation and a Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) zoning designation, and reconfigure
the boundaries of the open space land use designation and zoning designation on the site to
allow for required emergency access and preserve on-site habitat and habitat buffer areas. The
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 2 of 46
developer proposes to re-subdivide the nine lots on the site into four lots. Lot 1 and 2 are
proposed to be open space lots to preserve on-site habitat and habitat buffer areas and are
separated from one another by an emergency access bridge. Lots 3 and 4 are proposed as
residential lots – Lot 3 is to contain 150 market-rate rental units and Lot 4 is to contain 42
affordable apartment rental units. The attached ordinance amends the citywide Zoning Map
and Local Coastal Program zoning map to reflect the proposed residential density-multiple (RD-
M) and open space (OS) zoning boundaries on the site, as shown in Exhibit 1. The project's
proposed residential density is 24.6 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the
proposed land use and zoning for the site.
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, CMC Section 21.85.030, requires 15% of the total housing
units to be affordable to lower-income households earning up to 80% of the San Diego County
area median income. In this case, given the proposed request to change the zoning from
industrial to residential use, an increased inclusionary requirement is warranted. In similar
cases, the City Council has required a minimum of 20% of the rental housing units on the site to
be restricted as affordable to low-income households at 70% of the San Diego County area
median income in exchange for similar land use and zoning redesignations, or increases in
residential density. For this project, the applicant proposes to provide 22% of the total units, or
42 units, as affordable housing units that will be income and rent restricted to lower-income
households ranging from 35% to 70% of the San Diego County area median Income. This would
exceed the percentage of inclusionary housing units typically required in similar cases and
provides a greater level of affordability than required by ordinance and by the City Council in
previous cases.
The developer is also requesting a modification to the parking standard in CMC Section
21.44.060 Table C, which requires that resident parking be located no more than 150 feet, as
measured in a logical walking path, from the entrance to the unit it could be considered to
serve and that visitor parking be located no more than 300 feet walking distance to the unit the
parking space is required to serve. A portion of the required parking for the affordable units is
proposed to be built at a greater distance than required under the parking ordinance to ensure
no new development occurs within habitat buffer areas. Specifically, 30 required resident
parking spaces are located greater than a 150-foot walking distance from the units they are
intended to serve, with an average walking distance of 570 feet, while 11 visitor parking spaces
are located greater than a 300 foot walking distance from the units they are intended to serve,
with an average walking distance of 805 feet.
According to CMC Section 21.53.120.B.1, site development plans for affordable housing
projects may allow less restrictive development standards than specified in the underlying zone
provided that the project;
• Is in conformity with the General Plan and approved policies and goals of the city
• Would have no detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare
• And within the Coastal Zone, the project is consistent with all certified Local coastal
program provisions
The project complies with the proposed General Plan land use and zoning and is compatible
with adjacent land uses, which include a mix of residential, open space, industrial and
commercial. The closest developments are more than 300 feet from the site and minimal
impacts to those uses are anticipated. The project complies with Coastal Zone regulations and
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 3 of 46
policies, including the city’s Habitat Management Plan because all sensitive habitat will be
placed in a protective open space easement and a buffer will be provided to minimize edge
effects. The project is also consistent with the city’s Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance,
Storm Water Ordinance, BMP, or Best Management Practices, Design Manual and Jurisdictional
Runoff Management Program to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants and soil erosion.
Conditions have been placed on the project requiring the 42 onsite affordable apartment units
to be constructed concurrently with the market-rate apartment units.
City Growth Management Program, SB330, and SB166
Provided below is an analysis of how the city’s Growth Management Program and Senate Bill
330, the state’s Housing Crisis Act, and SB 166, the No Net Loss Law, apply to this project.
SB 330 and the Growth Management Program
SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act, prohibits cities from imposing limits on housing development or
moratoriums on housing development or plans. The law applies to the project if the land use of
the property is changed from industrial to residential use. It prohibits the city from using
residential housing caps to regulate the number of housing units built in the city. This would
apply to the city’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, an element of the city’s Growth Management
Program.1
The city received a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development on Feb. 23, 2021, (Exhibit 9) that confirmed that under SB 330, specifically
Government Code Section 66300 (b)(1)(D), the city cannot use the growth cap limits specified in
the city’s Growth Management Program to limit or prohibit residential development.
Consequently, the City Council adopted a resolution on Apr. 6, 2021, indicating that the
residential housing caps contained in the General Plan, Growth Management Plan), City Council
Policy No. 43 and the city’s Municipal Code (Title 21, Chapter 90) had been preempted by state
law and made unenforceable. Because of this, the removal of units from the Excess Dwelling
Unit Bank and the city’s Southwest Quadrant is being documented solely for residential unit
tracking purposes. The Growth Management Plan sets a cap on the total number of residential
units in the city’s Southwest Quadrant at 12,859 total units. As of Feb. 28, 2021, 10,220 units
existed and 1,512 were unbuilt but planned for a total of 11,732, leaving a balance of 1,127
possible new units in the Southwest Quadrant.
This project requires the removal of 192 units from the city’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, as
directed under City Council Policy No. 43 (Exhibit 13). However, the bank only has 183 units left
for the Northeast, Southwest and Southeast quadrants, leaving the bank with a nine-unit deficit
with the approval of this project. This deficit is a result of prior City Council action taken in
2002, when 1,353 units were removed from the bank. That action did not reduce the
Proposition E’s voter-established quadrant unit limits. The nine units will be taken from the
1 The City Council passed a growth management ordinance in 1986 that put conditions on how growth could occur,
including requiring development to pay for essential public facilities. Carlsbad voters then passed Proposition E,
which affirmed the principles of the Growth Management Program and established caps on the number of housing
units that could be built in Carlsbad. When projects develop fewer units than would be otherwise allocated by the
General Plan, these units are held on account in the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, and later can be withdrawn and
applied to another project.
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 4 of 46
previously removed 1,353 units and added back into the Southwest Quadrant of the bank to
eliminate the deficit.
SB 330, SB166 and residential capacity
SB 330, specifically Government Code Section 66300, limits a city’s ability to reduce residential
density, that is, downzoning, unless it takes action to ensure an equivalent residential density is
provided elsewhere within its boundaries. SB 166, the No Net Loss Law and Government Code
Section 65863, includes a similar provision that prohibits a city from downzoning residential
density on a property identified in the inventory of sites in the housing element in the city’s
general plan unless it also rezones another property to make up the lost units.
The city is currently processing two city-initiated applications that include a proposal to change
the General Plan land use and zoning designations from residential to open space. The first site
is the 2.66-acre Aura Circle property (GPA 2021-0001/ZC2021-0001), which the city acquired on
Feb. 11, 2020. It will add 2.66 acres of natural open space to the city’s inventory. The other site
is the 3.16-acre Buena Vista Reservoir Park property (GPA 2021-0002/ZC2021-0002), which the
city has owned since the late 1950s. It is being developed into a small neighborhood public
park. Combined, the total residential dwelling unit decrease expected as a result of these
redesignations is 19 units.
In compliance with SB 330, the West Oaks project, whose developer proposes to redesignate
the property from industrial to residential to create (192 new dwelling units), will more than
offset the expected residential capacity loss of 19 units residential rezonings required for this
project. SB 330 allows this redesignation to occur before the redesignation of the two city-
initiated applications in process because all three applications are concurrently under staff
review.
The two city-initiated applications in process are not subject to the SB 166, because the
properties are not identified in the Housing Element sites inventory approved by the City
Council on April 6, 2021. The West Oaks project site is identified in the recently approved
Housing Element sites inventory and is subject to SB 166. If the project is not approved, the 42
low- and 150 above-moderate units cannot be counted toward meeting the city’s regional
housing needs allocation, and the city would need to identify another property with the
appropriate land use and zoning densities to make up for the decreased dwelling unit capacity
within the city’s Housing Element sites inventory.2
Planning Commission hearing
The Planning Commission considered the proposed project at a public hearing on Jan. 20, 2021.
At the hearing, six members of the public asked to have their comments read into the record.
The comments were in support of the project, noting that it would offer affordable housing
opportunities that are not currently available and would be easily accessible to public
transportation.
One letter from a resident was received. That letter primarily criticized the Transportation
Demand Management Program strategies required for the project and the resulting reductions
2 The Regional Housing Needs Allocation is a state-required process that represents the future housing
need for all income levels in a region and allocates the specific amounts of housing that must be provided
by cities such as Carlsbad.
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 5 of 46
in vehicle miles traveled. Transportation demand management is a strategy to encourage
people to drive alone less and shift to other transportation options. City staff have confirmed
that the strategies and measures included in the analysis and project conditions meet the
minimum standards required under the city code. The letter identified additional measures that
the commenter contended should be incorporated into the project. However, staff found that
the suggestions went beyond what is legally required for this project and were not supportable
under the city’s adopted standards for Transportation Demand Management. The resident’s
letter is provided in Exhibit 11. A detailed response to the issues raised in the letter can be
found in Exhibit 12.
After questions and discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the
project (6-0-1, Commissioner Linda Geldner absent). A full disclosure of the Planning
Commission’s actions and a complete description and staff analysis of the proposed project is
included in the attached minutes (Exhibit 8) and Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 7).
Options
Staff offer the following options for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Approve the proposed project, as recommended by the Planning Commission
Pros
• City would benefit from the addition of 192 multifamily residential rental
units, including 42 affordable rental units
• Achieves objectives of General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning
Ordinance
• Units proposed in the project would offset residential capacity lost from
two planned city rezoning projects (Aura Circle Open Space and Buena
Vista Park Open Space), ensuring city compliance with state housing laws
Cons
• The land use change from industrial to residential would reduce the
amount of industrial developable land
2. Remand the project back to the Planning Commission for additional review
Pros
• Commission could resolve any issues or concerns the City Council might
have about design or analysis. City Council must provide clear direction
why project is being remanded and what is expected from the Planning
Commission.
Cons
• Delays approval of the project
3. Deny the project
Pros
• City retains vacant industrial land for future development
Cons
• City would not benefit from the addition of 192 multifamily residential
units, including 42 affordable units
• City would need to find an alternate site that would provide the units
specified in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The Planning Commission and staff recommend option 1, approving the project.
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 6 of 46
Fiscal Analysis
All required improvements needed to serve this project will be funded by the developer, so
there is no cost to the city from this action.
Next Steps
The City Council's next action will be the second reading of the ordinance. Following this action,
staff will submit a Local Coastal Program amendment application to the California Coastal
Commission for its review and consideration. The project will not be considered fully approved
until it is approved by the California Coastal Commission.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
As outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection
Ordinance of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 19), staff conducted an environmental impact
assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impacts on the
environment. The environmental impact assessment identified potentially significant impacts to
biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources. The
city conducted and concluded tribal consultation pursuant to SB 18 and Assembly Bill 52.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, such that all potentially significant impacts will be
mitigated to below a level of significance.
A notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration, and mitigation monitoring and
reporting program was published in the newspaper and sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH
2020079011) for a 30-day public review period from July 7, 2020, to August 6, 2020. Six
comment letters or emails were received during the public review period. Responses to
comment letters and emails are contained in the final mitigated negative declaration, and were
sent to each commenting individual, organization or agency.
Public Notification and Outreach
Public notice of this item was posted in keeping with the Ralph M. Brown Act and it was
available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.
The project is not subject to City Council Policy No. 84 – Development Project Public
Involvement Policy, because the application for the project was filed before the effective date
of the policy. Instead, the project complied with the early public noticing procedures that were
in effect at the time of the application. Information regarding public notifications of this item
such as mailings, and public hearing notices posted in a newspaper of general circulation and
on the city website are available in the Office of the City Clerk.
Exhibits
1. City Council ordinance
2. City Council resolution
3. Location map
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7395
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7396
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7397
7. Planning Commission staff report dated Jan. 20, 2021
8. Planning Commission minutes dated Jan. 20, 2021
9. California Department of Housing and Community Development letter dated Feb. 23, 2021
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 7 of 46
10. Site description
11. Jan. 18, 2021, letter
12. Staff responses to comments to Jan. 18, 2021, letter
13. City Council Policy Statement No. 43
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 8 of 46
ORDINANCE NO. CS-397
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITYWIDE ZONING AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ZONING MAPS TO MODIFY THE CITY-WIDE AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ZONING DESIGNATIONS FROM PLANNED
INDUSTRIAL (P-I) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MULTIPLE (RD-M)
ZONING, AND TO RECONFIGURE THE OPEN SPACE (OS) ZONING
BOUNDARIES ON THE PROPERTY TO ACCOMMODATE REQUIRED
EMERGENCY ACCESS AND PRESERVE ON-SITE HABITAT AND HABITAT
BUFFER AREAS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD AND PALOMAR OAKS WAY WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT
OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 5
CASE NAME: WEST OAKS
CASE NO.: ZC 16-03/LCPA 16-04 (DEV 13018)
WHEREAS, The Carlsbad West Oaks Project Owner, LLC, "Owner/Developer," has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by The Carlsbad West Oaks
Project Owner, LLC, "Owner," described as
Lots J_ through 7 of Carlsbad Tract No. 82-04 Palomar Oaks. In the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof
No. 11358, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
October 23, 1985.
In addition, that portion of that certain parcel of land shown and designated
as "Description No. 3, 78.07 acres" on Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed
in the Office of the county of Recorder of San Diego County, December 19,
1960, being a portion of Lot "G" of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No.
823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
November 16, 1896
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Zone Change and Local
Coastal Program Amendment as shown on Attachment B (ZC 16-03) and Attachment A ([CPA 16-04) —
West Oaks dated October 1, 2020, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 9 of 46
WHEREAS, the City Council held 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 City Council considered all factors relating
to the "ZC 16-03/LCPA 16-04 — WEST OAKS."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
does ordain as follows:
1.The above recitations are true and correct.
2.That Section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the Zoning Map and
the Local Coastal Program Zoning Map, are amended as shown on the maps marked Attachment B (ZC
16-03 — West Oaks) and Attachment A (LCPA 16-04 — West Oaks) dated October 1, 2020, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
3.That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7396 shall also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption; and the
City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a
summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper
of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. (Notwithstanding
the preceding, this ordinance shall riot be effective until LCPA 16-04 is approved by the California
Coastal Commission.)
I-
II
/-
1/
1/
//
//
/1
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 10 of 46
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 4th
day of May, 2021, and thereafter
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of , 2021, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney
MATT HALL, Mayor
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 11 of 46
LCPA 16-04 (Zoning)West Oaks
October 01, 2020Exhibit "LCPA 16-04"
EXISTING
PROPOSED
OS
R-1-10000
OS
R-1
OS
P-M
RD-M
P-M
OS
OS
RD-M
OS
OS
OS
OS
P-M
P-M
P-MOS
OS
OS
P-M
O OSP-M-Q
From:To:
A. 212-040-26-00 P-M-Q OS, RD-M
B. 212-110-01-00 P-M RD-M
C. 212-110-02-00 P-M RD-M
D. 212-110-03-00 P-M RD-M
E. 212-110-04-00 P-M RD-M
F. 212-110-05-00 P-M/OS RD-M, OS
G. 212-110-06-00 P-M/OS RD-M, OS
H. 212-110-07-00 P-M/OS RD-M, OS
I. 212-110-08-00 OS OS
Related Case File No(s): GPA 16-04 / ZC 16-03 / LFMP 87-05(F) / SDP 16-20 CDP 16-31 / SUP 2017-0005 / HMP 16-04 / MS 2018-0005 (DEV13018)
LCPA Zoning Designation Changes
Property
ATTACHMENT A
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 12 of 46
RUBYWYTURQUOISEDRSAPP
HIRE
D
R PALOMAR OAKS WYWRIGHTPL
C O B B L E S T ONEDRPALO
M
A
R
AIRP
O
RTRD
WES
T
O
A
K
S
W
Y
RUBYWYTURQUOISEDRSAP
P
HIR
E
D
RWRIGHTPL
PALOMAR OAKS WYC O B B L E S T O NEDRPALO
M
A
R
AIR
P
O
RT
RD
W
E
ST
O
AK
S
WY
ZC 16-03 West Oaks
October 01, 2020Exhibit "ZC 16-03"
EXISTING
PROPOSED
OS
R-1-10000
OS
R-1
OS
P-M
RD-M
P-M
OS
OS
RD-M
OS
OS
OS
OS
P-M
P-M
P-MOS
OS
OS
P-M
O OSP-M-Q
From:To:
A. 212-040-26-00 P-M-Q OS, RD-M
B. 212-110-01-00 P-M RD-M
C. 212-110-02-00 P-M RD-M
D. 212-110-03-00 P-M RD-M
E. 212-110-04-00 P-M RD-M
F. 212-110-05-00 P-M/OS RD-M, OS
G. 212-110-06-00 P-M/OS RD-M, OS
H. 212-110-07-00 P-M/OS RD-M, OS
I. 212-110-08-00 OS OS
Related Case File No(s): GPA 16-04 / LCPA 16-04 / LFMP 87-05(F) / SDP 16-20 CDP 16-31 / SUP 2017-0005 / HMP 16-04 / MS 2018-0005 (DEV13018)
Zoning Designation Changes
Property
ATTACHMENT B
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 13 of 46
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-097
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ADDENDUM;
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON A
12.53-ACRE SITE FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PI) TO RESIDENTIAL (R-30)
AND TO RECONFIGURE THE OPEN SPACE (OS) LAND USE DESIGNATION
BOUNDARIES ON THE PROPERTY TO ACCOMMODATE REQUIRED
EMERGENCY ACCESS AND PRESERVE ON-SITE HABITAT AND HABITAT
BUFFER AREAS; AND THE APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT,
AND MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 192 MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT RENTAL UNITS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND PALOMAR OAKS WAY
WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5
CASE NAME: WEST OAKS
CASE NO.: GPA 16-04/ZC 16-03/LCPA 16-04/SDP 16-20/CDP 16-
31/HMP 16-04/MS 2018-0005 (DEV 13018)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that pursuant to
the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on January 20, 2021, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; General Plan Amendment GPA 16-04,
Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 16-04, Site Development Plan SDP 16-20, Coastal
Development Permit CDP 16-31, Habitat Management Plan Permit HMP 16-04, and Minor Subdivision
MS 2018-0005, as referenced in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 7395, 7396, and 7397; and the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos, 7395, 7396 and 7397 recommending to the City Council
that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing to consider
said Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum;
and General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Site Development Plan, Coastal
Development Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit, and Minor Subdivision.
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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and General Plan
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 14 of 46
Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit,
Habitat Management Plan Permit, and Minor Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the West Oaks project increases the city's residential inventory by 192 multi-family
apartment rental units on a site previously designated for industrial and not residential land use; and
WHEREAS, concurrent with the processing of West Oaks, the city has filed applications (GPA
2021-0001/ZC2021-0001, Aura Circle Open Space and GPA 2021-0002/ZC2021-0002, Buena Vista Park
Open Space) to change the General Plan land use designations and zoning -from residential to open
space on two city-owned properties, Aura Circle (APN 207-100-48) and Buena Vista Reservoir Park (APN
156-200-16) for the purpose of preserving and improving the properties for open space and park
purposes; and
WHEREAS, redesignation of the Aura Circle (R-4/0S land use designation and R-1-8000/0S
zoning) and Buena Vista Reservoir Park (R-4 land use designation and R-1 zoning) properties would
result in the loss of approximately 9 and 10 units, respectively, which in turn could reduce the city's
residential land use capacity by 19 units; and
WHEREAS, the Aura Circle and Buena Vista Reservoir Park properties are not identified in the
City's Housing Element sites inventory and are, therefore, not subject to Senate Bill (SB) 166, specifically
Government Code Section 65863; and
WHEREAS, the West Oaks' residential land use designation of R-30 (23 to 30 dwelling units per
acre) is significantly higher than the R-4 designation of the Aura Circle and Buena Vista Reservoir Park
properties and results in significantly more units than are achievable on the two properties under their
current land use designations; and
WHEREAS, because the West Oaks project provides units well in excess of those that would be
lost due to the currently proposed open space redesignation of Aura Circle and Buena Vista Reservoir
Park properties and at a greater residential density than is permitted at either property, there is no net
loss of residential unit capacity in the city as required under Government Code Section 65584 and
Government Code Section 66300 created per Senate Bill (SB) 330.
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.
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 15 of 46
2.That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and approval of
General Plan Amendment GPA 16-04, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 16-04, Site
Development Plan SDP 16-20, Coastal Development Permit CDP 16-31, Habitat Management Plan
Permit HMP 16-04, and Minor Subdivision MS 2018-0005, are adopted and approved, and that the
findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution Nos.
7395, 7396, and 7397 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings
and conditions of the City Council.
3.That General Plan Amendment GPA 16-04 and Zone Change 16-03 ensure no net loss of
residential unit capacity in the city as required under Government Code Section 65584 and Government
Code Section 66300 for applications GPA 2021-0001/ZC 2021-0001 and GPA 2021-0002/ZC 2021-0002
currently being processed.
4.That the approval of GPA 16-04 as shown on Attachment A "GPA 16-04" — West Oaks
dated October 1, 2020, attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall not be effective until LCPA 16-
04 is approved by the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission's approval
becomes effective.
5.That the approval of LCPA 16-04 as shown on Attachment B "LCPA 16-04" — West Oaks
dated October 1, 2020, attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall not be effective until it is
approved by the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission's approval
becomes effective.
6.This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The Provisions
of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
II
//
//
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 16 of 46
"N OTI CE"
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in the
appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes
final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record is filed with
a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time
within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following
the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of
record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be
filed with the Office of the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 4th day of May, 2021, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Acosta, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
MATT HALL, Mayor
-4\ARSTY\
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
001 \ 1111 10110,,,
‘‘\\ 4 "/
5, • 'se • • •
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 17 of 46
GPA 16-04 West Oaks
October 01, 2020Exhibit "GPA 16-04"
EXISTING
PROPOSED
OS
R-1.5
OS
R-4
OS
PI
R-30
PI
OS
OS
R-30
OS
OS
OS
OS
From:To:
A. 212-040-26-00 PI OS
B. 212-110-01-00 PI R-30
C. 212-110-02-00 PI R-30
D. 212-110-03-00 PI R-30
E. 212-110-04-00 PI R-30
F. 212-110-05-00 PI R-30, OS
G. 212-110-06-00 PI R-30, OS
H. 212-110-07-00 PI R-30, OS
I. 212-110-08-00 OS OS
Related Case File No(s): ZC 16-03 / LCPA 16-04 / LFMP 87-05(F) / SDP 16-20 / CDP 16-31 / SUP 2017-0005 / HMP 16-04 / MS 2018-0005 (DEV13018)
General Plan Land Use Designation Changes
Property
PI
PI
PIOS
OS
OS
PI
O OSPI
ATTACHMENT A
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 18 of 46
RUBYWYTURQUOISEDRSAPPHIREDR PALOMAR OAKS WYWRIGHTPL
C O B B L E S T ONEDRPALO
M
A
R
AIRP
O
RTRDWE
S
TOAKS WY
RUBYWYTURQUOISEDRSAP
P
HIR
E
D
RWRIGHTPL
PALOMAR OAKS WYC O B B L E S T O NEDRPAL
O
M
A
R
AIRPORTRDWE
STOAKS WY
LCPA 16-04 (Land Use)West Oaks
October 01, 2020Exhibit "LCPA 16-04"
EXISTING
PROPOSED
OS
R-1.5
OS
R-4
R-30
OS
OS
R-30
OS
OS
OS
PI
PI
OS
O OSPI
From:To:
A. 212-040-26-00 PI OS
B. 212-110-01-00 PI R-30
C. 212-110-02-00 PI R-30
D. 212-110-03-00 PI R-30
E. 212-110-04-00 PI R-30
F. 212-110-05-00 PI R-30, OS
G. 212-110-06-00 PI R-30, OS
H. 212-110-07-00 PI R-30, OS
I. 212-110-08-00 OS OS
Related Case File No(s): GPA 16-04 / ZC 16-03 / LFMP 87-05(F) / SDP 16-20 CDP 16-31 / SUP 2017-0005 / HMP 16-04 / MS 2018-0005 (DEV13018)
LCPA Land Use Designation Changes
Property
ATTACHMENT B
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 19 of 46
PALOMARAIRPORTRD
SAPPHIREDR
WESTOAKS
WY
PA L OMAROAKSWY
RUBYWYTURQUOISEDRWI
L
L
OWPLWRIGH
T
P
L
PRIVATE
D
Y
COBBLESTONEDRGPA 16-04 / ZC 16-03 / LCPA 16-04
LFMP 87-05(F) / SDP 16-20 / CDP 16-31 / SUP 2017-0005
HMP 16-04 / MS 2018-0005 (DEV13018)
West OaksSITE MAP
SITE
E
L
C
AMINO
R
E
A
LLA COSTA AV
A L G A R DCARLSBAD BL
EXHIBIT 3
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 20 of 46
Exhibit 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 7395
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 21 of 46
Exhibit 5
Planning Commission Resolution No. 7396
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 22 of 46
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Resolution No. 7397
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 23 of 46
Exhibit 7
Planning Commission staff report dated Jan. 20, 2021
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 24 of 46
Exhibit 8
Planning Commission minutes dated Jan. 20, 2021
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 25 of 46
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) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
February 23, 2021
Celia A. Brewer, City Attorney Office of the City Attorney
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Celia Brewer:
RE: Request for HCD Opinion on Enforceability of City’s Growth Cap Letter of Technical Assistance
This letter is to assist the City of Carlsbad (City) in the implementation of Government
Code 66300, part of the Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill 330) of 2019, as requested in the City’s letter dated August 04, 2020. The City’s letter requested the opinion of the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as to the enforceability of the City’s growth cap provisions within the Growth Management Program (Proposition E or GMP). For the reasons explained below, HCD finds that the
City’s growth cap provisions to be impermissible under Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(D).
HCD’s opinion is based on the mandatory criteria established by the Legislature with the passage of SB 330 in 2019, also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which
added section 66300 to the Government Code. The State of California is experiencing a housing supply shortage of crisis proportions. To address this crisis, the Legislature declared a statewide housing emergency until 2025 and suspended certain restrictions on development of new housing during the emergency period. (Housing Crisis Act of 2019, Chapter 654, Statues of 2019, section 2(b).) Among other things, the Legislature
suspended the ability of cities and counties to establish or implement any provision that: (i) “Limits the number of land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and construction of housing that will be issued or allocated within all or a portion of the affected county or affected city,” (ii) “Acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed either annually or for some other time period,” or (iii)
“Limits the population of the affected county or affected city.” (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(D).
EXHIBIT 9
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 26 of 46
The City’s GMP appears to be designed to assure that housing development in the City
and the provision of public services are closely aligned (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code, § 21.09.010.) However, the City’s GMP establishes growth cap numbers City-wide and by quadrant. Moreover, the City’s GMP mandates that the City shall not approve any General Plan amendment, zone change, tentative subdivision map or other
discretionary approval for a development which could result in the development above
the limit in any quadrant. The establishment of such growths caps and development restrictions contradicts Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(D). Accordingly, HCD is of the opinion that such a growth cap under the GMP cannot permissibly be implemented consistent with Government Code section 66300.
Thank you for reaching out to HCD for this guidance. Please contact Melinda Coy of our staff, at Melinda.Coy@hcd.ca.gov, with any questions.
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Land Use and Planning Chief
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 27 of 46
WEST OAKSPROJECT NUMBER: 02690-005-02SCALE: 1"=50'DATE: 8/26/2014EXISTING SITE EXHBITCARLSBAD, CA6390 Greenwich Drive, Suite 170San Diego, California 92122tel 858.554.1500 fax 858.597.0335www.fuscoe.comF:\PROJECTS\2690\005\EXHIBITS\2690-005XH-EXISTING CONDITIONS----->LAYOUT: CMLEGENDENCINAS CREEKRIPARIAN HABITATSDG&E TRANSMISSION EASEMENTSEWER EASEMENTEXHIBIT 10May 4, 2021Item #4 Page 28 of 46
January 18, 2021
Re: 1/20/2021 Planning Commission meeting - West Oaks project
Planning Commission:
The West Oaks project is located in an area that exceeds 85% of the city average vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) per capita, and it adds vehicle traffic to a portion of Palomar Airport Road that has been
exempted from the Growth Management Plan (GMP) vehicle level of service (LOS) standard due to over-
congestion. Accordingly, there are three major mobility-related compliance areas that require
analysis/mitigation:
1.VMT mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
2.Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation under Carlsbad’s General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.11 and under Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines Table 6
3.Multimodal level of service (MMLOS) performance standards under the GMP
The project is proposing a TDM plan that includes several different individual TDM measures/strategies
to satisfy both of the first two areas, as well as some minor facility improvements (bus stop benches and
trash cans) to satisfy the third.
The proposed TDM plan consists mainly of charging $100 per month per parking space (unbundled
parking fees) with a goal of reducing vehicle ownership by an estimated 40 cars. And, as alternatives to
those 40 cars, the TDM plan includes one shared car (inaccurately characterized as a “Car Share
Program”) and eight shared electric bicycles (inaccurately characterized as a “Neighborhood Electric
Vehicle [NEV] Program”) with a Transportation Coordinator.
Most of the mitigation measures in the TDM plan are either inapplicable (e.g., the Car Share and NEV
Programs), or the claimed VMT reductions are over-stated based on the relevant CAPCOA guidelines.1
The fake NEV Program further allows staff and the applicant to avoid a 10% global maximum on VMT
reductions in the CAPCOA guidelines to enable them to reach the reduction level required under CEQA.
Further, the TDM plan does not include sufficient improvements to non-vehicle facilities to allow the
TDM measures to actually work. Thus, the currently proposed TDM plan fails to satisfy both the CEQA
requirement for VMT reduction and the General Plan/TIA Guideline requirements for congested street
facilities.
1 California Pollution Control Officers Association - Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, 8/2010
(CAPCOA guidelines): http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-
greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf
EXHIBIT 11
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 29 of 46
Accordingly, the TDM plan should be modified as summarized below (additional details and justification
are provided after the Summary and in my 8/6/2020 public comment letter2):
SUMMARY
• Because the vast majority (~10% of the total 14.4%) of the proposed VMT reduction relies on the
unbundled parking policy to reduce car ownership, the total parking available to residents should be
capped at the 275 spaces claimed in the plan to ensure the goal is actually achieved, and guest
spaces should be capped at 70 (the 39 parking space reduction could be converted to open space).
In addition, the “Performance Measure & Target” in Table 2 of the plan should not just be the
existence of the unbundled parking policy, but rather its success at achieving the 1.4 vehicles per
household ownership rate goal. If parking is not reduced, a penalty structure and examples of
alternative TDM measures to be implemented if the goal is not achieved should be included directly
in the current CEQA documentation—similar to the approach taken by other California cities—not as
something that can be waived or left entirely to the discretion of staff at some future date.
• Reduced vehicle ownership and all of the related TDM measures to reduce vehicle trips and VMT
rely predominantly on the ability of West Oaks residents to use viable alternative modes of
transportation. Therefore, the following improvements should be made to maximize the likelihood
of mode shifting. Meeting staff’s ridiculously low (and not publicly vetted) MMLOS minimums is not
the applicable standard here. Rather, the improvements must be sufficient to support the success of
the TDM plan under both CEQA and the General Plan (the first two compliance areas listed above).
o Transit: The routes for the two bus stops that would serve the project run only on non-
holiday weekdays, and there are only three eastbound and four westbound departures per
day with >1 hour between them. The last eastbound bus of the day leaves the Coaster
station at 2:48 PM. Not surprisingly, the stops currently average just one boarding per day.
To help boost ridership, full amenities should be provided at both stops, including concrete
pads a safe distance from the high-speed street, shelters with benches and trash cans,
lighting from the project to the stops, and secure bicycle storage. In addition, free or
subsidized transit passes should be offered to residents, similar to other projects. The
current proposal of adding just a bench and a trash can is absurd.
o Pedestrian: ADA compliant sidewalks should be completed on both sides of Palomar Oaks
Way and the entire distance to the two bus stops. In addition, high-visibility (continental)
crosswalks should be installed on all legs of the Palomar Airport Road/Palomar Oaks Way
intersection to ensure safe and comfortable walking.
o Bicycle: Buffered lanes should be provided on Palomar Airport Road to the extent that three
eleven-foot wide vehicle through-lanes can be maintained in both directions.
2 Public comment letter dated 8/6/2020 addressed to Cliff Jones, available in the West Oaks Final Mitigated
Negative Declaration, pp. RTC 29-43
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 30 of 46
• Even with the improvements described above, walking, biking, and transit are still unlikely to
achieve the level of mode shift required for the current TDM plan, given the infrequent bus service,
long distances to key destinations, topography challenges, and high speeds and traffic volumes on
Palomar Airport Road. Therefore, other alternatives to vehicle usage, such as subsidized ride-sharing
and teleworking, should be included.
• Commensurate with its estimated 1,152 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) being added to the exempt
Palomar Airport Road, a “Tier 3” TDM plan should be required rather than a “Tier 2” plan. Based on
the TDM Handbook, Tier 2 plans are intended for projects generating only up to 275 ADT added to
uncongested streets. Staff has failed for many years to create a residential TDM program, despite
the requirement in the General Plan, and they have provided no justification here for using the
lower Tier 2 from their non-residential program. In fact, the documentation on this project
repeatedly states that the TDM Handbook will be followed.
o Similar to the approach of other California cities, the TDM plan incorporated directly into
the CEQA document should include quantifiable endpoints as the performance
measures/targets, including: number parking spaces leased per household, ridership
numbers at the two bus stops, periodic traffic counts at the project driveways, usage of the
shared car/bikes from logs, ride-share numbers, and other professionally determined
estimates of VMT and mode shifting. The existence of a policy alone is not a relevant
performance measure. In addition, the CEQA document should include a penalty structure
for missed targets and a specified list of alternative measures to be used. If there are no
consequences to missing targets, and if staff can simply waive or reduce requirements, as
they have in the past, the plan will not work.
o The term “biannual” is used repeatedly in the TDM plan to establish the
monitoring/reporting frequency. Some City documents that use the term “biannual” have
indicated it means “twice a year,” but others use the preferred term “semi-annual” to
describe that, while “biannual” often refers to “once every two years.” If the intent was
every two years, that is an inappropriately long period of time between
monitoring/reporting—at least as the plan is being established. Further, the TDM Handbook
requires a minimum of annual monitoring/reporting. Therefore, the term should be clarified
to read “semi-annual” or “annual.”
• VMT reductions should be eliminated for the following inapplicable TDM measures. Tortured
interpretations of the CAPCOA guidelines are being used to justify them:
o The single shared car in the TDM plan is being considered equivalent to a CAPCOA “Car-
Share Program,” which is defined as a “city-wide fleet” of shared vehicles (a “car share”
program cannot be effectively scaled down to a single vehicle in a single project).
o The eight shared electric bikes in the TDM plan are being considered equivalent to a
CAPCOA “Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Program,” which is defined as individually owned
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 31 of 46
passenger NEVs (with room for multiple passengers and ample storage) operating on a
formal street network. Random shared bikes are not equivalent to an NEV network.
o The false claim that the TDM plan includes an NEV Program further allows the global
maximum VMT reduction for transportation measures to be increased from 10% to 15%.3
Without this shenanigan, the overall VMT reduction from other measures would not have
been sufficient to satisfy the CEQA requirement. This second abuse of the NEV Program
guideline to skirt the global maximum with a handful of electric bikes cannot be allowed to
set a precedent in Carlsbad’s environmental reviews.
• Other measures in the TDM plan also strain credulity, including the following credits:
o Affordable housing credit that relies on virtually non-existent transit
o Sidewalk “improvements,” even though they simply meet minimum city standards (e.g., not
even willing to install high-visibility crosswalks)
o Theoretical existence of viable SANDAG and City of Carlsbad carpool/vanpool programs at
some point in the future that will meaningfully reduce VMT by West Oaks residents
DETAILS
Unbundled parking (PDT-2)
At 10.2%, the VMT reduction claimed for unbundled parking is at the very high end of the 2.6% to 13.0%
range suggested by the CAPCOA guidelines, despite all of the significant challenges posed by the
location of the project that are incompatible with the research on unbundled parking.4 For example, it is
a great distance from grocery stores, retail, entertainment, etc.; bus service is nearly non-existent; and
almost all trips will require travel along high-speed Palomar Airport Road and other arterials, thus
limiting the viability of alternative modes of travel.
In response to my challenge to the 10.2% reduction, staff expressed their confidence that charging $100
per parking space would reduce estimated car ownership by West Oaks residents by 40 cars (from 315
down to 275 cars), and that the 40 households that forego car ownership will simply share the one car
and eight electric bikes being provided under the TDM plan.5
However, the project is still assigning at least 306 parking spots to residents. To ensure that the car
ownership goal of a maximum of 275 cars (1.4 cars/household) and other goals are actually achieved,
3 CAPCOA guidelines (Chart 6-2, p. 55): http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-
quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf 4 CAPCOA guidelines (PDT-2, pp. 210-212): http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-
quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf 5 Response F-28 to my 8/6/2020 public comment letter, available in the West Oaks Final Mitigated Negative
Declaration, pp. RTC 50-51
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 32 of 46
the Parking Management Plan should be modified, as indicated in the Summary above, including a cap
of 275 spaces for residents.
I think it is highly unlikely that this unbundled parking policy will work at this particular site, so it is not
appropriate to be claiming such a high VMT reduction for this measure. However, if they are really
convinced it is going to work, then it needs to be taken more seriously by capping parking. Alternatively,
parking costs could be increased if the rate is exceeding the goal, although a reduced fee for the first
parking space should be offered to the affordable units.
Non-vehicle improvements
In my public comment letter, I criticized several of the multimodal level of service (MMLOS) points
claimed by the project, and I made several suggestions for improvements that should be made for the
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of travel to support the TDM plan (see list in Summary above). In
acknowledgment of the problems with the MMLOS point calculations, a few minor changes were made
to the scoring in the final CEQA document, but all of my proposed improvements were disregarded.
Staff argues that these are not environmental issues under the CEQA portion of the analysis, but rather
issues related to the Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) portion of the analysis under the GMP—and that,
because the facilities will meet the GMP minimum performance standards for MMLOS, no additional
projects are required.
First, it is important to point out that staff created (and has repeatedly made changes to) the current
MMLOS point systems, creating ridiculously low standards that have never been publicly reviewed or
adopted. This is currently being addressed by the Traffic and Mobility Commission.
More importantly, though, the proposed improvements are necessary to enable the TDM plan to
achieve the VMT and vehicle congestion reductions necessary to mitigate the CEQA portion of the
transportation analysis and General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11—neither of which are satisfied
by simply meeting the minimum GMP MMLOS performance standard, as staff would have us believe.
The suggested multi-modal improvements are for the TDM plan—not the GMP/LMA.
Transit improvements
The most significant barrier to transit ridership is the infrequent service described in the Summary
above, and the two bus stops that would serve the project (westbound and eastbound Palomar Airport
Road at Palomar Oaks Way) currently average only one boarding per day.6 Beyond that, both stops are
basically just signs sticking out of the ground next to narrow sidewalks that are directly adjacent to a
very high volume of vehicles zooming by at 55+ MPH (see the Google Street View images below).
6 Data obtained through Public Records Act Request to NCTD (2020-1410 PRR) for the period 7/1/2018 through
6/30/2019).
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 33 of 46
The project proposes only adding a bench and trash can to these stops, a one-time cost of a few
thousand dollars. Yes, this satisfies the GMP minimum LOS for transit under the staff’s absurd point
system. However, it is not reasonable to conclude that a bench and trash will magically transform the
bus stops into a viable alternative to car ownership that will meaningfully reduce vehicle trips/VMT by
West Oaks residents, which is implicit in the TDM-based mitigation for compliance with CEQA and
General Plan Mobility Element 3-P.11.
Bus schedules are determined by the North County Transit District, so there is no direct control of that,
but they are driven, at least in part, by ridership numbers. Accordingly, it is appropriate to make the
stops more viable by also adding concrete pads a safe distance from the street, shelters, lighting from
the project to the stops, and secure bicycle storage. In addition, free or highly subsidized transit passes
should be offered to residents, as has been done for other projects.
Westbound Palomar Airport Road bus stop:
Eastbound Palomar Airport Road bus stop:
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 34 of 46
Pedestrian improvements
Inherent in multiple VMT reduction strategies claimed in the TDM plan is the assumption that, instead of
driving their cars, people will be walking to their destinations (including the bus stops). Accordingly, the
installation of sidewalks on both sides of Palomar Oaks Way and high-visibility crosswalks at its
intersection with Palomar Airport Road should be required improvements.
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 35 of 46
Tier 3 TDM plan
When Carlsbad’s General Plan was updated in 2015, staff made the decision to create exemptions for
streets that fail the GMP minimum performance standard for vehicle congestion and, thereby, to
require TDM measures instead of capacity-increasing street projects for mitigation7. The TIA Guidelines
also require all vehicle trips added to exempt streets to be mitigated (Table 6).8
However, despite the fact that it is now 2021, staff has failed to develop a TDM program for residential
developments like West Oaks (and Aviara Apartments and Marja Acres). These residential developments
add thousands of new trips to congested/exempt streets (West Oaks adds 1,152 ADT). Yet, staff
continues to require only “Tier 2” plans from their non-residential TDM program, which are intended for
developments that add only 275 or less ADT to non-exempt streets.9 Yes, non-residential projects differ
from residential projects, but no justification or rationale has been provided by staff for their seemingly
arbitrary application of Tier 2 TDM plans to residential projects—regardless of their size (including in
their response to my public comment). From the TDM Handbook:
In addition to consistently setting very low developer requirements for mobility projects, staff has
included TDM projects/funding as conditions of approval on past residential projects, but then later
waived those requirements (e.g., Casa Aldea). They also have been resisting for years calls by an
environmental group to implement meaningful TDM, so I have a great deal of skepticism that the West
Oaks TDM plan (or any others) will be successful, or that staff will actively enforce the requirements in
the future without more explicit language in the CEQA document.
Inapplicable TDM measures
Car-Share Program (TRT-9)
I asked for clarification on the logistics of the car-share “program” that includes just a single car shared
by the whole project. Staff replied that the program is designed to complement the unbundled parking
7 General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24065 8 Carlsbad TIA Guidelines: https://cityadmin.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=22758 9 Carlsbad TDM Handbook, p. 11: https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=39379
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 36 of 46
strategy by providing residents with an option for independent travel that does not require owning a
car, and that it is properly sized at just one vehicle.
However, based on the CAPCOA guidelines, such residential car-share programs are based on having a
“fleet” of vehicles to serve a large, “city-wide” membership.10 Scaling down to one car serving an
individual project will not work effectively. When a member of one household needs the shared car to
get to work and back, what do the other 39 households do that day? No VMT reduction should be
allowed for this inapplicable strategy.
Electric Bike-Share/Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Program (TRT-12/SDT-3)
A VMT reduction of 0.5% is claimed for a plan to distribute eight electric bikes throughout the project as
some sort of alleged Bike Share/Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Program. However, a Bike-Share
Program under the CAPCOA guidelines (TRT-12) requires bike share stations not only in the project, but
also distributed around area commercial and transit hubs, which is not the case here. This measure also
needs to be grouped with other strategies that are not proposed.11
Instead, a ridiculous argument is made that the existence of the eight shared electric bikes is somehow
equivalent to an NEV Program under the CAPCOA guidelines (SDT-3), which assumes individual
ownership of actual NEVs (not bikes) with a network of local routes.12 No VMT reduction should be
allowed for this fabricated strategy.
Fake NEV Program also bypasses CAPCOA global maximum
The CAPCOA guidelines establish global maximums for VMT reductions within specific categories and
sets of categories based on the type/location of the development. The cross-category maximum VMT
reduction for all of the transportation-related measures in the West Oaks TDM plan (other than the
marketing ones) is 10% for such “suburban” residential projects.13 However, by claiming that its TDM
plan includes an NEV Program, the global maximum was inappropriately increased to 15% by falsely re-
classifying West Oaks as a “suburban with NEV Program” project.14 This enabled other measures to
inappropriately add 3.0% more VMT reduction, even though the fake NEV Program only adds 0.5%.
10 CAPCOA guidelines (TRT-9, pp. 245-249): http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-
quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf 11 CAPCOA guidelines (TRT-12, pp. 256-257) 12 CAPCOA guidelines (SDT-3, pp. 197-197) 13 CAPCOA guidelines (Chart 6-2, p. 55) 14 Response F-32 to my 8/6/2020 public comment letter, available in the West Oaks Final Mitigated Negative
Declaration, p. RTC 52
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 37 of 46
Therefore, the total VMT reduction claimed for the proposed transportation-based strategies should be
limited to 10.0%--and only if the unbundled parking measure is tightened up, as described above. Other
VMT reductions must be included to reduce the transportation impact to less than significant under
CEQA.
Other TDM measures with over-stated VMT reductions
Affordable Housing (LUT-6)
A VMT reduction of 0.9% is claimed for the “integration of affordable housing” in the project (CAPCOA
LUT-6), which allows up to a 1.2% VMT reduction under the assumption that lower income residents will
choose to take transit or walk or bike to work rather than commuting by car.15 I argued that 0.9% is
inappropriately high given the almost non-existent transit service in the area, as well as the impossibly
long walking distances. Staff argued that there are other factors that contribute to LUT-6, but the
language in the CAPCOA guidelines and the research cited therein focus almost exclusively on
commuting by transit and walking. The guidance begins as follows, and I welcome everybody to read the
whole section:
Income has a statistically significant effect on the probability that a commuter will take transit or
walk to work…[Below market rate] housing provides greater opportunity for lower income
families to live closer to jobs centers and achieve jobs/housing match near transit…
Thus, the 0.9% VMT reduction is not appropriate in the context of the West Oaks project.
Pedestrian Network Improvements (SDT-1)
A VMT reduction of 1.0% is claimed for “pedestrian network improvements” (SDT-1). However, the
CAPCOA guidelines state that this strategy relies on people deciding to walk to their destinations, rather
than taking a car.16 Again, I argued that, given the location of the project, walking to destinations
outside the project is not a viable alternative.
Further, these VMT “reductions” are measured relative to the current average VMT in the zone. Because
sidewalks are already required in developments throughout the city, the project would have to provide
an even higher incentive to walk to achieve a VMT reduction. They are not even willing to install a
sidewalk on the east side of Palomar Oaks Way or high-visibility crosswalks at the Palomar Airport
Road/Palomar Airport Way intersection. So, it does not appear that the planned pedestrian network is
of any higher quality/improvement than the minimum standard established in the surrounding zone.
Thus, no reduction is warranted for this strategy.
15 CAPCOA guidelines (LUT-6, pp. 176-178): http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-
quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf 16 CAPCOA guidelines (SDT-1, pp. 186-189)
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 38 of 46
Sincerely,
Steve Linke
Carlsbad, CA
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 here as an individual.
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 39 of 46
Staff response to opposition letter submitted to Planning Commission by Stephen P. Linke
Mr. Stephen Linke submitted the attached letter to the Planning Commission in opposition to the
project. In general, the letter states that the traffic conditions placed on the project are not strong
enough to mitigate the traffic impacts resulting from the proposed development. Traffic engineers from
both the City and the consulting firm of Fehr & Peers have analyzed Mr. Linke’s letter and concluded
that the original analysis and required vehicle miles traveled reduction measures are sound and meet
the legal standard required for this project.
We found that much of the letter suggests additional vehicle miles traveled reduction measures that go
beyond what is required of a project of this nature. It should be noted that the City must balance its
vehicle miles traveled reduction measures and ensure that all VMT reduction conditions have a direct
nexus to a project impact. The City is prohibited from tacking on extra measures to address impacts with
no nexus to the proposed project. While some additional measures may be nice to have, a single
developer cannot be forced to address preexisting conditions or impacts that are not due to the project
development. In the paragraphs below, we provide additional information and analysis to address the
major points of the letter.
Unbundled parking will reduce VMT
Initially, the letter claims that the majority of the vehicle miles traveled reduction relies on an
unbundled parking policy to reduce car ownership that has no guarantee of success. In lieu of the
present plan, the letter advises the City to reduce the parking spaces provided by the project and create
a penalty structure if the VMT reduction is not met.
Our evaluation of unbundled parking's effectiveness at reducing vehicle miles traveled is based on
procedures and research found in a California Air Pollution Control Officers (CAPCOA) Report entitled
“Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures”.1 The report describes how unbundled parking uses
financial incentives to reduce the rate automobile ownership. The report provides evidence that
reduced ownership leads to the use of various alternative travel strategies such as carpooling,
walking/bicycling, transit, or less discretionary trips to meet travel needs.
The report shows that vehicle miles traveled can be reduced by 2.6 to 13% using unbundled parking,
depending on the project context and the monthly cost for parking. The greater the additional parking
cost, the greater corresponding vehicle miles traveled reduction. This project proposes to charge
residents an additional $100 per month per parking space, which has been shown to be a substantial
financial incentive to reducing vehicle ownership. It is at the higher end of the range illustrated in the
CAPCOA Report, where unbundled parking programs generally charge between $25 and $125 per
1 CAPCOA is a resource for local government to assess emission reductions from greenhouse gas mitigation
measures and related VMT reductions. CAPCOA is based on careful review of existing studies and determinations
to develop rigorous quantification methods that meet the substantial evidence requirements of CEQA. CAPCOA is a
standard that is used throughout the state of California.
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 40 of 46
month. By charging at the higher end of this range, the city and its consultants anticipate a
commensurately higher reduction in vehicle ownership.
Staff or the consultants did not consider a parking reduction for the project because the amount of
parking provided on-site is already the minimum required by the city code. In addition, given the
findings in the report that reflect actual reductions in vehicle miles traveled as a result of unbundled
parking, a penalty condition is not necessary.
Reporting requirements for the vehicle miles traveled reduction measures are consistent with CEQA
Statute 15097 and city requirements. The reporting requires monitoring to ensure that vehicle miles
traveled reduction measures are implemented, but does not require the detailed evaluation of
participation in the measures or how well those measures perform.
Transportation demand management measure information must be continuously reported to the city on
a bi-annual basis, ensuring that TDM measures including construction of affordable housing,
implementation of an electric bike-share program, a car-share program, provision of a business center,
and distribution of regional and city-wide alternative transportation information are implemented. In
the context of the TDM plan, biannual means once every two years. This is consistent with the TDM
handbook that requires a baseline survey after a year when the project reaches 75% occupancy and
then a survey every two years afterward.
Proposed Transit Improvements are Adequate
The letter suggests that additional improvements to transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel be made in
order to ensure the reduction of vehicle miles traveled. Suggested improvements include full amenities
at transit stops, free or subsidized transit passes, ADA compliant sidewalks on both sides of Palomar
Oaks Way and high-visibility crosswalks on all legs of the Palomar Airport/Palomar Oaks intersection.
Buffered bicycle lanes are also suggested on Palomar Airport Road to the extent that three lanes can be
maintained in both directions.
In response, we note that the project already provides improvements at both bus stops within the
transit study area that will improve Transit Level of Service as calculated per the city’s Transportation
Impact Assessment Guidelines and Multi-Modal Level of Service worksheets. The level of service will
improve from an unacceptable LOS E/F to an acceptable LOS C. Additional amenity would have a limited
effect on the Transit LOS scores at these stops under the City’s Multi-Modal Level of Service framework.
The quality of the stop is limited by infrequent service which neither the project applicant nor the City
have any control.
Therefore, the project TDM program does not rely on transit and additional transit improvements are
not proposed. However, NCTD has recognized that the Palomar Airport Road corridor is underserved by
transit and for that reason plans to implement a pilot on-demand shuttle service in an area that would
include the Carlsbad business park, Bressi Ranch, and extend along Palomar Airport Road to San Marcos.
The service would be on-demand, similar to Uber and Lyft, where passengers could book rides on the
app or call into a call center if they do not have a smart phone.
The project meets all of the relevant requirements stipulated in the TDM ordinance. The pedestrian
network improvements that would be implemented as part of the proposed project include the
development of a pedestrian network, as well as an electric bike-share program to connect residents to
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 41 of 46
local destinations. Refer to page 10 of the West Oaks TDM Strategies for VMT Reduction Evaluation,
prepared by Fehr & Peers dated May 29, 2020 (TDM Analysis). The electric bike-share program would
facilitate travel by bike relative to traditional bicycle travel.
The network improvements would provide accommodations on site, as well as convenient pedestrian
access to Palomar Airport Road on both the east and west sides of the project. The pedestrian
improvements would encourage people to walk instead of drive by minimizing barriers to pedestrian
access and interconnectivity.
Bicycle mode of travel is not subject to Multi-Modal Level of Service performance standards on Palomar
Airport Road because this road is classified as an arterial Street per the city’s Mobility Element.
Nonetheless, the Mobility Element does state that “bicycle lanes shall be provided” for arterial Streets.
Palomar Airport Road already provides Class II bicycle lanes in both directions of travel.
It is also important to note that the proposed project includes a car-share program by which a car would
be available for on-demand use by residents (TDM Analysis, p. 12). Additionally, the TDM strategies
would include carpool and vanpool support, and TDM program marketing to ensure that residents are
aware of all alternative transportation mode options that are available (TDM Analysis, p. 13). The
proposed project also offers a business center with amenities such as a printer and fax machine, which
support teleworking. This business center is expected to attract people who work from home, who
would be more likely to forgo car ownership (TDM Analysis, p. 19).
A Tier 2 TDM Plan is Appropriate for the Project
Mr. Linke’s letter also suggests that a “Tier 3” TDM plan should be required in lieu of a “Tier 2” plan. He
states that Tier 2 plans are intended for projects generating only up to 275 ADT added to uncongested
streets and that staff provided no justification to use a Tier 2 from their non-residential program.
Because this is a residential project, the requirements of the Mobility Element Policy 3.P.11 control. The
City’s TDM Ordinance requirements apply only to non-residential developments. To meet the
requirements of Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11, the proposed residential project will prepare the
equivalent of a Tier 2 TDM Plan in the TDM Handbook. A Tier 3 plan is inappropriate in this case. A Tier 2
plan fits best for the residential project characteristics. The plan requires participation and promotion of
the citywide TDM program, a selection of site-specific infrastructure and programmatic strategies, and
agreement to adhere to monitoring and reporting requirements as described in the TDM Handbook.
The proposed car share and NEV programs are appropriate and effective
The letter also expresses Mr. Linke’s concern that the car share program is too limited by consisting of
only a single car and the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Program consisting of only eight shared electric
bicycles. Based on appropriate car-share program sizing provided in CAPCOA, one car is appropriate to
serve the residents of this project, and the reduction that was taken is consistent with the CAPCOA
research and methodology.2 As the program is implemented, the details of the operation will be tailored
to the residents and users through the Transportation Coordinator.
2 Per CAPCOA Measure TRT-9, which provides methodology for calculating the VMT reduction for car share
programs, a single shared vehicle is appropriate for a population of 2,000 people. The West Oaks project will have
a population of approximately 700 people.
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 42 of 46
As with all shared programs, the idea is not to provide enough cars that one will be available all the
time, and individuals should not rely on the vehicle every day. Instead, households would likely own one
car and occasionally can use the car share program when another vehicle is needed.
In regard to the Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, CAPCOA describes NEVs as low-speed, “light” vehicles
that are electric powered. Electric bicycles are equivalent to NEVs because they are electric powered,
have top speeds of least 25 mph and have a range of 20 to 25 miles. Equipped electric bicycles provide
room for storage and passengers. Electric bicycles use the city’s bicycle and road network systems.
To best ensure the TDM Program strategies, including the electric bike-share program, are implemented
and effective, a Transportation Coordinator will be established to monitor the program and address
implementation-related issues such as those raised by the comment. See page 7 of the project’s TDM
Analysis for additional information regarding the Transportation Coordinator. As the program is
implemented, the details of the operation will be tailored to meet the specific demands of the residents
and users, which are unknown at this time.
TDM credits claimed are bona fide and appropriate
The letter further criticizes the TDM plan for using an affordable housing credit claiming that there is
nonexistent transit and the “theoretical existence of viable SANDAG and City of Carlsbad
carpool/vanpool” programs. The affordable housing reduction is based only in part on the assumption
that affordable housing residents take transit. Statistically, affordable housing residents have lower
levels of auto ownership, and, as a result, such residents generally make fewer discretionary trips. They
also use various alternative means of travel that includes not only transit, but also carpooling and ride-
share services to meet their travel needs. Further, the average VMT/vehicle among affordable housing
residents is less than among market rate housing residents, meaning affordable housing residents make
fewer trips and/or shorter trips on average. Therefore, the affordable housing VMT reduction does not
rely on available transit use, and the Draft MND’s VMT reduction attributed to affordable housing is
appropriate.
Carpool and vanpool programs are currently provided by SANDAG’s iCommute program. The program
provides information about commute options and available resources, and it also provides both carpool
and vanpool matching services. Additionally, a specialized ride matching service for employees in the
City of Carlsbad is under development as part of the city’s TDM Program.
Conclusion
City traffic engineers and engineers from the consulting firm of Fehr & Peers fully analyzed the concerns
expressed in Mr. Linke’s letter to the Planning Commission. They consistently found that both the traffic
analysis and the proposed VMT reduction measures were sound and appropriate. Evidence in a national
report derived from past projects shows that unbundled parking is effective in measurably reducing
VMT. The proposed transit Improvements are commensurate with the impacts and have a nexus with
the project. A Tier 2 TDM plan is the most appropriate TDM plan for this residential development. The
proposed car share and NEV programs are of the correct size and type to produce the desired result in
alleviating a lack of car ownership. Finally, the TDM credits claimed are both bona fide and appropriate
for the proposed development. Therefore, staff recommends no additional analysis or new or modified
conditions for the project based on the content of Mr. Linke’s letter.
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 43 of 46
EXHIBIT 13
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 44 of 46
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 45 of 46
May 4, 2021 Item #4 Page 46 of 46
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 Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 3:00 p.m. on Tues., May
4, 2021, to consider approving 1) adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Addendum; 2) approval of a General Plan 'Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program
Amendment, and 3) approval of a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit,
and Minor Subdivision for the construction of 192 multifamily residential units located southwest of the intersection of
Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities
Management Zone 5 and more particularly described as:
Lots 1 through 7 of Carlsbad Tract No. 82-04 Palomar Oaks. In the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to map thereof No. 11358, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Oct. 23,
1985. In addition, that portion of that certain parcel of land shown and designated as "Description No. 3, 78.07 acres"
on Record of Survey Map No. 5715, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Dec. 19, 1960, being
a portion of Lot "G" of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Nov. 16, 1896.
Whereas, on Jan. 20, 2021 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 6/0/1 to recommend approval of 1) adoption
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; 2) approval of a
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to modify the land use on a 12.53-acre
site from Planned Industrial (PI) land use designation and Planned Industrial (P-M) zoning to Residential (R-30) land use
designation and Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) zoning, and reconfigure the Open Space (OS) land use designation
and (OS) zoning boundaries on the site to accommodate required emergency access and preserve on-site habitat and
habitat buffer areas; and 3) approval of a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Habitat Management Plan
Permit, and Minor Subdivision for the construction of 192 multifamily residential units located southwest of the
intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and
Local Facilities Management Zone 5. The project is located within the appeal area of the California Coastal Commission.
Copies of the staff report will be available on and after Fri., April 30, 2021. If you have any questions, please contact Cliff
Jones in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4613 or Cliff.Jones@carlsbadca.gov.
Per California Executive Order N-29-20, and in the interest of public health and safety, we are temporarily taking actions
to prevent and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic by holding City Council and other public meetings online
only. All public meetings will comply with public noticing requirements in the Brown Act and will be made accessible
electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and address the City Council. You may participate by phone
or in writing. Participation by phone: sign up at https://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/meetings/default.asp by 2 p.m.
the day of the meeting to provide comments live by phone. You will receive a confirmation email with instructions about
how to call in. Participation in writing: email comments to clerk@carlsbadca.gov. Comments received by 2 p.m. the day
of the meeting will be shared with the City Council prior to the meeting. When e-mailing comments, please identify in the
subject line the agenda item to which your comments relate. All comments received will be included as part of the official
record. Written comments will not be read out loud.
If you challenge the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
Addendum, and approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, approval
of a Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit, and Minor Subdivision 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: GPA 16-04/ZC 16-03/LCPA 16-04/ SDP 16-20/CDP 16-31/HMP 16-04/MS 2018-0005 (DEV13018)
CASE NAME: WEST OAKS
PUBLISH: APRIL 23, 2021
CITY OF CARLSBAD I CITY COUNCIL
NOT TO SCALE
SITE MAP
West Oaks
GPA 16-04 / ZC 16-03 / LCPA 16-04
LFMP 87-05(F) / SDP 16-20 / COP 16-31 / SUP 2017-0005
HMP 16-04 / MS 2018-0005 (DEV13018)
,AVERY 6240
Easy Peel Address Labels
_ _ • .
Go to avery.com/templates
Use Avery Template 5160
November 12,2020
600' OWNERSHIP LISTING
100' OCCUPANT LISTING
PREPARED FOR:
CARLSBAD WESTOAKS PROJECT
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad„ CA 92008
OWNER LLC
INTEGRAL COMMUNITIES
CARLSBAD CA 92008
2235 ENCINITAS BLVD
SUITE 216
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CARLSBAD WESTOAKS PROJECT PALOMAR FITNESS PARTNERS L P PALOMAR FITNESS PARTNERS L P
OWNER LLC 11601 WILSHIRE BLVD #2110 501 SANTA MONICA BLVD #312
888 SAN CLEMENTE DR LOS- ANGELES CA 90025 SANTA MONICA CA 90401
SUITE #100
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
CALLAWAY GOLF CO CALLAWAY GOLF CO ROYAL HOSPITALITY CARLSBAD
2285 RUTHERFORD RD 2285 RUTHERF'ORD RD LLC
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 P 0 BOX 3872
RHO SANTA FE CA 92067
CARLSBAD AIRPORT CENTRE BROOKWOOD PACIFIC OFFICE I LLC CORNERSTONE CORPORATE LLC
OWNERS ASSN 138 CONANT ST L 200 PINE AVE #502
21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD BEVERLY MA 1915 LONG BEACH CA 90802
SUITE #310
TORRANCE CA 90503
CORNERSTONE CORPORATE LLC CARLSBAD WESTOAKS PROJECT CARLSBAD WESTOAKS PROJECT
200 PINE AVE #502 , OWNER LLC OWNER LLC
LONG BEACH CA 90802 888 SAN CLEMENTE DR 888 SAN CLEMENTE DR
SUITE #100 SUITE #100
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
CARLSBAD WESTOAKS PROJECT CARLSBAD WESTOAKS PROJECT
CARLSBAD WESTOAKS PROJECT
OWNER LLC OWNER LLC
OWNER LLC
888 SAN CLEMENTE DR 888 SAN CLEMENTE DR
888 SAN CLEMENTE DR
SUITE #100 SUITE #100 SUITE #100
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
CARLSBAD WESTOAKS PROJECT CARLSBAD WESTOAKS PROJECT CARLSBAD WESTOAKS PROJECT
OWNER LLC OWNER LLC OWNER LLC
888 SAN CLEMENTE DR 888 SAN CLEMENTE DR 888 SAN CLEMENTE DR
SUITE #100 SUITE #100 SUITE #100
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
JAY & GOST RIA ZOLLMANN SHORT FAMILY TRUST 10-02-01 ROBISON CLAYTON M & ANNA D
1400 SAPPHIRE DR 1404 SAPPHIRE DR WING TRUST
CARLSBAD CA 92011 CARLSBAD CA 92011 1408 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
LANE MICHAEL & MARAL LIVING RICHARD C & OLIBANA C MENICER JOHN A Y & PAN DANDAN TAN
TRUST 1416 SAPPHIRE DR 1420 SAPPHIRE DR
1412 SAPPHIRE DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 CARLSBAD CA 92011 .
CARLSBAD CA 92011
Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel'
Allez a avery.ca/gabarits
Pat: avery.com/patents
Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up' I
Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 5160 i
AVE RY 6240
SEROP & SILVA ISAGOLIAN
1424 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
KURTZ FAMILY TRUST 04-13-06
1436 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
Easy Peel Address Labels
Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge
CORRELL MORGAN F & LINDA M
REVOCABLE TRUST
1428 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
DUFFER KENDRA L TRUST 01-09-18
1440 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
Go to avery.com/templates
Use Avery Template 5160
BURKETT FAMILY TRUST
1432 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
EDWARD B & JUDY COLBERT
1444 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
LAMBERT DANIEL & ANDREA
FAMILY TRUST
1448 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
ROSS CHRISTOPHER J & BARBARA E
TRUST
7215 DAFFODIL PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
GILBERT J HO
1415 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MARBRISA MAINTENANCE CORP
5083 AVENDIA ENCINAS
SUITE #101
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES & ANDREA JERNEE
6408 RUBY WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MARBRISA MAINTENANCE CORP
5083 AVENDIA ENCINAS #101
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RYAN FAMILY TRUST 07-15-02
1472 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
NTRAV & SHAH AMI DESAI
1452 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
GREGORY H PATTON
1461 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
ALBERTI COLLEEN D LIVING TRUST
1419 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MARBRISA MAINTENANCE CORP
5083 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE #101
CARLSBAD CA 92008 . ,
SENTONARIS TRUST
6404 RUBY WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CHEN MAO-CHING & SU-WEN TSAI
TRUST
1464 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MORRIS FAMILY TRUST 12-23-02
1476 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
JOHN T & LIBBY A PEACHEY
1456 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
WOLKENSTEIN FAMILY 1999 TRUST
6400 RUBY WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
RONALD K & LAUREN S MITCHELL
1423 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MARBRISA MAINTENANCE CORP
5083 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE 4101
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARBRISA MAINTENANCE CORP
5083 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE #101
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANTHONY M & MOTALLI-PEPIO RITA
N PEPIO
1468 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
VINODH VASUDEVAN
P 0 BOX #205
PHOENIX AZ 85001
THOMAS & SULLIVAN SUSAN ROWE
1512 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
Pat: avery.com/patents
CHAD C & SARAH K MACARTHUR
1516 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
E.tiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel -
Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler le rebord Pop-up '
STEPHEN SHU & XU LUCY LAN
WANG •
10488 ABALONE LANDING TER
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
Allez a avery.ca/gabarits
Ublisez le Gabarit Avery 5160
AVE RY 6240 Easy Peel' Address Labels
Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge'
Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peer
Go to avery.com/templates
Use Avery Template 5160 I
ANDREW & MEGAN LUBESNICK
1508 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
WALTER E & LISA A MUROYA
1528 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BOYANG QU
1540 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
AARON & MARIA J WALLACE
1552 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MAR13RISA MAINTENANCE CORP
3088 PIO PICO DR
SUITE 4200
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WALTER E MUROYA
1528 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
. '
ROBERT D & MARGARET L
GERDEMAN
1544 SAPPRIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MICHAEL R & MICHELLE H SAUL
1556 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA.92011
GOMEZ FAMILY TRUST
7111 BABILONIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 -
LIE FAMILY REVOCABLE INTER
VIVOS TRUST
18655 W BERNARDO DR #655
SAR DIEGO CA 92127
DANIEL & LINDSEY LAX
1548 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BRIAN & CHERYL SES'TITO
1560 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
JEEEREY & BENNETT ALEXANDRIA
ROBERTSON
1564 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MICHAEL F & BUHLER-CORBIN
TANYA CORBIN
601 MARISOL DR
NEW SMYRNA BEACH FL 32168
JOSE R. & EVA A NUNGARAY
1572 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MARBRISA MAINTENANCE CORP
5083 AVENIDA ENCINAS
. SUITE #101
; CARLSBAD CA 92008
' MARBRISA MAINTENANCE CORP
5083 AVENIDA ENCINAS #101
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARI3RISA MAINTENANCE CORP
5083 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE #101
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MARBRISA MAINTENANCE CORP
5083 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE #101
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
SURYA LP
10174 OLD GROVE RD #200
' SAN DIEGO CA 92131
PALOMAR I LLC
1006 TENNESSEE ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107
PALOMAR OAKS BUSINESS CENTER
ASSN
888 PROSPECT ST
SUITE #110
LA JOLLA CA 92037
VACANT VACANT VACANT
VACANT VACANT VACANT
Allez a avery.ca/gabarits
Utiltsez le Gabarit Aver 5160 I
111111111111111111=11 Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel'
- • : • - • • • - • • ID- If'
At R Y 6240 -'
VACANT
VACANT
Easy Peer Address Labels
Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge'
VACANT
VACANT
Go to avery.com/templates
Use Avery Template 5160 i
VACANT
VACANT
VACANT OCCUPANT
1929 PALOMAR OAKS WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VACANT
Allez a avery.ca/gabarits
Utilisez ie Gabarit Aver 5160
Mia De Marzo
From: Steve Linke <splinke@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 3:53 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: 5/4/2021 City Council meeting: West Oaks project public comment
Attachments: 2021-05-04 CC West Oaks public comment - Linke.pdf All Receive-Agenda Item #
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
DateC6)0-3P-ICA CC Y)
CM y ACM )0 DCM (3)
Please include the attached correspondence as part of the public record for the West Oaks public hearing at the 5/4/2021 City
Council meeting, and please distribute it to the City Council and other interested parties. There is no need to include this cover
email.
Best regards,
Steve Linke
Carlsbad, CA
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Clerk,
May 3, 2021
Re: 5/4/2021 City Council meeting - West Oaks project public hearing
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these additional comments and recommendations on the
deficient West Oaks transportation studies and mitigation plan. Please see my public comment to the
Planning Commission (Exhibit 11 of the current staff report) for additional details, and I will address
staff's and the applicant's consultant Fehr and Peers' response (Exhibit 12) herein.
Deficient Unbundled Parking Program
About two-thirds of the proposed vehicle miles traveled (VMT) mitigation for West Oaks allegedly will be
achieved with an unbundled parking strategy (charging for parking separately from rent). A calculation
was made based on "procedures and research" in the CAPCOA guidelines', claiming that charging $100
per month to the residents of the 192 apartment units will reduce overall vehicle ownership from an
estimated 315 vehicles down to 275 (a net reduction of 40 vehicles). This translates to a very optimistic
10.2% reduction in VMT, which is near the maximum that can be claimed for this strategy.
However, the success of unbundled parking relies on the availability of viable alternatives to vehicles
and ease of access to destinations. In this case, the proposed single shared car and eight shared bicycles
are not a realistic substitute for 40 vehicles, and the availability of County or City ridesharing programs
or transit is highly speculative at this point. Further, unlike downtown or mixed-use locations that are
within easy walking or biking distance of many destinations, this industrial designated site is not
conducive to a "residential" unbundled parking program given its distance to most key destinations.
It also notable that the cited research for this strategy in the CAPCOA guidelines was largely done on
sites in the United Kingdom, which bear little resemblance to this project, and the calculation was based
almost exclusively on the price ($100) without accounting for availability of transportation alternatives
or proximity to key destinations.' This is not a good strategy for this location, and staff and the applicant
have not addressed these concerns.
Meaningless monitoring of environmental impacts
All of the flaws in the unbundled parking program described above could be instantly erased by simply
limiting resident parking to the 275 spaces claimed, as would typically be the case. Instead, the applicant
is being allowed to build 306 resident spaces plus 78 guest spaces. Alternatively, the program could be
monitored to ensure that the ownership goal is being met—with required changes to the overall
mitigation plan or penalties if it is not. That is how it is being done in other cities but not in Carlsbad.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures,
August 2010: http://www.capcoa.orawo-content/uploads/downloads/2010/09/CAPCOA-Quantification-Reoort-9-
14-Final.pdf
2 CAPCOA guidelines measure PDT-2, pp. 210-212
1
It is very troubling that staffs response to these suggestions (Exhibit 12, Page 41) and the performance
metrics and targets in the actual TDM Plans indicate that only the existence of the program itself would
be monitored—not whether it is actually reducing vehicle ownership, let alone whether it results in any
meaningful reductions in VMT and greenhouse gases.
In other words, the monitoring apparently only will entail asking every two years whether West Oaks is
still charging $100 per parking space—not whether the fees are actually keeping vehicle ownership at
275 or less as intended. Based on Carlsbad's TDM Handbook (Section 2.7), monitoring must include a
demonstration of "mode share" rates, so it is not acceptable to simply monitor the existence of the
program, when it would be so easy to know the number of spaces rented.
Deficient Car-Sharing Program
The CAPCOA report defines a "Car-Sharing Program" as a "...project to allow people to have on-demand
access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as-needed basis."4 A program based around on-demand access
to a "fleet of vehicles" cannot simply be scaled down to a single car for a 192-unit apartment complex.
All of the units are part of the unbundled parking program and are depending on this type of alternative
to purchasing a vehicle. This scaling problem has not been addressed at all.
For reference, one research study cited in the CAPCOA report for a car-sharing program involved 54
individuals sharing 12 rental cars, and the one cited by staff and the applicant involved 20 people per
shared car. So, even if the program were to assume participation only by residents of the 42 affordable
units, a single shared car is not sufficient for this strategy.
Completely fake Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Network
Staff and the applicant are pretending that providing eight e-bikes is a valid substitution for a
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network. Their repeated claim that the CAPCOA guidelines include
e-bikes as NEVs is an appalling falsehood. The CAPCOA language is very clear that an NEV is defined
under the California Vehicle Code—a four-wheeled, electrically powered vehicle that conforms to
federal automobile safety standards.s
Further, an NEV Network under the CAPCOA guidelines includes individual ownership of NEVs and a
dedicated street network with special striping and signage. E-bikes do not meet the CAPCOA definition
of NEVs, and eight shared e-bikes are not a substitute for an NEV Network, so this is not an appropriate
VMT mitigation measure for this or any project.
Applicant's own transportation consultant cautions governmental entities against allowing NEV
network-based mitigation
It is ironic that Fehr and Peers, which concocted this ridiculous e-bike/NEV network equivalency scheme
on behalf of the applicant, actually cautions governmental entities against allowing NEV networks to be
used for SB 743 VMT mitigation purposes—even when they include real-life NEVs. For example, they
published a Technical Memorandum in February 2019 that concludes that new research that has
a West Oaks TDM Strategies for VMT Reduction Evaluation, Table 2, p. 23
4 CAPCOA guidelines measure TRT-9, pp. 245-249
5 CAPCOA guidelines measure SDT-3, pp. 194-197; California Vehicle Code Sections 385.5 and 21250
2
emerged since the 2010 publication of the CAPCOA guidelines shows that the link between NEV
networks and GHG reduction for CEQA purposes is "weak," and that NEV network mitigation is "not
recommended without supplemental data."6
Fake NEV Network also allows the applicant to exceed a cross-category maximum VMT reduction
The CAPCOA guidelines include a Bike-Sharing Program,' which is more appropriate for the shared e-
bikes proposed for this project, although there are still challenges with that approach. So, why are they
pretending their shared bikes are an NEV network? Well, the CAPCOA guidelines do not provide any
meaningful VMT reduction for bike-sharing.
More importantly, though, the CAPCOA guidelines set a cross-category maximum of 10% VMT reduction
for the combination of strategies being proposed, but West Oaks needs at least a 14.4% reduction to
comply with CEQA. However, if an NEV network is included as one of the strategies, then the CAPCOA
guidelines allow the cross-category maximum to be increased to 15%.8
At less than 0.5%, the direct VMT reduction being artificially claimed by West Oaks for the NEV network
itself is relatively small (and entirely unjustified for the reasons stated above). However, this clever
shenanigan means that they can get around the 10% global category maximum and add several more
full percentage points of VMT reduction for other strategies that CAPCOA would otherwise have
disallowed due to overlap.
Tier 2 vs. Tier 3 TDM plan
The General Plan Mobility Element has required TDM-based mitigation by all developments—both
residential and commercial—since its adoption almost six years ago. Yet, the City has failed to create a
residential TDM program. The West Oaks project is in a high VMT area, and it adds traffic to Palomar
Airport Road, which has been exempted from the vehicle LOS standard. So, there are two exacerbating
factors requiring TDM.
Yet, staff shoe-horns all residential developments into Tier 2 of the commercial TDM program (designed
for only up to 275 new daily trips), regardless of the size or impacts—and with absolutely no
justification. West Oaks is projected to generate 1,152 new daily trips, and no justification for Tier 2 was
provided in Exhibit 12—just a baseless claim.
HCD guidance on implementation of non-vehicle street improvements
The staff report extensively cites guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to establish the requirement that the project be approved due to its inclusion of
affordable housing. However, it fails to cite the new April 6, 2021 guidance from HCD on Carlsbad's
Housing Element Update, which states that the City also must implement our Mobility Element policies
that enhance non-vehicle street facilities, particularly for affordable housing areas.
6 Fehr and Peers, Technical Memorandum to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), SB 743 Implementation TDM Strategy Assessment,
2/26/2019: https://www.fehrandpeers.corn/wp-content/u ploads/2019/12/TDM-Strategies-Evaluation.pdf
7 CAPCOA guidelines measure TRT-12, pp. 256-257
8 CAPCOA guidelines Chart 6-2, p. 55
3
Nexus to project impacts
Exhibit 12 cites a need to create a nexus between conditions on a development and its impacts. CEQA
requires a 14.4% VMT reduction, and all of the above observations are related to defects in the
calculation of the VMT reductions, so there is a direct nexus for all of them.
Based on the necessity for usable mass transit in many of the mitigation strategies, I am also indicating
that it is necessary to improve the bus stops directly adjacent to the project, including amenities like
high-visibility crosswalks at the Palomar Airport Road-Palomar Oaks Way intersection, lighting, and bus
shelters. These are necessary for the safety and comfort of pedestrians and transit users coming almost
exclusively from the new development. And with all of the creative shenanigans described above to
reach the VMT target, as well as the HCD directive to improve these types of facilities, it should not be
difficult to establish an honest nexus for these modest improvements.
Sincerely,
Steve Linke
Carlsbad, CA
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 here as an individual.
4
Mia De Marzo
From: Cheri Hoffman <cherihoffman@attnet>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 4:49 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Letter of Support for West Oaks - City Council Meeting Tuesday 5/4
Attachments: Resident Support Letter West Oaks_April 30, 2021.pdf
Good Afternoon,
I respectfully request the attached letter be read into record in support of the West Oaks project at the City
Council meeting on Tuesday May 4. I believe West Oaks is Agenda item #4.
Thanks very much,
Cheri Hoffman
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1
Cheri Hoffman
7824 Sitio Tejo
Carlsbad, CA 92009
April 30, 2021
City of Carlsbad
City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Via email to the City Clerk: Clerk@Carlsbadea.gov
To the esteemed Mayor and members of the City Council,
am a resident of the City of Carlsbad and am also very fortunate to work for a Carlsbad based
company. It is a great benefit to be able to work and live within the same community.
Commuting time to and from work is greatly reduced, allowing more time to be spent with
family and accessing shopping, entertainment and other services located within the City of
Carlsbad.
It is well known that we are in the middle of a housing shortage across the region. What should
be of interest to the City of Carlsbad is that the shortage of housing makes it more difficult for
our business community to attract and retain top candidates due to the disproportionate amount
of income required to support a household residence. In addition, it is difficult for many people
already employed by businesses located with the City of Carlsbad to secure affordable housing
within the community in which they work. This is due (in part) to the limited supply of housing
choices, especially in an economically attainable range.
I am signing this letter in an effort to show city officials and planning staff, that as a resident of
the City of Carlsbad and member of the work force in Carlsbad, I am in support of more
attainable housing options for new and mid-level employees. There is currently a proposal to
develop housing on a property along Palomar Airport Road called West Oaks. This project
offers the type of attainable housing options that currently do not exist in meaningful quantities
in the city.
It is worth noting that the California Fair Housing Task Force has designated the census tract
where the development of West Oaks will be located as a "High Resource" area due in part to the
proximity of numerous employment opportunities, supporting positive economic and educational
outcomes for families.
This particular site has been vacant for many years and 1 believe the highest and best use of the
property is development of housing in furtherance of the City of Carlsbad's housing goals.
Apartment housing of this size and type could provide affordable options for mid- and lower-
wage employees who work in the city, with the added benefit of reducing commuter traffic from
out of town employees by providing a more affordable local option. Please support our
community by supporting this housing project and others like it in our area.
Sincerely,
Oltc,
Cheri Hoffman
Mia De Marzo
From: Lydia Neuberger <libby.neuberger@gmail.com> All Receive - Agenda Item # Li Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 2:39 PM or the Information of the: To: City Clerk CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Support for May 4, 2021 City Council Agenda Item # 4, West Oaks DatgAIS3)2ACA \,0 CC >0
CM _ \o_ ACM \t0 [KM (3)
May 3, 2021
Mayor and City Council
do City Clerk
clerk@carlsbadca.gov
RE: Support for May 4, 2021 City Council Agenda Item # 4, West Oaks
To Mayor and members of the City Council:
As a resident of the City of Carlsbad, I am writing you today to express my support for the West Oaks
housing project being considered by the Council at its May 4, 2021 meeting.
My husband and 1 are fortunate to own a house where we are raising our family in this City. However, we
recognize that our reality of being able to live in this City remains a dream for many area workers, young
people, and would-be residents struggling to afford a home in the City and San Diego region. For those
people, the exorbitant costs and housing supply shortage means long commutes to distant housing, less
time spent with families and friends, more time sitting in traffic on area roadways, living "house poor,"
residing in overcrowded and unsafe housing, or worse — becoming homeless.
Carlsbad offers its residents a wonderful lifestyle, safe community, quality schools, and numerous other
benefits that should be shared with its workers of all ages and races, atvarying social and economic
levels. The West Oaks project proposes a smart development that accommodates a variety of residents on
an underutilized site in the City — a site that has remained vacant for years under its current industrial
designation. A redesignation of this property to provide for workforce housing seems long overdue.
Approving the project will mean housing for hundreds of residents will be provided on an
already graded site so as not to increase sprawl within the City's open spaces. Building within the
already developed Palomar Airport Road corridor on a site conveniently located close to jobs,
services, parks and schools seems like a no-brainer. West Oaks will help balance jobs and housing
precisely where it is needed. And the apartment housing proposed will provide a more affordable option
for local housing in a manner that will reduce commuter traffic and strengthen this wonderful community.
Please vote to approve the West Oaks project. Thank you.
Libby Neuberger
7015 Sitio Corazon
Libby Neuberger
858-254-6200
Libby.neuberger@gmail.com
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mia De Marzo
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Howard Krausz <hkrauszmd@gmail.com>
Monday, May 3, 2021 9:06 PM
City Clerk
Agenda item #4, West Oaks
NCA Letter re_ West Oaks.docx.pdf
All Receive - Agenda Item tt
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Date 051HIACA y) CC >4)
CM ACM )4 DCM (3P°
Please accept the attached letter from North County Advocates in advance of tomorrow's City Council meeting.
Thank you,
Howard Krausz, MD
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1
North County Advocates
7668 El Camino Real, Suite 104-258, Carlsbad CA 92009
Honorable Mayor and City Council
On February 24, 2021 North County Advocates notified the city via certified mail that they were in
violation of the terms of our settlement agreement over the General Plan, specifically related to TDM. Our
letter stated that the city was in violation for two reasons:
1.The TDM Plan and Ordinance are insufficient to meet the goals and targets of the CAP Measure K
2.The City has failed to adequately implement, monitor and enforce the TOM Plan and Ordinance.
We have received no response to that letter, and no indication that the city intends to take any corrective
action. Regarding the TOM issues with the West Oaks project, the city staff analysis and response to the
detailed critique by Steve Linke of the Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission (T&MC) show that there
is little intent to take these issues seriously before approving such a large development.
The transportation sector accounts for almost half of the community wide GHG in the city of Carlsbad.
CAP Measure K was one key action adopted to address those impacts. It sets a specific target for GHG
reductions to be achieved through Measure K, TOM. The TDM actions staff is proposing for the West
Oaks project are insufficient to achieve the required GHG reductions for that project. Furthermore, the
monitoring program is not consistent with CEQA requirements to ensure that the adverse impacts of
these GHG emissions have been mitigated.
The city will not meet the GHG reductions required for CAP compliance if they keep approving projects
that fail to meet the basic project level requirements.
We ask you to:
1.Require meaningful TDM measures and monitoring for the West Oaks project that ensure the required
GHG emission reductions are achieved, or corrective action is taken- for the life of this project.
2.Direct staff to meet and confer with North County Advocates to address the issues raised in our letter
of February 24, 2021.
3.Ensure that 16% of the developable land in LFMZ 5, where West Oaks is located, will remain open
space as required by the GMP and no critical habitat will be destroyed.
Thank you in advance for taking these actions and supporting Carlsbad's plan to address the climate
crisis.
Sincerely,
Howard Krausz, President
On behalf of North County Advocates
North County Advocates is a non-profit 5010 3 public benefit corporation. TIN 27-3158348.
www.northcountyadvocates.com
Mia De Marzo
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Paige DeCino <pdecino@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, May 4, 2021 12:33 PM
City Clerk
May 4 2021 council meeting - item #4
All Receive - Agenda Item # 4
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Date notAcA_I cc
CM ACM \10 DCM (3) y
Honorable mayor and city council members,
With regards to the West Oaks project, while I appreciate the developer trying to minimize impacts to the habitat area
with a parking development standard amendment, I think some of the rationale for the allowed proposals is a result of
a weak TDM plan.
For example, while the project is far above the 275 average daily trips (ADT) for Tier 2 cut off which should result in
more stringent Tier 3 standards, city staff claim that those standards apply to commercial not residential projects like
West Oaks. An ADT is an ADT regardless of what project it comes from. Also, having a single ride-share car for 192
units is going to do little to make mobility better for all residents. That's on top of an almost non-existent public transit
option for workers in the area. While the staff and consultants seem to think the project adheres to acceptable
guidelines, it points out that those guidelines aren't really beneficial to the affordable housing residents.
I might also point out that including e-bikes assumes that the city has done its utmost to ensure the safety of the riders
on Palomar Airport Road with its heavily traffic and high speeds. More bike safety measures need to be in place for
this road.
Thank you.
Paige DeCino
"The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we shall have for
destruction."
Rachel Carson
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1
Hector Gomez
From: Council Internet Email
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 7:35 AM
Cc: Cliff Jones; City Clerk
Subject: FW: West Oaks project follow-up (unbundled parking)
From: Steve Linke <splinke@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 5:44 PM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbacica.gov>
Subject: West Oaks project follow-up (unbundled parking)
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments on the West Oaks project today. Regarding the parking, if West
Oaks does not keep total resident vehicle ownership down to 275 vehicles, the correct action under an unbundled
parking program is to further increase the cost of the spaces (as an added disincentive to vehicle ownership). That is the
only way this type of program can achieve its required VMT/GHG climate goals.
If, instead, more parking spaces are simply built to meet the demand, that completely undermines the program, which
forms the vast majority of the West Oaks TDM plan. That said, I actually tend to agree with the multiple councilmembers
who expressed their support for the additional parking, because this site is just not conducive to unbundled parking.
Therefore, I would suggest that you set a policy that unbundled parking should not be a TDM option—and that
developers need to use other TDM strategies to achieve VMT/GHG climate goals—which is what should have happened
with West Oaks.
Best regards,
Steve
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
1
Hector Gomez
From: Kimberly Foy <KFoy@gdandb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 2:44 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Cliff Jones
Subject: May 4, 2021 City Council Agenda Item # 4, West Oaks Way
Attachments: 2021-5-4 West Oaks Responses to Late Comments_pdf
Dear City Clerk—
Attached you will find responses to certain late comment letters concerning today's City Council Agenda Item #
4, the West Oaks Way project. We appreciate you forwarding the attached letter in support of the project to the
City Council. Thank you
Kimberly A. Foy
Office: 760.431.9501
Cell: 760.207.7730
www„gdandb.com
GID1B Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
NOTICE: This communication and any attached document(s) are privileged and confidential: In addition, any diselOsure
of this transmission does not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete it and contact me at kfoyPgdandb:com.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
1